Chalcedon Foundation Position On The Constitution

by Martin
(California)

Rushdoony's position on the US Constitution is articulated competently in several places:

This Independent Republic, The Nature of the American System, US Constitution (CD series),
American History (CD series). Several issues of the Journal for Christian Reconstruction also gave occasion for him to address the matter.

The opposing thesis, vented in a rather sensationalistic manner by Dr. Gary North in "Political Polytheism," was rebutted in detail by
Dr. Archie Jones in one of the Journals. It is that opposing thesis of North's that finds expression among those who deprecate the Constitution (by misunderstanding its scope and purpose).

Dr. North tends to take up an opposing position to Dr. Rushdoony on point after point, usually in very negative tones. This question is one of those points in contention.

The whole issue boils down to this one statement of Rushdoony's: "The Constitution gives us a procedural morality, not a substantive morality." Failure to grasp this point and its ramifications leads to the deprecation.

For example: one of the most persistently quoted Bible verses in sermons preached in the century leading up to the Constitution was 2 Sam. 23:3-4, which affirms as an absolute requirement that "He who rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God." This is asserted by God Himself, referred to by at least two different titles prior to the command being issued. This is an indisputable fact of Scripture.

Also indisputable as fact is that the enforcement mechanism for this verse is nowhere declared in Scripture. And most of Israel's rulers failed in fulfilling this requirement. This is one of those commands that God has direct jurisdiction over, and He exacts punishment directly upon the people (as He did for the people's call for a worldly king in 1 Sam. 8) for rejecting this commandment.

There are countless commands in Scripture that He reserves direct (not mediated) jurisdiction over (commands He does not delegate to the state to enforce). This is one of them. To legislate beyond this, to be holier than God, risks reintroducing the mindset of the Pharisee and overthrows the sufficiency of the Scriptures. It is presupposed that the only individuals rising to federal office have been already filtered through the state systems as men who satisfied the Biblical requirements.

There are many factually correct statements (so far as they go) on this website, and I am sympathetic to many individual parts of the thesis. Rushdoony himself accedes to many of the points being made, and I certainly do not advocate a wholesale endorsement of the writings of say, a David Barton or a John Eidsmoe
(both of which must be read with discernment and caution). But the overall thesis of the website does not appear to be ultimately defensible as presented.

The closest we can get to something like what is being proposed comes from Rushdoony's carefully-worded comment, in a very different context, that the civil magistrate COULD theoretically require tithing, but could NOT direct people where to tithe. In any event, I think that the JCR on the Constitution and Political Theology would provide much useful information on these matters, particularly the massive central rticle about the political theology of John Witherspoon.

In short, we have here an apparent case of "special pleading," where the opposing position is not adequately factored into the process by which the website's conclusions are generated (cf. Prov. 18:17). The somewhat incendiary, sensationalistic style of the website, moreover, is an impediment to evaluating its points with responsible care.

The love for God and God's Law that drives the website's author(s) is manifest, however, and I do testify that he/she/they have a zeal for righteousness. They must, therefore, be all the more restrained and careful lest they persist in inadvertently transgressing the ninth commandment in this undertaking.

I appreciate, in any event, that the website authors focus on God's Law and extoll it as the standard by which all things are measured. That is a useful lesson and always applicable. The more complicated questions relate to the jurisdictional aspects of His Law.

We must always remember, as Paul affirmed, that "the Law is good, if used lawfully." I believe a lawful application of the Law (an internally self-consistent application of His precepts, commandments, ordinances, and statutes) would push one closer to Rushdoony's views than toward the view espoused by this website.

The issues raised by the website, however, are worthy ones, and the invitation to re-examine a matter against Scripture is always to be welcomed. Therefore, I applaud the fact that the website draws attention to very important questions. While I don't agree with the website's conclusions, the site is valuable in provoking lazy Christians to check their foundational assumptions against Scripture.

For the King,

Martin Selbrede
Vice President
Chalcedon Foundation

P.S.: I should add that Rushdoony had a very negative view of John Locke. Consequently, he was always at odds with a lot of the "Christian America" folks over the matter. Rush went out of his way to repudiate Locke's "tabula rasa" notion and the social contract
theories Locke promoted. Rush had more respect for Samuel Rutherford's influence on the formation of America's governmental structures.

Accordingly, I would probably find myself in strong agreement with all anti-Locke sentiment expressed on this website. As would Rushdoony himself.