Review of a Debate Between Gary DeMar
And Edward Tabash Of
Americans United For Separation of C & S

It is hard to go wrong with Gary DeMar, the founder of American Vision, an organization devoted to advancing a biblical worldview in all spheres of life. Not only has Gary DeMar written and published numerous books of his own through American Vision, he markets many other excellent titles through his monthly journal and website.

One of the videotapes produced by American Vision features Rev. Steve Wilkins (South) and Rev. Peter Marshall (North) in the "Great Civil War Debate". It is an excellent production. There is humor, there is intelligent discussion, and there is relevancy. The interaction of visual effects with the presentation does a great job of drawing even the most disinterested into the debate. American Vision does a great job of challenging the prevailing orthodoxy regarding the meaning of the War Between the States.

Rev. Wilkins does an excellent job of exposing the fallacies of the traditional "text book" interpretations of the Civil War which Peter Marshall attempts to "baptize". Yet Rev. Marshall does a good job with his perspective as well and the two have some great interaction. American Vision is to be commended for its perspective on the entire Civil War era.

Another area in which Gary DeMar & American Vision have produced excellent work is Bible prophecy. American Vision is among a handful of publishers responsible for the revival of historic Post-millennialism over the past 25 years or so. Debunking the simplistic and preposterous predictions of many so-called "prophecy experts" has been developed into an art form by Gary DeMar. Through American Vision, Gary DeMar has contributed mightily to the new optimism that is beginning to characterize young, Christian activists in America and indeed the world.

As you can discern from the above, we normally agree with 95% of what Gary DeMar & American Vision put out. We are fascinated with most of Gary DeMar's articles in the American Vision journal (Biblical Worldview) and we even sell a few of the American Vision prophecy materials on the Ismellarat.com website.

We hesitate to criticize Gary DeMar & American Vision were the issue not so fundamental to the interpretation of American history. American history is, of course, the field in which American Vision specializes and such a fundamental error cannot help but color all of their work. Thus, it is incumbent upon us to draw this problem to the attention of American Vision, in hopes that they will make the necessary revisions. The problem is highlighted in another debate audiocassette produced by American Vision that features Gary DeMar vs. Edward Tabash of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. This was a radio debate hosted by station KBRT in Orange County, California on August 8, 2000. The question debated by Gary DeMar and Eddy Tabash is cast in the form of a question: "Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?" This audio stands in sharp contrast to the other Gary DeMar/American Vision productions mentioned above. Tabash, the atheist, clearly wins the debate. Here's why.

In presenting the American Vision perspective, Gary DeMar talks as if the states had no culpability whatsoever in creating the debacle of the U.S. Constitution: a supposedly religiously neutral federal government. Jesus said, "He that is not for me is against me." By this standard, the states clearly lined up against God with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and yet Gary DeMar assumes that had no repercussions for the states. Somehow the states can simply wash their hands of all guilt because they allegedly limited the power of the federal government and never relinquished their religious test oaths.

The religious test oaths incorporated into most of the state constitutions required an oath of allegiance to God before an elected official could assume public office. For example, this was the oath required of every public officeholder in the state of Delaware: "I do profess faith in God the Father and in Jesus Christ, His only Son and in the Holy Ghost, one God blessed forevermore and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration..." However, Article VI, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution forbids such an oath with these words: "No religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

"Be not deceived...whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap." (Gal 6:7) The states created a political scandal, totally adrift from God, that denied Christ His rightful role as King of the nation, and then tried to shield themselves from the repercussions by supposedly giving it limited, delegated powers. Gary DeMar is deceiving himself by defending this as a "Christian nation." What difference would it make if they had only delegated one power to the Federal government or delegated 100 powers -- what they committed with that document was treason against the governing authority of God.

Rev. DeMar seems to think that by conceding this point he will open the floodgates to the barbarians. What Gary DeMar & American Vision fail to realize is that by failing to concede this point we open the floodgates to the judgment of God.

Gary DeMar seems to have forgotten that God deals covenantally with nations. The states covenanted together solely on the authority of "we the people", totally snubbing God, and outlawing a religious test oath requiring obedience to God. How can that possibly pass muster in the court of Heaven? How can Gary DeMar & American Vision tell us that that apostate sellout has no impact on the states, that the whole transaction somehow constituted a "Christian nation?" So what if they still had their religious test oaths; they had just turned their backs on God and prostituted themselves to the idol of pluralism. It was only a matter of time before their test oaths would also be casually brushed aside.

Had the United States been constituted as a Christian nation, the Constitution would have contained words similar to this Amendment to the Preamble proposed by the National Reform Association in 1864: "We the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Governor among the nations, and His revealed will as of supreme authority, in order to constitute a Christian government, to form a more perfect union...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Gary DeMar acts as if a religious test oath is optional. It is as if he were saying, "Hey guys, we've got a pretty good Constitution drafted up here, whatdayathink, should we throw in a religious test oath, or not?" The fact that the Old Testament covenant oath was at the heart of God's relation with the nation of Israel seems to have evaded Rev. DeMar. It was taken originally by Moses, then retaken at various points of repentance throughout the nation's history (cf. Josh 24 & II Kings 23:3). As King Josiah began his great reform, we are told that "the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart...and all the people stood to the covenant." Gary DeMar & American Vision should know that God works through covenant oaths in family, church, and state, which is what makes Article VI such an outrage. The King of Assyria took a similar oath of repentance in Jonah 3:7, proving that this is also God's pattern for the Gentile nations.

When Gary DeMar asserts that the federal government can't apply a religious test, but "we the people certainly can", he is committing the "fallacy of definition". In other words, he switched definitions of "religious test." This phrase refers to the covenant that a civil magistrate enters into with God upon assumption of public office. Rev. DeMar has changed the meaning to an evaluative criteria that voters apply to a candidate for public office, assuming that nobody would notice. That's not permissible in debate.

Tabash is right. Gary DeMar & American Vision talk "strict construction" when it suits them and revert to historical revisionism - a la Justice Joseph Story - when it doesn't. Story, a supreme court justice and founder of Harvard law school, stated that "...the real object of the 1st Amendment is not to countenance -- much less to advance Islam, or Judaism, or infidelity -- but to exclude all rivalry among Christian denominations...It thus cut off the means of religious persecution...and of the suppression of the rights of conscience in matters of religion...."

But, how can Gary DeMar ignore Madison's plain, literal statements regarding the irrelevance of religion as a qualification for public office? Why do they let Story speak for Madison and ignore what Madison said for himself? That is the fallacy of "incompetent authority." It definitely removes Rev. DeMar & American Vision from the camp of the "strict constructionists" on the pivotal issue regarding the interpretation of American history.

Gary DeMar is surely aware of the Convention Debates and the Federalist Papers at least in part; isn't it obvious from these records that the framers were not hammering out Biblical principles of government? How can anybody who has even skimmed these documents make the audacious statement that "they were using the Bible as their great political textbook" or creating a Christian nation? They scarcely even refer to Scripture in hundreds and hundreds of pages of notes.

And as Tabash noted repeatedly, Madison makes it very clear in the Federalist Papers that he did not think religion should have anything to do with qualifications for public office. Gary DeMar & American Vision actually quoted historian Thomas Cumming Hall in "Biblical Worldview" a few years back as saying, "The 18th century conception of Greco-Roman Paganism has completely supplanted Puritanical Judaism" in the Federalist Papers. But they now speak as if they had never read those words.

Contrary to Joseph Story, the following quotes from the Federalist make clear Madison's intent regarding the positive virtues of excluding religion from civil government:

"The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man...a zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points...we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control [for faction]." (Federalist #10)

"The door of this part of the federal government [House of Representatives] is open to merit of every description...and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith as a requisite for public office." (Federalist #52)

"Who are to be the objects of popular choice? Every citizen whose merit may recommend him to the esteem and confidence of his country. No qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession is permitted to fetter the judgment of disappoint the inclination of the people" (Federalist #57)

It would appear that Gary DeMar & American Vision have a choice. Are they going to be "strict constructionist" and stick with Madison's clearly stated intent regarding religion, or are they going to continue to revise history with Joseph Story?

In spite of their proclivity for religious language, it is common knowledge that most of the ringleaders among the founders were unitarian, denying the Divinity of Jesus: Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, and most likely Washington. Gary DeMar is surely aware of books such as John Eidsmoe's "Christianity & the Constitution", which document this fact. On the other hand, Madison was very tight-lipped about where he really was at spiritually.

In the case of George Washington, his own pastor questioned the reality of Washington's faith. The book "George Washington & Religion" by Paul Boller explains how all the Washington myths got started through hearsay. Boller quotes Washington's Pastor (Abercrombie) during the 8 years of Washington's Presidency:

"That Washington was a professing Christian, is evident from his regular attendance in our church; but, Sir, I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a channel of divine grace."

Moreover, the evidence is overwhelming -- e.g., newspaper articles, paintings, personal letters, statuary all over the country (cf. www.ismellarat.com) -- that Washington was a high level Freemason. Freemasonry is, and was, a secret organization requiring adherents to swear to many anti-Christian oaths. Of course, this is seemingly in contrast to all the founder's public utterances about religion, which make the Christians' hearts go "pitter-patter". Books have been filled with these quotes, but they fail to get down to the bedrock of the framers' actual worldview. Gary DeMar & American Vision have forgotten that religious language may be laden with connotations that mean something entirely different for a believer and an unbeliever. Thus, they have been led astray.

How can God possibly bless our efforts at reform if we insist on defending this covenant-breaking indignation? A clique of unitarian lawyers blatantly broke covenant with God and for 200+ years the Christians fawn over them and defend them seemingly to the death. The magnitude of this self-deception is staggering. Why do Gary DeMar & American Vision insist on riding this lame horse?

It is clear to any historically informed observer that Tabash had the upper hand in the first hour of the debate before the moderator dragged him off topic. He marshaled quote after quote to demonstrate that what he was saying about Madison, the principle architect, is true. The moderator, a Christian, became so frustrated hearing facts contrary to his presuppositions that he finally had to resort to verbal abuse and "strong arm" Tabash into silence. It was not exactly a neutral debate format.

As Tabash protests repeatedly, Gary DeMar is arguing all around the subject: "Did the framers in 1788 create a Christian government?" Rev. DeMar insists on arguing that governments they created earlier are Christian governments. In debate parlance this is known as the "fallacy of the irrelevant thesis", or a red herring.

By technically playing with semantics it may be possible for Gary DeMar to assert that America remained a Christian nation in 1788. This would be in the same sense that Israel remained a "Christian" nation under Ahab. But like Israel at that time, the covenant had been grossly violated and needed to be renewed by retaking the religious test oath, as with Josiah in II Kings 23:3. Gary DeMar & American Vision have failed to grasp the fact that our framers made such an act of corporate repentance illegal in Article VI, Section 3.

Would the founders be shocked by what is going on today? Probably, but they shouldn't be; it's the logical outworking of their rejection of Christ as King of the nation in 1788. What else would we expect? Ideas (and actions) have consequences. They sowed to the wind and we their posterity are reaping the whirlwind.

The American Vision position on this critical question does not line up at all with Gary DeMar's normally astute historical judgment. Gary DeMar & American Vision defend the Constitution with almost the same tenacity as the Bible. As Christians we need to have the humility to admit that Eddy Tabash is right and Madison was wrong. We must not fail to adopt the Biblical position on the civil covenant and religious test oath so God can begin to bless our efforts to reform America.