Gregg Singer -- Deist Declaration
vs. Conservative Constitution

C. Gregg Singer is perhaps unique among Christian Federalists in ascribing a fundamental difference in philosophy to the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution of 1787. “The basic philosophies of these two documents were not compatible,” he asserts in his landmark, Theological Interpretation of American History (P&R Publishing, 1964, p.43).

He points out that only 8 men attended both conventions. Moreover, radicals such as Jefferson were not in attendance in 1787.

Harmony Of Authors

However, Gregg Singer fails to note the essential harmony that existed between Jefferson and Madison both before and after the Convention of 1787. Jefferson of course was the author of the Declaration and Madison is known as “the father of the Constitution.”

Jefferson and Madison were fast friends and maintained a voluminous correspondence of over 1250 letters over the course of their lives. Paul Johnson concluded in his History of the American People that "It is important to remember, in judging the contributions made by each of these two great men, the extent to which one influenced the other, at all times" (p.184)

For example, only a year prior to the 1787 conclave, Madison and Jefferson collaborated in passage of The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom. The act declares “that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

That same exclusion was carried into the U.S. Constitution by Article VI, Section 3, “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” This flies in the face of the Biblical requirement that a civil magistrate swear by oath to govern according to the Bible. Thus, Madison was as radical as Jefferson in insisting that capacity to hold civil office must be divorced from religious belief.

In the years after the Convention the pair bolted from the Federalist Party to champion a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution. Their Presidencies dominated the first quarter of the 18th Century prior to the election of John Quincy Adams (1825)and the resurgence of the Federalists.

Harmony Of Documents

Moreover, Gregg Singer fails to discern the fundamental agreement of the documents themselves. One might argue that the Declaration is the more “Christian” because it at least mentions God. However, Jefferson’s god was not the God of the Bible, but rather a natural law god of man’s imagination.

The Constitution by contrast is devoid of religious content. The only exception is the exclusion of Sunday in counting the days allowed for a Presidential pocket veto.

Believe it or not that is the only shred of evidence that the Christian Constitutionalists can produce to "prove" that the Constitution is a Christian document. Oh, I almost forgot the phrase "year of our Lord" preceding the date of signing in 1787 -- powerful evidence indeed. But I digress.

Ironically, Gregg Singer admits that “In 1787 no revival had yet taken place and Calvinism did not command the loyalty of the majority…. Thus, it is not possible to find the origins of the Federal Constitution in a popular return to the Bible as the infallible rule of faith and practice” (p.43).

Furthermore, he holds that “No matter how attractive the thesis may be, it cannot be proved that the writing of the Constitution of 1787 was the result of a mass evangelical revival. Calvinism had not come into its own again. Radicalism in theology continued to prosper” (p.43).

In light of this admission it makes no sense on the very next page for Gregg Singer to claim “There can be little doubt that the membership of the Philadelphia Convention was more conservative, politically and theologically, than was the membership of the Continental Congress of 1776 which adopted the Declaration” (p. 44).

This leads Gregg Singer to the following contradictory conclusion: “…they were willing to accept the benefits of the Gospel in the political and social life of the American people, even if they did not subscribe to the evangelical, or Calvinistic, theology in principle.”

He saw the work of the Convention as “a revolution more radical than that which separated us from Great Britain.” Henry was particularly concerned about the philosophy underlying the phrase in the Preamble, “We the People.” He saw it as a sellout of the states in favor of a comprehensive national government.

Thus, the federal constitution was not a creature of the states. This was reinforced by the fact that it was not the state legislatures who ratified it.

Consider these foundational similarities between the two documents. Both have replaced the authority of God and His law with the authority of man and his law.

Both documents derive their governing authority from man, not God: Declaration: deriving their just power from the consent of the governed
Constitution: we the people do ordain and establish this Constitution
Bible: there is no authority except from God (Rom. 13:1)

Both documents exalt the mind and law of man above the law of God Declaration: we hold these truths to be self-evident
Constitution: this Constitution…shall be the supreme law of the land
Bible: For from Zion will go forth the law… and He will judge between many peoples (Micah 4:3)

Thus, while A Theological Interpretation of American History is an admirable interpretation of American history in many respects, it falls short at the critical point. Gregg Singer fails to discern the theological radicalism at the heart of America’s founding document, which has grown like a cancer to threaten her very survival.

Custom Search