John A. Fielding III:
Leading the NRA
In Quest Of A National Covenant

In actuality the NRA is 144 years old as of this writing (late 2008). That makes it by far the oldest "political action" committee in America.

John Fielding is that rare member of the legal fraternity who believes that the Bible should form the foundation of our legal system. John is cast from a different mold than the vast majority of attorneys who are brainwashed to believe that the Constitution (and thus law) is "whatever the Supreme Court says it is."

He is a practicing attorney in Berks County, Pennsylvania, where he is active in local politics. He has run for state representative and is a former county director of the Christian Coalition. John's thoughtful approach to the biblical doctrine of civil government is reflected in our interview with him on November 16 (2008).

The NRA was founded in 1864 as an organization that saw the Civil War as a judgment of God upon the nation. Now, the NRA was not alone in this at the time. Most in the North who subscribed to this belief did so on the basis of slavery being a national sin and disgrace. In fact, Abraham Lincoln conceded that possibility in his Second Inaugural Address. However, even though the Lake Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America saw slavery as a great evil, it believed that the judgment was the result of the United States failing to acknowledge God, and Jesus Christ his son, as the Supreme Lawgiver, and Ruler of the Nations in the United States Constitution.

This concern led to a series of meeting, culminating in a meeting of Presbyterians of different denominations on January 27, 1864 in Allegheny City, Pennsylvania, which resulted in the formation of the National Reform Association (“NRA”). So dedicated was the group to the “Christian Amendment” to the Constitution, the original founding name of the group was “The National Association to Secure the Religious Amendment to the Constitution.”

Even though the major impetus behind the foundation of the group was Reformed Presbyterians, the NRA had many members from other denominations of Christians. In fact, one of the most famous members was its third President, William Strong, chief counsel for the Reading Railroad and associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, named to the Court by Abraham Lincoln. Interestingly enough, the organization cut not only across Christian denominational lines, but also across partisan lines, since Strong was a lifelong Democrat.

2. Are the goals now the same as then?

The immediate goals have changed. The long range goal of the Christian Amendment has not because all nations should “kiss the son” as Psalm 2 expresses. However, the long range goal is seen as the “capstone” of the effort, not the beginning. God has not called us to revolution. He has called us to evangelism and discipling the nations. So, the more immediate goal is to educate the church as to its responsibilities as a prophetic voice to the people and to the state respecting the necessity of Christian government.

3. How about you? What’s your personal motivation for involvement with NRA? What is your role?

Well, it ain’t the money. And it ain’t the fame. In fact, when I ran for office in 2007, some folks tried to bring it up on a blog. And I’m sitting here wondering, what does this have to do with running for county recorder of deeds, exactly?

I’m the President. Patrick Marx is the Vice-President. I believe the only consistent Christian position is that if you believe that the world was created by God, that man was called to exercise dominion under God, that man is called upon to think God’s thoughts after him with respect to every aspect of his life while here, and that we are to be His followers i.e., disciples, with respect to our lives, then, politics and government being aspects of our lives, we are required to follow God’s instruction manual, God’s Law-Word with respect to those aspects as well. We are required to bring every thought captive to Christ.

To those who would like to run the world according to some other standard, I ask, with the late Greg Bahnsen, “How’s it going?”

My motivation is that I am required to believe these things as part and parcel of my Christian profession, in my opinion, and, therefore, I sought out an organization committed to that goal.

4. I’ve heard about the marriage covenant and a homeowners’ covenant, but what in the world is a national covenant?

A national covenant results when a nation, as does a married couples, places the terms of the covenant “on the record” in front of witnesses. In the case of marriage, this is the difference between just cohabiting and being married. Even to establish common-law marriage in Pennsylvania, the evidence had to indicate that the “words of institution” had passed between the couple in the privacy of their home i.e., there had to be an outward and visible sign of such in front of witnesses outside the home.

A national covenant is simply making explicit the legal foundation of government in the sense of ultimate authority or right. Unfortunately, the United States Constitution seeks its basis in “the people” who are “endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights” instead of the Creator and Supreme law-giver, Jesus Christ, and his Law-Word. So, in a certain sense, all nations are based upon some god or principle of ultimate foundation. Some acknowledge it explicitly; some don’t. A national covenant is the act of recognizing it explicitly in the governing documents of the nation. A Christian national covenant then would recognize the basis of the Constitution and the Declaration in an explicit acknowledgment of the Crown Rights of King Jesus and his Law-Word.

There is some controversy over the role of the United States Constitution in this process. Some believe the founding document of the nation was the Constitution, and some believe that it was the Declaration of Independence, with the Articles of Confederation a procedural document that was followed by the Constitution, which was to achieve “a more perfect union” than the Articles could accomplish. Those who, like Lincoln, believe the latter, believe that the Constitution is a “frame of silver” surrounding the Declaration’s “apples of gold.” While the Constitution has gotten more than its share of attention regarding its defects, a Christian theological critique of the Declaration and the theory of rights it espouses has yet to appear. I hope to remedy that deficit in some small way through a book I am serializing in the Christian Statesman, our publication.

5. Can you describe the nature of the amendment to the U.S. Constitution to the U.S. Constitution sought by the NRA? Is this a priority for the NRA today?

The nature of the amendment is an explicit acknowledgment of the sovereignty of Jesus Christ over the nations and his Law-Word as the only basis for the foundation of any nation. The actual wording of the Amendment has been variously stated, but the following amendment to the Preamble has been proposed:

We, the People of the United States, [recognizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the law of God as the paramount rule, and Jesus, the Messiah, the Saviour and Lord of all,] in order to form a more perfect union….

The Amendment is a goal, but not an immediate priority because the amendment, under our system, requires passage by Congress and the concurrence of three-fourths of the state legislatures. Obviously, then, unless we believe in revolution, discipleship (evangelism and education) will have to be the preferred means. Since we have a great many churches that do not know or acknowledge the necessity of our understanding of the Scriptures on these matters, we must necessarily place as one priority, the education of the Church. Judgment must begin with the house of the Lord.

6. If America is a Christian nation, why is such an amendment necessary? Weren’t the original colonies in covenant with God? Where did we go wrong?

Okay, where do I begin? America is only a Christian nation depending on one’s definition of “Christian.” America is a nation that belongs to “Christendom,” so it is Christian in that sense. While the Pilgrims and the Episcopalian/Congregationalists of Massachusetts Bay left England in search of liberty of conscience, they were in pursuit of liberty of orthodox Christian conscience. Thus, they were always in search of an orthodox Christian confessional stance as the basis for their colonies. Those who did not agree were exiled (i.e., Ann Hutchison and Roger Williams). If one considers the “Modell of Christian Charity” under John Winthrop as the founding of the “nation,” it was Christian in the sense of establishing a Christian covenant with God. It required one to be a member in good standing with one’s church to be a citizen eligible to vote.

The deterioration began with the importation of a foreign (to the Bible) political philosophical history of the origin of government and rights. It is there in the sermons of the politically influential “black-robed regiment of the Revolution.” What began as the Gospel according to St. John ended as the Gospel according to St. John (Locke). And this is the political philosophy underlying the Declaration.

And it shows no signs of abating. We have Christians running around saying that “we have to get back to the principles of the Founding.” As I have said in other places, they study the Founding like the ancient seers study the entrails of dead chickens in the hope of receiving guidance for the future. I finally decided to write about the history of the development of natural rights theories, analyze the theory of rights underlying the Declaration, and if the theory underlying the Declaration cannot adequately support a Christian commitment, make a beginning to suggest an alternate Christian theory of rights, if, in fact, even using the term “rights” is what we want to do.

We certainly have flogged the Constitution for its inadequacy over the years (the religious test section being another matter that must be addressed). If the Constitution is simply a means to protecting and applying an end proposed by the Declaration, which end is in itself an unworthy end, maybe we are directing our fire in the wrong direction. Why blame an empty vessel for the poisonous liquid poured into it, if that is the case? Let’s see if the liquid can be rescued from a Christian point of view, or, if not, at least we can all feel better about dispensing with it.

7. What is the “establishment principle” and how does it relate to the mission of the NRA?

Well, in short, the establishment principle is the principle growing out of the First Amendment stating that “Congress shall make no law…. respecting an establishment of religion.” There has been some difference of opinion as to how it relates to the mission of the NRA.

Of course, there is the traditional legal debate over the import of the Amendment. Some have said it originally applied only to Congress (true), and the states had their own constitutions, which permitted establishments (true). However, after the Civil War, because it was felt that rights emanating from the Declaration were “national” rights, the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed to prohibit states from denying those rights without due process. In time, those rights came to be seen as “incorporating” those in the Bill of Rights, so the guarantees of the First Amendment were applied to the states, rightly or wrongly.

Thus, the “recent” argument usually takes the tack of saying that the First Amendment only forbad the establishment of a particular Christian religion or denomination, not Christianity in general. Of course, if one is honest, there is no “Christianity in general” because I know of no Christianity that does not partake of a confession of some sort, whether written or unwritten. The NRA has its Statement of Purpose and the Principles of Christian Civil Government that serve as a “confessional statement” for those who would be members, but both are compatible with any number of orthodox Christian confessions. Thus, while the NRA recognizes that a certain confessional background is necessary to submit to these, one need not subscribe to a fulsome “National Confession” stance to be able to function within the confines of the NRA.

Thus, one will find a certain latitude within the organization with respect to the “establishment principle.” I think, as I stated above, that to speak with respect to no establishment at all is to be rather silly. After all, Paul assures us that those who do not worship the god of the Bible worship a god of their own making and, therefore, there being no neutrality, all nations recognize some establishment, even if by default. The position of the NRA, therefore, with respect to the “establishment principle” is that in advocating for an acknowledgement of God’s sovereignty over the nations in the nation’s documents, we are advocating an establishment of God in place of just “the People” (contra vox populi, vox dei), but the precise form that the national confession should take is a matter of some debate.

8. Are there particular Christian denominations that have supported the NRA concept in their doctrine?

I think that in terms of Christian denominations, the main one has been the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America over the years. There has always been an insistence in some quarters that the Westminster Confession (and confessions based on it: the Savoy, the Second London Baptist of 1689) has enunciated the NRA concept, but that is obviously a matter for some debate, especially since there are varying versions of the Westminster Confession. And, of course, there has been a number of members from across the denomination spectrum: Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, and Episcopalian. We have even had Universalist and Unitarian members over the years. Go figure.

9. How are things going with the NRA today—what is the state of the organization?

Well, the organization had taken a decidedly more political turn which generated more excitement (lobbying efforts and what not), but it was felt that the organization was not well placed to pursue such efforts. Further, direct political action requires making common cause with organizations and individuals who are not where we are in our distinctives, and we felt our distinctives would be the ones suffering in the end. Thus, we have returned to our roots as an educational organization for the churches and individuals in the “conservative” movement, since that movement seems to be having a crisis of “first principles” after the recent presidential election. We lost our long-time editor of the Statesman, Bill Einwechter, to his other ministry obligations—something to which all volunteers can relate, so we are looking for someone to pick up our publishing arm, Christian Statesman Press, once again.

10. How could our readers help support the mission of the NRA?

Money and volunteers, not necessarily in that order. We can certainly use volunteers in many areas to help get the word out. In particular, we would like church representatives that could present the outreach of the NRA in their churches. Did I mention money? Oh, yes. And volunteers. And money.