The U.S. Constitution
Is Defined By Political Pluralism

Political pluralism holds an exalted status among Americans in general and American Christians in Particular. So what’s the problem?

Aren't we a pluralistic nation whose highest ideal is absolute religious freedom? Wouldn't a Biblical republic lead inevitably to tyranny and oppression as Christians were granted free reign to impose their religion on everybody else?

The U.S. Constitution contains a number of structural features that can be recognized in the Bible. These include its republican form of representation and its division of power, both vertically and horizontally. These features comprise its republican skeleton, which have distracted many Christians from the fatal weakness of the Constitution: a Democratic heart.

Pluralism equals political polytheism. In the United States of America, we've set up a Pantheon of god's -- Christianity being one -- all of which get to compete in the free market place of ideas, with the assumption that "the truth will out." The question we must ask is, "What does God think of political polytheism?"

Certainly we have freedom of choice. But if we don't use that freedom to repent and commit ourselves to following the God of the Bible in our family, church and state, God is going to judge us.

So we have a choice -- we can choose pluralism and judgment OR we can choose to commit our nation to rule under God exclusively and have blessing. As long as we insist on pluralistic idolatry in our national life we will be cursed.

This is nothing more than a sophisticated version of Roman polytheism, meaning “many gods.” The reason the early Christians were persecuted by Rome was they insisted that Christ was supreme among the Pantheon – that He was in fact the King of kings, a Lawgiver to whom the emperor must submit.

By contrast, unwilling to rock the boat, modern Christians embrace political polytheistic as the very essence of freedom. Under pluralism Christianity is just one of the Pantheon of God's competing for our allegiance every 2 years.

We've got to make up our minds: are we going to be a Christian nation or are we going to be a pluralistic nation. We can't have both because the two are utterly incompatible and at war with each other.

Roger Williams laid the foundation of modern pluralism in colonial Rhode Island with unlimited religious toleration. The Rhode Island charter contained these words: "all men may walk as their consciences may persuade them, every one in the name of his god." That's political polytheism & it sounds hauntingly reminiscent of the famous line from the Book of Judges: "every man did that which was right in his own eyes because there was no king in Israel."

On August 8, 1989 the logical outworking became clear to all: the Rhode Island Division of Taxation granted tax exemption to the religion of witchcraft. All covens must now be treated as legitimate churches when it comes to the issue of taxation. Rhode Island has justly earned the disparaging appellative, "Rogue Island.”

The U.S. Constitution resembles Rhode Island of all the colonial charters in its declaration of religious neutrality. In actuality neutrality is a declaration of war against Christianity because Jesus said, “He who is not for me is against me.”

Pluralism is not religious freedom, it is religious chaos and leads directly to the judgment of God, because God does not tolerate polytheistic rivals. So are we going to be a Christian nation or a pluralistic nation? Will it be God or witchcraft? Will it be Christ or Satan?

Christ doesn't just want a place at the table, He wants and deserves to be at the head of the table. The early Christians went to the lions because they insisted that Christ alone was King -- it was that political statement that was so offensive to Rome because they refused to be pluralists; we need to follow their example and stop babbling on and on about pluralism.

When you're sharing the gospel with somebody don't you insist that Christ is the only way? If Christ is really King of kings, why should it be any different when it comes to civil government?

It’s insistence on equal time for all religious expression gives the U.S. Constitution a Democratic heart. The main thing is, if we don't start with the Bible as our foundation we're going to eventually run into serious problems. It's like missing a button when you are buttoning your shirt. The big problem is that we have imitated the polytheism of Roman law, by adopting an official policy of political pluralism. As noted social commentator Otto Scott put it....

“The United States was a government whose constitution claimed no higher authority than its own laws. That was essentially a lawyer's concept of civilization, and could be traced not to the church, but to Roman tradition.

“The novelty of a nation without an official religion was not fully appreciated in 1830 -- for no land was as crowded with churches and no people more prone to use religious terminology and Christian references in everyday speech, in their writings, and in their thinking, than the Americans. There was no question of the piety of millions. There was equally little doubt that they did not fully realize that a land with no religious center is a land where religion is what anyone chose to claim.

“Far from being the ideal document hailed and heralded in a sea of campaign oratory, the Constitution was a lawyer's contract that claimed no higher law than its managers, who represented themselves as reflecting the will of the people. Since such a will was undefined and undefinable, lawyers made up the rules and procedures of government as they went along, within limits that were often ignored, slyly subverted, or poorly guarded. In effect, the Founders had recklessly placed the government in the position of what ancient Greeks called a "tyrant" which, in its original sense, meant a rule without divine authority."

Like the Roman form of government, the U.S. Constitution has "the form of godliness while denying the power thereof." It has a Republican skeleton and a Democratic heart.