For PDF Version: Fulfilling our Biblical Duty to Choose Godly Officials

By Stephen McDowell

We have the privilege in America to choose those who govern us. As Christians, it is also our duty to do so.

Civil government is a divine institution of God. It exists to protect the life, liberty, and property of citizens, enabling them to more effectively advance the Kingdom of God. Civil leaders are servants of the people and of God, and are to govern under His higher authority. Rulers are to be ministers of God for good. (See Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-14; Luke 22:25-26.)

For government to fulfill its divine mission, Christians must be involved in selecting good men and women to office. Ideally they would meet all the qualifications for Godly officials. When Moses told the Israelites to select from among them those who would govern them, he set forth a number of Biblical qualifications. He said: “You shall select out of all the people, able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain” (Ex. 18:21). “Choose wise and discerning and experienced men” (Deut. 1:13). He cited three general qualifications for governing officials: fear of God, Christian character, and Biblical worldview.

1. Fear God

The fear of God is an essential qualification for a godly official. What are such people like? Matthias Burnet explained in an election sermon in 1803 that they are, “men acting under the belief and awe of God as their inspector and judge, to whom they consider themselves accountable for their conduct and whom they fear to offend.”[1]

A man who fears God is not someone who simply professes faith, attends church, or culturally embraces Christianity, but someone who has a reverential fear of the Almighty. “When the righteous rule, the people rejoice” (Prov. 29:2). The righteous have right standing with God; they fear the true and living God.

2. Christian Character

A second qualification is morality. They should be “men truly honest and upright in their principles and views, not actuated and governed by the sordid motives of self interest and aggrandizement in their desire and execution of office, but by a sincere regard to the public good.”[2]

Corrupt and unprincipled rulers (like Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Tse-tung) have brought great misery to mankind, including loss of liberty and the downfall of nations, while U.S. socialist and progressive leaders of the 20^th century have done much to steal the liberty and property of many. The actions of these leaders flowed from a wrong worldview. Many displayed dishonest and immoral behavior.

Chandler Robbins, in an election sermon in 1791, said, “Nothing will so surely, so rapidly bring on the dissolution of society, and the loss of the liberties of a people, as a want of virtue and integrity in their rulers.”[3]

A vital quality for leaders is honesty. Proverbs 29:12 says, “If a ruler pays attention to falsehood [hearkens to lies], all his ministers become wicked.” If they cannot keep personal vows or oaths, we cannot expect them to keep national vows. We have witnessed the negative consequences of such conduct in recent years.

Knowledge or intelligence (as man sees it) without honesty — a good genius with a bad heart — is worse than an ignorant honest man because the evil genius could find more subtle ways to rob the people of their rights. Some have argued support for certain candidates based upon their intelligence, saying: “He’s so smart. We ought to elect him.” Yet, if such a person, no matter how smart, is reasoning from wrong presuppositions, or has bad character, he will not be a good leader.

Humility is a second great quality needed in leaders. Jesus taught that leaders are to be servants (Matt. 20:25-28).

3. Biblical Worldview

Thinking Biblically is of great importance because a leader will act and vote based upon how he thinks (Prov. 23:7). The best leaders will have a Biblical philosophy of government, understanding its purpose and limited nature.

The tendency of fallen man is to assume too much power for himself, often justified for benevolent reasons. Jesus taught we are to render to Caesar (civil government) things under his jurisdiction (which are very limited) and to God the things that are God’s (Matt. 22:15-21). As America has moved towards socialism, we have been rendering to Caesar the things that are God’s. Under all forms of statism, civil government assumes the role of God, the family, the church, and the private sector.

Socialism is the golden calf of modern America and is a great threat to liberty and prosperity. Discerning whether a candidate adheres to a Biblical or socialistic philosophy of government comes down to the question, “Who controls the property and children in the nation?” Whoever controls the property controls the present; whoever controls the children controls the future. God has given this responsibility to the family, not the state.

We must seek to choose leaders who understand the divine, but very limited, role of civil government. Without knowledgeable Christians participating in elections, America will become another Tower of Babel, with man looking to himself for all things.

Godly leaders begin with Godly citizens. Reform begins in our house, but it will eventually be reflected in the state house and the White House. America needs Godly transformation. Those who are transformed need to be eternally vigilant to have this reflected in our civil leaders.

The election of unprincipled men produces misery and tyranny, but Godly rulers bring peace, prosperity, justice, and rejoicing. If we fulfill our duty and place Godly men in office, our future will be bright.

—

Stephen McDowell is President and co-founder of the Providence Foundation, an organization whose purpose is to spread Christian liberty among the nations. Stephen has trained people from 100 countries to apply Biblical truth in all spheres of life, consulted with government officials, assisted in starting political parties, and aided in starting Christian schools and Biblical worldview training centers. He has authored and co-authored over 30 books and training courses including Liberating the Nations and America’s Providential History. To learn more visit providencefoundation.com

References:

[1] Matthias Burnet, “Religion and Government the Foundations of Order, Peace, and Security, in Society,” An Election Sermon Preached at a General Assembly of the State of Connecticut at Hartford, on the Day of the Anniversary Election, May 12, 1803.

[2] Burnet.

[3] Chandler Robbins, “And Also in Judah Things Went Well.” A Sermon Preached before His Excellency John Hancock, Governour; His Honor Samuel Adams, Lieutant-Governour; the Honourable the Council, and the Honourable the Senate and House of Representatives, of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, May 25, 1791, Being the Day of General Election.

For PDF Version: Crime and Punishment, A Biblical Perspective

The Cause of Crime

Crime is rampant throughout the world. Different nations combat crime in different ways with varying degrees of success. To properly deal with crime in society, we must first understand what causes crime. The Bible teaches that crime is caused by evil in men’s hearts.

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. . . . Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. (Genesis 6:5, 11)

The fall of man brought about corruption in the heart of man, which manifested itself externally with violence, murder, theft, and all manner of criminal behavior. God established civil government in the earth as the means of restraining evil doers and protecting law-abiding citizens (Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14). It was given the use of the sword to enforce its authority to protect the life, liberty, and property of the people.1

Why Does Crime Flourish?

If civil government does not fulfill its duty to restrain criminals in accordance with Biblical guidelines then crime will flourish. Ecclesiastes 8:11 says, “Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil.” Swift execution of God’s justice is necessary to keep a culture of crime from growing in a nation.

Combating Crime

What can individuals and governments do to combat crime? This question will be answered in more detail throughout this booklet, but understanding that sin and evil in man’s heart is the cause of crime reveals that preaching the Gospel and seeing individuals converted to Christ is the only way to ultimately reduce crime in a nation. Only God through the atoning work of Christ can change man’s heart and give him a new nature, one that seeks to obey God and live in conformity to His law. God not only gives man a new heart, but He empowers him with His Holy Spirit to enable him to follow His blueprint for all of life. This is why crime diminishes when Christianity comes to a community. Where Christian revivals have occurred in history, courts and jails have become empty, and police officers have had little to do.

Since men are fallen and sinful, crime will never be completely eliminated from this world; therefore, civil government has a vital role in bringing tranquility and quietness to this life (1 Timothy 2:2). The Bible says, “When a ruler executes judgment, he scatters away all evil” (Proverbs 20:8) and “The king gives stability to the land by justice” (Proverbs 29:4). Thus, civil leaders should administer God’s justice in a timely fashion (while taking into account the provisions to protect people from false charges), protect law-abiding citizens, and punish criminals in accordance with Biblical guidelines.

Crime in America

Recent crime statistics reveal we as a nation have serious problems. Over 10 million crimes are committed every year in America. Every 3 seconds a crime occurs against someone’s property (through theft, robbery, burglary, fraud, embezzlement, etc.), about 30,000 per day. Many crimes against property go unreported, and of those that are reported, most are never solved. Capital and other violent crimes — such as murder, rape, aggravated assault, kidnapping—occur about every 35 seconds. In America, the crime clock continues to click: one murder every 22 minutes, one rape every 5 minutes, one robbery every 49 seconds, and one burglary every 10 seconds.

From the 1960s to the early 90s, the crime rate rose consistently (see Charts 1-4). While there has been some decline since the 90s the crime rate is still high, especially compared to the past. Capital crimes were rare in early America. The chief judicial officer over all of New York, James Kent, said he only had eight convictions for murder in his 16 years of service (from 1798-1814).2 Today, New Hampshire, with a population similar to New York in 1810, has among the lowest murder rates in the country; even so, it sees about 13 homicides each year (and the national average is about 5 times the rate in New Hampshire). Criminals are getting younger. The violent-crime rate seems to rise and fall in tandem with the number of teens in the population, but recently, teen violence has exploded (murder arrests of teens jumped 92 percent since 1985) during a period in which the teen population remained steady or declined. The median age of criminals is dropping. In 1982, 390 teens ages 13-15 were arrested for murder. A decade later, this total jumped to 740.

America’s Response to Increasing Crime

The nation’s response to the increasing crime rate was to build more prisons, and, in some states, to pass stricter laws requiring jail time (“three strikes and you’re out” type of legislation), which required building even more prisons. At the end of the 1980s, over 0.5 million were in jail; at the end of 1990s about 1.7 million were in jail; and today about 2.2 million are in jail.

Cost of Crime

The cost of crime continues to mount: $78 billion for the criminal justice system, $64 billion for private protection, $202 billion in loss of life and work, $120 billion in crimes against business, $60 billion in stolen goods and fraud, $40 billion from drug abuse, and $110 billion from drunk driving. When you add this and other spending, crime costs Americans a stunning $675 billion each year. A greater consequence of crime’s effect is the steadily declining sense of security and personal liberty of American citizens.

The victims of crime suffer the most and pay the largest price; however, the cost to the public is great as well. Since our criminal system operates upon the pagan Roman idea of retribution toward the criminal (as opposed to the Biblical idea of restitution to the victim and restoration of Godly order3), we punish criminals by putting them in prison. Increased crime has resulted in a shortage of prisons to house all the criminals. While many new prisons have been built, there is still not enough room. Prisons are overcrowded. In recent years, due to a shortage in prison space and a lack of revenue, some states have begun releasing criminals from jail before their sentences are complete (e.g. California). Federal, state, and local governments spend approximately $62 billion per year on adult and juvenile corrections.4 Federal and state governments are projected to need as much as $27 billion—$15 billion in additional operational funds and $12 billion in additional capital funds — over the next

five years to accommodate projected prison expansion and operation.5 We are spending over $30,000 per year per inmate. It would be cheaper to send them to college.

 Correctional Institutions?

Does our criminal punishment system work? Do citizens feel safer today than in times past? Is our society growing more tranquil and quiet? The statistics and experience of citizens say no.

Prisons are termed correctional institutions, but little correction occurs. The rate of recidivism is about 60%.6 In reality, prisons are centers of violence, where many low level criminals learn how to be greater criminals. Our present system does not work. God has a better way to deal with lawbreakers.

Biblical Means of Dealing with Crime

What is crime and how should a society deal with it?

Crime is rooted in the sinful nature of man. Sin is acting contrary to God’s standard as revealed in His Law-Word. Crime is unlawful behavior (as delineated by God in His Word) that usually threatens the life, liberty, or property of others, either directly (such as robbery or murder) or indirectly (such as treason or perjury). There is criminal activity that potentially only affects one’s own person, such as drug use. Such activity is still an assault on life (and our lives are not our own, since God who created us ultimately owns us; we are merely stewards of our bodies).7

Crime comes under the jurisdiction of the state or civil government. While all crimes (as defined by God, but not necessarily the state) are sins, all sins are not crimes punishable by civil authorities. Many sins (violation of God’s Law-Word) are outside the jurisdiction of the state; some sins are to be dealt with by the family, some by the church, and many by God Himself. It is very important that civil leaders understand the distinction of crime and sin, the source of crime, and the administration of God’s justice when crime is committed.

Civil governments throughout history have declared many actions to be criminal that, according to God, are not criminal at all, including reading the Bible and worshiping God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience. Where laws exist that are contrary to God’s higher law, it is the duty of Christians to seek to change these. Sometimes men have criminalized bad behavior, with the goal of limiting behavior that was not criminal according to God, but rather was sinful, or potentially sinful. The Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is one such example. This well-intended but ill-conceived Prohibition Amendment, adopted in 1919, caused more problems than it attempted to solve and was eventually repealed in 1933.8

Some use Prohibition to proclaim we cannot legislate morality, nor should we try to legislate morality. However, every law is a legislation of someone’s morality. Murder and theft are moral issues. Enacting laws against these actions is a legislation of morality. The important question is, “whose morality should we legislate?” There are really only two answers: either God’s morality (which He reveals in His Word, the Bible) or man’s. While all law legislates morality, it is very important to understand that man cannot legislate goodness. Laws cannot change the heart of man; they cannot elevate men above the level of their faith and morality.

As mentioned earlier, a society must understand the source of crime before they can effectively deal with crime. The Bible clearly states that wickedness and sin in the heart of man is the source of crime (Genesis 6:5, 11). As a result of man’s sin – that is, disobedience to God – evil entered his heart. What was in the heart of man manifested itself in his actions (the world was filled with violence). Recognizing the true nature of man – he is a sinful, fallen being in need of a savior – is the beginning place for a society to correctly deal with crime. Both preventative and corrective measures must be taken.

To read the rest of the story order Crime and Punishment, A Biblical Perspective.

For PDF Version: The Growing Threat of Socialism

Socialism has been growing in the United States during the past century, often with leaps and at times with small steps. Intermittently, some people and leaders have pushed back this growing plague, seeing some success in re-establishing governmental and economic principles of liberty, but the overall trend has been toward statism. During the past five years we have witnessed a giant leap forward for socialism, with a corresponding decline of liberty.

Socialism is a great threat to liberty and prosperity. It is unbiblical and demonic.

Socialism is a form of statism. Statism is the belief that the civil government (or man via civil government) is the ultimate authority in the earth and as such is the source of law and morality. The state defines what is right and wrong, what is lawful and unlawful, what is moral and immoral. The state becomes the de facto god of the society, or in the words of Roscoe Pound, President of Harvard Law School in the 1920s, “the state takes the place of Jehovah.”

Socialism claims to own or govern all things, in particular your things: your land and your property, but also your children, your person, your liberty. Statists even claim to own your beliefs and your thoughts. One reason that socialism is unbiblical is because it seeks to control property and children, usurping the God-given responsibility of the family.

Socialism Is Demonic

Socialism has been one of the great enemies of liberty and of Christianity in the past. It will be one of the greatest threats to Christianity in the twenty-first century. Socialism is demonic since it is Satan’s attempt to control God’s earth.

Socialism can be defined as government control or ownership of property and/or the production of goods and services. Socialist governments claim authority over all property. This is bad enough, but such states’ claim of ownership goes much further — they also claim authority over the children in a nation. Thus, the state seeks to educate, provide for, direct and regulate their activities. The state seeks to be the parent.

God created individuals and three divine institutions: family, church, and state. He has given certain authority and responsibilities to each of these. No one institution has absolute authority over any other institution. Today, the state has come to be seen as the all-encompassing authority over men and other institutions. This is socialism. When government bureaucrats (elected or not) act under this belief they are like blind men, who will lead the blind into the ditch (Luke 6:39). To limit the all-powerful state, men must be self-governed under God and His law.

Only God is supreme and can exercise supreme power. No man or institution should ever exercise supreme power. This is especially true for matters of the economy; thus, there should not be a central planning agency over the entire economy (like in communist countries). The flow of authority should be from the bottom up, not the top down. In building the communist party in Russia, Lenin rejected the bottom upwards attempts of the less revolutionary socialists for a top down approach. He said, “My idea . . . is ‘bureaucratic’ in the sense that the Party is built from the top downwards.”

In recent decades, China’s economy has been growing. One reason is that they have gradually been moving away from central control of the economy and embracing free market ideas. At the same time, most western nations’ economies have been flat or growing slowly. This is partly due to turning aside from free market ideas and embracing socialist ideas, with more government control, regulations, higher taxes, etc. — i.e. more top down authority.

Socialism is a religion that assumes:

1. All property belongs to society, that is, the state.

2. There should be no private property.

3. Men will work as hard for society in general as they would for themselves and their family.

These ideas have been shown not to work every time they have been attempted throughout history, even among Christians. But socialist adherents still press on to impose this philosophy upon nations, even though it will bring stagnation and loss of liberty. Why? Because it is a religion to them.

Socialists have certain views about God, man, and law which are rooted in their faith, or fundamental presuppositions of life. They think the socialistic means of ownership and production will change the nature of man and will bring a utopia to earth. The people in communist U.S.S.R. were taught these ideas. They had not experienced a utopia yet, but they just needed more time to get rid of the left-over influence of free and private enterprise, and then it would come. These people were blinded by this false religion.

Productivity declines in a socialist state. Why? One reason is that there will be no individual incentive to produce, since individuals do not benefit directly from the fruit of their labor. Another reason is this: when men see that their property is easily confiscated by the state, which will then use it as they think best, then men are going to attempt to gain political power so they can control property. Gaining control of government then becomes more important than being productive in the marketplace. People will exert energy to gain control of government, using whatever means possible to do so, rather than using their energy to give to society needed goods and services. Economic productivity will decline.

Socialism hates a flat tax or small head tax. Graduated taxation is the means of redistribution of wealth. Karl Marx’s second plank of his program to destroy capitalism was a highly graduated income tax. Socialist governments seek to control by many means, most especially via taxation. As socialist governments assume more and more authority, they need more and more money to fulfill their ever expanding role in life.

Christian scientist Michael Faraday invented the dynamo in 1831. This discovery was the foundation for the vast electrical industry of the modern world. In his day, Faraday could not see the immense effects his discovery would have for mankind, but he did understand the nature of socialistic man. When the British Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel visited the Royal Institution and asked Faraday what was the use of his new electrical discovery, Faraday replied: “I know not, but I wager one day your government will tax it.”

Socialism and communism are forms of humanism, in that they all adhere to the idea of man as the supreme ruler, where in socialism it is political man.

4. Socialism says the world is naturally productive, but that human laws and institutions stifle man and nature from this natural productivity.

If these laws and institutions could be removed or restructured, then this natural productivity could be released. Socialists think the central state planners must do this. They must either own the means of production (which is communism or socialism) or direct the means of production (fascism or corporate state). In both, there is a central elite body of planners who know what is best for everyone and plan for everyone’s life.

These monopolistic central planners are acting like God, knowing what must be done in all areas of business, what the unique skills of each person are, what the wants and desires of each consumer are, etc. They are the agents to transform society; they are the agents of salvation. But they believe in salvation by force and by man-made laws.

Socialism claims authority over all property, including children. Thus, the socialist state seeks to educate children, provide for them, and direct and regulate their business and activities. The state seeks to be the parent. In order to provide all that God says the family is to provide (including education, retirement, and so on), the state must seek higher and higher taxes. Thus, socialist leaders implement graduated income taxes, inheritance taxes, all kinds of licenses and fees, and more. The state becomes the substitute parent, but also the substitute child, by providing for people when they get old.

A society that rejects God’s order for family responsibility will find the state becoming the educator and provider, and thus requiring a “double portion” of the inheritance (like the first born), an ever-increasing tax burden, and an ever-increasing control, in order to fulfill its duties.

Socialism is ultimately demonic since it is Satan’s attempt to control God’s earth. At the Fall, Satan seized Adam’s inheritance of the earth. Since Jesus has restored this to man, Satan continues to try to rob man of his inheritance in God. He uses the tool of the state to try to seize the capital of modern man, thus keeping man in bondage. Those who embrace the idea of the state as welfare agent are collaborating with the devil and delaying the advance of God’s Kingdom in the earth. They are keeping man from the great blessing of his inheritance in God.

How do we conquer socialism?

1. First, the family must assume its responsibility for the health, education, and welfare of its own.

2. Next, the family and private sector must seek to provide the social and spiritual needs of fellow citizens. This can most effectively be done through various voluntary associations.

3. The family and church must educate the citizens in a Biblical philosophy of life so they will see the harm of setting up a socialistic society. (Biblical education includes Christian character as well as correct thinking. People must be self-governed to reject unbiblical action of the state.)

4. Individuals must elect Biblical men to govern. Such men will understand the limited nature of civil government, and hence will not attempt to have the government act like God. These rulers can gradually end unjust taxes, over-regulation, government welfare programs, state schools, etc.

Government leaders will not be able to implement number 4, until the first 3 steps have begun to be implemented. We can gradually remove the bad as we gradually substitute the good in its place.

America’s future depends upon how we deal with the false religion of socialism. May God give us grace to live in the great liberty of the Gospel where we are not controlled by men, but are free to direct our own affairs under Christ.

(Much of this article was excerpted from The Economy from a Biblical Perspective by Stephen McDowell (which can be ordered at our store).

For PDF Version: The Shutdown of (Self-) Government
By Stephen McDowell

America recently experienced a government shutdown. As is typical, the major media blamed the shutdown on right-wing extremists, though they failed to mention that the desire of these limited government Constitutionalists was to check an irresponsible, out-of-control government that is bankrupting our nation and saddling future generations with mounds of debt. The average unthinking American, who has received in recent decades an ever-increasing secular socialistic education in government schools, went along with the mainstream mantra.

While many pundits propounded reasons for the shutdown, the principal reason was not addressed. The failure of civil government in America is a result of the decline of self-government in the American people.

For a nation to be free, the people must be self-governed. The founder of Pennsylvania, William Penn, explained the nature of civil government in the Preface to the Frame of Government of Pennsylvania:

Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men give them; and as governments are made and moved by men, so by them they are ruined too. Wherefore governments rather depend upon men, than men upon governments. Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad; if it will be ill, they will cure it….

Some say, let us have good laws, and no matter for the men who execute them: but let them consider, that though good laws do well, good men do better: for good laws may want good men, and be abolished or evaded by ill men; but good men will never want good laws, nor suffer ill ones. It is true, good laws have some awe upon ill ministers, but that is where they have not power to escape or abolish them, and the people are generally wise and good: but a loose and depraved people love laws and an administration like themselves. That, therefore, which makes a good constitution, must keep it, viz: men of wisdom and virtue, qualities, that because they descend not with worldly inheritances, must be carefully propagated by a virtuous education of youth.[1]

Our nation was built upon several fundamental principles that are rooted in the Christian faith, and without these principles residing in the American people we cannot remain free, just, and prosperous for long. Self-government is one of these principles of liberty.

What Is Self-Government?

When people hear the word government they usually think of civil government, for in most nations that is the ultimate government. In a general sense, government means direction, regulation, control, restraint. There are many spheres of government with each providing direction, regulation, control, and restraint in its jurisdiction. The spheres of government can be divided into internal and external government. Another name for internal government is self-government. All government begins internally in the heart of man, with his ability to govern his conscience, will, character, thoughts, ideas, motives, convictions, attitudes, and desires. How a man governs himself internally affects his external actions, speech, conduct, use of property, etc. Each external sphere of government is a reflection of the internal sphere. In other words, the internal is causative to the external. The type of government that exists in the homes, churches, schools, businesses, associations, or civil realms of a country is a reflection of the self-government, or lack of self-government, within the citizens. The following diagram depicts this idea of government.

The seventeenth century Dutch scholar, Hugo Grotius, who systematized the subject of the law of nations, summarized the principle of self-government, writing:

He knows not how to rule a kingdom, that cannot manage a Province; nor can he wield a Province, that cannot order a City; nor he order a City, that knows not how to regulate a Village; nor he a Village, that cannot guide a Family; nor can that man Govern well a Family that knows not how to Govern himself; neither can any Govern himself unless his reason be Lord, Will and Appetite her Vassals; nor can Reason rule unless herself be ruled by God, and (wholly) be obedient to Him.[2]

Stated another way, you must rule yourself before you can rule others. The Bible teaches that rulers must be self-governed. One quality of a church leader was that he “manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)” (1 Timothy 3:4-5).

There are many civil government leaders today who are attempting to govern their nation, yet are unable to effectively direct and control their own lives or their families. These men and women should be replaced by those who can rule their own lives. Those who are self-governed are the ones with real power according to the Bible: “He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit, than he who captures a city” (Proverbs 16:32).

Grotius’ statement reveals how the flow of power should occur within a country, from the internal to the external. He speaks of decentralized governmental units wielding less power the further removed they are from the individual. The following chart summarizes his ideas:

Effective government begins by an individual learning to govern himself. The more internal self-government a person possesses the less external government he needs. Consequently, the more rules and laws required to keep people acting rightly is a revelation of a diminishing amount of self-government.[3]  History teaches that man can control himself, but only to a limited degree. Since self-government cannot be imposed externally, and man is limited in personal self-discipline, there must be another source for internal control. Grotius reveals that man can only be truly self-governed if his reason, will, and appetite are ruled by God. The basis of self-control is obedience to the Creator and His standards of conduct found in the Bible. Robert C. Winthrop, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1847-49, said in 1849:

All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they may have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint. Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or the bayonet.[4]

Winthrop summarized well the operation of government in the earth for all men and nations throughout all history: all men will be governed, ultimately “either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or the bayonet.”

Self-government is limited apart from God; therefore, the ability to govern well is limited where the people and leaders do not seek to govern themselves and their nation under God. George Washington said, “It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being.”[5]

The foundation for self-government is laid in the families of a nation. Noah Webster wrote in A Manual of Useful Studies:

In the family are formed the elements of civil government; the family discipline is the model of all social order; . . . the respect for the law and the magistrate begins in the respect for parents. . . . Families are the nurseries of good and bad citizens. The parent who neglects to restrain and govern his child, or who, by his example, corrupts him, is the enemy of the community to which he belongs; the parent who instructs his child in good principles, and subjects him to correct discipline, is the guardian angel of his child, and the best benefactor of society.[6]

As people in a nation become less self-governed, and give up power, the civil government (especially the national government) will grow and grow, making more and more laws (many outside its realm of jurisdiction) and spending more and more money. Lack of self-government leads to greater centralized external government which results in loss of individual liberty.

The problems and failures of our civil government are due to the declining ability of individuals to properly direct their own affairs, which has arisen as families, churches, and schools have abandoned their Biblical duty. The solution rests with the family, and other educational institutions, implanting within Americans self-government and other vital Christian principles.

[To learn of other foundational principles of free nations see our books Building Godly Nations and Liberating the Nations, or enroll in our Biblical Worldview University course, “Fundamentals for Biblical Transformation.” You can also listen to our podcasts on “Seven Fundamental Principles of Free Nations.”]

For PDF Version: We Hold these Truths, Governmental Principles of America’s Founders

To learn more please order our book Building Godly Nations which expounds upon these important principles.

How the Bible and Christianity Influenced the Writing of the Declaration of Independence

Book Review by Douglas S. Anderson

Douglas Anderson is an attorney for the Air Force and serves as Assistant Staff Judge Advocate. This book review was written as an assignment for a class Major Anderson is taking while attending the Army’s Judge Advocate General School.

For PDF Version: Defending the Declaration by Douglas Anderson

With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, fifty-six founding fathers mutually pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. In doing so, they simultaneously claimed independence from an earthly power and dependence on a heavenly one.

Although the ink on our most famous document has long since dried, the rhetoric about the source of its ideas has not. The noble endeavor our founders embarked upon has now fallen victim to the revisionist’s pen; a pen that has altered and distorted their original intent. Today any suggestion that our nation was founded upon Christian principles is often met with disbelief and scorn.

Perhaps no longer, thanks to Gary T. Amos and his book, Defending the Declaration. Although originally written in 1989, the first paperback edition was just published by the Providence Foundation in 1994. This book offers the reader far more than the tri-cornered hat, white-powdered wig and gold-buckled shoe image of colonial America. Instead, it provides important scholarship to the debate on the impact Christianity had upon our nation’s history.

Defending the Declaration will challenge your intellectual comfort zone with a view of history rarely seen in today’s anesthetized treatment of religion’s influence. For readers brave enough to open the cover, they will find a persuasive challenge to those who say that the principles of the American Revolution and the Declaration were “basically secular and deistic.’’ The book does so with an impressive arsenal of hard-hitting facts and incisive reasoning.

How Mr. Amos came to write this book is, itself, compelling. As a history major, he had read numerous books and had studied under many learned scholars. They taught him that John Locke was a deist, as were most of the founding fathers. They also taught that the lofty principles contained in the Declaration of Independence were copied by Jefferson from the deistic ideas of John Locke. Thus, according to the history texts and scholars, America was born out of deism, not Christianity.

Yet when he began to read the writings of John Locke for himself, Mr. Amos was startled by what he found.

“I could not believe my eyes. In page after page, Locke confessed Christ, the Bible, miracles, and many other elements of orthodox Christianity. And it was all very clear. He was not using vague words or hard-to-understand sayings. At first I was angry. I felt like I had been tricked or robbed. I had been told by some of the best and brightest that Locke was a deist who rejected Christianity and the Bible. I had been lied to. And Locke had been lied about.’’ 2

That discovery propelled him into a four year research endeavor of the founding fathers and those who influenced them. His conclusion? He found that every key phrase in the Declaration of Independence was rooted in the Bible and Christian theology. This book is his effort to “set the record straight.’’

Gary Amos has organized his book around what he believes are the “key criticisms’’ of the Declarations’ Biblical foundation. Each chapter examines a phrase or concept from the Declaration, as it relates to its true source. Terms such as “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God;’’ “self-evident truths;’’ “unalienable rights’’ endowed by the Creator; and government by the “consent of the governed’’ are all discussed as to the meanings understood and intended by the founders during colonial America.

Mr. Amos does not deny that there existed Enlightenment and deistic thought in 1776. Instead he reveals that such thought was not predominant. In fact, the key concepts of liberty and independence, now attributed to the Enlightenment, were actually derived from the Bible and Christianity. Over time, many Biblical and Christian ideas have been changed by that same revisionist’s pen into something its not; a legacy of the Enlightenment. Indeed the Christian influence was so prevailing in 1776 that today’s “nearly universal silence about the Christian roots of American Revolutionary theory’’ is inexplicable.

If they were alive today, those fifty-six signers who relied on the protection of Divine Providence to initiate one American Revolution, might be tempted to initiate another. Only this time it wouldn’t be directed against England, but against current historical scholars who have so effectively excluded Christian influence from the annals of history.

Even amongst the deists of the day, which were few, they subscribed to Christian principles. Thomas Jefferson is a prime example. Although the author notes that Jefferson never confessed Jesus Christ as Lord in an evangelical sense, he clearly wasn’t a deist. Jefferson strongly believed that the moral  principles found in the Gospels should be the guide of every person’s life. He also believed that God was real and that He intervened in the lives of people. In referring to the immoral practice of slavery he said; “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. . . .’’ John Adams has also been given the deist label. Yet he wrote in his diary that a “nation that took the Bible for its law book would be the best of nations.’’ Therefore those who argue as to how many of the founders were deists or Christians miss the point. Few of the deists in 1776 subscribed to the premise that God created us and then walked away. That “clockmaker God’’ idea of deism was not an accurate description for any of our founding fathers.

Defending the Declaration also illustrates that contemporary historians have lost the moral premise upon which the Declaration of Independence was based. The founders did not see themselves as rebels or revolutionaries. The term “revolution’’ is a misnomer. The Declaration of Independence was about a lawful break from a government that had committed numerous acts of tyranny. Such tyrannous acts constituted a material breach of the king’s right to govern the people.

According to the Biblical view, a civil rulers’ right to rule is not absolute (1 Samuel 13:13-14). Rulers are servants of God who have a commitment to uphold justice and govern “for the people,’’ rather than for their own benefit and power. If they forsake that commitment to God, they lose their right to rule (Proverbs 16:12). The English King, through numerous acts of tyranny, had forsaken his commitment and forfeited his right to rule. The founding fathers wisely relied on the only law that had precedence over that of their earthly king; “unalienable rights’’ endowed by their Creator. The principle was completely Christian in origin.

This is a much different approach from the lawless, mob overthrow seen in the French Revolution that had no basis in Christian thought. This kind of distinction made by America’s founders has been lost today.

While this book goes a long way toward rectifying the recent misperceptions about our founding fathers and our founding document, there is an added bonus to reading it. The reader is drawn back into the dusty alcoves of dimly-lit libraries where he finds the renowned legal classics known so well in colonial America. Rarely does one get the chance to be exposed to such celebrated literature as John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, and Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex. It’s like getting a taste of culture mixed in with your history lesson.

Why should we care whether the Declaration of Independence was based on Christian principles? It is because, in the words of Gary Amos, “[w]e are living in a time of renewed struggle between Jerusalem and Athens.’’ According to the secular world view, there are no God-given unalienable rights. All a secular society can offer is “civil rights.’’ Since they are granted by government according to the will of men, they can be denied by government according to that same will. However, a government built on a Biblical Christian perspective, like the Declaration of Independence, recognizes rights and freedoms that are God-given. Such “unalienable’’ rights are not subject to the whims and discretions of those who hold government power.

Not everyone will agree with the conclusions drawn by Mr. Amos. That’s half the fun of differing viewpoints in the marketplace of ideas. It also is why this book is critically important in today’s dialogue. The Christian perspective, often pushed aside in the public arena, has much to offer. This book will intellectually challenge those who read it. It will also foster a better understanding in the swirling debate about the proper role of religion in politics.

Defending the Declaration enables the reader to retrace the steps of history to the ideals contained in our founding document and forcefully remind us that:

“The American Revolution was more than a contest with England. It was and is a war of ideas, a contest for the hearts and minds of men. It was and is a war to defend a vision about law, rights, justice, and the God-given dignity of man. The vision was inspired over time by the words of the Bible and the teachings of Christianity but applies to all men everywhere regardless of their faith.’’ 3

We cannot fully appreciate our liberty if we do not comprehend the strong Christian heritage that produced it. For those who may fear a theocracy, that is not what the founding fathers sought in 1776 and it isn’t what Mr. Amos advocates. As demonstrated by some of the original signers of the Declaration, one does not need to be a Christian to abide by Christian principles.

In candor, however, this book should not be necessary. Had it been written two hundred years ago, it would have been met with ridicule; not because it was untrue, but because it was so “self evident.’’ The fact this book is necessary speaks volumes on how far our nation has wandered from our founding Christian principles.

If they were alive today, those fifty-six signers who relied on the protection of Divine Providence to initiate one American Revolution, might be tempted to initiate another. Only this time it wouldn’t be directed against England, but against current historical scholars who have so effectively excluded Christian influence from the annals of history.

End Notes:

1  Gary T. Amos, Defending the Declaration, How the Bible and Christianity Influenced the Writing of the Declaration of Independence (Providence Foundation, 1994).

2  Id. at 3.

3  Id. at 169.

Excerpt from Defending the Declaration

by Gary Amos

The Theme of This Book

My theme is simple. The Declaration of Independence was not the bastard offspring of anti-Christian deism or Enlightenment rationalism. The ideas in the Declaration are Christian despite the fact that some of the men who wrote them down were not. Those ideas are not opposed to the teachings of the Bible or of mainstream Christianity.  The popular notion that the intellectual heritage of the Declaration  traces solely to deism, the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, and from there to pagan Rome and Greece is seriously flawed. Indeed, much of what we have been told for years about the Declaration’s intellectual heritage and the meaning of its terms is largely a series of myths.

This book will show that most of the key terms and ideas in the Declaration of Independence arose from the Judeo-Christian intellectual tradition. It does not deny that there was such a thing as the Enlightenment or deists. But many of the ideas used by deists were borrowed from the Bible and Christianity. Where the Declaration is concerned, its legal and political theories are consistent with Biblical principles and with historical mainstream Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant.

It is a mistake to read the Declaration of Independence as an ingenious “secularized’’ assault on the Bible, Christianity, or the western Christian tradition. The Declaration stands squarely inside the tradition, reflecting how profoundly Biblical principles had influenced the world in which the framers lived and worked.

I strongly disagree with my Christian brothers who have set out to prove that the founders rejected Christian principles and consciously built the American government on an anti-Christian base. For example, Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and George Marsden have written that the “principles of the American revolution’’ were “basically secular,’’ and that the founders’ “political ideals’’ were “naturalistic.’’ They insist that Christians in the colonies failed to influence the way America was founded because they were too busy mimicking deists, “baptizing political philosophies,’’ and making an idol of nationalism. They deny that the country was founded on “Christian principles.’’ They say that the founders relied on “Whig’’ ideology instead of Christian Biblical principles. And `Whigs…often transformed the defense of political freedom into a nearly idolatrous worship…`Radical’ Whigs were often also full partners in the Enlightenment.’’ This is close to saying that Christians in the colonies were really idolaters and heretics.

I disagree with Noll, Hatch, and Mardsen that all the founders, including John Witherspoon, were infected with anti-Biblical rationalism. When they wrote that Witherspoon “explicitly excluded the Bible’’ in thinking about Revolutionary politics, they were mistaken. Had they read two sentences beyond the quote they chose, they would have found Witherspoon saying that any human wisdom opposed to the Bible is “false and dangerous.’’ Indeed, Witherspoon often referred to the necessity of the Bible, but they somehow missed that fact and thought he rejected the Bible.

They have concluded that the “War for Independence was not a just war,’’ “The American revolution was not Christian,’’  “It was not Biblical,’’ and “It did not establish the United States on a Christian foundation.’’ And even though “religion’’ abounded in the colonies, “theology of every stripe was something on the fringe of American society.’’ They admit that Christianity influenced culture in the colonies, but they deny that Christianity had any impact on how the founding documents were drafted. In the words of Mark Noll, “[A]lthough the Bible had worked itself into the foundation of national consciousness, it contributed little to the structures built upon that foundation.’’

Christians need to know that when they oppose the principles of the Declaration of Independence, they are opposing many of the very principles to which the Bible and the church gave birth.

Noll’s last point is the key for this book. He believes that the ideas in the Declaration were not Christian even if many of the colonists were. I maintain that the ideas themselves were Christian even if some of the founders were not. The Bible did more than work itself into the foundations of national consciousness. It did indeed influence the structures on which   America was built, even to the extent of affecting how the Declaration of Independence was drafted.

I also strongly differ with the widely known view of Christian writer C.  Gregg Singer, who insisted that the framers rejected Christian principles:

Behind the political philosophy of the American Revolution . . .lay  a view of God and of human nature which was not Christian but deist, which was not orthodox and conservative but radical. It thus follows that the American Revolution in its basic philosophy was not Christian, and the democratic way of life which arose from it was not, is not, Christian, but was, and is, a deistic and secularized caricature of the evangelical point of view. . .The fact that John Witherspoon and other evangelicals of the day were willing to sign the Declaration should not blind us to the essentially anti-Christian character of Jeffersonian democracy.

This bleak view of the founding fathers is not only wrong it is causing devastating results in the Christian community. Many wrestle with guilt or embarrassment over America’s past. Many feel alienated, as though it is wrong or useless to participate in the public process. After all, Christians have always been on the outside looking in when it comes to American politics, and maybe that is where they really belong. Others, such as members of Witness for Peace and those associated with Sojourners magazine stay in the political process but feel compelled always to take an anti-American stand. Either way, the wrong view causes Christians to be a negative political force, instead of a positive one.

More is at stake, of course, than effective Christian political involvement. Christians need to know that when they oppose the principles of the Declaration of Independence, they are opposing many of the very principles to which the Bible and the church gave birth. By accepting a flawed version of America’s founding heritage or feel spiritually obligated to be anti-American. They do not have to be politically irrelevant, on the outside looking in.

This book seeks to set the record straight about Christianity and the American Revolution. The church did directly influence the legal and political theory of the Declaration of Independence. The church was not on the fringe of culture.

Click to read the article:  Obama, Romney, Other: Who should Christians Vote for in 2012?

Obama, Romney, Other: Who Should Christians Vote for in the 2012 Election?
Including Biblical Qualifications for Civil Leaders
By Stephen McDowell

America is like a train going rapidly toward a cliff. The election of 2012 may determine if we fly off the precipice, or slow down enough to get the train turned around. During the past century America has gradually put aside her Christian foundations and embraced progressive, socialistic ideas. Our Founders put us on a Biblical path that enabled us to become the most free, just, prosperous, charitable, and virtuous nation the world has ever seen. Applying God’s Biblical blueprint made us an exceptional nation. We moved down the train track in the right direction, one that protected man’s God-given rights to life, liberty, and property, and created an environment
of liberty and equality for all. However, as we put aside God’s eternal standard and looked to man as the source of law, morality, and provision, we gradually turned the train around and instead of heading to a bright future, began chugging toward a great precipice. At times during the 20th Century (though these were few) we have had governmental leaders (such as Ronald Reagan) who understood we were going in the wrong direction and attempted to change course, but most were only able to
slow the train down, not turn it around. Our current President, Barak Obama, has added much fuel to the engine, speeding up the train on its course over the cliff. While we have already been experiencing the bad fruit of unbiblical financial and moral policies sown over the generations, there may come a time when the train runs off the cliff and cannot be recovered; that is, we can go so far down the road of statism, it will be near impossible to turn it around. Of course, God is able to do the miraculous,
and there are many examples in history where God has moved mightily to transform nations. There are also many positive signs that God is at work in America – all are not dead. But the greater the mess, the more wisdom and Godly character is needed to undo the mess. The sooner we act, the more likely we can see permanent change. Political action is only one area where we have Biblical duties, and in some ways it is the least important, but it is important and we are commanded by God to take part in
choosing those who govern us. So then, who should we vote for this November? In regards to the upcoming presidential election, I have heard some Christians say they will not vote for Barack Obama since he clearly supports and promotes issues contrary to the Bible, like abortion and homosexual marriage. But, they say, they cannot vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon, and they point out the unbiblical doctrines of Mormonism. Their choice then will be to vote for a third party candidate, write in a name, or not vote at all. Should this be the choice of Biblical thinking Christians?

It is very important whom we choose to govern us. When the righteous rule, the people will rejoice, but when the wicked govern they will groan (Prov. 29:2). Our nation’s welfare and stability—our continuance (or recovery) as a nation of liberty, justice, and prosperity—will be greatly affected by whom we choose to lead us. To elect Godly leaders we need to know the qualities of a Godly leader, and here, as in all of life, the Bible provides a standard. In choosing those who govern, we must compare their
qualifications to those that the Bible says are of most importance. Biblical Qualifications for Governing Officials. When Moses told the children of Israel to select from among them those who would govern them, he set forth a number of Biblical qualifications. He said: “You shall select out of all the people, able men who fear God, men
of truth, those who hate dishonest gain” (Exodus 18:21). “Choose wise and discerning and experienced men” (Deuteronomy 1:13). He put forth three general qualifications for governing officials: fear of God, Christian character, and Biblical worldview. Duty to Vote and Participate The revivalist of the Second Great Awakening, Charles Finney, presented a list of things that must be done to maintain the revival that was in progress.

One of those was:  Christians have a duty to choose Godly leaders. Moses gave us three qualifications to use as we evaluate those who govern.
The Church must take right ground in regard to politics. . . . [T]he time has come that Christians must vote for honest men, and take consistent ground in politics….
[T]he Church must act rightly or the country will be ruined. God cannot sustain this free and blessed country, which we love and pray for, unless the Church will take right
ground. Politics are a part of a religion in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as a part of their duty to God…. He will bless or curse this nation, according to the course they [Christians] take [in politics].2

Failure of the church (i.e., God’s redeemed people) in America to take right ground in politics in the past century or so has led to our current looming governmental crisis. We have chosen the bramble (thorn bush) to govern us and are reaping the consequences (Judges 9:8-15). It is not only a privilege, but a duty and command for Christians to vote. Civil government is a divine institution of God that exists to protect the life, liberty, and property of citizens, enabling them to more effectively advance the Kingdom of God in the earth. Civil leaders are servants of the people and of God, and are to govern under His higher authority. Rulers are to be ministers of God for good (see Romans 13:4; Luke 22:25-26). For this to occur, Christians must be involved in selecting good men to office. Voting is actually the most minimal means of fulfilling our duty. We should  also be continually involved in the process of training men to govern, and getting them on the ballot. Hence, we must be involved in local party politics.

If we are not involved in the preparation process, we will continually find we have no real choices on the ballot when we vote. We will always be faced with the prospect of
“choosing the lesser of two evils.” It would be better to get involved in every aspect of preparing and choosing civil leaders so we have a real choice. To elect Godly men, we should understand the Biblical qualifications for leaders, learn of the character and worldview of the candidates, and vote accordingly.
How do the two main presidential candidates align with God’s standard? I will only be comparing Barack Obama and Mitt Romney since there is no chance that any other candidate can win (due to the nature of our electoral system, we have two main parties). If there is no real difference in these two men, then it doesn’t matter if
you vote a third party, or not vote at all. But if there is a difference, not voting for the better of the two candidates is in reality voting for the worst one. We may lament that we do not have a Godly candidate who can win this election, but we only have ourselves to blame. God instructs us to be good stewards of civil society. He tells us to
prepare Godly leaders and to send them out to govern in a Biblical manner. We have not done so, hence, we get the current presidential choices before us – Obama or Romney. We will have better choices in the future if we fulfill our civil duties. Thankfully, we do have some good choices (depending upon where you live) in various races on the local, state, and national levels.

We should work hard to get the good guys elected. 1. Faith or True Religion – “men who fear God” The fear of God is an essential qualification for a Godly official. What are
men like who fear God? Matthias Burnet explained in an election sermon in 1803 that they are, “men acting under the belief and awe of God as their inspector and judge, to whom they consider themselves accountable for their conduct and whom they fear to offend.”3

This is not just saying “I am a Christian,” simply going to church, or culturally embracing Christianity, but it is having a reverential fear of the Almighty. Many today think that the fear of God is of no matter for our rulers, and even see it as a negative factor. Rev. Burnet said it well: If God be such a being, as both reason and revelation declare him to be, an omniscient, holy, just and all-powerful being, whose eyes are in every place, beholding the evil and the good, to punish the one and reward the other according to their character and deeds, then certainly, the fear and awe of him must operate as the greatest restraint from that which is evil, and the most powerful incentive to that which is good, and he who is truly actuated by this principle, will never give his voice or influence to pervert justice or support iniquity. But the man who does not believe in the being and providence of God, or is not actuated by the fear and awe of him, has in many cases no bond or restraint upon his conduct, and therefore is not fit to be trusted with a nation’s weal, which he will not scruple, whenever he can with impunity, to sacrifice to his lust or ambition.4 When the righteous rule, the people rejoice. The righteous are those in right standing with God — they fear God, the true and living God. How do the two major presidential candidates align with this?

Barak Obama Obama claims to be a Christian, but the church he identified with for over 20 years was theologically liberal and embraced many unorthodox positions. In addition, many of his actions are contrary to Biblical truth. Jesus said you would know His followers by their fruit (Matthew 7:20); that is, how men act reveal what is in their hearts. Jesus also said, “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Obedience to His Word is a primary indicator of a true believer.

Professing faith yet living contrary to the precepts of the Christian faith can actually be worse than not professing at all. Paul writes that those who claim to represent God’s true covenant people, yet break His law, dishonor God and bring reproach to the true faith (Roman 2:23-24). Such action presents a false testimony to true Christianity. Jesus’ strongest rebukes were to those professing members of the covenant who regularly violated the commands of God. Therefore, to evaluate Obama’s faith we need to look at his words and, more importantly, his deeds. While Obama may claim to be a Christian, his actions show a great hostility toward Christianity, and, at times, encouragement for Islam. Here are a few of the scores of actions revealing Obama’s hostility to Biblical faith:5

· April 2008 – Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”
· April 2009 – When speaking at Georgetown University, Obama orders that a monogram symbolizing Jesus’ name be covered when he is making his speech.
· September 16, 2009 – The Obama administration appoints as EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, who asserts that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, if they may negatively affect homosexual “equality.”

· May 2009 – While Obama does not host any National Day of Prayer event at the White House, he does host White House Iftar dinners in honor of Ramadan.
· 2010 – While every White House traditionally issues hundreds of official proclamations and statements on numerous occasions, this White House avoids traditional Biblical holidays and events but regularly recognizes major Muslim holidays, as evidenced by its 2010 statements on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha.
· October 19, 2010 – Obama begins deliberatelyomitting the phrase about “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence – an omission he has made on no less than seven occasions.

· April 2011 – For the first time in American history, Obama urges passage of a non-discrimination law that does not contain hiring protections for religious groups, forcing religious organizations to hire according to federal mandates without regard to the dictates of their own faith, thus eliminating conscience protection in hiring.

· August 2011 – The Air Force stops teaching the Just War theory to officers in California because the course is taught by chaplains and is based on a philosophy introduced by St. Augustine in the third century AD – a theory long taught by civilized nations across the world.
· May 2012 – The Obama administration opposes legislation to protect the rights of conscience for military chaplains who do not wish to perform same-sex marriages in violation of their strongly-held religious beliefs.

· June 2012 – Bibles for the American military have been printed in every conflict since the American Revolution, but the Obama Administration revokes the long-standing U. S. policy of allowing military service emblems to be placed on those military Bibles.
· February 2012 – The Obama administration makes effulgent apologies for Korans being burned by the U. S. military, but when Bibles were burned by the military, numerous reasons were offered why it was the right thing to do. As we shall see, Obama is also anti-life, supporting and promoting abortion consistently throughout his public life, is against the Biblical family, recently saying he supports same-sex marriage, and promotes public immorality. The conclusion is that, while a professing Christian, Obama shows little fruit of true Christian faith. Mitt Romney Romney is a professing Mormon. Mormonism is a non-Christian religion with fundamental theological beliefs that are contrary to Christian orthodoxy.

Mormons do say they believe the Bible and that Jesus is divine and their savior, but this is not in the same sense as Biblical Christianity. Some of the doctrines of Mormonism are strange, though it does promote a general positive morality. Some Christians have said that the spiritual effects of having a Mormon as President would be extremely negative, and we should keep this from happening at all costs. They say that all of America’s Presidents have claimed Christianity as their faith, and we should keep it that way. Electing a Mormon would only give credence to this cultist faith, and possibly open up America to new judgments of God. It is true that all Presidents to date have professed the Christian faith, but they have certainly not all been true believers, nor lived as Christians. Many, especially in the 20th Century, have implemented policies contrary to the Bible and the principles of liberty. Their actions have led America away from God. You could easily argue their actions have done more to distort true Christianity than many false religions. At least with a Mormon President, most people would know they believe in a different God than that of the Christian faith, or at least have a better opportunity to learn this, which has occurred since Romney’s rise. (Romney expressed this recently when speaking at Liberty University, saying he knew
evangelicals have different beliefs than Mormons.) Leaders professing Christianity, but not demonstrating it in personal action or political policies, would present a false and distorted image of true Biblical Christianity and its good fruit. This would drive many away from Christianity, saying “if this is what Christianity produces I want
nothing of it.” Regarding his actions, Romney is pro-life and upholds the Biblical family, so in these two important matters, unlike Obama, he embraces the ideals
of the Christian faith. Romney has also not shown hostility toward Christianity as has Obama. For example, he is against forcing businesses and organizations
to provide abortion services as part of the medical care for employees. Neither candidate acts like a regenerated believer who meets the qualification of fearing God as the Bible presents. But there are some clear distinctions between the two regarding the other two qualities. 2. Morality or Christian Character – “men of truth,” “hate dishonest gain”

A second qualification for Godly officials is morality. They should be “men truly honest and upright in their principles and views, not actuated and governed by the sordid motives of self interest and aggrandizement in their desire and execution of office, but by a sincere regard to the public good.”6 There are many examples in history
where corrupt and unprincipled rulers have brought on all kinds of miseries to mankind—including loss of liberty and the downfall of nations. Socialist and progressive leaders of the 20th Century did much to steal the liberty and property of many. This includes many American leaders, such as President Franklin Roosevelt, who may
have done some good things, but did many things to increase the welfare state and diminish American liberty. The actions of these leaders flowed from a wrong worldview, but were often accompanied by dishonest and immoral behavior. Chandler Robbins, in an Election Sermon in 1791, said, “Nothing will so surely, so rapidly bring on the dissolution of society, and the loss of the liberties of a people, as a want of virtue and integrity in their rulers.”7 Two important character qualities needed by rulers are honesty and humility.

Honesty is obviously important in a ruler. Proverbs 29:12 says “if a ruler pays attention to falsehood [hearkens to lies], all his ministers become wicked.” If a man cannot keep personal vows or oaths, we cannot expect him to keep national vows. We have witnessed this in recent years. Knowledge or intelligence (as man sees it) without honesty — a good genius with a bad heart — is worse than an ignorant honest man because the evil genius could find more subtle ways to rob the people of their rights.
Some have argued support for certain candidates based upon their intelligence, saying: “He’s so smart. We ought to elect him.” Yet, if a man, no matter how smart, is reasoning from wrong presuppositions, or has bad character, he will not be a good leader. Humility is a second great quality needed in leaders. Jesus taught that leaders are to be servants (Matthew 20:25-28). How do the presidential candidates align with Christian character?

Obama One positive aspect of Obama’s character is that he appears to love his wife and children. Yet, at the same time he supports gay marriage and is radically pro-abortion. While apparently faithful to his wife, he has done much to undermine public morality by promoting pre-marital sex. For example, in August 2010, the Obama
administration cut funding for 176 abstinence education programs, desiring rather to fund teaching teens that sex before marriage is okay if it is “safe.”8 His positions on the two most important moral issues of life and family follow:

Anti-life / Pro-abortion
· Obama is strongly pro-abortion. He voted against banning partial birth abortion as a legislator in Illinois.
· January 2009 – Obama lifts restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, forcing taxpayers
to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations.9
· March 2009 – Obama gave $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that promotes abortion and works closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations. 10
· July 2010 – the Obama administration uses federal funds in violation of federal law to get Kenya to change its constitution to include abortion.11 Promotes homosexual lifestyle and marriage

· July 2009 – The Obama administration illegally extends federal benefits to same-sex partners of Foreign Service and Executive Branch employees, in direct violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.12

· July 2011 – Obama allows homosexuals to serve openly in the military, reversing a policy originally instituted by George Washington in March 1778.13
· 2012 – Obama announces his support for same-sex marriage. The Democratic party platform embraces same-sex marriage as well.
There are numerous incidents of Obama being dishonest. He has often violated his word. For one, Obama promised he would not rush legislation through Congress, but he rushed both the stimulus bill and Obamacare. Obamacare was pushed through so rapidly that few, if any, Congressmen even read it all. Remember then Speaker Pelosi’s famous comment that we need to pass it so we can learn what is in it. We have since learned health care providers must cover abortions and also child sterilizations without parental consent.14

While running for President in 2008 Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by 2012. Under Obama, deficit spending has more than doubled that of previous years, amassing over $5 trillion dollars during his term. While some concession could be given to cutting it in half, he has done little to even try to limit government spending. He
did call for a freeze on pay of federal workers and for cutting some programs, but the only real cuts appear to be coming in military spending. Overall, spending under Obama has been 40% greater than tax revenue, hence we have had to borrow more and more money, leading to a current national debt of about $16 trillion. Some have argued that under Bush and other Presidents there was large deficit spending, so we cannot condemn Obama for doing the same. The general nature of deficit spending by
the federal government over the years, under both Democrats and Republicans, is immoral and unbiblical. It is in fact, theft, violating God’s commandment to not steal, since future generations will be forced to pay for current spending.15 It is wrong no matter who does it. We must stop this or experience grave consequences.

Obama has taken deficit spending to a new unprecedented level. So if Bush was wrong (and he was), Obama is doubly wrong. We must, of course, remember that deficit spending cannot occur without the approval of Congress, so we should always look at the House and Senate budgets, and how our Congressmen voted regarding
these budgets, to help determine for whom we should vote. (You should take note that the Senate under Democratic control has not passed a budget in over 3 years.)
Some of Obama’s recent campaign ads are astoundingly dishonest. Like the claim of one that a man’s wife died of cancer due to lack of insurance that is blamed on Romney’s actions while at Bain Capital. Even the leftist media has pointed out the absurdity of this.16

Romney Like Obama, Romney appears to love his family and wife, and presents a positive image of the family. While not a true believer, he generally adheres to Biblical positions on many moral issues (though with some clear differences; see below). In addition, he has pledged to bring government spending under control, not stealing
from future generations by borrowing money today. His selection of Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate shows he is serious about taking hold of runaway federal budgets because Ryan was the author of a very specific bill that would balance the budget (Romney endorsed the bill).

Life Issue

· Romney has been called a flip-flopper on issues, in particular on abortion. In recent years, Romney has spoken out against abortion and called for overturning
Roe vs. Wade; however, while governor of Massachusetts, Romney repeatedly described himself as pro-choice. He explained the evolution of his beliefs on abortion in an interview with the Des Moines Register in 2007, stating, “I was effectively pro-choice when I ran for office. When I became governor of Massachusetts, the first time a bill came to [me] that dealt with life, I simply could not side with—with taking a life, and I came on the side of life. Every bill that came to my desk, every issue that related to
protecting the sanctity of life, I came down on the side of life.”17 Romney’s current position is that he’s prolife but, “I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.”

Obama, Romney, Other: Who Should
Christians Vote for in the 2012 Election?
Including Biblical Qualifications
for Civil Leaders
By Stephen McDowell
America is like a train going rapidly
toward a cliff. The election of 2012
may determine if we fly off the precipice,
or slow down enough to get the
train turned around. During the past
century America has gradually put
aside her Christian foundations and
embraced progressive, socialistic
ideas. Our Founders put us on a Biblical
path that enabled us to become the
most free, just, prosperous, charitable,
and virtuous nation the world has ever
seen. Applying God’s Biblical blueprint
made us an exceptional nation.
We moved down the train track in the
right direction, one that protected
man’s God-given rights to life, liberty,
and property, and created an environment
of liberty and equality for all.
However, as we put aside God’s
eternal standard and looked to man as
the source of law, morality, and provision,
we gradually turned the train
around and instead of heading to a
bright future, began chugging toward a
great precipice. At times during the
20th Century (though these were few)
we have had governmental leaders
(such as Ronald Reagan) who understood
we were going in the wrong
direction and attempted to change
course, but most were only able to
slow the train down, not turn it around.
Our current President, Barak Obama,
has added much fuel to the engine,
speeding up the train on its course over
the cliff. While we have already been
experiencing the bad fruit of unbiblical
financial and moral policies sown over
the generations, there may come a time
when the train runs off the cliff and
cannot be recovered; that is, we can go
so far down the road of statism, it will
be near impossible to turn it around.
Of course, God is able to do the miraculous,
and there are many examples
in history where God has moved
mightily to transform nations. There
are also many positive signs that God
is at work in America – all are not
dead. But the greater the mess, the
more wisdom and Godly character is
needed to undo the mess. The sooner
we act, the more likely we can see permanent
change. Political action is only
one area where we have Biblical duties,
and in some ways it is the least
important, but it is important and we
are commanded by God to take part in
choosing those who govern us. So
then, who should we vote for this November?
In regards to the upcoming presidential
election, I have heard some
Christians say they will not vote for
Barack Obama since he clearly supports
and promotes issues contrary to
the Bible, like abortion and homosexual
marriage. But, they say, they
cannot vote for Mitt Romney because
he is a Mormon, and they point out the
unbiblical doctrines of Mormonism.
Their choice then will be to vote for a
third party candidate, write in a name,
or not vote at all. Should this be the
choice of Biblical thinking Christians?
It is very important whom we
choose to govern us. When the righteous
rule, the people will rejoice, but
when the wicked govern they will
groan (Prov. 29:2). Our nation’s welfare
and stability—our continuance (or
recovery) as a nation of liberty, justice,
and prosperity—will be greatly affected
by whom we choose to lead us.
To elect Godly leaders we need to
know the qualities of a Godly leader,
and here, as in all of life, the Bible provides
a standard. In choosing those
who govern, we must compare their
qualifications to those that the Bible
says are of most importance.
Biblical Qualifications for
Governing Officials1
When Moses told the children of Israel
to select from among them those
who would govern them, he set forth a
number of Biblical qualifications. He
said: “You shall select out of all the
people, able men who fear God, men
of truth, those who hate dishonest
gain” (Exodus 18:21). “Choose wise
and discerning and experienced men”
(Deuteronomy 1:13). He put forth
three general qualifications for governing
officials: fear of God, Christian
character, and Biblical worldview.
Duty to Vote and Participate
The revivalist of the Second Great
Awakening, Charles Finney, presented
a list of things that must be done to
maintain the revival that was in progress.
One of those was:
The Providential Perspective Page 1
Providential Perspective
Vol. 26, No. 2 September 2012 The Teaching Journal of The Providence Foundation
Christians have a duty to choose Godly
leaders. Moses gave us three qualifications to
use as we evaluate those who govern.
The Church
must take right
ground in regard
to politics. . . .
[T]he time has
come that Christians
must vote for
honest men, and
take consistent
ground in politics….
[T]he Church must act rightly
or the country will be ruined. God
cannot sustain this free and blessed
country, which we love and pray for,
unless the Church will take right
ground. Politics are a part of a religion
in such a country as this, and Christians
must do their duty to the country
as a part of their duty to God…. He
will bless or curse this nation, according
to the course they [Christians]
take [in politics].2
Failure of the church (i.e., God’s redeemed
people) in America to take
right ground in politics in the past century
or so has led to our current
looming governmental crisis. We have
chosen the bramble (thorn bush) to
govern us and are reaping the consequences
(Judges 9:8-15).
It is not only a privilege, but a duty
and command for Christians to vote.
Civil government is a divine institution
of God that exists to protect the life,
liberty, and property of citizens, enabling
them to more effectively
advance the Kingdom of God in the
earth. Civil leaders are servants of the
people and of God, and are to govern
under His higher authority. Rulers are
to be ministers of God for good (see
Romans 13:4; Luke 22:25-26). For this
to occur, Christians must be involved
in selecting good men to office.
Voting is actually the most minimal
means of fulfilling our duty. We should
also be continually involved in the process
of training men to govern, and
getting them on the ballot. Hence, we
must be involved in local party politics.
If we are not involved in the
preparation process, we will continually
find we have no real choices on
the ballot when we vote. We will always
be faced with the prospect of
“choosing the lesser of two evils.” It
would be better to get involved in every
aspect of preparing and choosing
civil leaders so we have a real choice.
To elect Godly men, we should understand
the Biblical qualifications for
leaders, learn of the character and
worldview of the candidates, and vote
accordingly.
How do the two main presidential
candidates align with God’s standard?
I will only be comparing Barack
Obama and Mitt Romney since there
is no chance that any other candidate
can win (due to the nature of our electoral
system, we have two main
parties). If there is no real difference in
these two men, then it doesn’t matter if
you vote a third party, or not vote at
all. But if there is a difference, not voting
for the better of the two candidates
is in reality voting for the worst one.
We may lament that we do not have
a Godly candidate who can win this
election, but we only have ourselves to
blame. God instructs us to be good
stewards of civil society. He tells us to
prepare Godly leaders and to send
them out to govern in a Biblical manner.
We have not done so, hence, we
get the current presidential choices before
us – Obama or Romney. We will
have better choices in the future if we
fulfill our civil duties. Thankfully, we
do have some good choices (depending
upon where you live) in various races
on the local, state, and national levels.
We should work hard to get the good
guys elected.
1. Faith or True Religion – “men
who fear God”
The fear of God is an essential qualification
for a Godly official. What are
men like who fear God? Matthias Burnet
explained in an election sermon in
1803 that they are, “men acting under
the belief and awe of God as their inspector
and judge, to whom they
consider themselves accountable for
their conduct and whom they fear to
offend.”3
This is not just saying “I am a
Christian,” simply going to church, or
culturally embracing Christianity, but
it is having a reverential fear of the Almighty.
Many today think that the fear
of God is of no matter for our rulers,
and even see it as a negative factor.
Rev. Burnet said it well:
If God be such a being, as both
reason and revelation declare him to
be, an omniscient, holy, just and
all-powerful being, whose eyes are in
every place, beholding the evil and the
good, to punish the one and reward
the other according to their character
and deeds, then certainly, the fear and
awe of him must operate as the greatest
restraint from that which is evil,
and the most powerful incentive to
that which is good, and he who is
truly actuated by this principle, will
never give his voice or influence to
pervert justice or support iniquity. But
the man who does not believe in the
being and providence of God, or is not
actuated by the fear and awe of him,
has in many cases no bond or restraint
upon his conduct, and therefore is not
fit to be trusted with a nation’s weal,
which he will not scruple, whenever
he can with impunity, to sacrifice to
his lust or ambition.4
When the righteous rule, the people
rejoice. The righteous are those in right
standing with God — they fear God,
the true and living God. How do the
two major presidential candidates align
with this?
Barak Obama
Obama claims to
be a Christian,
but the church he
identified with
for over 20 years
was theologically
liberal and embraced
many
unorthodox positions.
In addition,
many of his actions
are contrary
to Biblical truth. Jesus said you would
know His followers by their fruit (Matthew
7:20); that is, how men act reveal
what is in their hearts. Jesus also said,
“If you love Me, keep My commandments”
(John 14:15). Obedience to His
Word is a primary indicator of a true
believer.
Professing faith yet living contrary
to the precepts of the Christian faith
can actually be worse than not professing
at all. Paul writes that those who
claim to represent God’s true covenant
people, yet break His law, dishonor
God and bring reproach to the true
faith (Roman 2:23-24). Such action
presents a false testimony to true
Christianity. Jesus’ strongest rebukes
were to those professing members of
the covenant who regularly violated
the commands of God.
Therefore, to evaluate Obama’s
faith we need to look at his words and,
more importantly, his deeds. While
Obama may claim to be a Christian,
his actions show a great hostility toward
Christianity, and, at times,
encouragement for Islam.
Here are a few of the scores of actions
revealing Obama’s hostility to
Biblical faith:5
The Providential Perspective Page 2
· April 2008 – Obama speaks disrespectfully
of Christians, saying they
“cling to guns or religion” and have an
“antipathy to people who aren’t like
them.”
· April 2009 – When speaking at
Georgetown University, Obama orders
that a monogram symbolizing Jesus’
name be covered when he is making
his speech.
· September 16, 2009 – The Obama administration
appoints as EEOC
Commissioner Chai Feldblum, who asserts
that society should “not tolerate”
any “private beliefs,” including religious
beliefs, if they may negatively
affect homosexual “equality.”
· May 2009 – While Obama does not
host any National Day of Prayer event
at the White House, he does host
White House Iftar dinners in honor of
Ramadan.
· 2010 – While every White House traditionally
issues hundreds of official
proclamations and statements on numerous
occasions, this White House
avoids traditional Biblical holidays
and events but regularly recognizes
major Muslim holidays, as evidenced
by its 2010 statements on Ramadan,
Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha.
· October 19, 2010 – Obama begins deliberately
omitting the phrase about
“the Creator” when quoting the Declaration
of Independence – an omission
he has made on no less than seven occasions.
· April 2011 – For the first time in
American history, Obama urges passage
of a non-discrimination law that
does not contain hiring protections for
religious groups, forcing religious organizations
to hire according to federal
mandates without regard to the dictates
of their own faith, thus eliminating
conscience protection in hiring.
· August 2011 – The Air Force stops
teaching the Just War theory to officers
in California because the course is
taught by chaplains and is based on a
philosophy introduced by St. Augustine
in the third century AD – a theory
long taught by civilized nations across
the world.
· May 2012 – The Obama administration
opposes legislation to protect the rights
of conscience for military chaplains
who do not wish to perform same-sex
marriages in violation of their
strongly-held religious beliefs.
· June 2012 – Bibles for the American
military have been printed in every
conflict since the American Revolution,
but the Obama Administration
revokes the long-standing U. S. policy
of allowing military service emblems
to be placed on those military Bibles.
· February 2012 – The Obama administration
makes effulgent apologies for
Korans being burned by the U. S. military,
but when Bibles were burned by
the military, numerous reasons were
offered why it was the right thing to
do.
As we shall see, Obama is also
anti-life, supporting and promoting
abortion consistently throughout his
public life, is against the Biblical family,
recently saying he supports
same-sex marriage, and promotes public
immorality. The conclusion is that,
while a professing Christian, Obama
shows little fruit of true Christian faith.
Mitt Romney
Romney is a professing
Mormon.
Mormonism is a
non-Christian religion
with
fundamental theological
beliefs that
are contrary to
Christian orthodoxy.
Mormons
do say they believe
the Bible and that Jesus is divine
and their savior, but this is not in the
same sense as Biblical Christianity.
Some of the doctrines of Mormonism
are strange, though it does promote a
general positive morality.
Some Christians have said that the
spiritual effects of having a Mormon as
President would be extremely negative,
and we should keep this from
happening at all costs. They say that
all of America’s Presidents have
claimed Christianity as their faith, and
we should keep it that way. Electing a
Mormon would only give credence to
this cultist faith, and possibly open up
America to new judgments of God.
It is true that all Presidents to date
have professed the Christian faith, but
they have certainly not all been true
believers, nor lived as Christians.
Many, especially in the 20th Century,
have implemented policies
contrary to the Bible and the principles
of liberty. Their actions have led
America away from God.
You could easily argue their actions
have done more to distort true Christianity
than many false religions. At
least with a Mormon President, most
people would know they believe in a
different God than that of the Christian
faith, or at least have a better opportunity
to learn this, which has occurred
since Romney’s rise. (Romney expressed
this recently when speaking at
Liberty University, saying he knew
evangelicals have different beliefs than
Mormons.) Leaders professing Christianity,
but not demonstrating it in
personal action or political policies,
would present a false and distorted image
of true Biblical Christianity and its
good fruit. This would drive many
away from Christianity, saying “if this
is what Christianity produces I want
nothing of it.”
Regarding his actions, Romney is
pro-life and upholds the Biblical family,
so in these two important matters,
unlike Obama, he embraces the ideals
of the Christian faith. Romney has also
not shown hostility toward Christianity
as has Obama. For example, he is
against forcing businesses and organizations
to provide abortion services as
part of the medical care for employees.
Neither candidate acts like a regenerated
believer who meets the
qualification of fearing God as the Bible
presents. But there are some clear
distinctions between the two regarding
the other two qualities.
2. Morality or Christian
Character – “men of truth,”
“hate dishonest gain”
A second qualification for Godly
officials is morality. They should be
“men truly honest and upright in their
principles and views, not actuated and
governed by the sordid motives of self
interest and aggrandizement in their
desire and execution of office, but by a
sincere regard to the public good.”6
There are many examples in history
where corrupt and unprincipled rulers
have brought on all kinds of miseries
to mankind—including loss of liberty
and the downfall of nations. Socialist
and progressive leaders of the 20th
Century did much to steal the liberty
and property of many. This includes
many American leaders, such as President
Franklin Roosevelt, who may
have done some good things, but did
many things to increase the welfare
state and diminish American liberty.
The actions of these leaders flowed
from a wrong worldview, but were often
accompanied by dishonest and
immoral behavior.
Chandler Robbins, in an Election
Sermon in 1791, said, “Nothing will so
The Providential Perspective Page 3
surely, so rapidly bring on the dissolution
of society, and the loss of the
liberties of a people, as a want of virtue
and integrity in their rulers.”7
Two important character qualities
needed by rulers are honesty and humility.
Honesty is obviously important
in a ruler. Proverbs 29:12 says “if a
ruler pays attention to falsehood [hearkens
to lies], all his ministers become
wicked.” If a man cannot keep personal
vows or oaths, we cannot expect
him to keep national vows. We have
witnessed this in recent years.
Knowledge or intelligence (as man
sees it) without honesty — a good genius
with a bad heart — is worse than
an ignorant honest man because the
evil genius could find more subtle
ways to rob the people of their rights.
Some have argued support for certain
candidates based upon their intelligence,
saying: “He’s so smart. We
ought to elect him.” Yet, if a man, no
matter how smart, is reasoning from
wrong presuppositions, or has bad
character, he will not be a good leader.
Humility is a second great quality
needed in leaders. Jesus taught that
leaders are to be servants (Matthew
20:25-28).
How do the presidential candidates
align with Christian character?
Obama
One positive aspect of Obama’s
character is that he appears to love his
wife and children. Yet, at the same
time he supports gay marriage and is
radically pro-abortion. While apparently
faithful to his wife, he has done
much to undermine public morality by
promoting pre-marital sex. For example,
in August 2010, the Obama
administration cut funding for 176 abstinence
education programs, desiring
rather to fund teaching teens that sex
before marriage is okay if it is “safe.”8
His positions on the two most important
moral issues of life and family
follow:
Anti-life / Pro-abortion
· Obama is strongly pro-abortion. He
voted against banning partial birth
abortion as a legislator in Illinois.
· January 2009 – Obama lifts restrictions
on U.S. government funding for
groups that provide abortion services
or counseling abroad, forcing taxpayers
to fund pro-abortion groups that
either promote or perform abortions in
other nations.9
· March 2009 – Obama gave $50 million
for the UNFPA, the UN
population agency that promotes abortion
and works closely with Chinese
population control officials who use
forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations.10
· July 2010 – the Obama administration
uses federal funds in violation of federal
law to get Kenya to change its
constitution to include abortion.11
Promotes homosexual lifestyle
and marriage
· July 2009 – The Obama administration
illegally extends federal benefits to
same-sex partners of Foreign Service
and Executive Branch employees, in
direct violation of the federal Defense
of Marriage Act.12
· July 2011 – Obama allows homosexuals
to serve openly in the military,
reversing a policy originally instituted
by George Washington in March
1778.13
· 2012 – Obama announces his support
for same-sex marriage. The Democratic
party platform embraces
same-sex marriage as well.
There are numerous incidents of
Obama being dishonest. He has often
violated his word. For one, Obama
promised he would not rush legislation
through Congress, but he rushed both
the stimulus bill and Obamacare.
Obamacare was pushed through so
rapidly that few, if any, Congressmen
even read it all. Remember then
Speaker Pelosi’s famous comment that
we need to pass it so we can learn what
is in it. We have since learned health
care providers must cover abortions
and also child sterilizations without parental
consent.14
While running for President in 2008
Obama promised to cut the deficit in
half by 2012. Under Obama, deficit
spending has more than doubled that
of previous years, amassing over $5
trillion dollars during his term. While
some concession could be given to cutting
it in half, he has done little to even
try to limit government spending. He
did call for a freeze on pay of federal
workers and for cutting some programs,
but the only real cuts appear to
be coming in military spending. Overall,
spending under Obama has been
40% greater than tax revenue, hence
we have had to borrow more and more
money, leading to a current national
debt of about $16 trillion.
Some have argued that under Bush
and other Presidents there was large
deficit spending, so we cannot condemn
Obama for doing the same. The
general nature of deficit spending by
the federal government over the years,
under both Democrats and Republicans,
is immoral and unbiblical. It is in
fact, theft, violating God’s commandment
to not steal, since future
generations will be forced to pay for
current spending.15 It is wrong no matter
who does it. We must stop this or
experience grave consequences.
Obama has taken deficit spending
to a new unprecedented level. So if
Bush was wrong (and he was), Obama
is doubly wrong. We must, of course,
remember that deficit spending cannot
occur without the approval of Congress,
so we should always look at the
House and Senate budgets, and how
our Congressmen voted regarding
these budgets, to help determine for
whom we should vote. (You should
take note that the Senate under Democratic
control has not passed a budget
in over 3 years.)
Some of Obama’s recent campaign
ads are astoundingly dishonest. Like
the claim of one that a man’s wife died
of cancer due to lack of insurance that
is blamed on Romney’s actions while
at Bain Capital. Even the leftist media
has pointed out the absurdity of this.16
Romney
Like Obama, Romney appears to
love his family and wife, and presents
a positive image of the family. While
not a true believer, he generally adheres
to Biblical positions on many
moral issues (though with some clear
differences; see below). In addition, he
has pledged to bring government
spending under control, not stealing
from future generations by borrowing
money today. His selection of Paul
Ryan as his vice-presidential running
mate shows he is serious about taking
hold of runaway federal budgets because
Ryan was the author of a very
specific bill that would balance the
budget (Romney endorsed the bill).
Life Issue
· Romney has been called a flip-flopper
on issues, in particular on abortion. In
recent years, Romney has spoken out
against abortion and called for overturning
Roe vs. Wade; however, while
governor of Massachusetts, Romney
repeatedly described himself as
pro-choice. He explained the evolution
of his beliefs on abortion in an interview
with the Des Moines Register in
The Providential Perspective Page 4
2007, stating, “I was effectively
pro-choice when I ran for office. When
I became governor of Massachusetts,
the first time a bill came to [me] that
dealt with life, I simply could not side
with—with taking a life, and I came
on the side of life. Every bill that came
to my desk, every issue that related to
protecting the sanctity of life, I came
down on the side of life.”17 Romney’s
current position is that he’s prolife but,
“I’m in favor of abortion being legal in
the case of rape and incest, and the
health and life of the mother.”
Family Issue
· Romney has expressed support for the
Biblical family and opposition to gay
marriage, stating “I believe we should
have a federal amendment in the Constitution
that defines marriage as a
relationship between a man and
woman, because I believe the ideal
place to raise a child is in a home with
a mom and a dad.”
· He reiterated his opposition to gay
marriage after President Obama offered
support for gay rights in May
2012, stating “I believe marriage is a
relationship between a man and a
woman.”
· However, Romney has expressed support
for homosexual adoption. This
past May, in an interview with Neil
Cavuto of Fox News, he explained that
while he is against the concept of homosexual
“marriage,” he does believe
that homosexual couples should be
able to adopt children. Romney said,
“if two people of the same gender
want to live together, want to have a
loving relationship, or even to adopt a
child, in my state, individuals of the
same sex were able to adopt children.
In my view, that’s something that people
have a right to do, but, to call that
‘marriage’ is something that in my
view is a departure from the real
meaning of that word.”18
· Romney believes homosexuals should
be allowed in the Boy Scouts, but supports
the right for the Scouts to decide
on this issue. “I support the right of the
Boy Scouts of America to decide what
it wants to do on that issue,” Romney
stated from a 1994 political debate,
which a Romney spokesman has said
remains his position. “I feel that all
people should be able to participate in
the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual
orientation.”19
There are clearly differences in the
views of Obama and Romney on life.
Since valuing life is of highest concern
to God, this one issue alone should be
enough to sway Biblical thinkers away
from Obama.
How one views the family is also a
central issue from a Biblical perspective.
Romney’s view is more closely
aligned to the historic and traditional
Biblical view than Obama’s, although
his support for gay adoption is troubling
since it gives credence to the
homosexual lifestyle, in contrast to
what the Bible teaches regarding this
behavior.
3. Biblical Worldview or
Knowledge – “men of truth,”
“wise,” “discerning”
Both Obama and Romney fail to
align with the first Biblical qualification.
Obama also generally fails to
meet the second qualification, while
Romney embraces some important
Biblically moral positions, like being
prolife. It is especially in this third
Biblical qualification for governing officials
that distinctions arise.
In many ways this third qualification
is of most importance because a
man will act and vote based upon how
he thinks. If he thinks wrong he will
vote wrong. The best leaders will have
a Biblical philosophy of government,
understanding its purpose (to protect
the life, liberty, and property of citizens)
and limited nature. Government
is not our savior. It is not to provide for
us, control our children, govern our
property, or regulate every aspect of
our lives.
The tendency of fallen man is to assume
too much power, with this often
justified for benevolent reasons. Jesus
taught we are to render to Caesar (civil
government) things under his jurisdiction
(which are very limited) and to
God the things that are God’s. In
America today, we have been rendering
to Caesar the things that are God’s
as we have moved towards socialism.
Under all forms of statism, civil government
assumes the role of God, the
family, the church, and the private sector.20
Socialism is the golden calf of modern
America and is a great threat to
liberty and prosperity. Discerning
whether a candidate adheres to a Biblical
or socialistic philosophy of
government comes down to the question,
“Who controls the property and
children in the nation?” Whoever controls
the property controls the present,
whoever controls the children controls
the future. God has given this
responsibility to the family, not the
state.
We must seek to place men in office
who understand the divine, but very
limited role, of civil government.
Without knowledgeable Christians participating
in elections, America will
become another Tower of Babel, with
man looking to himself for all things.
As Rev. Burnet stated in his sermon
before the Connecticut Assembly, we
should choose “men of good natural
understanding and competent acquired
knowledge.”21 Knowledge is more important
than belief for daily living out
your life. Many people say, “I believe
in Christ,” but this means different
things for different people. Your
knowledge determines your actions
and belief, for as a man “thinks in his
heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7).
A few years ago I ruptured my
Achilles tendon playing basketball.
The first question I asked my family
doctor about the various specialists
who could perform surgery was, “who
is best able to repair it?” not “which, if
any, doctor is a Christian?” Now, if
two were equally skilled, I would certainly
choose the Christian.
The same concept applies to rulers.
We want those who best know how to
govern Biblically — those who have a
Biblical philosophy of government.
Some non-Christians’ governmental
philosophy is more Biblical than some
Christians’. Most rulers will not have
all Biblical qualifications, so we must
weigh all factors. Mature Christians
should have mature Biblical knowledge.
Unfortunately, many Christians
never develop mature Biblical knowledge.
I would rather elect an
unregenerate man with a Biblical view
of governance than a believer who
thinks like a pagan, for your knowledge
determines your actions.
The Bible says we are to help the
poor. To some Christians this means
using the force of government to make
everyone fulfill this duty. Those with
this philosophy would tax all citizens
and take this money to give to others.
This is really socialism, justified under
the guise of fulfilling our Biblical duty.
History has shown socialism does not
work, and a study of the Scriptures reveals
our duty to the poor must be
fulfilled voluntarily by individual
choice, and in a Biblical manner. Considering
that one third of our tax
dollars is spent on social programs, our
The Providential Perspective Page 5
rulers’ governmental philosophy matters
greatly.
Righteous rulers will know the Biblical
purpose of government and civil
law, which is to restrain the evil action
of men in society (Romans 13:1-4; 1
Peter 2:13-14), so that they will not try
to make the law do what God never intended
it to do.
Godly rulers will also understand
jurisdictional authority. Jesus taught in
Matthew 22:17-21 that the state has a
legitimate function, but that it is limited
and should not usurp the authority
He gave to individuals, the family, and
the church. It is essential that our
elected officials understand to whom
God has given authority to do what.
The result of usurpation of authority
by the civil government from the family
and church is tyranny.22
Understanding the limited role of
government is very important, because
the tendency of fallen man is to centralize
and increase power, which is
often done in the name of good. Most
rulers in the world today are statists or
socialists, including President Obama.
Those with a statist philosophy see
civil government as the primary authority
in the world—the state (and its
law) is the savior. In a statist world,
there is no other savior; government
must save man for there is no supreme
God to do so.
While there is some significant differences
in the Republican and
Democratic parties (comparing the
Party Platforms shows profound differences),
most of America’s national
elected officials are socialists or statists,
as evidenced by spending
appropriations of tax dollars. A minority
of principled representatives adhere
to the limited jurisdiction of government,
while most go along with
uncontrolled spending. Ever increasing
spending by government is done in the
name of helping society and the citizens,
and is considered legitimate
since, to many, the law or government
is savior. This often takes the form of
taking from one group of citizens to
give to others, which is not compassionate
governing, but rather stealing.
Government is to protect its citizens,
not plunder them.
In addition to understanding the
purpose of government and jurisdictional
authority, there are many other
aspects of a Biblical philosophy of
government that Godly leaders should
embrace, including: being pro-life,
pro-liberty, and pro-property rights;
having knowledge of inalienable
rights, the laws of nature, and the laws
of nature’s God; understanding the
power and form of free nations; and
recognzing that self-government under
God is the foundation of all earthly
governments desiring liberty.23
To summarize, policies of leaders
that give more control of property or
children to the state is movement away
from the Biblical standard. In general,
an increase of taxes – especially
unbiblical taxes (inheritance, property,
and graduated income) – shifts control
of property from the family to the government,
which undermines the family
and leads to loss of liberty.
What if no candidate on the ballot
has all the Biblical characteristics?
Consider the one whose policies result
in smaller government, the one that allows
families to manage their property
and children, the one that allows all individuals
to keep more of their money,
then vote for him.
When comparing the worldview
and political philosophy of Obama and
Romney, we see a great difference in
the two candidates.
Obama
Issues of importance to Christians
(and others) and the Biblical position,
include: 1) Pro-life – protect the unborn,
against abortion; 2) Preserve the
Biblical family; 3) Oppose homosexual
agenda; 4) Public morality; 5)
Protect family property rights; 6)
Limited government; 7) Judicial appointments
that uphold Biblical issues.
Obama’s views on life, the family, religious
liberty, and public morality were
presented above. Some other views of
his include:
Governmental View: Statist /
Socialist / Big Government
· Taxes: President Obama has called for
the so-called “Buffett Rule,” which
would impose a 30% tax rate on all individuals
making over one million
dollars a year. As a senator, Obama
consistently voted against abolishing
or raising the limits on the so-called
“death tax” or inheritance taxes.
· Obama’s national healthcare program
(Obamacare) moves the control of
medical care from the private sector to
government. Obamacare will place another
60 million Americans in
Medicaid, a system that is already
bankrupting the states. Under
Obamacare employers must provide
“free” contraceptives, sterilization and
abortion-inducing drugs to employees
as part of their health care plan, hence
forcing many religious organizations
and businesses to violate their conscience
and religious convictions.
· Welfare state – Obama has pushed to
greatly expand the food stamp program
where now 1 in 5 American
families receive food stamps.
· Obama ended welfare reform by illegally
gutting the federal work
requirement for those receiving government
money.24
· Obama administration spent about $50
billion of taxpayer money (with current
loss to taxpayers of $25 billion25)
to bail out General Motors, throwing
all bondholders “under the bus” and
giving control of the company to government
bureaucrats and unions,
whose past demands brought the company
to the point of bankruptcy and
need of being bailed out in the first
place. (Some have claimed this to be a
good thing, but propping up a
non-productive and ineffectively run
business is no different than what
communist nations have done with
their government run and owned businesses.
It is not a great
accomplishment to save a business that
cannot compete in the free market with
$25 billion of money belonging to
someone else.) There were similar
bailouts for other companies.
· Obama’s “Cash for clunkers” program
was a government subsidy to attempt
to direct consumer spending. This
forced taxpayers to subsidize his
neighbor’s car purchase.
· Money to “green companies” that have
gone bankrupt and could never survive
on their own. (Solyndra cost at least a
half-billion public dollars.)
Lack of fiscal responsibility
· The $800 billion stimulus package was
a failure. The Keynesian philosophy of
having government spending to stimulate
economy does not work, and has
never worked. There has been a net
loss of jobs since Obama became President
and attempted to create new jobs
by spending borrowed money.
· Federal deficit has increased over $5
trillion in less than 4 years.
· Obama’s annual budget deficits have
been over $1 trillion each year, dwarfing
the deficits under Bush and
previous Presidents. Deficit spending
is wrong, and consistent deficit spending
for decades contributed to the
fiscal mess that Obama inherited, but
The Providential Perspective Page 6
his actions have compounded the
mess. He plans to continue the same
failed policies.
Obama energy policies stifle
economy26
· Wasting billions on loan guarantees
(including bankrupt Solyndra, Solar
Trust of America, Beacon Power and
Energy).
· Banking on electric car dream machines
that are impractical and few
want to buy.
· Saying “No” to the Keystone Pipeline
and to domestic energy production.
This when recent developments in
technology have enabled cheap extraction
of shale oil, and increased the
useful oil reserves in the US to more
than Saudi Arabia, making energy independence
easily achievable.
· The EPA’s regulatory train wreck: The
Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) ream of new regulations will
adversely affect existing power plants
(not to mention private property of
many individuals).
· Job-killing CAFE Standards
These are just a few of the Obama
policies and laws that are not in line
with a Biblical worldview. Since laws
are the working religion of a people,
we gain much insight into the true and
practical faith of Obama. His profession
does not align with his action.
Titus 1:16 speaks of those that “profess
to know God, but by their deeds they
deny Him, being detestable and disobedient,
and worthless for any good
deed.” This is an apt description of
Obama regarding his service in civil
government. In evaluating Obama’s
political philosophy overall, he is
likely the least Biblical of any of our
Presidents.
Romney
What are Mitt Romney’s views regarding
these important issues? His
view of life and the family were presented
above. Following are some of
his views on spending and the scope of
government.
Governmental View: semi-limited
· Taxes: Romney supports eliminating
the estate tax (the “death tax”) and
eliminating all capital gains taxes for
those who earn less than $200,000 a
year.
· Romney has proposed a balanced budget
amendment requiring Congress to
submit a balanced budget each fiscal
year to help contain the current budget
deficit.
· In early 2009, Romney came out
against the stimulus bill passed by
Congress and signed by President
Obama, calling for increased tax cuts
over increased spending.
· Romney strongly endorsed the plan
put forward by Congressman Paul
Ryan in early 2012 that proposes to
solve the budget deficit by cutting
nearly $5.3 trillion in federal spending
while simultaneously slashing tax rates
for Americans earning over $150,000
a year, calling it “simply marvelous”
and a “bold and exciting effort” in
March 2012.
· Romney has repeatedly expressed support
for repealing Obamacare, stating
in December 2011, “If I’m President,
we’re going to get rid of ObamaCare
and return, under our Constitution—the
10th Amendment—the
responsibility of health care to the people
in the states.” However, as
governor of Massachusetts, Romney
signed a bill setting up a state health
care system, though he says this would
not be appropriate for every state.
· Unlike Obama, Romney supports prohibiting
governmental mandate of
abortion services, and hence, not violating
people’s religious liberty.
Energy
· Romney supports the development of
all of America’s energy sources, including
coal, oil, nuclear, and
alternative sources, with the goal of
making America energy independent.
He is against subsidizing wind power.
Romney embraces a plan to balance
the budget and get government spending
under control. Reducing
government spending and regulations
will help the economy to grow, as the
private sector will have more funds to
create new goods and services. He is
for more of a limited government than
Obama, which is good, but, like most
of our current leaders, Romney is still
a progressive in many ways; for example,
he oversaw the establishment of a
state health-care program in Massachusetts.
His policies are a step in the
right direction compared to where we
have been going, but in reality only
slows the train down. It is still going in
the wrong direction.
Under Obama’s fiscal and moral
leadership, the train is heading toward
the cliff at 100 miles per hour. In general,
those who have led the nation in
recent generations, both Democrats
and Republicans, have been going the
wrong way on the track headed toward
the cliff. Some have slowed the train
but what is needed is to turn the train
around. There are those currently serving
in government who want to do this,
and have tried, but we need more servant
leaders who adhere to the Biblical
qualifications of Godly officials before
this is possible.
Since slowing the train down will
give us more time to prepare new leaders,
Romney seems the best option at
this time. In contrast to Obama, he also
supports life and upholding the Biblical
definition of marriage. Romney
certainly does not meet all of the Biblical
qualifications for Godly officials,
but he comes closer to the standard
than Obama. We cannot afford to continue
down the wrong track at 100
miles per hour because the cliff is
coming soon. Slowing the train to 20
miles per hour may give us time to
awaken to our civil duties, and restore
Godly leadership to the nation.
To those who say they cannot vote
for either and will vote “other,” this is
in reality a vote for the least Biblical
guy. By your tacit consent, you are
helping put the worst guy in office. At
100 miles per hour, I fear we cannot
last long enough to restore America to
its place as the most free, prosperous,
virtuous, and just nation the world has
ever seen.
Godly leaders begin with Godly citizens.
Reform begins in our house, but
it will eventually be reflected in the
White House. America needs Godly
transformation. Those that are transformed
need to be eternally vigilant to
have this reflected in our civil leaders.
Noah Webster summarized the effect
of unprincipled men in office:
Let it be impressed
on your
mind that God commands
you to
choose for yourselves
rulers, “just
men who rule in the
fear of God.” The
preservation of a republican
government depends
on the faithful discharge of this
duty; if the citizens neglect their duty
and place unprincipled men in office,
the government will soon be corrupted;
laws will be made, not for the
public good, so much as for selfish or
local purposes; corrupt or incompetent
The Providential Perspective Page 7
men will be appointed to execute the
laws; the public revenues will be
squandered on unworthy men; and the
rights of the citizens will be violated
or disregarded. If a republican government
fails to secure public prosperity
and happiness, it must be because the
citizens neglect the divine commands,
and elect bad men to make and administer
the laws.27
The election of unprincipled men
produces misery and tyranny, but
Godly rulers bring peace, prosperity,
justice, and rejoicing. If we fulfill our
duty and place Godly men in office
(who have knowledge, character, and
faith) our future will be bright. According
to 2 Samuel 23:3-4,
The God of Israel said…He who
rules…in the fear of God, is as the
light of the morning when the sun
rises, a morning without clouds, when
the tender grass springs out of the
earth, through sunshine after rain.
PP
[This article can be found on our
website: providencefoundation.com]
End Notes
1. For more on this subject see, Stephen
McDowell, Qualifications for Godly Officials,
Building Godly Nations, Charlottesville, Vir.: Providence
Foundation, 2004, pp. 231 ff.
2. Charles G. Finney, Revivals of Religion, Virginia
Beach: CBN University Press, 1978, pp.
311-312.
3. Matthias Burnet, Religion and Government
the Foundations of Order, Peace, and Security, in
Society, An Election Sermon Preached at a General
Assembly of the State of Connecticut at
Hartford, on the Day of the Anniversary Election,
May 12, 1803.
4. Ibid.
5. List from David Barton, America’s Most
Biblically-Hostile U.S. President, WallBuilders,
2012,
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp
?id=106938#FN10
6. Burnet.
7. Chandler Robbins, And Also in Judah Things
Went Well. A Sermon Preached before His Excellency
John Hancock, Governour; His Honor
Samuel Adams, Lieutant-Governour; the Honourable
the Council, and the Honourable the Senate
and House of Representatives, of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, May 25, 1791, Being the
Day of General Election.
8. Barton.
9. Barton,
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp
?id=106938#FN10
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. http://www.catholic.org/health/story.php?id=47274
15. For more on this see Stephen McDowell, The
Economy from a Biblical Perspective and Honest
Money and Banking, both published by the
Providence Foundation.
16. This ad was not directly produced by the
Obama campaign; but he in no way discredited it,
and he could have certainly stopped it.
17.
http://ajherrma.hubpages.com/hub/mittromney
18.
http://ajherrma.hubpages.com/hub/mittromney
19
.http://christiannews.net/mitt-romney-comes-out-in
-support-of-homosexual-boy-scout-leaders-membe
rs/
20. See McDowell, Rendering to Caesar the
Things that Are God’s, Providence Foundation.
21. Burnet
22. See McDowell, Building Godly Nations,
Chapter 3 to learn the purpose and responsibilities
of the individual, family, church, and state.
23. See Liberating the Nations, Chapter 1, by
Stephen McDowell and Mark Beliles, Charlottesville,
Vir.: Providence Foundation, 1995.
24. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309300/obama-ends-welfare-reform-we-knowit-robert-rector
25. Payback estimate for GM bailout slips, The
Daily Progress, Tuesday, August 14, 2012, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
26. http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/11/obamas-ten-worst-energy-poli
cies/?query=Obama’s+Ten+Worst+Energy+Policies
27. Noah Webster, History of the United Sates,
New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1833, pp. 307-308.
___________
Providence Foundation
Resources
Biblical Worldview
University
Order these courses, books,
and other resources today.
www.providencefoundation.com
Call 434-978-4535, or email us and
request a catalog:


in**@pr******************.com












Become a Member and
Receive Great Benefits
Join with us as we work to bring
Godly transformation to America and
the nations.
Providence Foundation Basic
Member: receive our newsletters, a
30% discount on all our books, videos,
and materials, a free online course, online
access to scores of books and
articles, plus discounts to our seminars.
Premium Member: receive Basic
Member benefits plus a free book, $80
voucher toward one of our BWU
Courses, personal coaching, and more.
To join or receive more information
email us or visit our website:
providencefoundation.com
Website: We are continually adding
new articles, videos, and materials on
our website to help equip you to disciple
the nations.
Facebook: We also have many articles
and updates on our facebook page,
Providence Foundation. Like us today.
The Providential Perspective Page 8
The Providential Perspective is a regular
publication of the Providence Foundation
and contains contemporary writings or excerpts
from historical documents which focus
on the relationship between God and
history or Christianity and culture. It is sent to
members of the Foundation, those people
who financially support this ministry.
The Providence Foundation is a
non-profit, tax-exempt educational organization
whose mission is to train and network
leaders to transform their culture for Christ.
For more information:
Providence Foundation
P.O. Box 6759
Charlottesville,VA 22906
Phone/Fax: 434-978-4535
Email:

in**@pr******************.com












Website: www.providencefoundation.com
· Romney has expressed support for the Biblical family and opposition to gay marriage, stating “I believe we should have a federal amendment in the Constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and woman, because I believe the ideal place to raise a child is in a home with a mom and a dad.”
· He reiterated his opposition to gay marriage after President Obama offered support for gay rights in May 2012, stating “I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.”
· However, Romney has expressed support for homosexual adoption. This past May, in an interview with Neil Cavuto of Fox News, he explained that while he is against the concept of homosexual “marriage,” he does believe that homosexual couples should be able to adopt children. Romney said, “if two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, or even to adopt a child, in my state, individuals of the same sex were able to adopt children. In my view, that’s something that people have a right to do, but, to call that ‘marriage’ is something that in my view is a departure from the real meaning of that word.”18

· Romney believes homosexuals should
be allowed in the Boy Scouts, but supports
the right for the Scouts to decide
on this issue. “I support the right of the
Boy Scouts of America to decide what
it wants to do on that issue,” Romney
stated from a 1994 political debate,
which a Romney spokesman has said
remains his position. “I feel that all
people should be able to participate in
the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual
orientation.”19
There are clearly differences in the
views of Obama and Romney on life.
Since valuing life is of highest concern
to God, this one issue alone should be
enough to sway Biblical thinkers away
from Obama.
How one views the family is also a
central issue from a Biblical perspective.
Romney’s view is more closely
aligned to the historic and traditional
Biblical view than Obama’s, although
his support for gay adoption is troubling
since it gives credence to the
homosexual lifestyle, in contrast to
what the Bible teaches regarding this
behavior.
3. Biblical Worldview or
Knowledge – “men of truth,”
“wise,” “discerning”
Both Obama and Romney fail to
align with the first Biblical qualification.
Obama also generally fails to
meet the second qualification, while
Romney embraces some important
Biblically moral positions, like being
prolife. It is especially in this third
Biblical qualification for governing officials
that distinctions arise.
In many ways this third qualification
is of most importance because a
man will act and vote based upon how
he thinks. If he thinks wrong he will
vote wrong. The best leaders will have
a Biblical philosophy of government,
understanding its purpose (to protect
the life, liberty, and property of citizens)
and limited nature. Government
is not our savior. It is not to provide for
us, control our children, govern our
property, or regulate every aspect of
our lives.
The tendency of fallen man is to assume
too much power, with this often
justified for benevolent reasons. Jesus
taught we are to render to Caesar (civil
government) things under his jurisdiction
(which are very limited) and to
God the things that are God’s. In
America today, we have been rendering
to Caesar the things that are God’s
as we have moved towards socialism.
Under all forms of statism, civil government
assumes the role of God, the
family, the church, and the private sector.
20
Socialism is the golden calf of modern
America and is a great threat to
liberty and prosperity. Discerning
whether a candidate adheres to a Biblical
or socialistic philosophy of
government comes down to the question,
“Who controls the property and
children in the nation?” Whoever controls
the property controls the present,
whoever controls the children controls
the future. God has given this
responsibility to the family, not the
state.
We must seek to place men in office
who understand the divine, but very
limited role, of civil government.
Without knowledgeable Christians participating
in elections, America will
become another Tower of Babel, with
man looking to himself for all things.
As Rev. Burnet stated in his sermon
before the Connecticut Assembly, we
should choose “men of good natural
understanding and competent acquired
knowledge.”21 Knowledge is more important
than belief for daily living out
your life. Many people say, “I believe
in Christ,” but this means different
things for different people. Your
knowledge determines your actions
and belief, for as a man “thinks in his
heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7).
A few years ago I ruptured my
Achilles tendon playing basketball.
The first question I asked my family
doctor about the various specialists
who could perform surgery was, “who
is best able to repair it?” not “which, if
any, doctor is a Christian?” Now, if
two were equally skilled, I would certainly
choose the Christian.
The same concept applies to rulers.
We want those who best know how to
govern Biblically — those who have a
Biblical philosophy of government.
Some non-Christians’ governmental
philosophy is more Biblical than some
Christians’. Most rulers will not have
all Biblical qualifications, so we must
weigh all factors. Mature Christians
should have mature Biblical knowledge.
Unfortunately, many Christians
never develop mature Biblical knowledge.
I would rather elect an
unregenerate man with a Biblical view
of governance than a believer who
thinks like a pagan, for your knowledge
determines your actions.
The Bible says we are to help the
poor. To some Christians this means
using the force of government to make
everyone fulfill this duty. Those with
this philosophy would tax all citizens
and take this money to give to others.
This is really socialism, justified under
the guise of fulfilling our Biblical duty.
History has shown socialism does not
work, and a study of the Scriptures reveals
our duty to the poor must be
fulfilled voluntarily by individual
choice, and in a Biblical manner. Considering
that one third of our tax
dollars is spent on social programs, our
The Providential Perspective Page 5
rulers’ governmental philosophy matters
greatly.
Righteous rulers will know the Biblical
purpose of government and civil
law, which is to restrain the evil action
of men in society (Romans 13:1-4; 1
Peter 2:13-14), so that they will not try
to make the law do what God never intended
it to do.
Godly rulers will also understand
jurisdictional authority. Jesus taught in
Matthew 22:17-21 that the state has a
legitimate function, but that it is limited
and should not usurp the authority
He gave to individuals, the family, and
the church. It is essential that our
elected officials understand to whom
God has given authority to do what.
The result of usurpation of authority
by the civil government from the family
and church is tyranny.22
Understanding the limited role of
government is very important, because
the tendency of fallen man is to centralize
and increase power, which is
often done in the name of good. Most
rulers in the world today are statists or
socialists, including President Obama.
Those with a statist philosophy see
civil government as the primary authority
in the world—the state (and its
law) is the savior. In a statist world,
there is no other savior; government
must save man for there is no supreme
God to do so.
While there is some significant differences
in the Republican and
Democratic parties (comparing the
Party Platforms shows profound differences),
most of America’s national
elected officials are socialists or statists,
as evidenced by spending
appropriations of tax dollars. A minority
of principled representatives adhere
to the limited jurisdiction of government,
while most go along with
uncontrolled spending. Ever increasing
spending by government is done in the
name of helping society and the citizens,
and is considered legitimate
since, to many, the law or government
is savior. This often takes the form of
taking from one group of citizens to
give to others, which is not compassionate
governing, but rather stealing.
Government is to protect its citizens,
not plunder them.
In addition to understanding the
purpose of government and jurisdictional
authority, there are many other
aspects of a Biblical philosophy of
government that Godly leaders should
embrace, including: being pro-life,
pro-liberty, and pro-property rights;
having knowledge of inalienable
rights, the laws of nature, and the laws
of nature’s God; understanding the
power and form of free nations; and
recognzing that self-government under
God is the foundation of all earthly
governments desiring liberty.23
To summarize, policies of leaders
that give more control of property or
children to the state is movement away
from the Biblical standard. In general,
an increase of taxes – especially
unbiblical taxes (inheritance, property,
and graduated income) – shifts control
of property from the family to the government,
which undermines the family
and leads to loss of liberty.
What if no candidate on the ballot
has all the Biblical characteristics?
Consider the one whose policies result
in smaller government, the one that allows
families to manage their property
and children, the one that allows all individuals
to keep more of their money,
then vote for him.
When comparing the worldview
and political philosophy of Obama and
Romney, we see a great difference in
the two candidates.
Obama
Issues of importance to Christians
(and others) and the Biblical position,
include: 1) Pro-life – protect the unborn,
against abortion; 2) Preserve the
Biblical family; 3) Oppose homosexual
agenda; 4) Public morality; 5)
Protect family property rights; 6)
Limited government; 7) Judicial appointments
that uphold Biblical issues.
Obama’s views on life, the family, religious
liberty, and public morality were
presented above. Some other views of
his include:
Governmental View: Statist /
Socialist / Big Government
· Taxes: President Obama has called for
the so-called “Buffett Rule,” which
would impose a 30% tax rate on all individuals
making over one million
dollars a year. As a senator, Obama
consistently voted against abolishing
or raising the limits on the so-called
“death tax” or inheritance taxes.
· Obama’s national healthcare program
(Obamacare) moves the control of
medical care from the private sector to
government. Obamacare will place another
60 million Americans in
Medicaid, a system that is already
bankrupting the states. Under
Obamacare employers must provide
“free” contraceptives, sterilization and
abortion-inducing drugs to employees
as part of their health care plan, hence
forcing many religious organizations
and businesses to violate their conscience
and religious convictions.
· Welfare state – Obama has pushed to
greatly expand the food stamp program
where now 1 in 5 American
families receive food stamps.
· Obama ended welfare reform by illegally
gutting the federal work
requirement for those receiving government
money.24
· Obama administration spent about $50
billion of taxpayer money (with current
loss to taxpayers of $25 billion25)
to bail out General Motors, throwing
all bondholders “under the bus” and
giving control of the company to government
bureaucrats and unions,
whose past demands brought the company
to the point of bankruptcy and
need of being bailed out in the first
place. (Some have claimed this to be a
good thing, but propping up a
non-productive and ineffectively run
business is no different than what
communist nations have done with
their government run and owned businesses.
It is not a great
accomplishment to save a business that
cannot compete in the free market with
$25 billion of money belonging to
someone else.) There were similar
bailouts for other companies.
· Obama’s “Cash for clunkers” program
was a government subsidy to attempt
to direct consumer spending. This
forced taxpayers to subsidize his
neighbor’s car purchase.
· Money to “green companies” that have
gone bankrupt and could never survive
on their own. (Solyndra cost at least a
half-billion public dollars.)
Lack of fiscal responsibility
· The $800 billion stimulus package was
a failure. The Keynesian philosophy of
having government spending to stimulate
economy does not work, and has
never worked. There has been a net
loss of jobs since Obama became President
and attempted to create new jobs
by spending borrowed money.
· Federal deficit has increased over $5
trillion in less than 4 years.
· Obama’s annual budget deficits have
been over $1 trillion each year, dwarfing
the deficits under Bush and
previous Presidents. Deficit spending
is wrong, and consistent deficit spending
for decades contributed to the
fiscal mess that Obama inherited, but
The Providential Perspective Page 6
his actions have compounded the
mess. He plans to continue the same
failed policies.
Obama energy policies stifle
economy26
· Wasting billions on loan guarantees
(including bankrupt Solyndra, Solar
Trust of America, Beacon Power and
Energy).
· Banking on electric car dream machines
that are impractical and few
want to buy.
· Saying “No” to the Keystone Pipeline
and to domestic energy production.
This when recent developments in
technology have enabled cheap extraction
of shale oil, and increased the
useful oil reserves in the US to more
than Saudi Arabia, making energy independence
easily achievable.
· The EPA’s regulatory train wreck: The
Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) ream of new regulations will
adversely affect existing power plants
(not to mention private property of
many individuals).
· Job-killing CAFE Standards
These are just a few of the Obama
policies and laws that are not in line
with a Biblical worldview. Since laws
are the working religion of a people,
we gain much insight into the true and
practical faith of Obama. His profession
does not align with his action.
Titus 1:16 speaks of those that “profess
to know God, but by their deeds they
deny Him, being detestable and disobedient,
and worthless for any good
deed.” This is an apt description of
Obama regarding his service in civil
government. In evaluating Obama’s
political philosophy overall, he is
likely the least Biblical of any of our
Presidents.
Romney
What are Mitt Romney’s views regarding
these important issues? His
view of life and the family were presented
above. Following are some of
his views on spending and the scope of
government.
Governmental View: semi-limited
· Taxes: Romney supports eliminating
the estate tax (the “death tax”) and
eliminating all capital gains taxes for
those who earn less than $200,000 a
year.
· Romney has proposed a balanced budget
amendment requiring Congress to
submit a balanced budget each fiscal
year to help contain the current budget
deficit.
· In early 2009, Romney came out
against the stimulus bill passed by
Congress and signed by President
Obama, calling for increased tax cuts
over increased spending.
· Romney strongly endorsed the plan
put forward by Congressman Paul
Ryan in early 2012 that proposes to
solve the budget deficit by cutting
nearly $5.3 trillion in federal spending
while simultaneously slashing tax rates
for Americans earning over $150,000
a year, calling it “simply marvelous”
and a “bold and exciting effort” in
March 2012.
· Romney has repeatedly expressed support
for repealing Obamacare, stating
in December 2011, “If I’m President,
we’re going to get rid of ObamaCare
and return, under our Constitution—
the 10th Amendment—the
responsibility of health care to the people
in the states.” However, as
governor of Massachusetts, Romney
signed a bill setting up a state health
care system, though he says this would
not be appropriate for every state.
· Unlike Obama, Romney supports prohibiting
governmental mandate of
abortion services, and hence, not violating
people’s religious liberty.
Energy
· Romney supports the development of
all of America’s energy sources, including
coal, oil, nuclear, and
alternative sources, with the goal of
making America energy independent.
He is against subsidizing wind power.
Romney embraces a plan to balance
the budget and get government spending
under control. Reducing
government spending and regulations
will help the economy to grow, as the
private sector will have more funds to
create new goods and services. He is
for more of a limited government than
Obama, which is good, but, like most
of our current leaders, Romney is still
a progressive in many ways; for example,
he oversaw the establishment of a
state health-care program in Massachusetts.
His policies are a step in the
right direction compared to where we
have been going, but in reality only
slows the train down. It is still going in
the wrong direction.
Under Obama’s fiscal and moral
leadership, the train is heading toward
the cliff at 100 miles per hour. In general,
those who have led the nation in
recent generations, both Democrats
and Republicans, have been going the
wrong way on the track headed toward
the cliff. Some have slowed the train
but what is needed is to turn the train
around. There are those currently serving
in government who want to do this,
and have tried, but we need more servant
leaders who adhere to the Biblical
qualifications of Godly officials before
this is possible.
Since slowing the train down will
give us more time to prepare new leaders,
Romney seems the best option at
this time. In contrast to Obama, he also
supports life and upholding the Biblical
definition of marriage. Romney
certainly does not meet all of the Biblical
qualifications for Godly officials,
but he comes closer to the standard
than Obama. We cannot afford to continue
down the wrong track at 100
miles per hour because the cliff is
coming soon. Slowing the train to 20
miles per hour may give us time to
awaken to our civil duties, and restore
Godly leadership to the nation.
To those who say they cannot vote
for either and will vote “other,” this is
in reality a vote for the least Biblical
guy. By your tacit consent, you are
helping put the worst guy in office. At
100 miles per hour, I fear we cannot
last long enough to restore America to
its place as the most free, prosperous,
virtuous, and just nation the world has
ever seen.
Godly leaders begin with Godly citizens.
Reform begins in our house, but
it will eventually be reflected in the
White House. America needs Godly
transformation. Those that are transformed
need to be eternally vigilant to
have this reflected in our civil leaders.
Noah Webster summarized the effect
of unprincipled men in office:
Let it be impressed
on your
mind that God commands
you to
choose for yourselves
rulers, “just
men who rule in the
fear of God.” The
preservation of a republican
government depends
on the faithful discharge of this
duty; if the citizens neglect their duty
and place unprincipled men in office,
the government will soon be corrupted;
laws will be made, not for the
public good, so much as for selfish or
local purposes; corrupt or incompetent
The Providential Perspective Page 7
men will be appointed to execute the
laws; the public revenues will be
squandered on unworthy men; and the
rights of the citizens will be violated
or disregarded. If a republican government
fails to secure public prosperity
and happiness, it must be because the
citizens neglect the divine commands,
and elect bad men to make and administer
the laws.27
The election of unprincipled men
produces misery and tyranny, but
Godly rulers bring peace, prosperity,
justice, and rejoicing. If we fulfill our
duty and place Godly men in office
(who have knowledge, character, and
faith) our future will be bright. According
to 2 Samuel 23:3-4,
The God of Israel said…He who
rules…in the fear of God, is as the
light of the morning when the sun
rises, a morning without clouds, when
the tender grass springs out of the
earth, through sunshine after rain.
PP
[This article can be found on our
website: providencefoundation.com]
End Notes
1. For more on this subject see, Stephen
McDowell, “Qualifications for Godly Officials,”
Building Godly Nations, Charlottesville, Vir.: Prov-
idence Foundation, 2004, pp. 231 ff.
2. Charles G. Finney, Revivals of Religion, Vir-
ginia Beach: CBN University Press, 1978, pp.
311-312.
3. Matthias Burnet, “Religion and Government
the Foundations of Order, Peace, and Security, in
Society,” An Election Sermon Preached at a Gen-
eral Assembly of the State of Connecticut at
Hartford, on the Day of the Anniversary Election,
May 12, 1803.
4. Ibid.
5. List from David Barton, “America’s Most
Biblically-Hostile U.S. President,” WallBuilders,
2012,
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp
?id=106938#FN10
6. Burnet.
7. Chandler Robbins, “And Also in Judah Things
Went Well.” A Sermon Preached before His Excel-
lency John Hancock, Governour; His Honor
Samuel Adams, Lieutant-Governour; the Honour-
able the Council, and the Honourable the Senate
and House of Representatives, of the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts, May 25, 1791, Being the
Day of General Election.
8. Barton.
9. Barton,
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp
?id=106938#FN10
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. http://www.catho-
lic.org/health/story.php?id=47274
15. For more on this see Stephen McDowell, The
conomy from a Biblical Perspective and Honest
Money and Banking, both published by the
Providence Foundation.
16. This ad was not directly produced by the
Obama campaign; but he in no way discredited it,
and he could have certainly stopped it.
17.
http://ajherrma.hubpages.com/hub/mittromney
18.
http://ajherrma.hubpages.com/hub/mittromney
19
.http://christiannews.net/mitt-romney-comes-out-in
-support-of-homosexual-boy-scout-leaders-membe
rs/
20. See McDowell, Rendering to Caesar the
Things that Are God’s, Providence Foundation.
21. Burnet
22. See McDowell, Building Godly Nations,
Chapter 3 to learn the purpose and responsibilities
of the individual, family, church, and state.
23. See Liberating the Nations, Chapter 1, by
Stephen McDowell and Mark Beliles, Charlottes-
ville, Vir.: Providence Foundation, 1995.
24. http://www.nationalreview.com/cor-
ner/309300/obama-ends-welfare-reform-we-know-
it-robert-rector
25. “Payback estimate for GM bailout slips,” The
Daily Progress, Tuesday, August 14, 2012, Char-
lottesville, Virginia.
26. http://blog.heri-
tage.org/2012/04/11/obamas-ten-worst-energy-poli
cies/?query=Obama’s+Ten+Worst+Energy+Pol-
icies
27. Noah Webster, History of the United Sates,
New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1833, pp. 307-308.
___________
Providence Foundation
Resources
Biblical Worldview
University
Order these courses, books,
and other resources today.
www.providencefoundation.com
Call 434-978-4535, or email us and
request a catalog:


in**@pr******************.com












Become a Member and
Receive Great Benefits
Join with us as we work to bring
Godly transformation to America and
the nations.
Providence Foundation Basic
Member: receive our newsletters, a
30% discount on all our books, videos,
and materials, a free online course, online
access to scores of books and
articles, plus discounts to our seminars.
Premium Member: receive Basic
Member benefits plus a free book, $80
voucher toward one of our BWU
Courses, personal coaching, and more.
To join or receive more information
email us or visit our website:
providencefoundation.com
Website: We are continually adding
new articles, videos, and materials on
our website to help equip you to disciple
the nations.
Facebook: We also have many articles
and updates on our facebook page,
Providence Foundation. Like us today.
The Providential Perspective Page 8
The Providential Perspective is a regular
publication of the Providence Foundation
and contains contemporary writings or ex-
cerpts from historical documents which fo-
cus on the relationship between God and
history or Christianity and culture. It is sent to
members of the Foundation, those people
who financialy support this ministry.
The Providence Foundation is a
non-profit, tax-exempt educational organi-
zation whose mission is to train and network
leaders to transform their culture for Christ.
For more information:
Providence Foundation
P.O. Box 6759
Charlottesvile,VA 22906
Phone/Fax: 434-978-4535
Email:

in**@pr******************.com












Website: www.providencefoundation.com

By Andrew W. Young, 1846

In years past, most Americans knew our Constitution and governmental principles of liberty. Such ideas were commonly taught in schools throughout the nation. Many books were written on the subject for youth and adult. Young’s First Lessons in Civil Government is one of many books that taught these ideas. Typical of the early texts, this book presents a Biblical view of law and government, as evidenced in the first chapter.

Early teachers had a Biblical view of government and a Biblical philosophy of education, knowing all Americans needed to be educated in principles of self- and civil government. In his Preface,Young communicates the importance of teaching these ideas. He writes that it is essential for the youth to have an understanding of proper ideas of government if liberty is to continue and advance. Schools must teach this to students at an early age. Young said this book could be “profitably studied by children of ordinary intelligence, at the age of ten years.” (We need to advance academic training in today’s schools before most ten-year-olds are prepared to study at this level.)

Young makes clear the view most Americans held in our early history concerning “the laws of nature” and “the laws of nature’s God”:

The will of the Creator is the law of nature which men are bound to obey. But mankind in their present imperfect state are not capable of discovering in all cases what the law of nature requires; it has therefore pleased Divine Providence to reveal his will to mankind, to instruct them in their duties to himself and to each other. This will is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and is called the law of revelation, or the Divine law.

His views on the laws of nature and nature’s God were not new. They merely reflected the predominate view of law of the preceding centuries and expressed by the greatest jurists, such as Sir Edward Coke, Hugo Grotius, Samuel Pufendorf, John Locke, Emer de Vattel, and William Blackstone. The first Americans to write law commentaries, James Kent and Joseph Story, also reflected this Biblical view of law.

In his Commentaries on American Law (1826-30), which served as the standard general treatise on law in the United States for many decades, James Kent wrote:

Vattel . . . and all the other great masters of ethical and national jurisprudence, place the foundation of the law of nature in the will of God, discoverable by right reason, and aided by Divine revelation. . . .

The law of nature, by the obligations of which individuals and states are bound, is identical with the will of God, and that will is ascertained . . . either by consulting Divine revelation, where that is declamatory, or by the application of human reason where revelation is silent.

[James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, seventh edition (New York: William Kent, 1851), p. 2, 4.]

Kent agreed with the “masters of jurisprudence” that law is rooted in Divine revelation.

In addition to excerpts from Young’s First Lessons, this Perspective also contains some excerpts from prominent jurists, including Coke, Blackstone, and Locke. Early lawyers and judges in America would have been familiar with these writings, and embraced their Biblical view of law. Sadly, most lawyers and judges today do not embrace this view, and have never read or studied the writings of these men, nor do they understand the origins of American law. Consequently, modern evolutionary law is not rooted in the absolutes of the will of God, but in the ever-changing ideas of fallen man. The state has taken the place of Jehovah, to borrow the words of past Harvard Law School President, and humanist, Roscoe Pound. The fruit of this is loss of liberty and justice.

For the preservation of our rights and liberties, a Biblical view of law must be taught to all Americans. Texts such as Young’s First Lessons in Civil Government must once again become common.

The following excerpts are from the Preface and Chapter 1 of: First Lessons in Civil Government including a Comprehensive View of the Government of the State of New York, and an Abstract of the Laws, Showing the Rights, Duties, and Responsibilities of Citizens in the Civil and Domestic Relations; with an Outline of the Government of the United States: Adapted to the Capacities of Children and Youth, and Designed for the Use of Schools, by Andrew W. Young, Tenth Edition, Auburn, N.Y.: H. And J.C. Ivison, 1846.

PREFACE

. . . To secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity, was the leading object of the people of the United States in ordaining and establishing the constitution. That this constitution is fully adequate to the objects of its formation, has been satisfactorily proved by the experience of more than half a century.

Whether the blessings of civil and religious freedom which our system of government is so happily adapted to secure, shall be enjoyed by our posterity, time alone can determine. Of the probability or improbability of the fact, we may, however, conjecture from what is done to qualify the rising generation of American youth for the duties and responsibilities which, as freemen, they are soon to assume.

In a few years, the destinies of this great and growing republic will be committed to those who are now receiving instruction in our public schools. How important that the course of education pursued in these institutions, should include the study of the principles of republican government, and especially of that government in which they will so shortly be called to take a part.

A thorough knowledge of our constitutional and civil jurisprudence cannot well be too highly appreciated. Without it, we may hope in vain to perpetuate our free institutions. The very idea of free government presupposes a knowledge of such government. And how is it to be obtained without study? As well might we suppose that our youth could, without study, acquire a knowledge of any other science now taught in our schools.

The study of political science should be commenced early. Children should grow up in the knowledge of our political institutions. The provisions of our constitution should be to them as familiar as the spelling-book; and yet thousands of our young men reach their majority, and presume to exercise their political franchise, who have never so much as given the constitution a single reading!

We boast of republican equality. The high and the low, the rich and the poor, enjoy an equal amount of political power. How important, then, that all should be capable of exercising this power with equal wisdom and effect!

Let it be remembered, that this is a nation of freemen. The people are, or ought to be, the rulers; and those to whom the more immediate administration of the government is intrusted, are but the servants of the people. In a government of the people, therefore, all should be statesmen. They should know how the public business ought to be done, that they may know when to call unfaithful servants to account.

It is by the exercise of their political power, that the people are enabled to correct the evils of bad administration; but if they do not exercise it intelligently, they may, in attempting to correct these evils, only increase and aggravate them.

If ever the great body of the people are to be qualified for the business of self-government, our common schools must he relied on as the principal means. In these institutions, probably nine tenths of our citizens receive all their education. A science, therefore, the knowledge of which is so essential to our political prosperity, should be  taught in every common school.

CIVIL GOVERNMENT

CHAPTER I.

Of Civil Government and Laws; what they are, and why they are necessary.

§ 1. Government, in a general sense, signifies direction, or regulation; or it is the control which ones thing has over another, in causing it to move or operate in a certain manner. When applied to persons, it means the exercise of authority by one or more persons over others.

§ 2. A parent gives directions to his children for the regulation of their behavior. He commands what they are to do, and forbids what they are not to do. In giving these rules and causing them to be obeyed, he is said to govern his family. So the government of a teacher consists in keeping order in his school, by causing his scholars to observe the rules he has prescribed for their conduct.

§ 3. But that kind of government which I shall endeavor to explain in this book, is the government of a state or nation, generally called civil government. It is so called, because it is the government which regulates the actions of persons as members of civil society. But in order fully to understand the meaning of civil government, it is necessary first to know what is meant by civil society.

§ 4. The Creator intended that mankind should live together. He has given them a desire to associate with each other, and made their happiness depend, in a great measure, on such association. Hence we find that persons derive enjoyment from each other’s company which they could not have by living alone.

§ 5. Any number of persons associated together in any manner, or for any purpose, may be called a society. The friends of temperance associate for the purpose of promoting temperance, and are called a temperance society. Other persons act together as a Bible society, or an education society. But neither of these associations, nor any others commonly called societies, are what is understood by civil society.

§ 6. The term civil society is applied to the people of a country united for the purpose of government, under written rules and regulations. But it does not apply to the people of every nation. The Indians of this country observe certain rules and customs; but as these people are savage and unlearned, they are called uncivilized, and are not properly civil communities.

§ 7. Civil society can be said to exist only where the people are in a civilized state, or state of social improvement. By a state of civilization and social improvement is meant refinement of  manners, or growth in knowledge. In any country where the people enjoy the benefits of learning, and the means of improving their social condition, or of making themselves more comfortable and happy, they are called civilized; and the authority exercised in regulating the conduct or actions of mankind in civil society, is called civil government.

§ 8. The rules by which the conduct of men in civil society is to be regulated, are called laws; as the commands of the parent or householder are the laws of the family, or as the rules of the teacher are the laws of the school. A law is therefore a rule prescribing what men are to do, and what they are not to do. A law implies two things; first, the right and authority of those who govern to make the law; secondly, the duty of the governed to obey the law.

§ 9. To give force to a law, it must have a penalty. Penalty is the pain or suffering to be inflicted upon a person for breaking a law. The law requires, that for stealing, a man must pay a fine, or be put into prison, and that for murder, he must be hanged: therefore fine or imprisonment is the penalty for stealing, and hanging is the penalty for murder. If there were no penalties annexed to laws, men could not be compelled to obey them; bad men would commit the worst of crimes without fear, and there would be no safety or order in society.

§ 10. Civil government and laws, therefore, are necessary to preserve the peace and order of a community, and to secure to its members the free enjoyment of their rights. A right is the just claim or lawful title which we have to any thing. Thus we say, a person has a right to what he has earned by his labor, or bought with his money. A man is entitled to what is lawfully or justly his own; that is, he has a right to it.

§ 11. We have a right also to do things. We have a right to go where we please, and to act as we please, if by so doing we do not trespass upon the rights of others. This being free to act thus is called liberty. But it must be remembered that all men in civil society have the same natural rights, and no one has a right to disturb others in the enjoyment of their rights.

§ 12. All laws ought to be so made as to secure to men the liberty to enjoy and exercise their natural rights. Natural rights are those which we are entitled to by nature, rights with which we are born. They are called natural rights, because they are ours by birth. And because all persons in society have naturally the same rights, we have no right to what belongs to another, nor to say or do what will injure another.

§ 13. The law of nature is that rule of conduct which we are bound to observe towards our Creator and our fellow men, by reason of our natural relations to them. It is a perfect rule for all moral and social beings, right in itself, right in the nature of things; and it would be right, and ought to be obeyed, if no other law or positive command had ever been given.

§ 14. Mankind being dependent on their Creator, they owe to him duties which they ought to perform, though he had never positively enjoined them. It is right in itself that we should love and serve our Maker, and thank him for his mercies; and it would be just as much our duty to do so, if he had never so commanded. And it is right in the nature of things that we should love our neighbor as ourselves; and our obligation to do so would be just as certain, had the duty never been enjoined by a positive precept.

§ 15. Living in society with our fellow men, on whom we are in a measure dependent, and who have the same natural rights as ourselves, we are bound by the principles of natural justice to promote their happiness, by doing to them as we would that they should do to us; that is to say, the law of nature requires us to do so. And here let it be remarked, that the all-wise and kind Creator has so constituted man, that in thus promoting the happiness of his fellow men, he increases his own.

§ 16. But it may be asked, if the law of nature is the rule by which mankind ought to regulate their conduct, of what use are written laws? The will of the Creator is the law of nature which men are bound to obey. But mankind in their present imperfect state are not capable of discovering in all cases what the law of nature requires; it has therefore pleased Divine Providence to reveal his will to mankind, to instruct them in their duties to himself and to each other. This will is revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and is called the law of revelation, or the Divine law.

§ 17. But though men have the Divine law for their guide, human laws are also necessary. God has commanded men to do that which is right, and to deal justly with each other; but men do not always agree as to what is right: human laws therefore become necessary to say what shall be considered just between man and man. And these laws must be written, that it may always be known what they are.

§ 18. Again it may be asked, what must be done when a human law does not agree with the Divine law? Must such law be obeyed? Men have no right to make a law that is contrary to the law of God; and we are not bound to obey it. The apostles were forbidden to preach the gospel; but they said, “we ought to obey God rather than men;” and they continued to preach. (Acts, Chapter 5.) But we may not disobey a human law simply because it fails to require strict justice.  A law may be very imperfect, as many human laws are, and yet we may obey it without breaking the Divine law.   PP

By Stephen McDowell

In the last Providential Perspective, we presented some information on ‘’Election Day in Early America.’’ This Perspective contains excerpts dealing with qualifications for elected officials from two election sermons from the early years of independent America. In addition to learning various characteristics that our present-day officials should have, it is of interest to note the type of ideas our early rulers often gladly listened to from ministers. These election sermons were often printed and read and studied by the elected officials and general populace. I look forward to the day when this tradition is restored in America.

Excerpts from An Election Sermon Preached at a General Assembly of the State of Connecticut at Hartford, on the Day of the Anniversary Election, May 12, 1803, by Matthias Burnet, entitled ‘’Religion and Government the Foundations of Order, Peace and Security, in Society’’:

…Another thing, upon which the welfare and stability of government much depends, is the choice of wise and worthy men, men of sound heads, honest hearts, and exemplary lives to fill the legislative, judicial, and executive departments of state. This in a republican or free government is a matter of most serious concern, what are the characters and qualifications of the persons you elect to office, and too much attention cannot be paid to it, by all who wish well to their country; because, if the men who are raised by the people to legislate, judge of, or execute the laws for them, are weak and ignorant, the laws they frame must partake of the same qualities; or if they be corrupt in their principles, and dissolute and immoral in their lives, they will have a motive in their own breast and conduct to be remiss in the execution of the laws, however wise and good they may be. Yea they become themselves examples and encouragers of vice to others, and thus contribute to weaken and destroy the very government they are sworn to maintain…. [For this reason] it was that Jethro the father in law of Moses, gave that excellent advice to him, with respect to the qualifications of the judges he should chuse to assist him in the government of the people Israel.

‘’…the man who does not believe in the being and providence of God, or is not actuated by the fear and awe of him, has in many cases no bond or restraint upon his conduct, and therefore is not fit to be trusted with a nation’s weal…’’

That they should be able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness. That is, as the words plainly import, that they should be men of good natural understanding and competent acquired knowledge. Men acting under the belief and awe of God as their inspector and judge, to whom they consider themselves accountable for their conduct and whom they fear to offend. Men truly honest and upright in their principles and views, not actuated and governed by the sordid motives of self interest and aggrandizement in their desire and execution of office, but by a sincere regard to the public good. And sure better advice than this, could not be given, nor more important qualifications directed to in the choice of rulers. Yet I am well aware that one of these qualifications, viz. the fear of God, is by numbers, thought to be of very little consequence, and some there are, who even deride the very idea of paying any attention to it at all, declaring our dearest interests to be as safe in the hands even of an atheist, as any other man. But with that great patriot and statesman the late Governor Livingston of New Jersey, I must yet think that this is a qualification of very great importance in a ruler. And that the father in law of Moses gave him very good advice, when he directed him to pay particular attention to it in those whom he should appoint to be judges and rulers over the people Israel. For if God be such a being, as both reason and revelation declare him to be, an omniscient, holy, just and all-powerful being, whose eyes are in every place, beholding the evil and the good, to punish the one and reward the other according to their character and deeds, then  certainly, the fear and awe of him must operate as the greatest restraint from that which is evil, and the most powerful incentive to that which is good, and he who is truly actuated by this principle, will never give his voice or influence to pervert justice or support iniquity. But the man who does not believe in the being and providence of God, or is not actuated by the fear and awe of him, has in many cases no bond or restraint upon his conduct, and therefore is not fit to be trusted with a nation’s weal, which he will not scruple, whenever he can with impunity, to sacrifice to his lust or ambition.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Excerpts from A Sermon Preached Before His Excellency John Hancock, Governour; His Honor Samuel Adams, Lieutenant-Governour; the Honourable the Council, and the Honourable the Senate and House of Representatives, of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, May 25, 1791, Being the Day of General Election, by Chandler Robbins, entitled, ‘’And Also in Judah Things Went Well’’:

…These observations may serve to shew the importance of choosing to office, such men, as are duly qualified for a trust, on the right discharge of which, so much depends. To this then, let us briefly turn our attention, and endeavor to point out some of the leading traits in the character of a good Ruler. Among which, are, Knowledge – Integrity – Public Spirit – Firmness and Resolution – yet, Tenderness and Compassion – and finally, Religion, which crowns his character, and adds a glorious lustre to all his other qualifications.

That rulers should be men of KNOWLEDGE and WISDOM, it appears of great importance, from the very nature and design of their office. Public rulers are to the politic body, what eyes are to the natural. ‘’The light of the body is the eye, if the eye be single, the whole body is full of light, but if the eye be evil,’’ what can be expected, but that the whole body will be full of darkness.’’

It was, therefore a special command of GOD, to his favourite people, when they were about to elect their Officers of Government, ‘’take ye wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them RULERS over you.’’ On the other hand, it was viewed as a great calamity, and a mark of God’s peculiar displeasure against them, when weak and ignorant men were placed at the head of their public affairs. ‘’Wo unto thee, O land, when thy King is a child!’’

‘’virtue and religion must be, on a variety of accounts, considered as a necessary qualification in public rulers.’’

It is mentioned of King SOLOMON, as a special qualification for his high trust, that ‘’God gave him wisdom and largness of heart, as the sands on the sea shore.’’ So convinced was he, of the vast importance of this blessing, that he made it his first petition to Heaven, when he began his administration, that ‘’GOD would give him a wise and an understanding heart, that he might be able to judge so great a people.’’

INDEED, the want of this qualification in a ruler, renders him so unfit for his station, on a variety of accounts, that no other accomplishment can fully compensate for the defect. Suppose him possessed of the strictest probity of heart – of the most upright intentions; yet, for want of wisdom, he will never be able to discern the true interests of the people, or know when their rights, are in danger. He will be perpetually liable to the impositions of crafty, designing Politicians, who, like erratic fires, will bewilder his judgment – impose on his understanding, and lead him into the mire.

There ever have been such characters, in civil communities. The best framed constitutions on earth, are not a sufficient security against them. They will profess a zealous attachment to liberty; none so true friends to their country as they; when at the same time, SELF is the idol they worship; and to advance their own private interest, they will sacrifice every other consideration.

How shall such political hypocrites be detected, and their dangerous machinations frustrated? – Surely in no way more likely, than by appointing to public offices, men of knowledge and abilities – men of less craft, but of wiser heads, and more honest hearts than they.

It is not every kind of knowledge, however, that will qualify a man for a good ruler. He may excel in many parts of learning, and yet never make a Statesman. He may be a wise Philosopher, yet no Politician. Many have done essential service, in various departments of life, who, yet, would have made wild steerage at the helm of State.

It is of particular importance, that rulers have a knowledge of men, as well as laws – of the different genius, humours and interests of the people, over whom they preside; that they may accommodate their administration in such a manner, as, at the same time, they may secure the love of the people, promote the general good, and preserve inviolate the rights of government.

There are other branches of knowledge, which will be of great advantage to men in power. It is, at least, desireable that they should have a tolerable acquaintance with natural law – that they understand the natural rights of men, which are the same, under every species of government, and do not owe their origin to the social compact. Such, in a peculiar manner, are the sacred RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.

‘’That nothing will so surely, so rapidly bring on the dissolution of society, and the loss of the liberties of a people, as a want of virtue and integrity in their rulers.’’

But, especially, is it incumbent on the civil magistrate, to be thoroughly acquainted with the constitution of the State in which he lives; that he may ascertain the limits of his own power, as well as the rights and privileges of the subject. That while he, with firmness asserts the former, he may guard, with sacred caution, against any encroachment on the latter.

‘’In free governments,’’ one justly observes, ‘’men are apt to feel, much quicker, than in those of a different form. To touch their liberties, is to touch ‘the apple of their eye.’ Every attempt alarms them, and makes them jealous of further designs; and sometimes throws them into the hands of factious demagogues, who are enemies to all government; and are ever watching opportunities to embarrass public measures, and to introduce anarchy and confusion. Where so much, therefore, depends, and where the danger of acting wrong, is likely to produce such mischievous effects in the community, rulers ought to know very well, what it is to act right; where power ends, and liberty begins. The more difficult it is to settle this point, so much the more wisdom, knowledge and prudence, do rulers need, and so much the more cautious should they be in their political conduct. And where people observe such caution and tenderness in their rulers, they will make allowances for mistakes, and even for faults.’’

Another, and an equally important qualification for public trust, is uncorrupted INTEGRITY – a mind free from base design – from low art and intrigue. A ruler should possess s soul above disguise, or dissimulation – that will neither be seduced by bribes and flattery, or intimidated by frowns and threatnings, to betray his trust – to counteract his judgment, or violate truth and justice.

How constantly do we find it inculcated in the sacred writings, that rulers be just men – fearers of GOD – haters of covetousness. That they shake their hands from holding bribes, because, a gift blindeth the eyes of the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous.

It would exhibit but a dark picture of human nature, to trace the history of the fall of Empires –the loss of liberty – and the unnumbered miseries that have, like a flood, over-whelmed mankind, by means of corrupt and wicked rulers. Sad experience has evinced the truth of that observation, ‘That nothing will so surely, so rapidly bring on the dissolution of society, and the loss of the liberties of a people, as a want of virtue and integrity in their rulers.’

‘’Knowledge without honesty – a good genius with a bad heart, would but furnish them [civil rulers] with an advantage with greater success, to rob the people of their rights…’’

How many once flourishing States, who gloried in their freedom, have, from this fatal cause, tumbled into ruins: – And from the heighth of political glory, have been reduced to the most abject slavery and wretchedness: – Where is the once boasted freedom of Rome – of Sparta, and of Carthage? – Where, may I not add,  is that of the nation, with which we were once connected? – On whom, if we believe some of her best writers ‘Corruption and Bribery seem nearly to have accomplished the prediction of the great Montesquieu, which was, ‘’She will lose her liberty – will perish; and will then perish, when the legislative power shall be more corrupt than the executive.’’

Of such importance is integrity in civil rulers, that without it, the finest talents – the most brilliant genius, and the greatest improvements in erudition, instead of securing happiness to the State, would rather endanger its peace. Knowledge without honesty – a good genius with a bad heart, would but furnish them with an advantage with greater success, to rob the people of their rights, whenever it might serve the base purpose of their own aggrandizement, or help to carry a favorite plan.

BENEVOLENCE and a PUBLIC SPIRIT were mentioned as qualifications of importance, in a civil ruler. – These will dispose him, cheerfully to subordinate all private views to the public emolument.

We sometimes meet with such characters in public life, who seem to be born to do good, and to make mankind happy. Such is their diffusive goodness – such their  ardent Philanthrophy, that they exhibit a noble resemblance of that BEING, the glory of whose character, is, infinite BENEVOLENCE.

FIRMNESS and RESOLUTION in a civil magistrate, are also virtues, which will be found exceedingly necessary. Frequently, in the execution of his trust, may cases occur, when timidity would be treachery – when a temporizing compliance with the humours of a party, would be basely to betray the interests of the community.

Yet, in perfect consistence with this quality, is the exercise of COMPASSION and TENDERNESS, which are no less necessary, than amiable qualifications in a ruler. – As the ‘’Minister of God,’’ he is bound to imitate the ‘’Father of mercies,’’ who is ‘’slow to anger and of great kindness.’’ Who, when he inflicts punishment on offenders, does it, not because he takes pleasure in the misery of his subjects, but to vindicate his authority and government – to preserve order in the system, and, in the end, to promote the public good. – A glorious pattern for earthly Judges. Nothing so truly exalts the character of a magistrate – nothing renders him more amiable to his fellow men, or more worthy the office he sustains than to see him softening the rigour of Justice, with beams of clemency. Gentleness often subdues, when wrath would but inflame; and well-timed lenity has frequently, a more powerful and happy effect, upon a refractory spirit, than all the thundering menaces of penal law. In which case, all the good ends of government are secured, and the disobedient reclaimed, ‘’being drawn by the cords of a man, the bands of love.’’

I proceed to mention the other qualification of a good ruler, which indeed, crowns his character, and adds a peculiar glory to all his other accomplishments, which is RELIGION. This, above all things, gives true dignity to his person and his administration.

Civil rulers are, in the inspired writings, denominated Gods. ‘’I have said, ye are gods.’’ The expression is striking, and full of instruction. And whatever other qualities are implied in it, certainly it more than intimates that they should exhibit a moral resemblance of the SUPREME GOD, in virtue and holiness. For what a solecism in language, as well as religion, is an ungodly god!.

When we consider them as men, as moral agents in common with others, accountable to GOD; it is certain, that their highest interest – their everlasting well-being depend upon their being men of piety and real religion, and as rulers, this divine principle will afford them the best, the only solid support under all the burdens and cares of government.

By Religion, I do not intend, merely the profession, or external shew of goodness. This, some have assumed, who have, eventually proved the most mischevious enemies, both to Church and State. Under the cloak of religion, they have gained that confidence and affection of the people, which they have, afterwards abused, to betray their most important interests. ‘’No consideration can be of force sufficient to bind him, who dares to prevaricate with HEAVEN, and trifle with the LORD his maker.’’

But, by a man of Religion, I mean one who fears GOD from the heart, with a fear founded in esteem – in a supreme love implanted in the soul, by the renovating influence of the SPIRIT OF GOD – one who believes in, and honors his Son JESUS CHRIST, as the only mediator and Saviour; and who makes conscience of conforming his temper and life to the sacred rules of the Gospel.

Although we renounce the absurd heresy of ‘’dominion founded in grace’’ – because ‘’Christ’s kingdom is not of this world’’ – yet virtue and religion must be, on a variety of accounts, considered as a necessary qualification in public rulers. This will regulate their passions – dignify and enlarge their minds, and form them for noble and benevolent actions. This will inspire them, with undaunted firmness, to pursue the path of duty, though it should lead them through a scene of the most painful opposition.

Every station in life hath its difficulties and its temptations – few, perhaps, are exposed to more than those advanced to power and eminence. They, therefore, stand in greater need of the aids of divine grace; without which they will be in danger of making shipwreck of their consciences, and of the rights of men. – But the man who is animated with the spirit which true religion inspires, will stand firm and unmoved when temptations assail him – and ‘’his heart being fixed trusting in his God,’’ no unworthy motive shall induce him either to neglect his duty, or to betray his sacred trust.

‘’[T]he other qualification of a good ruler…is RELIGION… [B]y a man of Religion, I mean one who fears GOD from the heart, with a fear founded in esteem – in a supreme love implanted in the soul, by the renovating influence of the SPIRIT OF GOD – one who believes in, and honors his Son JESUS CHRIST, as the only mediator and Saviour; and who makes conscience of conforming his temper and life to the sacred rules of the Gospel.’’

It must be allowed, indeed, that many persons have been useful in public stations, and have done great service to the Commonwealth, who were actuated by other principles, than that of religion. Ambition – a desire of popularity – and in some, a certain benevolence and greatness of soul, have prompted them to actions exceedingly beneficial to society. – But these when compared with a fixed principle of religion, will be sound, at best, but a very insecure and uncertain basis on which to build our confidence of a persevering, upright administration of government.

That men in authority, should be men of religion, it appears important, in another point of view – on account of the influence their example will have on society. There is a peculiar fondness in the lower orders of life, to copy after their superiors. This indeed would be of no hurtful consequence to the community, provided ‘’great men were always wise.’’ But, unhappily, this is not always the case; and when it is otherwise, the effects are often, very pernicious. Agreeably, the inspired Solomon saith, ‘’when a ruler hearkens to lies, all his servants are wicked.’’ It is a just remark, that ‘vices, like money, receive much of their credit and currency from the practice of the great.’

Besides, irreligion in a magistrate, counteracts the very design of his office. What ground can there be to expect, that he who, himself disregards the laws of God, will frown on vice and immorality in others? Or, that he who is a slave to his own lusts and passions, will seriously attempt to regulate the passions of others? vicious members of society will despise such a magistrate; and while they see the absurdity of his conduct, will insultingly apply the Proverb, ‘Physician heal thyself.’ And thus all authority is brought into contempt.

But when men in power, are men of piety and religion, when they exhibit in their lives, a bright example of the amiable virtues of christianity, what an encouraging aspect has it on a community. Such rulers answer to the description given in that sublime passage of inspiration, ‘’The GOD of Israel said, the rock of Israel spake to me, he that ruleth over men, must be just, ruling in the fear of GOD; and he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, a morning without clouds, as the tender grass springing out of the earth, by the clear shining after the rain.’’

*  *  *  *  *  *  *