“Anybody, of any religious faith, if they embrace American Values, and place the Constitution at the top level, above their religious belief, I have no problem with.” This was Dr. Carson’s answer given in response to a question regarding his rejection of having a leader/president of the United States who believed that we should “establish a theocracy.” He says, “If the question was asked, ‘Do you believe in supporting a Christian, who believes in establishing a theocracy?’ I would have said no.” This response given by Dr. Carson puts on display two very common fallacies and misunderstandings of the term ‘theocracy.’ It has been the popular recourse of those who reject theonomic ethics to pull the ‘theocracy card’ in hopes to immediately prove the falsity of its teachings. “The sociopolitical laws of America should not be founded upon the principles taught within the Old Testament (specifically those laws given to the nation of Israel), because God established a unique covenant relationship with Israel that no other nation of the day, nor nation of modern day has with God.” First, this argument committs the fallacy of arguing against a straw man. Anyone familiar with the teachings of theonomic ethics realizes that it’s adherents do not ignore the fact that Israel was historically unique in various ways from other nations. Dr. Greg Bahnsen, in No Other Standard , observes:

From a logical standpoint, the error most readily committed by critics who appeal to Israel’s theocratic uniqueness is that they demonstrate no ethical relevance between (or necessary connection between) the unique features of Israel and the moral validity
of the law. Plenty of things were unique about Israel, but Scripture does not teach that God predicated the justice or obligation of His commandments upon those features. Yes, Israel alone
received the “ceremonial law” for her salvation. However, this redemptive blessing was not the reason (or only reason) that rape called for the death penalty and theft called for restitution in
Israel. Likewise, Israel was given special instructions for holy war against the Canaanites. But there is not one text of Scripture which suggests that the penal sanctions of the Mosaic law were merely an extension of such holy war provisions (pg. 115).

Indeed, Israel was unique. It must be understood, that if one using the term theocracy, is referring to those cultic, geopolitical, adminstrative aspects that were unique to Old Testament Israel, then in that sense we are not under such a ‘theocracy’ today. This has never been denied by any leading proponent of theonomic ethics. However, when the serious student of the Bible examines scripture, what is found wanting is any evidence that Israel’s unique status as typifying the kingdom of God under the New Covenant, in no way invalidated the requirement of corporate obedience to God’s moral/judicial law for surrounding nations. Again, observe Dr. Bahnsen’s statements:

God made a unique covenant with Israel, ruled uniquely in Israel, made Israel a holy nation, and specially revealed Himself to it-all very true. But God’s laws (made clear in written form for a redeemed people) were not revealed only to Israel. They were continually made known through general revelation (Rom. 1:18-32; 2:14-15), and God held the pagan nations accountable to obey them (Lev. 18:24-27; Gen. 19). Through Israel these laws were to be made known to the other nations (Ps. 119:46) as a model for justice and righteousness everywhere (Deut. 4:6-8). So, these commandments can be considered “apart” from the covenant people (pg. 114.)

Many people who use this term ‘theocracy’ have varying definitions of what they actually mean when they employ the term. However, the statement behind the term is that there was something unique about Israel’s status as a nation that invalidates the application of the Old Testament moral laws to any other nation, irrespective in time to the existence of these nations. What is always unproven by these critics is what ethical connection existed between Israel’s’ theocratic ‘uniqueness,’ and the moral law that God gave to them (decalogue, and case law) that somehow invalidates the applicability of those laws today. What often these arguments against theonomic ethics amount to is nothing more than hasty generalizations. Two nations may have a few things in common and they may have a few things that are not common between them, as is the case with Old Testament Israel and all other nations. However, simply due to the fact that Israel is unique in relation to God in certain ways, does not imply that all other nations are completely different than Israel. All nations, just as Old Testament Israel, are confronted with the same issues of social justice. All nations, must choose which standard will be chosen to define right from wrong, and what penal sanctions will be enforced against what is deemed wrong. Again, what the would be critic of Theonomy would need to demonstrate is how Israel’s features that were common to Israel alone somehow abrogate the applicability of the moral laws given to them for all other nations. This has not been done, and cannot be done. The testimony of the scriptures is overwhelmingly in support of Theonomy.

What is most disturbing about Dr. Carson’s statements is his misappropriation of religious beliefs. He says he would support anyone regardless of their religious affiliation as long as they “embrace American Values, and place the constitution at the top level, above their religious beliefs.” What I want to show, is that Dr. Carson is perverting the original intent of the Constitution. The Constitution was not written with the intent to place it above the Holy Scriptures in supremacy and authority. The Constitution was drafted for precisely the exact opposite reason. The following quotations will demonstrate this fact. What was the intent of the founding fathers in fleeing England, establishing the colonies, and eventually drafting the Constitution of the United States? Consider these quotes from our founding fathers. Keep in mind, you will never hear these quotations mentioned in secular pop-culture, government run public schools, mainstream media, etc. The historical revisionist have done a great job at silencing the voice of America’s Christian heritage.

The Mayflower Compact, from William Bradford’s History of Plymouth Plantation:

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign lord King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, king, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith, and the honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together in a civil politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof do enact, constitute and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the reign of our sovereign lord king James of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth and of Scotland, the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini, 1620.

The Constitution recognizes the Christian sabbath. Article 1,section 7,says, “If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.” “In adopting this provision,” John Adams says, “it was clearly presumed by the people that the president of the United States in public business on Sunday…. The obligation on the President to respect the observance of Sunday is greatly superior to any which could have been created by a constitutional enactment.”

From George Washington’s “Inaugural Speech to Both Houses of Congress,” April 30, 1789:

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Bring Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes….No people can be bound yo acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and, in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government, the tranquil deliberation and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted cannot be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage….

From the “First Charter of Virginia”:

We, greatly commending and graciously accepting of their desires for the furtherance of so noble a work, which may, by the providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian religion to such people, as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God.

In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams wrote: “The general Principles, on which the [founding] Fathers Achieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young gentlemen could Unite…. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity….”

For Dr. Carson to elevate ‘American values’ and the Constitution to a position of supremacy above the Bible, not only contradicts the original intent of the document, but also perpetuates the tyrannical political philosophy that the founding fathers fled from in England.

“To understand the American Christian Constitution form of government, it is necessary to consider its two spheres– the spirit and the letter– the internal and the external. Both spheres must be active in order that the Constitution function to preserve the basic republican spirit of individual liberty. That is, we still go through most of the legal processes of the structure of the Constitution in enacting legislation, and in the executive and judicial branches. But the spirit which was intended and understood by our founding fathers is missing– the Faith of our Fathers–and as our nation has fallen away from its foundations–the essence of that faith–the Constitution has become a hollow seal (Slater, Teaching and Learning America’s Christian History, 240).”

.

.