Contemporary Authors with Federalist Perspective

GARY DEMAR

Founder of American Vision

It is hard to go wrong with Gary DeMar, the founder of American Vision, an organization devoted to advancing a biblical worldview in all spheres of life. Not only has Gary DeMar written and published numerous books of his own through American Vision, he markets many other excellent titles through his monthly journal and website.

One of the videotapes produced by American Vision features Rev. Steve Wilkins (South) and Rev. Peter Marshall (North) in the "Great Civil War Debate". It is an excellent production. There is humor, there is intelligent discussion, and there is relevancy. The interaction of visual effects with the presentation does a great job of drawing even the most disinterested into the debate. American Vision does a great job of challenging the prevailing orthodoxy regarding the meaning of the War Between the States.

Rev. Wilkins does an excellent job of exposing the fallacies of the traditional "text book" interpretations of the Civil War which Peter Marshall attempts to "baptize". Yet Rev. Marshall does a good job with his perspective as well and the two have some great interaction. American Vision is to be commended for its perspective on the entire Civil War era.

Another area in which Gary DeMar & American Vision have produced excellent work is Bible prophecy. American Vision is among a handful of publishers responsible for the revival of historic Post-millennialism over the past 25 years or so. Debunking the simplistic and preposterous predictions of many so-called "prophecy experts" has been developed into an art form by Gary DeMar. Through American Vision, Gary DeMar has contributed mightily to the new optimism that is beginning to characterize young, Christian activists in America and indeed the world.

As you can discern from the above, we normally agree with 95% of what Gary DeMar & American Vision put out. We are fascinated with most of Gary DeMar's articles in the American Vision journal (Biblical Worldview) and we even sell a few of the American Vision prophecy materials on the Ismellarat.com website.

We hesitate to criticize Gary DeMar & American Vision were the issue not so fundamental to the interpretation of American history. American history is, of course, the field in which American Vision specializes and such a fundamental error cannot help but color all of their work. Thus, it is incumbent upon us to draw this problem to the attention of American Vision, in hopes that they will make the necessary revisions. The problem is highlighted in another debate audiocassette produced by American Vision that features Gary DeMar vs. Edward Tabash of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. This was a radio debate hosted by station KBRT in Orange County, California on August 8, 2000. The question debated by Gary DeMar and Eddy Tabash is cast in the form of a question: "Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?" This audio stands in sharp contrast to the other Gary DeMar/American Vision productions mentioned above. Tabash, the atheist, clearly wins the debate. Here's why.

In presenting the American Vision perspective, Gary DeMar talks as if the states had no culpability whatsoever in creating the debacle of the U.S. Constitution: a supposedly religiously neutral federal government. Jesus said, "He that is not for me is against me." By this standard, the states clearly lined up against God with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and yet Gary DeMar assumes that had no repercussions for the states. Somehow the states can simply wash their hands of all guilt because they allegedly limited the power of the federal government and never relinquished their religious test oaths.

The religious test oaths incorporated into most of the state constitutions required an oath of allegiance to God before an elected official could assume public office. For example, this was the oath required of every public officeholder in the state of Delaware: "I do profess faith in God the Father and in Jesus Christ, His only Son and in the Holy Ghost, one God blessed forevermore and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration..." However, Article VI, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution forbids such an oath with these words: "No religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

"Be not deceived...whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap." (Gal 6:7) The states created a political scandal, totally adrift from God, that denied Christ His rightful role as King of the nation, and then tried to shield themselves from the repercussions by supposedly giving it limited, delegated powers. Gary DeMar is deceiving himself by defending this as a "Christian nation." What difference would it make if they had only delegated one power to the Federal government or delegated 100 powers -- what they committed with that document was treason against the governing authority of God.

Rev. DeMar seems to think that by conceding this point he will open the floodgates to the barbarians. What Gary DeMar & American Vision fail to realize is that by failing to concede this point we open the floodgates to the judgment of God.

Gary DeMar seems to have forgotten that God deals covenantally with nations. The states covenanted together solely on the authority of "we the people", totally snubbing God, and outlawing a religious test oath requiring obedience to God. How can that possibly pass muster in the court of Heaven? How can Gary DeMar & American Vision tell us that that apostate sellout has no impact on the states, that the whole transaction somehow constituted a "Christian nation?" So what if they still had their religious test oaths; they had just turned their backs on God and prostituted themselves to the idol of pluralism. It was only a matter of time before their test oaths would also be casually brushed aside.

Had the United States been constituted as a Christian nation, the Constitution would have contained words similar to this Amendment to the Preamble proposed by the National Reform Association in 1864: "We the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Governor among the nations, and His revealed will as of supreme authority, in order to constitute a Christian government, to form a more perfect union...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Gary DeMar acts as if a religious test oath is optional. It is as if he were saying, "Hey guys, we've got a pretty good Constitution drafted up here, whatdayathink, should we throw in a religious test oath, or not?" The fact that the Old Testament covenant oath was at the heart of God's relation with the nation of Israel seems to have evaded Rev. DeMar. It was taken originally by Moses, then retaken at various points of repentance throughout the nation's history (cf. Josh 24 & II Kings 23:3). As King Josiah began his great reform, we are told that "the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart...and all the people stood to the covenant." Gary DeMar & American Vision should know that God works through covenant oaths in family, church, and state, which is what makes Article VI such an outrage. The King of Assyria took a similar oath of repentance in Jonah 3:7, proving that this is also God's pattern for the Gentile nations.

When Gary DeMar asserts that the federal government can't apply a religious test, but "we the people certainly can", he is committing the "fallacy of definition". In other words, he switched definitions of "religious test." This phrase refers to the covenant that a civil magistrate enters into with God upon assumption of public office. Rev. DeMar has changed the meaning to an evaluative criteria that voters apply to a candidate for public office, assuming that nobody would notice. That's not permissible in debate.

Tabash is right. Gary DeMar & American Vision talk "strict construction" when it suits them and revert to historical revisionism - a la Justice Joseph Story - when it doesn't. Story, a supreme court justice and founder of Harvard law school, stated that "...the real object of the 1st Amendment is not to countenance -- much less to advance Islam, or Judaism, or infidelity -- but to exclude all rivalry among Christian denominations...It thus cut off the means of religious persecution...and of the suppression of the rights of conscience in matters of religion...."

But, how can Gary DeMar ignore Madison's plain, literal statements regarding the irrelevance of religion as a qualification for public office? Why do they let Story speak for Madison and ignore what Madison said for himself? That is the fallacy of "incompetent authority." It definitely removes Rev. DeMar & American Vision from the camp of the "strict constructionists" on the pivotal issue regarding the interpretation of American history.

Gary DeMar is surely aware of the Convention Debates and the Federalist Papers at least in part; isn't it obvious from these records that the framers were not hammering out Biblical principles of government? How can anybody who has even skimmed these documents make the audacious statement that "they were using the Bible as their great political textbook" or creating a Christian nation? They scarcely even refer to Scripture in hundreds and hundreds of pages of notes. And as Tabash noted repeatedly, Madison makes it very clear in the Federalist Papers that he did not think religion should have anything to do with qualifications for public office. Gary DeMar & American Vision actually quoted historian Thomas Cumming Hall in "Biblical Worldview" a few years back as saying, "The 18th century conception of Greco-Roman Paganism has completely supplanted Puritanical Judaism" in the Federalist Papers. But they now speak as if they had never read those words.

Contrary to Joseph Story, the following quotes from the Federalist make clear Madison's intent regarding the positive virtues of excluding religion from civil government:

"The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man...a zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points...we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control [for faction]." (Federalist #10)

"The door of this part of the federal government [House of Representatives] is open to merit of every description...and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith as a requisite for public office." (Federalist #52)

"Who are to be the objects of popular choice? Every citizen whose merit may recommend him to the esteem and confidence of his country. No qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession is permitted to fetter the judgment of disappoint the inclination of the people" (Federalist #57)

It would appear that Gary DeMar & American Vision have a choice. Are they going to be "strict constructionist" and stick with Madison's clearly stated intent regarding religion, or are they going to continue to revise history with Joseph Story?

In spite of their proclivity for religious language, it is common knowledge that most of the ringleaders among the founders were unitarian, denying the Divinity of Jesus: Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, and most likely Washington. Gary DeMar is surely aware of books such as John Eidsmoe's "Christianity & the Constitution", which document this fact. On the other hand, Madison was very tight-lipped about where he really was at spiritually.

In the case of George Washington, his own pastor questioned the reality of Washington's faith. The book "George Washington & Religion" by Paul Boller explains how all the Washington myths got started through hearsay. Boller quotes Washington's Pastor (Abercrombie) during the 8 years of Washington's Presidency:

"That Washington was a professing Christian, is evident from his regular attendance in our church; but, Sir, I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a channel of divine grace."

Moreover, the evidence is overwhelming -- e.g., newspaper articles, paintings, personal letters, statuary all over the country (cf. www.ismellarat.com) -- that Washington was a high level Freemason. Freemasonry is, and was, a secret organization requiring adherents to swear to many anti-Christian oaths. Of course, this is seemingly in contrast to all the founder's public utterances about religion, which make the Christians' hearts go "pitter-patter". Books have been filled with these quotes, but they fail to get down to the bedrock of the framers' actual worldview. Gary DeMar & American Vision have forgotten that religious language may be laden with connotations that mean something entirely different for a believer and an unbeliever. Thus, they have been led astray.

Gary DeMar knows how to deal with this "God talk" when it comes to the church. There are churches all over America that claim to be Christian. They talk a good game: They pray, they administer sacraments, they make religious pronouncements and they refer to the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. Gary DeMar can smell them out as phonies in an instant; he knows how to cut to the chase and find out where they actually stand with Christ. Why is it that he is so "star struck" when it comes to our unitarian framers and can't seem to separate religious jargon from religious commitment?

How can God possibly bless our efforts at reform if we insist on defending this covenant-breaking indignation? A clique of unitarian lawyers blatantly broke covenant with God and for 200+ years the Christians fawn over them and defend them seemingly to the death. The magnitude of this self-deception is staggering. Why do Gary DeMar & American Vision insist on riding this lame horse?

It is clear to any historically informed observer that Tabash had the upper hand in the first hour of the debate before the moderator dragged him off topic. He marshaled quote after quote to demonstrate that what he was saying about Madison, the principle architect, is true. The moderator, a Christian, became so frustrated hearing facts contrary to his presuppositions that he finally had to resort to verbal abuse and "strong arm" Tabash into silence. It was not exactly a neutral debate format.

As Tabash protests repeatedly, Gary DeMar is arguing all around the subject: "Did the framers in 1788 create a Christian government?" Rev. DeMar insists on arguing that governments they created earlier are Christian governments. In debate parlance this is known as the "fallacy of the irrelevant thesis", or a red herring.

By technically playing with semantics it may be possible for Gary DeMar to assert that America remained a Christian nation in 1788. This would be in the same sense that Israel remained a "Christian" nation under Ahab. But like Israel at that time, the covenant had been grossly violated and needed to be renewed by retaking the religious test oath, as with Josiah in II Kings 23:3. Gary DeMar & American Vision have failed to grasp the fact that our framers made such an act of corporate repentance illegal in Article VI, Section 3.

Would the founders be shocked by what is going on today? Probably, but they shouldn't be; it's the logical outworking of their rejection of Christ as King of the nation in 1788. What else would we expect? Ideas (and actions) have consequences. They sowed to the wind and we their posterity are reaping the whirlwind.

The American Vision position on this critical question does not line up at all with Gary DeMar's normally astute historical judgment. Gary DeMar & American Vision defend the Constitution with almost the same tenacity as the Bible. As Christians we need to have the humility to admit that Eddy Tabash is right and Madison was wrong. We must not fail to adopt the Biblical position on the civil covenant and religious test oath so God can begin to bless our efforts to reform America.

ALAN KEYES

Trojan Horse of the Christian Right

Alan Keyes is the perennial Republican presidential candidate and erudite champion of the Party's hard-Right. Alan Keyes's platform is attractive to many Christians because of its strong anti-abortion and anti-tax planks. For example, Alan Keyes holds a no-compromise position on abortion and advocates the abolition of the federal income tax. Many Christians are inspired and motivated by Alan Keyes's dynamic presentation. For these and other reasons, this writer confesses to having voted for Alan Keyes in at least one Presidential primary, if not more.

It is the common ground that Conservative Christians share with Alan Keyes that makes him potentially dangerous. Many Christians fail to grasp that Alan Keyes's philosophical base is decidedly not Christian. This is true in spite of the fact that Alan Keyes refers frequently to God and the rule of law. In the philosophy of Alan Keyes, there are many beautiful branches, but the root is infected.

The basic problem with Alan Keyes from a Christian perspective is that he has substituted the Declaration of Independence for the Bible as his source of authority for life, morals and government. In the statement of core beliefs on his web site, Alan Keyes starts out on the right foot. "As a free people, our way of life depends upon certain moral ideas," says Alan Keyes, "and I believe that Christianity most perfectly embodies those ideas." So far so good.

But then Alan Keyes takes the fatal misstep, an error almost as old as Christianity itself. Assuming that the non-Christian will not accept the Bible, Alan Keyes declares that we must search for a source of governing authority outside the Bible that will be acceptable to all. Alan Keyes finds this common ground in the Declaration of Independence. According to Alan Keyes:

"...since Americans come from many different religious backgrounds, in dealing with issues of public policy we must derive these ideas from sources that are open to support from all the people. Nothing meets this purpose more completely than the principles and logic of our own Declaration of Independence."

With these two brief sentences, Alan Keyes stumbles headlong into the heresy of natural law. From here on out it is all downhill. Alan Keyes thereby dispenses with the Bible and never mentions it again in the statement of his core beliefs.

It is this reliance on the Declaration of Independence that makes Alan Keyes one of the foremost contemporary preachers of America's civil religion. This religion entails a zealous devotion to America's founders and founding documents. Alan Keyes points back to the Declaration as America's "sacred text" and to Abraham Lincoln as the latter day prophet calling a wayward people back to that icon. In so doing, Alan Keyes misinterprets both the Declaration and the motives of Abraham Lincoln as expressed in the Gettysburg Address.

In the first place, Alan Keyes overlooks the fact that the "laws of nature and nature's God" describe a natural law worldview, rather than a Biblical worldview. It is the natural law of the Roman Senator Cicero, defined by him as "right reason in agreement with nature." Echoed by Jefferson's, "We hold these truths to be self-evident...." verbiage. The framers copied the Roman Senate, they assumed Roman pseudonyms in their debates, they adopted Roman architecture, they borrowed Roman natural law and in effect they embraced the religion of the Roman Pantheon: religious and political pluralism -- all gods are welcome here as long as they bow to Caesar. Thus, would Alan Keyes lure the unwary Christian away from the Bible; perhaps Alan Keyes himself is not even aware of these connections and their consequences.

Thomas Aquinas spent his whole life in pursuit of this illusion: the "classical synthesis" and natural law. As a Roman Catholic, Alan Keyes has an affinity for the natural law approach of Aquinas. Unfortunately, our efforts to prop up the Word of God in this fashion almost always have the unintended effect of undermining its authority. Rather than building a bridge, as Alan Keyes may hope, we find that we have erected a wall between the unbelieving world and the truth they so desperately need. If we use any other authority to demonstrate the authority of the Bible, we have established that "other authority" as a higher authority.

Moreover, Alan Keyes seems unaware that Rome is just one of the unorthodox philosophical strains that infected Jefferson and the framers. To Rome we could add the secularized, Republicanism of the British Commonwealth Men (Harrington, Milton, Locke, etc.), the Utilitarian, "greatest happiness" theory of Jeremy Bentham, the common sense rationalism of Thomas Reid and John Witherspoon, the mechanistic Deism of Isaac Newton, the watered-down common law of William Blackstone. Even Adam Smith's conservative, semi-Biblical, free-trade arguments persuaded Madison that political centralization was desirable to reduce trade barriers. The New England Puritans weren't even completely successful in resisting all of this, let alone the exalted founder/framers. Biblical Christianity is fortunate even to have gotten lip service. It doesn't fare much better with Alan Keyes, who makes a fetish of the Declaration of Independence.

In the second place, Alan Keyes completely misinterprets the Declaration on the one point that Jefferson seems to have gotten right. Alan Keyes forgets that the main thrust of the Declaration was to establish the right of the colonies to separate themselves from an abusive tyranny, namely England's George III. It was the Southern states that were attempting to exercise this right during the War Between the States.

On this point, Abraham Lincoln, Alan Keyes 18th Century idol, completely missed the boat. First of all, Alan Keyes notes correctly that Lincoln's motivation in the War Between the States was not to free the slaves, but rather to save the Union (Human Events, August 11, 2000). Alan Keyes quotes Lincoln as saying during the war, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all slaves I would do it." Alan Keyes notes that this statement "can seem almost scandalous", but concludes that Lincoln believed the union was the prerequisite of all other good, including freeing the slaves.

To prove this, Alan Keyes points to Lincoln's famous words in the Gettysburg Address. According to Alan Keyes, Lincoln called for a united effort to restore principles of freedom in the Declaration as the foundation for eventual abolition, even though it might be painfully long in coming. "But if it was necessary to endure that delay rather than admit that we could not govern ourselves under the principles of the Declaration," Alan Keyes explains, "Lincoln was prepared to do so."

But Alan Keyes (and apparently Abraham Lincoln) overlook the fact that prior to the war the vast majority in the South was looking for ways to gradually abolish slavery. The majority of "anti-slavery societies" were located in the South. Furthermore, Alan Keyes overlooks the fact that it was the antebellum South that was trying to call the North to refrain from its repeated attempts to burst the bands of limited, Constitutional government. When every effort to do so, proved futile, the Southern states finally seceded.

And herein lies the irony of Alan Keyes's ultimate failure to grasp the hypocrisy of Lincoln's words at Gettysburg. In the Gettysburg Address Lincoln harkened back to the Declaration of Independence, "fourscore and seven years ago." But, It was the South not the North that was faithful to the essential point of the Declaration by exercising its right to withdraw from an abusive tyranny. Lincoln denied this, and his hypocrisy is well summarized by H.L. Mencken:

The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination -- that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.

Thus, Christians should mark well the words of Alan Keyes. They may follow and support him at those points where he coincides with Scripture, but must abandon the natural law thinking that undergirds Alan Keyes' political philosophy.

PATRICK HENRY COLLEGE

Founded by Michael Farris

Prior to the founding of Patrick Henry College, Michael Farris rendered over 20 years of invaluable service to the American home school movement. Through a system of legal insurance, priced at only $100 per family per year, Michael Farris waged a battle for home school freedom, state by state, courtroom by courtroom, case by case. By the turn of the millennium, the battle was essentially won. The home schoolers of America are forever indebted to Michael Farris and the work of Home School Legal Defense. The author of this article is personally indebted to Michael Farris for this labor of dedication and love.

The legacy he will bequeath to home schoolers at Patrick Henry College is more dubious and its final outcome remains to be seen. In 1999 Michael Farris left the field of law, in which he is so obviously gifted, to found Patrick Henry College.

Patrick Henry College is located within driving range of the nation's capital in order to implement an apprenticeship approach to training in government service. The stated vision of Patrick Henry College is "to aid in the transformation of American society by training Christian students to serve God and mankind...." The mission of the Department of Government at Patrick Henry College is "to promote practical application of biblical principles and the original intent of the founding documents of the American Republic...."

These are admirable goals, but how does Patrick Henry College live up to them? As noted elsewhere on this web site, it is impossible to promote simultaneously biblical principles of civil government and the original intent of the American founding documents. James Madison made it clear in the Federalist Papers that it was his intent to establish a secular republic. "Who are to be the objects of popular choice," asked Madison in Federalist #57, "No qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession is permitted to fetter the judgment or disappoint the inclination of the people". Elsewhere, Madison observed that "the establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles." Unfortunately, Patrick Henry College ignores Madison's clearly stated original intent. Instead, Patrick Henry College chooses to impose its own particular brand of historical revisionism on the founding era, making the framers say something other than what they intended.

It is impossible for Patrick Henry College to promote at the same time two mutually exclusive goals. Patrick Henry College cannot at the same time promote the Biblical covenant model of civil government and the social contract inherent in the U.S. Constitution. Patrick Henry College cannot at the same time promote the religious test oath the Bible requires of the civil magistrate and the prohibition of the religious test oath in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. It is only by obfuscating the true nature of biblical covenantalism that Patrick Henry College can pretend to accomplish this goal.

The Patrick Henry College advertising slogan is "Patrick Henry College: A new college with a timeless vision." In our opinion a more accurate slogan would be "Patrick Henry College: A new college with tunnel vision."

Why tunnel vision for Patrick Henry College? Are we indulging in unwarranted sarcasm? You be the judge. Michael Farris and Patrick Henry College are committed to the Federalist view of the United States Constitution, a view that we have demonstrated elsewhere on this site to have broken covenant with the God of the Bible.

In spite of all evidence to the contrary, Michael Farris and Patrick Henry College refuse to acknowledge the covenant breaking nature of the U.S. Constitution. Patrick Henry College is committed to the American Civil religion, which ascribes near cult status to America's founders and founding documents. Patrick Henry College refuses to acknowledge the Constitution's obvious violation of the Biblical requirement for the nation to covenant with God. Patrick Henry College fails to recognize the Biblical imperative for the civil magistrate to swear allegiance to God and His law. Moreover, Patrick Henry College refuses to acknowledge that the Constitutional requirement for the magistrate to swear allegiance to no higher power than the Constitution itself is a form of idolatry. This is tunnel vision.

To name a school of government dedicated to the Federalist perspective Patrick Henry College has the appearance of intellectual mendacity. The curriculum of Patrick Henry College rightly acknowledges that it was the Federalist perspective that prevailed at the Constitutional Convention. Patrick Henry College lauds this Federalist victory. However, you will recall that Patrick Henry was the leading anti-Federalist of the era. He fought ratification of the Constitution tooth and nail right down to the wire -- and he almost prevailed. Only at the very end of the debate did he urge submission to the new government to avoid the possibility of civil unrest. How can we justify naming a Federalist educational institution after the nonpareil of anti-Federalism? This is tunnel vision.

Patrick Henry regarded James Madison's coup at Philadelphia as an extremely dangerous rebellion against established authority in the state legislatures and Congress: "And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear, and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking...Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a Confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government...I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor...That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear..." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia.)

And again, Patrick Henry viewed the action in Philadelphia as a revolution on the same order of magnitude as the Revolution against England: "I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous...Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is as radical, if in this transition our rights and privileges are endangered and the sovereignty of the States by relinquished: And cannot we plainly see, that this is actually the case?" (Patrick Henry before the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1788) Time has proven Patrick Henry to be a prophet indeed.

A far more fitting name for Michael Farris's Patrick Henry College would be James Madison College. Such a name would have been a far more intellectually candid appellation for Patrick Henry College. Madison after all was the champion of the Federalist Party to which Michael Farris and Patrick Henry College are unreservedly devoted. To name an institution such as Patrick Henry College, which is committed to a particular intellectual position, after the leader of its philosophical opponent smacks of intellectual duplicity. Knowing the high moral character of Michael Farris, we can only conclude that this has been done through simple historical naiveté apart from any malicious intent. Nonetheless, Michael Farris should know better. This is tunnel vision.

In one of the early fundraising letters for Patrick Henry College, Michael Farris described his vision for a Hall of Founders in the rotunda of the new Administration Building. The walls of the rotunda were to be lined with statues of the signers of the U.S. Constitution, each dedicated to a patron who would donate a substantial sum to the founding of Patrick Henry College. In this letter Mickael Farris was forced to admit in passing that Patrick Henry was one of the handful of founders who did not sign the Constitution. However, he failed to mention Patrick Henry's pugnacious resistance to ratification of the Constitution. Undaunted and apparently oblivious to history, Michael Farris concluded nonetheless that anti- Federalist Patrick Henry was worthy of a place in the pantheon of Federalist demigods at Patrick Henry College. This is tunnel vision.

Sadly, an even more serious deficiency, is Michael Farris's tendency to place only limited emphasis on the law of God in civil government. In personal correspondence with this writer Michael Farris stated, "I do not favor a form of government where there is a veneer of theonomy. It is impossible to discern good from evil on the basis of religious oaths -- think Jimmy Carter." What does that mean? "Theonomy" is by definition "the rule of God's law" (Theos=God/Nomos=Law). What else can we conclude from this statement than that Michael Farris does not want the Bible or God to govern in civil affairs. Knowing Michael Farris, I doubt that is the case, but he is coming across as schizophrenic. This is tunnel vision.

What does Michael Farris mean by "veneer" in that statement? Is he talking about a thin coating of Christianity to disguise an underlying and corrupt pluralism? Does he desire submission of the nation to the commandments of God, or does he not? Why does he denigrate that as a "veneer of Theonomy"? Confusion in the thinking of the founder of Patrick Henry College on this vital issue, cannot fail to issue in confusion in the thinking of Patrick Henry College graduates. This also, is tunnel vision.

Why does Michael Farris believe that "it is impossible to discern good from evil on the basis of religious oaths"? Why then did the legal profession at one time require a religious oath of every witness examined in the courtroom? Why did the American settlers refuse to allow atheists to testify in the courtroom? Why is our secularized legal system doing away with these requirements? Is the religious oath a meaningless formality in the courtroom? Are we not invoking the judgment of God on the witness who violates that oath even though he may escape detection by men? If these are part of a "veneer of Theonomy", why don't we just dispense with them altogether and save a little time in the courtroom? King Josiah entered into a "religious oath" with God as he began his great reform in II Kings 23:3. Why did he do that if oaths are ineffectual in civil government?

What good is it for Patrick Henry College to send a generation of Christian home schoolers into the political battle with a half-hearted commitment to the law of God as the standard for political righteousness? What good is it for Patrick Henry College to send a generation of Christian home schoolers into the political battle who have no comprehension of the covenant-breaking nature of America's founding documents? What good is it for Patrick Henry College to send a generation of Christian home schoolers into the political battle armed only with a revisionist view of U.S. History?

What we need is champions of biblical civil government, biblical law and the biblical test oath, not champions of the American Civil Religion with a veneer of Christianity. Unfortunately, that is what we find at Patrick Henry College. Until Patrick Henry College conforms its philosophy to that of its namesake, we can only lament the day that Michael Farris left his God-given calling in the legal profession.