Classical Free: AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND HISTORY


Click on Picture for Timeline

PART I
Cracks in the Foundation
THE PROMISE OF THE CONSTITUTION
D E M O M O D E

The Constitution is, of course, the political foundation on which the civil government of the United States of America rests. It is the underpinning on which our society has been constructed. Under the Constitution Americans have enjoyed one of the longest periods of political freedom in the history of the world.

Many glowing accolades have been used to describe the United States Constitution. J. Edgar Hoover portrayed it as "rooted in wisdom, in common sense, and in stern practicality . . . our most priceless inheritance...--our bulwark against encroaching tyranny . . . strong, durable, marvelously workable."⁽¹⁾ Some have even gone so far as to describe the Constitution as possessing the marks of divine inspiration⁽²⁾ or "that Divinely-inspired constitutional document." ⁽³⁾

The republican government hammered out in the heat of the 1787 summer was in many respects the result of trial and error. The new nation had very nearly floundered in its experimentation with the two extremes in civil government--democracy and monarchy.

During much of the Revolutionary period from 1776 to 1787, the thirteen colonies were governed under the Articles of Confederation. In their attempt to institutionalize the ideals of Jeffersonian democracy, the Articles lacked the necessary authority to effectively govern the nation.

There was, for example, no executive branch under the Articles of Confederation. Furthermore, the absence of a taxing power meant that General George Washington was constantly plagued with shortages of supplies and payroll for the Continental Army. These hindrances to Washington's ability to field an effective fighting force almost cost the colonies the war.

Lack of an honest, uniform currency permitted many of the colonies to flood their economies with unbacked paper money. Inflation was rampant. At one point, the Continental dollar was redeemable at only a hundredth of its face value which led to popularization of the phrase, "not worth a Continental." To make matters worse, the colonies bickered constantly and erected trade barriers and tariffs, which further aggravated prices. It was this perilous state of confusion and anarchy that led to the cry for revision of the Articles of Confederation in 1787.

On the other hand, the colonies were extremely wary of any centralization of power at the national level. The hazards of weakness in the Articles were obvious. However, they had just emerged after seven long, bloody years from the tyranny of an abusive monarchy. Consequently, they were very jealous of their newly won freedom and extremely hesitant to surrender any of it to a central government.

The challenge was to strike a balance that would preserve state sovereignty, yet grant adequate power at the federal level to permit unified and coordinated action. Of infinitely greater importance was the manner in which the new nation would define its relationship to Jesus Christ--the King of kings. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787 to address these issues. Part I is an analysis of their achievement.

THE PROMISE OF THE CONSTITUTION

The promise of the United States Constitution lies in the extent to which it embraces biblical principles of civil government. The Constitution has been admired--and rightly so--for the functionality of its basic doctrinal structure, and some have attributed this to striking parallels with Scripture at key points. We turn our attention first to an examination of these fundamental points of doctrine.

In developing this doctrine, we will assume for the moment that the entire Bible, Old and New Testaments, contains directives for civil government today. This assumption is based on St. Paul's general teaching "that all Scripture . . . is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16). Chapter 7, "The Foundation of Political Righteousness," elaborates on the question of the abiding relevance of the Old Testament for political righteousness in the present age.

DIVISION OF POWERS

An important safeguard to ensure that government does not overstep its power is the principle of division of powers. The need for this safeguard lies in the corruptibility of the human heart.

The basis for God's establishing civil government was the evil tendency of human nature to degenerate into total anarchy if left unchecked. The biblical commentary on the condition of the human race prior to the flood is not complimentary. "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5, RSV; see also Judg. 17:6; 21:25).

This depravity led to the judgment and destruction of the human race in the worldwide flood recorded in Genesis. Only Noah and his family were preserved as a righteous remnant in the ark. Following the flood, God established the institution of civil government to hold man's evil nature in check and avoid the necessity of future violent judgment. One writer observes that,

The conditions of violence and corruption that occasioned the flood manifested that a new world order was necessary if the human race was to continue and not perish in moral decay . . . . By inaugurating a new one, God recognized the incorrigible sinfulness of the heart of man, and by covenant with the sinful race, He established a stronger basis for social control. If sin's violence to man cannot be kept in check by voluntary controls, then God in His grace would control it by coercive means . . . . The violent tendencies of men would now be put under such restraint that they would never again get so far out of hand.⁽⁴⁾

In establishing civil government, God granted authority to civil officers to punish wrongdoing with appropriate punishment, most notably the death penalty for murder (see Gen. 9:6). The Noahic Covenant, which contained these provisions, was to extend to all generations (Gen. 9: 6, 12, and 13): "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. . . . This is the token of the covenant . . . for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the clouds . . . ."

The granting of such power, however, created the potential for another problem--the abuse of power by civil government. The reality of this problem is clearly acknowledged in Scripture. In fact, the Bible likens the unrestrained power of civil government to that of the brute beasts.

The prophet Daniel was shown that four great world empires would precede the coming of the Redeemer. They were Babylon the lion, Media-Persia the bear, Greece the leopard, and Rome the indescribable beast (see Dan. 7). As wild beasts, unrestrained governments trample on men and their efforts to exercise dominion over the earth under God (see Gen. 1:28). They choose instead to exercise an unlawful dominion over their fellow men.

The beastly image of humanistic civil government is, of course, the divine perspective. From the unregenerate human point of view, civil government is seen as a great statue forged of precious metals. These same four kingdoms appeared in Nebuchadnezzar's dream as a head of gold, breasts of silver, thighs of bronze, and legs of iron (see Dan. 2). It is easy for mankind to overlook the fact that the foundation--the feet--was an unstable mix of iron and clay. Nonetheless, unregenerate humanity looks to civil government as a great god walking on earth dispensing the blessings of secular salvation. Thus, the tendency is to idolize civil government as the solution to all problems and satisfier of all needs. The testimony of history, as well as Scripture, however, is that this god will turn and devour its subjects if left unshackled.

This has occasioned the concept of "the rule of law, not of men" in Western civilization. A written Constitution based on the Word of God is to check and define the power of the civil magistrate. Deuteronomy 17:18ff (RSV) indicates that the kings of Israel were to be thus restrained:

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, from that which is in charge of the Levitical priests; and it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them; that his heart may not be lifted up above his brethren, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left; so that he may continue long in his kingdom . . . .

The king himself was to be governed and restrained by the revelation of God. Although the U.S. Constitution does not appeal directly to Scripture, it was nonetheless an effort to confine the power of government within a fence of law. However, as we shall see in chapter 2, to achieve this daunting task apart from submission to the Law of God is ultimately impossible.

Another verse that seems to bear on the issue of division of powers is Isaiah 33:22. Here we read that all three of the functions of government are united in the Godhead. These include the establishment or codification of law, the enforcement or administration of law, and the interpretation or application of the law to specific cases: "The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king: he will save us."

We can infer that any attempt on the part of civil government to unify all of these functions is an attempt to imitate the power of God. God generally frustrates the unity of these and other powers by vesting them in more than a single individual or institution. This is to thwart the constant human striving to "be like God." A case in point was His confusing of tongues and scattering the idolaters at the Tower of Babel. And as we shall see in chapter 8, the representatives of the people in the Old Testament economy were generally distinct from the executive/judicial leadership.

Constitution's Conformity to Biblical Model

The U.S. Constitution employs a similar division of powers. Separation of power is a constitutional device intended to check the tendency of government to go beyond its delegated functions. Under the Constitution, all legislative power was granted to the legislature, all executive power was granted to the executive, and all judicial power was granted to the judiciary. The three branches were to function as a kind of check and balance, each restraining abuses of the others.

Montesquieu was a primary authority to which the founding fathers adhered at this point. The French political philosopher had written: "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty . . . lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner."⁽⁵⁾

LIMITED, DELEGATED POWERS

In addition to division of powers, another way to prevent abuse of authority is to limit the power of government. There are many ways in which this power may be limited.

In the modern world, when people hear the word "government," they have been trained to think automatically of civil government. They have been conditioned to think in terms of the power state as the reference point for all of life. In stark contrast, Scripture speaks of many governments regulating human society. Primary among these are church, family, and individual government. Each of these is granted certain powers to govern within its sphere of activity which must not be usurped by the civil magistrate.

At the heart of biblical society is the self-governed individual who is being trained by God to discipline himself morally in accordance with Scripture. The external pronouncements of government reinforce this moral discipline. But ultimately the power of government is limited by the commitment of the individual to obey the law.

Government is also limited in that it must not legislate in areas where the Word of God provides no example of legislation. There is a distinction between crime and sin. Not all sin is crime, to be punished by the state. Hence, the failure of Prohibition, which was the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Temperance is a matter of personal, not public morality.

However, the ruler must legislate morality. If he does not legislate morality, there is only one other choice: He will legislate immorality. There is no neutrality because any law passed will either conform or not conform to the Law of God.

Jesus said, "He that is not with me is against me" (Matt. 12:30). There is no middle ground; neutrality is a myth. In other words, somebody's morality is going to be legislated because a moral code in one form or another rests at the heart of every system of law. A law is nothing more than a codification of a religious principle. For example, the Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," underlies civil law against murder. Consequently, the biblical ruler must confine and conform his legislation to the moral requirements of Scripture.

It should be noted in passing that the legislation of morality does not supply the power to practice morality to individual citizens. It simply sets the standard. Obedience to the law requires strength of character in the lives of officials and citizens.

It is clear in Scripture that God has assigned only certain responsibilities to government, those related to defense and justice. The judicial function of government is clearly seen in Exodus 18, where Moses sat in judgment over Israel. In the New Testament, Romans 13:3-4 highlights the enforcement function of government, ". . . For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil . . . for he beareth not the sword in vain." Civil government is not free to legislate in whatever areas it sovereignly chooses. We shall see more on the function of civil government in chapter 9.

Another passage that appears to limit the power of government is Matthew 22:21. Jesus exhorted His disciples to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" (RSV). One implication of this statement is that the power of the government is limited and that it is to receive authority and resources only to function in its legitimate areas of jurisdiction.

In all these ways the legislative power of government is limited by God. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to refer to legislators as "law finders" rather than "law makers." This would signify that their primary task is to search the Word of God for divine law on which to model the laws of the nation.

Constitution's Conformity to Biblical Model

The U.S. Constitution incorporated the principle of limited, delegated power in Article I, Section 8 where it defined the powers of Congress. Congress was limited only to those sixteen functions specified in Section 8. These include among others the power to regulate commerce, coin money, declare war, grant copyrights, and regulate the land and naval forces.

The Tenth Amendment reinforces the fact that the Constitution was not an unlimited grant of power to the federal government. It states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people."

Thus, the power of the federal government is limited and originates with the states, which created the central government in the first place. Historian Robert Weaver explains that "Both the people and the States were so fearful that the Federal government might try to seize more powers by usurpation that this amendment was adopted to help prevent such violation of the Constitution. . . ."⁽⁶⁾

The preamble of the Constitution summarizes the legitimate functions of the federal government and introduces the purposes of the document. Notice that these are limited to defense-related functions and those that will promote the good of the nation as a whole. They do not include the authority to make welfare payments to individual citizens.

FEDERALISM

At one time or another, you have probably heard a fellow believer make a statement something like this, "There is no biblical form of government. God doesn't really care what form of government a nation chooses, as long as He is glorified." The assumption is that God has nothing definitive to say on the question of civil government. It is a secular realm, beyond the scope of religious concern. It is presumed that with respect to civil government there are few, if any, absolutes.

If one points to the Old Testament as a biblical paradigm for civil government, he is glibly informed that "a theocracy is a government in which God rules directly over a people." No further discussion, since this is obviously an impossibility today. Case closed. But the persistent enquirer may be wondering to himself: "Exactly how did God rule His people in the Old Testament? Did the Hebrew state employ principles of government that might profitably be emulated by civil government today?" In short, is the government of Israel under Moses a God-given prototype for civil government in all ages?

A glance beneath the surface reveals that the Mosaic economy was much more than a sort of divine "benevolent dictatorship" with God at the top and Moses a notch or so lower barking out the divine dictates.

To be sure, Moses originally attempted to put this concept into practice. Exodus 18 reveals how the people stood about Moses from morning till evening to inquire of God. Moses wore himself out trying to run the entire nation from a position of central authority.

When Jethro, his father-in-law, took stock of the situation, he immediately advised Moses to decentralize--to divide the responsibility up among rulers of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens within the twelve tribes and to let them handle the easier cases. Thus, power is divided vertically as well as horizontally (legislature, executive, judiciary).

Constitution's Conformity to Biblical Model

This principle is seen in the federal--or two-level form--of the American system. This form is best suited for meeting the security needs of a number of small independent states through a strong, but limited central government. It allows simultaneously for local self-government and attention to local needs. Thus, Alexander Hamilton could write: "The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power."⁽⁷⁾

Under the federal model, the smaller governmental bodies unite and establish a central government with limited, delegated powers. The federal government is a creature of the states and is to remain under their ultimate control, rather than vice versa. When power becomes centralized at the federal level, tyranny and gross inefficiency are not far behind (see chapter 9).

Thus, the thirteen colonies united to establish a dual level of government, republican in form at both state and national echelons. The states as institutional entities maintained direct control of the federal government via their senatorial agents, senators being elected originally by the state legislatures.

Under this system, any number of smaller states may unite to offset certain vulnerabilities they possess because of their size. This may include such things as defense or hindrances to trade that may exist among them or the lack of a uniform medium of exchange. They delegate to the central government specified, limited powers to accomplish these functions, while retaining all other local powers and responsibilities that were better handled on a local level.

REPUBLICAN FORM

The manner in which Moses selected his subordinates sheds further light on the biblical form of government. A very significant detail is added to the story in Deuteronomy 1, which records Moses' farewell sermon to the nation before it entered the promised land. In recounting the Jethro episode, Moses reveals that the people themselves were permitted to select their leaders: "Choose wise, understanding, and experienced men, according to your tribes, and I will appoint them as your heads" (v. 13, RSV). The nominated leaders were then brought to Moses for approval and formal installation at a type of swearing-in ceremony.

The Reverend Thomas Hooker picked up on this idea in one of his election day sermons in colonial Connecticut. He said, "The choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God's own allowance." Shortly thereafter, the freemen of Connecticut adopted a written constitution embodying Hooker's ideal. It was entitled the "Fundamental Orders of Connecticut," which according to Verna Hall became a major prototype for the United States Constitution: ". . . it marked the beginnings of American democracy, of which Thomas Hooker deserves more than any other man to be called the father. The government of the United States today is in lineal descent more nearly related to that of Connecticut than to that of any of the other thirteen colonies. . . ."⁽⁸⁾

Similarly, in the New Testament, church members nominate church officers, who are then vested with authority by the current, sitting officers. In Acts 6:3 (RSV), Peter instructed the congregation to "pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty." A similar protocol was employed for the choice of an elder/apostle to replace Judas in Acts 1:15-23.

In the Bible, qualified civil leadership was identified among the people by the people and selected according to the free suffrages of the people in the sovereignty of God. Jephthah, for example, was recruited for leadership by the people and formally installed by them (see Judg. 11:8-11). Both Kings David and Saul were first anointed by God, but not formally installed as King until the hearts of the people were prepared to accept them. Even God accommodated Himself to the children of Israel and would not impose His Kingship upon them apart from their formal covenantal acceptance of Him. The general idea is that people will not have deserved confidence in their leaders unless they themselves have selected them. The candidate's intimate associates are the best judge of his character and other qualifications for public office. According to E.C. Wines, "the people, therefore, though in the mass incapable of administration of government, are nevertheless, capable of calling others to this office."⁽⁹⁾

This procedure is the essence of the governmental form today known as "republican," and the vast difference between a republic and a democracy has been lost to most Americans. Most would be shocked to hear that the Constitution did not establish a democracy. Most American Christians would be just as shocked to hear that the concept of democracy is totally alien to the Bible. In a democracy the will of the people is supreme, but in a republic the people choose their governmental representatives, who are then responsible to govern according to God's Word, not primarily according to the will of the people.

Constitution's Conformity to Biblical Model

The U.S. Constitution follows the pattern of the republican form that we have seen modeled in Scripture. The word "democracy" is not mentioned in the Constitution. Rather, each state is guaranteed a republican form of government (see U.S. Constitution 4-4-1). Representatives to the national government are elected by the people to conduct the affairs of state (see 1-2-1). As in Scripture, the primary purpose of constitutional government is defense of its citizens (see 1-8-1ff) and maintenance of justice.

James Madison, the primary intellectual force behind the Constitution, described the republican model in these words in Federalist #39: "It is sufficient for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed either directly or indirectly, by the people."⁽¹⁰⁾

The people's representatives govern in accordance with the written Constitution (see 6-1-2), not primarily the will of their constituents: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby . . . ."

This principle is good as far as it goes, but it does not go high enough. As we shall see in the next chapter, the Constitution fails to allow for the supremacy of "the Law above the law"--the commandment of God.

CONCLUSION

We have observed some remarkable parallels between the governmental structure outlined in the U.S. Constitution and that of the Bible. These include federalism, the division of powers, the republican form, and limited delegated power.

It is difficult to determine the extent to which these principles were drawn self-consciously from the Bible by the founders. The Federalist Papers are perhaps the best indication of what they were thinking. These were originally a series of newspaper editorials written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay to promote the Constitution in the colonies. They are widely acknowledged as one of the best sources available on the true intent of the founders. Notes from the Convention were not available in 1787 because the founders had sworn themselves to secrecy. Thus, the Federalist Papers contain the arguments by which they justified themselves to the world of that day.

The authors of the Federalist Papers are clearly not reasoning self-consciously from Scripture in the derivation of their governmental formulations. The Federalist Papers contain no references to Scripture. By way of contrast, there are at least 28 references to the governments of ancient Greece and Rome. Furthermore, the writers of the Federalist chose the Roman "Publius," rather than a biblical pen name. Christian historian, Gary DeMar observes that "Athens held sway while Jerusalem was forgotten." He then cites Thomas Cuming Hall:

Indeed, Alexander Hamilton almost goes out of his way to ignore the Old Testament in his recital of the various republics and their history in "The Federalist," and in his list of republics Sparta, Athens, Rome and Carthage . . . are all reviewed; but of Judaism there is no mention. . . . Indeed it is very striking to observe the authorities that have taken the place of Moses and the prophets . . . . The eighteenth-century conception of Greco-Roman Paganism has completely supplanted Puritanic Judaism.⁽¹¹⁾

Many of the founders had received, at least in part, a classical education in addition to instruction in the Bible. That admixture of pagan and Christian thought permeated documents such as the Federalist. John Adams' diary, for example, records his resolution to "rise with the sun and to study the Scriptures, on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday mornings, and to study some Latin author the other 3 mornings."⁽¹²⁾

Nevertheless, it would appear that the backdrop of the Puritan experiment in biblical government a century earlier had an influence, if only subliminal. Moreover, many of the founders, including Madison, had a keen appreciation for the biblical doctrine of "the depravity of man" via the influence of Pastor Jonathan Witherspoon at the College of New Jersey (Princeton). This resulted in the unique restraints on individual power that they built into the Constitution.

Christianity provided the social context and framework in which men of that day existed, and everyday speech was often sprinkled with religious terminology. To the extent that these biblical concepts have been applied to American government, America may be said to have enjoyed freedom and prosperity, if not the full blessing of God.

AMERICAN POETRY & PROSE #1 -- The Puritan Age

THE WORD OF GOD AS THE BASIS FOR SOCIAL ORDER

The Puritan Age extends from the founding of Plymouth in 1620 to the death of Jonathan Edwards in 1758. Puritan New England was established as a Holy Commonwealth, in which the civil government and its leaders were under formal covenant with God to rule according to His law-Word. For example, both the Massachusetts Body of Liberties and the Abstract of the Laws of New England were cross-referenced directly to the Bible by John Cotton. This commitment to live in accordance with the Word of God was also true of family and church.

This has been documented by Cotton Mather, who was part of the third generation of Puritans who had boarded ship for Massachusetts in the Great Migration, commencing in 1630. In Magnalia Christi Americana Mather addressed a spirit of declension that was taking root in New England. In particular he spoke to the covetousness of Boston merchants who had begun to assume the worldview of self-sufficient "Yankees" and against the practice of slave trading. These exhortations fell on deaf ears.

Almost from the beginning forces conspired to replace the Holy Commonwealth with a man-centered social contract. The impulses toward disintegration were many and diverse. Among other things they included the loss of social cohesion that came with geographic expansion from the Boston hub and other social factors such as slave trading and intolerance toward strangers. Economic impediments included the Puritan penchant for price fixing, common ownership and the 1688 decree that the right to vote be based on property ownership, not church membership.

Spiritual factors such as the autonomy of Congregational church government and Cotton Mather’s promotion of Newtonian natural law and (inadvertently) Deism certainly played a role. Mather’s The Christian Philosopher is an unabashed encomium to the work of Sir Isaac Newton. To Mather, Newton’s scientific discoveries were irrefutable evidence of God’s existence and creation of the universe. He failed to recognize that Newton’s mechanistic laws served to push an increasingly impersonal God to the periphery of unbelieving thought. At the very least, they reinforced the Deistic view of God as the cosmic Clockmaker who wound up the universe, then stepped back to let it run on its own. Even worse, because Mather and other Christians tied belief in God so closely to Newtonian science, they inadvertently elevated the authority of science above the Bible. Later, when the Newtonian worldview was supplanted, the Bible went with it. In addition, the Halfway Covenant produced spiritual alienation among the second and third generations because the Puritans denied the Lord’s Table to their baptized children.

Other factors were political, such as the pluralism introduced by Roger Williams in Rhode Island and universal suffrage implemented by Thomas Hooker in Connecticut. Both of these developments permitted non-believers to participate in civil leadership and ensured its eventual corruption. On top of all this, the Salem witch trials (1692) gave the Puritans a theological black eye from which they never fully recovered. As the result of this fragmenting process, a spiritually listless and stunted church staggered out of the 17th Century into the Age of Reason. The God-fearing Puritan was fast becoming the self-sufficient Yankee.

In spite of many shortcomings, the Puritan fathers sought earnestly to order their society according to the Bible. A widely-read poet of the Puritans, Michael Wigglesworth, captures the severity of God’s justice, and the necessity of a Redeemer in his penetrating A Short Discourse on Eternity. By contrast, God’s kindness toward His elect is portrayed by Anne Bradstreet, who sees the mercy and provision of God even in the tragedy of a home destroyed by fire.

A. The Severity of God: Michael Wigglesworth, The Day of Doom

B. The Kindness of God: Anne Bradstreet, Upon the Burning of Our House

Do you have a good handle on the material presented in the essay? If you think you're ready, proceed to the review quiz below.
NOTE 1: Some of the questions rely on information from the Timeline. Be sure to review the Timeline before taking the quiz.
NOTE 2: If you believe an answer was unfairly graded, or you believe there are alternative valid answers to a question, please fill out the Feedback form at the end of the quiz.
NOTE 3: You may choose to purchase the online text for the American Government and History course in book format. Click here to purchase the "Discipling the Nations" textboox

Once you have answered all questions to the best of your ability, choose "Score Your Answers". NOTE: Once you choose this option, your quiz will be graded and your grade will be recorded. If you elect not to score your answers at this time, you will be presented with the essay again, but your score will automatically be reduced by 10 percent.