The Myth

of
Political Polytheism
by Archie P. Jones
Gary North is one of the most important and
productive Christian writers of our time. He has
helped many younger Christian writers (including
this reviewer) to find their way into print.
Political Polytheism, his latest work, is a spirited
theonomic attack on (1) the idea of religious and
ethical neutrality and (2) on the idea that these United
States were founded on a Christian basis. It i!) a
volume of four parts. The first is a discussion of
Biblical covenantalism and its legal applications. The
second is his attack on "halfway covenantal" ethics,
social criticism, and historiography, which judicially
divide Old Covenant Israel from so-called New
Covenant nations, which hold that there are no
sanctions in history for disobeying God's national
covenantal laws. The third is an attack on the United
States Constitution as "apostate covenantalism," man-
centered covenantal legal theory which in principle
removes God and Christianity in the name of the
false god of political pluralism. The final section
outlines what Christians should do to restore our
national covenant.
The thesis of Political Polytheism is that American
politics has declined since the ?f
the Puritans; that the covenant-break:mg, ratlonalisttc
spirit of secret Newtonian "Enlightenment" thinking
made the Declaration of Independence a Deistic
"halfway covenant" document and the Articles of
Confederation a practical outworking of
thinking; and, most important of all, that a Masomc
Conspiracy led by George Washington and James
Madison made the United States Constitution a
secular humanist document by prohibiting a religious
test for federal office.
These themes are repeatedly interwoven. But
repetition, like .wishing,. does make. it
Political Polythetsm, partlcularly m tts cruc!al thud
part, is flawed by faulty l_llethodology ti?Dores,
or fails to confront, key evidence at cructal pomts.
Faulty Methodology
Political Polytheism was a rush job. Not enough
time was spent on research or on considering the
pertinent the issues raised, or !he
quotations cited. The author placed
reliance on the works of seculansts, theologically
liberal, or the intellectually compromised "halfway
covenant" historians he critiqued in part two. He
also uncritically accepted the claims of Masonic
historians about the numbers and influence of .
Masons in the American "Revolution" and the
Constitutional Convention. These are probably the
causes of the book's many unsubstantiated
statements, misinterpreted documents, hasty
generalizations, and unsupported conclusions.
From among the many examples, a few will have to
suffice.
First, the Declaration of Independence is said to be a
Deist document (p. 406), framed by Deists and
Masons, which announced the creation of a new .
nation in 1776. But, as Willmoore Kendall pointed
out The Declaration brought forth "a baker's dozen
of nations," not one new nation. The vast
majority of the fifty-six men who revised
Jefferson's draft of the Declaration and approved its
final version were Christians, not Deists or incipient
Unitarians. The notion that the Declaration was
Deistic is disproved by the document itself, which
appeals for the rectitude of its signers' intentions
and the victory of their cause to Divine Providence--
a concept incompatible with the "W atchmak:er God"
of Deism, but compatible with the Christianity of
the great majority of those who approved the final
draft of the document.
The notion that the Declaration was intended to be a
Deistic document could certainly have been
corrected by a study of the other actions of the
Continental Congress. Even secularist propagandist
Leo Pfeffer noted that:
The Proclamations and other state papers of the Continental
Congress were replete with references to religion,
unabashedly exhibiting a belief in Protestantism. Congress
continually evoked, as sanction for its acts, the name of
"God," "Almighty God," "Nature's God," "God of Armies,"
"Lord of Hosts," "His Goodness," "God's Superintending
Providence," "Providence of God," "Providence," "Supreme
and Universal Providence," "Overruling Providence of God,"
The Counsel of Chalcedon October 1990 Page 7
"Creator of All," "Indulgent Creator," "Great Governor of the
World," "The Divinity," Supreme. Disposer of All Evepts,"
"Holy Ghost," ."Jesus Christ," "Christian Religion," and
Protestant Colonies" and other expressions of devout
Christian Protestantism. (Church, State, and Freedom
[Boston: Beacon Press, 1953], pp.106-107)
Moreover, Pfeffer notes that the Continental
Congress;
... did not hesitate to legislate on such subjects as morality,
sin , repentance, humiliation, divine service, .prayer,
reformation, mourning, public worsbip, funerals, chaplains, .
true religion, and Thanksgiving. The Sabbath was recognized
to a degree rarely exhibited in other countries; Congress was
adjourned and l.lll official business was suspended, as. it was. on
Good Friday. (ibid., p. 107)
He also notes that the Continental Congress adopt
a day of national humiliation; fasting and prayer,
provided chaplains for the army, employed a
minister to instruct the Indians in the principles of
Christianity, recommended to the state that they
encourage religion (Christianity) and suppress vice,
endorsed and recommended an American edition of
The Bible, and in 1783 proclaimed a peace treaty
with England "In the name of the Most Holy and
Undivided Trinity" (Op.cit., pp. 107-108). Clearly,
things can hardly be squared. with Deistic,
rationalistic, Unitarian or anti-Christia,n intention. It .
requires an irrational leap of faith,--or inexcusable
ignorance of the relevant evidence--to conclude that
such a body would have adopted a Deistic
Declaration of Independence.
The fact . is that the Declaration's _famous phrases
were based upon The Bible upon centuries of
Christian ethical and legal thinking, not Deism, .
Unitarianism, or "Enlightenment ... rationalism.
This has been amply demonstrated by Gary . T.
Amos, whose systematic research refutes all the .
popularized secularist misinterpretations of the
historical background and text of the Declaration
upon which Dr. North relied for his evaluation of
that doc'!llllent. (Defending .How the
Bible and Christianity Influenced the of the
Declaration of Independence [Brentwood, Tennes-
see: Wolgemuth and Hyatt, 1989]).
Second, Dr. North asserts that the Constitutional
Convention was led by . men: who were anti-
trinitarian Unitarians (p.461). However, the
researches of Prof. M. E. Bradford, who has
studied their lives, clearly indicates that neither the
leaders nor the vast majority of the delegates to the
Constitutional Convention were what would later be
called Unitarians or Deists. (M.E. Bradford, A
The Counsel of -Chalcedon October .1990 8
Worthy Company [Marlborough, New Hampshire:
Rock 1982]).
. .
Third, Dr. North grounds . his case against , the
Constitution and its Framers and Rati:ti,ers on. the
document's prohibition of a religious test for federal
office (Article VI). Throughout his book. he
attributes the clause to a Masonic conspiracy or to a
Deistic world-view. But nowhere does be tell us
that the clause was proposed and approved by
Christian statesmen. And nowhere does he set forth
all of the for the prohihit?n:
A related defect of the book is the way'its argument
is presente;d. Rather than giving the reader a .
systematic consideration of the relevant evidence, the
approach is that taken by most secular theorists and
propagandists who write on the Constitution and
First Amendment: that of a kid on a pogo stick,
jumping from one point to another, in virtually any
direction, . instead of pursuing a thorough, .
chronological chain. of evidence and reasoning. To .
be sure, this makes . for interesting. reading--
especially when it is spiced with repeated
sta:ntiated claims of conspiracy at work. But it does
not help the reader to evaluate the author's particular
assertions or his overall thesis.
Regnant Newtonianism? .
Dr. North argues from what amounts to an assumed ..
"spirit of the times"--a supposedly dominant
"Newtonian" world-view, a Deistic "Enlightenment"
rationalism which, apart from occasional divine
interventions to adjust the workings of the cosmos,
left man, politics, and history autonomous. He
assumes that this view was SO dominant that it must
have controlled the beliefs ofthe Frarilers in general
as well as those who were Masons in particular.
But this is the old fallacy of begging the question.
What he needs to prove but does not prove is (a) that
such a was in fact dominant in America,
or at least among American political leaders; and' (b)
that the Framers and Ratifiers actually held to this
view. If sucll a vie\V were .dominant, then why did.
the Continental . Congresses produce so
obviously Protestant acts and resolutions, and why
did the states . produce manifestly Christian
constitutions? lf the Framers and Ratifiers held to
such a view, then why did our early statesmen not :
conduct the national government accordingly, but
rather conducted it as a Christian government? .
It will not do for Dr. North to base his argument .
about the Newtonian world-view on.the fact that the
Constitution prohibited a religious test for federal
office, since he has not considered, or set forth for
his readers to consider, either (a) who proposed the
prohibition or (b) the arguments of those who
supported the prohibition. Whether or not one
believes that a constitution for a Christian people
should contain a religious test oath (or oaths), the
fact is that those who supported the prohibition had
some pretty good arguments and that they presented
these arguments as being consistent with Christian
purposes. Those arguments should at least be
considered before one jumps to the conclusion that
the prohibition was included in the Constitution for
conspiratorial, anti-Christian reasons.
Missing Masons
Despite all his talk about the Masons, Dr. North
himself notes that the numbers of Masons present in
the Convention and the ratification process do not
prove his thesis--because Masons were in both the
Federalist and the Anti-Federalist camps (p. 431).
The most accurate of his sources says that only 13 of
the 39 signers of the Constitution were Masons.
This means that probably only 13 of the 55 Framers
were Masons; that 26 of the signers were not
Masons; and 42 of the 55 Framers were not Masons.
The fact is that there were not enough Masons in the
Constitutional Convention to have dominated it, or
to have voted in a prohibition of a religious test on
secularist, anti-Christian grounds.
In spite of the problem of the missing Masons, Dr.
North C(.mtinually refers to the supposed Masonic
conspiracy which he contends committed a coup at
the Constitutional Convention. He thus places
himself in the interesting position of arguing
conspiracy virtually everywhere except at the crucial
point which is necessary to establish his case: the
number of Masons in the Constitutional Convention.
Since it is impossible to prove that there was a
Masonic conspiracy to secularize the Constitution or
that the Masons present did succeed in such an
attempt, he seeks to base his case ultimately on the
world-view of the Constitution in comparison with
that of the state constitutions, on
11
the theological
character of the Constitution itself' (p. 431). He
seeks to ground his thesis on the answer to the
question: Was the Constitution closer to the Masonic
ideal than the existing state constitutions were?
But this approach raises several problems which are
not noted by the author: The Constitution could be
closer to the Masonic ideal in some ways but not in
others. It could be closer to the Masonic ideal and
still not be Masonic. It could be closer to the
Masonic ideal and still be Christian.
The Constitution could also be adjudged to be closer
to the Masonic ideal because the author neglects, or
refuses, to note other evidence of the Constitution's
Christian nature.
. .. the Year of our Lord ..
A.D.
Many scholars have overlooked the Constitution's
reference to God, in Article VII: "Done in
Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States
present the Seventeenth Day of September in the
Year of our Lord One thousand Seven hundred and
Eighty-Seven and of the Independence of the United
States of America the Twelfth ... ". Unhappily, Dr.
North brushes this unmistakable reference to the
Lordship of Jesus Christ aside in a parenthetical
sentence (p. 404), commenting only that it is not
what he considers a persuasive argument for the
Constitution's Christian character.
But what would he--or any Christian scholar or, for
that matter, any discerning scholar--have done if the
clause had read; "Done .. .in the year of Baal (or
Astarte, or Buddha, or Reason, or any other fal(ie
god) ... "? He would have rightly treated us to an
engaging commentary on the nature and implications
of the religious-philosophy signified by the clause.
But we are offered absolutely no analysis of this
crucially important clause by Dr. North.
The clause is as much a part of the Constitution as
anything else in the document. That it was added as
an afterthought, perhaps by the Convention's
secretary, and that it was a traditional way to express
the date in Western Civilization and in the United
States, makes it no less real, believed or officially a
part of the Constitution. Hence, there is no good
reason why this clause should not be given the same
thoughtful consideration as any other clause in the
document. This is particularly the case when we
know that the entire Constitution--and every part of
it as well as the whole--was subject to open debate
after the final draft, including this clause, had been
completed. Here was a necessity for any and all
Masons, Deists, secularists or "pluralists" to remove
what to them must have been so offensive a clause
as that declaring the Lordship of Christ over our
nation. It was an urgent, crucial necessity: because
this neglected, scorned clause, by its very nature and
implications, destroys any and every religious
"pluralist'' or secularist interpretation, thesis,
Tbe Counsel of Chalcedon October 1990 Page 9
argument, design .. and plof regarding our
Constitution, law and public life.
What were these implic.ations? Here are a few of
them:
The Bible is true. Christ, . God, is the Creator.
Christ is the Savior. Christ is indeed Lord. He is
sovereign Ruler. of Heaven and Earth, the Supreme
Judge of the Universe, who sits o!'tt God the Father's
right hand and providentially rules history, bringing
His holy will to pass in the lives of individuals and
of nations. Since He is Lord, all men--including His
ministers, civil magistrates . (Romans _ 13)--are
ethically obliged to obey His law-word, His ethical
precepts. Since He is Lord, He can and will enforce
His law via sanction--blessings . for faithful
obedience, curses for unfaithful . or rebellious
disobedience--on individuals (be they rulers or.
ruld) and on nations (Deuteronomy 28; Matthew
5:17-19).
Moreover, since Christ's lordship is recognized in
the Constitution, the American nation has a
covenantal relationship to Him.. . This covenantal
relationship recognizes His lordship, His
providential rule over history, His providential
relationship to the American civil government and
people. Contrary to Dr. North's thesis, this is no
''Newtonian Providentialistn,'' or Deism, requiring
only occasional intervention in the cosmos by God
to set things back on their otherwise autonomous
track (pp. 340-352). It is instead the kind of minute
intervention in history that_was repeatedly noted by
the Christian general and. statesman, George
Washington. The people in whose .name the
Cortstitution was framed and ratified are not
autonomous but rather are under the authority and
lordship of Christ. . Their representatives' laws
ought to conform to His laws. and precepts. They
face His righteous judgment or chastisement if they
rebel_ against His word -and law, just as they are
promised blessing for obedience to His ethical
precepts and law.
These truths were recognil;ed by virtually all
eighteenth and nineteenth American
Presidents--including John. Adams,
Jefferson, and Madison--in a multitude qf inaugural
The Counsel of Cbalcedon October 1990 Page 10
addresses, annual messages to Congress,
presidential proclamations and other public papers.
They were also recognized by the Congresses which
passed resolutions for national days of humiliation,
fasting and prayer in times . of hardship, and
resolutions for national days of thanksgiving and
prayer in times of God's blessings. (It is a shame
that these things are not noted by Dr. North.)
In addition, this means that the covenantal structure
of the Constitution is radically different from that set
forth by Dr. North (pp. 308-9; 374-5;403-11):
1. Transcendence belongs to God, to Christ; the
people are over the Constitution but under .the
lordship of Christ
2. Hierarchy and authority begin with Christ. He is
over the people, who are over the Constitution and
can amend it, through their representatives; the
Constitiution is over the civil magistrates, who are-:-
within its limits--to rule over the people of the
federal republic.
3. Ethics and law are to conform to Christ's
standards: to that which is revealed in the Bible or
which man can know via reasoning upon the basis
of the promptings of his God-given conscience;
constitutional law is to conform to the principles of
Christ's law-word. .
4. The oath to support the Constitution is an oath to
support a Christian fundamental law, to act in
conformity with the lordship of Christ. Since Christ
is Lord, His blessings or -curses will come upon
rulers (sooner or later, in time and/or in eternity) and
upon the nation in time, via His divine providence
according to their obedience or rebellion. There are
also certain sanctions which the civil magistrates,
who are under Christ's lordship as well as under the
people and the Constitution, may bring upon
rebellious men. And via the system of separation of
powers and checks and balances, there are
constitutional sanctions which the various civil
magistrates (at the state as well as at the central
government level) may bring upon each other,
5. So far as succession, continuity and inheritence
are concerned, Christ will continue to be Lord. On
the human level, the Constitution, under . God,
continues to be the fundamental law of the land. The
American people, who continue to be under Christ
and, via the amendment or constitutional convention
process, over the Constitution, continue to be under
the rule of Christ and under the rule of constitutional
law. This conti_nuity can be broken, of course, if the
people become apostate. But this is true of any form
of cjvil government, under any constitution, .
regardless of any oath(s) attached to it It was true
of Israel. It has been true since the fall of man.
Despite these implications, no one did anything.
Not the supposedly deistic Mason, George
Washington. Absolutely no one in the
Constitutional Convention said a word of complaint,
much less attempted to extirpate the lordship clause
from the Constitution! It remains in the Constitution
alop.g with its crucial but neglected (or obscured)
implications. .:
No Religious Test
Although Dr. North makes much of a supposed
Masonic conspiracy as the cause of the
Constitution's prohibition of a religious test, there is .
no evidence of such a conspiracy in the record of the
debates of the Constitutional Convention. The ban
was proposed by Charles Pinckney, III, an
Episcopalian from South Carolina. It was seconded
by Gouveneur Morris, an Episcopalian from
Pennsylvania who deeply believed in the depravity
of man and saw Christianity as the basis of good
morals and good morals as the only possible support
of political liberty. It was also seconded by
Pinckney's cousin, General Charles Cotesworth
Pinckney, a devout South Carolina Episcopalian
who for more than fifteen years before his death was
unanimously elected president of the Charleston
Bible Society by Christians of every denomination.
None of these Christian statesmen was a Mason.
None is mentioned in Political Polytheism. It is
difficult to believe that they were motivated by
Masonic, anti-Christian aims in moving and
seconding the prohibition of a religious test for
federal office.
The motion was passed unanimously by the
Framers, virtually all of whom were Christians and
only a small minority of whom were Masons.
Clearly, the motivation behind the prohibition of a
religious test for national office can hardly be said to
have been un-Christian, much less anti-Christian.
The issue of the prohibition of a religious test for
federal office was not discussed in all of the states.
But where it was debated the discussions were not
conducted as disputes between Christians and non-
Christians, much less between Christians and anti-
Christian secularists. This hardly indicates a
secularist or pluralistically "neutral" approach to
either religion or the prohibition of a religious test.
In the few state conventions in which it was debated,
the prohibition's defenders articulated some strong
arguments which are ignored by Dr. North: .
First, the nation's defense against evil men, and
against men of alien religions being to office
in the absence of a religious test (oath) must rest on
the vigilance and virtue of the predominantly .
Christian people of nation. It is ])ighly unlikely
that the Christian people of America would elect non-
Christians to office.
Second, the p<>wers nature of the:
Constitution future C<;mgress ot .
Senate, by way of laW, or 'treaty, 'ftom. 'changing the
fundamental religion of the, peciple of the nation, or
from passing laws persecuting .Christians.
I ' I t . ' . '
Third, Christ never wished for 'support of
by worldlY. powet:. . . .
. ' .' .. .. f : \ J
Fourth, Christianity flouriShed. when left to the
excellence of its' own doctrines; it has made much
greater progress when it has riot been supported by
the power of the state. .
' . ' '
the motivation behind the
prohibition of a religious test for
national office can. hardly be said
to have been.un-Christian, much
less .
" I :(' ."' , ' ' ' " ' L
Fifth, religious tests must be banned in order to
avoid a union of civil and . ecclesiastical power
which, history shows, leads' to an intolerant,
dictatorial spirit on the part of those in power, to
religious persecutions, . cruelties, and bloody,
implacable religi?us wars; ;the rights of
(w1th those of hfe, person, property and hberty)
must be protected against $ese_ things. . .
' - . , ' , I
One mayjudge t}le for the prohibition of a
religious test for office to be weaker than the
for Sl:lSh .a test. But that
does not mean that etther the arguments or the
of those. who sought to prohibit a
religious teSt oath for federal office were anti-
Christian or seculanst. certainly, Dr. North could
and should have . been more charitable in his
evaluation of this key constitutional .
The contention thatthe prohibition of a :religious test
(oath) for federal office was the tesult of anti-
Christian, secularist purposes is the heart and soul of
Dr. North's thesis that the constitution was a self-
consciously anti-ChriStian; secularist document
Hence his failure .to for even give 'his
The Counsel of Cbalcedon October 1990 Page 11
readers an account of (a) who proposed, seconded
and approved the clause and (b) the arguments of the
Christian statesmen who supported the ban on a
religious test fatally weakens his thesis about the
Constitution.
On the other hand, a knowledge that the men who
proposed and approved the prohibition was
supported by Christian arguments, makes it evident
that the real purpose behind the prohibition of a
religious test was neither a covenant-breaking
secularism, nor a pluralistic myth of religious
neutrality, but rather the protection of Christian
ethics, order and liberty.
Conclusion
There exists a dangerous myth of religious and
political pluralism. That myth was effectively denied
(a) by the overwhelmingly Christian composition of
the Constitutional Convention and the stated
ratification conventions, (b) by the debates on the
prohibition of a religious test for national office, (c)
by the debates concerning what became the First
Amendment to the Constitution, (d) by many actions
of various United States Congresses,. (e) by a
multitude of Presidential addresses, . proclamations
and papers, (f) by Federal Court and United States
Supreme Court decisions, (g) by the constitutional
commentaries of great legal scholars and pre-1940
law books, and even (h) by the actions of such
allegedly secularist or , "pluralist" Presidents as
Jefferson and Madison, when they were in public
office. While the conduct of our national
government has certainly never been perfectly
Biblical, neither the conduct of our central
government nor the interpretation of our
constitutional law by our pre-1930 representatives
was religiously pluralist, anti-Christian or secularist.
The Counsel of Chalcedon October 1990 Page 12
Unhappily, the myth of religious pluralism is (at
least as to its historicity) supported--and the great
multitude of this evidence Is neglected-by Dr. North.
One consequence of this is that although the theory
of pluralistic political polytheism is rightly assailed,
the myth of the United States being founded on
political polytheism is not destroyed. Political
Polytheism informs Christians about what we ought
to do to set things right but it leaves us woefully
misinformed about qur legal heritage, ~ ~ intentions
and character of the statesmen who gave us the
Constitution, and the nature and timing of American
clerical, intellectual and political leaders' rebellion
against both the original intent of the Constitution
and the One Whose Lordship is . (however
imperfectly) recognized in the Constitution.
Dr. North has written many excellent, important
books. While this volume is as interesting as any
and contains much that is useful, it falls far below
the standard set by his earlier works. This reviewer
hopes that the quality of Political Polytheism will not
undermine the respect that Dr. North's more
scholarly works have earned for him, and that'his
future efforts will return to the higher standard of
historical accuracy of his previous studies. n
Archie P. Jones is author of the forthcoming book,
Christianity and The First Amendment which has
been hailed by such prominent scholars as Dr. D.
James Kennedy, Prof. M.E. Bradford and the
distinguished professor of law, Charles Rice. Mr.
Jones is widely recognized as a leading authority on
America's Christian history. This article was
reprinted by permission from the newletter, Letter
From Plymouth Rock. You can order complete
copies of this review from them for $3.00 by writing
to the Plymouth Rock Foundation, P.O. Box 577,
Marlborough, NH, 03455.