....I pray that Americans who want less government and more freedom stop seeking and trusting in political means for their salvation. I pray that they turn to God, covenanting with Him and binding their families, communities, states, form of government, and their republic itself to Him in a new National Covenant- one that is all ours....A covenant that comes from the bottom up, from the people, the "grassroots," to use a modern term....A covenant that binds us to God, signed in our national lifeblood. Without such a covenant, without such a restoration, commitment, and foundation, our national lifeblood, figuratively, and perhaps someday literally, will be spilled on the altar of tyranny, which is, as these great men understood, nothing other than the logical and inevitable outcome of a people's rejection of God.
Happy Presbyterian Rebellion Day! Ping the GRPL!
Yes, I think we can trace two basic “Christian” theories of governance, which reflect the theological divisions among Christians. Catholics, reflecting their top-down hierarchy and obedience to unquestionable authority, have usually favored monarchies. Protestants, reflecting their bottom-up communities of believers and adherence to a looser set of principles rather than immutable dogma, prefer republics and representative governments.
Wow,,thank you for giving me a new topic to research and learn about!
bfl
Read Albion’s Seed—A study of four British Folkways, by David Hackett.
Great stuff on the Scot and Scots/Irish migrations to America and the way they affected the United States in the early years of the colonies and the Republic.
I have always felt that the “congregational” form of religion brought with it many principles that were foundational to our American notion of individual freedom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregational_polity
There is the basic concept of “covenant” - voluntary association and consent of the governed; a written constitution; individual responsibility; representative democracy; independence of local government within a union of like governments (confederation.)
This has always been in conflict with the model of the corporate structure that financed the new colonies. The joint-stock company or commercial corporation was licensed by the Crown, where investors pooled their money to share both risks and profits in a common enterprise. Several large trading companies secured charters from the Crown granting commercial favors in foreign trade, prescribing their form of organization and enabling them to raise money by selling stock. Among these were the Muscovy Company (Russia and central Asia,) the Eastland Company (Baltic,) the Levant Company (Mediterranean,) and the East India Company.
The form of organization prescribed for these companies usually vested control in a 6-20 member council, of which the original or “charter” officers were named. Sometimes the charter also provided for a governor as the head of the company, chosen by the council. Membership in the company, itself, was secured through stock ownership. The smaller stockholders had little to say about general policy, but they met periodically in a general court to elect members to vacancies in the council or occasionally to express their opinion on some major issue of policy.
The American colonies had their government imposed upon them by England following the joint stock company model. It has always been in tension with the congregational form, which is the organic form emanating from the people themselves. The form as continued in the US remains in tension with the spirit.
Crown rights of Christ indeed! No king but Jesus is creed of Scots Irish.
I need to read this later