by David Barton
In another text, Webster advised:
In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate – look to his character…. It is alleged by men of loose principles or defective views of the subject that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations. But the Scriptures teach a different doctrine. They direct that rulers should be men “who rule in the fear of God, able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness” [EXODUS 18:21]…. [I]t is to the neglect of this rule of conduct in our citizens that we must ascribe the multiplied frauds, breaches of trust, peculations [white-collar larceny] and embezzlements of public property which astonish even ourselves; which tarnish the character of our country; which disgrace a republican government.48
The warnings were frequent that negligence in selecting Godly, moral leaders for office would certainly result in government corruption. For example, speaking before the Massachusetts legislature, Chandler Robbins declared:
How constantly do we find it inculcated in the sacred writings, that rulers be “just men – fearers of God – haters of covetousness.” That they “shake their hands from holding bribes,” because, “a gift blindeth the eyes of the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous.”49
And Matthias Burnet similarly reminded the Connecticut legislature:
[T]he man who … is not actuated by the fear and awe of Him [God], has in many cases no bond or restraint upon his conduct…. Think not that men who acknowledge not the providence of God nor regard his laws will be uncorrupt in office.50
Samuel Adams similarly explained:
He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard of his country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections…. [P]rivate and public vices are in reality … connected…. Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.51
Penman and signer of the Constitution Gouverneur Morris proclaimed:
There must be religion. When that ligament is torn, society is disjointed and its members perish. The nation is exposed to foreign violence and domestic convulsion. Vicious rulers, chosen by vicious people, turn back the current of corruption to its source. Placed in a situation where they can exercise authority for their own emolument, they betray their trust. They take bribes. They sell statutes and decrees. They sell honor and office. They sell their conscience. They sell their country. By this vile traffic they become odious and contemptible…. But the most important of all lessons is the denunciation of ruin to every state that rejects the precepts of religion.52
John Witherspoon also warned:
Those who wish well to the State ought to choose to places of trust men of inward principle, justified by exemplary conversation. Is it reasonable to expect wisdom from the ignorant? fidelity [faithfulness] from the profligate [unfaithful]? assiduity [diligence] and application to public business from men of a dissipated [careless] life? Is it reasonable to commit the management of public revenue to one who hath wasted his own patrimony [inheritance]? Those, therefore, who pay no regard to religion and sobriety in the persons whom they send to the legislature of any State are guilty of the greatest absurdity and will soon pay dear for their folly.53
The warnings were numerous and clear: if citizens became negligent in electing moral leaders to office – if they overlooked the private lives of candidates – their government would become corrupt.
Earlier generations understood that no institution – whether that of government, media, jurisprudence, education, or any other – has intrinsic, inherent value; that is, no institution is of itself either good or bad. Institutions simply reflect the values of those involved in them. For this reason, John Jay directed:
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.54
Matthias Burnet similarly urged:
[L]ook well to the characters and qualifications of those you elect and raise to office and places of trust…. [L]et the wise counsel of Jethro … be your guide: Choose ye out from among you able men, such as fear God, men of truth and hating covetousness and set them to rule over you. [EXODUS 18:21].55
John Witherspoon charged:
[T]he people in general ought to have regard to the moral character of those whom they invest with authority either in the legislative, executive, or judicial branches.56
These warnings were rarely heard in other nations; why were they so abundant in America? It is because we have a unique form of government. As John Jay explained:
The Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an opportunity of deliberating upon and choosing the forms of government under which they should live.57
American government belonged to the people, and power over that government rested totally in the hands of the people. Therefore, whether it maintained that design or whether it degenerated would depend entirely on whether citizens took seriously the stewardship which God had given them. Consequently, voting, one of the simplest of citizen responsibilities, is also one of the most important. As Samuel Adams explained:
Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual – or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.58 [He] may then reflect, each one on his own integrity, and appeal to the Monitor within his breast, that he has not trifled with the sacred trust reposed in him by God and his country – that he has not prostituted his honor and conscience to please a friend or a patron.59
Daniel Webster similarly warned that …
… the exercise of the elective franchise [the vote] is a social duty of as solemn a nature as man can be called to perform; that a man may not innocently trifle with his vote; that every free elector [voter] is a trustee as well for others as himself; and that every man and every measure he supports has an important bearing on the interests of others as well as on his own.60
In fact, so strongly did the Founders believe that the duration of our government rested upon the wise votes of its citizens that Noah Webster proclaimed:
When a citizen gives his suffrage [his vote] to a man of known immorality he abuses his trust [civic responsibility]; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country.61
In Webster’s view, if an individual did not take seriously his responsibilities as a voter, and if he knowingly placed an immoral person into office, he was a traitor to his country, for he was intentionally installing leaders who practiced the principles that destroyed good government.
The Founders believed that we citizens understood our responsibilities so well that we would never neglect our charge. As George Washington explained:
No country upon earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Wondrously strange, then, and much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass.62
In recent years, however, far too many God-fearing individuals have neglected their responsibilities as national stewards for a variety of excuses. For example, some have thought that the pursuit of civil government was unrelated to the practice of their spiritual activities. These individuals should reflect on the observation made by John Witherspoon that:
There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost and religious liberty preserved entire.63
&nb
sp; The maintenance of our civil liberties is inalterably united with the freedom to exercise our religious liberties.
Others have thought that time spent in the pursuit of our civil duties was time used unwisely since civil duties had no eternal consequence. When that same objection was raised two centuries ago, John Witherspoon promptly responded:
Shall we establish nothing good because we know it cannot be eternal? Shall we live without government because every constitution has its old age and its period? Because we know that we shall die, shall we take no pains to preserve or lengthen our life? Far from it, Sir: it only requires the more watchful attention to settle government upon the best principles and in the wisest manner [so] that it may last as long as the nature of things will admit.64
The fact that something may not be eternal does not release Christian citizens from their duties of stewardship over the civil government which God has provided them.
Still others have mistakenly believed that involvement with civil activities detracted from the time necessary to build a strong family. Actually, the converse is true. While the overall well-being of a family depends upon a number of diverse factors, one of those factors clearly is the quality of our civil government. As Samuel Adams explained:
[T]he importance of piety and religion; of industry and frugality; of prudence, economy, regularity and an even [stable] government; all … are essential to the well-being of a family.65
How does the preservation of sound government help build a strong family? If government is constituted of poor leaders, it will become an enemy to the values, beliefs, and practices necessary to the formation of stable families. In fact, even a cursory examination of America’s family problems over recent decades reveals that all too frequently, government policies and programs lay at the root of those problems.
For the sake of our families, Christian citizens must be involved in their civil government. Samuel Adams exhorted:
[E]very citizen will see – and I hope be deeply impressed with a sense of it – how exceedingly important it is to himself, and how intimately the welfare of his children is connected with it, that those who are to have a share in making as well as in judging and executing the laws should be men of singular wisdom and integrity.66
Daniel Webster also warned of the tragic consequence to our children which could result from citizen neglect of our political system:
[I]f we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity.67
Despite these impassioned warnings, unwise arguments in recent years have contributed to the neglect of civic stewardship by God-fearing citizens. The current condition of our government and our country is simply a reflection of the action – or lack thereof – by the God-fearing community.
Perhaps this is best illustrated by the parable in which Jesus described a man who had a good field, growing good fruit. He awakened one morning to find that field filled with tares, weeds, and bad fruit. How did it change from good to bad? In Matthew 13:25, Jesus identified the problem: while the good men slept, the enemy came in and planted the tares. Jesus never faulted the enemy for doing what he did; the problem was that the good men went to sleep.
Strikingly, it was this danger of good men “going to sleep” which most concerned our early statesmen. John Dickinson declared:
Let us take care of our rights and we therein take care of our prosperity. Slavery is ever preceded by sleep.68
Samuel Adams similarly warned:
[A] state of indolence [laziness], inattention, and security … is forever the forerunner of slavery.69
Daniel Webster also cautioned:
I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe. The prospect of a war with any powerful nation is too remote to be a matter of calculation. Besides, there is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence.70
Early statesmen understood that if we “went to sleep,” our government would become corrupt and tyrannical, resulting in political slavery of its citizens. Only if citizens remained alert and active stewards could this condition be avoided. Perhaps President James A. Garfield, himself a Christian minister, most succinctly articulated this truth when he reminded Americans:
Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…. [I]f the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.71
Christians must again become active in the civic arena and move beyond their self-imposed boundaries of church and home. It is time to remember the warning given by Charles Finney, a minister and leader in America’s Second Great Awakening, who reminded Christians:
The Church must take right ground in regard to politics…. [T]he time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and take consistent ground in politics…. God cannot sustain this free and blessed country which we love and pray for unless the Church will take right ground. Politics are a part of a religion in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as a part of their duty to God…. He [God] will bless or curse this nation according to the course they [Christians] take [in politics].72
As the church reenters the political arena, however, it will be important to observe George Washington’s warning against excessive allegiance to any political party:
Let me now … warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party…. The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another…. In governments purely elective, it [the spirit of party] is a spirit not to be encouraged.73
Do not misread this passage; Washington was not saying to abolish political parties; political parties are necessary; for they are the mechanisms by which candidates are offered to the public. The tone of Washington’s warning was not against political parties but only against excessive party allegiance – the “spirit of party.”
God-fearing people of faith should be actively involved in a political party so that they may help select candidates, influence their party’s platform, and vote in their party’s primary to help Godly candidates advance. Yet, regardless of the party in which one is working, there will be times that someone in the other party will be more Godly than the candidate offered by his/her party and thus better for the community, the State, or the nation. At such times, faithfully support the best candidate without regard to party – a principle well illustrated by Benjamin Rush.
Benjamin Rush not only signed the Declaration of Independence, he also served in the Presidential administrations of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison – each of whom came from a different political party. How could Benjamin Rush serve for Presidents from three different parties, and what was his own party affiliation? He once proclaimed:
I have been alternately called an aristocrat and a democrat. I am now neither. I am a Christocrat. I believe all power … will always fail of producing order and happiness in the hands of man. He alone who created and redeemed man is qualified to govern him.74
Benj
amin Rush made his choice of candidates based on which one better stood for Godly principles, no matter his party affiliation. As Proverbs 29:2 accurately states: “When the righteous” – not the Republicans, the Democrats, or any other party – but “When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.” The love of correct principles – not the love of a party – is the key to effective political involvement; the government of this nation will be blessed only to the extent that God-fearing and moral individuals are placed into office.
What legacy will we leave the next generation? Obviously, the choice is ours; but having this choice, we should heed the warning delivered to citizens in 1803 when the Reverend Matthias Burnet charged:
Finally, ye … whose high prerogative it is to … invest with office and authority or to withhold them and in whose power it is to save or destroy your country, consider well the important trust … which God … [has] put into your hands. To God and posterity you are accountable for them…. Let not your children have reason to curse you for giving up those rights and prostrating those institutions which your fathers delivered to you.75
