Excerpt: For most modern North Americans it seems that "religion" is looked upon as some sort of a hobby in which one may or may not participate at his leisure. Many would view themselves as having little or nothing to do with religion. "Religion is something in which other people are involved as a private endeavour. It is mostly harmless as long as it remains a private matter." But if people are openly motivated by religious concerns in their public affairs, politics in particular, religion is then thought to have intruded into a "secular" area from which it should be forbidden.
This view, however, displays a marked ignorance of what religion really is. The term "religion," in its most meaningful sense, actually refers to the underlying beliefs that everyone has about the meaning of life. In this way it is clear that all people hold to some form of religion. Paul Marshall has explained it well.
"Religion refers to the deepest commitment and deepest identity of a person or group. Hence, the opinion that one may discuss constitutions, politics, education, or sex without any reference to God is as much a religious view as the opinion that we are responsible to God in all we do. An expanded concept of religion allows us to take account of the fact that our lives reflect and are rooted in a particular view of the meaning of life: of the nature of society; of what human beings really are; and of their essential responsibilities, whether to self, society, or another source (1992, 6)."
Thus religion is an inescapable aspect of life. Everyone has a religious viewpoint whether they acknowledge it or not. Man is a religious being.
The fact that man is a religious being is very significant for politics and government. Every aspect of life is infused with religious meaning. Each person's views about the origin and purpose of government are fundamentally based on some religious perspective. Human societies are characterized by a common religious foundation which provides cohesion and a basis for law. R.J. Rushdoony has done much to bring this to light.
"Every state is a law order, and every law order represents an enacted morality, with procedures for the enforcement of that morality. Every morality represents a form of theological order, i.e., is an aspect and expression of a religion. The church thus is not the only religious institution; the state also is a religious institution (1986, 7)."
It is very important to understand, as Rushdoony points out, "that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society" (1973, 4).This is closely related to the fact that "[b]ecause law governs man and society, because it establishes and declares the meaning of justice and righteousness, law is inescapably religious, in that it establishes in practical fashion the ultimate concern of a culture" (Rushdoony 1973, 4). It is clear, then, that not only is religion relevant for issues of law, politics, and government, but it cannot be separated from them. Every society has a religious basis, and cannot exist without that specific religious basis. "Since the foundations of law are inescapably religious, no society exists without a religious foundation or without a law-system which codifies the morality of its religion" (Rushdoony 1973, 5).
The result of this significant insight is that "every state or social order is a religious establishment" (Rushdoony 1986, 7). In other words, "no disestablishment of religion as such is possible in any society" (Rushdoony 1973, 5). Hence the question is never "Should we have an established religion, or not?"; rather, the question must be "Which religion should be the established religion?"We cannot escape the fact that our society, and every other society, has always had, and will always have, an established religion, whether implicitly or explicitly. The liberty and prosperity that we still (decreasingly) enjoy are residuals from an implicit Christian foundation that is quickly being eroded and replaced by the religion of secular humanism.
Once it has been demonstrated that every society has an established religion, it should not be necessary to ask any Bible-believing Christian which religion should be established. Obviously Christianity is the only acceptable choice because it is the only true religion. Since as Christians we are to be honest, there is no reason why we should shy away from being explicit about the necessity of a Christian establishment. However, since there are so many sects that go by the term "Christianity," we need to define the "brand" of Christianity that is to be established. Our society cannot rest on an ambiguous concept of Christianity. As Rushdoony, again, writes, "[e]very social order rests on a creed . . . The life of a society is its creed" (1968, 219). Thus a creed giving the best expression of the Christian faith is an indispensable document for an explicit establishment of Biblical Christianity.
The idea of having a creed that is very specific and well-defined in terms of the type of Christianity it expresses sounds very narrow and exclusive, and it is. Assuming it is a very Biblical creed, such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, it excludes all erroneous and heretical conceptions of Christianity. This is important with regards to political matters. By having a general and ambiguous creed, it would be less clear how God's Law is to be interpreted for application in the social and political realm. If a dispensational interpretation of the Law was accepted by the state, virtually all of the benefits of having a Christian establishment would be nullified. Other theological persuasions would also be disastrous for a true Christian state. With the Westminster Confession of Faith as a guide to interpreting the Scriptures, the civil authorities would be able to act according to the will of God in political matters, rather than according to the subjective opinions of men.
The Westminster Confession of Faith is completely Biblical. "For fidelity to Scripture, for 'logical fearlessness and power,' for 'theological comprehensiveness, and intellectual grandeur,' it is second to none" (Tallach 1980). Unfortunately, this paper is not the place to go into a comparative Biblical analysis of various creeds and confessions. However, those who investigate the matter seeking to please the Lord alone, will find that the Westminster Confession is the most Biblical. For expositions of the Confession, see Shaw ([1845] 1980) and Williamson (1964). Interestingly, the Assembly that wrote the Confession was called together by a civil government for the express purpose of composing a creed that would be used not only by the church, but also by the state. For more information on this see Hetherington's History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines ([1856] 1991, 122ff [on the Puritan Hard Drive - ed.]).
