No. 11                                                                                                                     PROCLAIMING THE FUNDAMENTALS OF CHRISTIAN SEPARATISM

 

 

 

 

SEPARATISM AND THE AMERICAN NATION

 

 

At the time of this writing, the United States have entered the Bicentennial Celebration of their Federal Constitution which was drafted in 1787 and rati­fied in 1789. It is said to be the longest standing document in history to successfully govern the succession of "power for a nation. This fact demon­strates not so much any remarkable ability of the American people for self-restraint, as it offers a sad commentary on mankind's attempts at civil govern­ment. Two hundred years are not that much for nations.

 

The purpose of this essay is to briefly account for what happened to separa­tism from the late Colonial period to our own. We have shown in previous papers the strong evidence which point to the roots of American culture being found in separatism. But what became of it when America took its place among the nations of the earth?

 

Creating a nation is no easy task, especially when you begin with a handful of social outcasts with no resources, your strength of will, and a howling wilderness where an occasional friendly savage is all you have for allies. Yet this is how the American nation began. The first step toward independence began with that special person who was willing to cross a dangerous ocean and pioneer a hostile continent. It began with people of deep commitment and with a people deeply alienated by the culture of their nativity.

 

Intertwined with the geographical and economic forces which led the Colonies to a separation from Great Britain, there was a world view, a collective senti­ment, which made the Americans a distinct people upon the face of the earth. And in the end, it would require the creation of what was to be the ^first, independent nation in this hemisphere.

 

America began with a mental break with the traditions of Europe by people who wanted to make a new start in the "New World".  Immigrants, who arrived here early in our history, came already jealous of their new homeland.  Neither emotionally nor ideologically could the average American's loyalty to Europe be described as anything other than shallow.

 

How can we account for this? I would venture to say that it was because America was not so much the creation of a new nation as it was the restoration of an old one. America was the restoration of national, self-determination for the Anglo-Saxon people. Not since the Norman invasion of England in 1066 A.D had the Anglo-Saxons been free to govern themselves according to their ancient traditions. Those traditions and that independence were enjoyed by them for five hundred years following their arrival to the British Isles and for a millennium prior to that. They were a very old nation. And ever since their subjugation by the Normans (who became the English upper classes and the wielders of institutional power), the Saxons pathetically struggled to restore their “rights as Englishmen.”

 

We see glimmers of this struggle in the popularity of Thomas Beckett, who, as a churchman, withstood the Norman, throne. Later, it was Wycliffe who with­stood the Normanized Church. There were frequent revolts by the peasants, finally succeeding in Cromwell, but it was not until America's independence did the Saxon spirit find its liberty re-established. In America, "the ancient rights of Englishmen" which belonged to all freemen, became a reality.

 

INDEPENDENCE: THE TRIUMPH OF SEPARATISM

 

It is a radical misreading of history to describe the War for Independence as a secular revolution. Most modern historians err in seeing the causes of the Revolution as economic and geographical only. While valid factors, they were not the sum. Canada, for instance, was isolated geographically also, yet remained loyal to the Crown. Economically, the Colonies were hurt more than helped by the war effort. The economic antagonisms between the Colonies and Britain were real but not central.

 

What was central was the issue of jurisdiction and religious liberty. Amer­icans were a deeply religious people and intensely jealous of the religious independence which they had long enjoyed. The fear that Parliament would impose an episcopacy upon the Colonial churches was the bottom line that forced the issue. This religious aspect has not been entirely lost to secular histor­ians, as Murray Rothbard says in passing:

 

During the first half of the eighteenth century, there were sporadic schemes to impose Anglican bishops upon the American colonies.   The schemes had been bitterly resented by all the non-Anglicans in America, and even opposed by most of the Anglicans themselves, who were generally Low Church and happy to be governing themselves free of English control.

[Rev.] Jonathan Mayhew's pamphlets in 1763 and 1764 on the Anglican question had a profound effect in rallying colonial opposition. John Adams, writing later of these events, testified to the importance of the controversy that began with Mayhew's pamphlets: "It spread an universal alarm against the authority of Parliament. It excited a gene­ral and a just apprehension, that bishops, and dioceses, and churches, and priests, and tithes, were to be imposed on us by Parliament. It was known that neither king, nor ministry, nor archbishops, could appoint bishops in America, without an act of Parliament; and if Parliament could tax us, they could establish the Church of England, with all its creeds, articles, tests, ceremonies, and tithes, and prohibit all other churches. ..."

 

(Conceived In Liberty, Vol. III, Arlington, 1976, p. 72)

 

American Separatism finds its roots in Wycliffe, as we have shown in prev­ious Papers. Those roots are also found in the ethnic consciousness of the peo­ple of Anglo-Saxon descent. Wycliffe's success was due, in part, to his appeal to national solidarity in the face of foreign domination. Wycliffe's work was a religious revival, but also a racial one.

 

These religious and racial elements were never lost in the separatistic and dissenting movements which England experienced in the centuries subsequent to Wycliffe. However, they were not successful until the American Revolution. And we must not forget that the Founders of the national republic were keenly aware of their racial, as well as their religious, heritage. As it is noted of Jefferson, the principle author of the Declaration of Independence:

 

Jefferson's great ambition at that time was to promote a renaissance of Anglo-Saxon primitive institutions on the new continent. Thus pres­ented, the American Revolution was nothing but the reclamation of the Anglo-Saxon birthright of which the colonists had been deprived by "a long train of abuses". Nor does it appear that there was anything in this theory which surprised or shocked his contemporaries; Adams appar­ently did not disapprove of it, and it would be easy to bring in many similar expressions of the same idea in documents of the time.

 

(The Making of America, Skousan, National Center for Constitutional Studies, 1985, p. 32 - Professor Gilbert Chinard, biographer)

 

The influence of separatism upon the American character was not finished until it had attained its political codification in that wondrous document, The Declaration of Independence. In that document we find the refined conclu­sions of many centuries of Christian reflection upon liberty. Many have ad­mired its beautiful simplicity and moral eloquence. All of its basic princi­ples are contained in Wycliffe/Separatist theology.

 

The Declaration condemns absolutism and ungodly rule. It asserts the right and duty of dissent and even rebellion against tyrannical government. Valid civil power flows from God to magistrates through the people. Magistrates do not have an independent and original source of authority which by-passes the people they govern.

 

In regards to the supposed deism and infidelity of Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams, the illustrious members of that committee which wrote the Declara­tion, I can only say that men change. In 1776, they sounded like Christians. In 1786, they sound like deists. But this can be explained by our intimate connections with France during that period, to which both Franklin and Jefferson served as ambassadors. The infidelity of French intelligentsia had a deleterious influence upon America's leaders. The alliance was unneces­sary and in retrospection, a mistake. Historians insist that the Battle of Yorktown could not have been won without the French fleet. And that the war could not have been won without a victory at Yorktown. This could only be true in the same sense that the atomic bomb ended World War II. It shortened an already decided war. The turning point of the Revolutionary War was when the British made the mistake of attacking the Scotch-Irish dissenters in the Appalachian highlands. An entire army was annihilated. The British never recovered.

 

With independence, separatism became synonymous with Americanism and became identified with it. We became a Christian empire, a democracy of townships under one King, Jesus Christ. The yoke of the European Babylon was broken.

 

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 did not give us a Christian Republic; rather, it was a measure designed to protect the Christian republics which already existed. In the true spirit of Wycliffe/Separatist Protestantism, the Founders did not believe that the Christian faith should be enforced by government coercion. The nation would remain Christian if the people remained Christian. According to Richard Spaight, the delegate from North Carolina to the Convention:

 

I do not suppose an infidel or any such person will ever be chosen to any office unless the people themselves be of the same opinion.

(The Making of America, op cit., p. 668)

 

Although the new federal constitution did add another level of government which posed a threat to localism, its objective was worthy of separatism. The over-riding goal in creating a stronger central government, one which is woefully neglected by historians, was to create sufficient collective strength to maintain the independence of the United States.  The danger was real and present that the new American Republic would soon become the play­thing of the powers of Europe.   This danger forced the Founders to create a national government capable of fielding a sufficient army to deter aggressors and prevent domestic disunity.

 

American Separatism embodied itself in two more doctrines of national policy before its decline. First was George Washington's neutralism enunciated in his Farewell Address. Here, he urged the avoidance of American entanglement in European wars and intrigues. European disputes centered on feudal issues and imperialistic ambitions, both which doomed that continent to perpe­tual conflict and both which are foreign to American philosophy of governance. [The wars of our century are no different than others except the mode of their technology.]

 

The second was the Monroe Doctrine which reaffirmed Washington's neutralism, but extended its principles to include the entire Western Hemisphere. Its goal was to end colonialism in this hemisphere and create new allies which supported a republican form of government. [At that time the United States stood alone among the nations of the earth, which were all governed by kings, dictators, or tribal chiefs.]

 

These two doctrines regulated American foreign policy for over a century.

 

 

CONVERTING THE IMMIGRANTS: SEPARATISM IN RECONSTRUCTION

 

In general, America maintained a door open to immigration. However, as is often the case, immigrants were the misfits of the nations from which they came. They were rootless sinners who brought many evil practices from their native country and needed conversion. With the gigantic immigrations of the nineteenth century, the need was pressing for an extensive effort at recons­truction. During any one of the waves of immigration that occurred, the char­acter of American culture and government could have easily changed if the Europeans were not Americanized. Fortunately, there were many who met the challenge and prevailed. Through Christian schools and street missions, revi­val meetings and reforms, through tract distribution and the subsidized publi­shing of the Scriptures, the typical immigrant was often transformed into a loyal and thoughtful American. As Rushdoony observes,

 

A wide variety of societies were created to minister to the new prob­lems: Sabbath Schools for immigrant children and Christian day schools as well were created; English was taught to adults; missions were start­ed; orphanages, relief societies, Bible societies, societies to deal with various vices, these and hundreds of other organizations were estab­lished to cope with every kind of problem which arose. The future of America was shaped by this massive effort at Christian reconstruction.  The "native American" movement failed; the Christian reconstruction was so extensive that it became the real government of American society.

 

(Revolt Against Maturity, Thoburn Press, 1977, p.220)

 

 

Americanism was of necessity Separatist. It was a repudiation of the cor­rupt beliefs and practices of the Old World. If too many people from the Old World came to the New World while retaining too much of the Old World, then the New World would soon cease to be New. However, most immigrants were ready to receive what the New World had to teach them. And that accounts, in part, for the great success: ready listeners. But also, early Americans were diligently working-out the implications of Separatism in their respective vocations.

 

For instance, in literature, we owe much to the ardent separatism of Noah Webster who Americanized the English language, making it more readable to the common person. Armed with his distinctly Christian dictionary (popular in spite of Harvard's scorn), his readers, studies in American history and law, and other educational materials - all which were designed for self-teach­ing - many millions of Americans were successfully taught at home. This educa­tional triumph created a popular culture which was also a literate and moral culture, far surpassing the empty and vulgar cultural tastes of Europe's upper classes.

 

American art forms took a different direction than the useless, state-sponsored forms of the Old World. Unlike Egypt's pyramids, the tombs of an­cient rulers and a senseless waste of human energy, or the grand, but empty, cathedrals of Europe, American art forms found their primary manifestation in inventions which greatly improved man's living and working conditions. Fairs and museums were not the places of oddities and curious relics of the past, but of exciting discoveries of the present and hopeful visions of the future. Who can deny that the light bulb has added a significant benefit to man's aesthetic pleasure? Or on a more basic level, who does not appreciate the recipe books which have grown out of the cooking contests at our local fairs? The American philosophy of art is that the practical can be done well and done beautifully.

 

In music, Americans have held in contempt forms of opera and classical music which are designed to be esoteric or sung in Latin, forms favored by high society. They have preferred folk music rooted in their uniquely American tradition of revival meetings. Even modern rock music betrays the influence of the Negro spirituals. In the area of economics, of course, America's uniqueness was most visible. Free enterprise and the entrepreneurial spirit were permitted free reign. Unbound by the guilds and statist regulations of feudalism, our prosperity was the marvel of the world.

 

And while the world marveled at the fruits of the American system, it failed to understand the source of those fruits. That source was in America's theol­ogical tradition, rooted in Wycliffe's evangelicalism. Perhaps no American theologian represents this tradition better than Jonathan Edwards, whose influ­ence on American Protestantism is unrivaled. In Edwards, we find the continued individualism of Wycliffe, the emphasis upon evangelism, and a people's reli­gion. Calvinists complain of his so-called emotionalism. But it was an emo­tionalism concerned with the practical realities of personal salvation result­ing in ethical redemption. His writings on Christian experience were not intended to .set forth the standards of election, but rather a witness to the goodness of the Lord. They served as a sort of theodicy toward those who were skeptical of the revivals and who preferred the barrenness of a state religion. His sermons were not lacking in highly ethical content.

 

However, it was Edwards' postmillennialism, the maturation of Wycliffe's optimism, which was his chiefest contribution to American theology. As John Whitehead quotes him and then comments:

 

America has received the true religion of the old Continent. And inasmuch as that Continent [Europe] has crucified Christ, they shall not have the honor of communicating religion in its most glorious state to us, but we to them . . . when God is about to turn the earth into a Paradise, He does not begin His work where there is some good growth already, but in a wilderness, where nothing grows . . . that the light may shine out of darkness, and the world be replenished from emptiness" Edwards died eighteen years before the Mar of Independence, 'but the confidence that Americans were God's wilderness people bound to lead the world into the millennium burned brightly for several generations.

 

(The Separation Illusion, Mott Media, 1977, p.176)

 

And Rushdoony adds this conclusion following a brief summary of the postmillennialism of Samuel Hopkins and Joseph Bellamy, Edwards' immediate theological heirs:

 

Postmillennial thinking was very important in the formation and devel­opment of the United States between 1765 and 1860.

It is impossible to understand the development of the United States apart from this eschatology.

 

(God's Plan for Victory, Thoburn Press, 1980, p. 25)

 

 

INTERNATIONALISM AND THE APOSTASY

 

No sooner had America's diplomatic successes secured the integrity of the struggling Latin republics did a subtle shift begin in American thought. Following the close of the Civil War, the United States emerged as a world power. And with that status there was an increasing favor for elitism and cosmopolitan society. The desire to preserve the foundations waned. Separat­ism began to lose its hold on America. Lifted up in pride over our economic and territorial greatness, we began to sport popularity among the nations. And a dark era closed in upon the nation.

 

It began in the colleges and seminaries. American education was not good enough, thought high society. The Sons of America were sent to Germany and to its Higher Critics, and to England with its Darwinism. George Washington saw this tendency with foreboding:

 

It is with indescribable regret, that I have seen the youth of the United States migrating to foreign countries, in order to acquire the higher branches of erudition. . . Although it would be injustice to many to pronounce the certainty of their imbibing maxims not congenial with republicanism, it must nevertheless be admitted, that a serious danger is encountered by sending abroad among other political systems those who have not well learned the value of their own.

 

(The Christian History of the Constitution, Foundation for American Christian Education, San Francisco, p. 416)

 

The Sons of America returned the Sons of Europe and began to proclaim Baby­lonish heresies. Heretical Harvard, long held in quarantine by evangelical Andover, found new allies for its blasphemous humanism. The next to fall was Yale, the home of great theologians and jurists. By the turn of the cent­ury, Oberlin, the mother of Midwestern evangelicalism and the largest of Amer­ica's colleges during the last half of the century, fell to the social gospel. The last bastion was Princeton, the home of great Christian statesmen. But it too succumbed early in the twentieth century.

 

With the fall of Princeton, Babylon had triumphed in American education. The increasingly statist schools became humanist.   Separatism had lost its pulpits in the great denominations and the classrooms of the public schools. It also lost influence in the courts, where pragmatists, such as Oliver Holmes, judged by purely human standards.

 

American banks were increasingly bludgeoned to submit to the Federal Reserve System, a private banking cartel whose principal shareholders (only recently verified) are European banks. Corporate monopolism, foreign entanglements, and social Darwinism ruled the day. Even the United Nations was turned on its head to be the haunt of communists and the tyrants of the world. America's unwillingness to preserve and develop its unique heritage, but instead, like ancient Israel, to whore after the nations of the earth, brought her to slav­ery.

 

 

THE TRIAL OF AMERICAN SEPARATISM

 

Separatism has become the minority opinion in our society, one which is rarely heard in public dialogue. America is no longer an independent power. It is a captive nation, trapped by the invisible tentacles of Babylon. With cunning, its very Constitution, which was created to maintain her independence, has become the instrument of her bondage. The freedom of speech is now said to sanction pornography; and the freedom of religion is interpreted to mean freedom from religion in our schools.

 

Modern-day Puritans have been struggling to restore the American vision through incremental reforms in existing institutions.  But there is emerging a growing body of new Separatists.  Although still a tiny minority, the senti­ment is increasing that "covenanting with hell" is not the source of institu­tional victory.  While Puritans and Separatists are agreed that the objective is to restore the American vision, the point of difference is over how it can be done.  Should we continue to rely upon reforming the public schools (Puritan), or should we establish independent, Christian schools (Separatist)? Should we seek a monetarist reform of the present banking system (Puritan), or return to the discipline of the precious metals (Separatist)?  Should we take our stand against communism through NATO and related treaties (Puritan), or should we content ourselves with unilaterally policing this hemisphere (Separatist)?  Should we remain members of incorporated churches (Puritan), or should we establish new fellowships on congregational principles (Separa­tist)?

 

Finally, should we work within the present legal system, by invoking the principles of a perversely interpreted Constitution (Puritan), or should we establish new civil powers by invoking the principles of the Declaration of Independence (Separatist)? That is the trial which lies before American Separ­atism during the remainder of this century.

 

Destruction of the present social order will be the work of God, not the work of man. The challenge for Separatists is to anticipate the coming judg­ment, to survive it, and stand ready to build a new America in its aftermath.

 

James Stivers

Copyright,   1987