Why Christians Have A More Distorted View Of The U S Constitution Than Non-Christians

A team of evangelicals recently produced a documentary with a sobering conclusion. Historical revisionism among evangelical Christians may actually be more widespread and egregious than among secular humanists, according to the DVD presentation of "Ismellarat - An Anti-Federalist Interpretation Of American History."

Baptized Federalism

Readers of most contemporary authors on American Christian history are in for a shock. The video challenges almost everything they've been taught about the meaning of American history. The documentary takes issue with the "baptized Federalism" which is common to many of today's "Christian America" authors. It asserts that too often strong Christians have allowed their patriotism to cloud their biblical discernment on this vital issue.

Approximately 31 minutes in run time, this DVD challenges the prevailing opinion among Christians that the United States Constitution represents the epitome of biblical civil government. It explores why Patrick Henry and other strong Christians of the founding era opposed ratification of the Constitution so vigorously.

The legendary Patrick Henry argued almost single-handedly against ratification for 23 days in the Virginia Ratifying Convention. Patrick Henry had better oratory, but Madison had better organization. Many of Henry's prophetic warnings have transpired: an imperial Supreme Court, two levels of oppressive taxation, a bloody civil war. Plus an expansionist interpretation of the General Welfare Clause and the so-called Elastic Clause.

"I smelt a rat" was Patrick Henry's blunt explanation of why he turned down his summons to the Constitutional Convention. The film explains why Patrick Henry was so suspicious of the Convention's activities. Christian historian Dr. George Grant and radio talk host Larry Pratt are featured in the video.

Christian Revisionism

American Christians are as guilty of historical revisionism as are non-Christians. When you detect any of these three types of specious argumentation, your historical antennae should be up and on the alert:

1) Elevating secondary sources to the status of primary documentation, such as Supreme Court rulings and self-aggrandizing statements of the founders and their Federalist sycophants.

2) Claiming that the founding fathers were using the Bible as their great political textbook when they never referred to the Bible in their deliberations. That includes the "Federalist Papers" and "Notes From The Federal Convention," the only exception being Franklin's call for prayer, which was ignored.

3) Claiming that Christians were united in support of the Constitution during the ratification debates, when the strongest opposition came from Christians. For two centuries thereafter holding up the Constitution as the paragon of Biblical government in spite of its flagrant disregard for the Bible.

This is historical revisionism on a scale that makes non-Christian revisionism appear almost mild by comparison. Today's self-proclaimed "Christian History Experts" are passing off a humanistic counterfeit as the genuine model for Biblical government. They have permitted patriotic emotion to cloud the truth of Scripture.

Tags: public speaking advice, public speaking careers, jokes for public speaking, fear of public speaking, public speaking and listening, public speaking classes