I hope that this email finds you doing well. In the several days that have transpired since my resignation from the Chairmanship of the Sonoma County Republican Party, I have become ever more inclined towards the wisdom of my decision. My growing sensibility is that, even if I had remained in that position for the remainder of the term, I would not have accomplished much more than had been done already in terms of orienting the county party towards its real purpose. I had made my mark, and frankly it was due time to move onto our pastures, not so much for my own, personal edification, but for the purpose of bringing a new leadership to the fore. Now, it is that much more imperative that the [Names Omitted] and the [Names Omitted] of the Committee be trained to their rightful aptitudes and fashioned into those roles, which then will make them the SCRCC Officers of the next term. If that occurs, then I suspect that the Old Guard finally will succumb by the hands of their own incompetence to the clarion call of those demanding more from their party. If my departure furthers that development, which I suspect that it will, then it will be most truly fortuitous. As you said, the hand of God may be witnessed in such matters, even if in the here and now it is difficult so to interpret. The most prescient joy in no longer being the Chairman is that I may focus even more on those matters, which had been left on the back burner of late. I mentioned several of them in my resignation letter, such as the prospect of doing a radio show and finishing a book. I also think that it may be due time to focus once more on that fundamental nexus between the Declaration of Independence and the anti-gnostic realism of the Old Testament. While certainly we may agree with Mr. Adams that the American Revolution really began with the Protestant Reformation, I am thinking that perhaps it is more true to say that the American Revolution was a reaction against the gnostic idealism of Monarchical tyranny on the one side and Jacobite anarchy on the other. I am more inclined to think that Thomas Paine is as much an enemy of the Declaration as George III. Certainly, the virtual blows fashioned between Federalists and anti-Federalists would suggest the grand, historic warfare among the powers and principalities. The Founders knew that much more was at stake than even the emergence of their Republic. Perhaps we may reconvene relatively soon, in order to discuss how letters on such points may be developed and read at a symposium of our own creation. We hear so much among conservatives of the "Christian" underpinnings of the Revolution - though most often these countenances comes from Evangelical sorts, who in having no sense of how Christianity is most truly alive within the sacramental and cultic history of the Church reduce their faith to yet another expression of modernist idealism. It is no wonder therefore that their voices do not pose any real, dialectical challenge to the present day gnostics. Furthermore, so many of the "conservatives" championing the Founders presently do so in the larger service of a neo-conservative worldview, that is at odds intrinsically with the Declaration. I am speaking here of many of the voices heard from the Hoover Institute or the Heritage Foundation, who have been successful largely in subverting the Federalist message into an advocacy of an anti-Federalist agenda (i.e. free trade, loose money Republicans, neo-secessionism). Even the so called "Federalist Society" among conservative lawyers today is hardly federalist in its articulated message or self-understanding. What I am saying essentially is that a symposium on the anti-gnostic underpinnings of the Federalist Revolution would be a worthwhile venture, since it is a view seldom, if ever, truly articulated among "conservatives" who profess to be the friends of the Founding Fathers. I am envisioning this symposium as a project of RNI - one that, with some funding, could be done in a public enough venue to spawn something larger in due course. I also envision as such actually occurring sometime after the November elections, thus giving us time to find the speakers, pen the essays, obtain the venue, and so forth. Certainly, there is a need for an anti-gnostic movement in our civic politics, even if at first it is far too erudite of a topic to inspire much in the way of a popular resolve.

Unless and until the religion of the West turns back to the virtue of piety and becomes, once again, "God-fearing," it will remain at sea as to the true theological foundations of that religion and the United States will stand perplexed as to the meaning of its Revolution. Piety is a term regularly employed these days as a pejorative term. The "pious" man is a fraud, hiding corruption behind a veil of hypocrisy; but it has become clear to me that piety, at its root, is the foundation of all forms of temperance. Not to follow the "middle way," (the human life which is animated in the image of God, but is wholly contained within God's creation as is all imagery) is to enter into the world either as a soulless being, a moral zombie, well prepared to be merely obedient or a true fraud who stands in rebellion against his Maker and plays the tyrant over the soulless. Piety is, therefore, at the heart of the Declaration of Independence. I once noted over forty instances of temperance in our founding r e v o l u t i o n a r y statement. What, I wondered, could be the origin of this spirit of temperance? The answer lies in the words of the Declaration; but also in a true picture of the American people to whom the words were addressed. They lived by the Old Testament and put their hopes for salvation in the New Testament. No professorial interpreters were needed to explicate the statement that "all men are created equal." They knew Genesis as though it were one of the recent components of their own family trees. They knew that it meant the noble character of being In Imago Dei, but it also described them as having a penchant for that excess of will that runs counter to their true place in the universe. So long as the people were so morally and philosophically grounded, they took their lives into their own hands and trusted in their God. They were a people with few illusions. The Declaration of Independence has no illusions. It is in no respect an "idealistic" treatise or manifesto. The language of the Declaration is wondrous on this point: Think of the words, "The laws of Nature and Nature's God." The laws of the former are made of iron and may be broken by no man lest in the attempt their force might crush him. Man may learn the law and follow it for his safety; but he may not flout the law without terrible consequence. A man who thinks he can jump from the top of a skyscraper and land safely by willing himself to do so will end at the bottom as a pile of indiscernible protoplasm. The man who employs a parachute pits gravity against the buoyancy of the air in a device made for the purpose. The latter man still takes a hazardous step, subject to miscalculation and incomplete analysis, but he respects the laws of nature, and depends not upon his own will, but on his wisdom and experience. The laws of Nature are, therefore, not a straitjacket, but they provide opportunities in a dependable universe. Those who reject the goodness of the laws of Nature as the prison of the demiurge are naught but frustrated satans who do not wish to succeed with them, but to throw them off and command in the place of God. "The laws of Nature's God" are a different matter. These laws are divinely r e v e a l e d, for man is given some intelligence as a dimension of Imago Dei, and can understand the Word. All men can hear and read these revelations, but they may choose not to understand; for once he sees the truth of these laws, a man is freed from that hostile passion that makes him blind; but if he has already chosen rebellion and wants to rule on earth as God rules, or in other words, wants to make his own law, born of willfulness, in the form of a new law of nature, then he shuns all wisdom and despises all experience. Mind itself is the first enemy which he desires to subdue and in so doing, the rebel fulfills the ancient proverb that "whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad." What temperance can mean in politics is a subject of immediate interest. Here again, the Declaration provides the examples and the principles of that kind of moderation of the soul, intellect, and passions. The incipient gnostic begins his life's journey as an ungrateful fellow. He cannot justify his unhappiness, but senses it and draws his energy from his resentments. This will serve to identify what we call political liberalism as a precondition of gnostic heresy, although few who suffer from the syndrome will have any recognition of their opinions as heretical or even in any way related to the eternal and the divine. My politics are the consequence of my theological understanding and this is an appropriate methodology for the study of American government. The Declaration of Independence sets the ground for the good life in this world. It does not pretend to say anything specific about the eternal life beyond this world, though it points to that life in its primary and fundamental deviation from Locke: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. I am now convinced, but not yet able to finally affirm that the phrase,"pursuit of happiness" is substituted for "property" not to reduce the significance of property in this world, but to point to a transcendent happiness which cannot be found in this tempered world of Imago Dei and the middle way. That phrase puts all else in the Declaration in the ultimate perspective of prophecy. Happiness is pursued in this world, but it is rightly pursued as a preparation designed to make us capable of realizing happiness in the world beyond this world. To say this another way, the Old Testament spirit of the Declaration teaches that life and liberty in this world are the true conditions for the greater fulfillment to come in the next. The OT prophecy of the NT is repeated by the Second Continental Congress. Far from being a regime in which religion is separated from the state, our state is the product of a teaching about the relationship between the divine and the mundane. What is the Declaration of Independence? Lincoln said that it was more than a mere revolutionary statement. It enshrined the founders' ". . . majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to His creatures. Yes, gentlemen to ALL His creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into this world to be trodden on, and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows . . . . and so they established these great self-evident truths, that when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest, should set up the doctrine that none but rich men, or none but white men, were entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, their posterity might look up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began - so that truth, and justice, and mercy and all the human and Christian virtues might not be extinguished from the land; so that no man would hereafter dare to limit and circumscribe the great principles on which the temple of liberty was being built." The Declaration is the charter school of our salvation, pointing us to an eternal hostility to the hateful tyranny of the gnostic heretics. It is our nation's contribution to the ultimate happiness of mankind, and it is grounded in piety. If you dip into my mind on these subjects, you must expect the explosion of words that inevitably follow. They well up in my mind like a library written by another hand than my own which I am compelled to duplicate in writing and speech. I would very much favor an effort to revive a discussion and lay a foundation for the interpretation of present day politics in light of the truths of the Declaration of Independence. It could yield nothing but benefit to all who might engage in it. I agree with you, by the way, that the new interest being shown in the SCRP offers the opportunity to pass the torch. These folks need their time at bat. I only wish that they knew more of their own, true heritage as inheritors of the American Revolution. That knowledge would steer them to an untainted regard for the good and just principles upon which their country was established and would make their rule a hosannah to their Maker and the Maker of all things. I am glad to hear that your interest in politics has not flagged, though it has taken a revised course. Let's meet soon. Let me know of your schedule, and I will keep you informed of mine.

I was much encouraged by your email to Michael. As a nation, I think that we have deviated too far from reality in our national beliefs, an ageless error of man. How has this come about - are our foundational documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, flawed? It is possible. They represent aspects of the truth but not the Truth. Their authors never contended that those documents were perfect. I note that with respect to the Constitution, it provides both a corrective amendment process, and an internal system of checks and balances among the three branches of government (Articles I, II, and III powers) to ensure regard for the spirit of Constitution. If an amendment is needed - the procedure is available and has been successfully used in the past. Potential amendments that readily occur to me would be amendments to nullify previous amendments. In my opinion, several of the amendments after the Bill of Rights, are not positive in effect. The two Prohibition related Amendments (XVIII and XXI), among others, provides an example. I think that Prohibition represented fanciful thinking; and Repeal represented reality. And we permit the supreme court to amend the Constitution continually, often on the basis of "evolving standards of decency." Critics refer to that principle of law as "devolving standards of indecency." In any event it is clear that moral standards are not absolute in our constitutional system. This concept represents a flaw. Yet it really depends upon one's starting point. If at the beginning, the precepts are flawed, then evolving standards may represent an improvement. Conversely, if the precepts are true in the beginning, then evolving standards may represent a degradation. You have identified a necessity for any nation that intends to endure as an independent and free state in a selfish and violent world of states that too often are led by intemperate men leading intemperate people. That necessity is the dimensional element that religion provides a people. In the case of the United States, the religion is the natural law of God, to which author Thomas Jefferson expressly made repeated reference in our Declaration of Independence. It is widely believed that all men have been given the natural law of God. Appropriately, our Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from enacting laws that would impair the peoples' right to freely exercise their religious rights. It is unfortunate that men do not more faithfully observe their natural law religion; but the same may be said about Christianity and other religions. Insofar as I am aware, the natural law of God rightly understood would not be subject to the concept of "evolving standards of decency." But this has not been the view of many justices on the supreme court. I do not remember a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee ever questioning a nominee to the supreme court about the natural law referred to in the Declaration. It seems to me that anything, including "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," appearing in that document or the Constitution would open for general, if not specific, inquiry and discussion in a nominee evaluation context. For example, "According to the Declaration of Independence, Is not the Supreme Judge of the World also our Creator?" Further, "Is he not then Nature's God and responsible for the "Laws of Nature?" And, "Are not the 'inalienable' rights we have from Him?" Further, "Do not the laws enacted by the Congress need to be compatible with the Laws of Nature and with our inalienable rights?" Is "Divine Providence" another description or name for our Creator?" "Do members of the two chambers of Congress have the authority to amend, change or ignore a law of God?"In our "open" and "free" society, such questions are considered intemperate and off-limits in a confirmation hearing context. The universal need of man for a national unifying religion is understood by all governments, including the ultimately rejected Jacobins and Bolsheviks - who both disestablished a Church as a perceived competitor for the allegiance of the people - while impoliticly failing to replace it with a viable, if not genuine, substitute. Whether our Eighteenth-century American founders made a less recognizable - but not dissimilar misstep -remains for a possible later discussion among us. My assumption is that all governments, to varying degrees of visibility, have an established religion, among which "civil religion" must be included. You proceed to discuss religious choices. I myself advocate traditional Christianity, but I do that on a personal, not on a national basis. Although Christianity demands that one love God and man, God compels no man to do so. Whether through the application of the power of civil government, or transcendental means, an individual's free will is respected by both God and his faithful servants; it will be overborne by neither. I agree with you in terms of seeing great good in the Old Testament in the light of our Western politico-religious history, and especially the current devitalizing trends of the cultural religion of the West. Following the inception of Christianity, except for copies of letters of some of the Apostles, and some additional letters of a few persons who accompanied them, the Old Testament constituted the Scripture for the Church for hundreds of years. In this connection, the New Testament writings were not even agreed upon until circa 400 A.D., and that agreement simply derived from the common use the NT writings among the various churches rather than by a canonization by an Ecumenical Council. The foregoing is not intended to be understood as a minimization of the Gospel, rather a confirmation of the significance of matters contained in the OT. Christ better understood Moses than the Scribes (i.e., lawyers much-read in the Law of Moses) who engaged Christ in various discussions). That familiarity with the law and the prophets should not be treated as an oddity reserved for Christ only. Ultimately an enhanced understanding of the OT became the case with Christ's disciples also, as indicated in Acts 2, namely, Peter, whom, in terms of faith, we are urged to emulate. Much about Messiah specifically appears throughout much of the OT. I do not consider Christianity per se as being advisable for a political party's political theme. I believe that Church and government ideally operate freely and independently, but nonetheless in a synergistic relationship, subject to occasional and not unexpected tensions. But marching with political banners in favor of Christ and His Church seems incongruous; and likewise the converse, i.e., marching with religious banners in favor of a political leader and his cabinet seems indiscreet. Nonetheless, it is clear to me that no civil government, whether primitive or modern, long-exists without some cognizable relationship to the transcendental world. This relationship ultimately derives from the inherent dual essences of a human being - the material and the immaterial. And your emphasis on temperance is on target. As merely an example of temperance, I refer to the political movement a century ago of the Anti-Saloon League. That movement was successful but short-lived. A Prohibition amendment (XVIII) passed in 1919, but was repealed by amendment (XXI) in 1933. Saint Paul said (I Cor. 9:24-27) that we should strive for temperance in all things. The Apostle did not say we should strive for abstinence in all things. Yet the Anti-Saloon League, and its supporters in Congress and the state legislatures, in effect attempted to compel abstinence, as if alcohol were evil per se. The line demarcating crimes and vices in a society must be drawn with an understanding of human nature. Murder needs to be prohibited and punished under penalty of death because murder per se is evil; not so with alcohol. Temperate use may be allowed by civil government; and intemperate use may be penalized. I am mindful that persistent intemperate use often results in its own punishment - alcoholism. In a transcendental sense, man has any number of areas in which he must achieve temperance - this is how man may mature, if he desires maturation of the inner self. Although freewill is involved - the Anti-Saloon League proponents wanted temperance to prevail merely by passing a law rather than through the rugged inner struggle of the individual. I call that Utopian. Prohibitionists over-emphasized the outward form of man's temporal life at the expense of his preparation for the next. I note that as recently as December 1933, the Constitution prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquor. Consumption was high; enforcement was inadequate. Presently the law prohibits the sale of cocaine and heroin. Use is high; enforcement is inadequate. I am not aware of anyone ever having been prosecuted for use, as distinguished from sale, of cocaine and heroin. In this aspect it parallels the Prohibition era of enforcement against transporters and sellers of alcohol, but not those in possession of alcohol for personal consumption. Those discovered by law enforcement officers to be in possession of small amounts heroin and cocaine are presumed to intend it for their own personal consumption - not for sale. For that reason they are not prosecuted. I favor the non-prosecution of consumers of alcohol during the time Prohibition was in effect. I do not favor non-prosecution with respect to consumers of cocaine and heroin. Real enforcement would virtually eliminate the trafficking - resulting in less - not more human suffering.and destroyed lives. It is a question not of means, but of goals. In the meantime the consumption of heroin and cocaine increases. Is that consumption not a basis for genuine concern? If so, could not the law be applied in a way that would reverse and virtually eliminate usage without contravening the Eighth Amendment ( ". . . [N]or [shall] cruel and unusual punishments [be] inflicted.")? Yes. The punishment simply needs to be appropriate in relation to the crime, in this case a deadly crime. It all depends upon how the problem is viewed - if deadly then severe methods to extirpate use are justified. The drug problem provides another example of how "caring and sensitive" law enforcement multiplies - decade after decade - disease, disablement, destruction and death; all of which virtually could be eliminated with a law enforcement change of emphasis to include the consumer in the punishment, especially if the punishment were increased to the level required to reach elimination of the problem - rather than a law enforcement decision made at legislative levels to co-exist with the damnable dangerous-drug culture. Attention also should be given to intentional gaps in present enforcement against distributors of these substances. You have intensified the level of discussion - that is a good thing. Western civilization is under attack. Dissipation of national inner strength cannot be ignored anymore than national outer strength. Presently, the state of the former has my attention. Political sloganeering is unsatisfying.

Thanks for your perspective on the matters I raised in my email to Michael. I look to him to correct me as our (formerly) resident theologian as I blunder into these issues like the drunken warriors of Archilocus's poems stumble into wars. I feel better grounded when the questions are merely political; but lately I notice a great deal more probably because of the randomness of the responses of our political system to the more serious issues of our time. If you do not know, or do not know well, Lincoln's "Temperance Address," given in Springfield, Illinois on February 22, 1842, to the Washington Temperance Society, you should definitely read it carefully. It is a catalog of intemperate dimensions of the temperance movement presented to the mavens of temperance in Springfield, Lincoln's adopted home town. It is not only worth chuckles and even belly laughs, but it illustrates beautifully the points you make in your commentary. Putting the speech in the context of abolitionism yields important political and moral insights. As you know, Lincoln was a follower of Henry Clay whom Lincoln consistently praised for his principled moderation in seeking compromises favorable to the notion of restricting the expansion of slavery into the western territories to set the "peculiar institution" on the road to ultimate extinction. The defining theological propositions of the Declaration of Independence being derivative of Scripture, I would say that if there is a flaw, it is in man himself, not in the text. The Constitution is, of course, a different matter. The Declaration was written by the men of the Second Continental Congress, who were putting their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor on the line. Meeting their Creator was very much on their minds as well as the minds of their constituents back home. The Constitution was written by men putting their property, their fortunes, and their ambitions on the line. Nothing wrong with either set of priorities each in its own proper place, but that distinction caused Lincoln to describe the Constitution as a "frame of silver" and the Declaration as an "apple of gold" to be placed in that silver frame where it might inform the laws of the land as the Holy Spirit informs the universe. The Constitution becomes meaningless without the moral, intellectual, and spiritual force of the Declaration to set its virtues in motion and to keep them ascendant. All the derivative virtues are contingent on one primary virtue, piety. Without piety, there are no virtues. Perhaps it is not that the Constitution is so bad a piece of work; but it may be unsatisfying when the foundation and the context for its success, which a public dedication to the principles of the Declaration establishes, are missing. The Ark without the Covenant is, after all, just an old box.

Sorry for the short reply. I tend to think "original intent" behind the Constitution becomes a hard argument when the 14th amendment is swallowed. An inventive reading of the Declaration was used to re-interpret the Constitution, and ever since it has been a "living document." This becomes more complicated when we consider Republicanism and the notion of universal rights vs. the earlier medieval society's concept of liberty (duty according to rank). I think when special revelation can be had, it is always superior to natural law. Natural law can be tricky given nature is fallen, and the dilemma is fallen man is a tarnished if not perverted image of God. It is a limited category without the fullness of Gospel. As you know, the "image of God" has been used to argue all kinds of radical egalitarianism. We like to ignore that the fall requires law and conviction of sin before man is restored. Gnosticism can be too wide a concept to help. I would go to the throat, arguing collective responsibility in terms of fathers and covenant rather than abstract rights or the enshrined 'individual'. You want a polity of 'incarnation'. This doesn't translate to a civil or ecclesial monism. It is not Christ alone but trinitarian and christological. The person of Christ has two distinct natures, not one nature which overwhelms the weaker/other. There are many ways to approach the question of polity (solidarism), even from the angle of incarnation. But to us it should be very concrete. The incarnation begins with Christ's family-line (begot) and His father on earth and in Heaven, or even the second Adam coming to restore the first, etc. We are talking about an incarnate Word/Promise, made concrete through a family. This concept of family is pervasive in the Old Testament/New Testament, applying to both the fall and redemption. Not only Adam fell, but so did mankind (his seed), etc... This 'emphasis' on the "image of God" in the Declaration tends to abstract or ignore these Gospel facts. It describes the abstract, rationalist idea of man, not a covenant given to a posterity. Once you have this route, you are shoring alleged 'gnosticism', in my opinon. Stronger arguments for collectivity, common law, and religious culture might be found, I think, on the state level, especially colonial charters. The Federal government was never intended to be a "complete" political society. When it began to approach the polity you are looking for, it was already a well-matured "living contract". I believe any argument based on federal supremacy is bound to undermine a return to subsidarist, organic society. This polity more likely will begin with families, parishes/chapels, and smaller units of government articulating their commonality by communion and confession. Without this more specifically Christian basis, any adventure into nationalism is at best premature and at worst an abomination. I am personally at a point where my politics are extremely local only because I don't want to waste energy building something which is designed to fail. My focus is on confession and public worship. I know a lot of patriots who worry about society but won't set their foot in a church. We paid dearly for the price of unitarianism in the Declaration. It is not something a person can place their faith upon (which is what patriots do). If they are not in church on Sunday, they don't love Christ. Christ said if you love me, obey my commandments. So, it is better to judge the polity by what it does on Sunday rather than what it says. The laws for sabbath-keeping and the Lord's day were local, not federal, etc.. The most political action "tea party folks" can do is to be catechized, to join public worship, and to pray their offices. Most constitutionalism is Baal Worship. Below are some links which interpret the Constitution in a more Christian, trinitarian, christological, and subsidarist manner to offset the gnosticism of the age. Incarnation (for us) begins with the concrete, not abstract. Thus it is sacramental-- a visible, tactile Word. Remember, the medieval error was to turn what ought to be touched, heard, seen, and eaten into a terrific spectacle-- eternally distant and apart. Sacramental government begins with personal government-- i.e., households that increase in size, from polity to polity, small to large. But the problem with modern nationalism is without subsidarist foundations it is a caricature of community. Its the subsidarist relations to solidarism which are ruined, and needs revitalization, not the Constitution. Furthermore, the Declaration was used to unseat the solidarist foundations. Follow the natural law maxim, "if you do not keep the little thing, how can you do the greater?" I would not assume anything with this breed of creature called the "patriot". They have their priorities mixed and confused.

Solidarism can't work through the medium of bureaucracy and individual rights. It needs another, concrete foundation as precondition. The "image of God" method: 1. tends toward radical egalitarianism of human rights rather than law, authority, and rank. It tends toward antinomianism without the correction of sin, fallen state of man, and need for restoration through the medium of covenant and related ministerial and sacramental economies, of which the civil authority is one minister of God. 2. universal rights/enfranchisement without limited atonement, catechumen, infant baptism, exclusivity in covenant (I am the Way, the Door), etc.., removes man from community, decontextualizing him from family relations of "fathers/parents" (read 5th commandment commentaries on types of), lifting him into the abstraction of the individual. 3. the individual citizen is not incarnate man, at least not in the Biblical, Christian sense. The Declaration is notorious for the above. This is why it was used to undermine the more specific. More support is found in colonial charters from which State Constitutions are based upon, upon which the federal has its origin and life. If you reverse the relations, you "disincarnate" the American polity.

Just want to clarify: I think it is a worthy attempt to expand on the idea of God's image, but there is always a war to be had with a Deist interpretation. However, the context of the Declaration and the Federal Constitution, I believe, leans toward a Deist framework given disestablishment. However, America was a Christian nation (certainly her origin was such), and a Christian appropriation of the US Constitution and Declaration can be had by borrowing context from the states and colonies. The pathway is, of course, subsidarian in nature, i.e., the 10th amendment, federalist papers, and those places where the states are described as establishing the union. State sovereignty is an increasingly shrouded and entombed history which deserves re-examination. The point is not to read the federal documents apart or alone from their colonial and English foundations. A couple suggested books might include Kilpatrick's Sovereign States (for the constitutional and federal arguments) and another book titled "Albion's Seed" for some cultural starting points. From "Albion's Seed," one might see how each state was founded like a "nation," each possessing its own regional and ethnic character carried from Britain, and each with its own peculiar religious settlement. The north was dissent. The south (tidewater states) were Anglican. And the territories west of the blue ridge were presbyterian/baptist (free church). As you go further west a methodist influence dominates. You've probably heard of William Reed Huntington's book "A National Church". If not, it can be download from google books. Anyway, in it (as well as what is suggested in our 1928 Book of Common Prayer American preface) is a bold idea of national toleration-comprehension which potentially might unite dissent under a reduced episcopate and minimum confession (see the Quadrilateral). The idea of Anglican comprehension goes way back to James I and is a very interesting history. Britain, like America, was a realm with several ethnic churches united by crown, placed under a common episcopate, yet possessing (relatively) differing liturgies, articles, and polities. I believe there was a time, connected to the Methodist exit, when dissenters were required to subscribe to 20 or so articles and, of course, the supremacy oath in order to retain civil rights, etc.. The analogy and historical experience can be translated to the USA. Thus, rather than creating a rather non-trinitarian unity behind the monism of a pseudo-federal government or single church, the idea is to maintain identity and difference (three persons) in one Head, "one and many". So, looking at settlement patterns and the history of the respective states, you have Puritansim in New England, Anglicanism in the tidewater states, Baptists in the rest of the South, and Methodists in the West. The Puritan, Presbyterian, and Methodist plans of men like Baxter and Wesley might be most conducive to a national church, recognizing "christian pluralism," and matching the character and legal history of the respective state. This is why looking at Anglicanism through a Methodist lens is so important. And, probably the South was as "Methodist" as it was Anglican, given the stronghold vestries had. Another insight might be the origin of the American episcopate, based upon diocesan government and collegiality, rather than on a specific, national throne. There is good stuff on this topic at the Anglican Covenant Institute. The diocesan/bishopric approach to 'church' and 'polity' is very important if one is to construct a theory of a specifically Christian political activism. Anyway, you can probably see the model I am suggesting. Another idea, and recurring problem with "patriots," is the misplaced faith they place in specifically anti-church political parties-- even third parties which persist in promoting a non-ordered pluralism. This wastes our time. Christians keep thinking in terms of voluntary societies, but this ultimately undermines any advantage we might gain in building a kingdom politics since "kingdom politics" depends on some kind of united discipline (which is to say, an umbrella episcopate). There are specifics which cannot be surrendered. Anyway, Anglicans ought to view their church as a "complete society," provisioned with all things necessary for political and cultural supremacy. We can talk about the details later, but for now consider the history of "two swords." The secular prince holds the iron sword as "essence." The ecclesiastical prince (bishop) wields the spiritual sword as "essence." However, there have been certain times, according to expediency and emergency, where the bishop or prince holds both simultaneously. Most of this gets into concilar theory, but what people often miss and what the Reformers had to clear up was the difference between "in extremis" vs. "esse" or "divine right/investment." Henrician supremacy (and the German League) used the same thinking: the prince as "an emergency bishop" assuming headship of the provinicial church until an authentic general council resolved matters. The bishop has and may wield the temporal sword (by right of ruling the soul which cannot be separated from the body), but this is not by divine right but only for the common good, situation, etc., until order is restored, thereupon it is returned to its proper sphere. Given the history of abducting the secular throne by liberal princes and republican revolutionaries, I would say that we are back to a situation (not unlike the barbarian invasion of the Roman Empire) where bishops ought to pick up the temporal sword "for a time." What I am saying is for us to look at the bishopric diocese as, basically, a self-conscious political society-- not just a spiritual kingdom (which it is by "esse" and must never forfeit, but necessity would allow a seizure of temporal authority since soul cannot be separated from bodies-- particularly those duties related to the first tablet). However, this assumption of responsibility can only go so far and must be done in a way that recognizes the mutual sphere of the temporal. There are limitations which I have not really thought about until now, but I imagine they are similar or the inverse of the restrictions placed on British supremacy (see the 1662 article). I imagine furthermore that the assumption of Episcopate powers over the temporal sphere would be by what is proper to it-- namely through the ministry of the Deaconate. The Deaconate is a very special minister. Not only welfare and mutual aid functions are found here, but also extensions into what we today call a "vestry." The connecting mechanism is the tithe or offering in the Mass. This unites the two spheres, and it is from the transepts/rail that you want to build this theory of church as political society "in extremis." I have a ton more ideas on this subject, but for now I just want to give you a hint. As a theonomist, it is something I really have been slowly developing and it all flows from public worship and the 1928 Book of Common Prayer (BCP). The BCP - and by extension the Catholic Creeds, Holy Scripture, liturgy, and reformation - are our most powerful weapons. Anyway, the idea of running candidates, and of promoting freemason documents and political parties, are really counter-productive to the visible church and what it can accomplish through an extension of mission. The Anglican church has been unique in that it contains the manifold expressions (not all but the main ones-- Presbyterian and Methodist), historically, by comprehension. This is an organic approach because it is part and parcel of the long duree we and our forefathers have lived, sensitive to cultural foundations, etc. Political power then will be through the Deaconate and related minor orders. They would hold the "sword" for the bishop. This partly means turning Vestries into political machines-- not unlike Virginia-- but this time with native, Bishopric overseers rather than those in trans-atlantic London.

I hope that all is well with you. I asked a friend of mine to comment as well on the federalist symposium idea, and related musings, that we considered in several email exchanges fairly recently. His responses are decidedly theological in nature and include derivative comments of peculiar interest to traditionalist Anglicans; nevertheless, his underlying support for what may be termed as "localism," and accordingly his Anti-Federalist perspective, seem to refer back to that same matter of concern with which our exchange began - namely, how to allow for a Republic not founded on Gnosticism. As I understand his responses, he sees a necessity in an established, Christian polity - hence the support for "localism." In your prior comments, you have found the solution in an Old Testament inspired piety, seeing said law as paramount for this world and said grace (peculiar to the New Testament) referring to the next. His view seems to demand an Anti-Federalist suspicion, if not outright opposition, to the Declaration of Independence and the Federal Constitution; yours allows for a national unity premised on those documents, if in fact understood through the prism of personal and political (meaning civic) piety. Anyway, that is how I differentiate now your premises from his, though I welcome any elaboration or correction on the point.

Your correspondent makes an exemplary case for the application of prudence to the design of earthly government.

You are correct. Indeed, the theocratic model of "localism" espoused by my correspondent would be unworkable, apart from a small sect able and willing to live exclusively from such laws and norms as prevail in our society. Perchance his model would work for a group like the Amish, which are removed enough to be self-governing in essential points (though even then we cannot disabuse ourselves of the fact that, in spite of their Luddite worldview, they would if needed take recourse to the modern applications of government, like fire and police protection). There was enough political and geographical wilderness in the previous century, meaning nineteenth, for a group like the Mormons to go out into the desert and create their own political and religious polity, which I sense is the model really being espoused here; but even there we see that that is a past condition, no longer readily applicable to our governing possibilities and needs today. After all, Mitt Romney and Meg Whitman are running for high office in our present day, pluralistic society, not serving as "civil deacons" for a "two sword" wielding bishop somewhere in the deserts of Utah. Perchance the great fallacy of Anti-Federalism is its intrinsic romanticism, the idea that the law of the Old Testament may subside to the grace of the New Testament in this world, the ultimate aim of the Gnostic "Christians" from Marcion onward. The Federalists at least have that realpolitik sensibility that allows them to fashion something relevant to the real world.

Michael, you are that rarest of individuals: one who gets the fullest meaning out of the tersest of expressions. The one virtue that gnostics cannot abide is "prudence." It matters very little whether they espouse the fashions of the left or the right. They corrupt Christianity by breaking the bond between Yahweh and the church named for His prophets and his Son. Without that bond, "Christ" is simply another idealistic reformer, doomed to fail in an effort to remake Eden in this world and, thus, to spite their Creator, to mock His Power, and to cast away His Grace. I have had great trouble reconciling Christ with Yahweh because I come from an old and worn Christian civilization which is obviously in its dotage. (This is undoubtedly why I actually enjoy reading Irenaeus of Lyon. He is as fresh and as alive as Aristotle!) Once I understood that I needed to begin my Biblical study with the phrase, "In the beginning . . . " in order to comprehend the meaning of Christ and of His Church, I have been set, though late in my life, on a new journey which is rewarding, but which will not yield to a simple skimming of the text, nor the exposition of a raft of undergraduate theological jargon to cover up my ignorance. I still do not know who Christ is nor do I comprehend how the God of the Old Testament could be contained in any respect in the stuff of his Creation; but, then, neither do I understand the making of something from nothing. With Aristotle, I must live as though the Creation always existed; because time begins with Creation itself, and I am incapable of thinking of the timelessness, the darkness, the formless and the void; yet, the Creation itself demonstrates to me that lying just under its surface is the overwhelming evidence of its having been made by a single hand in a single act. Had I started from an experience with the American Church in the mid-twentieth century, I should now be a blind man who would find Grace in his blindness, or subject to the absurd blather of your correspondent who wants to know everything, but truly knows nothing and who must, therefore, assert that he can remake the Creation in his own image. Only ignorance unrecognized can produce a Gnostic. It is the lack of that recognition that lies at the root of their sin. That is the very core of gnosticism, a force he obviously does not understand. That could be because the account of the Fall from Grace has its paradigm in the case of Set-hen which is found in the Old Testament, a text he does not know much about. That is why my call for prudence - a call for knowing our place in the order of the universe - would be anathema to your correspondent. I do not say that hewing to that middling place is easy; for we are, in fact, absolutely equal in our God-like powers and equal, too, in our capacity to misapply those powers (principally by converting the legitimate power of "dominion" over the Creation into an attempt to correct its apparent flaws, thereby challenging the Source from which our power of dominion itself is originally derived). Your correspondent, who in denying his connection to his race by denying human equality, reveals his gnostic ambition, would profit from a true reading of Job to discover his error. This I know: he will get his comeuppance; but not from me. "Vengeance is mine," saith the Lord. In this study, I am fortunate. I am no theologian. I learned science, philosophy, and politics for six decades. In my seventh decade, I returned to a childhood interest in asking the perennial questions. I am, one might say, reborn in the novelty and challenge of it all; but quite comfortable with being surprised and, at this stage, have nothing invested in reputation or expectation other than to recast the nature of my right to pursue Happiness with a focus on those things that are the most important of all in achieving that Happiness. I shall persist in this because I have found great Happiness in it to this point, combined with great Promise. When that pursuit has run its course, I will embrace the resignation of an old man's stoic wisdom, repeating, "In God is my trust." If you hear that I have done that, you will know that, in the end, I died a happy man. Nothing more. Nothing less. Somewhere in the midst of things.

I appreciate your comments. They have been very helpful for me in considering the tenets of a civic polity, that would be consistent with my understanding of the political implications of Christian soteriology. If in fact salvation is cosmological in essence, including the man in his "individual" component, but even more so as a member of a corporate body, then there cannot be a serious rendering of the "pursuit of happiness" without that understanding. It is the peculiar gift of the New Testament to our national foundations and ongoing character, a gift which we would be well advised to reclaim, while also better comprehending (so as not to be carried away with those idealistic predilections, which lend themselves to willfully false doctrines).