one bb, indivisible

[Oscar]

Aren’t all of these issues irrelevant for Christians who know that we are merely “strangers and exiles“ on this earth?  And should any Christian take an oath of office to uphold laws that are in violation to God’s laws? 

Chuck Miller

Chuck,

The perspective you speak of above was popular among Brethren and related groups, and still is among some.  When I was of that persuasion, I thought like this too.  I did not vote in elections from 1968 to 1980, for example.  But over time, my thoughts about this view began to change.  

A few reasons:

1. Those who advocate this do not seem to have thought out the implications clearly.  What, exactly, is proper behavior for "strangers and pilgrims?"  
If your house catches fire, is it ok to call the fire department?  Or is that excessive involvement in the world system?  

2. It seems to be primarily a negative standard.  You shouldn't vote, you shouldn't serve in the military, you shouldn't be a policeman, you shouldn't this, you shouldn't that...

Just pray, witness, and wait to die.

At one early seminar in Hillcrest Park, a wierdo named Bobby Bible came into a meeting and disrupted it.  He defied GG, so GG had someone call the cops!

I remember thinking, "Bro. G says we shouldn't defend ourselves or become policemen, but when he needs one its ok to call them. You can't defend yourself, but you can use a hire-a-cop to arrest or shoot someone for you!"  In other words, in practice it he was saying it is ok to pay others to do what it would be wrong for you to do.

3. Jesus said, "occupy till I come."  He was speaking of employing our gifts.  What if your gifts are best used in medical research? What if you are good at leading and organizing...in other words, in government?

4. I had kids.  Now I have grandkids.  Jesus is coming soon....and for that matter, has been coming "soon" for the past 150 years at least.  Whole generations have been born, lived, and died while Jesus was coming soon!

I do not know when Jesus is coming.  But I do know that if he doesn't come pretty quick the results of what is going on today will create the world my kids and grandkids will live in, and serve Jesus in.  I love them, and I will do my best to leave them a country and world worth living in.

5. I am grateful for the sacrifices of those who were not willing to be only strangers and pilgrims.  The Christian men who died at Bunker Hill, Gettysburg, Guadalcanal, Normandy, Chosin Reservoir, Pleiku, and Faluja so that we could serve God openly and think and speak freely about Christ.

I will not say that they sinned so that I, my children, and my grandchildren could be free.  The freedom they bought is what produces the $$ that are sent to missionaries around the world today.  

Strangers and pilgrims...true.  This world is not our final home nor the destination of our eternity.  But while we are here, there's work to do.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[Elizabeth H]

Just pray, witness, and wait to die.

lol, tom. true.

i certainly appreciate the people who manifest their faith through good works that actually tangibly manifest themselves in the world we live in. i, for one, am thankful for the environmentalists who helped clean up california's air. when i was a kid, the smog was pretty bad. i also appreciate the people who revive old, historic town-centers, lobby to keep historic buildings, halt over-development of open spaces, volunteer in their children's schools, pick up trash at the beach, head up research development to find a cure for breast cancer, visit the sick in hospitals, organize book drives for local libraries.

per your thoughts on soldiers: although i respect the military as a necessary office of any nation and believe certain wars were necessary evils, i do not feel compelled to support every justification for war such as the illusion that the invasion of iraq was to protect our collective "freedom."

[Chuck Miller]

If you would like to read my dissertation on why I believe the United States was founded upon a false premise, I will be glad to send it to you. My e-mail address is chuckmiller888@yahoo.com.

Chuck Miller

[Oscar]

If you would like to read my dissertation on why I believe the United States was founded upon a false premise, I will be glad to send it to you. My e-mail address is chuckmiller888@yahoo.com.

Chuck Miller

Chuck,

Thanks for the offer.  I may take you up on it.  But first a couple of questions: 1. How many pages are we talking about?  2. Do you have an abstract of the dissertation?  If so, why don't you just post that.

Thomas Maddux

[Chuck Miller]

So, it would appear that the “more perfect union” was not established on the unity of Christian beliefs, but rather, as inferred in the Declaration of Independence, a union prompted by a consensus of grievances against the British King.

Let me continue with a rather poignant question:

Did God allow for Israel to have other religions in their midst, or did Jesus allow for there to be other religions in His church? 

Absolutely not.   To the contrary, God commanded, “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3)   This does not mean that God intended for there to be a detachment of His people from the rest of the world, but simply that, within the confines of their own assemblies, worship of any other gods.  Let me continue with a rather poignant question:

Did God allow for Israel to have other religions in their midst, or did Jesus allow for there to be other religions in His church? 

Absolutely not.   To the contrary, God commanded, “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3)   This does not mean that God intended for there to be a detachment of His people from the rwas forbidden.  But, since the wording of the First Amendment does allow for such, how could it be construed that this country was founded upon the principles of either Judaism or Christianity? 

And since there was no prohibition against non-believers settling in the colonies, and no assurance that future generations of Christian families would not depart from the faith, how could there be a guarantee that the nation would remain, indefinitely, a “Christian” nation? Therefore it was within the realm of possibility that eventually, unbelievers would become the majority or, at least, a controlling minority?

John Chalfant, author of America: A Call to Greatness," unequivocally states that “it is Christianity upon which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were founded," and his opinion seems to be shared by many Christians today.  However, since there is a conspicuous absence of any mention of Jesus Christ or Christianity in either of these documents, I believe a more accurate statement would be:  “Based upon the language of the Declaration of Independence, it seems that the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States was to acknowledge their belief in a Creator and to establish a government that would reflect that belief -- subsequently, the Legislators based some, but not all, of their laws upon some, but not all, of the Ten Commandments?”   

Notwithstanding the sincerity of intent of the Christian men who played a major part in drafting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, it does not alter the fact that they were naïve and misguided in supposing that they could constitutionally -- as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution -- “form a more perfect union” and “secure the Blessings of Liberty” for themselves and their posterity.  There could be no more perfect union than what they experienced in their fellowship in Christ, and He had given them His perfect government in the establishment of His church.  Through His church, His manifold wisdom was to be revealed to the world (Ephesians 3:10).   Perhaps I should say, through His “properly functioning” church,” since He receives no glory from a body that men have divided and secularized.  Since these men had failed to establish such a union through a Christ-governed church, how could they have expected to accomplish it through a man-governed nation?  Compare the account of the church of the first century believers with the condition of the church today.  We read in the Book of Acts, the following account of the state of that church:

So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.   They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.  Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.
Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.                    Acts 2:41-47

[Chuck Miller]

Don’t misunderstand.  There was nothing inherently wrong with this Founding Father’s desire to form such a nation.  They simply erred in failing to recognize that Christ had already established what they were seeking.  No doubt they were blinded by the divisions and the man-made hierarchical structure that pervaded virtually all of Christendom at that time, which bore little resemblance to the united body that Christ intended for it to be.

However, regardless of their desires and their religious convictions, the wording of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution offers no justification for stating that the Founding Fathers were proposing to establish either a Christian nation, a Jewish nation, or a Judeo/Christian nation. For, although it is apparent that they did believe in a Creator - and one may justifiably assume what ideas that might have entailed in their own minds, - nevertheless, the ideas they expressed in these documents were more ideological than they were biblical. There is not a single mention of the name “Jesus Christ” or of “Christianity” in either document.  I’ll elaborate more on that later.  And if you question my reference to their founding a “secular” nation, remember that these men specifically state in the First Amendment to the Constitution that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ……” This seems to be consistent with a Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of secular as “not overtly or specifically religious.”  Even those who argue in support of the concept of a Judeo/Christian nation inadvertently admit as much 

On page 25 of his book America’s Christian Heritage, author Gary DeMar states:

Secularism also goes by the name “humanism.”  Like the secularist, the humanist believes that man and his enterprises are the center of all that is conceived.  The benefits must be to man in the here and now without any concern for what man might encounter beyond the grave.
 
Would it be incorrect to say that DeMar, has given a fairly accurate synopsis of the contents of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States?   An examination of these documents will verify as much.

And although DeMar is a strong proponent for political activism, he makes the following observation concerning the Constitution (page 35):

One theory to explain why the Constitution addresses religion only in an indirect way is because there were different Christian denominations represented at the constitutional convention in Philadelphia: Congregationalist, Episcopalian, Dutch Reformed, Presbyterian, Quaker, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, and Methodist.  “James Madison tells us there was “discord” of religious opinion within the convention,’ which undoubtedly kept theological controversy off the floor.”  Some maintain that the proliferation of religious opinion among the delegates steered the convention away from including specific religious language in the Constitution.       

[Chuck Miller]

Tom,

The article is 24 pages long.  I have copied the first 4 pages here in three  posts..

And He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father-- to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.                Revelation 1:6

                                                                                                                   
Much of the debate and dissent between conservative, or so-called, “right wing Christians” and the liberal element of American society stems from the premise put forth by the Christian community - that the United States was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles - the Ten Commandments being the cornerstone of those principles.
In the heat of the controversy, very little, if any, consideration is given to the question of whether such an ambitious endeavor by the Founding Fathers was prompted by their desire to seek to follow the leading of Jesus Christ, or whether it was motivated instead, as more of an angry reaction to the oppressive edicts of King George III.  An investigation into the history of the colonies and the disunity that existed amongst their churches belies the notion that the unifying factor was a mutual devotion to Christ, but rather, it was their disdain for the “tyranny” of the King.  We find this clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence:

The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

Now I doubt that anyone would dispute the fact that many (but not all) of the Founding Fathers were devout Christian men who believed that the welfare of this country and its perpetuation depended upon a continuing faith and trust in Almighty God.  Much of what they said and wrote attest to that fact, and is verified in the research of professors Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman who reviewed almost 15,000 historical writings of the fifty five delegates to the Constitutional Convention. They found that more than a third of the quotes in their writings came directly from the Bible.  Correspondingly, in researching the history of the founding of this country, I find very little evidence that initially, there was any open opposition by the majority of the people to the acceptance of the concept of a Creator God.  Indications are that the relationship of church and state in American society and its politics was readily accepted by the predominantly Christian population, and remained virtually unchallenged until after World War II.  However, for the purposes of this writing, this is of relatively little importance, since I believe that this country was established upon a flawed premise -- that a secular nation could be founded upon what is commonly referred to as “Judeo-Christian principles.  I don’t make this statement frivolously and if it astonishes you, please reserve your judgment until you’ve read the rest of this writing.

[Chuck Miller]

Tom,

Sorry, my posts have some glitches in them, (I'm not very adept at maneuvering on th BB) but this will give you a general idea of my premise

Chuck

[bystander]

If you would like to read my dissertation on why I believe the United States was founded upon a false premise, I will be glad to send it to you. My e-mail address is chuckmiller888@yahoo.com.

Chuck Miller

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 


Scripture teaches that God both raises and brings down kings and nations.  That being the case, the United States is legitimate, even more so than most other nations.

I submit that the US was founed on a true premise, as far as any secular nation goes.  The premise of Liberty does not inhibit true fellowship and unity in Christ in any way, neither does it create it.  It is not the job of states and governments to further the Kingdom of God!  Also, the Gospel is not fettered by governments, but it can be maligned on account of the testimony of those who supposedly preach it.

As to the founders not recognizing that Christ had already established that which they were seeking, I must disagree with the very premise of that statement.  Christ in no way established an earthly nation or kingdom, which was the very thing the founders sought to do. 

Perhaps I need to read your entire dissertation, but from what you posted it seems that you lament the fact that many in the US mistakenly believe it to be a Christian nation, when it is in fact a secular one.  I think the problem here lies more with peoples' mistaken ideas about what the Church is,  and how this leads them to the idea that a secular nation can in any way be Christian.

As a Christian, I have no problem doing an honest days work in a secular nation, whether that be farming, hammering nails, or administrating civil affairs.  On the flipside, as a Christian, I do have a problem doing an honest days' secular work in the Church!  If we confuse the two, all manner of strange ideas and consequences come about.

bystander

[Oscar]

Chuck,

You said:

Notwithstanding the sincerity of intent of the Christian men who played a major part in drafting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, it does not alter the fact that they were naïve and misguided in supposing that they could constitutionally -- as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution -- “form a more perfect union” and “secure the Blessings of Liberty” for themselves and their posterity.  There could be no more perfect union than what they experienced in their fellowship in Christ, and He had given them His perfect government in the establishment of His church. 

To me it seems that arguing that people were naive and misguided to believe that they could do what everyone knows they did is going to be an uphill struggle.

Who could argue that the Constitution adopted in 1789 did not form "a more perfect union" than that formed by the Articles of Confederation that were written in 1776 and took effect in 1781?  That is what the phrase is referring to, y'know.  Since it is now the oldest written constitution in effect anywhere in the world, it seems to me that it has been pretty successful.

As to their intention of "securing the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity", they seem to have carried that off pretty well too.  I am one of those "posterity" fellows, and I do most certainly enjoy the blessings of liberty.

The founding fathers knew all about the idea that we should have the kingdom of God expressed through the church in charge of the government.  They knew their history far better than most modern Americans.  They knew how this idea had been tested and had failed in the Roman, Byzantine, and Holy Roman Empires.  They also knew about the wars and cruelty the idea had produced all over Europe, and about the oppressive governments of Calvinist Switzerland and Anglican England.  In fact, the Massachussetts delegates knew all about the more recent experiment on these lines conducted in the Massachussetts Bay Colony, and how it had miserably failed.

The idea seems to suffer from two problems:

1. God never told the Church to rule the world.

2. Even if He had done so, there is no unanimity as to exactly what God's will is about many details of law.

BTW, the idea that all we need to do is get the elders together to pray and "seek the mind of the Lord" does not seem to have worked anywhere near as well as the "naive and misguided" ideas of the founders.  I would suggest that those who claim this works should actually demonstrate its validity before taking over the US government.  Bretheren type churches have an absolutely wretched record on this point. 

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[moonflower2]

Chuck,

I think most people do not claim that the US is a Christian country anymore, except in comparison to countries where the dominant religious beliefs are Buddhist, Communist, Islam, Jewish, etc. There are more Christians here than any other country and have been for some time.

We have already heard that the early unifying factor of the early USA was hatred for the "taxation without representation", and not religious freedom. But to say that that was the only issue that they were interested in is unfair to the large population who came here and thrived under the religious freedom, with their families intact, that they did not have in their mother countries.

One of the issues in Christianity is "sin". The ten commandments tell us what it is and the founding fathers realized this when they pasted the commandments in various places. I don't think you are saying that this was bogus on their part and just a political ploy to appeal to the masses of indigent immigrants who came for religious freedom or the mere well-being of their families? 

There is no true freedom until sin is recognized for what it is. Women and children, although they may be victims, have been protected here unlike in countries who have never known or turned from Christ. It's the goodness of God recognized by these founding fathers.

If our country was to be run like the old testament "church", we would need to kill most of the people who are in prisons now, imprison many who aren't, and leave the rest of them out in the cold.  But I don't think that was Christ's message to the NT Christians. They were told to render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's, and unto God the things that are God's, signifying that there are two separate things going on here: Church and State.

Is your point that if we say our country is founded on Christian principles that the country would look different? And that it should look like and be run like a church is? Is that really possible? What is the responsibility and how far is the reach of a leader who calls himself a Christian?

I agree with what bystander, and Tom Maddeletor, said but I'm interested in reading your entire paper. Are you arguing words here, trying to prove that the US of A isn't founded on Christian principles, or presenting priniciples that can actually be worked out in a Christian nation?

Would you consider posting something everyday for us to read? We will show interest in your posts by responding the same day in order to keep Tom from deleting them due to lack of interest. 

[Chuck Miller]

[Continued from above post to Tom Mattox]

YOU WROTE:  The founding fathers knew all about the idea that we should have the kingdom of God expressed through the church in charge of the government. 

MY RESPONSE:  If they did, in fact, have the idea that we should have the kingdom of God expressed through the church “in charge of the government” - then it wasn’t because they found it in the scriptures,  What they would have found was, God’s government being expressed in and through the church. If the church had been functioning in the manner in which Christ intended,  there would have been no need for men to seek “a more perfect union.“

YOU WROTE:  They knew their history far better than most modern Americans.  They knew how this idea had been tested and had failed in the Roman, Byzantine, and Holy Roman Empires. 

MY RESPONSE:  I’m not sure I understand what “idea” you’re speaking of, Tom, but if you‘re saying that Christians in these empires did seek to establish churches “in charge of the government,“ then I’m not familiar with those instances,   I am familiar with the fact that the Roman Catholic Church was successful in doing so, but Catholicism is not Christianity.   
Yes, there were some Christian churches that tried to function as Christ intended, but were persecuted by both the Catholic and “Christian” churches.

YOU WROTE: They also knew about the wars and cruelty the idea had produced all over Europe, and about the oppressive governments of Calvinist Switzerland and Anglican England. 

MY RESPONSE:  If you’re suggesting that the oppressive governments of Calvinist Switzerland and Anglican England were in any way associated with the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ and of His purpose and intent for His church, then we must be reading different Bibles and different history books, Tom.

YOU WROTE:  In fact, the Massachussetts delegates knew all about the more recent experiment on these lines conducted in the Massachussetts Bay Colony, and how it had miserably failed.

MY RESPONSE:  From what I’ve read, the Massachusetts Bay Colony was as much of a business venture as it was an  “experiment” in Christian Community living.  They went awry when the deviated from scriptural instruction.

YOU WROTE:  The idea seems to suffer from two problems:

1. God never told the Church to rule the world.

2. Even if He had done so, there is no unanimity as to exactly what God's will is about many details of law.

MY RESPONSE:  Amen!  You make a point for my case, Tom.  Since the Founding Fathers couldn’t even agree amongst themselves about what is written in the word of God, why should we expect that they would have been  able to agree upon laws by which to govern themselves?  And no, God never told the church to rule the world, nor did He tell the church to rule any country.

YOU WROTE:  BTW, the idea that all we need to do is get the elders together to pray and "seek the mind of the Lord" does not seem to have worked anywhere near as well as the "naive and misguided" ideas of the founders.  I would suggest that those who claim this works should actually demonstrate its validity before taking over the US government.  Bretheren type churches have an absolutely wretched record on this point. 

MY RESPONSE:  I don’t know where you’re coming from on this, Tom, but it certainly isn’t from anything I said.  I’d be willing to dialogue with you, but when you .pull things out of the air (i.e. “all we need to do……….” and “taking over the US Government“) and imply that I said it, I find it to be careless interchange and not worthy of rebuttal.  Also, I find it somewhat spurious for you to use your responses as a means to vent your obvious disagreement with “Brethren type churches, ” I don’t see where it is profitable or edifying to continue a discussion in this vein.

Incidentally, the house churches in China (and from what I have read, they are “brethren type churches”)  seem to be ”working” and they probably spend more time in one week on their knees praying then most  Christians spend in a year.  I understand that they don’t pray that God will deliver then from their persecution, but that He will give them the strength to endure it.  And incidentally, I hear also that they are praying for their Christian brothers and sisters in the U.S, - and what do you suppose is their prayer for us? - That we too shall come under persecution.   

God bless,

Chuck




_______________________________________________________________________

[Chuck Miller]

Tom,

I’ve written my responses to your last post and found it too lengthy to be accepted as one post, so it is in two parts:


YOU WROTE:    Chuck, you said:- Quote: “Notwithstanding the sincerity of intent of the Christian men who played a major part in drafting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, it does not alter the fact that they were naïve and misguided in supposing that they could constitutionally -- as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution -- “form a more perfect union” and “secure the Blessings of Liberty” for themselves and their posterity.  There could be no more perfect union than what they experienced in their fellowship in Christ, and He had given them His perfect government in the establishment of His church.” 
To me it seems that arguing that people were naive and misguided to believe that they could do what everyone knows they did is going to be an uphill struggle.

MY RESPONSE:  Not really, Tom, unless you consider “what everyone knows they did” as being your idea of successful.  If you consider this country to be the “more perfect union,” then I won’t argue with you.  I don’t
Personally, I’d rather be like those men and women of faith spoken of in Hebrews 11 of whom the writer said:  “All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own” (Hebrews 11:13)

YOU WROTE:  Who could argue that the Constitution adopted in 1789 did not form "a more perfect union" than that formed by the Articles of Confederation that were written in 1776 and took effect in 1781?  That is what the phrase is referring to, y'know.  Since it is now the oldest written constitution in effect anywhere in the world, it seems to me that it has been pretty successful.

MY RESPONSE: I neither think that the U.S. Constitution is the oldest, nor do I believe it has been “pretty successful.”  World history shows us that man will corrupt any form of government ever conceived.  If, by saying that the U.S. Constitution has been successful, you are implying that it has :

established Justice,
insured domestic Tranquility,
provided for the common defence,
promoted the general Welfare,
and secured the Blessings of Liberty to yourselves and your Posterity

If you consider this as being the state of this country, then you and I are  not on the same page.
There was only one perfect constitution ever written - and it will be enacted in the coming theocratic reign of the King, Christ Jesus.

YOU WROTE:  As to their intention of "securing the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity", they seem to have carried that off pretty well too.  I am one of those "posterity" fellows, and I do most certainly enjoy the blessings of liberty.

MY RESPONSE:  Well Tom, I guess it all depends upon your idea of what constitutes “liberty.”  Christians short-change themselves by seeking everything in the here and now.  But, enjoy it while you can.

[Continued on following post to Tom Mattox]

[Oscar]

Chuck,

In reading historical documents the meaning is found by finding out what the authors meant.  With fairly recent history, such as the writing of the Constitution, there are usually plenty of records to help us to do this.  As I taught American History for a number of years, I have some familiarity with the individuals and situation they found themselves in.

They had struggled through the war under the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation, and almost lost the war as a result. After the war the states fell to quarreling among themselves, with some shooting over fishing rights and border disputes. In 1786 the farmers of Massachussetts rebelled against the state government and the Congress had to call on G. Washington to suppress it. The country was deeply in debt, and the Congress could only ask for taxes, it couldn't enforce collection.  There were no federal courts to adjudicate disputes between states.

The delegates met to revise the Articles, then decided to start over with a new document.  The phrase, "a more perfect union" means "more perfect than what we had under the Articles."   You seem to be arguing with the idea that the Constitution was established to form  a perfect union, meaning "perfect in all ways in the eyes of God."

I am not aware that anyone, anywhere, claims that that is what the founders intended to do, or actually did.  In fact, the founders, being Christians, knew all about fallen human nature, and sought limits on Government power because of the tendency of power to corrupt.

What they did try to do was to make the best life they could for themselves and their descendents, and to create an environment where people could flourish.  As to how well they did, I will ask a question I used to ask Leftist/Athiest teachers when they started up their "The United States is evil" mantra.   Can you name a country that, in all of human history, has delivered more freedom and more prosperity to more people than the United States?  So far, no one has ever answered the question.

Chuck,  what you seem to be getting at is the idea that since our country is not the kingdom of God, we should not participate in it.  Is that right?

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[moonflower2]

Don’t misunderstand.  There was nothing inherently wrong with this Founding Father’s desire to form such a nation.  They simply erred in failing to recognize that Christ had already established what they were seeking.  No doubt they were blinded by the divisions and the man-made hierarchical structure that pervaded virtually all of Christendom at that time, which bore little resemblance to the united body that Christ intended for it to be.

I have an honest question, Chuck.
 
In saying that the founders "erred" you are saying that there was something better that they could have done. Would it be possible to establish on this earth what Christ has already established?

There are Christians who believe that the Christian's calling is to establish Christ's kingdom on earth in a visible way and that this will actually happen before Christ returns. I don't think you believe that in entirety, but it does seem to fit in with your line of thought.

Or are you saying that the founding fathers were seeking in the wrong way what Christ had already established?

Can you give us a little here?

Moonflower2