History
From Whence We Came: A Background of the National Reform Association
by Anthony Cowley
The National Reform Association was born when this nation was in the throes of a war between its own states. In 1861 the Lakes Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America [RPCNA] passed the following resolution regarding the Civil War:
Whereas, God has come out of his place to punish the nations and this nation for their sins; and whereas, we have on every hand the anxious inquiry, "Watchman, what of the night?" and whereas, it is the duty of faithful witnesses to meet the obligation to testify, imposed on them by providential occurrences: therefore,
Resolved, 1st. That we see in the present civil war God's controversy with this nation for their rejection of his name and authority, the prerogative and law of his Son, and for trampling upon the inalienable rights of man.
2nd. That we call upon this nation so to amend the Constitution, which is the basis of the Union, as to acknowledge God, submit to the authority of his Son, embrace Christianity, and secure universal liberty.1
The Lakes Presbytery of the RPCNA was not alone in seeing the Civil War as a judgment of God upon the nation for disobedience. What is unique is that they and most Reformed Presbyterians saw slavery not as the root problem, but as the natural outworking of the religious defect in the Constitution of the United States. Although this same sentiment became widespread during the war, ten years prior to the war most Americans did not share any concern about the lack of mention of God or Christ in the Constitution. During most of American history the Reformed Presbyterian Church (Old Light and New Light) stood nearly alone in dissenting from the Constitution, not in regard to slavery, but in regard to the nation's failure to mention God or Jesus Christ in its fundamental law. The Old Light Reformed Presbyterians were so strong in their dissent as to refuse to vote or hold office or do any other act by which they would "incorporate" with the godless United States Constitution.
As the abolitionist movement grew prior to the Civil War, however, many of its leaders came to denounce the Constitution in the strongest terms. William Lloyd Garrison, editor of the Liberator, publicly burned a copy of the Constitution in 1854, and at other times described it as "a covenant with Hell."2
Their concern, however, was primarily with slavery, and not with the lack of acknowledgment of Jesus Christ in our national law. While some abolitionists and other social reformers came to a position much like that of the Covenanters, they did so in a different direction, and for different reasons than the Covenanters. Covenanters opposed the Constitution primarily because it forgot God and did not acknowledge Christ, and secondarily because it had pro-slavery provisions. They saw slavery as the manifestation of the root problem of godlessness.
Abolitionists, on the other hand, first took the Constitution to task for its slavery provisions. Some later saw that the slavery position may have been connected to some religious defect in the Constitution. Stewart Olin Jacoby summarizes:
The Covenanters were part of the anti-slavery movement, but they did not move the nation. The nation moved, and came to rest near where the Covenanters stood. In that new proximity, it is natural that the Covenanters thought that they had a chance to win others to their view of the Constitution.3
Thus, while the RPCNA was opposed to slavery, it was only a secondary consideration after the religious defect of the Constitution. The abolitionist movement led a number of other Americans to a position close to that of the RPCNA, and the Civil War became the crucible in which the National Reform Association itself was forged.
"A convention for prayer and Christian conference, with special reference to the state of the country, had been called to meet in Xenia, Ohio, on February 3rd, to continue in session three days." In attendance were representatives of eleven different denominations and from seven states. One of the subjects of this convention was "Religion in the Nation." When this subject came up for consideration, John Alexander, Esq.,
then of Xenia, presented a paper in which the sins of the nation were confessed, and the importance of repentance and reformation insisted upon. After speaking of President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, then recently issued, and to the hopeful prospect of an anti-slavery amendment to the Constitution, the paper proceeds as follows: "We regard the neglect of God and His law, by omitting all acknowledgment of them in our Constitution, as the crowning original sin of the nation, and slavery as one of its natural outgrowths. Therefore, the most important step remains yet to be taken--to amend the Constitution so as to acknowledge God and the authority of His law; and the object of this paper is to suggest to this Convention the propriety of considering this subject, and of preparing such an amendment to the Constitution as they may think proper to propose in accordance with its provisions . . . . We suggest the following as an outline of what seems to us to be needed in the preamble of that instrument, making it read as follows (proposed amendment in brackets):
WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, [recognizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the law of God as the paramount rule, and Jesus, the Messiah, the Saviour and Lord of all,] in order to form a more perfect union . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.4
This paper was endorsed by the committee to which it was referred, and it was ordered that the paper be published.
At about the same time, on February 6, 1863, in Sparta, Illinois, without any collusion, a similar meeting was held at which a pledge was given to 'labor to bring the nation to repentance toward God and to a faithful administration of the Government according to the principles of the Word of God.' This convention met again two weeks later to adopt a plan of operations, and organized an association to 'bring the nation to an acknowledgment of the authority of Christ and His law.'5
A series of meetings were held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. At least one of these involved some debate between seminary professors of differing Presbyterian denominations. These earlier gatherings laid the groundwork for a meeting in Allegheny City, Pennsylvania, on January 27, 1864, during which the NRA was formally organized. Its first name was actually 'The National Association to Secure the Religious Amendment to the Constitution.' The name was changed to the National Reform Association in November 1875.
From its commencement, the National Reform Association was committed to amending the Constitution to acknowledge Christ and His law: 'The object of this Association shall be to obtain such amendment of the Constitution of the United States as shall fully express the Christian national character according to the memorial adopted by this Convention.'6
Field work began immediately, and petitions calling for a Christian amendment to the Constitution were circulated widely. The organization from the start was an active, popular, political movement. Mr. John Alexander was elected the first president of the NRA. Dr. J. H. M'Ilvaine, professor of political science at Princeton College, became involved in the NRA at this early point.
McAllister tells us that a committee was formed to visit President Lincoln for an official endorsement of the NRA's work:
He [Lincoln] responding said that in as far as he had opportunity to understand the purpose of the Association, he heartily favored it. Some time previous to this a number of Christian men had waited upon Mr. Lincoln and had requested of him the accomplishment of two measures. First, the abolition of American slavery, and second, the adoption of a suitable recognition of the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Constitution of the United States. To a few of the men who were on the Committee of the National Reform Association he privately said, 'Gentlemen, in your former visit you requested of me two things. During the first term of my administration I was able to secure your first request. It is my hope that during my second term I will be able to secure your second request.'7
The movement grew quickly in influence. Local chapters were formed to spread the principles of the organization, and to circulate the petitions. The third president of the NRA was an associate Supreme Court justice, the Hon. William Strong (a Presbyterian). In many ways the movement was now mainstreamed. Little of the strongly anti-Constitutional, Covenanter rhetoric was published in the more polished works of the organization. The bulk of NRA activists were members of various Protestant bodies, such as Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, and Episcopalian. And, McAllister tells us that,
The National Reform Movement is a movement of citizens, irrespective of denominational connection. It has never been a movement of churches, or church members, as such, but of citizens who believe in the Christian principles of civil government. It is well known that a number of those who have rendered most earnest and effective service in this cause are members of the Universalist and Unitarian churches. Others are not professed church members at all. The great body of the members of the Association are members also of the different denominations of Christians. But the cordial co-operation of all these classes of citizens proves conclusively not only that the movement is unsectarian, but also that it is not in the interest of any ecclesiastical system of doctrine or government. It is the united effort of citizens who are convinced that the highest welfare of the nation is bound up in our distinctively Christian in stitutions, and who see these endangered by the assaults of secularism.8
The main rhetoric became quite general, and focused on Christian self-defense against the offense of secularism. The 'sharp edge' of national obedience to King Jesus was somewhat softened to reasonable-sounding language like the following:
The object of the National Reform Association was defined to be in general--the preservation of the Christian Institutions of this country; such as our civil Sabbath; the Bible in the public schools; the securing of a uniform marriage and divorce law, conformed to the law of Christ; the retention of the oath in our courts; chaplains in our army and navy, etc. Also to secure an amendment to the Federal Constitution that would in suitable terms recognize the authority of Jesus Christ as the Governor of the Nation, thus placing the Nation in right relation with God and at the same time affording a legal basis for the Christian Institutions of our country.9
It is possible to see something sinister here, but that does not seem justified. Clearly, the biblical requirement that Christ be recognized as the National Sovereign is put forth here as God's law. And, with the establishment of The Christian Statesman magazine in 1867, a constant call for national repentance was sounded.
The Christian Statesman
Dr. David McAllister and Dr. T. P. Stevenson founded The Christian Statesman on September 2, 1867. For four years the paper was issued as a semi-monthly; then, for 31 years it ran as a weekly. In 1902, Dr. McAllister presented the Statesman to the Executive Committee of the NRA, and monthly publication began. The Statesman became a bi-monthly in 1947, and remains so today. Throughout the years, the magazine has fluctuated in size and focus. When it started, it had articles of general interest, but maintained a focus on being helpful to workers who were gathering petitions. From 1880 until 1983, the magazine tended to focus more on reform efforts than on the amendment of the Constitution.
In March 1983, Rev. Ray Joseph became editor, and the magazine was more or less focused on the role of civil government and promoted theonomic, anti-socialist, limited-government concepts--so much so that David K. Watson, in a master's thesis on theonomy written for Calvin Theological Seminary, indicated that he thought the NRA and the RPCNA had become a haven for theonomists.
Rev. D. Howard Elliott edited the magazine from July 1985 until his son-in-law, Rev. Ronald Stegall, began editing the Statesman in 1987 as the newly hired, full-time Executive Director. Rev. Stegall focused the issues on the Lordship of Christ over all of life, especially public life, putting some emphasis on people who are serving in actual public, social, and political office. A number of the issues since 1987 have reprinted excerpts from the Consultations on the Biblical Role of Civil Government held at Geneva College.
In 1991, Gerald Bowyer became the Executive Director of the NRA and editor of the Statesman. Mr. Bowyer resigned in 1994 and the Statesman was then edited by Anthony Cowley, followed by N. Steven Campbell. In July 1995, John Perry (a strong Christian activist who ran for the United States Senate in 1992 and for Governor of Pennsylvania in 1994) became editor and served in that position until October 1996 when Rev. William Einwechter, the current editor, was appointed by the Board.
The Reform Years: Broadened Vision or Lack of Focus?
Stewart Jacoby says that,
The [NRA] reached the pinnacle of its influence in 1874-1876. Its supporters were spread throughout the nation, and its Vice Presidents and sponsors included prominent figures from churches, colleges, and the worlds of publishing and politics. Its conventions were attended by large numbers of delegates selected by hundreds of auxiliaries and allied groups; newspapers reported the transactions, and reprints of the proceedings and other tracts were distributed in large numbers. The matter of the relation of church and state was discussed in journals not before interested in the topic, and became an issue on which important elections were fought and decided . . . . The influence of the [NRA] was so great that it successfully lobbied to prevent the opening of the Centennial Exposition on a Sunday. In these years no other reform organization could match it in size, or apparently, in influence.
At the same time, however, the power of the [NRA] began to be redirected in ways that undercut its campaign to amend the Constitution . . . . The success of its efforts in numerous local battles encouraged more such efforts and increased reliance upon local rather than coordinated energies. And these in turn fostered a broader conception of the Association's purpose. The petition remained the centerpiece of its efforts through 1876, but thereafter it declined in importance, and by 1880 little energy was being expended on the effort to amend the Constitution.10
The NRA actually did manage to get its amendment petition before Congress in 1874, but the House Judiciary Committee 'reported adversely' on a group of 'God Amendment' petitions and asked that they be tabled. And strangely, in reaction to its growing influence, the NRA decentralized its efforts rather than vice-versa, and focused on local (more winnable?) battles.
In November 1875, at its regular business meeting the organization changed its name to its present title, i.e., 'National Reform Association.' As usual with changes of name, this change indicated a shift in focus, for the new title was followed by the phrase, 'organized to maintain existing Christian features in the American government, and to secure the religious amendment of the Constitution of the United States.' Jacoby comments on and then quotes a Reformed Presbyterian Synod committee report:
Public attention to the Bible and Sabbath issues had contributed heavily to the movement's growth during the 1870s; now its leaders sought to broaden its appeal by choosing a name which suggested a larger range of interest . . . instead of a title which apparently restricted its aim to the single purpose of securing the religious amendment to the Constitution.11
The shift in focus proved almost permanent. However, this is not to say that the organization lost influence. That is not the case at all. It actually broadened its sphere of influence through cooperative efforts with many like-minded organizations. The feeling from the 1880s until at least World War II was one of working with all friends of righteousness. In so doing, the NRA did get a hearing from other Christian and reform groups. And even the amendment efforts were not altogether dropped. On March 6, 1894, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on a Joint Resolution (H. Res. 120), 'proposing an Amendment to the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States "Acknowledging the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God in all the Affairs of Men and Nations".'12
The list of witnesses at the hearings is a Covenanter's Who's Who: Dr. R. J. George and Dr. D. B. Willson of the Reformed Presbyterian Seminary; Rev. J. M. Foster of First New York Reformed Presbyterian Church; Rev. R. C. Wylie of the NRA and the Reformed Presbyterian Seminary; Dr. David McAllister of the Christian Reformer and Dissenter, as well as the Statesman and the NRA. There is also testimony of one congressman in favor of the amendment, and a Mr. Charles Foley against the proposed amendment.
World-Wide Reform Focus
In 1889, the NRA held a Quarter Centennial in Pittsburgh. It was a large affair. A series of International World Christian Citizenship Conferences were also called together by the NRA. The first of these was held in Philadelphia in 1910:
Large, interested, and enthusiastic audiences listened to the proceedings during the five days of the Conference . . . . Out of this Philadelphia Conference developed the purpose on the part of the Association to call similar and more widely representative meetings. A Second World's Christian Citizenship Conference was held at Portland, Ore., June 29 - July 6, 1913.13
The language of the call to this conference reflects the vision that is common to the NRA's earliest roots, and is even shared to this day:
We who issue this Call are deeply persuaded that the Lord Jesus Christ, the blessed Saviour of men, saves men in all their interests and in all their relations; that there are no human interests or relations which are in sorer need of His saving grace and power than those which lie in the civil sphere; and that in their acceptance of the forgiveness which is His to grant and in submission to His authority lie the ultimate safety and welfare and glory of all nations.14
Over 10,000 people attended the Portland conference. But, the Third World's Christian Citizenship Conference, held in Pittsburgh in 1919, was attended by 58,000 persons from 41 nations. In 1923, 7,000 attended the Fourth World's Christian Citizenship Conference at Winona Lake, Indiana.
The Christian Government Movement and Recent NRA History
Thus far we have been discussing the history of the National Reform Association. However, it would be negligent not to give an historical sketch of another, sister organization, the Christian Amendment Movement (the CAM). The essential unity of these two organizations (the NRA and the CAM) far outweighed their differences. So, in essence we are continuing a unified history of the movement(s) to amend the Constitution of the United States to recognize the sovereignty of Jesus Christ.
The National Reform Association is the older of the two movements, and, though not large, it still carries on. The Christian Amendment Movement, later renamed the Christian Government Movement (CGM), was dissolved on Dec. 31, 1975. What may we learn from the strengths and weaknesses of the CAM/CGM?
The Christian Amendment Movement was born directly from the womb of the RPCNA through the Testimony Committee. Rev. A. J. McFarland, Rev. G. M. Robb, and Rev. Sam Boyle each worked for the CAM as lobbyists. They began in 1945 by publishing the Christian Patriot and organized as the Christian Amendment Movement about a year later.
The CAM developed its own budget (though many speakers were paid by the RPCNA). The Patriot was a monthly, eight-page journal with a good mix of hands-on, how-to politicking--'News from the Field,' by A. J. McFarland--as well as information on the widespread Chicago-based radio broadcast, 'The Way Out.'
The CAM kept up a very active program from the beginning until the end. They constantly lobbied Congress, and had bills introduced into the House a number of times. In 1954, another group of Covenanter Who's Who appeared before a congressional committee on the Judiciary (this time the Senate), to defend the Christian Amendment: John Coleman of Geneva College; Dr. S. Bruce Willson and R. I. G. McKnight of the Reformed Presbyterian seminary; Remo I. Robb of the CAM; A. J. McFarland, the CAM field representative; G. M. Robb of the CAM; D. H. Elliott of the NRA; T. C. McKnight of the CAM; J. Renwick Patterson, the NRA executive director; R. H. Martin of the NRA.15 Once again the amendment failed to pass.
Rev. Sam Boyle served faithfully for many years as a lobbyist, and along with Rev. McFarland, he trained a number of other men in how to lobby. One of them, Dr. Howard Elliott, even got future presidential candidate John Anderson, of the Evangelical Free Church, to introduce his bill on a couple of occasions. And we must not forget the continual, dedicated work of Miss Mildred G. Boyd from January 1947 until the last issue of the Patriot in November-December 1975. Over the years she served as a secretary, office manager, editor's assistant, executive editor, and even the editor of the Christian Patriot.
However, in 1969 the CAM considered a new constitution, and decided that it had to develop a proper view of Christian civil government, and so they subsequently changed the name and the focus to the Christian Government Movement. Turning to developing a 'worldview' in the readership, after the name changed the CGM became an educational movement and discontinued lobbying efforts (except on a very local level).16
It went through a number of different leaders in its last years, some focusing on the new school of thought coming out of Toronto, the Dooyeweerdian cosmonomic, or philosophy of law, theory. It was an interesting mix of Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex and some of the new, 'Dutch' ideas coming from the Free University of Amsterdam and the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto. The budget actually increased during the last five years, as CGM, as it were, 'went for broke.' The doors were closed and the magazine dissolved in 1975. The NRA was once again alone in openly calling for the idea of a Christian amendment.
Recent History of the NRA
The board of the NRA, under the presidency of Rev. Harold Harrington (1986-1989) has turned the corner to focus once more on government's confessional responsibilities. Under the inspiration of Dr. Marion L. McFarland, then part-time executive director, and Dr. John White of Geneva College, during these last few years the NRA has co-sponsored three consultations to address the subject of the biblical role of civil government. These conferences have brought the Christ-centered perspective of the NRA before a larger audience than it has had in many years.
In June 1987, the first conference was held at Geneva College. At this consultation on the Biblical Role of Civil Government, four major views held by Reformed Christians were presented: theonomy, principled pluralism, Christian America, and national confession. The National Reform Association (NRA) was one of the sponsoring groups and was responsible for presenting the national confession position. Of the four groups participating, the NRA as a movement represented the smallest number of persons, and was probably the least well known. However, the NRA was the oldest of the groups, having been founded in 1864.
At the consultation, Dr. William Edgar of the Broomall, Pennsylvania, RPC gave a spirited, articulate, and persuasive presentation of the national confession position. However, the differences between theonomy, Christian America, and the national confession position emerged more as matters of emphasis and practicality than of substantial or fundamental theoretical disagreement. The Christian America position was perceived as representing not so much a distinct school of statecraft as a school of historiography, and was therefore not involved in subsequent consultations in January and June, 1989.
During the June 1989 consultation, one of the principled pluralist participants said that he felt it would have been better to combine the theonomy and national confession positions and have two schools engage in debate: pluralism and theonomy. Thus, the pluralists (the only school of thought that was opposed to a civil theocracy) have perceived a unity between theonomy and national confessionalism. National confessionalist Harold Harrington would not necessarily disagree:
The theonomic position and national confession position have some close affinities. Indeed, some advocates of each position appear to move from one camp to the other without noticing any difference. However, for some there are considerable differences to be discussed and resolved if possible. At the heart of the theonomic position is the conviction that any law of God given in any time remains in effect until God revokes it or it can be shown that it has no contemporary application. What we have is an interpretative principle for the Bible. This principle does not in itself, appear to be in opposition to the position of the national confessionalists and may, in fact, complement that position. One question raised is whether or not this is a sound hermeneutic . . . .
It seems that one could adopt both the national confession position and the theonomic position as complementary. Or one could be a national confessionalist without being a theonomist. However, the non-theonomist would be left with the problem of discovering what the law of Christ the king might be for a modern Christian nation. Much of the appeal of theonomy to the advocate of the national confession position is that it appears to provide a large body of law for the Christian nation immediately. Nevertheless, many national confessionalists believe that one can find the moral principles of Christ's law for nations within the Israelite law and elsewhere without explicit application of that body of law to a modern nation. On the other hand . . . it would be difficult to be a theonomist without being a national confessionalist as well. The confessionalist position may be implicit in the theonomist position.17
Today, theonomy is gaining national attention. Bill Moyers devoted an hour to the Christian reconstruction movement in his December 1987 public television series, 'God and Politics.' Articles regarding theonomy have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Christianity Today, and many other periodicals. This does not even take into account the numerous newsletters, journals, and books published by the reconstructionists themselves. The reconstructionists have become the think-tank for much of the new Christian right, and are increasingly influencing fundamentalist and evangelical Christians.
The principled pluralists have significant influence in many established Reformed institutions. While their voice is not as widely heard as that of the theonomists, they have a solid following especially among Dutch Calvinists from whom they derive their basic worldview. Their position is probably the most popular among the faculty of evangelical colleges. It is a favorite model for such men as Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus. Mainstream evangelical journals such as Christianity Today, Moody Monthly, and the Reformed Journal tend to favor pluralism. Of the four positions represented at the Consultation on the Biblical Role of Civil Government, principled pluralism is clearly the least obnoxious to the non-Christian, and thus is generally better received than the others. The theonomists, on the other hand, have generally gained a lot of attention in the media precisely because their position is so offensive to non-Christians--and to many Christians as well!
But, as we have seen in this chapter, the national confession position was not always a position held in a small corner of the Reformed Christian community. Both during the Civil War and World War II, two of the greatest military conflicts in which the United States has been engaged, movements emerged which represented the national confession position. In 1863, what was to become the National Reform Association was formed in Xenia, Ohio, and in 1945 the Christian Patriot began publication under the wing of the Testimony Committee of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.
A year later, the Christian Amendment Movement (CAM) was born. Each of these groups attained national prominence and sponsored a Christian amendment to the United States Constitution. During the height of their influence they were at least as well known as theonomy and principled pluralism are today.
In 1990, Ron Stegall set up a speaker's bureau with five persons from around the United States and Canada who will be able to speak on special topics upon request. It is hoped that this will inspire more interest and activity in the NRA. At the November 1990 Board meeting, Rev. Ron Stegall resigned as executive director. The Executive Committee appointed Gerald Bowyer as the executive director, and this appointment was confirmed by the Board on May 25,1991. Mr. Bowyer started an active program of speaking and publishing and edited The Christian Statesman until his resignation in 1994.
The theonomic movement has continued to broaden its influence. The theonomists continue to be very active leaders within the National Reform Movement today. Rev. P. Andrew Sandlin, former president of the NRA and current board member, is a prominent Reconstructionist, and editor of the Chalcedon Report, which was founded by the patriarch of Christian Reconstructionism, Rev. R. J. Rushdoony. Rev. Jeffrey Ziegler, the current NRA president, is also widely known for his theonomic and reconstructionist views. Rev. William Einwechter, the current vice president of the NRA, and the editor of The Christian Statesman has written a small introduction to theonomic ethics.18
Yet theonomy is not the defining characteristic of the NRA. The vision of the NRA continues to be that of calling this and all nations to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Mediator-King, to submit to His Word as law, and to govern justly in accordance with His revealed will. There is a vital and active Board now overseeing the NRA, so we can gladly trust that the future stands before the National Reform Association, with increasing prospects of seeing her Master's will accomplished.
In order to maintain a vital existence, the NRA must continue to interact with other Reformed and evangelical believers over what submission to Christ will mean for the United States. There is a significant group of Christians who are ready to hear the NRA message. If it is presented clearly, in a winsome way, and with all the vigor this Bible message deserves, it appears that the NRA will do more than merely exist into the 21st century.
Conclusion
What can we learn from the past 133 years in regard to theologically motivated political movements? A specific focus is necessary. Without that, a movement becomes so broad that it does not attract attention, and cannot hold the interest of its own supporters. Both the NRA and the CAM had moments of great glory and some success. Neither has yet attained their objective.
Leaving the realm of history, and tilting toward prophecy, I believe that the years of decline for the NRA are behind us. We may have to endure a few more lean years, but we will press on, for someone must (and we will) continue to speak to contemporary society of the eternal blessings of national submission to our King, Jesus Christ.
Endnotes
1. As quoted in The Religious Amendment Movement: God, People, and Nation in the Gilded Age (2 vols.), Stewart Olin Jacoby. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 1984), p. 111.
2. Ibid., p. 51.
3. Ibid., p. 52.
4. David McAllister, Christian Civil Government in America, rev. by T. H. Acheson and Wm. Parsons, 6th ed. (Pittsburgh: National Reform Association, 1927), pp. 20-21.
5. Ibid., pp. 22-23.
6. Constitution and Addresses of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION for the Amendment of the Constitution of the United States (Philadelphia: National Association, 1864), pp. 3-4.
7. McAllister, Christian Civil Government, p. 24. Notice that McAllister tends to play down the Reformed Presbyterian role in the NRA. Among those who heard these words (Jacoby considers them possibly apocryphal) was Thomas Sproull, editor of The Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter (see November 1865 issue, 'Reminiscence of President Lincoln,' and also Jacoby, p. 222).
8. McAllister, Christian Civil Government, pp. 25-26.
9. Ibid., p. 23.
10. The Outlook, Christian Reformed magazine (1988-1989), pp. 424-426.
11. Ibid., p. 462.
12. Hearings on the Joint Resolution (H. Res. 120) (Washington: U.S. Government Printing office, 1894).
13. David McAllister, Christian Civil Government, p. 32.
14. Ibid.
15. Christian Amendment Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate 83rd Congress (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1954).
16. The present tax status of the NRA is 501(c)3; we are a tax-exempt charitable organization. We may not expend a significant amount of our income (only about 5%) on lobbying efforts. The CAM and NRA of a different day were under significantly different regulations.
17. Harold Harrington, 'Christian Views of Civil Government,' The Sovereign, vol. 1, no. 1 (June 1989), p. 9.
18. Over the past 15 years the following Reconstructionist leaders have written for The Christian Statesman, or spoken at NRA banquets or meetings: Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, Steve Schlissel, James Jordon, Kenneth Gentry, and Gary DeMar. Furthermore, theonomy has been a formative influence in the thinking of editors and executive directors from M. L. McFarland and Raymond Joseph, through Jerry Bowyer, Tony Cowley, Steve Campbell, John Perry, P. Andrew Sandlin, William Einwechter, and Jeffrey Ziegler.
by Anthony Cowley
The National Reform Association was born when this nation was in the throes of a war between its own states. In 1861 the Lakes Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America [RPCNA] passed the following resolution regarding the Civil War:
Whereas, God has come out of his place to punish the nations and this nation for their sins; and whereas, we have on every hand the anxious inquiry, "Watchman, what of the night?" and whereas, it is the duty of faithful witnesses to meet the obligation to testify, imposed on them by providential occurrences: therefore,
Resolved, 1st. That we see in the present civil war God's controversy with this nation for their rejection of his name and authority, the prerogative and law of his Son, and for trampling upon the inalienable rights of man.
2nd. That we call upon this nation so to amend the Constitution, which is the basis of the Union, as to acknowledge God, submit to the authority of his Son, embrace Christianity, and secure universal liberty.1
The Lakes Presbytery of the RPCNA was not alone in seeing the Civil War as a judgment of God upon the nation for disobedience. What is unique is that they and most Reformed Presbyterians saw slavery not as the root problem, but as the natural outworking of the religious defect in the Constitution of the United States. Although this same sentiment became widespread during the war, ten years prior to the war most Americans did not share any concern about the lack of mention of God or Christ in the Constitution. During most of American history the Reformed Presbyterian Church (Old Light and New Light) stood nearly alone in dissenting from the Constitution, not in regard to slavery, but in regard to the nation's failure to mention God or Jesus Christ in its fundamental law. The Old Light Reformed Presbyterians were so strong in their dissent as to refuse to vote or hold office or do any other act by which they would "incorporate" with the godless United States Constitution.
As the abolitionist movement grew prior to the Civil War, however, many of its leaders came to denounce the Constitution in the strongest terms. William Lloyd Garrison, editor of the Liberator, publicly burned a copy of the Constitution in 1854, and at other times described it as "a covenant with Hell."2
Their concern, however, was primarily with slavery, and not with the lack of acknowledgment of Jesus Christ in our national law. While some abolitionists and other social reformers came to a position much like that of the Covenanters, they did so in a different direction, and for different reasons than the Covenanters. Covenanters opposed the Constitution primarily because it forgot God and did not acknowledge Christ, and secondarily because it had pro-slavery provisions. They saw slavery as the manifestation of the root problem of godlessness.
Abolitionists, on the other hand, first took the Constitution to task for its slavery provisions. Some later saw that the slavery position may have been connected to some religious defect in the Constitution. Stewart Olin Jacoby summarizes:
The Covenanters were part of the anti-slavery movement, but they did not move the nation. The nation moved, and came to rest near where the Covenanters stood. In that new proximity, it is natural that the Covenanters thought that they had a chance to win others to their view of the Constitution.3
Thus, while the RPCNA was opposed to slavery, it was only a secondary consideration after the religious defect of the Constitution. The abolitionist movement led a number of other Americans to a position close to that of the RPCNA, and the Civil War became the crucible in which the National Reform Association itself was forged.
"A convention for prayer and Christian conference, with special reference to the state of the country, had been called to meet in Xenia, Ohio, on February 3rd, to continue in session three days." In attendance were representatives of eleven different denominations and from seven states. One of the subjects of this convention was "Religion in the Nation." When this subject came up for consideration, John Alexander, Esq.,
then of Xenia, presented a paper in which the sins of the nation were confessed, and the importance of repentance and reformation insisted upon. After speaking of President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, then recently issued, and to the hopeful prospect of an anti-slavery amendment to the Constitution, the paper proceeds as follows: "We regard the neglect of God and His law, by omitting all acknowledgment of them in our Constitution, as the crowning original sin of the nation, and slavery as one of its natural outgrowths. Therefore, the most important step remains yet to be taken--to amend the Constitution so as to acknowledge God and the authority of His law; and the object of this paper is to suggest to this Convention the propriety of considering this subject, and of preparing such an amendment to the Constitution as they may think proper to propose in accordance with its provisions . . . . We suggest the following as an outline of what seems to us to be needed in the preamble of that instrument, making it read as follows (proposed amendment in brackets):
WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, [recognizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the law of God as the paramount rule, and Jesus, the Messiah, the Saviour and Lord of all,] in order to form a more perfect union . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.4
This paper was endorsed by the committee to which it was referred, and it was ordered that the paper be published.
At about the same time, on February 6, 1863, in Sparta, Illinois, without any collusion, a similar meeting was held at which a pledge was given to 'labor to bring the nation to repentance toward God and to a faithful administration of the Government according to the principles of the Word of God.' This convention met again two weeks later to adopt a plan of operations, and organized an association to 'bring the nation to an acknowledgment of the authority of Christ and His law.'5
A series of meetings were held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. At least one of these involved some debate between seminary professors of differing Presbyterian denominations. These earlier gatherings laid the groundwork for a meeting in Allegheny City, Pennsylvania, on January 27, 1864, during which the NRA was formally organized. Its first name was actually 'The National Association to Secure the Religious Amendment to the Constitution.' The name was changed to the National Reform Association in November 1875.
From its commencement, the National Reform Association was committed to amending the Constitution to acknowledge Christ and His law: 'The object of this Association shall be to obtain such amendment of the Constitution of the United States as shall fully express the Christian national character according to the memorial adopted by this Convention.'6
Field work began immediately, and petitions calling for a Christian amendment to the Constitution were circulated widely. The organization from the start was an active, popular, political movement. Mr. John Alexander was elected the first president of the NRA. Dr. J. H. M'Ilvaine, professor of political science at Princeton College, became involved in the NRA at this early point.
McAllister tells us that a committee was formed to visit President Lincoln for an official endorsement of the NRA's work:
He [Lincoln] responding said that in as far as he had opportunity to understand the purpose of the Association, he heartily favored it. Some time previous to this a number of Christian men had waited upon Mr. Lincoln and had requested of him the accomplishment of two measures. First, the abolition of American slavery, and second, the adoption of a suitable recognition of the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Constitution of the United States. To a few of the men who were on the Committee of the National Reform Association he privately said, 'Gentlemen, in your former visit you requested of me two things. During the first term of my administration I was able to secure your first request. It is my hope that during my second term I will be able to secure your second request.'7
The movement grew quickly in influence. Local chapters were formed to spread the principles of the organization, and to circulate the petitions. The third president of the NRA was an associate Supreme Court justice, the Hon. William Strong (a Presbyterian). In many ways the movement was now mainstreamed. Little of the strongly anti-Constitutional, Covenanter rhetoric was published in the more polished works of the organization. The bulk of NRA activists were members of various Protestant bodies, such as Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, and Episcopalian. And, McAllister tells us that,
The National Reform Movement is a movement of citizens, irrespective of denominational connection. It has never been a movement of churches, or church members, as such, but of citizens who believe in the Christian principles of civil government. It is well known that a number of those who have rendered most earnest and effective service in this cause are members of the Universalist and Unitarian churches. Others are not professed church members at all. The great body of the members of the Association are members also of the different denominations of Christians. But the cordial co-operation of all these classes of citizens proves conclusively not only that the movement is unsectarian, but also that it is not in the interest of any ecclesiastical system of doctrine or government. It is the united effort of citizens who are convinced that the highest welfare of the nation is bound up in our distinctively Christian in stitutions, and who see these endangered by the assaults of secularism.8
The main rhetoric became quite general, and focused on Christian self-defense against the offense of secularism. The 'sharp edge' of national obedience to King Jesus was somewhat softened to reasonable-sounding language like the following:
The object of the National Reform Association was defined to be in general--the preservation of the Christian Institutions of this country; such as our civil Sabbath; the Bible in the public schools; the securing of a uniform marriage and divorce law, conformed to the law of Christ; the retention of the oath in our courts; chaplains in our army and navy, etc. Also to secure an amendment to the Federal Constitution that would in suitable terms recognize the authority of Jesus Christ as the Governor of the Nation, thus placing the Nation in right relation with God and at the same time affording a legal basis for the Christian Institutions of our country.9
It is possible to see something sinister here, but that does not seem justified. Clearly, the biblical requirement that Christ be recognized as the National Sovereign is put forth here as God's law. And, with the establishment of The Christian Statesman magazine in 1867, a constant call for national repentance was sounded.
The Christian Statesman
Dr. David McAllister and Dr. T. P. Stevenson founded The Christian Statesman on September 2, 1867. For four years the paper was issued as a semi-monthly; then, for 31 years it ran as a weekly. In 1902, Dr. McAllister presented the Statesman to the Executive Committee of the NRA, and monthly publication began. The Statesman became a bi-monthly in 1947, and remains so today. Throughout the years, the magazine has fluctuated in size and focus. When it started, it had articles of general interest, but maintained a focus on being helpful to workers who were gathering petitions. From 1880 until 1983, the magazine tended to focus more on reform efforts than on the amendment of the Constitution.
In March 1983, Rev. Ray Joseph became editor, and the magazine was more or less focused on the role of civil government and promoted theonomic, anti-socialist, limited-government concepts--so much so that David K. Watson, in a master's thesis on theonomy written for Calvin Theological Seminary, indicated that he thought the NRA and the RPCNA had become a haven for theonomists.
Rev. D. Howard Elliott edited the magazine from July 1985 until his son-in-law, Rev. Ronald Stegall, began editing the Statesman in 1987 as the newly hired, full-time Executive Director. Rev. Stegall focused the issues on the Lordship of Christ over all of life, especially public life, putting some emphasis on people who are serving in actual public, social, and political office. A number of the issues since 1987 have reprinted excerpts from the Consultations on the Biblical Role of Civil Government held at Geneva College.
In 1991, Gerald Bowyer became the Executive Director of the NRA and editor of the Statesman. Mr. Bowyer resigned in 1994 and the Statesman was then edited by Anthony Cowley, followed by N. Steven Campbell. In July 1995, John Perry (a strong Christian activist who ran for the United States Senate in 1992 and for Governor of Pennsylvania in 1994) became editor and served in that position until October 1996 when Rev. William Einwechter, the current editor, was appointed by the Board.
The Reform Years: Broadened Vision or Lack of Focus?
Stewart Jacoby says that,
The [NRA] reached the pinnacle of its influence in 1874-1876. Its supporters were spread throughout the nation, and its Vice Presidents and sponsors included prominent figures from churches, colleges, and the worlds of publishing and politics. Its conventions were attended by large numbers of delegates selected by hundreds of auxiliaries and allied groups; newspapers reported the transactions, and reprints of the proceedings and other tracts were distributed in large numbers. The matter of the relation of church and state was discussed in journals not before interested in the topic, and became an issue on which important elections were fought and decided . . . . The influence of the [NRA] was so great that it successfully lobbied to prevent the opening of the Centennial Exposition on a Sunday. In these years no other reform organization could match it in size, or apparently, in influence.
At the same time, however, the power of the [NRA] began to be redirected in ways that undercut its campaign to amend the Constitution . . . . The success of its efforts in numerous local battles encouraged more such efforts and increased reliance upon local rather than coordinated energies. And these in turn fostered a broader conception of the Association's purpose. The petition remained the centerpiece of its efforts through 1876, but thereafter it declined in importance, and by 1880 little energy was being expended on the effort to amend the Constitution.10
The NRA actually did manage to get its amendment petition before Congress in 1874, but the House Judiciary Committee 'reported adversely' on a group of 'God Amendment' petitions and asked that they be tabled. And strangely, in reaction to its growing influence, the NRA decentralized its efforts rather than vice-versa, and focused on local (more winnable?) battles.
In November 1875, at its regular business meeting the organization changed its name to its present title, i.e., 'National Reform Association.' As usual with changes of name, this change indicated a shift in focus, for the new title was followed by the phrase, 'organized to maintain existing Christian features in the American government, and to secure the religious amendment of the Constitution of the United States.' Jacoby comments on and then quotes a Reformed Presbyterian Synod committee report:
Public attention to the Bible and Sabbath issues had contributed heavily to the movement's growth during the 1870s; now its leaders sought to broaden its appeal by choosing a name which suggested a larger range of interest . . . instead of a title which apparently restricted its aim to the single purpose of securing the religious amendment to the Constitution.11
The shift in focus proved almost permanent. However, this is not to say that the organization lost influence. That is not the case at all. It actually broadened its sphere of influence through cooperative efforts with many like-minded organizations. The feeling from the 1880s until at least World War II was one of working with all friends of righteousness. In so doing, the NRA did get a hearing from other Christian and reform groups. And even the amendment efforts were not altogether dropped. On March 6, 1894, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on a Joint Resolution (H. Res. 120), 'proposing an Amendment to the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States "Acknowledging the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God in all the Affairs of Men and Nations".'12
The list of witnesses at the hearings is a Covenanter's Who's Who: Dr. R. J. George and Dr. D. B. Willson of the Reformed Presbyterian Seminary; Rev. J. M. Foster of First New York Reformed Presbyterian Church; Rev. R. C. Wylie of the NRA and the Reformed Presbyterian Seminary; Dr. David McAllister of the Christian Reformer and Dissenter, as well as the Statesman and the NRA. There is also testimony of one congressman in favor of the amendment, and a Mr. Charles Foley against the proposed amendment.
World-Wide Reform Focus
In 1889, the NRA held a Quarter Centennial in Pittsburgh. It was a large affair. A series of International World Christian Citizenship Conferences were also called together by the NRA. The first of these was held in Philadelphia in 1910:
Large, interested, and enthusiastic audiences listened to the proceedings during the five days of the Conference . . . . Out of this Philadelphia Conference developed the purpose on the part of the Association to call similar and more widely representative meetings. A Second World's Christian Citizenship Conference was held at Portland, Ore., June 29 - July 6, 1913.13
The language of the call to this conference reflects the vision that is common to the NRA's earliest roots, and is even shared to this day:
We who issue this Call are deeply persuaded that the Lord Jesus Christ, the blessed Saviour of men, saves men in all their interests and in all their relations; that there are no human interests or relations which are in sorer need of His saving grace and power than those which lie in the civil sphere; and that in their acceptance of the forgiveness which is His to grant and in submission to His authority lie the ultimate safety and welfare and glory of all nations.14
Over 10,000 people attended the Portland conference. But, the Third World's Christian Citizenship Conference, held in Pittsburgh in 1919, was attended by 58,000 persons from 41 nations. In 1923, 7,000 attended the Fourth World's Christian Citizenship Conference at Winona Lake, Indiana.
The Christian Government Movement and Recent NRA History
Thus far we have been discussing the history of the National Reform Association. However, it would be negligent not to give an historical sketch of another, sister organization, the Christian Amendment Movement (the CAM). The essential unity of these two organizations (the NRA and the CAM) far outweighed their differences. So, in essence we are continuing a unified history of the movement(s) to amend the Constitution of the United States to recognize the sovereignty of Jesus Christ.
The National Reform Association is the older of the two movements, and, though not large, it still carries on. The Christian Amendment Movement, later renamed the Christian Government Movement (CGM), was dissolved on Dec. 31, 1975. What may we learn from the strengths and weaknesses of the CAM/CGM?
The Christian Amendment Movement was born directly from the womb of the RPCNA through the Testimony Committee. Rev. A. J. McFarland, Rev. G. M. Robb, and Rev. Sam Boyle each worked for the CAM as lobbyists. They began in 1945 by publishing the Christian Patriot and organized as the Christian Amendment Movement about a year later.
The CAM developed its own budget (though many speakers were paid by the RPCNA). The Patriot was a monthly, eight-page journal with a good mix of hands-on, how-to politicking--'News from the Field,' by A. J. McFarland--as well as information on the widespread Chicago-based radio broadcast, 'The Way Out.'
The CAM kept up a very active program from the beginning until the end. They constantly lobbied Congress, and had bills introduced into the House a number of times. In 1954, another group of Covenanter Who's Who appeared before a congressional committee on the Judiciary (this time the Senate), to defend the Christian Amendment: John Coleman of Geneva College; Dr. S. Bruce Willson and R. I. G. McKnight of the Reformed Presbyterian seminary; Remo I. Robb of the CAM; A. J. McFarland, the CAM field representative; G. M. Robb of the CAM; D. H. Elliott of the NRA; T. C. McKnight of the CAM; J. Renwick Patterson, the NRA executive director; R. H. Martin of the NRA.15 Once again the amendment failed to pass.
Rev. Sam Boyle served faithfully for many years as a lobbyist, and along with Rev. McFarland, he trained a number of other men in how to lobby. One of them, Dr. Howard Elliott, even got future presidential candidate John Anderson, of the Evangelical Free Church, to introduce his bill on a couple of occasions. And we must not forget the continual, dedicated work of Miss Mildred G. Boyd from January 1947 until the last issue of the Patriot in November-December 1975. Over the years she served as a secretary, office manager, editor's assistant, executive editor, and even the editor of the Christian Patriot.
However, in 1969 the CAM considered a new constitution, and decided that it had to develop a proper view of Christian civil government, and so they subsequently changed the name and the focus to the Christian Government Movement. Turning to developing a 'worldview' in the readership, after the name changed the CGM became an educational movement and discontinued lobbying efforts (except on a very local level).16
It went through a number of different leaders in its last years, some focusing on the new school of thought coming out of Toronto, the Dooyeweerdian cosmonomic, or philosophy of law, theory. It was an interesting mix of Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex and some of the new, 'Dutch' ideas coming from the Free University of Amsterdam and the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto. The budget actually increased during the last five years, as CGM, as it were, 'went for broke.' The doors were closed and the magazine dissolved in 1975. The NRA was once again alone in openly calling for the idea of a Christian amendment.
Recent History of the NRA
The board of the NRA, under the presidency of Rev. Harold Harrington (1986-1989) has turned the corner to focus once more on government's confessional responsibilities. Under the inspiration of Dr. Marion L. McFarland, then part-time executive director, and Dr. John White of Geneva College, during these last few years the NRA has co-sponsored three consultations to address the subject of the biblical role of civil government. These conferences have brought the Christ-centered perspective of the NRA before a larger audience than it has had in many years.
In June 1987, the first conference was held at Geneva College. At this consultation on the Biblical Role of Civil Government, four major views held by Reformed Christians were presented: theonomy, principled pluralism, Christian America, and national confession. The National Reform Association (NRA) was one of the sponsoring groups and was responsible for presenting the national confession position. Of the four groups participating, the NRA as a movement represented the smallest number of persons, and was probably the least well known. However, the NRA was the oldest of the groups, having been founded in 1864.
At the consultation, Dr. William Edgar of the Broomall, Pennsylvania, RPC gave a spirited, articulate, and persuasive presentation of the national confession position. However, the differences between theonomy, Christian America, and the national confession position emerged more as matters of emphasis and practicality than of substantial or fundamental theoretical disagreement. The Christian America position was perceived as representing not so much a distinct school of statecraft as a school of historiography, and was therefore not involved in subsequent consultations in January and June, 1989.
During the June 1989 consultation, one of the principled pluralist participants said that he felt it would have been better to combine the theonomy and national confession positions and have two schools engage in debate: pluralism and theonomy. Thus, the pluralists (the only school of thought that was opposed to a civil theocracy) have perceived a unity between theonomy and national confessionalism. National confessionalist Harold Harrington would not necessarily disagree:
The theonomic position and national confession position have some close affinities. Indeed, some advocates of each position appear to move from one camp to the other without noticing any difference. However, for some there are considerable differences to be discussed and resolved if possible. At the heart of the theonomic position is the conviction that any law of God given in any time remains in effect until God revokes it or it can be shown that it has no contemporary application. What we have is an interpretative principle for the Bible. This principle does not in itself, appear to be in opposition to the position of the national confessionalists and may, in fact, complement that position. One question raised is whether or not this is a sound hermeneutic . . . .
It seems that one could adopt both the national confession position and the theonomic position as complementary. Or one could be a national confessionalist without being a theonomist. However, the non-theonomist would be left with the problem of discovering what the law of Christ the king might be for a modern Christian nation. Much of the appeal of theonomy to the advocate of the national confession position is that it appears to provide a large body of law for the Christian nation immediately. Nevertheless, many national confessionalists believe that one can find the moral principles of Christ's law for nations within the Israelite law and elsewhere without explicit application of that body of law to a modern nation. On the other hand . . . it would be difficult to be a theonomist without being a national confessionalist as well. The confessionalist position may be implicit in the theonomist position.17
Today, theonomy is gaining national attention. Bill Moyers devoted an hour to the Christian reconstruction movement in his December 1987 public television series, 'God and Politics.' Articles regarding theonomy have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Christianity Today, and many other periodicals. This does not even take into account the numerous newsletters, journals, and books published by the reconstructionists themselves. The reconstructionists have become the think-tank for much of the new Christian right, and are increasingly influencing fundamentalist and evangelical Christians.
The principled pluralists have significant influence in many established Reformed institutions. While their voice is not as widely heard as that of the theonomists, they have a solid following especially among Dutch Calvinists from whom they derive their basic worldview. Their position is probably the most popular among the faculty of evangelical colleges. It is a favorite model for such men as Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus. Mainstream evangelical journals such as Christianity Today, Moody Monthly, and the Reformed Journal tend to favor pluralism. Of the four positions represented at the Consultation on the Biblical Role of Civil Government, principled pluralism is clearly the least obnoxious to the non-Christian, and thus is generally better received than the others. The theonomists, on the other hand, have generally gained a lot of attention in the media precisely because their position is so offensive to non-Christians--and to many Christians as well!
But, as we have seen in this chapter, the national confession position was not always a position held in a small corner of the Reformed Christian community. Both during the Civil War and World War II, two of the greatest military conflicts in which the United States has been engaged, movements emerged which represented the national confession position. In 1863, what was to become the National Reform Association was formed in Xenia, Ohio, and in 1945 the Christian Patriot began publication under the wing of the Testimony Committee of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.
A year later, the Christian Amendment Movement (CAM) was born. Each of these groups attained national prominence and sponsored a Christian amendment to the United States Constitution. During the height of their influence they were at least as well known as theonomy and principled pluralism are today.
In 1990, Ron Stegall set up a speaker's bureau with five persons from around the United States and Canada who will be able to speak on special topics upon request. It is hoped that this will inspire more interest and activity in the NRA. At the November 1990 Board meeting, Rev. Ron Stegall resigned as executive director. The Executive Committee appointed Gerald Bowyer as the executive director, and this appointment was confirmed by the Board on May 25,1991. Mr. Bowyer started an active program of speaking and publishing and edited The Christian Statesman until his resignation in 1994.
The theonomic movement has continued to broaden its influence. The theonomists continue to be very active leaders within the National Reform Movement today. Rev. P. Andrew Sandlin, former president of the NRA and current board member, is a prominent Reconstructionist, and editor of the Chalcedon Report, which was founded by the patriarch of Christian Reconstructionism, Rev. R. J. Rushdoony. Rev. Jeffrey Ziegler, the current NRA president, is also widely known for his theonomic and reconstructionist views. Rev. William Einwechter, the current vice president of the NRA, and the editor of The Christian Statesman has written a small introduction to theonomic ethics.18
Yet theonomy is not the defining characteristic of the NRA. The vision of the NRA continues to be that of calling this and all nations to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Mediator-King, to submit to His Word as law, and to govern justly in accordance with His revealed will. There is a vital and active Board now overseeing the NRA, so we can gladly trust that the future stands before the National Reform Association, with increasing prospects of seeing her Master's will accomplished.
In order to maintain a vital existence, the NRA must continue to interact with other Reformed and evangelical believers over what submission to Christ will mean for the United States. There is a significant group of Christians who are ready to hear the NRA message. If it is presented clearly, in a winsome way, and with all the vigor this Bible message deserves, it appears that the NRA will do more than merely exist into the 21st century.
Conclusion
What can we learn from the past 133 years in regard to theologically motivated political movements? A specific focus is necessary. Without that, a movement becomes so broad that it does not attract attention, and cannot hold the interest of its own supporters. Both the NRA and the CAM had moments of great glory and some success. Neither has yet attained their objective.
Leaving the realm of history, and tilting toward prophecy, I believe that the years of decline for the NRA are behind us. We may have to endure a few more lean years, but we will press on, for someone must (and we will) continue to speak to contemporary society of the eternal blessings of national submission to our King, Jesus Christ.
Endnotes
1. As quoted in The Religious Amendment Movement: God, People, and Nation in the Gilded Age (2 vols.), Stewart Olin Jacoby. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 1984), p. 111.
2. Ibid., p. 51.
3. Ibid., p. 52.
4. David McAllister, Christian Civil Government in America, rev. by T. H. Acheson and Wm. Parsons, 6th ed. (Pittsburgh: National Reform Association, 1927), pp. 20-21.
5. Ibid., pp. 22-23.
6. Constitution and Addresses of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION for the Amendment of the Constitution of the United States (Philadelphia: National Association, 1864), pp. 3-4.
7. McAllister, Christian Civil Government, p. 24. Notice that McAllister tends to play down the Reformed Presbyterian role in the NRA. Among those who heard these words (Jacoby considers them possibly apocryphal) was Thomas Sproull, editor of The Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter (see November 1865 issue, 'Reminiscence of President Lincoln,' and also Jacoby, p. 222).
8. McAllister, Christian Civil Government, pp. 25-26.
9. Ibid., p. 23.
10. The Outlook, Christian Reformed magazine (1988-1989), pp. 424-426.
11. Ibid., p. 462.
12. Hearings on the Joint Resolution (H. Res. 120) (Washington: U.S. Government Printing office, 1894).
13. David McAllister, Christian Civil Government, p. 32.
14. Ibid.
15. Christian Amendment Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate 83rd Congress (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1954).
16. The present tax status of the NRA is 501(c)3; we are a tax-exempt charitable organization. We may not expend a significant amount of our income (only about 5%) on lobbying efforts. The CAM and NRA of a different day were under significantly different regulations.
17. Harold Harrington, 'Christian Views of Civil Government,' The Sovereign, vol. 1, no. 1 (June 1989), p. 9.
18. Over the past 15 years the following Reconstructionist leaders have written for The Christian Statesman, or spoken at NRA banquets or meetings: Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, Steve Schlissel, James Jordon, Kenneth Gentry, and Gary DeMar. Furthermore, theonomy has been a formative influence in the thinking of editors and executive directors from M. L. McFarland and Raymond Joseph, through Jerry Bowyer, Tony Cowley, Steve Campbell, John Perry, P. Andrew Sandlin, William Einwechter, and Jeffrey Ziegler.
