No man is fit to rule over another, right?

Perhaps that depends on who you ask.

While the Framers of the Constitution of the United States were adamantly opposed to the traditional notion of an individual sovereign, they did weave some threads of executive authority into the fabric of what this country attempts to achieve in the form of balanced powers of government.

Their intent was that this Executive Branch was to implement the will of a responsible citizenry through their elected representatives. It was to lead, yet remain accountable to the collective voice of the people.

This was to be accomplished through the Electoral process in the several state legislatures, rather than by popular vote—a process proven to be easily corrupted. The Electoral College was thought to be the most equitable approach for rendering the unified will of the people under a single mechanism.

It’s no secret that most of our nation’s founders regarded the only legitimate source of authority to flow from God Himself, through His people, to those whom His people elect. Hence, our system of self-governance was designed to keep this chain of sovereignty unobstructed, because history has demonstrated that when that flow of authority is interrupted, the Lord will indeed let the chips fall where they may.

The fool has always argued that true freedom makes no provision for any form of moral authority. But there’s a wealth of documentation from the eighteenth century confirming that the Framers established The United States Constitution with the understanding that it could effectively serve only a society bound to a legitimate code of moral conduct.

Some reliable sources even claim that our system of balanced powers was based upon [or at least be inspired by] verses in the Scriptures;

“For the Lord is our judge [Judicial Branch],

The Lord is our lawgiver [Legislative Branch],

The Lord is our king [Executive Branch];

He will save us“ [Isa. 33:22] [parenthesis mine]

I can’t verify the accuracy of this claim, but I certainly accept that it’s plausible.

The historical narratives of the Old Testament are filled with examples of how a nation refused, time after time, to govern itself by the standards of its Sovereign, that is, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. As such, the reality of human liberty is seldom as it seems. It’s subject to the stumbling blocks of temptation on a daily basis.

And even a righteous government can’t help the man content to live in bondage.

But God’s design and establishment of the nation of Israel provided the world with a paradigm for personal freedom and just ruling among His people. It was a system virtually unheard of in that day.

The principle that personal freedom had only One Legitimate Source was as evident then as it is today. Many brilliant men have attempted to improve upon this system, asserting that freedom is a right granted unconditionally from our Creator with no strings attached.

However, without the moral clarity demonstrated by personal repentance and submission to the only Righteous King, Jesus Christ, real freedom is only a pipe dream for even the most determined citizen.

So, can a disciple of Jesus Christ truly be a patriot as well?

The answer to that might depend upon my understanding of the two terms. It seems that the man who truly appropriates and discharges the expected functions of both could readily bear the title of the one as well as the other.

But if the ideals of one ever conflict with the other, then choices need to be made. History confirms that such circumstances existed.

The life in complete surrender to the Righteous King is a life bound up together with Him. 

And there’s no end to the freedom.