What do you think?
Rate this book
An Economic Commentary on the Bible
Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism
Book by North, Gary
771 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1989
8 people are currently reading
111 people want to read
About the author
Gary North
175 books97 followersGary North received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Riverside. He served on the Senior Staff of the Foundation for Economic Education, in Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, and was the president of the Institute for Christian Economics. Dr. North’s essays and reviews have appeared in three dozen magazines and journals, including The Wall Street Journal, National Review, The American Spectator, and others.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
April 13, 2009
Very good.
June 23, 2021
Fantastic book. Would have been 5 stars if North hadn’t (admittedly) redefined antinomianism according to his 5 point covenant model. I found that rather unhelpful. North discusses the impossibility of democratic pluralism long term—it is rather a ceasefire awaiting covenant keepers/breakers to become increasingly epistemologically self-conscious in history. He also provides a helpful discussion of the shortcomings of Van Til and Schaeffer in providing positive alternatives to Biblical Law. North discusses the inherently unchristian foundations of the 6th Article of the Constitution which prohibits religious tests for admittance into political office. And, as always, North reminds us of the political adage: you can’t beat something with nothing.
March 31, 2024
A CHRISTIAN RECONSTUCTIONIST PERSPECTIVE ON THE CONSTITUTION, ETC.
Gary Kilgore North (1942-2022) was head of the Institute for Christian Economics, and a prominent Christian Reconstructionist, who wrote widely on many topics (including postmillennial eschatology).
He wrote in the Foreword to this 1989 book, “What I do in this book is to present the case… that the proposed CHRISTIAN alternatives to biblical theocracy that have been suggested buy twentieth-century Christian commentators do not stand up to the rigorous test of Scripture... I classify them as way stations, either for converts to Christianity who are coming into the faith or for neo0evangelical liberals on their way out. These pluralist alternatives… are halfway covenant systems. This book shows that in principle cannot work for Christianity, either philosophically or socially, and it shows what did not work in the American colonial period.”
He adds in the Preface, “It is my contention that the failure of worldwide Christian evangelism today is .. [the] failure of God’s people to proclaim and pursue covenantal civil standards for their own societies… Not one of them seems to…offer much hope that the whole world will be converted in time to save the souls of some five billion non-Christian people who are already alive… if the whole world were to convert tomorrow to faith in Jesus Christ, American Christians… would be unable to answer the inevitable question: ‘What should we do, now that we believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord?’ Americans have offered no explicitly biblical covenantal civil model to the world.” (Pg. xiv)
He outlines in the Introduction, “The theological root of our present political crisis is this: God demands unconditional surrender of all His enemies at the final judgment… while Satan demands unconditional surrender of his enemies in history, for he cannot gain this in eternity. There is a war going on… There is no neutrality. Christians… have voluntarily surrendered the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of God, as revealed by His covenantal law, as this law and its specified sanctions apply in the civil sphere.” (Pg. 3-4) Later, he adds, “Christian academic institutions and publishing houses support … this ideological sell-out. I call this the Wheaton-Westchester-Downers Grove-Grand Rapids-Wenham-Toronto complex. Wheaton College is the model.” (Pg. 15)
He explains, “Christian Reconstructionists loudly affirm biblical law as a means of both evangelism and dominion. Indeed, the affirmation of a long-term relationship between covenant-keeping and external cursings in history, is the heart and soul of the Christian Reconstructionist position on social theory, its theological identifying mark.” (Pg. 32)
He says, “antinomianism is defined as that view of life which rejects one or more of the five points of the biblical covenant as they apply to God’s revealed law in history. They deny that God… has delegated to mankind the responsibility of obeying His Bible-revealed-law-order… and promises to bless or curse men in history… in terms of this law-order.” (Pg. 51) He states, “Political pluralism is the reigning political myth of our era. It rests squarely on the doctrine of the sovereignty of autonomous man, an … analogue of the divine right of kings.” (Pg. 85)
He asserts, “democratic persuasion is only an intermediary step to coercion… All civil government is inherently coercive, for it possesses a lawful, God-grated monopoly to bear the sword. Civil government is an institution of legalized violence. This is why theonomists believe that it must be restrained by God’s law and enforce God’s law. There can be no escape from the conclusion that democratic persuasion is not an alternative to coercion; it is simply one competing system of coercion among many… It is time for democratic pluralists to stop pretending.” (Pg. 101-102)
He notes, “[A] key feature of [Cornelius] Van Til’s system was his denial of any neutral common-ground reasoning between the covenant-keeper and the covenant-breaker. The only common ground between them, he insisted, is their shared image of God.” (Pg. 128-129) Later, he adds, “Yet he himself adopted a similar view of ethical cause and effect in history—a view which in fact DENIED moral cause and effect in history.” (Pg. 141)
He clarifies, “when people ask me, ‘Can a person be a Christian Reconstructionist without being a postmillennialist?’ I answer YES. But to be … CONSISTENT… he has to adopt a view of the future that most people find even more difficult to accept than mine: a world in which the vast majority of people are covenant-breakers, a world in which a dwindling elite of saints rule over a growing though weakened army of God-haters.” (Pg. 157) [He also acknowledges that Van Til was an amillennialist; pg. 160)
He is critical of Francis Schaeffer: “His readers are given no indication that his intellectual background was deeply rooted in the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination… He gave away far too much ground to the humanists and liberals who were the targets of his critiques. I believe that his apologetic approach, like Cornelius Van Til’s, was deeply compromised by anti-nomianism and by eschatological pessimism.” (Pg. 168-169) He continues, “When, toward the end of his career, his son Franky quite properly radicalized him regarding the ethical issue of legalized abortion, he began to move from his strictly intellectual critique of humanist civilization into social activism. He wrote ‘The Great Evangelical Disaster’ … as an attack on the social and political apathy of American evangelical churches. This alienated many of his followers.” (Pg. 176) Later, he adds, ‘I do not think that Francis Schaeffer actually researched or wrote ‘A Christian Manifesto.’ … we at the Institute for Christian Economics were told by one of his associates that he did not personally do all of the basic research for it. Like his popular early books, which were edited by James Sire from tapes of Schaeffer’s lectures, [it] may have been merely edited in its final stages by Schaeffer. If he did research it, he was even more dishonest in hiding footnotes than I have previously indicated.” (Pg. 193-194)
He says, “Two questions need to be answered. First, if the foundational documents of the American civil covenant are Deistic and humanistic, then why did Bible-believing Christians agree to define the Revolutionary War as Jefferson did in the Declaration of Independence? Second, why did Christians ratify the Constitution? To answer the first question, we need to recognize that the Declaration was never directly ratified by the voters. They ratified it only … through the officials sent to Congress… We still need to deal with the second question… let the reader be warned, I break with just about everybody.” (Pg. 408-410) He notes that “Leaders on both sides of the Constitutional debate were members of Masonic lodges… Does lodge membership of several prominent nationalists prove my thesis regarding the Constitutional Convention as a Masonic COUP?... It is my contention that Masonry did shape the terms of discourse… I have called the Convention the first stage of a COUP. I have argued that Masonic influence was important both in terms of the philosophy of the delegates and their membership in the lodges… to argue that that Constitution was essentially Masonic is necessarily to argue for a conspiracy.” (Pg. 430-431; 439)
He suggests, “The idea that there is common ground intellectually with covenant-breakers is really a symptom of a much worse error… This is not to say that there is no possible connection. There is. It is based on the fact that all men are made in God’s image. There can therefore be limited cooperation under some historical conditions…” (Pg. 521)
He summarizes, “I believe in the judicial necessity of establishing a national statement of constitutional faith that confesses the God of the Bible ass the Lord of the national covenant. This will require a Constitutional amendment.” (Pg. 557) Later, he adds, “No single human covenant is absolute… Thus, Christian liberty if liberty under God and God’s law, administered by plural legal authorities… Christianity teaches… a very special kind of pluralism: plural institutions under God’s single comprehensive laws system. It does NOT teach a pluralism of law structures…” (Pg. 576) He concludes, “the American political system can be changed … through the amending process. Political pluralism can be reversed… when self-conscious Christians Have the experience, the worldview, and the votes.” (Pg. 651)
This book will appeal to some Christian Reconstructionists.
Gary Kilgore North (1942-2022) was head of the Institute for Christian Economics, and a prominent Christian Reconstructionist, who wrote widely on many topics (including postmillennial eschatology).
He wrote in the Foreword to this 1989 book, “What I do in this book is to present the case… that the proposed CHRISTIAN alternatives to biblical theocracy that have been suggested buy twentieth-century Christian commentators do not stand up to the rigorous test of Scripture... I classify them as way stations, either for converts to Christianity who are coming into the faith or for neo0evangelical liberals on their way out. These pluralist alternatives… are halfway covenant systems. This book shows that in principle cannot work for Christianity, either philosophically or socially, and it shows what did not work in the American colonial period.”
He adds in the Preface, “It is my contention that the failure of worldwide Christian evangelism today is .. [the] failure of God’s people to proclaim and pursue covenantal civil standards for their own societies… Not one of them seems to…offer much hope that the whole world will be converted in time to save the souls of some five billion non-Christian people who are already alive… if the whole world were to convert tomorrow to faith in Jesus Christ, American Christians… would be unable to answer the inevitable question: ‘What should we do, now that we believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord?’ Americans have offered no explicitly biblical covenantal civil model to the world.” (Pg. xiv)
He outlines in the Introduction, “The theological root of our present political crisis is this: God demands unconditional surrender of all His enemies at the final judgment… while Satan demands unconditional surrender of his enemies in history, for he cannot gain this in eternity. There is a war going on… There is no neutrality. Christians… have voluntarily surrendered the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of God, as revealed by His covenantal law, as this law and its specified sanctions apply in the civil sphere.” (Pg. 3-4) Later, he adds, “Christian academic institutions and publishing houses support … this ideological sell-out. I call this the Wheaton-Westchester-Downers Grove-Grand Rapids-Wenham-Toronto complex. Wheaton College is the model.” (Pg. 15)
He explains, “Christian Reconstructionists loudly affirm biblical law as a means of both evangelism and dominion. Indeed, the affirmation of a long-term relationship between covenant-keeping and external cursings in history, is the heart and soul of the Christian Reconstructionist position on social theory, its theological identifying mark.” (Pg. 32)
He says, “antinomianism is defined as that view of life which rejects one or more of the five points of the biblical covenant as they apply to God’s revealed law in history. They deny that God… has delegated to mankind the responsibility of obeying His Bible-revealed-law-order… and promises to bless or curse men in history… in terms of this law-order.” (Pg. 51) He states, “Political pluralism is the reigning political myth of our era. It rests squarely on the doctrine of the sovereignty of autonomous man, an … analogue of the divine right of kings.” (Pg. 85)
He asserts, “democratic persuasion is only an intermediary step to coercion… All civil government is inherently coercive, for it possesses a lawful, God-grated monopoly to bear the sword. Civil government is an institution of legalized violence. This is why theonomists believe that it must be restrained by God’s law and enforce God’s law. There can be no escape from the conclusion that democratic persuasion is not an alternative to coercion; it is simply one competing system of coercion among many… It is time for democratic pluralists to stop pretending.” (Pg. 101-102)
He notes, “[A] key feature of [Cornelius] Van Til’s system was his denial of any neutral common-ground reasoning between the covenant-keeper and the covenant-breaker. The only common ground between them, he insisted, is their shared image of God.” (Pg. 128-129) Later, he adds, “Yet he himself adopted a similar view of ethical cause and effect in history—a view which in fact DENIED moral cause and effect in history.” (Pg. 141)
He clarifies, “when people ask me, ‘Can a person be a Christian Reconstructionist without being a postmillennialist?’ I answer YES. But to be … CONSISTENT… he has to adopt a view of the future that most people find even more difficult to accept than mine: a world in which the vast majority of people are covenant-breakers, a world in which a dwindling elite of saints rule over a growing though weakened army of God-haters.” (Pg. 157) [He also acknowledges that Van Til was an amillennialist; pg. 160)
He is critical of Francis Schaeffer: “His readers are given no indication that his intellectual background was deeply rooted in the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination… He gave away far too much ground to the humanists and liberals who were the targets of his critiques. I believe that his apologetic approach, like Cornelius Van Til’s, was deeply compromised by anti-nomianism and by eschatological pessimism.” (Pg. 168-169) He continues, “When, toward the end of his career, his son Franky quite properly radicalized him regarding the ethical issue of legalized abortion, he began to move from his strictly intellectual critique of humanist civilization into social activism. He wrote ‘The Great Evangelical Disaster’ … as an attack on the social and political apathy of American evangelical churches. This alienated many of his followers.” (Pg. 176) Later, he adds, ‘I do not think that Francis Schaeffer actually researched or wrote ‘A Christian Manifesto.’ … we at the Institute for Christian Economics were told by one of his associates that he did not personally do all of the basic research for it. Like his popular early books, which were edited by James Sire from tapes of Schaeffer’s lectures, [it] may have been merely edited in its final stages by Schaeffer. If he did research it, he was even more dishonest in hiding footnotes than I have previously indicated.” (Pg. 193-194)
He says, “Two questions need to be answered. First, if the foundational documents of the American civil covenant are Deistic and humanistic, then why did Bible-believing Christians agree to define the Revolutionary War as Jefferson did in the Declaration of Independence? Second, why did Christians ratify the Constitution? To answer the first question, we need to recognize that the Declaration was never directly ratified by the voters. They ratified it only … through the officials sent to Congress… We still need to deal with the second question… let the reader be warned, I break with just about everybody.” (Pg. 408-410) He notes that “Leaders on both sides of the Constitutional debate were members of Masonic lodges… Does lodge membership of several prominent nationalists prove my thesis regarding the Constitutional Convention as a Masonic COUP?... It is my contention that Masonry did shape the terms of discourse… I have called the Convention the first stage of a COUP. I have argued that Masonic influence was important both in terms of the philosophy of the delegates and their membership in the lodges… to argue that that Constitution was essentially Masonic is necessarily to argue for a conspiracy.” (Pg. 430-431; 439)
He suggests, “The idea that there is common ground intellectually with covenant-breakers is really a symptom of a much worse error… This is not to say that there is no possible connection. There is. It is based on the fact that all men are made in God’s image. There can therefore be limited cooperation under some historical conditions…” (Pg. 521)
He summarizes, “I believe in the judicial necessity of establishing a national statement of constitutional faith that confesses the God of the Bible ass the Lord of the national covenant. This will require a Constitutional amendment.” (Pg. 557) Later, he adds, “No single human covenant is absolute… Thus, Christian liberty if liberty under God and God’s law, administered by plural legal authorities… Christianity teaches… a very special kind of pluralism: plural institutions under God’s single comprehensive laws system. It does NOT teach a pluralism of law structures…” (Pg. 576) He concludes, “the American political system can be changed … through the amending process. Political pluralism can be reversed… when self-conscious Christians Have the experience, the worldview, and the votes.” (Pg. 651)
This book will appeal to some Christian Reconstructionists.
June 6, 2013
As usual, North couldn't be boring if he tried. While I don't accept the theonomic applications nor the free-market ideology, North's real value is in his deconstruction of "constitutionalism" and the American founding. For too long the debate has focused on whether deism was really that strong in America and that the Founding fathers probably really believed in Jesus or something (wink, wink).
North shows we can look at it from another angle: who cares if they were deists or not? These remain the facts:
1) The rule of King Jesus was explicitly denied.
2) They were all masons anyway.
3) Washington cheered his comrades in establishing Illuminati cabals in America
Further, I agree with North's application, at least in some parts, of the covnental sanctions view of American history.
North shows we can look at it from another angle: who cares if they were deists or not? These remain the facts:
1) The rule of King Jesus was explicitly denied.
2) They were all masons anyway.
3) Washington cheered his comrades in establishing Illuminati cabals in America
Further, I agree with North's application, at least in some parts, of the covnental sanctions view of American history.
March 13, 2025
The other reviews here are a good reflection of what the book is about.
However, am I the only one who found this quote in the Conclusion part 3 deliciously ironic?
"We are inevitably headed toward world government, both civil and ecclesiastical. World government is an inescapable concept, given the universalistic claims of both God and Satan. ...
Meanwhile, Satan has nearly completed the creation of his one world political order. Without the special grace of God in the form of a major international revival of Trinitarian faith, only the common grace of God through the intense rivalries of fallen men will be able to call a halt to this demonic political process," pp529-530.
For someone so opposed to the "pessimism" of pre & amillennial Christians it sounds very "end-times" to me. ;)
However, am I the only one who found this quote in the Conclusion part 3 deliciously ironic?
"We are inevitably headed toward world government, both civil and ecclesiastical. World government is an inescapable concept, given the universalistic claims of both God and Satan. ...
Meanwhile, Satan has nearly completed the creation of his one world political order. Without the special grace of God in the form of a major international revival of Trinitarian faith, only the common grace of God through the intense rivalries of fallen men will be able to call a halt to this demonic political process," pp529-530.
For someone so opposed to the "pessimism" of pre & amillennial Christians it sounds very "end-times" to me. ;)
March 9, 2019
Bringing his paranoid conspiracism to the founding of the United States, North argues that the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution (and thus a more centralized government) was a secret conspiracy to undermine the Christian medieval feudalism represented by the Puritan settlers and embodied in the original Articles.
April 5, 2014
For those of you who don’t know, I am a graduate of Patrick Henry College, the small Christian liberal arts school sometimes affectionately (and sometimes despairingly) referred to as God’s Harvard. At PHC we were frequently amused by the rumors claiming we were part of a conspiracy designed to “prepare the leadership of a theocratic United States,” “extinguish[] secular governance” or otherwise overthrow the Constitution, mandate church attendance, require tithing, and execute anyone who didn't follow our version of Mosaic law. But while this was grounds for amusement, Christians need to realize that there are thinkers who do advocate these sort of things - and sometimes they are closer to home than we realize.
I'm speaking of R.J. Rushdoony, his son-in-law Gary North, and their following, commonly known as the Christian Reconstructionists. Fundimentally these men err in that they cannot accept a political state with Christians and non-Christians living side by side. North, specifically, was a firm opponent of religious freedom, insisting that the nation broke its covenant with God in the Constitution by not requiring Trinitarian oaths for political officers.
Read the rest.
I'm speaking of R.J. Rushdoony, his son-in-law Gary North, and their following, commonly known as the Christian Reconstructionists. Fundimentally these men err in that they cannot accept a political state with Christians and non-Christians living side by side. North, specifically, was a firm opponent of religious freedom, insisting that the nation broke its covenant with God in the Constitution by not requiring Trinitarian oaths for political officers.
Read the rest.
February 25, 2019
North's Political Polytheism is a masterpiece, applying a presuppositional historiography to interpret the founding era alongside the founding documents of the US. You will encounter a writing style within the first few pages that is abrasive, but always entertaining and honest. This book is an honest look at who actually founded the US and on what basis. It's searches the political presuppositions of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and the Federalists and contrasts it against the Scriptures and the anti Federalists. It examines the assumptions inherent within the state constitutions and provides conclusions that are at odds to many of the modern day America-Is-A-Christian-Nation types. It's a massive book but you wont be disappointed reading it. The part of Roger Williams and the Rhode Island colony is worth price of the book.
February 19, 2014
A must-read for any Christian who wants to reform politics.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews