A Critique of “The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers”

 I recently watched a documentary entitled “The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers” by Christian J. Pinto.  I will start my critique with a summary of the work.  The bulk of Pinto’s thesis is that the Founding Fathers (of the United States of America) were not genuine Bible-believing Christians.  He tries to prove this by citing quotes (mainly from private letters or conversations) and various records which, in his mind, prove that they were deists, Freemasons, Illuminati, Catholics, Enlightenment thinkers, and/or idol worshippers.  He focuses almost entirely on five targets for such claims: Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington.  He repeatedly clarifies that the original settlers (the Pilgrims), who were genuine Bible-believing Christians are to be distinguished from the “Enlightened” Founding Fathers because they are not the same group of people, they don’t have the same beliefs, and that there was 100-150 years of time in between them.  He also frequently remarks that the public statements of the Founders were lies and that their true beliefs were only heard by a close-knit circle of like-minded patriots.  He repeatedly refutes David Barton’s works which claim that the Founders were real Christians and the United States was founded to be a “Christian nation”.  Throughout the movie, you might have a tendency to ask, “Where is all this leading?  What is the relevance of this information for us today?”  He hints at this here and there, but doesn’t really make it plain until about the last 10 minutes of the movie.  His aim is prove that whole concept of freedom of religion is wrong.   The reason why the Founders wanted freedom of religion is that this “right to worship as one sees fit” would legalize their pagan beliefs and practices, which had been, up until that time, illegal.  He reasons that since God hates all false religions, there should be no right worship in any way except the one true religion.  Modern Christians have fallen into error, he argues, by embracing this aspect of Enlightenment philosophy.

Before I address what is really the main point, let us briefly critique at what he says about America not being “Christian Nation” and the true religion of the Founding Fathers. 

Pinto is correct in saying the United States is not, and never has been (legally), a Christian nation.  Religious tests as prerequisite for holding federal offices are prohibited in the Constitution.  The Treaty of Tripoli states that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."  The Establishment clause of the first Amendment prohibits Congress making any religion, including Christianity, the official religion of the United States or from prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. 

However most of the original 13 colonies were founded on the Christian religion, remained Christian when they became states, and continued to be Christian after the ratification of the 1^st Amendment.  This is because the Establishment clause only prohibits Congress from making any laws that respect (for or against) the establishment of religion. Contrary to what Pinto says in the movie, the U.S. Constitution does not contain any statement that freedom of religion is an absolute or God-given right.  The foundational Scriptures concerning God’s will for civil government are Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-16 and 1 Timothy 2:1-2. If compare these passages to preamble to the Constitution, which is the mission statement of the United States (i.e. the Federal Government), you will see that they are in agreement.

Pinto’s approach to proving that the Founders were not Christians heavily relies on proving that they had embraced religions and doctrines that are contrary to the central claims of the Christian faith. These religions include freemasonry, deism, and Catholicism.  Suffering from just as bad of a case of confirmation bias as Barton, he is uses every shred of evidence he can find in this regard even though some of it doesn’t make any sense.  For example, on the one hand, he claims that Founders were secretly deists and Enlightenment adherents and therefore rejected the miracles of the Bible and specifically the virgin birth, the trinity, the redemptive nature of the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus.  But on the other hand, he accuses them being closet Catholics.  That is an obvious contradiction. I would also point out the Anglican Church, one that Pinto criticizes Washington for not participating in its communion observance, is very similar to the Catholic Church.  (It broke away from the Catholic Church only because the Pope wouldn’t grant Henry VIII a divorce.  It is not a Reformation or restoration church as the true Protestant and evangelical churches are.)  During the Pilgrim/Puritan era which Pinto speaks of as being different than the era of the Founding Fathers, the Maryland colony was founded to be a safe haven for Catholics.  Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia had the Anglican Church as their official religion long before the American Revolution. 

Like a one-sided, modern day, mudslinging political commercial, Pinto threw everything against the wall, hoping that something would stick.  Pinto even tries to associate them Mormonism, a religion started by Joseph Smith, Jr. who allegedly had his first vision in 1820 and didn’t write the Book of Mormon until 1830, four years after the last of "the five" (Jefferson) was dead.  He shows pictures of various paintings and sculptures of gods and goddess, most of which were made long after their deaths as well.  He digs up all kinds of quotes to try to prove that none of the Founders repented and accepted Christ even in their dying breath, as if that were possible to actually know for sure. (Why is this important?) 

However, Pinto is correct to criticize Barton, who does the same sort of things and cites quotes out of context in his efforts to prove the opposite side of the issue.  I actually already believed, before watching this movie, that Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were not true Christians (at least not at the time of the Revolution).  John Adams may have started out as a mainstream Christian before converting to Unitarianism.  But I think that the majority of the Founders were real Christians.  But why does this issue really even matter?  Does your spiritual well-being hinge on whether or not you can identify which historical figures were Christians and which ones were not?  If you really wanted hold up a couple of the Founders as being non-Christians, wouldn’t it be much easier to pick the two who had a duel?  (I am talking about Hamilton and Burr, of course.) Wouldn’t that take much less digging into historical documents and wouldn’t it be better to avoid all of these less-convincing “separation of fact from fiction” arguments? 

Enough of that.  Let’s get onto Pinto’s main point. (Pinto actually spends very little time talking about it!)

In Acts 5:38-39, Luke records the words of Gamaliel, “So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men [the Apostles] and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them.”  I recognize that Gamaliel probably wasn’t a Christian.  However he was “held in honor by all the people”.  The fact that his words, which express the idea of religious freedom, persuaded the Sadducees to let the Apostles go free is something that shouldn’t be taken lightly.  But Pinto apparently thinks that Gamaliel’s outlook was wrong.

The reason why not only the Founders, but many ordinary Bible-believing citizens, supported religious freedom was because some of the Christian denominations were persecuting Christians of other denominations.  The Puritans had put some Quakers to death just because they were Quakers.  The Danbury Baptists were persecuted by the Connecticut Congregationalist church.  People also knew that, in times past, the King of England persecuted anybody who did not agree with the specific doctrines of the Church of England.  I suppose it’s possible that some of the Founders may have wanted to have religious freedom in order to practice evil religion (I don’t claim to be able read minds!), but what they did gave us freedom to worship as God wills of us.  Regardless of motives, we should honor our authorities (Romans 13:7) when they do what is right.

The crux of the issue is that Pinto fails to make a distinction between what is a right and what is right.  In other words, just because you believe something is sinful according to God’s Word, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you must believe it should be against the civil law.  Pinto states (I am paraphrasing) that there is nowhere in the Bible where God gives governments the responsibility of ensuring religious freedom.  He framed the issue the wrong way.  If a government does nothing (concerning religion), then people do have religious freedom.  Thus, the burden of proof is actually on Pinto to show that God commands governments to act against false religion, not the other way around.  In the absence of such evidence, it is a best an open question.

To illustrate this point further, suppose someone were to propose a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to eat pizza.  As silly as this sounds, the amendment would not be unscriptural.  You could argue that this is wrong because somebody could eat too much pizza and thereby be guilty of gluttony.  I think that it is safe to say that there is nowhere in the Bible where it says that government authorities have a biblical prerogative to protect pizza-eating. But this is irrelevant.  The relevant fact is that there nothing in the Scriptures that gives them the responsibility to ban it.

Pinto quotes “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent…” (Acts 17:30).  In context Paul is talking about idol worship, but Pinto leaves out or glosses over the rest of the verse which says, “…because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”  But this passage does not say that it is man’s prerogative to judge the world, but God’s.  (Jesus is obviously the one referred to as “a man”.)  The first part of the statement is in present tense, but the last part of the statement is in future tense and is obviously referring to the Day of Judgment.  In other words, the command to repent is for now, but judgment is later.  The “overlooking” refers to relative leniency in post-death judgment for those who died before Christ in comparison with those of the New Testament dispensation.  Like many other passages Pinto quotes to support his view, there is absolutely no commandment expressly given or implied for civil government.

Many people across the political spectrum similarly twist the Scriptures using this same reasoning to support various worldviews.  Commandments to give to the poor are used to support Socialism, Communism, and/or welfare programs and public education.  “I will bless those who bless you…” is used to politically support the nation of Israel.  I don’t have anything against the nation of Israel, but using such scriptures for that purpose is very bad exegesis.

Here is one example of a time when God gave the people the right to do something that wasn’t right.  In I Samuel 8, God told the people that they should not be desirous of having a king.  Nevertheless, he allowed the people the choice to have a king.  It is obvious from this passage that, if civil government is given too much centralized power, it tends to become corrupt and abuses the people.  This is a point that Pinto would do well to consider before supporting the idea that civil government should be given the power to decide who is to be punished for religious heresy.

Divorce and remarriage after divorce were permitted with minimal limitations under the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 24:1-4), but Jesus commanded against it (Matthew 19), saying, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery…Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.”  Thus, this is an example of a case where God permits, even now, something that isn’t right.  Of course this allowance is only temporary.  In the end, those who do not repent will face the judgment of God.  But Pinto is using general statements about God’s judgment to try to prove punishment for religious heresy is for now.

But let me help Pinto with his argument by quoting some Scriptures that he has overlooked.  These are the passages I mentioned earlier, namely Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-16 and 1 Timothy 2:1-2.  According to these passages, the role of civil government is to:

1. Be God’s servant.
2. Be a terror to bad conduct.
3. Be an avenger who carries out God's wrath (or punishment) on the wrongdoer.
4. Refrain from being a terror to good conduct.
5. Praise those who do what is right.
6. Facilitate, for believers, a peaceful and quiet lifestyle, godly and dignified in every way.

If the real purpose of “The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers” was to try to convince people that government should punish worshippers of false gods, why didn’t Pinto use these verses to prove his point? Of course, it is impractical for a government to punish every evil deed which occurs within its jurisdiction.  Thus the central question is, among the acts of evil that men may commit, which ones should government focus on deterring?  Doctrines like the virgin birth, the trinity, redemption through the cross and the resurrection are vital to our religious faith and for eternal salvation, but has God mandated that a failure to believe these is a crime for today’s governments to punish? 

Consider that Paul wrote in I Corinthians 5:11-13 (ESV), “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders?  Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside.”  When Paul refers to the judgment of the one “who bears the name of brother”, he is clearly speaking of one of the prerogatives of church authority, not one of civil authority.  This is easy to see because it is the one “who bears the name of brother” who is “inside the church”.  Obviously, civil authority is God’s instrument to judge both those who are outside and inside the Church.  But for the sins that Paul mentions (sexual immorality, greed, idolatry, reviling, drunkenness, and swindling), it is primarily the authority of the Church to judge those in the Church, because, at least in many cases, it isn’t appropriate or practical for civil government to judge such sins in a way that accomplishes God’s purpose for the judgment. (See 1 Corinthians 5:5, 7.)

I see the sixth item in the above list of prerogatives for civil government as being the key to understanding the answer to the central question, “Which acts of evil should government deter?”.  That is to say, government should protect the innocent and promote peace primarily by punishing people who commit unjustified acts of violence, and secondarily by punishing other acts which are potentially dangerous to one’s physical well-being or property, may readily lead to violence, or in some other way prevent peaceful and quiet living.  But Pinto criticizes the Founders for having this aim, quoting I Thessalonians 5:3, “For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”  But of course this passage isn’t teaching that it is wrong to seek peace for your nation. See Hebrews 12:14, Romans 12:18, etc.  I Thessalonians 5:3 is talking about a government which will falsely promise peace with no intentions of delivering it. It is a specific government--one which will be in place at the time of Christ’s return.  Since most or at least a great many of the Founders died peacefully of old age, I certainly don’t see “sudden destruction” as an apt description of their fate.  Pinto certainly did not prove this particular point to my satisfaction. 

In summary, Pinto puts you through so much hearsay evidence just to prove that five men were pagan, Masonic, deist, and Catholic devotees of Rousseau and Voltaire.  Then he asks you to conclude that, guilty by association, the rest of the Founders were also not real Christians.  You are told to be disbelieve the sincerity of what they said in public in front of many witnesses and yet trust the testimony of a small number of witnesses. Then, if he has you convinced that he knows what he is talking about, he hopes to get you to accept, without thinking critically, the conclusion that the reason why the Founders supported religious freedom is so that they could practice their pagan religion without persecution.  From this, without any real proof, he asks us to further conclude that whole idea religious freedom must be wrong and that American Christians both then and now have been duped into believing this supposedly unscriptural concept.

 

Does Satan “Own” the Governments of the World?

In this article I will examine the proposition that Satan has all of the governments (kingdoms) at his disposal (except the nation of Israel).  In particular, he can give them away to anybody he chooses.  The argument for this proposition is based partly on the Scripture passages concerning one of Satan’s three temptations of Jesus in the desert.

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me."

Matt 4:7-10 (ESV)

And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours."

Luke 4:5-8 (ESV)

Another part of the argument is based on the book of Daniel.  That part is beyond the scope of this article.  I will just focus on the temptation in desert. One could argue that the devil must have had the kingdoms of the world at his disposal when he tempted Jesus because otherwise it would be obvious that Jesus would have known if it was a lie. 

I reject this argument on several grounds.  First, at that time, Jesus did not have perfect knowledge.  For example, he did not know the day or the hour of his return.  (Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32)  This is because Jesus lowered himself temporarily when he was born into this world.  (Hebrews 2:7-9) 

More importantly, the devil did not have perfect knowledge.  That is, even if Jesus knew that the devil not have the kingdoms, the devil may not have known that he knew it.  Although Satan is very smart, cunning, persistent, and skillful, he is also subject to being blinded by his own pride, anger and desperation.  Therefore he is willing to try anything to defeat God, even something that would seem to be quite irrational.

Another thing to keep in mind is that even if the devil had such authority at that time, that doesn’t mean that he has it now.  One could suggest that the testing of Job parallels (and perhaps foreshadows) this temptation of Jesus.  Satan had to ask permission from God to do the testing of Job. (Job 1:6-12) Perhaps the same thing occurred before the temptation of Jesus.  Perhaps the kingdoms of the world were given to Satan at that time, but only temporarily for the purpose of the temptation.  After all, Satan was also allowed to test Job with various afflictions, but only temporarily.

Romans 13:1-7 indicates that the governing authorities and rulers are “…God’s servant for good…” and therefore we should be subject to them.  It is very hard to reconcile this if all governments are under the control of Satan. 

Furthermore, Jesus said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matthew 28:18) Note that in this passage, the Greek word for authority, ἐξουσία [1832], is the same that is used in Luke’s account of the devil’s temptation of Jesus above.  Hebrews 2:8 says, “Now in putting everything in subjection to him [Jesus], he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him.”

All this is not to say that Satan does not have an influence on the governments of world.  Just like everything else in this fallen world, governments are broken and frequently do not function according to God’s purpose for them mentioned in Romans 13:1-7 and other NT passages.  There are many corrupt government officials and injustices in this present age. This is because Satan is “the god of this world” (II Corinthians 4:4) and “prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2). 

But the devil’s influence is obviously limited at present.  God limits Satan’s ability to wreak havoc in the world depending on the time and place.  In general, in this present age, the more people turn their backs on God, the more control Satan is afforded.  Eventually Satan will be given full control over the kingdoms of the world (Revelation 13:7). But for now, he restrained at least to some degree (II Thessalonians 2:6).

True Obedience to Governing Authorities

As Christians, we are commanded by God to submit to the governing authorities.  (Romans 13:1-7, I Peter 2:13-14, Titus 3:1-2).  However it is clear that these commandments do not apply when it means disobeying commands from God’s word.  For Americans, it does not mean they must always obey unconstitutional laws and orders.  There is great deal of confusion about this in the church today. The leaders of my own church have accused me of putting the Constitution above God.  I am not saying that Christians should go out of their way to disobey unconstitutional orders, engage in violence or protest in the streets about it.  But the commandments in Romans 13:1-7, I Peter 2:13-14 and Titus 3:1-2 do not mean that we must obey the authorities when they give orders beyond the scope of the authority that has been given to them. 

God’s Word does not teach that we are to submit to those who have authority.  The direct object of the verb “submit” (or “be subject to”) is “authorities” or “human institution”, not the person who has the authority.¹ Pay close attention to the wording of I Peter 2:13-14 (ESV).  A person is not an “it”.

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.

At that time, the emperor was supreme.  This means that the institution of the emperor took precedence over all the other governing authorities within the empire.  More to the point, according this commandment, subjection to the authority of the emperor was to take precedence over all the other governing authorities within the empire.  God did not say that subjection to all authorities is to be “as supreme”.  Subjection to the authority of governors is qualified by the phrase “as sent by him”, where the word “him” obviously refers to the emperor.  It is very clear that this means that the commandment to be subject to the institution of governors applies only when they are acting under the authority of the emperor, not when they are acting on their own accord. If God had meant for us to obey every order from everyone in authority without regard to what authority they have been given, then the words “supreme” and “as sent by him” are completely meaningless and misleading.

When the people asked for a king in I Samuel 8, God granted their request.  That does not mean the king would be perfect or that people should put the king above God.    It is not a contradiction to say that the people chose to have a king as supreme, while also saying that God established the kingship and its supremacy. 

The American people asked for a Constitution to be their supreme authority and it was approved by their legitimately elected representatives just as the same as laws (e.g. laws against drunk driving) were properly approved in more recent times. 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

It is not a contradiction to say that the people chose to have a constitution as supreme, while also saying that God established it.  That does not mean that the Constitution is perfect, inspired by God as the Bible is, or that it is to be put above the Bible.  But it is the supreme authority in the same way as the king of Israel was in I Samuel 8 and as the emperor was in I Peter 2:13-14.  If this is not so, then who (or what) is the supreme in America today?  When did God grant Supreme Court justices, presidents, governors, health departments, etc. authority that is above the Constitution?  Is the phrase “as sent by him” in I Peter 2:13-14 completely meaningless for us today?

It is God’s will that we obey the authorities according to what has been given to them by the Constitution (and other laws pursuant to it).  Who are we to say that God can’t do that?  I’m not going to put God in a box and say that he can’t set up a government with a constitution as supreme.  I’m not going to tie his hands and say that it is always his will that we regard the governor the same as an emperor.  People are not above the law.

When the Jews accused Paul of violating the law, he did not submit to their authority (or to that of Felix or Festus).  Instead, he appealed to the supreme, who was Caesar.  If Paul could do this, then there is certainly nothing wrong with Christians appealing to the Constitution (or other laws) when those who have civil authority overstep the authority that has been given to them.  It makes no difference whether it be because of a violation of the separation of powers or any other limitation of power in the law. I suggest reading Acts 21:27-25:11. 

Most people recognize the fact that governing authorities have geographical limits to their power.  For example, if the prime minister of England were to give an order, most of all of us would agree that it would not be sinful for an American to ignore the order while not on British soil.  According to the law, the power of the prime minister of England does not extend to the United States.  Christians need to realize that other legal limitations on the power of the governing authorities are just as relevant.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

U.S Constitution, 10th Amendment

This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people, and all powers, not herein delegated, remain with the people.

Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 20

In the United States, every American citizen is a “governing authority”.  If you do not believe this, then you should not vote.  Every time you vote, you are wielding civil authority which can impose, increase, eliminate or ease restrictions on other citizens or penalize them for disobeying.  If we are to completely obey every person who has civil authority without regard to the scope of authority given to them by law, then we must obey any order given by any citizen just as if that citizen were a governor or President of the United States. God is a God of order, not chaos.  Without respect for the scope of authority in the law, subjection to it is impossible and the command to do so is essentially meaningless.

When Jesus told his disciples to “observe whatever they tell you” in Matthew 22:3, it is obvious that he did not intend for it to be an absolute.  Jesus said, “…beware of … the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Matthew 16:12) 

When the scribes and Pharisees asked Jesus to show them a sign, he refused to give them what they asked for. (Matthew 12:38-39, 16:1-4)  When asked by what authority he did “these things”, he refused to answer. (Luke 20:1-8)

The ruler of the synagogue gave the people a clear and direct order:  "There are six days in which work ought to be done. Come [to the synagogue] on those days and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day." (Luke 13:14) But Jesus did not refrain from healing people on that day, which is a clear violation of the order. He said, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" (Mark 3:4)  This clearly indicates that, when it comes to rules that ought to be obeyed, it is the real law that counts, not rules of the Pharisees. 

When they accused the disciples of violating handwashing laws and for picking grains on the Sabbath, Jesus rebuked the scribes and Pharisees, not his disciples. (Matthew 12:1-2, 15:1-2, Mark 2:23-24, 7:1-5, Luke 6:1-5)  The disciples could have obeyed these orders without sinning.  (There is nothing sinful or unscriptural about washing your hands before eating or refraining from picking grains on the Sabbath.) 

Luke 5:29-30 says, “And Levi made him [Jesus] a great feast in his house, and there was a large company of tax collectors and others reclining at table with them.  And the Pharisees and their scribes grumbled at his disciples, saying, ‘Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?’” According to several sources I have read, the Pharisees did have a rule forbidding eating with sinners.  (The justification was that if you eat food that was not tithed, then you are guilty of violating the commandment to tithe.)  It is very clear from Luke 5:29-30 that Jesus not only violated the scribes’ and Pharisees’ rule, but he approved of his disciples doing it as well.  I see no evidence whatsoever in the Scriptures that Jesus’ statement in Matthew 22:3 went beyond the lawful authority that was given to the scribes and Pharisees.

If out of fear of the government, we allow them to infringe on our rights to worship as we please while exceeding the limits of their authority, we will lose our freedoms. If the government were to ban Bibles overnight, Christians might resist.  But what if the government slowly infringes on our rights little by little, making it more and more difficult to spread the Gospel little by little?  At what point will we stop giving in? The effect is the same regardless of the motives of the politicians.

Just as there were hundreds of rules of the scribes and Pharisees, there are countless laws, statutes, ordinances, precedents, regulations and orders given to us today by our elected (and unelected) officials in our government.  The Internal Revenue Code alone has 7500 pages. To tell people that they have to obey all of them, even the ones that are unconstitutional, is to place a huge burden on them.  If you don’t even attempt to obey (or even read) all these yourself, then how you can you tell other people that they have to without hypocrisy?  The hypocrite obeys rules that are popular, get a lot of media attention, or that make themselves look righteous.  The truly righteous man obeys the legitimate laws diligently and quietly without regard to how well known they are or how well they are being enforced. (c.f. Colossians 3:22)

Finally, besides the “as sent by him” qualifier, there is also another qualifier written into the passages on governing authorities.  We are only required by these commandments to submit their authority when it is “to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good”.  When their mandates punish people for doing good or reward them for doing evil, they are acting outside the authority that God has given them and such mandates can be ignored.

In summary, the doctrine of “obey the person, not the authority” is dangerous, overly rigid, burdensome, and untenable and ignores scriptural qualifiers and counterexamples.  We are to submit to all governing authorities within their jurisdiction, but we are not to regard all of them “as supreme”.

¹ To illustrate this principle, suppose that a woman is governor of a state.  The woman’s husband is required to submit to the authority of the governor just as any other citizen of the state.  But he is not required to relinquish his role as head of his household.  If his wife tries to use her authority as governor to usurp her husband’s authority, God does not require him to submit to her orders in that regard.  On the other hand, she is not required to submit if he tries to use his authority to in a way that interferes with her official capacity.  Each authority has its own dominion (i.e. there is a biblical “separation of powers”) so that there is no conflict or confusion about it.