Archive for founding fathers
Some Strategies in the Fight for Peace
Posted by: |This essay continues the Christian Theology and Public Policy Course by John Cobin, author of the books Bible and Government and Christian Theology of Public Policy.
Considering the spiritual battle raging between God and Satan, it should come as little surprise that the spread of God’s kingdom often does not occur peaceably. Paradoxically, the Lord is both the “God of peace” and the God who assails the kingdom of Satan: “And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly” (Romans 16:20), implying that His judgment will come upon Satan’s kingdom in both the spiritual and temporal realms. The Christian’s civic duty should be similarly directed. Jesus is called the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6) and yet He tells us: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). The reason is simply that even though a battle rages in the spiritual world between principalities and powers (2 Corinthians 10:4-6, Revelation 12:7; Jude 1:9; Daniel 10:13), this battle spills over into time and space, being manifested principally through conflicts between Christians and false religion or the state. However, God’s kingdom has invaded the world, casting out Satan’s kingdom and disrupting the false “peace” that Satan gives (Luke 11:21).
Tags: Bible, civil disobedience, ethics, founding fathers, history, peace, revolution, theology, war
The Christian Fight for Peace
Posted by: |This essay continues the Christian Theology and Public Policy Course by John Cobin, author of the books Bible and Government and Christian Theology of Public Policy.
Some things are worth fighting for and at times struggling for peace forms a part of our civic duty.
Christians may justly fight, when prudent, either by rhetoric and diplomacy or by political power and arms—especially when their purpose is to quell the evil intrusions of the interventionist state. In order to establish sanctuary in a fallen world, Christians may thus forcibly oppose tyrants or other criminals who attempt to undermine fundamental rights through destroying life and property.
In chapters 7–9 of A Christian Manifesto (1982), Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer argues that there is a point at which a Christian must take up arms against the state. He maintains that resisting tyrants is ultimately part of a Christian’s civic duty. Following the feisty preacher John Knox and Samuel Rutherford in Lex Rex, Schaeffer says that prior to violent action, a Christian must take certain steps as his civic duty: (a) petition elected officials, (b) utilize the courts to establish precedent that favor Christian values, and (c) flee when persecuted (if possible). He notes that the actions of the American Founders were justified because they followed this prescription, having petitioned the Crown and finding nowhere to flee (or perhaps having no need to flee given that the Crown was already so remote from them), observing that the Crown had lost its legitimacy when it became a lawbreaker. Thus, not doing one’s civic duty by forcefully resisting the King would have been sin. For a Christian to do nothing in the face of collectivist or interventionist tyranny is to permit injustice and violence in society—clearly a sinful action for those who are commanded to “pursue peace” (2 Timothy 2:22; Hebrews 12:14; 1 Peter 3:11). (1)
Tags: Bible, civil disobedience, ethics, founding fathers, history, peace, revolution, theology, war
Are You a Revolutionary?
Posted by: |Yesterday, the greatest question was decided which ever was debated in America, and a greater perhaps never was nor will be decided among men. A resolution passed without one dissenting colony, “that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States.”
— John Adams, Letter to Abigail Adams [July 3, 1776]
Today, many Americans will celebrate the glory of their government and entirely miss the point of July 4, 1776. The true meaning of this day, one that will be remembered by the Remnant throughout history, is that we are, and of right ought to be, truly free, and that we believe these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Won’t you read this magnificent Declaration today, and become the revolutionary that you were meant to be?
The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Tags: founding fathers, freedom, history, truth
Give Me Liberty
Posted by: |Continuing in our series of posts leading up to the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, it seems appropriate to hearken back to the words of a very wise American hero, who, like Obama, had an elegant tongue. But the difference between them is striking – one offers platitudes and good feelings while the other spurs us to virtue and thoughtfulness. Consider the words carefully.
March 23, 1775 – The Virgina Convention at St. John’s Church, Richmond.
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
The fight for liberty still goes on today. The State continues to draw power unto itself through any means possible – taxation, regulation, laws, and military. Will we be the heirs to the legacy of Henry, Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington, or will we be the sheep of tyrants?
Tags: constitution, founding fathers, Obama
Founding Faith, by Steven Waldman
Posted by: |A book review of Founding Faith (subtitle: Providence, Politics and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America) by Steven Waldman, editor-in-chief of BeliefNet.com.
Introduction
In Founding Faith, Steven Waldman sets out to destroy a few myths regarding the beginning of America’s principles of religious freedom. Waldman writes “The culture wars have so warped our sense of history that we typically have a very limited understanding of how we came to have religious liberty.”
Waldman’s book can be summarized in his two main arguments, both of which contradict the prevailing views of the ultra-conservative right and the cultural left. First, America was not created specifically as a Christian state, but rather as a place where Christian groups could thrive. Second, America’s Founding Fathers did not desire religious freedom simply because they were all Deists. He tackles these issues by focusing on five Founding Fathers – Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison – and Waldman uses the writings of these men as his primary source material.
Waldman points out that many conservatives believe that if they can show that the Founding Fathers were very religious, they could show that the Founders abhorred separation of church and state. He cites Jerry Falwell, who wrote that “any diligent student of American history finds that our great nation was founded by godly men upon godly principles to be a Christian nation.”
Waldman agrees that the 13 colonies were Christian, but many only sought to establish their own religion. The Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony were not interested in tolerating any other religion. Maryland, founded as a Catholic refuge, became by 1681 a primarily Protestant colony. The Protestants took control of the government and established the Church of England using taxes to support churches and clergy. Virginia did the same.
As far as the view that the Founding Fathers were Deists who wanted religious freedom, Waldman notes that few of them were real Deists, those who believe that “God created the laws of nature and then receded from action” (p. 192). He says that most of the Founders disagreed with the second part of that statement. Many were orthodox Christians.
The Faith of the Founders
The first chapters of the book discuss the principal faiths of Colonial America – the Puritans, the Anglicans, the Quakers and the Baptists – but the heart of the book is the faith of the key founders. Waldman thought to show how their spiritual journeys might have influenced their ideas about religious freedom. Franklin, who was raised as a Puritan, developed a somewhat hybrid philosophy based on reason. He wanted a society that was “religiously dynamic” and tolerant of other religions. He feared a government dominated by any religious faction.
Adams was somewhat of a Unitarian, believing that “Christianity was based on a revelation from God, but that the true parts had been mixed with many fables and legends. (p. 35)
There were other assertions about the Founding Fathers that Waldman sought to clarify. One was that the Founding Fathers were serious Christians. Both Jefferson and Franklin rejected the divinity of Jesus and Franklin, Jefferson and Adams abhorred the Calvinist idea that salvation was pre-determined. Madison and Washington never spoke of Jesus as divine.
Benjamin Franklin
Ben Franklin’s convictions were shaped early on in his childhood. Ben grew up in a Puritan home in which his father’s role in the church “was to enforce Sunday attendance, and watch out for nightwalkers, tipplers, Sabbath breakers….or whatever else tending toward debauchery, irreligion, profaneness and atheism” (p.18). The idea that virtues lead to a life of salvation surrounded Ben Franklin. The “one sword” concept also was evident in his rearing. While Ben was able to embrace the moral codes that his families Puritanism taught he was not able to embrace their exclusivity. “Ben was like a child who both respects the integrity and hates the narrow-mindedness of his stodgy parents” (p.18). This appreciation for the integrity taught by the Puritans deepened as Ben listened to the teachings of Cotton Mathers. “He became intrigued by Cotton Mather’s emphasis on personal virtue who laid out a series of moral rules that would influence Franklin” (p.19). Ben was definitely heavily influenced by the idea of a works based salvation. Ben’s unwillingness to be narrow minded attracted him to Deism while working in his brother’s workshop “he was exposed to all manner of religious writings some which attacked Deism. Franklin embraced Deism who concluded that Deist principles were much stronger than the Refutations” (p.19).
Ben at age 22 proclaims his full theology saying that there was one supreme being, author and father of the gods themselves. Franklin believed that the supreme god had created many gods and that the god of our solar system cares for us and pays attention to us. He believed that humans owed the god of this solar system something and the best thing we could was to live virtuously. Ben did not embrace the idea of original sin and felt that man could reform themselves. Influenced by Cotton Mathers, Ben wrote a list of virtues that he would practice daily and assess at the end of the day. Ben liked the idea of religion but only in his customized version. “His true faith was religious pluralism he wanted a society that was religiously dynamic and relentlessly accepting of differences” (p. 24). The rise and fall of the Quakers impacted Franklin’s views on Religion and government. While Franklin admired the Quakers in Pennsylvania for their tolerance of different religions and commitment to virtuous living he did not agree with their pacifism that lead to their downfall. “Franklin could not help but observe that any government dominated by a particular religion faction even one of tolerance would struggle if it tried to legislate religious views” (p. 26). Franklin’s upbringing and later writings, which focus on virtuous living and exposure to other religions, leads Waldman to dub him the “Puritan New Ager”.
John Adams
John Adams, the son of a deacon, was in church service every Sunday. Puritanism also shaped Adams outside of the church because by law the local schools were required to teach Puritan principles. Schools taught the Westminster confession, the core of the Congregational Faith, and the Ten Commandments. Through school, church, and family Adams came to revere God and his ancestors this played an important role throughout his development.
As Adams grew he became critical of some aspects of his religion. A large influence was that of Lemuel Briant who believed that good works played a major role in determining the soul’s fate. This idea that individual behavior could affect salvation split his town. Also around this time Adams was studying religion and philosophy. He also listened to enlightenment theists like John Locke who wanted to apply reason to faith in order to enhance it. Adams believed that since God created the laws of the universe, the scientific study of nature would help us understand His mind and conform to his wishes. He became convinced that while God loved a good argument, Christian leaders didn’t (p. 34).
Adams did not enjoy the hypocrisy that took place when church leaders would forgive immoral behavior when exhibited by one of their own, but would react violently if one their truths was questioned (p. 34). Adams began to reject orthodox Christian theology, like the idea of original sin and the Trinity, because he felt these ideas were illogical. Like Franklin, he was repulsed by the Protestant doctrine that salvation was determined by only faith – the acceptance of Christ as personal savior – rather than deeds. Adams eventually became a Unitarian. He did so because he called himself a Christian by placing an emphasis on Jesus’ moral teachings but rejected the offensive claims that would exclude others.
Nevertheless, Adams understood that religion held an important place in any society, and ultimately supported all Christian endeavors. He wrote, “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the blackguard Paine say what he will.” He wrote that “the best republics will be virtuous and without religion, virtue could not flourish” (p. 37). He thought religion was a perfect system to regulate morality. Adams also believed that God was actively engaged in the events of the world especially in the settlement of America. Adams also believed that God had chosen him for his political career and the presidency. Adams believed that religion had to play an important role as America became an independent republic. Although Adams later identified himself as a Unitarian, his Puritan’s roots held him in a dilemma with “the love of freedom and the love of repression” (p. 38). It was for this reason that Adams was the lone founding father that did not turn away from the idea of state-supported-religions. Adams’s Puritan background also gave him his negative attitude towards Catholicism. He viewed them as the enemy, an inferior religion, and tyrannical.
George Washington
George Washington was universally admired in the colonies for his leadership through the Revolutionary War, but he was also revolutionary in his application of religious toleration. Although not a frequent church attendee, he did own two pews in the Pohick church and served the church in some minor ways. Waldman writes, “One has the sense that were he alive today, he absolutely would head to church, unless there was a really good football game on.” (p. 58) He was “always serious and attentive” while at church. James Madison thought Washington was indeed spiritual but not interested in the complicated theological particulars of Christianity. Yet, he admonished the Indian chiefs he interacted with to follow “the religion of Jesus Christ.” Washington was also a Mason, a group that practiced broad religious tolerance.
While Washington saw that religious toleration was a virtue, he recognized the value of toleration pragmatically in the Revolution. Washington completely rejected the anti-Catholic sentiment that permeated through the colonies. He realized that unless he could render Canada a non-threat, he would be incapable of protecting America from a northern attack. Furthermore, America needed to win France as an ally. Thus, a critical lesson was learned and acted upon – one could either practice toleration and have liberty or reject toleration and live in tyranny. During the war, Washington displayed his dependence on providence. He believed that they could win only if God was on their side. This sense of “holy war” he communicated to the troops was a great motivating factor as well.
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, had perhaps the most complex religious views of the Founding Fathers, and many scholars consider him the nation’s principal deist. Waldman titles him “the Pious Infidel.” Perhaps his most unconventional view was that of Scripture and revelation. He was a great admirer of Jesus, but didn’t believe him divine. He created his own Bible, specifically the four gospels, by editing out the parts that asserted Jesus’ divinity and miracles in order to create his own version. He called it The Philosophy of Jesus, which we now know as The Jefferson Bible. Jefferson believed that Jesus authored “the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.” He wanted to separate the “diamonds” of Jesus’ thought from the “dunghill” of corruption by the Apostle Paul, by the early church, by the great Protestant reformers, and by the clergy. Yet, Jefferson believed in a providential God, so he was not a full deist. He said in his first inaugural address that we should be “acknowledging and adoring an overruling providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter.” (p. 81) In fact, Waldman states that he even supported a variant on intelligent design!
Jefferson believed that organized religion inevitably would oppose true freedom. In the words of Waldman, Jefferson was certain that “[the] secret to religious freedom was destroying the concept of heresy, the crime of expressing unauthorized religious thought.” (p. 73) This was quite a personal issue to him, since his views were quite unorthodox. As a result, he was quite willing to tolerate other views. “I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our god and our consciences, for which we were accountable to him, and not the priests. I never told my own religion, nor scrutinized that of another.” (p. 80) Jefferson considered his work in passing the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom to be one of the crowning achievements of his life, emphasizing how important the separation of church and state was to him.
James Madison
Waldman seems to have a particular fondness for James Madison, who fought to keep state and federal governments away from religion, having seen firsthand some religious persecution. Madison, of course, is famous for writing and leading the passage of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
He was raised as an Anglican in Virginia, but was quite the “radical pluralist” as Waldman says. Though as a child he was inundated with the establishment church, he went to the “evangelical” Christian university, the College of New Jersey (later to be known as Princeton). He did not become an evangelical, but he certainly held much respect for them. After finishing college and going back to Virginia, he saw the persecution of the Virginia Baptists by the Anglican church. Madison’s sympathetic outlook towards the Baptists led to increasingly more dislike towards the Anglican establishment, and he worked to defend the Baptists in court. This plunge into the politics of religious liberty would be continued throughout his life, and he worked tirelessly to promote liberty of conscience throughout the ratification process of the Constitution and passage of the Bill of Rights.
Surprises in Founding Faith
Many people will be surprised that Franklin and Jefferson did not believe that Jesus was divine. And apparently, so did Adams, who as a Unitarian, supported Jesus’ moral teachings rather than his bringing of salvation. Also surprising was that Franklin, like Jefferson, edited or stripped miracles from religious writings. While Jefferson created his own edited Bible, Franklin edited the Apostles Creed and rewrote the Lord’s Prayer (p. 22). A third surprise was that the Great Awakening – or maybe simply religion – was a spur to the Revolutionary War. He notes that “many founding fathers used religious language to justify rebellion and rally the people to the cause.” (p. 41)
A general theme that is quite surprising is the sense that the faith of the Founding Fathers, or at least that of the five examined in Founding Faith, is much more complex than we often care to admit. They did not have a unified outlook on religion or the separation of church and state. It is this very fact indeed that led them to restrict so profoundly the influence that the state could have upon religion and vice versa! But not only was the Founding Fathers’ outlook not unified, they had just as complex and thought through views as people today. We often take for granted that each of us is a thinking person with diverse experiences, education, and viewpoints. The same holds true for the Founding Fathers. They were not paragons of perfection chiseled in stone for us to observe and model after; they were real people who had complicated, multi-faceted existences. The attitude of many towards the Founding Fathers often neglects that humans are complex creatures and cannot be deconstructed into neatly divisible packets of legal theory, philosophy, and religion.
Recommendation
Founding Faith came highly recommended, and I agree that it is a book definitely worth reading and recommending to others. Waldman presents much evidence about the Founding Fathers that rarely enters the public spotlight, and that alone speaks to its value for today. The historical insight of Waldman is superb; he deftly maneuvers through mountains of information and assembles it in a very readable fashion.
However, there are a couple of points worth noting that detract from the book overall. Waldman has a very low view of the Puritans, and could probably have done a better job footnoting the studies that show how many Puritans lived peacefully with others unlike some of the more popular stereotypes. Although books could likely be written about each of the Founding Fathers, one will not learn much about the views outside of the five men highlighted in Waldman’s book. Some specific references to other works on different Founding Fathers and their religious views would help the reader not to get into a similar form of tunnel vision that Waldman wants to prevent. The Founding Fathers did not have a unified view of religion and the separation of church and state, neither does a presentation of five of their views constitute the whole as well.
An additional book to recommend, similar to Waldman’s, is Jon Meacham’s American Gospel, which details the history of religion and politics in the United States beginning with the Founding Fathers. Both Waldman and Meacham suggest the little known or hidden religious influences on those Founding Fathers.
Purchase Founding Faith from Amazon.com and support my book buying, reading, and writing habits!
Tags: biography, constitution, founding fathers, history, recommended books, religious freedom




