Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? A Historical Introduction. By John Fea. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011. Pp. 287).Was America founded to be a "Christian Nation?" Did its founders endeavor to create a nation where Christ and Cross were joined hand-in-hand with the Constitution? And if so, how is America's current makeup in harmony/defiance with the "original intent" of our nation's Founding Fathers? These are just some of the questions addressed by John Fea, historian and author of the book, Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? A Historical Introduction. With the current climate of today's culture wars, which seem more interested in mud-slinging, name-calling and partisan hostility than honest scholarly inquiry, Dr. Fea's book is a breath of fresh air that cuts through the nonsense with its sharp historical foundation.
Fea's book jumps right out of the gate to address many of the problems facing the current culture wars v. the actual study of early American history. Appealing to the formula created by historians Thomas Andrews and Flannery Burke, Fea suggests that greater clarity on the issue of religion and America's founding can be achieved by adherence to the "Five C's": history CHANGES over time, must be put in proper CONTEXT, is interested in CAUSALITY, is CONTINGENT upon prior conditions and is often very COMPLEX. With this framework in mind, Fea effectively lays out the problems many of the culture warriors face when they simplify history to fit their respective agenda:
Such an approach to the past is more suitable for a lawyer than for a historian...The lawyer cares about the past only to the degree that he or she can use a legal decision in the past to win a case in the present...The historian, however, does not encounter the past in this way(xxvi).In other words, the "tug-o-war" mentality of today's culture warriors means that they aren't concerned with what history has to say, but with what they can say about history, and in the process the truth has become lost (or less important).
To get the reader back on the Yellow Brick Road of historical accuracy and out of the "sound-bite culture that makes it difficult to have any sustained dialogue", Fea divides his book into three parts. In part I, Fea examines the evolution of the "Christian Nation" thesis by exploring how its conceptualization meant different things at different times to different groups of people. For example, Fea notes how southerners, during the Civil War, endeavored to portray the United States as a godless, sinful society while their new Confederacy embraced the Christian God with open arms:
Southerners looking for evidence that the Confederacy was a Christian nation needed to look no further than their Constitution. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, which does not mention God, the Preamble of the constitution of the Confederate States of America made a direct appeal to "Almighty God."(17).In addition, Fea also mentions the ironic (but often ignored) fact that many liberals during the post-Civil War era supported the "Christian Nation" thesis while many conservatives rejected it. Liberal preachers like Henry Ward Beecher (who, like many preachers today, ended up in a messy sex scandal) campaigned vigorously in favor of America's Christian identity. They sought to ensure that America's destiny was in harmony with Christ's admonition to help the poor, sick, etc.:
These Protestants thought that the Christian identity of the United States should be defined by the way society and government behaved. The citizens of a Christian nation followed the social teachings of Jesus...Those who championed the social gospel sought to advance the cause of justice and love throughout the nation and the world.(37).Liberal Evangelicals, advocating for the social changes needed in a "Christian Nation." Surely enough to make Glenn Beck's head explode in confusion and rage!
In Part II of his book, Fea addresses the question, "Was the American Revolution a Christian Event?" To address this question, Fea juxtaposes America's "planting" (i.e. the migration of the Puritans) to America's "founding" (the actual creation of the United States). Fea's analysis of America's planting reveals that although many of the first settlers to the "New World" came for religious reasons, their motives weren't always as "Christian" as we sometimes think. For example, the early Puritans, who crossed the Atlantic to ensure "religious freedom" made sure to establish the same rigid rules to protect their faith that had existed back home in England. In other words, America became a land of Christian liberty, so long as your Christianity fell in line with the accepted Christianity. In addition, Fea points out the fact that religion was far from the exclusive motivator for New World colonization. Economic factors (i.e. the "Get rich quick" mentality) became central to the motivations behind American colonization.
When speaking of America's founding Fea discusses the role that religion played in shaping the revolutionary rhetoric that led up to independence. In essence, Fea suggests that religion served as an effective rallying cry, as ministers wielded Christianity as a sword in favor of independence. And though this religious rhetoric proved extremely effective, the American Revolution was hardly a religious debate. Fea writes:
the most important documents connected to the coming of the American Revolution focused more on Enlightenment political theory about the constitutional and natural rights of British subjects than on any Christian or biblical reason why resistance to the Crown was necessary.(106).Fea supports this assertion by pointing to founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the federal Constitution. He suggests that all three documents (especially the Constitution) remain intentionally neutral on the topic of religion. In consequence, the Founders essentially left the issue of religion up to the individual states. As a result, the founders were effectively able to endorse the United States as a religious nation without giving Christianity any preference points.
In part III Fea examines the individual religious views of many key founders. In so doing, Fea effectively illustrates the fact that America's founders included devout, orthodox Christians (John Witherspoon, John Jay and Samuel Adams), secular Deists who doubted the divinity of Jesus and Christianity (Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson), and unitarian-leaning devotees, who detested orthodoxy but valued public and private religious devotion (George Washington and John Adams). This part of Fea's book is perhaps the most valuable because it shows that America's founding was as diverse as its participants. There was room at the table for Christians of all flavors as well as for skeptics of all shapes and colors.
In summary, Was America Founded as a Christian Nation is a fantastic introduction into this complex but fascinating era of American history. John Fea effectively sweeps away most of the smoke and mirrors employed by various culture warriors on both sides, thus allowing the history to speak for itself. So was America founded as a Christian nation? It probably depends on how you define those terms. Much of this debate is simply an argument over semantics. The more important question is, "can we cut through the convoluted mess of the culture wars and get at an answer"?
John Fea's book is proof that we can.
28 comments:
secular Deists who doubted the divinity of Jesus and Christianity (Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson)
And who else? Much mileage is claimed for these guys, but they're about it.
unitarian-leaning devotees, who detested orthodoxy but valued public and private religious devotion (George Washington and John Adams)
By this we mean John Adams in his private letters, since of Washington [or Madison], we cannot say.
In consequence, the Founders essentially left the issue of religion up to the individual states.
Most folks don't know that, or that with the exception of Virginia, "separation of church and state" meant nothing like what people today insist it means.
the most important documents connected to the coming of the American Revolution focused more on Enlightenment political theory about the constitutional and natural rights of British subjects than on any Christian or biblical reason why resistance to the Crown was necessary.
Any more on this, Brad, some "for instances?" Just axin'.
I'm thinking here of James Otis' opposition to the Writs of Assistance, which John Adams credited for its seminality in the Colonies' case for their rights, at the heart of which is quite a theological/natural law argument, not an Enlightenment one.
There can be no prescription old enough to supersede the law of nature, and the grant of God almighty; who has given to all men a natural right to be free, and they have it ordinarily in their power to make themselves so, if they please...
Government is founded immediately on the necessities of human nature, and ultimately on the will of God, the author of nature; who has not left it to men in general to choose, whether they will be members of society or not, but at the hazard of their senses if not of their lives.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=267
A Democratic Republic: one in which governors and lawmakers are expected to consult and give deference to the majority's wishes, except when they see such wishes as damaging to peace, justice, liberty, security and the general welfare of the people.
A Christian Republic: one in which governors and lawmakers are expected to consider which policies best promote peace, justice, liberty, security and the general welfare of the people, except when they see such policies as contrary to the will and commandments of God as revealed in the Bible.
A fair or unfair summary/definition?
Jeffrey Kramer
(And on re-reading I see it would be more balanced if I changed the opposition to "A Secular Democratic Republic" vs. "A Christian Democratic Republic.")
Jeffrey Kramer
TVD writes:
The most important documents connected to the coming of the American Revolution focused more on Enlightenment political theory about the constitutional and natural rights of British subjects than on any Christian or biblical reason why resistance to the Crown was necessary.
Any more on this, Brad, some "for instances?" Just
I would probably refer you to chapters 6 and 7 of Fea's book. That is where he goes into further depth on the subject. I chose not to discuss that portion very much in my review because...well....it's a review. I guess you can only mention brief parts and have to pick and choose. The nature of the beast I suppose. I do think you would like the book.
Brad: Outstanding review of an outstanding book.
Thx, Brad. I just wanted some examples. For instance, did James Otis make it.
Not only did I not see John Fea use the term "secular Deist," but he doesn't even think it suitable to apply the term, deist, to any of the founders. On page 131 he says, Jefferson, as we will see in chapter 13, was not a deist. He did, at times, believe that God supernaturally intervened into human affairs. [...] Deists, freethinkers, and Enlightened liberals such as Jefferson would have no problem affirming the idea that natural rights came from God. Here Fea fails to identify Jefferson as a deist of any stripe but wants the reader to see Jefferson as an "Enlightened liberal."
In Chapter 13 (page 175) Fea elaborates, Eighteenth-century deists believed in a "watchmaker God" -- a deity who created the world as we know it and then drew back and let it run on the natural laws that he set in place. The problem I have with Fea's definition of a deist is that it relies on post-18th century sources to make his case.
Fea's pulpit slant on deism becomes evident where on page 175 he talks about George Washington. Here he says It is inaccurate to label Washington a "deist," as Edwin Gaustad has done. It might be that one can discount Gaustad's present-day viewpoint, but it difficult for me to understand why Fea makes no mention at all of Reverend James Abercrombie's contemporary declaration, Washington was a Deist!
Thanks, Jon. It was an outstanding book.
Ray, I would say that clergymen would use "deist" pejoratively for anyone falling short of orthodoxy. The writings of clergy in that period seem different than those of normal people.
Tom, allow me to suggest that the basic reason why the "deist" label became such a pejorative term was not due to the aspersions of an orthodox clergy but due to the backlash caused by militant deism and the French Revolution.
Ray: 2 possibly viable objections I pulled off the internet [I do not vouch for them, however]:
http://bibowen.hubpages.com/hub/Washington-Deist
One obvious proof that George Washington was a deist according to proponents was that he was once called a deist. Speaking to another man, the Rev. James Abercrombie, the assistant rector at Christ Church in Philadelphia, said, “Sir, Washington was a deist. (2)” However, this appears to be a chastisement to Washington because he was not a communicant in Abercrombie’s church in Philadelphia because the same minister followed up this comment by saying that “I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion.(3)”
In Washington’s Anglican tradition, a communion service would follow the preaching service. After the preaching service, the—“liturgy of the word”—most would dismiss and a few would stay to receive the communion. While he was in Philadelphia, Washington would get up after the preaching service with most of the congregants and leave before the communion service.
Regardless of his reason for not communing, that he dismissed himself is hardly evidence of deism. As a deist, why would Washington participate in every ritual of the Anglican tradition, save communion? Why would a deist even feel the need to participate in a Christian service at any level whether it was the preaching service or the communion service? At most, the fact that George Washington did not commune might support the proposition that he was not a good Christian or not a Christian at all, but it would not support the claim that Washington was a deist.
And:
Abercrombie’s accusation is dubious regardless of the clarification of his comment. In 1793 Abercrombie had been passed over for a government position in the Washington Administration. It is possible that the remark was a slight from a disgruntled jobseeker.
_________________
The second one is not incompatible with your comment.
The second comment sounds like poisoning the well or the genetic fallacy.
There is no question that the uber-orthodox mindset represented by the creedal clergy types saw those who failed their "orthodoxy" test as no better than "Deists" and they-oft cast this aspersion at Christian identifying, Jesus Messiah believing unitarians. To these orthodox Jonathan Mayhew, Charles Chauncy, Joseph Priestley and Richard Price (all Revs!) were no better than "deists."
If you guys are interested email me and I will forward your email to Joseph Waligore. He has a paper and a book coming out that shows many/most of, almost all of the reputed "English Deists" believed in an active personal God and may have really been unorthodox, heterodox Christians. I think he still wants to retain the "Deist" label for them. Gregg Frazer's book on theistic rationalism hopefully will be out soon and wants to reject the Deist label for folks who believe in an active personal God. I hope those two books come out during similar times as it will be interesting to contrast their findings. What was Conyers Middleton for instance? An English Deist? A theistic rationalist? Middleton's theology was probably more par for the course for the "English Deists" than the non-intervening God definition.
The second comment sounds like poisoning the well or the genetic fallacy.
Not atall: if one can prove animus, the witness poisoned the well himself.
There is no question that the uber-orthodox mindset represented by the creedal clergy types saw those who failed their "orthodoxy" test as no better than "Deists"
Yah, that was my argument. It would be interesting to see who else Abercrombie called a deist, and again, clergy were the type to use this slam.
many/most of, almost all of the reputed "English Deists" believed in an active personal God and may have really been unorthodox, heterodox Christians.
This comports with my readings. Tom Paine, whom I'd call a deist, even spoke of Providence once or twice.
I think he still wants to retain the "Deist" label for them.
Gregg Frazer's book on theistic rationalism hopefully will be out soon and wants to reject the Deist label for folks who believe in an active personal God.
What "deist" meant back in the day seems of most concern. Non-Christian or unorthodox Christian? Judeo-Christian, as in Jehovah is real in some sense? Tom Paine rejected the Bible completely and I'd say Jefferson saw the Bible as the work of man only, not God.
But as for the rest, I wouldn't even put Ben Franklin there: he seems more agnostic, as in, "I don't know."
First off, I'm not trying flormalize whether any of the Founding Fathers represented or considered themselves as being a deist or not. My concern is whether their contemporaies felt justified when using that label.
To Lillback's credit, he reported, "The meaning of Deism has changed through the years. What Deism meant in Washington's day and what it meant later is an important point in terms of understanding the religious milieu of George Washington." (With that said, I can't say whether Lillback actually understood what that change actually meant.)
In contrast when it comes to Fea, even though he recommends that "Historians must see change over time", his definition for "deist" seems to be molded like a fossil for the sake of staying within the comfort zone of his intended readers.
Well we know Washington avoided communion and we also know a common reason why figures avoided communion was they didn't believe in what the act represented.
Abercrombie realized the "Washington was a Deist!" bit was a stretch but his -- “I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion” -- was not anything out of left field rather something that "fit" with the facts.
BTW: I was referring above to a new article by Walligore that is going in a book of his. I'm not losing my mind; I realize we linked to his article on Deists and miracles before.
The problem with Washington (and we have discussed this MANY times here at AC) is that we cannot say with certainty what his beliefs were due to the lack of "smoking gun" evidence. However, the available evidence does allow us to make a CIRCUMSTANTIAL case against his being a devout orthodox Christian.
But hey, I'm not an "orthodox" Christian myself (according to "normal" standards) and I take great offense at people who accuse Mormons of not being Christian. So even if he wasn't orthodox, I am not willing to say that he wasn't truly Christian.
Again, this mostly boils down to semantics.
I just went and followed the footnote to the Abercrombie being passed up for a job incident.
http://tinyurl.com/3p37w4r
1792, he was chosen a member of the Common Council of the city of Philadelphia. Having continued in trade ten years, the occupation had become exceedingly irksome to him, and he resolved on making a change. In
1793, he solicited, under the most respectable patronage, the office of Treasurer of the Mint; but General Washington, in consequence of a resolution which he had formed not to appoint two persons from the same State, as officers in any one department, felt obliged to deny the application. He subsequently took an office in the Bank of the United States, but found it so totally uncongenial with his taste, that he resigned it, after the labour of a single day.
Reflecting on this, I have a hard time seeing how this should have anything to do with Abercrombie's opinion on Washington. Washington had a bureaucratic rule on job requirements and followed it.
Saying Abercrombie had a "score to settle" is part of Peter Lillback's chapter where he desperately tries to find non-Deist, pro-orthodox Christian explanations as to why GW didn't take communion and was called out by Ambercrombie for it. There is no evidence Abercrombie wanted to settle any kind of score with Washington. Rather it's the same kind of fabricated speculation that Lillback slams Paul Boller for but engages in himself.
"He was a Tory" is another one of Lillback's "explanations."
Washington, Holy Communion:
I actually looked this one up on my own, but never did a post on it. "Easter Duty," to take Holy Communion once a year, was a leftover from Roman Catholicism kept by the Anglican/Episcopalian/Church of England.
Further, how the pastor should confront the non-Communicant---just as Abercrombie did---is explicitly prescribed at the back of the [Anglican] Book of Common Prayer in use in Washington's time.
I did all the research on my own one day because I wondered. Anyone interested can look it up, or I'll help if you can't find it. And I do apologize for my laziness on the mainpage and not posting this there: it's just that I'm not all about that.
__________
(With that said, I can't say whether Lillback actually understood what that change actually meant.)
Soller: In contrast when it comes to Fea, even though he recommends that "Historians must see change over time", his definition for "deist" seems to be molded like a fossil for the sake of staying within the comfort zone of his intended readers.
Interesting, Ray. John Fea is a friend-of-the-blog, and I don't know what you mean by his "intended readers," or their "comfort zone."
But you seem to have a copy or at least quote from it directly, so you can either say what you think or leave me and us in the dark.
(With that said, I can't say whether Lillback actually understood what that change actually meant...)
Now that was damn funny and ace. I didn't read the Lillback book, but read many of his essays surrounding it, and his was definitely the work of an advocate for his orthodox Christian POV, not a dispassionately scholarly consideration, nor one that any any understanding of Christianity outside his own orthodox milieu.
Outsiders have no understanding of people's relationship with the Eucharist. What I will say here is that a close family member attended [Roman Catholic] Mass without fail on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, but stopped taking Holy Communion for his own personal and devout reasons, according to the teaching of the Church as to who should gather at the Lord's Table.
This person was no deist.
Google also "Fencing the Lord's Table," an Anglican thing, not even Roman Catholic. Here's the modern version. If anyone's interested, look up the one in force in GWash's time. I have never seen anyone do so in all my readings of this controversy [perhaps Lillback does, but so what]. GWash and Holy Communion is used as a weapon in the culture wars, both for and against. I pass this on in case anyone is interest in the truth of the matter.
http://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/book-of-common-prayer/the-lord's-supper-or-holy-communion.aspx
Is fencing the table a reference to Paul in I Corinthians 11? David Holmes and Alf Mapp raise that issue in their discussion of GW. If I recall, Mapp said "maybe" but Holmes doubted it to explain why GW didn't commune (Holmes' explanation GW didn't believe in what the act represented). It could be GW felt "unworthy" to take communion because the Tories who ran the church preached rebellion is sin ala Romans 13. :). I think though, Brad hits the bottom line of in the absence of smoking guns there will always be reason to disagree or not know for sure about this one.
Jon, if I recall correctly, Anglican pastors used to give out a redeemable token to those who had [in private] passed the parson's test about who was worthy to receive communion. That was "fencing the Lord's table."
I did a lot of research on this but never wrote it up. You can follow up or we can just leave this at grenade-toss level like all the iother culture warriors. I'm just sharing my own research here at AC, since I found clues but never followed it up to scholarly certainty, because honestly, I find the grenade-tossing on GWash and Holy Communion to be a political weapon and not a search for truth. Mostly, it turns my stomach, for the reasons I gave above about a member of my own family.
Nobody has a right to judge what was going through his heart and mind in denying himself Holy Communion.
If you're interested in the truth, you must look up the Book of Common Prayer of that time and its explicit instruction to the pastor how to approach and confront non-Communicants. Just as Abercrombie did to GWash.
No, I don't think GWash's abstention was because of an Anglican/Episcopalian vow to the British crown as the head of the Church of England. I looked that one up too: it was a vow that only applied to its clergy. It was something else.
One of the links here that I followed said that most who attended services left when Holy Commuinion came. this comports with other things I've read. And if you've ever been to a Roman Catholic mass---and I know you have---although they don't walk out, many remain in their seats come Communion time.
And nobody gives them even a sideways look. That's between them and their God. Whoever He may be. Why a man skips Communion is nobody's business but his own.
Tom,
I think you, Brad, and I agree that in the absence of smoking guns we just don't know why GW skipped communion.
Perhaps I need to get off my Lillback obsession; but I'm mainly concerned with answering his chapter on communion. His logic was something along the lines of "since we have proven GW wasn't a strict deist, let's look for other explanations that 'fit' with the orthodox Trinitarian explanation." I agree with Lillback that "strict Deist" doesn't fit. But David Holmes' "Christian-Deist" (or Gregg's hybrid) "fits" just as well as any of Lillback's orthodox explanations.
As John Marshall's daughter said of his not taking communion:
"The reason why he never communed was, that he was a Unitarian in opinion, though he never joined their society. He told her he believed in the truth of the Christian Revelation, but not in the divinity of Christ; therefore he could not commune in the Episcopal Church."
The fuller quote:
http://tinyurl.com/447gh5x
I have read some remarks of yours in regard to C hief Justice Marshall, which have suggested to me to communicate to you the following facts, which may be useful should you again publish anything in relation to his religious opinions. I often visited Mrs. Gen'l Harvie during her last illness. From her I received this statement. She was much with her father during the last months of his life, and told me that the reason why he had never communed was that he was Unitarian in opinion, though he never joined their society. He told her, that he believed in the truth of the Christian revelation, but not in the divinity of Christ, therefore he could not commune in the Episcopal Church. Hut during the last months of his life, he read Keith on Prophecy, where our Saviour's divinity is incidentally treated, and was convinced by his work, and the fuller investigation to which it led, of the supreme divinity of the Saviour. He determined to apply for admission to the communion of our C hurch—objected to commune in private, because he thought it his duty to make a public confession of the Saviour—and while waiting for improved health to enable him to go to Church for that purpose, he grew worse and died without ever communing. Mrs. Harvie was a lady of the strictest probity, the most humble piety, and of a clear, discriminating mind, and her statement, the substance of which I give you accurately (having reduced it to writing), may be entirely relied upon.
I remember to have heard Bishop Moore repeatedly express his surprise (when speaking of Judge Marshall), that, though he was so punctual in his attendance at church and reproved Mr. , and Mr. , and Mr. when they were absent, and knelt during the prayers and responded fervently, yet he never communed. The reason was that which he gave to his daughter, Mrs. Harvie. She said he died an humble, penitent believer in Christ, according to the orthodox creed of the Church. Very truly your friend and brother in Christ,
William Norwood.
Brad, thanks for the review. It's solidified my commitment to get the book - it's now next on the reading list.
I'm about 2/3 of the way through Sehat's The Myth of American Religious Freedom and think that Dr. Fea's book will make an excellent companion volume....and vice versa. Have you read this one yet?
/thanks Brad for the review!
this one is one the to-read list, but there's a lot in front of it…
If a public man like Washington left no “smoking gun” about his religious beliefs I'd suggest he didn’t want us to assign him any specific religious label. Just a thought. In any case, I'm enjoying the arguments.
Post a Comment