Asking the Right Questions

On America's Declaration of Independence and In General. 

I noted when discussing the sentiments of Leo Strauss' followers that I didn't think America's Declaration of Independence was a "Christian" document but rather, it's a "theistic" document. My reasons for this is the document doesn't invoke the Trinity, Jesus Christ or even Jehovah, but rather speaks of a God of some sort (in four places) in more generic terms. Further, it doesn't quote verses and chapter of scripture authoritatively. I got pushback from a friend. And I understand the reasons why; some of them apt. I would concede, for instance, that some/many of the important ideas contained in the DOI were earlier posited by serious Christian thinkers. 

In my post on the Straussians, I noted that "[t]hey ask the right questions" even if one doesn't always agree with their conclusions, hence they are worth seriously engaging. One obvious point for the "pro-Christian America" side is that America's DOI emerges out "Christendom." Renowned evangelical/reformed scholars Drs. Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and George Marsden in their book "The Search For Christian America" raise the bar beyond watered down, "generic Christendom" in their analysis on the "Christian America/Nation" question. In doing so, they didn't find the American founding to be very "Christian." 

But here is an example of the kind of pertinent questions that they, and the Straussians (I don't think the three scholars are Straussians, but their methodology and conclusions are similar and they also at times have cited one another) ask:

"Is the authoritative invocation of Aristotle and Cicero authentically 'Christian'?" 

I write this because, on the subject of America's DOI, Thomas Jefferson in his 1825 letter to Richard Henry Lee tells us of its sources:

All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c. …

Aristotle and Cicero were neither Jews nor Christians. Whether authoritatively citing them is "Christian" is debatable. The very influential reformed philosopher and theologian did not think that authoritatively citing Aristotle was authentically "Christian." Schaeffer didn't appreciate the theology of Thomas Aquinas who incorporated Aristotle into Christendom. Yet, America's founders authoritatively cited Aristotle, and even more so, the later "Romans" like Cicero. 

One problem with Schaeffer is that he tried to claim the American founding on behalf of his kind of reformed theology that looked to the four corners of the Bible and excluded sources like Aristotle et al. that other Christian traditions incorporate. This is a key criticisms that Noll, Hatch and Marsden make against Schaeffer. 

There was such a Calvinistic "reformed" influence on the American founding. Schaeffer was partial to Samuel Rutherford of "Lex Rex" fame. This tradition still arguably doesn't "own" the founding, certainly not Schaeffer's understanding of it. For one, as J Daryl Charles has noted, many of these reformers didn't eschew authoritative invocations of Aristotle; they incorporated the natural law and didn't break from Aquinas. 

Jefferson had strong disdain for Calvin and probably had some kind of bias against Calvinists (though he was friendly with Calvinists of his day who had similar political beliefs). We might understand why he would be hesitant to credit that tradition for ideas which he supported and successfully implemented. Out of the four sources for America's DOI that he named, Algernon Sidney arguably was the authoritative representative for "reformed resistance." 

And then there's John Locke who is the most influential of the four sources that Jefferson named. How "Christian" was he and his ideas? Schaeffer wanted to credit Rutherford et al. for his ideas. But for reasons I need not go into here, that's problematic. Locke did nominally cite the Anglican Thomist Richard Hooker, but then proceeded to articulate ideas that seem unrelated to Hooker but looked more like a modified version of Hobbes, whose name Locke "justly decried." 

America's founders also negatively cited Hobbes, but it wasn't because of his "state of nature/social contract and rights" dynamic -- ideas Leo Strauss aptly termed "wholly alien to the Bible." Rather, it was because Hobbes' version of the ideal state was a big beast -- a Leviathan. 

There's also the question of whether Hobbes and Locke were themselves "Christians." Both identified as such. Both were suspected back then as of today as of atheism, deism, or otherwise esoterically holding unconventional religious beliefs. At minimum, both held esoteric unconventional religious beliefs in an era where one couldn't legally publicly proclaim such. 

Locke authoritatively cited the Bible for his novel propositions. I don't know enough about Hobbes to comment on whether he did. Rousseau likewise dressed his philosophy up in "Christian" clothes. 

This is my understanding. I will let others make of all this as they will. It's more important, as I see it, to ask the right questions and clarify one's understanding of the dynamics and let others do the same and decide for themselves. 

Jefferson and the Quran

 The Christian Bible was not the only religious tome to experience Thomas Jefferson’s examination. His vast collection of books contained many on religion. The Virginia Gazette, a newspaper from Williamsburg, served as a bookseller and sold Jefferson a two-volume set of the Quran in October of 1765.

 

It was titled “The Alcoran of Mohammed.” George Sale had translated it in 1734 from Arabic to English. In his introduction, Sale wrote that the purpose of the book was to help Protestants understand the Quran so that they could argue against it. He wrote:

 

“Whatever use an impartial version of the Korân may be of in other respects. It is absolutely necessary to undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair translations which have appeared, have entertained too favorable an opinion of the original, and also to enable us effectually to expose the imposture.”

 

Jefferson was 22 years-old and had studied law for three years when he obtained the book. Law professors of that time considered the Quran a book of law. Sale expanded on his motives:

 

“If the religious and civil Institutions of foreign nations are worth our knowledge, those of Mohammed, the lawgiver of the Arabians, and founder of an empire which in less than a century spread itself over a greater part of the world than the Romans were ever masters of, must needs be so.”

 

To them the Quran represented the ruling precepts of the Ottoman Empire, governing over 25 million people. Jefferson, as well as the Western world at that time, thought that the Quran was the chief representation of Islamic law. He is known to have studied the book, but it did not affect his practicing of law.

 

Jefferson carried the same anti-Islamic views of his colleagues. He did however, have the opinion that the Trinity and the humanness of Jesus were parallel in Islam. His experiences dealing with Islamic piracy in the Mediterranean Sea during his Presidency caused him to question Islam’s legitimacy as a religion.

 

In 1786, the United States found that it was having to deal directly with the doctrines of the Muslim religion. The Barbary states of North Africa were using the ports to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Thousands of ships were overtaken, and more than a million Europeans and Americans were sold as slaves. 

Congress offered an agreement called the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by Jefferson, which stated roundly that “the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims).”

 

Many considered this to be a secular affirmation that attempted to buy off the Muslim pirates by the payment of tribute. Soon after it was discovered that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, Tripoli’s envoy to London, had extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson later reported to the Secretary of State and to Congress his motive was backed by his religious beliefs:

 

“The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

 

Jefferson’s prejudice against Islam was questionable in some ways. He insisted on a constitution wherein “neither pagan nor Mahamedan (Muslim) nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion.” Still, to him and his contemporaries the idea of a Muslim president, or even a Muslim citizen, was an abstraction. The first American Muslims who traveled to the country, both free and enslaved, may have numbered in the tens of thousands, but at no time was true equality considered to be accessible.

 

That said, Jefferson did mention supporting religious freedom for Muslims in writings. He asserted in his autobiography that his original legislation for religious freedom had been intended “to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan [Muslim], the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.”

 

Late in his life he wrote disparaging terms about the religion and the book.

The Jefferson Bible

Thomas Jefferson rejected the “divinity” of Jesus, but he believed that Christ was a deeply interesting and profoundly important moral or ethical teacher. He also subscribed to the belief that it was in Christ’s moral and ethical teachings that a civilized society should be conducted. Cynical of the miracle accounts in the New Testament, Jefferson was convinced that the authentic words of Jesus had been contaminated.

 In 1820 he conducted what practicing Christians consider to be blasphemy. He completed an ambitious work titled “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, French and English.”

 

Using a razor and glue, Jefferson cut and pasted his arrangement of selected verses from a 1794 bilingual Latin/Greek version using the text of the Plantin Polyglot, a French Geneva Bible and the King James Version of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in chronological order—putting together excerpts from one text with those of another to create a single narrative.

 

The text of the New Testament appears in four parallel columns in four languages. Jefferson omitted the words that he thought were inauthentic and retained those he believed were original. The resulting work is commonly known as the “Jefferson Bible.”

 

No supernatural acts of Christ are included. Jefferson viewed Jesus as strictly human. He also believed that Jesus Himself ascribed to a more deistic belief system. In a letter to Benjamin Rush, he wrote:

 

“I should proceed to a view of the life, character, and doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism.” (April 9, 1803).

 

Jefferson also completely denied the resurrection. The book ends with the words: “Now, in the place where He was crucified, there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus. And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.”

 

Jefferson described the work in a letter to John Adams dated October 12, 1813:

 

“In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to them…We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus…There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is 46 pages of pure and unsophisticated doctrines.”

 

In a letter to Reverend Charles Clay, he described his results:

 

“Probably you have heard me say I had taken the four Evangelists, had cut out from them every text they had recorded of the moral precepts of Jesus, and arranged them in a certain order; and although they appeared but as fragments, yet fragments of the most sublime edifice of morality which had ever been exhibited to man.”

Most historians feel that Jefferson composed the book for his own satisfaction, supporting the Christian faith as he saw it. He did not produce it to shock or offend the religious community; he composed it for himself, for his devotion, and for his own personal assurance.

 

After completion of the Life and Morals, about 1820, Jefferson shared it with a number of friends, but he never allowed it to be published during his lifetime. The most complete form Jefferson produced was inherited by his grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph.

- Michael Aubrecht 

 

Liberty of Conscience and the Persistence of Blasphemy Laws in the United States

When I first started blogging on the issue of the political-theology of the American founding many years ago, I grappled with the notion that blasphemy laws continued to exist in the United States under its constitutional order. I quoted the following from the late Straussian scholar Walter Berns in his book "Making Patriots":

Liberty of conscience was widely accepted at the time of the Founding, but this did not prevent some jurists and legislatures from insisting, at least for a while (and given our principles it could be only for a while), that Christianity was part of the law, meaning the common law. So it had been in England, and so, it was assumed by some (but not Jefferson), it would continue to be in America. But there was no disagreement about the place of the common law. Indeed one of the first things done by the states after independence was to declare (here in the words of the New Jersey constitution of 1776) that “the common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law, as have been heretofore practiced in this Colony, shall remain in force, until they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature; such parts only excepted, as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Charter [or constitution].”  

But if the “rights and privileges” contained in the various state charters or constitutions included the right of liberty of conscience, and if, in turn, this right required, in Madison’s words, “a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters,” what did it mean to say that Christianity was part of the common law? Very little, as it turned out; and it turned out as it had to turn out. Consider, for example, the case of blasphemy in America…. pp. 32-33.

Berns then went on to note that to the extent that blasphemy prosecutions survived for a short period of time in the early American republic, it was redefined as something akin to a secular breach of the peace, with blasphemy now stripped of its religious character.

This site from the Library of Congress notes something similar:

One of the first recorded instances of someone being convicted for blasphemy in the state of New York occurred in 1811. In People v. Ruggles, the New York Supreme Court upheld the conviction, saying that the crime of blasphemy is “independent of any religious establishment,” and that it affects “the essential interests of civil society.” In 1824, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court similarly upheld a conviction for blasphemy in Updegraph v. Commonwealth. That court also concluded that blasphemy laws seek “not to force conscience by punishment, but to preserve the peace of the country….” Two more similar cases came down in the 1830s, with State v. Chandler in 1837 and Commonwealth v. Kneeland in 1838. In these cases, the Delaware Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Court both upheld blasphemy convictions on the grounds that they were meant to preserve public peace rather than punish beliefs.

Because these cases involved state law, the outcomes and rationales for them could differ. Below is a quotation from the Chandler decision that gives the secular, pluralistic rationale for blasphemy laws:

If in Delaware the people should adopt the Jewish or Mahometan religion, as they have an unquestionable right to do if they prefer it, this court is bound to notice it as their religion, and to respect it accordingly. 

 ...

It will be seen then that in our judgment by the constitution and laws of Delaware, the christian religion is a part of those laws, so far that blasphemy against it is punishable, while the people prefer it as their religion, and no longer. The moment they change it and adopt any other, as they may do, the new religion becomes in the same sense, a part of the law, for their courts are bound to yield it faith and credit, and respect it as their religion. Thus, while we punish the offence against society alone, we leave christianity to fight her own battles, ...

This is not "Christian Nationalism." Personally, I think blasphemy laws are NOT consistent with notions of "liberty of conscience" or the First Amendment. Here is an interesting letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, dated January 23rd, 1825 wherein he makes that point:

We think ourselves possessed or at least we boast that we are so of Liberty of conscience on all subjects and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment, in all crises and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact. There exists I believe throughout the whole Christian world a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or to doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the old and new Testaments from Genesis to Revelations. ... [E]ven in our Massachusett which I believe upon the whole is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States A law was made in the latter end of the last-century repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the old Testament or new Now what free inquiry when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigation into the divine authority of those books? ... I think such laws a great embarassment. great obstruction to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true few persons appear desirous to put such laws in execution and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them; but as long as they continue in force as laws the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were repealed. ...

Law and Liberty Symposium on Harvey Mansfield

Check it out here. Harvey Mansfield is a Straussian. I don't consider myself a "Straussian." Though I am "Straussian influenced" and "Straussian interested." They ask the right questions and engage in intense philosophical inquiry. They also have extremely contentious understandings, many of which I can't endorse. 

I'm interested in their view on Locke. They think he was either an atheist or a "deist" as we understand the term today (cold, non-intervening distant deity). There is no question Locke was an "esoteric" something; but I doubt it was THAT as opposed to some kind of freethinker on doctrines like The Trinity. I haven't studied Hobbes as much as Locke, but I doubt he was an atheist or cold deist either.

Though Locke did seem to be influenced by Hobbes in the sense that they spoke of a "state of nature" and then of a "social contract and rights." They may have had different understandings of such; however they were still speaking on that common philosophical ground. On the religion issue, Strauss himself aptly noted that this construct was "wholly alien to the Bible." Yet, during the revolutionary era, the concept of state of nature/social contract and rights ended up being preached from the pulpit.

The Straussian discourse involves the implications of all of this.

For instance, here is how Mansfield understands Locke and America's Declaration of Independence:

Certainly, we live in a world influenced by the ideas of modern political philosophy—and Mansfield provides a key to this influence for the low price of his book. He introduces us to Hobbes, who provides an image of man in his natural condition, wherein he has a right to his own person, yet nothing to safeguard this right. God has no place in this state of war, where each person has the right to preserve his life in whatever way he judges necessary. What comes out of this natural state of war? The idea of the social contract—a new kind of government based upon reasonable consent. “Nature teaches men to preserve themselves,” Mansfield explains, “but … reason teaches men to seek peace by consenting to a common power over them, the sovereign.” Reason now is the foundation of government. 

Locke gives us the right to private property by expanding man’s natural right to his own body to include a right to the products of man’s labor. This has direct political implications. For when men, once again driven by reason, exit the state of nature into the social contract, they do so not only to preserve life but to protect private property. Locke domesticates Machiavelli and Hobbes, and we see his influence overtly enshrined in documents like the Declaration of Independence.

Understanding America's Declaration of Independence as "domesticating Machiavelli and Hobbes" seems a bit of a stretch to me. Though, I agree that the notion of unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness really have nothing to do with the Bible or traditional practice of Christianity and that the DOI, although a theistic document, is not a "Christian" one.

The revolutionary language of America's DOI is more of a product of Enlightenment philosophy. However, there is other language in that document that speaks more of "resistance" under the extant positive law that resonates with reformed theology/philosophy. 

Understanding What Drove Political-Theological Notions of Liberty of Conscience During The American Founding

Catholics Persecuted Protestants; Protestants Persecuted Catholics; and Protestants Persecuted One Another.

The different sects disagreed with one another. But it went beyond mere disagreement. America's founders were acutely aware of the history of religious conflict that occurred after the Protestant reformation. The "political-theological problem," recent in their historical memory, that America's founders wished to transcend. This needs to be stressed to understand how America's founders understood the notion of "liberty of conscience" which they viewed as the most "unalienable" of rights. 

Here is George Washington reflecting on this dynamic:

I was in hopes that the enlightened & liberal policy which has marked the present age would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see their religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of Society.

There is contention over whose ideology is responsible for the American founding. As I see it, the ideological origins of the American founding came from disparate streams that formed an amalgam. Christianity, or Protestant Christianity, was one of four or five chief ideological sources (see Bernard Bailyn). Though, the Protestant Christian component was extremely "pluralistic" for lack of a better term, in a sectarian sense of the term (pluralities of sects). 

Mark David Hall and others argue that reformed/Calvinism predominated. That may be true. However, there were plenty of other sects who not only fought for their "place at the table," but did so with a strong distrust of Calvinists, especially of the Presbyterian bent. This is John Adams writing on how he regretted his recommendation for a National Fast as President because of Presbyterian distrust!

The National Fast, recommended by me turned me out of office. It was connected with the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which I had no concern in. That assembly has allarmed and alienated Quakers, Anabaptists, Mennonists, Moravians, Swedenborgians, Methodists, Catholicks, protestant Episcopalians, Arians, Socinians, Armenians, & & &, Atheists and Deists might be added. A general Suspicon prevailed that the Presbyterian Church was ambitious and aimed at an Establishment of a National Church. I was represented as a Presbyterian and at the head of this political and ecclesiastical Project. The secret whisper ran through them “Let us have Jefferson, Madison, Burr, any body, whether they be Philosophers, Deists, or even Atheists, rather than a Presbyterian President.” This principle is at the bottom of the unpopularity of national Fasts and Thanksgivings. Nothing is more dreaded than the National Government meddling with Religion.

Finally, much has been made about Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists wherein he invokes the term "separation of church and state." Much ink has been spilt on "the context" of what was meant by Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" and the implications thereof. Here is something to keep in mind: The "context" of the letter was a "complaint" about a particular religious sect who had control over Connecticut's then religious establishment -- the reformed/Calvinistic Congregational Church. Both Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists wanted to be "separate" from THEM. That's against whom their "wall" was directed.

Reformed Calvinists Deserve Credit For Political Liberty, But not Liberty of Conscience or Religious Liberty

Mark David Hall and his cohorts have shown an undeniably powerful, reformed/Calvinistic component driving the political-theological dimensions of the American founding. The "Calvinist resisters" as they have been termed, because they taught a privilege/right/duty to "resist tyranny." Here is Mark quoting John Adams on the matter:

In 1787, John Adams wrote that John Ponet’s Short Treatise on Politike Power (1556) contains “all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterwards dilated on by Sidney and Locke.”  He also noted the significance of Stephanus Junius Brutus’ Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos.  ...

Other names in this tradition might include Samuel Rutherford of "Lex Rex" fame and John Knox, who lead the reformation of the Church of Scotland. Calvin, as part of the political leadership of the City State of Geneva, saw a theological unitarian named Michael Servetus executed for heresy. To the extent that Calvin's 16th and 17th century "resisters" spoke on the matter, to a man, they supported Servetus' execution. A later generation of reformed thinkers, including America's founders John Witherspoon, Roger Sherman and others would not have supported what happened to Servetus because by that time they had accepted principles of liberty of conscience as taught by John Locke and his successors. 

Locke was not necessarily the first figure to argue for the right to freely practice and publicly speak on matters that others view as heretical. But, it's important to note that they came from outside of the Calvinist/reformed tradition. The Dutch Arminians and the American Roger Williams anticipated Locke. However, America's founders, including ministers preaching from the pulpit, were much likelier to invoke Locke than Williams, or other sources who may have anticipated Locke. 

This is ironic for numerous reasons, one of which is that Roger Williams founded an American colony. And to the extent that orthodox Christians like Witherspoon might wish to invoke a traditional orthodox Christian on the behalf of the proposition of "liberty of conscience" for all, they had that in Williams but instead turned to Locke, a putative Christian, but unorthodox, and who posited a notion of "state of nature/social contract and rights" that was, as Leo Strauss put it, "wholly alien to the Bible." 

Whatever contributions the reformed Calvinist types contributed to the notions of political liberty in the American founding, it's not right to credit them for the notions of liberty of conscience/religious liberty that America's founders endorsed. For that we would have to credit other Christian traditions and the Enlightenment. 

Congrats to our friend Mark David Hall

The renowned scholar Mark David Hall (at George Fox and Regent Universities) recently was appointed to the White House's Religious Liberty Commission's Advisory Board. As such, he can present his material to the public under the auspices of "Whitehouse.gov," which is what he does here in a lecture entitled, "The Story of America: The Faith of Our Founders."

For perspective, realize that quarreling is in the spirit of this blog. The embedded video is roughly 13 minutes long and only scratches the surface of Dr. Hall's research. For a more in depth analysis with "point/counterpoint," see this post and thread where, after the release of Dr. Hall's book, Dr. Gregg Frazer, now a Dean at The Master's University, expressed his disagreement with Mark, and the late great Tom Van Dyke, of course, was there to chime in.

Christian Nationalism as a Later Construction, Not a Founding Reality

 

It is often assumed, with varying levels of confidence (depending on who is making the assertion), that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and only in recent decades has drifted away from its religious founding and roots. Repeated often enough and this assumption hardens into dogma or a default setting that some would call "common sense." Yet when we set aside inherited beliefs, perceived truths and the sense of certainty that seems requisite for any tribal mindset, we can begin to look at the founding-era record with more objectivity and sincerity.  And if we have the courage to continue this pursuit, a different picture of America's Christian legacy comes into focus. The United States was not established as a Christian nation that later lost its way; it was created as a religiously plural republic whose later generations gradually constructed a specifically Christian (and overwhelmingly Protestant) national identity.

Religion permeated early American life. Churches, sermons, and biblical references were omnipresent. But the mere presence of religion in culture does not determine the character of the state. The relevant question is not whether the founders spoke religiously (of course they did...and did it A LOT), but whether they designed a government that was religiously Christian at its core.

Of course, one could easily point to evidence like Article VI of our Constitution that explicitly prohibits religious tests for office, but as Christian Nationalists will (correctly) point out, this does not prove much of anything.  After all, a formal removal of "religious tests" does not equate to religious neutrality in law, culture or moral assumptions.  And as our Late co-blogger, Brian Tubbs liked to point out, these protections could be seen as safeguards meant to protect religious institutions from government intrusion, not the other way around.  

Yet the "religious tests" and the carefully worded prose of our nation's founding documents still reveal an important truth.  At a time when European nations routinely grounded political authority in Christian identity, the framers produced a national charter that contains no appeal to God, no invocation of Christ, and no declaration of Christianity as a foundation of law. This omission was neither accidental nor uncontested. During ratification debates, objections were raised that the Constitution failed to acknowledge Christianity. Yet no corrective language was ever added. 

It is almost as if this was intentional.  =)

James Madison’s writings explain why. In his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785), which opposed state support for religion in Virginia, Madison argued that religion could be directed only by “reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” Government involvement, he warned, violated conscience and corrupted faith. Years later, reflecting on church–state entanglements in his Detached Memoranda, Madison concluded that religious establishments had been “seen to result in pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity.”

This concern was not unique to Madison. John Adams, whose own religious views would certainly be seen as unorthodox by today's evangelical standards, grasped the institutional meaning of the American experiment. In his Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States (1787) Adams wrote, "[T]he strength of a republic depends on religion and morality...these are cultivated voluntarily, not by law."  And even in his famous Treaty of Tripoli, which Christian Nationalists dismiss as a pragmatic compromise at best, or an olive branch to the Muslim world at worst, there is little ambiguity in the words Adams chose to employ: "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion.”  Regardless of personal persuasion, the fact remains that it is exceedingly difficult to argue that this sentence somehow misrepresents the founding assumptions about government and religion.

What is striking is that many Christians of this era were deeply uneasy with this arrangement. Ministers complained that the Constitution failed to acknowledge God. Others feared that liberty of conscience would undermine public morality. Their protests are revealing. They suggest that the absence of Christian nationalism was noticed, and contested, by contemporaries, rather than silently assumed as the nation’s foundation.

It is only in later generations that explicitly Christian nationalist language grows more confident. In the decades following the Civil War, American nationalism underwent a transformation. Trauma, reunification, and rapid social change encouraged the fusion of Protestant identity with national purpose. Movements emerged to amend the Constitution to recognize Christianity explicitly -- an effort that would have made little sense if such recognition already existed in any of our founding documents.

By the twentieth century, Christian nationalism became even more firmly embedded, particularly during the Cold War. In response to atheistic communism, religious language was mobilized as a marker of national identity. “Under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. “In God We Trust” was elevated to official national motto in 1956. These changes were openly acknowledged as modern responses to contemporary threats, yet they were often framed as restorations of original principles.

Over time, this layered memory blurred chronology. The Founders’ religious language was lifted from its context and repurposed. Personal expressions of faith were mistaken for constitutional commitments. The result was a narrative in which Christian nationalism appeared ancient when it was, in fact, largely modern.

What the founding generation created was neither a secular vacuum nor a Christian state. It was something more restrained and, for its time, more radical. In George Washington’s 1790 letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, he offered a vision of that order, promising that the government “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.” Religious belief was protected precisely because the state claimed no authority to define it.

Christian nationalism, then, is not a suppressed founding inheritance waiting to be reclaimed. It is a later construction -- shaped by war, fear, and cultural conflict -- that draws selectively on the past for legitimacy. Recognizing this does not diminish religion’s role in American history. It clarifies it. And it reminds us that the founders’ most enduring insight may have been their refusal to entrust the power of the state with the fate of the soul.

George Washington’s Religious World: Providence, Pluralism, and the Politics of Faith

With the passing of Blog GIANTS Tom Van Dyke and Brian Tubbs, I realized that the material found on this blog is becoming increasingly more valuable, especially since nothing in this life is guaranteed.  I have been MIA for too long and unfortunately, I did not get to enjoy those final years with my two blog buddies as much as I could have done.  But at least I have the comfort in knowing that I can rectify this mistake and once again participate in this blog's mission, which I still treasure immensely.  

In the vast and contested landscape of early American religion, few figures have generated as much interpretive complexity as George Washington. More than any other founder, Washington’s religious life resists easy classification.   This is not simply because his private beliefs were opaque, but because his practice and rhetoric reveal a distinctive religious posture that helped to shape American religious pluralism itself.

Washington’s own religious identity was rooted in the Anglican tradition: baptized as an infant in the Church of England and later a committed vestryman and churchwarden, he remained at least nominally within the fold of what became the Episcopal Church in the post-Revolutionary era. Yet in practice his religious behavior was enigmatic: he attended services with no real level of regularity, he supported the construction and maintenance of local churches near Mount Vernon, but seldom, it seems, partook in communion rites that were central to orthodox Christian identity.

Washington's "god talk," which has long been a topic of debate for scholars, has only muddied the waters. In both his private and public correspondence, the choice of language that Washington selected reveals a man who was, at the very least, extremely hesitant to invoke traditional Christian terms.  He rarely invoked “Jesus Christ” by name, instead favoring terms such as “Providence,” “the Deity,” or “the Supreme Being.”

However, to focus solely on Washington’s personal belief system risks overlooking a deeper and more historically consequential dimension of his religious influence: his active role in shaping American religious pluralism. Washington’s religious public theology was remarkably inclusive for its time. During the Revolution he encouraged soldiers of many denominations to worship the god of their choosing and arranged for chaplains from a variety of Protestant traditions in the Continental Army. 

As President, he repeatedly reaffirmed that the new republic would not adopt an established church. In correspondence with Baptist, Catholic, Jewish, and other religious communities, Washington articulated a bold vision of religious freedom that went beyond toleration to equal civic standing for all faiths. In his famous 1790 letter to the Hebrew congregations of Newport, Rhode Island, he wrote that the government “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance,” marking a foundational moment in the pursuit of religious liberty in the American project.

This commitment was not done merely out of political expediency.  In fact, it reflects a theological commitment to the moral and civic value of religious diversity. Washington’s vision did not envision religion as a monolithic public identity, but rather as a constellation of individual consciences grounded in a framework that respected the dignity and autonomy of varied religious expressions.

In this respect, Washington’s religion was not simply a reflection of his inner spiritual life but a living architecture of civic religion --- a set of practices and principles that helped define the relationship between faith and the fledgling republic. He helped inaugurate a civic ethos where the moral force of religion could be acknowledged without imposing sectarian dominance, and where religious liberty was understood as integral to national cohesion rather than a mere afterthought.

Thus, the uniqueness of Washington’s religious legacy lies not in the secret contours of his private belief, but in the public theological grammar he helped to institutionalize: a grammar that acknowledged Providence without sectarian entanglement, affirmed religious expression without establishment, and envisioned a republic in which many traditions could flourish under a shared political covenant.

In the history of early American religion, therefore, Washington stands as a figure whose religious impact is best understood not only through what he believed privately, but through how he shaped the public space in which religion and freedom could co-exist.

Hat tip: my buddy, the Late Pastor Brian Tubbs.  I think he would have gobbled this one up!  

Pastor Brian Tubbs: August 11, 1969 - December 3, 2025

 It is with extreme sorrow that I announce to you, American Creation readers, that Pastor Brian Tubbs passed away earlier this month.  Pastor Tubbs was a founding member of American Creation and was well known for being a passionate student of all things related to the American Revolution.  Pastor Tubbs was particularly fond of defending the legacy of his hero, George Washington, as can be evidenced by the plethora of posts he made related to Washington's religious views, etc.  

Brian Tubbs worked as the Pastor of Olney Baptist Church (Olney, MD) from 2005 until his passing.  Prior to serving as Pastor of OBC, Brian was Pastor of Sligo Baptist Church in Ohio.  Brian was married to his wife (Jane) since 1992 and together they had two children.  

It goes without saying that Brian will be deeply missed by his AC family.  Brian's love and passion for history were one of a kind, and his voice will never be replaced.  I never actually met Brian in person, but he and I became friends 18 years ago, and for nearly two decades we engaged in numerous discussions related to history, religion and the founding legacy of the United States.  There were few minds out there that were as sharp as Brian's mind.  I did not hesitate to consult him on many questions related to my dissertation.  Brian's voice was a trustworthy source.  He knew his history.  He knew Christianity (inside and out).  But most importantly, he LIVED his Christianity.  Brian's example is one that will last forever.  I will not forget my "history buddy' and I am sure that is true for anyone who knew Brian.  

Rest in peace, my friend, and thanks for everything!

Tom Van Dyke, RIP

It's with a heavy heart that I announce Tom Van Dyke, a long time contributor here, passed away in November of this year, 2025. He also blogged at The New Reform Club.

On a personal note, even though we sometimes/often disagreed (we probably agreed more than disagreed), we became and remained close friends. He certainly had a passion for intellectual jousting. And I think we operated on a similar plane. 

He lived in LA but was originally from Levittown, PA, which is a "sister township" in Bucks County from where I grew up and still live (Yardley/Lower Makefield). Though, we both also had a passion for music -- we are both musicians. I haven't been blogging as much as I used to; for years I stopped playing guitar/music. Tom got me back into it and revived my interest in making further progress as a middle aged man. He taught me a lot in the past few years where I got to play with him.

This was part of our ongoing friendship. He would visit his hometown and we would do music together. It's ironic that I'm the one with the music degree from Berklee College of Music, because my "talents" are somewhat "modest" compared to what's out there. He reminded me, on the other hand, that he was "world class good" (in his last band in LA, he played with Glenn Campbell's former band leader). Yeah, unfortunately most musicians who are "that good" (and he was) don't get rich from it. The Berklee professors tended to be "that good" and the vast majority of them weren't rich. 

This clip embedded below is from the Summer of 25 when he last visited. It's an old Christian blues song (familiar to "Sons of Anarchy" fans). Below that is our version of Bob Dylan's "I Shall Be Released" from February 2025, which has a mood that fits for this somber moment of remembrance. 

He was 69.

George Washington Movie Coming in 2026

Finally! A movie about George Washington - that's right, George Freaking Washington! -- is coming to the Big Screen. Finally! I mean...Geeze! It's about fricking time. 

Of course, this isn't coming from a major Hollywood studio. That would be too much to ask. They'd probably ruin it anyway. So, we're left with Angel Studios fixing this ... travesty. And it is a travesty. An absolute travesty that there hasn't been a worthy movie about the Father of our Country! 

This upcoming movie from Angel Studios is set during the French and Indian War, and it looks to be an exciting film about the origin story of America's greatest real-life superhero. 

George Washington is the most important figure in American history. He is the most indispensable figure in American history. And he is the greatest action hero in American history. That there hasn't been a worthy Big Screen movie about him is inexcusable. 

And the only reason I can think of is that a movie that honors Washington would run afoul to too many people who are emotionally and ideologically invested in the guilt-and-grievance "America-is-bad" narrative that infects academia and certainly Hollywood. Shame on all of them!

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Washington was perfect. I'm not saying we should overlook the transgressions of our Founders or the United States. I'm saying that people are multi-faceted and history is complex. And, for all his faults, George Washington's good outweighs his bad. And we owe him a debt of gratitude we can never repay. So...

Long live the memory and legacy of George Washington, father of the United States of America. May this movie do him honor. 

Great Britain v. America: "Christian Nations"?

There is a quotation from the British jurist William Blackstone oft-cited in the "Christian Nation" debates that relates to Christianity's relationship to the common law, and also a notion of "higher law." (This notion of "higher law" has been termed the "Brooding Omnipresence in the Sky" by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.) From Blackstone:

This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; an such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.

But in order to apply this to the particular exigencies of each individual, it is still necessary to have recourse to reason: whose office it is to discover, as was before observed, what the law of nature directs in every circumstances of life; ... And if our reason were always, as in our first ancestor before his transgressions, clear and perfect, unruffled by passions, unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by disease or intemperance, the talk would be pleasant an easy; we should need no other guide but this. But every man now finds the contrary in his own experience; that his reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error.

This has given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of divine providence; which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason hath been pleased, at sundry times and in divers manners, to discover and enforce it's laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity. But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowlege of these truths was attainable by reason, in it's present corrupted state; since we find that, until they were revealed, they were hid from the wisdom of ages. As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the same original with those of the law of nature, so their intrinsic obligation is of equal strength and perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system, which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared so to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority: but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together.

Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. ...

There is a problem, though, in the use this of quotation to argue on behalf of American Christian Nationalism: Blackstone wasn't talking about America, but rather Great Britain. Blackstone was also a Tory who took the side of Great Britain against America; he defended the notion of absolute Parliamentary sovereignty in his teachings.

Indeed, one thing I'd like people to understand is that to the extent that America might have been a "Christian Nation" in a political-theological sense, Great Britain was every bit as much, if not more so. The above quotation, again, would be apt in demonstrating that Great Britain may have been some kind of "Christian Nation." 

When America successfully rebelled from Great Britain, she retained the common law, but did need to "revise" it for her newfound circumstances. So, for the "American view," you would need to turn to American commentators. While many founders expressed their views on the common law, only two of which I am aware did comprehensive restatements: James Wilson of Pennsylvania and St. George Tucker of Virginia. 

America's founders disagreed on the exact nature of Christianity and the "common law" and Law itself. Below I reproduce James Wilson's position. Wilson, unlike others (like Jefferson), did believe that "Christianity" was part of the common law. What he meant by this and Christianity's relationship to "Law" is something scholars debate to this day. I know that my interlocutors and I have spilt much ink discussing and debating the meaning of Wilson's passage produced below. But note the difference between what was reproduced above by Blackstone and Wilson's position:

[H]ow shall we, in particular instances, learn the dictates of our duty, and make, with accuracy, the proper distinction between right and wrong; in other words, how shall we, in particular cases, discover the will of God? We discover it by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures. The law of nature and the law of revelation are both divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source. It is, indeed, preposterous to separate them from each other. The object of both is ― to discover the will of God ― and both are necessary for the accomplishment of that end.

[...]

Reason, say they, is the first rule of man, the first principle of morality, and the immediate cause of all primitive obligation. But man being necessarily dependent on his Creator, who has formed him with wisdom and design, and who, in creating him, has proposed some particular ends; the will of God is another rule of human actions, another principle of morality, obligation, and duty. On this distinction, the kinds of obligation, external and internal, are founded. These two principles must be united, in order to form a complete system of morality, really founded on the nature and state of man. As a rational being, he is subject to reason: as a creature of God, to his supreme will. Thus, reason and the divine will are perfectly reconciled, are naturally connected, and are strengthened by their junction.

[...]

Reason and conscience can do much; but still they stand in need of support and assistance. They are useful and excellent monitors; but, at some times, their admonitions are not sufficiently clear; at other times, they are not sufficiently powerful; at all times, their influence is not sufficiently extensive. Great and sublime truths, indeed, would appear to a few; but the world, at large, would be dark and ignorant. The mass of mankind would resemble a chaos, in which a few sparks, that would diffuse a glimmering light, would serve only to show, in a more striking manner, the thick darkness with which they are surrounded. Their weakness is strengthened, their darkness is illuminated, their influence is enlarged by that heaven-descended science, which has brought life and immortality to light. In compassion to the imperfection of our internal powers, our all-gracious Creator, Preserver, and Ruler has been pleased to discover and enforce his laws, by a revelation given to us immediately and directly from himself. This revelation is contained in the holy scriptures. The moral precepts delivered in the sacred oracles form a part of the law of nature, are of the same origin, and of the same obligation, operating universally and perpetually.

[...]

But whoever expects to find, in [Scripture], particular directions for every moral doubt which arises, expects more than he will find. They generally presuppose a knowledge of the principles of morality; and are employed not so much in teaching new rules on this subject, as in enforcing the practice of those already known, by a greater certainty, and by new sanctions. They present the warmest recommendations and the strongest inducements in favour of virtue: they exhibit the most powerful dissuasives from vice. But the origin, the nature, and the extent of the several rights and duties they do not explain; nor do they specify in what instances one right or duty is entitled to preference over another. They are addressed to rational and moral agents, capable of previously knowing the rights of men, and the tendencies of actions; of approving what is good, and of disapproving what is evil.

[...]

These considerations show, that the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supercede the operations of reason and the moral sense. The information with regard to our duties and obligations, drawn from these different sources, ought not to run in unconnected and diminished channels: it should flow in one united stream, which, by its combined force and just direction, will impel us uniformly and effectually towards our greatest good.

Again, as noted, we've spilt much ink debating what Wilson means here. Dr. Gregg Frazer notes that all of this is "reminiscent of Aquinas" but also that Wilson is privileging "reason" over "revelation" (something Aquinas never did). Others disagree. 

But note, unlike Blackstone, Wilson doesn't use verbiage like human reason is "corrupt," "blind[]," and that "the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system... denominated the natural law." Rather Wilson thought "[r]eason and conscience can do much; but still they stand in need of support and assistance," and that "the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supercede the operations of reason and the moral sense."

William Livingston on Church-State Separation

I wrote this in 2010. Here is the "quotation" from Livingston, I uncovered:

Hence the motley junction of king-craft and priest-craft (the most fatal engine ever invented by Satan for promoting human wretchedness) usually called the alliance between church and state, but in reality a most atrocious conspiracy between two public robbers, for sharing between them the plunder of nations; and for that purpose mutually supporting and supported by each other. And hence all politico-ecclesiastical establishments under pretence of promoting religion, by kings who generally have none, and church dignitaries who seldom care for any.

John Adams: Loved the Bible but thought its Extant Texts Corrupted By Institutional Authorities

John Adams' eccentric and nuanced opinions of the Bible/Christian religion are especially prone to "out of context," cherry picking for various sides in the historical political-theological culture wars, wishing to "score points." 

For instance, he once wrote to Thomas Jefferson:

I have examined all, as well as my narrow Sphere, my Streightened means and my busy Life would allow me; and the result is, that the Bible is the best book in the World.

Yet, he also believed that he was reading a canon of books whose contents had been corrupted. In Adams' world, the Roman Catholic Church was the chief "corrupter of Christianity," but that corruption also infected institutional Protestantism as well. For instance, Adams -- who considered himself a "liberal unitarian Christian" -- blamed Roman Catholicism for the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation which he bitterly rejected; he also rejected the King James Bible because it was too Catholic!

As he wrote to his son and namesake:

What do you call “The Bible”? The Translation by King James the first? More than half a Catholick.?

But it went beyond merely the KJV. In the same letter he continued:

“The Bible a Rule of Faith.”! What Bible? King James’s? The Hebrew? The Septuagint,? The Vulgate? The Bibles now translated or translating into Chinese, Indian, Negro and all the other Languages of Europe Asia and Affrica? Which of the thirty thousand Variantia are the Rule of Faith? 

But he had especial disdain for the KJV. As he also wrote to Thomas Jefferson:

We have now, it seems a National Bible Society, to propagate King James's Bible, through all Nations. Would it not be better, to apply these pious subscriptions, to purify Christendom from the corruptions of Christianity, than to propagate these corruptions in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America! 

In particular, John Adams didn't trust ANY of the texts of the Bible whose original manuscripts were written in Hebrew. He thought the original Hebrew manuscripts were ordered burnt by Pope Gregory the 9th such that essential truths contained therein were purposefully concealed. 

In fact, Adams thought this included not just the Old Testament, but St. Paul's writings. Adams believed, contrary to most biblical scholars, that Paul's original writings were in Hebrew (and thus burnt as part of Pope Gregory's efforts) as opposed to Greek.

Ultimately, this quotation from Adams summarizes how he approached the extant texts of then available Bibles:

What suspicions of interpolation, and indeed fabrication, might not be confuted if we had the originals! In an age or in ages when fraud, forgery, and perjury were considered as lawful means of propagating truth by philosophers, legislators, and theologians, what may not be suspected?

Though, Adams was still a devout theist and believer in Jesus (as he Adams understood Him) and thought somewhere in there, the Bibles whose corrupted texts he was reading contained profound truths.