The battlefields of the American Revolution are hallowed
landmarks of our nation’s struggle for independence.
These historical attractions serve as much
more than mere summer vacation destinations or 6
th grade Social
Studies research topics.
They are, in
fact, reminders of the toil, strife and loss that was required before the
United States could claim its sovereignty.
And while these battlefields give us a palpable link to our nation’s
founding, another battlefield, intangible and underappreciated, stands with
equal importance to Bunker Hill or Yorktown.
American
Christian pulpits, though not the site of artillery or musket fire, operated as
some of the most critical combat zones on which frontline battles of the
Revolution waged. Ministers of various
churches acted like spiritual generals, shaping the opinions of their
respective congregations by offering the necessary justification or opposition
for the impending conflict with Britain.
Accordingly, the sermons given by America’s plethora of Christian
ministers proved every bit as influential and important as Thomas Paine’s Common
Sense or the Boston Tea Party. The
American Revolution was not only a war of bullets and power, but a battle waged
from the pulpits across the many colonies, each passionately supporting or
opposing the Revolution by appealing to the same scriptures and Christian
teachings, with Patriots taking a more nuanced view of scripture, and Loyalists
adopting an extremely literalist, all-or-nothing understanding of Bible
teachings.
Christianity, The Bible, and Early American Society
To understand how Christianity and
Bible teachings were weaponized by both Patriot and Loyalist-sympathizing
ministers, one must first comprehend the tremendous importance religion had on early
American society. Simply put, religion
was not just a mere sideshow venue of the American Revolution but instead was a
premiere stage on which the drama unfolded.
This comes as little surprise to those well versed in the history of
Colonial America, which was a world defined on Christian beliefs and
teachings. But it is not enough to
simply say that Christianity and the Bible were significant for their spiritual
value alone. The reality of Colonial
American society was that Christianity and the Bible permeated every nook and
cranny of daily life, including and perhaps especially political matters. As one prominent historian has noted, “For
all of the early English settlers, whether they were settled in the North or
the South, the Bible was the central text of religious and political discourse.” Acclaimed American Historian Mark Noll supports
this position when he writes, “The Bible sanctified all manner of public
speech…Once the Bible had achieved a place of honored distinction for selves
and society, it became a lens through which believers perceived the external
significance of temporal events, but also a torch that shone its illuminating
rays on those events.”[2] In short, the Bible, its teachings, and
Christianity became the foundational measuring stick by which all matters of
life were assessed.
For a population that had placed
almost all their stock upon the altar of Christianity and the Bible, it comes
as no surprise to discover that the preaching and sermons of ministers was
esteemed as almost canonical. No other
medium in early American society was able to influence or inform the community
more than the sermon. As Historian Harry
Stout has pointed out, the average church attendee, “listened to something like
seven thousand sermons in a lifetime…For all intents and purposes, the sermon
was the only regular voice of authority.”
It is for these reasons that
ministers of various Christian denominations were the first to start digging
the trenches of war into which both Loyalist and Patriot camps sought refuge. And since the settlers of all the American
colonies depended so greatly upon their ministers for guidance and clarity, it
is reasonable, if not obvious, to assume that their preaching determined the
political persuasions of a large majority of said colonists. As early American
Historian James Byrd aptly summarized, “It was the clergy who made the
Revolution meaningful to most common people” because “there were dozens of
ordinary people who read the Bible and looked to their ministers for an
interpretation of what the Revolution meant.”
Patriot and Loyalist Preaching: A Juxtaposition
Even though religion and Bible
teachings took the premiere role in shaping the minds and hearts of early
American society, it would be a mistake to assume that every church, minister
and congregation felt the same way about what was being preached. Different interpretations and perspectives on
the American Revolution naturally led to different interpretation and
perspectives on the Bible, the Christian message and its significance in
sanctioning or opposing a separation with Great Britain. By and large, Patriot and Loyalist ministers
relied heavily on many of the same Bible passages but offered vastly different
interpretations. Historian Gregg Frazer
summarizes the differences by arguing that Loyalists appealed primarily to
history, law and Biblical literalism, while Patriot preaching tended towards
Bible theory, Enlightenment reason and fear tactics. And while Frazer’s analysis is appropriate in
the abstract, it fails to account for the many specific anomalies which were of
tremendous importance in the shaping of public sentiment in specific
colonies. For example, at least 1/3 of
all Anglican ministers in the colonies turned out to be Loyalist sympathizers,
yet nearly half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence (none were
Anglican clergy) were members of the Anglican faith. In addition, Pennsylvania Quakers, known for
their stance of neutrality, earned from themselves enemies on both sides, yet
appealed to their Christian faith as a means of justifying support for the
Revolution in ways other than fighting.
What these anomalies show is that
support and opposition for the American Revolution often boiled down to the
message sponsored by specific ministers, in specific churches, shared with
specific congregations. It is a
historical misnomer that all members of particular denominations, colonies, or
ethnic groups favored the Loyalist or Patriot persuasion. In reality the matter was far more
nuanced. As Frazer again notes, “Though
religious affiliation clearly played a role it was not the decisive factor for
many.” What mattered most was the actual preaching
of the minister that most influenced a particular community.
In the years leading up to the
American Revolution, it was rare to find a church or a minister who had not pontificated
on the reasons why colonists should or should not remain loyal to Great Britain. For Loyalist ministers, the goal was clear: let
the Bible speak for itself by appealing exclusively to a literalist
interpretation of scripture that allowed for zero wiggle room on the issue of
allegiance to the King of England.
Oftentimes this allegiance was compared to a parent/child relationship,
with the colonists acting the part of a wayward youth. An analysis of popular Loyalist sermons
reveals this goal as plainly as possible.
Again, Gregg Frazer lends his support for this understanding of Loyalist
sermons when he states, “In their sermons, as a general rule, the Loyalist
preachers appealed more to the Bible and held to a more literal and contextual
interpretation of the relevant texts of scripture than did the Patriot
preachers.” A leading example of this very practice can
be found in the sermons of Anglican Preacher Jonathan Boucher. For Boucher, and his fellow Loyalists, the
Bible in its simplest form could not be refuted. In one of his sermons, Boucher offers his
literalist interpretation of 2 Peter and employs the parent/child comparison
with the following commentary:
No sooner were the children weaned from the milk, and drawn
from the breast, than their parents began to teach them knowledge, to enable
them to understand doctrine…And on this point the law was not vague and
uncertain. The text is clear and strong,
and particular even to minuteness: parents were to teach their children, whilst
they sat in the house, or walked by the way; when they lay down, and when they
sat up…On the authority of the text and some other similar passages, we are led
to infer, that parental instruction was not in general communicated so much my
lectures or lessons but by conversation, with the child giving heed to the
parent.
Boucher’s appeal to Biblical
literalism was supported by his peer, Bishop Charles Inglis, the first Anglican
Bishop ordained in the colonies, who echoed Boucher’s assertions with the
following:
When a Man becomes a Soldier, he ceases not to be a
Christian, or a Member of Society. The Duties, the Principles of the Christian
and Citizen, he should therefore keep in View, and never lose Sight of them.
These should regulate his Conduct, whilst vindicating his own civil and
religious Rights, and those of his Fellow Citizens…And trust me, that this will
be so far from damping his Ardour, or depressing his Courage, that it will
animate both -- it will add Fortitude to his Breast—Strength and Vigour to his
descending Arm.
In contrast, ministers in favor of
the American Revolution tended to favor a more broadminded interpretation of
the Bible, particularly focused on passages dealing with liberty or the
suppression of liberty, particularly as they related to the Jewish nation of
old. The Reverend Isaac Backus’ now
infamous sermon on religious liberty portrays such a message:
And as the Jews were ordered not to set up any rulers over
them who were not their brethren; so this colony resolved to have no rulers nor
voters for rulers, but brethren in their churches…We view it to be our
incumbent duty, to render unto Caesar the things that are his, but that it is
of as much importance not to render unto him any thing that belongs only to
God, who is to be obeyed rather than man. And as it is evident to us, that God
always claimed it as his sole prerogative to determine by his own laws, what
his worship shall be, who shall minister in it, and how they shall be supported.
The idea of Old Testament Jews, with liberties and freedoms
oppressed, found no greater manifestation than the Exodus story. As Historian James Byrd point out, “If the
Moses and the Exodus have remained prominent in America, the American
Revolution is a major reason why. By
making the Exodus story their own, especially by associating it so strongly
with the republican ideals of liberty and the republican institutions of the
new nation, the patriots set the parameters for later Americans.” This message of oppression and suppression of
liberty was the single greatest factor that gave Patriot ministers the
advantage over their Loyalist counterparts.
The message resonated better with a public that was ripe for
change. Gregg Frazer reinforces this
perspective with the following:
The [Patriots] clearly won the rhetorical and propaganda
battle. They won in large part because
they shut down and literally destroyed [Loyalist] avenues of
communication. But they also won because
they had talented propagandists such as Samuel Adams, because they had agents
such as the Sons of Liberty keeping the passions of the people inflamed. And
because they had a more inspiring and exciting message. The [Loyalist] message was the obligation to
obey the law and the rather humiliating idea of subordination…The [Patriots]
message of independence was dynamic and flattering to the people.
One of the most unique examples of
how Patriot and Loyalist ministers differed in their interpretation of
scripture, along with the message they delivered to their congregants, is that
of Jacob Duché.
Originally a devout Patriot, Duché was one of the most vocal opponents
of Great Britain. Duché
was even selected to offer the opening prayers at the First Continental
Congress where he asked for God’s blessings and protection from the “rod of the
oppressor” and asked for heaven’s “nurturing care” to “defeat the malicious
designs of our creel adversaries.” [15] In a sermon given just a few months later, Duché
invoked the standard narrative of Patriot preachers, calling upon his
parishioners to remember the bondage of the Jewish people and reminding them of
their responsibility to safeguard the liberties God had granted them. To everyone’s surprise and dismay, Duché did
not remain a Patriot. After being
arrested by the British in 1777, Duché had a rapid and dramatic change of
heart, changing his persuasion on the war and becoming a full Loyalist. In his letter to General George Washington, Duché
demonstrates the profound change of heard he had experienced when he wrote, “My
sermon speaks for itself & utterly disclaims the idea of idependency…How
sadly have you been abused by a faction void of truth & void of tenderness
to you & your country!” Duché continues his insulting rant directed at
Washington by insisting that the Patriot ideas of liberty are misguided and
reconciliation with King George was the hope of heaven.
Apart from his rapid and dramatic
change of persuasion, what is noteworthy about Duché’s change of heart is his
accompanying change of rhetoric. Duché
went from being the voice of opposition to the evil oppression of Britain upon
American liberties to then advocating for reconciliation with King George and
insisting that America’s understanding of liberty and independence was
misguided. This not only reveals the
power of persuasion but how both Loyalist and Patriot ministers held tightly to
a very particular narrative, particularly as it related to the concept of
liberty.
Romans 13: The Great Battlefield
The Patriots ability to control the
narrative from the pulpit gave them a tremendous advantage in terms of their
ability to win over converts for the cause of revolution, but it did not
guarantee them a spiritual victory. The
one area in which Loyalists appeared to maintain the moral high ground was on
the issue of loyalty owed to the king, and the apparent Biblical sanction such
allegiance seemed to require. The
Apostle Paul, admonition, found in the 13th chapter of Romans,
clearly stated that submission to one’s authority was required of God, which
presented a hurdle for Patriot ministers who sought Biblical endorsement for
the cause of revolution. The warning of
Romans 13 to “be subject unto the higher powers,” along with the reminder that
“Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and
they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation,” proved to be
a formidable obstacle for ministers who hoped to find a path for America’s
independence.[18]
The dilemma for Patriot ministers
was obvious: how do you justify opposition to a sovereign leader when the Bible
seems to oppose such action? This was
not a mere sideshow question for the Revolution’s participants. As Historian Daniel Dreisbach has pointed
out, “Bible texts weighed heavy on the American mind during the conflict with
Great Britain…Romans 13 was the single most cited…and on their face, these
texts made little allowance for resistance to civic rulers.”[19]
long been the trump card
from Loyalist ministers, was Boston Congregational Minister Jonathan
Mayhew. Mayhew, who had undergone a
change in his own personal religious persuasions, was well known for his blunt
preaching style that was often divisive in nature. Mayhew’s influence was so profound that John
Adams went so far as to call him one of the most influential figures of the
Revolution, whose sermon he had “engraved on my memory.”[21]
The
year 1750 marked the debut of Jonathan Mayhew’s landmark sermon. As opposed to so many of his predecessors,
Mayhew did not look to twist words of scripture or to double down on their
absolute significance. Instead, Mayhew
let prudence dictate the interpretation of scripture. Appealing to other Bible examples in which an
absolutist tone is rarely if ever assumed, Mayhew wrote:
But who supposes
that the apostle ever intended to teach, that children, servants and wives,
should, in all cases whatever, obey their parents, masters and husbands
respectively, never making any opposition to their will, even although they
should require them to break the commandments of God, or should causelessly
make an attempt upon their lives? No one
puts such a sense upon these expressions, however absolute and unlimited. Why
then should it be supposed, that the apostle designed to teach universal
obedience, whether active or passive, to the higher powers, merely because his
precepts are delivered in absolute and unlimited terms?[22]
Instead
of taking scripture at face value, as the Loyalist ministers had been doing
since the beginning of the conflict, Mayhew made an appeal to reason. As Jonathan Mayhew Biographer J. Patrick
Mullins reminds us, Mayhew “reconciled the natural right of resistance with the
Christian duty of obedience in light of scripture, history and real Whig
political philosophy.”[23] In other words, Mayhew’s hermeneutics adopted
many of the same beliefs as many figures of the Enlightenment who had preceded
him. For Patriot ministers and
supporters this essentially meant they believed they could have their cake and
eat it too.
Mayhew
went even further with his condemnation of evil leaders, stating that Paul’s
message rebuked those who “use all their power to hurt and injure the public,”
adding that “such as are not God’s ministers, but Satan’s.”[24] In so doing, Mayhew had successfully shifted
the burden of Romans 13 to God’s chosen leaders and away from the masses. In Mayhew’s mind, it was not the American
colonists who needed to worry about God’s wrath but rather the King of England,
who was “acting in an illegal and oppressive manner.”[25]
Even
though his sermon was delivered two decades before independence was even
debated in Philadelphia, Mayhew’s perspective on Romans 13 reveals an important
truth about how many Americans came to view the American Revolution. The American Revolution was not a coup
d’etat. There was no removal of the King
of England. Instead, the American
Revolution was a separation due to the perceived wickedness and illegitimate
reign of the King. King George III,
along with Parliament, had forfeited their right to sovereignly reign over the
colonies, pure and simple. This perspective, of a separation of Britain, can be
traced, in large part, to Mayhew’s unique interpretation of Paul’s declaration
in Romans 13, and this view was later canonized by Jefferson in the very words
of the Declaration of Independence when he wrote, “"He [King George III]
has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging
War against us" and, “For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a
neighboring 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” and
finally, “For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and
altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.”[26]
Conclusion
In terms of its influence, religion was not some mere
sideshow of the American Revolution. If
anything, religion was one of the most central components to the question of
separation with Britain, so much so that ministers from every denomination,
colony and persuasion felt impressed to weigh in on the matter. Patriot ministers tended to favor a more
open-minded approach to Biblical interpretation and Christian teachings,
relying heavily upon appeals to reason and liberty that had been advanced by
Enlightenment thinkers. On the other
hand, Loyalist ministers took a hardline stance with scriptural interpretation,
insisting that little to no wiggle room could or should be tolerated. Much of this battle came down to the concept
of liberty and resistance to authority, as defined in Romans 13. Ministers like Johnathan Mayhew effectively
swayed public opinion to favor a more open approach to Paul’s admonition and by
placing the blame for violating liberty squarely on the shoulders of the
British king and Parliament.
The differences between Patriot and Loyalist ministers,
though profound on specifics, were quite similar in terms of their
understanding of Christian teachings.
Both sides felt they were on the side of truth and endeavored to protect
the Christian faith. As a result, one
can easily see how both Patriot and Loyalist ministers felt deep and profound
conviction that their Christian duty demanded they take a stand. The sermons delivered by both camps proved to
be the most profound way in which the American citizenry was both informed and
persuaded, making the wars of the pulpit one of the most critical battlegrounds
of the American Revolution.
