Sodomy at Valley Forge

The following was originally posted at The War for American Independence blog. Thanks to "Nickster" for posting it! An interesting illustration of how the crime of sodomy was treated in the Continental Army. What is most interesting is how these charges took place at Valley Forge, where the man responsible for the training of the Continental troops (Von Steuben) was most likely homosexual himself. Von Steuben, who was accompanied to Valley Forge by his "handsome" 17-year-old secretary (which added fuel to the speculation that he was indeed a homosexual and possibly a boy lover), had been forced out of the Prussian Army under suspicion of homosexual activities, which was seen as a detriment to the army. At Valley Forge, however, Von Steuben proved his worth by instilling a measure of discipline that had been lacking in the Continental Army. Oops, I've gone off on a tangent haven't I! Here is the General Order condemning sodomy at Valley Forge:

Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778.

At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin28 of Colo. Malcom's Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss'd the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.

***On a personal note, I would like to thank everyone here at American Creation for a fantastic year! I will be leaving to celebrate the holidays, so this will be my final posting for 2008. A special thanks to all the contributors, readers and subscribers of American Creation for all you have done to make this blog so much fun! Here's hoping that 2009 (and all the years to follow) will be even better! May you all have a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy New Year, etc.!!! We'll see you all in 2009 with more history of America's founding!!!***

Majority of American Christians are not Christian!

At Secular Right, David Hume points us to a survey that hints at the idea that most self described "American Christians" (about 80% of the population defines itself as "Christian") probably wouldn't pass the strict test of orthodoxy that the "Christian" Barack Obama apparently flunked.

This dynamic is key to my historical research on the Founding & Christianity. There are many possible meanings of a "Christian nation" some valid and some not. The meaning posited by the "Christian America" proponents defines "Christianity" and "a Christian" fairly tightly according to its orthodox biblical ideas. They really do believe that "God" (meaning their specific understanding of God) founded America and as such He would use "real Christians" in a born-again, regenerate sense to do his bidding. They are probably already confounded by the fact that God would raise up John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who clearly were not "Christians" in this sense (though they understood themselves to be "Christians" not "Deists") to be second and third Presidents (many of them are ignorant of Adams' heterodoxy, however). And they desperately try to latch on to whatever thin evidence there is that Washington and Madison were "real Christians." If the first four (or five) Presidents from Washington to Monroe were indeed non-Trinitarians who rejected eternal damnation, salvation through Christ alone, and probably didn't believe the Bible the inerrant, infallible Word of God, why would God raise up such leaders to "Found" America, His nation?

I'll again stress that the key Founders who believed what I put in bold did NOT tend to consider themselves "Deists" but "Christians." This was the kind of "Christianity" that drove the American Founding from the top (not necessarily from the bottom), if it's fair to even call it "Christianity."

The key Founders, in a sense, had to call it "Christianity"; if they called themselves Deists and rejected "Christianity" out of hand, the orthodox easier would have been able to separate themselves from this religious system; but, were that to happen, the different sects couldn't have come together to "Found" America. Instead, the key Founders had to convince the orthodox that the "American project" really did derive from "Christianity," properly understood. [Note: I am NOT arguing the key Founders were secret Deists; from reading their letters, I conclude they really were secret unitarians who thought of their system as a purified, rational form of "Christianity."] And they left quotations to be taken out of context by folks who wish for an orthodox Christian Founding. For instance, one of Christian America proponents favorite proof quotes, from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813:

The general principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved [sic] Independence, were…the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty…Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.

The problem is what Adams meant by "general principles of Christianity." The orthodox reading such a quotation might HOPE that Adams meant such things as original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, infallibility of the Bible, regeneration, eternal damnation. But alas, he didn't. In fact, Adams and Jefferson rejected every single one of those tenets. And elsewhere in that very letter Adams explains exactly what he meant by "general principles of Christianity."

Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and “Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"].” Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.

How could a Deist or even an “atheist” be “united” with the orthodox on any Christian principles? The answer is simple. According to Adams being a Christian meant being a good person. If an atheist was a good person, he was a “Christian.” As he put it:

“I believe with Justin Martyr, that all good men are Christians, and I believe there have been, and are, good men in all nations, sincere and conscientious.”

– John Adams to Samuel Miller, July 8, 1820.

To conclude, if we define "Christianity" broadly to include the heterodox ideas of Founding era figures, Adams and Jefferson, and from today, Obama [and many other liberal, moderate, and conservative politicians], then yes, America could be said to have had a "Christian" Founding and still is a "Christian nation."

The problem is that's not how proponents of the "Christian America" thesis understand "Christianity." They don't want what they regard as false, heretical and nominally Christian teachings to have *any* place in the definition of "Christianity," certainly not in the "Christian" that qualifies "Nation" when they argue America was founded to be a "Christian Nation."

Giving Credit Where Credit is Due

Historian John Fea's Blog
The Way of Improvement Leads Home

Historian and blogger John Fea, Associate Professor of American History at Messiah College, has written a number of posts giving kudos to our work here at American Creation. It only seems fair that we try to return the favor by promoting his work here.

Dr. Fea is one of the contributing writers for the Religion in American History blog, which was the recipient of History News Network's best group blog of 2007. In addition, Fea writes for his own blog entitled, The Way of Improvement Leads Home, which is dedicated to Fea's "reflections on a first book and random thoughts at the intersection of American history, religion, and politics." Fea's blog, which regularly covers a number of the issues that we attempt to tackle here at American Creation, is a well organized and thoroughly researched blog that should be added to everyone's subscription list. I highly recommend the blog not only to our contributors but also to our readers.

We will be sure to add The Way of Improvement Leads Home to our Top Blogs list here at American Creation!

Babka's Continued Christian Defense of Revolution-Romans 13

Responding to my media appearance among me, Jim, and Herb Titus, Jim Babka writes:

Jon, Picking up on one aspect of Chris Smith’s valuable comment… Let me add that both Herb and I have provided to you a Calvinist method of standing up to tyrants called Interposition. The evidence is abundant. Mr. Smith mentions that a Unitarian version (with which you are quite familiar) and a Nonconformist interpretation exist as well.

I am absolutely not a Calvinist, as I made clear in my piece on Romans 13. However, I do like the work done by the Huguenots and the Scottish Calvinists. I also demonstrated, in that same piece, that the Calvinist Doctrine of Interposition was in perfect concert with how history unfolded in the American Revolution — that it was the British King who declared his subjects in rebellion, BEFORE the subjects declared they would rebel.

Chris Smith on Romans 13

Christopher Smith makes an apt comment responding to my discussion of Romans 13 with Herb Titus and Jim Babka:

On the Romans 13 issue, I don’t think it’s a matter of Christianity vs. Americanism as much as of Anglicanism vs. Dissent– i.e. two very different understandings of Christianity. In other words, belief in the right to revolution can spring from the very heart of one’s Christian faith without exhausting all possible interpretations of Christianity. This is part of the problem with historic Christian diversity; the different sects do not agree on what the faith is, what it teaches, or what is at its core. What is at the core of one Christian’s faith may be totally inconceivable from the perspective of another.

I’d like to quote briefly from Timothy T. Larsen’s book Contested Christianity: The Political and Social Contexts of Victorian Theology, you might want to have a look at chapter 10, titled “Free Church Politics and the Gathered Church: The Evangelical Case for Religious Pluralism.” Larsen is working with a slightly later context– the nineteenth rather than eighteenth century– but much of what he says applies to earlier Dissent as well. Larsen writes,

“It is not enough merely to discuss their [i.e. evangelical Nonconformists'] reforming efforts in terms of political tactics, because the mentalist and rhetoric of evangelical Dissenters was profoundly religious. The reform movement that came clearly to the surface in the 1830’s in Nonconformist circles was a public manifestation of biblical, theological, and religious lines of thought that were deeply ingrained in the Dissenting community. In this subculture, one was more apt to discuss the nature of the church than the role of the state; more apt to be moved by what appeared to be righteous than what was perceived to be expedient; just as apt to discuss the rights of Christ as the rights of man.”

The so-called “voluntary principle” was central not only to evangelicals, but also to Anabaptists, Unitarians, and a variety of other marginalized Christian movements. Priestley saw his defense of free inquiry as deeply Christian and, more than that, deeply Protestant, and his vision of Unitarian revolution sweeping Europe and overthrowing the state churches was based on an apocalyptic, post-millennial interpretation of the book of Revelation!

The Orthodox Protestant Case FOR The Natural Law

Jordan J. Ballor of the Acton Institute points us to some valuable sources that make this case. He parenthetically mentions one of my posts describing the Protestant case against the natural law. I hope he didn't get the message that I took a position that the natural law is incompatible with orthodox Protestantism. (Though I have my suspicions on whether it is.)

Note, because I'm not a believer I don't take an official prescriptive position on whether natural law is compatible with orthodox Christianity, Protestant, Catholic or otherwise; I just want to describe what's out there. The Roman Catholic Church because it is a top down organization, has officially embraced the natural law since Aquinas incorporated Aristotle's teachings into Christendom. Because Protestantism is by its nature decentralized, the sects (obviously) differ. I was simply noting Francis Schaeffer's rejection of the natural law and how some orthodox Protestants today likewise reject it.

There is a case to be made, I understand, that many of the great orthodox Protestant thinkers of the past embraced the natural law more so than most folks realize. And I'm all ears (or eyes) when it comes to learning more about it.

Dr. George Grant on "The Presbyterian Parson's Rebellion"

Dr. George Grant of the Franklin Classical School and the director of the King's Meadow Study Center has this to say about the role of religion in the American Revolution. It's a very interesting video that I think you will all enjoy...even you Tom! =)

Mercer, O'Reilly and Christmas

Ilana Mercer has an article at WorldNetDaily entitled O'Reilly won the battle – but lost the debate. She discusses Bill O'Reilly and the Christmas Wars. She doesn't like the way O'Reilly defended public Christmas displays. As she writes:

He defends the country's founding faith on the frivolous grounds that it is a federal festival like any other – an "uplifting tradition … where peace and love are the theme of the great day." The substance of O'Reilly's claim against those who'd disrespect a Christmas display is: "Be nice, because Christmas is nice." And because the feds have told you to.

As she argues:

O'Reilly's problem[ is that h]e's forever arguing his case from the stance of the positive law. The "Law.com Dictionary" defines legal positivism as "man-made law, as compared to 'natural law,' which is purportedly based on universally accepted moral principles." Believers call the natural law "God's law"; others, like myself, refer to law derived from reason.

Whatever the case, the natural law is the law O'Reilly seldom defers to.

[...]

...Christmas ought to be defended on the basis that Christianity is America's founding faith.

To defend Christian America with reference to un-Christian State law that has all but banished Christianity from the public square is worse than silly.

I left a comment on her blog which follows:

I disagree that Christmas should be defended because Christianity is America’s Founding Faith. I actually think O’Reilly’s case that the message of Christianity is “be just and good” — something to which secular folks and folks of ALL religions can agree about — is FAR closer to the natural law creed that defines America’s Founding.

Americans were divided on the basis of religion during the Founding era (yes, they were; you cannot form a lowest common denominator of “Christianity generally” because “Christians” like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson took blasphemous positions that the orthodox felt had *no proper place* in the understanding of “Christianity”).

And because they were so divided, they found they could come together on the basis of a natural religion based on “the laws of nature and nature’s God.” Now, this natural religion is, in many ways, entirely compatible with Christianity. But, nonetheless it IS not Christianity and Christianity’s essential and exclusive truths are not discoverable from reason or the natural law.

Hear My Media Appearance

Jim Babka has uploaded my media appearance on the show he hosted where I discuss the Christian origins of America with Herb Titus. You can listen to it here. You might have to turn the volume WAY up on my first segment (that lasted for a few minutes). Whether I was speaking too softly or the producers didn't have my volume turned up (or both) I don't know. But the volume issue was taken care of after the first few minute segment during the break.

Babka also provided critical feedback on the debate which you can read here.

I know Babka, as an evangelical Christian, disagrees with the view I often explicate on Romans 13. I'm not a Christian or a believer in the infallibility of the Bible so my understanding is more "academic" or "scholarly." But, evangelicals/fundamentalists/orthodox Christians -- devout believers in the Bible as the infallible Word of God -- throughout history and currently today do believe in this understanding that demands something close to unlimited submission to civil authorities. And if this interpretation of Romans 13 is correct, the American Revolution was a sin.

I’m actually must less passionately wedded to the position that Romans 13 teaches unlimited submission to government than I might seem. I tried to make clear I thought the position that, Herb, Jim, and the many Christians throughout history who argued for the right to resist tyrannical magistrates is a “reasonable” interpretation. I just want folks to be aware that what was central to the American Revolution is not so “clearly” biblical but rather a matter of debate within orthodox Christendom.

Falling short of its promise -- Alf Mapp's The Faiths of Our Fathers: What America's Founder's Really Believed

When I finished reading Alf Mapp's Faith of Our Fathers: What America's Founders Really Believed in September of 2007, I posted a quick review to Amazon.com. Since the book, and my review, relate to the subject matter of the American Creation blog, I figure I'll reproduce it here . . .

a great idea, poorly executed

Mapp's The Faiths of our Fathers is a light read, appropriate for high school students perhaps. But the editing is poor, factual assertions are inaccurate, and all too often the analysis is weak and deep understanding absent.

The book opens on a note both strong and true: "There was no monolithic national faith acknowledged by all Founding Fathers. Their religious attitudes were as varied as their political opinions." (pp. 1-2). Yet Mapp does not quite deliver on the promise of clearly explaining the Founding Fathers' many heterodoxies.

Consider Thomas Jefferson. Mapp observes that one of Thomas Jefferson's "dearest friends was Joseph Priestley, a liberal clergyman as well as a distinguished scientist," (p. 14), but he fails to note that Jefferson attributed to Priestley's Unitarian theology the foundations of his own religious faith. Mapp acknowledges that "Jefferson rejected the trinitarian concept of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Spirit)." (p. 11). But the word "Unitarian" appears not even once in the chapter of the faith of our nation's third President, who earnestly expressed hope that Unitarianism would soon become our nation's the general religion.

Mapp's chapter on John Adams opens by giving the impression that Adams was bound by "Puritan and Calvinist doctrines," (p. 56), though what Mapp means to say is far from clear, as his discussion of Adams's religious beliefs quickly demonstrates that our nation's second President - rejecting such fundamental doctrines as eternal hell and the divinity of Christ - was anything but a Calvinist.

Mapp tells us that Adams declared: "An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient author of this stupendous universe, suffering on a cross!!! My soul starts with horror at the idea, and it has stupefied the Christian world. It has been the source of almost all the corruptions of Christianity." (p. 62). Many of today's evangelicals - who insist that only those who believe Jesus was God can call themselves Christians - would have to deny that Adams was a Christian. By their standard, three of our nation's first six presidents - John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and John Quincy Adams - were not Christians. One can only wonder why Mapp never points this out.

Mapp says that Adams also "declared his disbelief in demoniacal possession," and then "[a]nticipating the anger his declaration would provoke in some quarters, he wrote, 'Howl, snarl, bite, ye Calvinistic, ye Athanasian divines, if ye will. Ye will say I am no Christian. I say ye are not Christians, and there the account is balanced.'" (p. 61). In context, however, the quoted phrase - which appears in a September 14, 1813, letter to Thomas Jefferson - relates not to Adams's disbelief in demoniacal possession, but to his rejection of the Calvinists' doctrine of eternal damnation. Yet Mapp does adequately convey Adams's inability to believe that a loving God would consign human beings to eternal hell: "My adoration of the author of the universe is too profound and too sincere." (p. 61).

Many have noted the role that religion has played in objections to the institution of slavery. Of James Madison, our federal Constitution's principal author, Mapp writes: "His determined, lifelong opposition to slavery also cost him support and perhaps some personal friendships. But, though a master of compromise in negotiation, he would not compromise on what he regarded as a major moral issue." (p.50). Yet Madison did compromise on precisely this issue. The Constitution that he did so much to frame, that he signed, and whose ratification he vigorously promoted, included both a clause protecting the slave trade from federal regulation (Article I, sec. 9, cl. 1), and also the notorious fugitive-slave clause, mandating that escaped slaves be returned to their owners: "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." (Article 4, sec. 2, cl. 3).

As Mapp tries to outline the religious beliefs of eleven Founding Fathers, he unfortunately gets many points of American religious history dead wrong. He confuses two distinct groups, the Pilgrims and the Puritans, for example, when he writes: "At home in England and during their self-imposed exile in Holland, the Puritans had been rebels. But in Massachusetts they had built their own society, which they were confident was ordained by God." (p. 26). In fact, the Puritans who would dominate the government of Massachusetts came direct from England. And although lay people are apt to confuse the Puritans with the Pilgrims, those Separatist "rebels" who spent some time in Holland, it is surprising to find such confusion in a book about the religious background of our nation's Founding Fathers.

This is by no means the only confusion in Mapp's book. Mapp tells us, for example, that by George Washington's time, "Anglicans constituted the established church of England and its colonies." (p. 66). That, of course, is gross overstatement. For Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Delaware had no established churches while throughout New England - excepting establishment-free Rhode Island - the established churches were Congregationalist, not Anglican.

Discussing Benjamin Franklin's beliefs, Mapp even confuses polytheism and pantheism. (p.32).

Poor editing causes problems throughout. When Mapp purports to quote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, for example, he adds to the Statute's text lines coming instead from Thomas Jefferson's 1787 Notes on Virginia, to the effect that "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." (p. 8). The title of the landmark 1947 Supreme Court opinion, Everson v. Board of Education, so influenced by Jefferson's wall of separation between church and state, is given as "Emerson." Mapp is off by two decades when he writes: "In 1775, following Braddock's defeat and the experience of remaining unharmed when several bullets pierced his coat, Washington exclaimed in a personal letter: 'See the wondrous works of providence!'" (p.73). The year was 1755, not 1775.

And if I, as a casual reader, can spot these errors, there must be many more.

In all, this is a book based on a great idea that opens with great promise, but that falls short of its potential.

Eric Alan Isaacson

Fact or Fiction? - The founding of America and religious freedom

One of the more common reasons given to school kids for the Pilgrims leaving England was so they could establish religious freedom. Well, that's only partially correct. Religious freedom to the early Puritans was meant only for their religion.

In order to understand the theology of the Puritans, a brief history lesson is in order.

For decades up until 1533, Protestantism had been the main religion of England. In that year, however, Mary Tudor (Catholic Queen Mary) succeeded Edward VI. To escape persecution from the Catholic church, the Protestants beat feet and fled to the European continent.

The story doesn't end there. Due to all the internal strife in the Lutheran areas, the exiles weren't welcomed and, in some cases, were turned away. On the other hand the Reformed Calvin areas welcomed these exiles with open arms.

Why is this important?

Simply put, Lutherans believed in a "two-Kingdom" theology in which there was some modicum of separation between the Church and the State. Reformed Calvinists, however, believed in a "single Kingdom" theology in which the State and Church were inseparable and BOTH were subject to the dictates of God, revealed through scripture.

When Mary died in 1558 and was succeeded by Elizabeth, the exiles returned home. Strengthened by their Reformed Calvin education, they looked to "reform" the English church and make Reform Calvinism the primary influence in English life.

When it was inevitable their goal wouldn't materialize, the separatists left England. They truly believed they were the "elect", just as the Israelites of the Old Testament were, and leaving for the New World was the modern version of the Exodus.

Arriving in America, the Puritans sought to establish a purely Christian commonwealth. This was further codified in 1641 in the Massachusetts Body of Liberties. If one has never read this document, it truly is an enlightening read. In it you'll find exemptions for when it's ok to torture confessions from people, and a list of Capital crimes straight out of the Pentateuch.

Any person who settled and disagreed with the Puritan ethic was typically tried and convicted of blasphemy and either killed or exiled (see Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson).

In essence, two things can be gleaned from this:

1) "Religious freedom" was granted as long as that religion was Reformed Calvinism.
2) America's Christian founding, of which the MA Bay Colony can be considered the first permanent settlement, was intended to be a Christian theocracy of the Reformed Calvinist tradition.

Hear Me Live on the Air Today

At 3:00pm my Positive Liberty Co-blogger Jim Babka hosting. I am going to be discussing the Founding & Religion with Herb Titus, former VP Candidate for the Constitution Party and founding Dean of Regent University School of Law.

You can get the details here. I disagree with the "Christian America" reading of the Founding. But Herb has a JD from Harvard University School of Law and follows in a very respectable scholarly tradition of folks like the late Harvard Law Professor Harold Berman.

Michael Medved on Christmas and America's Founders

Conservative columnist and movie critic Michael Medved has penned an interesting op-ed on the controvery we often see around Christmas. What makes this op-ed pertinent to the readers of American Creation is that Medved makes some controversial (though not indefensible) claims regarding America's founding.

In this latest op-ed "Christmas Symbols Deserve More Respect Than Atheist Insults," Medved focuses on the latest holiday season display controversy in Washington state.

Apparently, once Washington state officials opened the door to a nativity scene, they felt pressured to accept (at least initially) displays from other faiths and perspectives as well. This led to a highly contentious and often comical parade of controversies.

**Read about the anti-religion display sponsored by the Freedom From Religion Foundation that helped stoke the controversy. Click here.

**Read a transcript of Bill O'Reilly interviewing Glenn Beck on the Washington state capitol controversy. Click here.

Washington state has apparently suspended any further holiday season displays to stem the controversy. Medved says (I think correctly) that this could all have been avoided had Washington state officials not succumbed to the "reasoning [that] once you've permitted a nativity scene, there's no reasonable basis for resisting the Flying Spaghetti Monster Holiday Display."

Says Medved: "Those who believe that Christmas symbols and Festivus poles equally challenge the First Amendment establishment clause unthinkingly accept some of the pernicious and prevalent distortions of ignorant political correctness."

According to Medved, it is constitutionally and politically acceptable for public buildings to permit (perhaps even embrace) traditional (i.e., religious) symbols associated with Christmas.

Medved, who is Jewish (and thus not theologically aligned with evangelical Christianity), argues that "all framers of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence accepted and endorsed the deeply religious nature of the people they represented" and that many Founders, including even Thomas Jefferson, "openly expressed their conviction that the survival of liberty depended on Christian faith."

To read the rest of Medved's article, click here. Even if you disagree, I'm sure it will provoke thought and discussion.

Animated Clip on Mormon Theology

I found this on YouTube. It's quite interesting; though I don't know how much of this is accurate, how much is distortion. I'd like Mormon readers to comment.

Have Yourself a Merry Unitarian Christmas

Numerous articles and blogs have noted the strong case to doubt Christmas' authentically "Christian" origins. Christ probably wasn't born on Dec. 25. The Puritans banned the holiday because it wasn't authentically Christian. And many of its rituals trace to the pagan celebration of the Winter Solstice or Saturnalia.

The modern understanding of Christmas is also significantly influenced by Charles Dickens' class "A Christmas Carol." Some Christians argue we need to put "Christ" back into Christmas and remind folks what "Christmas" is supposed to be all about. They might want to turn to Dickens' classic in support of that cause; but it would do them no good.

Charles Dickens, you see, was a Unitarian Christian. And "A Christmas Carol" preaches a decidedly (19th Century) Unitarian message on Christmas. To Unitarians, "Christianity" was all about good works and good will, NOT God's grace through Christ's atonement. Indeed, Unitarians view Jesus as the greatest moral teacher, someone who "saved" man through his stellar moral example, not blood atonement. And "A Christmas Carol" hardly ever mentions Jesus at all.

Now, orthodox Christians likewise appreciate good works and good will. But that is secondary to God's grace through the shed blood of Jesus Christ -- God the Son Incarnate. And "A Christmas Carol" celebrates this message that the orthodox could consider at best secondary or incidental, not the central theme of the Christian religion.

That said, have a Merry Unitarian Christmas.

Frazer Responds to Comments

I posted a note from Dr. Gregg Frazer on my blogs and at American Creation it generated a lively 65 comments. Frazer emailed me this response:

According to the tally, there have been 65 comments in response to my brief post. Clearly, I cannot answer them all. I'd like to make a few brief comments, however.

Kristo: I think Acts 7:55-60 makes it clear that Stephen "counts" under my definition. For the purposes of the historical argument, though, I rely on what 18th century American Christians said Christianity was. It so happens that I agree with the 10 common elements that they affirmed as core doctrines.

Regarding the "key" Founders: I deal with eight, not five; and they represent the three most responsible for writing the Declaration and, arguably, the five most responsible for the content of the Constitution and putting it into effect.

"Majorities" of people simply assent to laws -- they don't frame them. Those who WRITE documents have influence over its content -- not those who merely assent to it. The U.S. Constitution, to which they assented, was "godless" and there was opposition to it on that basis -- but it was ratified anyway. The principles upon which it was based were identified as philosophical and historical (in the convention debates, The Federalist Papers, and their personal correspondence) -- not the Bible or the writings of church fathers/theologians. A number of those principles are non-biblical or even anti-biblical.

As for the Declaration, the fact that we're still arguing about its religious content 232 years later would please and amuse Jefferson. He intentionally wrote it such that everyone could read his own religious beliefs into it and, therefore, all would find it acceptable and supportable. The deist sees what he wants to see, the Jew sees what he wants, the Christian sees what he wants, etc. As theistic rationalists, Jefferson, Adams, & Franklin eschewed particular doctrine as divisive and, consequently, they had no doctrinal "dog in the race," so to speak. So, of course OFT sees Christian content because he wants to and secularists see deist language, etc. Such was the genius of Jefferson.

Jefferson (perhaps my least favorite Founder -- I'd love to leave him out) is important and included because he is most responsible for the content of the Declaration, the nation's formative philosophical document. Several complained in this discussion that TJ was the most aberrant where theology was concerned -- BUT THAT'S MY MAJOR POINT -- HE WASN'T ABERRANT AT ALL. The other seven I write about held fundamentally the same beliefs as Jefferson (Adams even said so).

Mr. Van Dyke: I would be the last person who would want Christianity or Christian influence "scrubbed" from anywhere. I began my project partly to correct the record concerning the Establishment Clause which the Court has butchered since 1947. BUT you can't scrub Christianity from places in which it doesn't exist. AND it does no favor to Christianity (rather, it harms it) when you ascribe the label "Christian" or "Christianity" to people or ideas or documents which are not really Christian. The Gospel becomes corrupted and muddled and the Word of God is tainted by non-biblical influences. It also exalts what God hates: generic, moralizing "religion."

To clarify my lack of desire to "scrub" any Christian influence away, let me say that there certainly were Christians involved in the Founding -- some of whom played important roles. For example, John Jay and Roger Sherman and John Witherspoon were Christians by my definition and by that of 18th century Americans. But they didn't have as much influence on the founding documents as the eight I studied.

As for the state constitution issue: the differences in the state constitutions point up the concerns of the theistic rationalists. There were many religious sects -- even among Protestants (especially among Protestants), so any attempt to establish any one of them on a national basis would have been disastrous and prevented a unified country. The theistic rationalists who were most influential in constructing and implementing the U.S. Constitution were in a perfect position to make a nonsectarian, non-Christian country because they did not adhere to particular (divisive, in their view) Christian doctrines. That is not to say that they didn't want the people to be religious or that they didn't want to promote religion -- they most certainly did. They did not, however, aspire to making a specifically "Christian" country and did not necessarily want the people to be "Christian." They wanted religion and religious people because the result would be a morality that would undergird the nation.

Jon: You were correct to take issue with my superlative concerning their use of "Christ" -- I should have said "almost never" or "very rarely." Turnabout is fair play: I have to take issue with you regarding your claim about the Bible's supposed "ambivalence toward chattel slavery." The form of slavery supported in the Bible is not what you think of as slavery, not the form of slavery practiced in the U.S., and not even the norm of slavery in the ancient world. Slavery in the Mosaic Commonwealth was voluntary and was actually a gracious provision for the poor. One who was economically inept could sell himself into slavery in order to provide for himself and/or his family. He was to be treated as a member of the family and strictly protected against any kind of abuse. There was not even a social stigma against the slave. Slaves were freed from their commitment after six years. In the Jubilee year, all slaves were released -- whether the six years were up or not. They could always be "bought back" at any time by any kinsman for the amount they owed. The kidnapping of persons to sell or use as slaves was a capital crime (Exodus 21:16). One could become a perpetual slave by one's own choice -- otherwise, it was not allowed.

Jerusalem or Mythological Rome?

That's one of the themes in Gary North's "Conspiracy In Philadelphia." I am going to reproduce this passage from Dr. North's E-Book because its analysis is so spot on:

We do not find authoritative references to the Bible or church history in either The Federalist Papers or the Antifederalist tracts. Adrienne Koch’s compilation of primary source documents, The American Enlightenment, is not mythological, even though it is self-consciously selective.36 There was an American Enlightenment, though subdued in its hostility to Christianity.37 Jefferson, after all, kept hidden his cut-up, re-pasted New Testament, purged of the miraculous and supernatural; he knew what his constituents would have thought of such a theology.38 He refused to publish this book, he told his friend, Christian physician Benjamin Rush, because he was “averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public, because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquest over the rights of conscience, which the laws have so justly proscribed.”39 That is, if word got out to the American voters, who were overwhelmingly Christian in their views, regarding what he really believed about religion, he and his party might lose the next election, despite a generation of systematic planning by him and his deistic Virginia associates to get Christianity removed from the political arena in both Virginia and in national elections. (The book was not made public until 1902. In 1904, the 57th Congress reprinted 9,000 copies, 3,000 for use by Senators and 6,000 for the House.40 It was a very different America in 1904.)

The Framers rhetorically appealed back to Roman law and classical political models in their defense of the Constitution. Madison, Jay, and Hamilton used the Roman name “Publius” in signing the Federalist Papers. Publius was a prominent founder of the Roman Republic. The Antifederalists responded with pseudo-Roman names. Yet both groups were heavily dependent on late seventeenth-century political philosophy, as well as on early eighteenth-century Whig republicanism....41 They shared a common universe of political discourse, and trinitarian Christianity was what both sides were attempting to downplay. The political discourse of the age was dominated by classical allusions, not by Hebraic ones....

....What we must understand is that the U.S. Constitution is in large part a product of a rhetorical Enlightenment appeal back to the Greco-Roman world, yet it was in fact something quite modern: specifically, a reaction against the Puritanism of both seventeenth-century American colonialism and the Puritanism of the Cromwellian revolution of 1642–60.

To what extent was this verbal appeal back to Rome rhetorical? [Thomas] Pangle believes, as I do, that the Framers were essentially “moderns” rather than “ancients.” They were far more influenced by late seventeenth-century social thought than by the events of Roman history, let alone classical political philosophy, which had little impact on them except in a negative sense. “Generally speaking, the ancients, in contrast to the American Founders, appear to place considerably less emphasis on protecting individuals and their ‘rights’ – rights to private property and family safety, to property, to freedom of religion, and to the ‘pursuit of happiness.’”45 Also, he argues – I believe correctly – that the classical philosophers put virtue above fraternity and liberty.46 The Framers, while they discussed the need for virtue and religion – always carefully undefined – did so as defenders of political and economic freedom. Virtue was therefore instrumental for them – a means of achieving social stability and progress, liberty and security.47

This was also their view of religion. In this, they were not fundamentally different in principle from Robespierre, who established a formal civic religion of nature and reason in the midst of the Terror in 1794. De-Christianization was morally debilitating, Robespierre concluded; it had to be followed by the establishment of a new civic religion.48 He knew that men needed to believe in God’s sanctions in order to keep them obedient. Talmon calls this impulse “cosmic pragmatism.”49 The major figures among the Framers were wiser men than Robespierre, and more influenced by traditional Christianity, but they were Enlightenment men to the core. Their veneer and their constituencies were different from those of the French Revolutionaries, but not their theology. Their religion was civic religion. The difference is, they saw civic religion as a decentralized, individual matter rather than as a state affair; it was to aid the national government but not be part of the national government. John Adams, a theological unitarian, wrote in his autobiography, presumably for himself and not the electorate:

"One great advantage of the Christian religion is that it brings the great principle of the law of nature and nations, Love your neighbour as yourself, and do to others as you would that others should do to you, to the knowledge, belief and veneration of the whole people. Children, servants, women and men are all professors in the science of public as well as private morality. No other institution for education, no kind of political discipline, could diffuse this kind of necessary information, so universally among all ranks and descriptions of citizens. The duties and rights of the man and the citizen are thus taught, from early infancy to every creature. The sanctions of a future life are thus added to the observance of civil and political as well as domestic and private duties. Prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude, are thus taught to be the means and conditions of future as well as present happiness."50

Not a word about the atonement; not a word about the sacraments: the entire passage is geared to the requirements for public morality. The churches are viewed as effective educational institutions; no other institution could accomplish this task more effectively. Hence, Christianity is a good thing socially. The whole perspective is civic. pp. 27-32.

Land of Confusion: Will We Ever Sort it all Out?

Here at American Creation, one of the repeating arguments that we tackle almost on a weekly basis centers around the issue of how much "God talk" did the founding fathers want in American society and government. Did the founders hope for a plethora of religious discussion to take place in the halls of government? Or were they hoping to create a secular government based on human reason and intellect that would be free from the "shackles" of religious tyranny?

Of course our blog is not the first or only forum in which these discussions take place. A countless number of books, blogs, television outlets, etc. have immersed themselves in this "custody battle" for the religious -- or anti-religious -- heritage of America's founding. I believe author Steven Waldman effectively illustrates this ongoing "war" for America's founding heritage when he writes:

The "religious" side wants less separation of church and state, and the "secularists" want more...For starters, many conservatives believe that if they can show that the Founding Fathers were very religious, they thereby also prove that the Founders abhorred separation of church and state...Some liberals, meanwhile, feel the need to prove the Founders were irreligious or secular and therefore, of course, in favor of separation...But in the heat of this custody battle over the spiritual lives of the Founding Fathers, BOTH SIDES DISTORT HISTORY...In fact, the culture wars have so warped our sense of history that we typically have a very limited understanding of how we came to have religious liberty. (Founding Faith, 7).

And this is the central problem. in the heat of this "custody battle" both the Christian nation supporters and the American secularists have lost their way in the labyrinth of popular culture.

Attempting to grasp the historical facts of America's founding heritage is a messy prospect regardless of one's persuasion. Even the very participants in America's revolution understood this. As John Adams stated to his Virginia comrade, Thomas Jefferson:

Who shall write the history of the American Revolution? Who can write it? Who will ever be able to write it?

Jefferson's response is equally provocative:

Nobody...except merely its external facts...The life and soul of its history must be forever unknown.

So can we ever actually hope to ascertain America's true religious heritage? At least one man believes so. And not only does he vehemently support the "Christian Nation" agenda but he also makes the boogeyman cower in fear. Yes, I am talking about the one and only Chuck Norris!

As a contributor to WorldNetDaily, Norris has written several pieces on America's Godly heritage. In October of this year, however, Norris aimed his attacks at the new $621 million dollar Capitol Visitor Center, which Norris believes is nothing more than a tribute to American political correctness. Norris writes:

Religious revisionism is popping up again in the new Capitol Visitor Center...Absent is anything that discusses our Christian or religious heritage. That is why Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., and the 108 congressional members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus recently petitioned the Architect of the Capitol by letter, which details and documents the incomplete and inaccurate religious content in the Capitol Visitor Center.

Norris then lists the specific religious components that are missing from the Visitor Center:

1. No mention of our national motto, "In God We Trust"

2. In displaying images of the current speaker's rostrum in the House chamber, the phrase "In God We Trust" is omitted from its location engraved in marble above the speaker's head;

3. The opening words in Article 3 in the Northwest Ordinance (1787) are excluded from an exhibit. The actual article reads, "Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." The exhibit article reads: "Art. 3. … schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

4. There are factual inaccuracies regarding church services held at the Capitol in early decades of our republic, saying they were held when Congress wasn't in session, when in fact they were held year around – and even the so-labeled strict-separatist Thomas Jefferson attended them throughout his eight years of presidency.

5. The exhibits include photos from Earth Day, an AIDS rally, various casino grounds and factories, but it does not include photos from monumental religious events such as the National Day of Prayer or the March for Life event, attended by thousands annually, etc.

6. There is an absence of any major display or description of the religious influence within or about the 200-plus year history of the Capitol.

But not everyone is upset with the portrayal of America's religious heritage as presented in the Capitol Visitor's Center. Sandhya Bathija of Americans United For the Separation of Church and State expressed his extreme opposition to the work being done by the Christian Nation crowd. He writes:

The version of American history pushed by Barton and Forbes is their own skewed version. For the rest of us, we have learned since kindergarten that our founding fathers had enough sense to keep religion out of government and government out of religion in order to preserve religious liberty for all.

I’m pleased that the new Capitol Visitor Center hasn’t yielded to Religious Right propagandists. I hope it doesn’t do so now.

In conclusion, here is a Youtube video posted by Senator Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, and staunch supporter of the Christian right. The video addresses the Senator's specific grievances with the new Visitor's Center and what he would like to see changed:



And here are some parting words from Chuck himself:

America's fathers wholeheartedly believed in the premise stated in Psalm 33:12, which says, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord." But what would they have thought of a nation that removes God from its heritage, classroom instructions, civic ceremonies, buildings, monuments, historic sites, etc.? I believe the words of Thomas Jefferson are as fitting for religious apostasy as they were for slavery, words that were inscribed upon his memorial in Washington, D.C., around 1940: "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever.

-If you have five dollars and Chuck Norris has five dollars, Chuck Norris has more money than you.

-There is no 'ctrl' button on Chuck Norris's computer. Chuck Norris is always in control.

-Chuck Norris can sneeze with his eyes open.

-Chuck Norris can eat just one Lay's potato chip.

-Chuck Norris destroyed the periodic table, because he only recognizes the element of surprise.

-Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird

Who is a Christian?

Guest Blogger Dr. Robert Cornwall
on What Qualifies one as a Christian

***Hello everyone. In light of the recent debates on this issue, Pastor Robert Cornwall has sent me the following material. Dr. Cornwall (who's blog can be found here) originally posted this on his personal blog, but was kind enough to send me the link for use here at American Creation. Enjoy!***

-------------------------------------------

It seems that we are all eager to put up our fences, marking who is in and who is out. With a new President about to take office, there are those who wish to challenge his own confession of faith. From their vantage point, Barack Obama isn't a Christian because he has made statements that don't accord with their definition of a Christian. For some, the defining code of belief is the Nicene Creed, for others its the Westminster Confession, or the confession printed on their church bulletin. For many, this definition can get rather narrow. Their list of essentials growing longer by the day.

Over at American Creation, a blog that debates questions of the religious nature of American origins, this conversation is ongoing, and many definitions have been offered.

For my part I'd like to throw in this definition that was written nearly two centuries ago -- published on September 7, 1809. The author of this statement was Thomas Campbell, father of Alexander, and one of the co-founders of the Movement that spawned my denomination. Reflecting the ethos of the day, along with his own studies of John Locke and the Scottish Common Sense philosophical tradition, Campbell issued his Declaration and Address. This document was designed to lay out a play for Christian unity on the American Frontier, which at the time was the Pennsylvania/Ohio border.

I offer up this definition, the first of thirteen propositions that defined a path toward Christian unity.

PROP. 1. That the Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else; as none else can be truly and properly called Christians.

Note the foundation -- faith in Christ and obedience to him in light of the Scriptures. It is a combination of confession and behaviors. The creed is brief and could be seen as relatively open. Note to that this confession is set in the context of the church, which Campbell believed was one not only in "invisible" sense, but in a very tangible sense.

So, who is a Christian? How should we make the judgment? Who is empowered to make such a decision?

Munoz on James Madison & Religion

Dr. Phillip Munoz of Tufts University is one of the best and brightest right of center scholars of religion and the Founding I've come across. The religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers will always be a matter of dispute. I've referred to James H. Hutson's (another fantastic right of center scholar) outstanding article on James Madison and religion a number of times when controversy erupts over what it is that Madison exactly believed. Now I am going to shine the light on Munoz's.

The article is entitled Religion in the Life, Thought, and Presidency of James Madison. There's much good in it and the entire thing is worth a read (please do). However I am going to focus on the part that discusses Madison's personal creed.

First Munoz summarizes the enigmatic dynamic to Madison's religious beliefs. The following seems to be the most telling passage:

The disagreement over Madison’s personal faith results, in part, from the fact that after 1776 Madison wrote almost nothing about his religious convictions—in the words of William Lee Miller, “he kept his mouth shut” about his religious beliefs.9

Keeping one's mouth shut (as did GW) is a telltale sign that someone has something to hide (i.e., unnacceptably heretical-heterodox beliefs; the very same beliefs that J. Adams, Jefferson and Franklin explicated in detail in their private letters).

Of course Munoz notes Madison's letter William Bradford, 25 September 1773 that Christian America proponents oft-cite where Madison supports his friend's desire to enter the ministry. As Madison wrote:

I have sometimes thought there could be no stronger testimony in favor of Religion or against temporal Enjoyments even the most rational and manly than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent Advocates in the cause of Christ, & I wish you may give in your Evidence in this way.

But as Munoz aptly observes: "Such statements disappear from Madison’s writings after 1776. Whether he maintained his belief in an afterlife beyond his youth he does not say...."

Although Munoz doesn't cite him, Bishop Meade who knew Madison personally thought at around this time (1776) Madison ceased strict adherence to orthodox Christianity based on his political associations other "infidel" Founding Fathers (he doesn't mention them but was certainly referring to at least Jefferson):

His political associations with those of infidel principles, of whom there were many in his day, if they did not actually change his creed, yet subjected him to the general suspicion of it.

Meade also notes his personal impression of Madison was that he didn't strictly believe in the Bible:

I was never at Mr. Madison’s but once, and then our conversation took such a turn—though not designed on my part—as to call forth some expressions and arguments which left the impression on my mind that his creed was not strictly regulated by the Bible.

See the original here.

Munoz's most interesting analysis is of James Madison's letter to to Frederick Beasley, dated 20 November 1825 where Madison appeals to the Arian Anglican Divine Samuel Clarke (NOT John Witherspoon) for authority and otherwise speaks as a dyed in the wool philosophical rationalist. As Madison wrote:

DEAR SIR I have duly recd the copy of your little tract on the proofs of the Being & Attributes of God. To do full justice to it, would require not only a more critical attention than I have been able to bestow on it, but a resort to the celebrated work of Dr. Clarke, which I read fifty years ago only, and to that of Dr. Waterland also which I never read. . . .

The finiteness of the human understanding betrays itself on all subjects, but more especially when it contemplates such as involves infinity. What may safely be said seems to be, that the infinity of time & space forces itself on our conception, a limitation of either being inconceivable; that the mind prefers at once the idea of a self-existing cause to that of an infinite series of cause & effect, which augments, instead of avoiding the difficulty; and that it finds more facility in assenting to the self-existence of an invisible cause possessing infinite power, wisdom & goodness, than to the self-existence of the universe, visibly destitute of those attributes, and which may be the effect of them. In this comparative facility of conception & belief, all philosophical Reasoning on the subject may perhaps terminate.18

And Munoz's analysis of said passage:

Madison posits that philosophical reasoning can deduce two possible alternatives to explain the cause of existence: an invisible self-caused cause that itself is the cause of all that exists or, alternatively, the infinite self-existence of the universe. The mind, he says, “prefers at once” the former. It “finds more facility” in assenting to belief in an invisible cause possessing “infinite power, wisdom, and goodness” than it does to the self-existence of the universe without such attributes.

But why? Why, we might ask, does the mind prefer the self-existing cause possessing infinite power, wisdom, and goodness?...

Madison says the possibility of an infinite series of cause and effect “augments, instead of avoiding the difficulty.” Perhaps Madison means to suggest that belief in the eternal existence of the universe with an infinite series of cause and effect fails to offer a satisfactory resolution to the question of how existence itself came into being since our finite minds struggle to contemplate infinity. If this is correct, then it is the finiteness of our minds that leads it to prefer belief in an invisible self-caused cause over the eternal existence of the world—that is, Madison does not claim that reason itself sides with belief in an invisible cause possessing infinite power, wisdom, and goodness over belief in the eternal existence of the world. This conclusion would seem to be confirmed by Madison’s statement that “in this comparative facility of conception & belief, all philosophical Reasoning must terminate.” Madison suggests that philosophical reasoning alone cannot arbitrate between the possibility of the eternity of the world and the existence of a self-caused cause. In short, Madison’s position seems to be that reason suggests the possibility of but does not confirm the existence of a creator God possessing infinite power, wisdom, and goodness.

Strikingly, what we do not find in Madison’s writings in an explicit appeal to Scripture to decide the question. We have copies of the notes Madison took from his study of the Bible as a young man,19 but as far as I can tell, Madison never cites Scripture to resolve questions pertaining to the existence or nature of God.

Munoz then notes one time in the Federalist Papers (Federalist 37) where Madison alluded to revelation, and, according to Munoz, "Madison seems to question the certainty with which man can apprehend the meaning of divine revelation." As Madison wrote:

When the Almighty himself condescends to address mankind in their own language, his meaning, luminous as it may be, is rendered dim and doubtful by the cloudy medium through which it is communicated.20

Examining the available evidence, Munoz concludes:

On theological matters, Madison was first and foremost a rationalist. The starting point (and perhaps the end point) of his reflections seems to have been unaided philosophical reasoning—not so much reason aided by faith but human reason simply. [Bold mine.]

Munoz notes there is a strong mystery in how unaided philosophical reason lead Madison to belief in God's existence, but simply, that it did: "In the aforementioned response to Beasley, Madison also states,

"But whatever effect may be produced on some minds by the more abstract train of ideas which you so strongly support, it will probably always be found that the course of reasoning from the effect to the cause, 'from Nature to Nature’s God,' Will be the more universal & more persuasive application.21

"Madison seems to reveal the type of reasoning that he himself found most persuasive—'from Nature to Nature’s God.'"