Well, it's another July 4, where many people will celebrate the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain. Of course, declaring independence and actually winning it are two different things. Perhaps we should actually celebrate the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783 as our official independence day. That's not as fun, though, because it took far less in terms of guts.
There is frequently a debate over whether or not the founding fathers of the nation were all evangelicals or all Deists. I've argued before that it's difficult to lump the founding fathers into one easy group. There were founding fathers from both groups. The link above is a post from last your that discusses a bit about John Witherspoon, a minister who signed the Declaration of Independence. Baylor professor Thomas Kidd wrote about the top five forgotten evangelical founders this week. The good thing about his posts are that they are actually scholarly and written by an expert in early American religious history, unlike some other "experts" that try even Thomas Jefferson out to be an evangelical, rather than the Deist he actually was. People who study American church history should not just cherry pick documents that seem to argue what they want. It's important to look at a person's entire body of work.
Another post this week that interested me was a discussion about historians of liberal Protestantism, which deals with the twentieth century. There is quite a bit about evangelical religion in this period. My own work deals with the subject of evangelical history. The question arises why there are not as many historians of liberal Protestants. A definition is in order, liberal Protestants tend to be liberal in the theological sense. While they frequently have liberal leanings in a political sense, the major emphasis is theological liberalism, at least as far as I understand.
Perhaps the answer to this question is the fact that theologically liberal Protestants are much less influential in American society because they are a shrinking demographic in society. Some evangelical denominations have lost members and there is a growing number of non-religious people in America today, but these losses are nothing when compared to the influence that the mainline denominations once had in American society.
Much of this could probably be explained because of the non-supernatural bent of these liberal Protestants. For example, if Jesus was just another man who had a special spark of the divine, there's not much to differentiate him from the descriptions that other religions have of their founders. If he actually resurrected from the dead and was God and man as the New Testament describes, on the other hand, then Christianity holds infinitely more importance. I think this difference is the reason for much of the decline of liberal Protestantism. If Jesus isn't really who the Bible claims, why not just become a hedonist and skip church?
Showing posts with label Founding Fathers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Founding Fathers. Show all posts
21 June 2012
Thoughts on Teaching Early American History
Before I get into the meat of this post, here's an interesting post by Baylor history professor Thomas Kidd on Obama, Romney, and Evangelical voters. It asks whether politics trumps theology in the presidential election. Personally, I wonder how much trumps theology in everyday American life, but that's another story altogether. Politics is only one area of discussion in this realm.
It appears that I will again be teaching a section of the US to 1877. Some of the course must, of course talk about American church history, but this is not the only major topic for discussion. There is also ideology, politics, race relations, gender relations, economics, as well as a mixture of all the above.
I try to take a middle-of-the road position when teaching history. Some historians focus on the political and military (I don't do many battles in my class, to the consternation of some, but I love the reasons for and consequences of wars). Others focus on what is known as social history, or history from below. This type of history looks at the indentured servant, the slave, the domestic helper, and the yeoman farmer. I try to look at both, because I don't think focusing entirely upon one or the other truly gives a complete picture of the past (if such a picture is possible in the first place--it isn't, but looking at all angles gives a better picture of the past).
When teaching American history, I am increasingly frustrated by American history texts for a couple of reasons. There is frequently little on pre-Columbian native cultures, and there is little on the Europe that builds up to the Age of Exploration. It is almost as if there were a few Indians here, with the exception of the Inca and Aztecs and that the Europeans were just out searching for gold.
The fact is, neither is true. There were massively important Indian cultures in North America that had integrated trade networks with other native peoples. Some were quite successful and more advanced than some Europeans. Also, there were huge religious conflicts that led to exploration--Christians (Catholic and Protestant) wanting to avoid Muslim middlemen, and both groups wanting to claim souls and gold before the other could. The rivalry was especially intense between Spain and England. I feel the need to cover these topics extensively.
In fact, I spend much of the first half of class in Europe, because it affected so much of what happened in America. Many Americans tend to think that the Bill of Rights was something thought up by the founding fathers. Now, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and Hamilton were smart guys, but they merely built upon ideas prevalent in England and other European nations. Discussing all of these issues makes it very hard to get to 1877--but I shall try.
It appears that I will again be teaching a section of the US to 1877. Some of the course must, of course talk about American church history, but this is not the only major topic for discussion. There is also ideology, politics, race relations, gender relations, economics, as well as a mixture of all the above.
I try to take a middle-of-the road position when teaching history. Some historians focus on the political and military (I don't do many battles in my class, to the consternation of some, but I love the reasons for and consequences of wars). Others focus on what is known as social history, or history from below. This type of history looks at the indentured servant, the slave, the domestic helper, and the yeoman farmer. I try to look at both, because I don't think focusing entirely upon one or the other truly gives a complete picture of the past (if such a picture is possible in the first place--it isn't, but looking at all angles gives a better picture of the past).
 |
| TJ--Thomas Jefferson |
The fact is, neither is true. There were massively important Indian cultures in North America that had integrated trade networks with other native peoples. Some were quite successful and more advanced than some Europeans. Also, there were huge religious conflicts that led to exploration--Christians (Catholic and Protestant) wanting to avoid Muslim middlemen, and both groups wanting to claim souls and gold before the other could. The rivalry was especially intense between Spain and England. I feel the need to cover these topics extensively.
In fact, I spend much of the first half of class in Europe, because it affected so much of what happened in America. Many Americans tend to think that the Bill of Rights was something thought up by the founding fathers. Now, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and Hamilton were smart guys, but they merely built upon ideas prevalent in England and other European nations. Discussing all of these issues makes it very hard to get to 1877--but I shall try.
03 March 2012
The Place of Religion in Antebellum America
My second North Dakota winter is coming to a close, and I must say that this one has been much better than the first. Days with a high below 20 have been relatively rare this year. Last year, days with a high about 20 were rare. I'm not complaining.
I'm also about to the end of my second year as a doctoral student and working on reading for my comprehensive exams, while teaching a class and taking a couple of classes on top of that load. The current book I'm working through is Daniel Walker Howe's What Hath God Wrought, which takes its title from the first message sent over the telegraph by Samuel F. B. Morse, himself an evangelical Christian.
What Hath God Wrought is a volume in Oxford University Press's series that covers the history of the United States. The volume spans the period between the end of the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War of 1846-48. Like many historians, Howe focuses his account on change over time, specifically revolutions in communications and transportation. This emphasis disputes Charles Grier Sellers' argument that it was a market revolution that dominated this period of antebellum American history.
I am not quite finished with the book, but in the eleven or so chapters that I've worked through thus far, three of them deal specifically with religion as their main topic. Chapters on the Second Great Awakening, millennarianism, and the intersection between religion and reason/science have been prevalent. The Second Great Awakening has often been tied to the emphasis on reform/temperance/abolitionism, as well as the democratization of American religion that resulted in the splintering of the major denominations--although it can also be argued that this last point was just a continuation of a trend started with the original Great Awakening.
Howe focuses his chapter regarding the millennarian movements upon such groups as the Millerites who believed Christ would return at some point in 1843-1844 and the Mormons, in addition to various utopian socialist groups (most of which failed pretty quickly and miserably). He also points out that a belief in intelligent design was the default position in the nineteenth century, even among those who intimated at evolution before Darwin. While I'm sure these points have been debated, one thing is obvious--it is impossible to tell the story of American history without understanding that Protestant Christianity had a major role in shaping what the nation would become. Some people overemphasize the Christianity of the founding fathers. Some people emphasize the lack of Christianity in the founding fathers. This topic is an ongoing debate. What cannot be debated is that the majority of people tended to adhere at least nominally to some form of Christianity (even today the number of professed Christians in America stands at over 80%). Then, as now, many failed to live up to the ideal, but the ideal nonetheless impacted the formative years of the American republic.
Regardless, the early nineteenth century is an interesting period in American church history.
I'm also about to the end of my second year as a doctoral student and working on reading for my comprehensive exams, while teaching a class and taking a couple of classes on top of that load. The current book I'm working through is Daniel Walker Howe's What Hath God Wrought, which takes its title from the first message sent over the telegraph by Samuel F. B. Morse, himself an evangelical Christian.
What Hath God Wrought is a volume in Oxford University Press's series that covers the history of the United States. The volume spans the period between the end of the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War of 1846-48. Like many historians, Howe focuses his account on change over time, specifically revolutions in communications and transportation. This emphasis disputes Charles Grier Sellers' argument that it was a market revolution that dominated this period of antebellum American history.
I am not quite finished with the book, but in the eleven or so chapters that I've worked through thus far, three of them deal specifically with religion as their main topic. Chapters on the Second Great Awakening, millennarianism, and the intersection between religion and reason/science have been prevalent. The Second Great Awakening has often been tied to the emphasis on reform/temperance/abolitionism, as well as the democratization of American religion that resulted in the splintering of the major denominations--although it can also be argued that this last point was just a continuation of a trend started with the original Great Awakening.
Howe focuses his chapter regarding the millennarian movements upon such groups as the Millerites who believed Christ would return at some point in 1843-1844 and the Mormons, in addition to various utopian socialist groups (most of which failed pretty quickly and miserably). He also points out that a belief in intelligent design was the default position in the nineteenth century, even among those who intimated at evolution before Darwin. While I'm sure these points have been debated, one thing is obvious--it is impossible to tell the story of American history without understanding that Protestant Christianity had a major role in shaping what the nation would become. Some people overemphasize the Christianity of the founding fathers. Some people emphasize the lack of Christianity in the founding fathers. This topic is an ongoing debate. What cannot be debated is that the majority of people tended to adhere at least nominally to some form of Christianity (even today the number of professed Christians in America stands at over 80%). Then, as now, many failed to live up to the ideal, but the ideal nonetheless impacted the formative years of the American republic.
Regardless, the early nineteenth century is an interesting period in American church history.
30 January 2012
The Founding Fathers and Christianity
One of the blogs that I frequently check out as a student of American church history is the the Religion in American History Blog. Today, there was a really interesting interview regarding the religious beliefs of Patrick Henry and other founding fathers.
Baylor University professor Thomas Kidd wrote a book on Henry, and is the interviewee in this particular post. He brings up a very important point that people often ignore. Many people today look at the founding fathers as men of great faith and claim that most of them were fervent evangelicals. This is simply not the case. The other extreme is false, as well. People on the other side of the argument try to claim that almost all of the founding fathers were deists like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Both sides of the argument have ulterior motives in trying to sell their position, but they are both wrong at the end of the day. It is safe to say that just about all of the founders were profoundly impacted by the Judeo-Christian belief system, but actual beliefs varied widely. For a previous post on this part of American church history, look here.
One important thing to point out about these people with widely differing beliefs is that they nevertheless came together for a common cause. Then again, it was only a few years before the niceties wore off. We haven't come very far in that regard over 200 years.
Baylor University professor Thomas Kidd wrote a book on Henry, and is the interviewee in this particular post. He brings up a very important point that people often ignore. Many people today look at the founding fathers as men of great faith and claim that most of them were fervent evangelicals. This is simply not the case. The other extreme is false, as well. People on the other side of the argument try to claim that almost all of the founding fathers were deists like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Both sides of the argument have ulterior motives in trying to sell their position, but they are both wrong at the end of the day. It is safe to say that just about all of the founders were profoundly impacted by the Judeo-Christian belief system, but actual beliefs varied widely. For a previous post on this part of American church history, look here.
One important thing to point out about these people with widely differing beliefs is that they nevertheless came together for a common cause. Then again, it was only a few years before the niceties wore off. We haven't come very far in that regard over 200 years.
17 September 2011
The Constitution and Christianity
Today, September 17, is the day that the United States celebrates Constitution Day. It was on this day in 1787 that the delegates at what is now known as the Constitutional Convention signed the document that is now the supreme charter of the US government. Some people mistakenly think that the Constitution is a Christian document. While some of the founding fathers were no doubt Christians, as I've mentioned previously on this blog, the Constitution itself has very little to say about religion in general, and nothing about Christianity specifically (although I would argue that it is reasonable to view the discussions of religion in the Constitution with a reference to Christianity).
There is one notable point in the original Constitution (sans amendments) that deals with religion. Article VI, Section 3 states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." This statement indicates that an atheist has as much right to serve the US as a God-fearing evangelical does. While there have been many people in US history that have attempted to dissuade the government from employing Catholics, Jews, and people of other faiths (most recently Muslim) as government officials, the Constitution prohibits such discrimination on religious grounds. This is an important point to understand. The rest of the Constitution goes about the rather contentious task of actually setting up a government.
Freedom of religion was not even a part of the Constitution as originally submitted to the states. I would argue that many on both the religious and secular sides of the debate misunderstand this amendment. Some would argue that the United States has been a Christian nation. Most of the time, the idea of a Christian nation is tied to the "Christendom" of medieval Europe. State-supported religion is not exactly a great spur to individual piety in most instances. Individual piety is just that, individual. While the US had a large number of professed Christians in its founding era, it was not a "Christian nation." Secularists argue that there should be no interaction between religion and public life, arguing for the "wall of separation." This wall is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, either. It is very difficult to have people who do not have beliefs that influence and even motivate their behavior. Secularism is inherently a belief system, as is Christianity. It is a bit hypocritical on both sides, in my humble opinion for either to say people can have their beliefs, but they cannot let them influence their public personna. (Note that the argument is not limited to Christians and secularists, but could involve any number of other groups.)
The first amendment has several important, closely tied freedoms established. First, there is freedom from an established state church, while there is maintenance of the right for individual freedom to worship in any manner. There are well-known instances of public officials (i.e., government officials) in early American history holding prayer in their public capacity. Therefore, it cannot reasonably be argued that the founders wanted freedom from religion. The freedom of speech is closely tied to the freedom of religion, although political speech is most clearly in view here. The right of peaceable assembly is also important for religious groups, whether they be Christian or not. How could church meetings be protected without this?
The Constitution is not a religious document. More specifically, it is not a Christian document. However, it does guarantee freedom of religion for all. This is very important. Even if it specified Christianity, which branch would be favored? That would necessarily bring up all sorts of problematic issues.
There is one notable point in the original Constitution (sans amendments) that deals with religion. Article VI, Section 3 states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." This statement indicates that an atheist has as much right to serve the US as a God-fearing evangelical does. While there have been many people in US history that have attempted to dissuade the government from employing Catholics, Jews, and people of other faiths (most recently Muslim) as government officials, the Constitution prohibits such discrimination on religious grounds. This is an important point to understand. The rest of the Constitution goes about the rather contentious task of actually setting up a government.
Freedom of religion was not even a part of the Constitution as originally submitted to the states. I would argue that many on both the religious and secular sides of the debate misunderstand this amendment. Some would argue that the United States has been a Christian nation. Most of the time, the idea of a Christian nation is tied to the "Christendom" of medieval Europe. State-supported religion is not exactly a great spur to individual piety in most instances. Individual piety is just that, individual. While the US had a large number of professed Christians in its founding era, it was not a "Christian nation." Secularists argue that there should be no interaction between religion and public life, arguing for the "wall of separation." This wall is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, either. It is very difficult to have people who do not have beliefs that influence and even motivate their behavior. Secularism is inherently a belief system, as is Christianity. It is a bit hypocritical on both sides, in my humble opinion for either to say people can have their beliefs, but they cannot let them influence their public personna. (Note that the argument is not limited to Christians and secularists, but could involve any number of other groups.)
The first amendment has several important, closely tied freedoms established. First, there is freedom from an established state church, while there is maintenance of the right for individual freedom to worship in any manner. There are well-known instances of public officials (i.e., government officials) in early American history holding prayer in their public capacity. Therefore, it cannot reasonably be argued that the founders wanted freedom from religion. The freedom of speech is closely tied to the freedom of religion, although political speech is most clearly in view here. The right of peaceable assembly is also important for religious groups, whether they be Christian or not. How could church meetings be protected without this?
The Constitution is not a religious document. More specifically, it is not a Christian document. However, it does guarantee freedom of religion for all. This is very important. Even if it specified Christianity, which branch would be favored? That would necessarily bring up all sorts of problematic issues.
19 July 2011
More on Ben Franklin's Religion
My last post discussed Benjamin Franklin's religion in relation to that of George Washington. This post will discuss Franklin's actual belief in more detail. As mentioned in my last post, Franklin considered himself a Deist, although he did concede that his "God," Providence, acted in his behalf at times.
Franklin found some ministers interesting, and even befriended the Great Awakening evangelist George Whitefield. His Autobiography speaks highly of Whitefield, and on one occasion, Franklin gave all that was in his pocket to the cause of an orphanage that the evangelist planned to build in Georgia. Franklin wrote of being somewhat turned off by a minister who plagiarized his sermons, even though he had previously supported him as the best Presbyterian minister Philadelphia had had.
However, Franklin's religion held more in common with a general set of morals than with orthodox Protestantism. In fact, in his Autobiography, he mentioned that he rarely went to church and found that polemics against Deism actually tended to draw him to the (somewhat) newfangled belief system. Franklin described his religious views thus in the Autobiography: "I never was without some religious principles. I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that he made the world, and govern'd it by his Providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter."
While he may have considered himself religious, his own words testify against his being a Christian, except perhaps a cultural Christian. While the idea of doing good to man is a great aspiration, according to Christian doctrine, it does not lead to salvation. There is no discussion of Jesus Christ in this statement of religious belief, only a generic trust that a God controls the universe and that this Deity watches what humans do in order to mete out justice (with a non-Christian understanding of God's justice). A more striking contrast to the faith of John Witherspoon would be difficult to find, except for the rare eighteenth-century atheist.
Franklin found some ministers interesting, and even befriended the Great Awakening evangelist George Whitefield. His Autobiography speaks highly of Whitefield, and on one occasion, Franklin gave all that was in his pocket to the cause of an orphanage that the evangelist planned to build in Georgia. Franklin wrote of being somewhat turned off by a minister who plagiarized his sermons, even though he had previously supported him as the best Presbyterian minister Philadelphia had had.
However, Franklin's religion held more in common with a general set of morals than with orthodox Protestantism. In fact, in his Autobiography, he mentioned that he rarely went to church and found that polemics against Deism actually tended to draw him to the (somewhat) newfangled belief system. Franklin described his religious views thus in the Autobiography: "I never was without some religious principles. I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that he made the world, and govern'd it by his Providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter."
While he may have considered himself religious, his own words testify against his being a Christian, except perhaps a cultural Christian. While the idea of doing good to man is a great aspiration, according to Christian doctrine, it does not lead to salvation. There is no discussion of Jesus Christ in this statement of religious belief, only a generic trust that a God controls the universe and that this Deity watches what humans do in order to mete out justice (with a non-Christian understanding of God's justice). A more striking contrast to the faith of John Witherspoon would be difficult to find, except for the rare eighteenth-century atheist.
16 July 2011
Ben Franklin, George Washington, and Christianity
One of the more controversial topics in modern American discourse is the question of how Christian the American founding fathers were. There are people on either side of the argument. Some argue that nearly all of the founders were devout Christians, while others argue that Christianity played a marginal role in the lives of the founding fathers. In a previous post on this topic for the occasion of Independence Day, I pointed out that John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was a practicing Presbyterian minister with a strong Christian faith.
One recent book that looked into this topic was Washington's God: Religion, Liberty, and the Father of our Country. In this work, Michael Novak and his daughter Jana argued that Washington was a devout Anglican who had a deep faith. One of the arguments that they make is that Washington's use of the term "Providence," or some variation thereof, generally ascribed activity in the affairs of men to Divine Providence. This, they argue, would preclude Washington from being the Deist that some scholars describe. One of the weaknesses of both points of view is that, from what I've read, Washington never specifically laid out his religious beliefs. This allows either side to speculate on Washington's status as a Christian, Deist, or something entirely other.
The argument regarding Washington's use of the term Providence being inconsistent with supposed Deist belief is weakened by a close reading of Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography. Franklin was a self-described Deist. He specifically stated he was a Deist. Deists tended to describe God with the analogy of a watchmaker who builds the watch (universe) and then winds it up and lets it behave according to the natural laws he set into place. This view of God is very impersonal and argues that God does not intervene in everyday affairs. Novak argued that Washington viewed his Providence as being active in every day life. However, in Franklin's Autobiography, the self-described Deist wrote that he "owe[d] the mentioned happiness of [his] past life to His kind providence." On another instance, when Franklin described the founding of the Philadelphia Academy (which would later become the University of Pennsylvania), he pointed out the need for a building to house the students and stated that "Providence threw into our way a large house ready built," which had actually been used to house the meetings of George Whitefield. In both of these instances, a self-proclaimed Deist mentioned God as acting in the activities of man.
In the final analysis, while its nice to find founders who were devout like John Witherspoon, the Christianity or Deism of Washington or Franklin does not impact the truthfulness of the claims of Jesus. There can be little argument that the founders were not at least culturally Christian, and that America was not culturally Christian at its foundation. That did not, however, make America a "Christian nation." Washington did not wear his religious beliefs on his sleeve, so there is a lack of certainty in what he did believe. Franklin, on the other hand, pointed out his beliefs specifically, and although he was not against religion, he was by no means a conservative evangelical. While I found Novak's work interesting, my recent reading of Franklin weakened one of his major arguments. I shall post more on Mr. Franklin at a later date.
One recent book that looked into this topic was Washington's God: Religion, Liberty, and the Father of our Country. In this work, Michael Novak and his daughter Jana argued that Washington was a devout Anglican who had a deep faith. One of the arguments that they make is that Washington's use of the term "Providence," or some variation thereof, generally ascribed activity in the affairs of men to Divine Providence. This, they argue, would preclude Washington from being the Deist that some scholars describe. One of the weaknesses of both points of view is that, from what I've read, Washington never specifically laid out his religious beliefs. This allows either side to speculate on Washington's status as a Christian, Deist, or something entirely other.
The argument regarding Washington's use of the term Providence being inconsistent with supposed Deist belief is weakened by a close reading of Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography. Franklin was a self-described Deist. He specifically stated he was a Deist. Deists tended to describe God with the analogy of a watchmaker who builds the watch (universe) and then winds it up and lets it behave according to the natural laws he set into place. This view of God is very impersonal and argues that God does not intervene in everyday affairs. Novak argued that Washington viewed his Providence as being active in every day life. However, in Franklin's Autobiography, the self-described Deist wrote that he "owe[d] the mentioned happiness of [his] past life to His kind providence." On another instance, when Franklin described the founding of the Philadelphia Academy (which would later become the University of Pennsylvania), he pointed out the need for a building to house the students and stated that "Providence threw into our way a large house ready built," which had actually been used to house the meetings of George Whitefield. In both of these instances, a self-proclaimed Deist mentioned God as acting in the activities of man.
In the final analysis, while its nice to find founders who were devout like John Witherspoon, the Christianity or Deism of Washington or Franklin does not impact the truthfulness of the claims of Jesus. There can be little argument that the founders were not at least culturally Christian, and that America was not culturally Christian at its foundation. That did not, however, make America a "Christian nation." Washington did not wear his religious beliefs on his sleeve, so there is a lack of certainty in what he did believe. Franklin, on the other hand, pointed out his beliefs specifically, and although he was not against religion, he was by no means a conservative evangelical. While I found Novak's work interesting, my recent reading of Franklin weakened one of his major arguments. I shall post more on Mr. Franklin at a later date.
04 July 2011
A Christian Founding Father
I must confess that while looking for an Independence Day topic, I did a google search. Not much came up. Christianity Today's website has "This Week in Christian History," but the most interesting thing that I could find for July 4 happened in 1187 with Saladin's Muslim force defeating the Third Crusade at the Battle of Hattin. While important and influential, this event didn't really seem appropriate for a holiday celebrating America's birthday. So, I went back to the drawing board.
A topic that seems to cause quite a bit of controversy when discussion turns to the founding of the United States of America is the impact that Christianity had on the founding fathers. Often, it seems, people fall into two extremes on this argument. A group on one side of the spectrum tries to argue that almost all of the founders were Deists in the Enlightenment mold and that they attempted to set up a completely secular state that only moderately cared about religion, if at all. These folks definitely have an agenda and a bias behind them. On the other side of the spectrum is a group that tries to argue that, while there may have been a couple of Deist outliers like Ben Franklin, the vast majority of the founding fathers were conservative evangelicals. Much like the secularist crowd, these folks have an agenda and a bias behind their argument.
I would argue that both arguments are in some ways in error and that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It's difficult to argue that at the very least cultural Christianity had little impact on the Founding Fathers. However, the Constitution nowhere mentions God in any way. The Declaration of Independence does not mention Jesus or Christianity specifically, although it does refer to a Creator and "Nature's God." That is not to say that there were no professing Christians in the Continental Congress. Most of the founders belonged to one denomination/sect or another. In fact, two of the signers were ordained ministers, one of whom was active at the time of the signing itself.
Lyman Hall is one of the ordained ministers that signed the Declaration of Independence. Although he was an ordained Congregationalist minister, he is better known as a physician. The active minister who signed the Declaration was John Witherspoon, a recent Scottish immigrant who held ordination in the Church of Scotland (AKA the Presbyterian Church of reformer John Knox). Witherspoon came to America to become the president of Princeton College. Witherspoon preached fairly frequently in the revolutionary era, having come to America only in 1768 and was a leading figure on the Second Continental Congress that put out the Declaration of Independence. Witherspoon served on some of the more important committees in the Congress during this era. As president of Princeton, he held to Scottish Common Sense philosophy and saw no conflict between faith and reason.
An interesting fact about Witherspoon, in addition to his itinerant preaching, was a motion he made to have the New Jersey legislature end their day before dinner because he had trouble staying awake. The motion failed and he informed his colleagues that ``there are two kinds of speaking that are very interesting . . . perfect sense and perfect nonsense. When there is speaking in either of these ways I shall engage to be all attention. But when there is speaking, as there often is, halfway between sense and nonsense, you must bear with me if I fall asleep.''
John Witherspoon was definitely a Christian Founding Father, and few can argue otherwise.
A topic that seems to cause quite a bit of controversy when discussion turns to the founding of the United States of America is the impact that Christianity had on the founding fathers. Often, it seems, people fall into two extremes on this argument. A group on one side of the spectrum tries to argue that almost all of the founders were Deists in the Enlightenment mold and that they attempted to set up a completely secular state that only moderately cared about religion, if at all. These folks definitely have an agenda and a bias behind them. On the other side of the spectrum is a group that tries to argue that, while there may have been a couple of Deist outliers like Ben Franklin, the vast majority of the founding fathers were conservative evangelicals. Much like the secularist crowd, these folks have an agenda and a bias behind their argument.
I would argue that both arguments are in some ways in error and that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It's difficult to argue that at the very least cultural Christianity had little impact on the Founding Fathers. However, the Constitution nowhere mentions God in any way. The Declaration of Independence does not mention Jesus or Christianity specifically, although it does refer to a Creator and "Nature's God." That is not to say that there were no professing Christians in the Continental Congress. Most of the founders belonged to one denomination/sect or another. In fact, two of the signers were ordained ministers, one of whom was active at the time of the signing itself.
Lyman Hall is one of the ordained ministers that signed the Declaration of Independence. Although he was an ordained Congregationalist minister, he is better known as a physician. The active minister who signed the Declaration was John Witherspoon, a recent Scottish immigrant who held ordination in the Church of Scotland (AKA the Presbyterian Church of reformer John Knox). Witherspoon came to America to become the president of Princeton College. Witherspoon preached fairly frequently in the revolutionary era, having come to America only in 1768 and was a leading figure on the Second Continental Congress that put out the Declaration of Independence. Witherspoon served on some of the more important committees in the Congress during this era. As president of Princeton, he held to Scottish Common Sense philosophy and saw no conflict between faith and reason.
An interesting fact about Witherspoon, in addition to his itinerant preaching, was a motion he made to have the New Jersey legislature end their day before dinner because he had trouble staying awake. The motion failed and he informed his colleagues that ``there are two kinds of speaking that are very interesting . . . perfect sense and perfect nonsense. When there is speaking in either of these ways I shall engage to be all attention. But when there is speaking, as there often is, halfway between sense and nonsense, you must bear with me if I fall asleep.''
John Witherspoon was definitely a Christian Founding Father, and few can argue otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)