Moses and the "Key Founders"

The reason why I titled this post that is because, as you will see, Bruce Feiler has a book out entitled America's Prophet, Where God Was Born that stresses Moses as a central figure of inspiration to America, and Feiler argues the central historical fact that buttresses his thesis is when Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Ben Franklin were asked to design a Great Seal, Franklin and Jefferson both proposed:

“Moses standing on the Shore, and extending his Hand over the Sea, thereby causing the same to overwhelm Pharaoh who is sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his Head and a Sword in his Hand. Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Clouds reaching to Moses, to express that he acts by Command of the Deity. Motto, Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”

If you haven't yet gotten his book (it's on my reading list) you can watch this extremely enlightening blogging head conversation between Feiler and Robert Wright here.

Now, there's certainly a strong kernel of truth to Feiler's claim. Moses did indeed inspire America. My concern is clarity and the potential misuse of Feiler's thesis. I worry that Christian Nationalists will misuse Feller's argument in the same way they've misused the Donald S. Lutz et al. study. They've commonly noted the Moses/Great Seal/Liberty Bell Leviticus quote to prove America's "biblical" foundations.

Interestingly, Feiler's thesis seems to be not "Christian Nation," but "Mosaic Nation," that Moses in fact was a more important political-theological figure than Jesus, something that might tick off "Christian Nationalists." But such an idea could also be shoehorned into a "Judeo-Christian Nationalist" thesis.

Feiler, seems to be if not a liberal, some kind of moderate who doesn't have an axe to grind (other than the thesis he's trying to defend). He's written op-eds on the matter in places like the Washington Post, making him a potentially attractive resource for Christian Nation types (i.e., "even this liberal guy agrees with us").

Feiler probably wouldn't appreciate (if he noticed it) such a potential use or misuse of his thesis. His thesis, as I understand it, is a broad, ecumenical, dare I say "liberal" and "enlightened" tale of Moses' influence of America. And, of course, that is exactly how Moses influenced America. For instance, in his Time Magazine op-ed, Feiler begins:

"We are in the presence of a lot of Moseses," Barack Obama said on March 4, 2007, three weeks after announcing his candidacy for President. He was speaking in Selma, Ala., surrounded by civil rights pioneers. Obama cast his run for the White House as a fulfillment of the Moses tradition of leading people out of bondage into freedom. "I thank the Moses generation, but we've got to remember that Joshua still had a job to do. As great as Moses was ... he didn't cross over the river to see the promised land."

"Eight months into his presidency, Obama might want to give Moses a second look. On issues from health care to Afghanistan, the President faces doubts and rebellions, from an entrenched pharaonic establishment on one hand and restless, stiff-necked followers on the other. There's good reason, then, for Obama to heed the leadership lessons of history's greatest leader. Like presidential predecessors from Washington to Reagan, Obama can use the Moses story to help guide Americans in troubled times. From the Pilgrims to the Founding Fathers, the Civil War to the civil rights movement, Americans have turned to Moses in periods of crisis because his narrative offers a road map of peril and promise.

A Philly Inquirer article about his thesis is entitled, "Author promotes Moses as a model for getting along," and Feiler's site promotes it as "Can Moses Unite Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore?"

Again, this is to stress that Feiler's thesis is Moses as a broad metaphorical inspiration, exactly as the "key Founders" -- Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin --understood Moses. Not as the strict, orthodox, the Bible as the inerrant, infallible Word of God understanding of Moses. But a looser, more political understanding. In short, an Enlightenment rationalist understanding of Moses. One that could look at many of the world's historical figures and "find" in there what supports one's political narrative, which is exactly what Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin did with Moses and America's non-Judeo-Christian heritage sources. Examining the other proposed narratives for the "Great Seal," we see from Jefferson (quoting the Great Seal site, not Jefferson or Adams):

For the front of the seal: children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. For the reverse: Hengist and Horsa, the two brothers who were the legendary leaders of the first Anglo-Saxon settlers in Britain.

And J. Adams:

...the allegorical painting known as the "Judgment of Hercules" where the young Hercules must choose to travel either on the flowery path of self-indulgence or ascend the rugged, uphill way of duty to others and honor to himself.

Synthesizing Greco-Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Judeo-Christian and picking and choosing what one thinks "rational" from those sources; that was the Enlightenment method of Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin. And that, as far as I see it, is the method of Moses' political inspiration of America.

In a later post, I might reiterate why the enlightened Americanist invocation of Moses arguably conflicts with the orthodox Christian/evangelical/fundamentalist narrative of Moses.

In other words, those who should proceed with the most caution when invoking Moses' influence on America are those who don't take the narrative with a metaphorical grain of salt.

American Creation: A Safe Place

I wanted to take a second and just admire how shocked I am at the high level of respect for others views I see on this site.  I posted on a very difficult subject a while back and was kind of worried it would turn the wrong way.  It did not and I think all involved found that this is a safe place to come and share their views and be respected.  It gets a little heated at times but that is okay too as long as all are allowed to share.  Thanks to all who participated, I am a better person for the discussion.

"From the Halls of Montezuma, to the Shores of Tripoli"

Happy 234th Birthday to the
United States Marines!!!

On this day in 1775, the United States Marines was born. Members of the Continental Congress, seeing that war with Britain was on the horizon, drafted a resolution calling for the establishment of "two battalions of Marines to be raised." The Continental Congress, gathered at Tun Tavern in Philadelphia, ratified the resolution, which officially commissioned the Continental Marines, "for the protection of the American colonies and to fight for independence at sea and shore." It was John Adams, the chief supporter of the bill, who pushed for the ratification of this resolution. As a result, it is Adams who should be given special recognition as being the "father" of the Marine Corps.

Here are some interesting tidbits of history on the Marines and their role in the Revolution from the History Channel's website:

Serving on land and at sea, the original U.S. Marines distinguished themselves in a number of important operations during the Revolutionary War. The first Marine landing on a hostile shore occurred when a force of Marines under Captain Samuel Nicholas captured New Province Island in the Bahamas from the British in March 1776. Nicholas was the first commissioned officer in the Continental Marines and is celebrated as the first Marine commandant. After American independence was achieved in 1783, the Continental Navy was demobilized and its Marines disbanded.

In the next decade, however, increasing conflict at sea with Revolutionary France led the U.S. Congress to establish formally the U.S. Navy in May 1798. Two months later, on July 11, President John Adams signed the bill establishing the U.S. Marine Corps as a permanent military force under the jurisdiction of the Department of Navy. U.S. Marines saw action in the so-called Quasi-War with France and then fought against the Barbary pirates of North Africa during the first years of the 19th century. Since then, Marines have participated in all the wars of the United States and in most cases were the first soldiers to fight. In all, Marines have executed more than 300 landings on foreign shores.

For more information on the birthday of the U.S. Marines click here.

Petrus Stuyvesant

Apropos of nothing, I’d like to share a few photos I shot Monday in New York City.

It was a gorgeous 70 degree day. We’re so far into autumn that I don’t think this weather can be called “Indian Summer.” We were gathered at St. Mark’s Church in-the-Bowery for the Service of Commemoration and Grave Marking to honor Daniel D. Tompkins (1774-1825), Vice President of the United States, Governor of the State of New York, and Sovereign Grand Commander of the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. The project was initiated by the New York City Chapter of U.S. Daughters of 1812, and the Freemasons of New York became involved. But more on this later.



St. Mark’s Church in-the-Bowery is one of the oldest churches in Manhattan, and it is in fact the final resting place of a number of the city’s oldest Dutch settlers, including Petrus “Peter” Stuyvesant himself, a man who I’m sure needs no introduction here on American Creation.





The plaque beneath the bust of Stuyvesant reads:

Petrus Stuyvesant

Director General of Niev Nederland
of Curacao and the Dutch West Indies

This bust was given to the people of New York
in trust of
St. Mark’s in-the-Bouwerie
in 1915 by
Wilhelmina Queen of the Netherlands

From the Commissie Boek of the States General

The States General of the United Netherlands to all
those to whom these presents shall come or who shall
hear them read, health. Be it known whereas we have
deemed it advisable for the advancement of the affairs
of the General Incorporated West India Company not
only to maintain the trade and population on the coast
of New Netherland and the places situate thereabout,
also the islands Curacao, Buenaire, Aruba, and their
dependencies, which have hitherto been encouraged
thither from this country, but also to make new
treaties and alliances with foreign princes and to inflict
as much injury as possible on the enemy in his forts and
strongholds as well by sea as by land for which purpose
it becomes necessary to appoint a person director we
therefore, confiding in the probity and experience of
Petrus Stuyvesant formerly entrusted with our affairs
in, and the government of, the aforesaid island of Curacao
and the places thereon defending, we being well pleased
with his services there, have commissioned and appointed,
by these presents do commission and appoint the said
Petrus Stuyvesant director in the aforesaid countries
of New Netherland, and the places thereunto adjoining,
together with the afore-mentioned islands of Curacao,
Buenaire, Aruba, and their dependencies, to administer with
the council as well now as hereafter appointed with him
the said office of director both on water and on land
and in said quality to attend carefully to the advancement,
promotion, and preservation of friendship alliances, trade
and commerce; to direct all matters appertaining to traffic
and war, and to maintain, in all things there, good order
for the service of the United Netherlands and the General
West India Company to establish regularity for the safeguard
of the places and forts wherein, to administer law and
justice as well, civil and criminal, and moreover to perform
all that concerns his office and duties in accordance with
the charter and the general and particular instructions
herewith given, and to be hereafter given him, as a good and
faithful director is bound and obliged by his oath in our
hands to do which done we therefore order and command
all other officers, common soldiers, together with the
inhabitants and natives residing in the aforesaid places
as subjects and all whom it may concern, to acknowledge
and obey the said Petrus Stuyvesant as our director
in the countries and places of New Netherland and
in the islands of Curacao, Buenaire, Aruba and their
dependencies, and to afford all help, countenance and
assistance in the performance of these things as we have
found the same to be for the advantage of the Company
done in our assembly at the Hague, on the XXVIII July 1646.

Peter Marshall's Erroneous Christian Nation Response to the Texas Controversy

Okay there was this big hubbub over Peter Marshall and David Barton being appointed to some kind of Texas public education panel on historical issues. Even though I believe those two produce extremely shoddy scholarship (as I will demonstrate below) I will note that Daniel Dreisbach, also appointed to represent the religious conservative point of view, as far as I have assessed his work, produces top notch work.

But the point of this post is to show Marshall's academically shoddy response to the controversy. Marshall recounts and responds to the controversy here.

Here is where Marshall steps in it. He attempts to argue against the accurate claim, written by a critic of him and Barton:

"Actually, the founding fathers had many things in mind when they drew on a variety of sources -- Greek, Roman, biblical, Enlightenment -- to invent a new nation."

Rev. Marshall makes an egregious error when he responds:

Research has revealed that Enlightenment philosophy was far less influential in the thinking of the Founding Fathers than has been taught in recent decades. A 1984 article in the American Political Science Review revealed that 34 percent of the most important quotes used by the Founding Fathers in the creation of the Constitution came directly from the Bible. True Enlightenment sources were quoted only 7 percent of the time. So the Bible turns out to be five times as influential as the Enlightenment.

He's of course referring to the much misunderstood study that Christian Nationalists cite by Donald S. Lutz, et al. Lutz is a respected scholar and the study as far as I have read it is valid. It notes the Bible was cited quite a bit during Founding times. And it was mainly sermons -- a common form of literature back then -- from where the Bible was cited. NOT necessarily quotes from the writers, signers, or ratifiers of the Declaration or the Constitution, but sermons by ministers. Yes, of course sermons given in professing "Christian" churches are going to cite the Bible. You can read many of the Founding era sermons here (note I don't know of the relationship between these sermons and the ones Lutz studied; I do know that the Sandoz collection reproduces the most influential sermons of that era; and interestingly it was unitarians like Jonathan Mayhew, Charles Chauncy and Samuel West using creative natural law thinking to explain away Romans 13's prohibition on revolt who most profoundly influenced the American Revolution).

It's important to note the distinction between the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Here's where Marshall stepped in it: He claimed the Lutz study found "34 percent of the most important quotes used by the Founding Fathers in the creation of the Constitution came directly from the Bible."

It actually finds the very opposite, that although religious rhetoric abounded during the revolutionary period (and during other parts of the American Founding), when it came time to framing and ratifying the Constitution, the Bible's prominence disappears and that Enlightenment rationalism dominated. As that very study puts it discussing the specific years 1787 and 1788:

The Bible's prominence disappears, which is not surprising since the debate centered upon specific institutions about which the Bible has little to say. The Anti-Federalists do drag it in with respect to basic principles of government, but the Federalists' inclination to Enlightenment rationalism is most evident here in their failure to consider the Bible relevant.

When you actually look at what the Founding Fathers -- not just Washington, Franklin, Madison, Morris, Hamilton and Wilson (the "key Founders"), but the entire group of framers -- said during the Constitutional Convention, and what the "key Founders" wrote in the Federalist Papers, we get a whopping ZERO citations of the Bible for the specific provisions of the Constitution. As Gregg Frazer put it:

In the hundreds of pages comprising Madison’s notes on the constitutional convention (and those of the others who kept notes), there is no mention of biblical passages/verses in the debates/discussions on the various parts and principles of the Constitution. They mention Rome, Sparta, German confederacies, Montesquieu, and a number of other sources — but no Scripture verses.

In The Federalist Papers, there is no mention of biblical sources for any of the Constitution’s principles, either — one would think they could squeeze them in among the 85 essays if they were, indeed, the sources; especially since the audience was common men who were familiar with, and had respect for, the Bible. The word “God” is used twice — and one of those is a reference to the pagan gods of ancient Greece. “Almighty” is used twice and “providence” three times — but neither is ever used in connection with any constitutional principle or influence. The Bible is not mentioned.

I think this is what historian Clinton Rossiter meant when he noted, "The Convention of 1787 was highly rationalist and even secular in spirit."

To which Marshall responds, "That's not even remotely true. Rossiter was a respected historian, but he got this one wrong." No. Rev. Marshall is the one who peddles things that are "not even remotely true."

Remember, Remember the 5th of November

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,

The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,

I know of no reason

Why the Gunpowder Treason

Should ever be forgot.

Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, t'was his intent

To blow up the King and Parli'ment.

Three-score barrels of powder below

To prove old England's overthrow;

By God's providence he was catch'd

With a dark lantern and burning match.

Holloa boys, holloa boys, let the bells ring.

Holloa boys, holloa boys, God save the King!

As we all know, November 5th is celebrated throughout Great Britain as Guy Fawkes Night: a celebration to commemorate the failed attempt made by Guy Fawkes and his fellow conspirators to blow up the English Parliament in 1605. As a devout Catholic, Guy Fawkes hoped that these actions would end the discrimination of Protestant England towards Catholics. Since that day, the 5th of November was commemorated throughout England with the burning in effigy of Guy Fawkes, along with a celebration of God's providence in protecting the Protestant King.

In colonial America, Guy Fawkes Night was celebrated as "Pope Day" (or "Pope Night"). Young men from New England would traditionally construct large wagons (with figures of the Pope, the Devil and other Catholic figures, along with unpopular British governing officials all to be burned in effigy), which were drawn throughout the public streets for all to see. The young men would even dress up and petition the affluent of the city for money which was used for getting drunk and having a "splendid supper." As Historian J.L. Bell (of Boston, 1775 fame) points out on his 5th of November website:

In the mid-1700s, the 5th of November was one of Boston’s most popular holidays. On that day, apprentices and young men paraded through town with giant effigies of the Devil, the Pope, and current political scapegoats, demanding coins from householders and passersby.

At nightfall, Boston’s North End and South End gangs met in the middle of town and brawled. The winners hauled away the other side’s paraphernalia and burned all the effigies in a festive bonfire. In 1764 the event became so violent that a young boy was killed, his head crushed by a wagon wheel.

In the decade that followed, the 5th of November processions became closely linked to the town’s protests against Parliamentary taxes. That political conflict led to the American Revolution. Ironically, the Revolutionary War ended up doing away with the 5th of November holiday in America.

In essence, "Pope Day" became yet another example of how Colonial American bred a culture of anti-authoritarianism. Pope Day evolved to become not only a day to mock Catholicism but a day to also express disgust with colonial (particularly British) government.

In addition, it is interesting to note who "Pope Day" gave birth to many of the traditional Halloween customs that are still in practice today. As Mr. Bell points out above (and throughout his website) the tradition of children running though the streets in costume asking for money, treats, etc. was most certainly a common practice on the 5th of November.

With that said, let us not forget the origins behind this anti-Catholic celebration. Guy Fawkes became, for many colonial Americans, the perfect scape goat for all their anti-Catholic rhetoric. The following poem helps to capture at least a portion of that popular anti-Catholicism:

A penny loaf to feed the Pope
A farthing o' cheese to choke him.
A pint of beer to rinse it down.
A fagot of sticks to burn him.
Burn him in a tub of tar.
Burn him like a blazing star.
Burn his body from his head.
Then we'll say ol' Pope is dead.
Hip hip hoorah!
Hip hip hoorah hoorah!

Washington Saves the Pope...Sort Of

Guy Fawkes Night (or "Pope Day" as it was called in colonial America) is coming up this Thursday. And as was commonly the case, Guy Fawkes Night was celebrated in colonial America with the ritual burning in effigy of the Catholic Pope, which most American Protestants embraced with glee.

That is, unless you were a member of George Washington's army. In his November 5, 1775 General Orders to the Continental Army, Washington strictly forbade the practice of burning the Pope in effigy or the mockery of Catholicism in general:

As the Commander in Chief has been apprized of a design form'd for the observance of that ridiculous and childish custom of burning the Effigy of the pope -- He cannot help expressing his surprise that there should be Officers and Soldiers in this army so void of common sense, as not to see the impropriety of such a step at this Juncture; at a Time when we are solliciting, and have really obtain'd, the friendship and alliance of the people of Canada, whom we ought to consider as Brethren embarked in the same Cause. The defence of the general Liberty of America: At such a juncture, and in such Circumstances, to be insulting their Religion, is so monstrous, as not to be suffered or excused; indeed instead of offering the most remote insult, it is our duty to address public thanks to these our Brethren, as to them we are so much indebted for every late happy Success over the common Enemy in Canada.

Gregg Frazer: A Good Guy

In the comments section on my last post about Hitler, Dr. Frazer expressed some worry that he was coming off as the villain in the back and forth between us. I assure him that he is not a villain. He is a well known figure in these debates that takes the time to express himself to the small and large audience alike. That is refreshing in a time when it seems that many of the well known Christians in this country only seem to want to flock to the biggest audience and perhaps the biggest paycheck. Gregg Frazer is passionate about what he believes and willing to defend it at length to anyone who wants to engage him in discussion. I sincerely respect that.

I know I am have been hard on him but some of that was a ploy to keep him coming back to this site because he adds so much when he does. I have learned a lot from our debate and have adjusted some of my views accordingly. We will probably never agree on Romans 13 and predestination but I am a better person for having been privy to such an educated and passionate man. He has been asked numerous times to be a contributor to this blog and has declined. I hope he reconsiders but respect the fact that he is a busy man. I am sure the debate will go on but I wanted to say this for all to see.

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Invoking “God” in Political Arguments (In Short, God Yes, Revelation No)

That's the title to my latest post on my other blogs. I am not going to reproduce the whole thing here, but rather link to it.

This site studies the religion and the American Founding and for good or ill all sides had invoked the Founding Fathers for their political desires. My post takes a jab at the "Christian Nationalist" conservative evangelicals (why I'm not reproducing it here).

What my post really criticizes is this method of citing verses and chapters of scripture as the ultimate authority to "settle" various moral matters in the political context. I argue why it's not effective and I also assert the Founding Fathers tended NOT to do this. And it's not because they were all Deists. Indeed, there were orthodox evangelical Christians among them like John Witherspoon who likewise, when they made political arguments didn't use the method of citing verses and chapters of scripture (see his Lectures on Moral Philosophy).

Likewise with James Wilson. Personally I don't think he believed the Bible inerrant or infallible (he may have). But even if he did, what he DOESN'T do, in his vast public WORKS where he gave lectures on the "law," is cite it verse and chapter to "settle" political-moral issues. Rather he invokes God and has some positive things, in principle, to say about scripture. But then for all of the substantive rules, he gets to his results without citing verses and chapters of scripture as authority, hardly citing the Bible at all. Witherspoon and Wilson both had this same method that is reminiscent of Aristotle, Aquinas, and the Scottish Enlightenment.

So I think what I argue in my Positive Liberty post, America's Founders like Witherspoon and Wilson understood, in the non-sectarian, eccumenical society they were trying to build, it just was not a good or useful idea. They commonly invoked God in politics but did so without being verse and chapter proof texters.

Blomquist and Sheppard on Tillman and Stone

If you remember a little while ago, I reproduced a very thoughtful law review article that criticized Geoff Stone's article arguing against the concept of a "Christian Nation." Interestingly, Tillman is neither a Christian, nor did his article argue for a "Christian Nation." Rather his article examined some of Stone's overstatements and conclusions that arguably didn't follow from the facts presented.

Now, Professor Robert F. Blomquist wrote "Response to Geoffrey Stone & Seth Tillman, Beyond Historical Blushing: A Plea for Constitutional Intelligence," 2009 Cardozo L. Rev. de novo 244. You can find that here and here.

Professor Steve Sheppard wrote "Response to Geoffrey Stone & Seth Tillman, What Oaths Meant to the Framers' Generation: A Preliminary Sketch," 2009 Cardozo L. Rev. de novo 273 and that is available here.

Professor Bruce G. Peabody wrote "Response to Seth Barrett Tillman," 2009 Cardozo L. Rev. de novo ___ (forthcoming) which is available here.

And finally, Seth Barrett Tillman wrote "A Reply to my Well-Meaning Critics, 2009 Cardozo L. Rev. de novo ___ (not yet drafted) available here.

I am remiss to say that I haven't yet read the new articles (because of time constraints). When I do I will be sure to blog about them in substantive detail.

"I've Got 95 Theses but the Pope Ain't One"

In light of Jon Rowe's post below...

Reformation Day & The Founders

"On Oct. 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Palace church, marking the start of the Protestant Reformation in Germany," as this website notes.

Evangelicals and Roman Catholics still split on a number of issues, like justification. This document that attempted to bring Lutherans and Roman Catholics together claims that it "does not resolve the classic question whether such grace is God’s undeserved favor (Lutheran) or whether it is a spiritual power poured or ‘infused’ into the soul that enables one to love God and merit salvation (Roman Catholic).”

What I find ironic is, whatever their differences the Christian theology shared by Roman Catholics and evangelicals is far closer to one another than either are to the religion of the so called "key Founders."

For instance, here is Ben Franklin on justification, which is so different than the view of evangelicals and Roman Catholics that it makes their views look like differences without distinction:

Faith is recommended as a Means of producing Morality: Our Saviour was a Teacher of Morality or Virtue, and they that were deficient and desired to be taught, ought first to believe in him as an able and faithful Teacher. Thus Faith would be a Means of producing Morality, and Morality of Salvation. But that from such Faith alone Salvation may be expected, appears to me to be neither a Christian Doctrine nor a reasonable one….Morality or Virtue is the End, Faith only a Means to obtain that End: And if the End be obtained, it is no matter by what Means.

– “Dialogue between Two Presbyterians,” April 10, 1735.

Though George Washington was less specific when he discussed his views on the afterlife, there is not a SHRED OF EVIDENCE that George Washington held to a salvation scheme that was any more "Christian" than Franklin’s. Indeed, if anything Washington's view on the afterlife was LESS Christian.

As GW put it on the death of a loved one, suggesting she merited salvation through her good works, “She is now no more! But she must be happy, because her virtue has a claim to it.”

No orthodox Christian would state that someone’s “virtue” or works gives them a “claim” to eternal happiness.

So Help Me God, Knock on Wood, Did Forrest Church Get It Right?

A short while ago, co-blogger Mark in Spokane posted an article in which he praised Gordon S. Wood's new book, Empire of Liberty, A History of the Republic, 1789-1815, with these words, "each page is packed with detail and interpretation, and it is simply a joy to mull over Wood's insights." I've only read one page in the entire book, but that page includes a footnote that appears to fall short of possessing any noticeable insight. Here's the specific footnote from page 64 that I'm talking about:

35. There is no contemporary [or subsequent firsthand] evidence that he [George Washington] also said "so help me God" at the end of the oath; the matter is very controversial today. See Forrest Church, So help me God: The Founding Fathers and the Great Battle over Church and State, (New York, 2007), 445-49. Since the Judiciary Act of 1789 declared that the oath to be sworn by the justices of the Supreme Court and the other federal judges included the phrase "So help me God," it is likely that Washington may have also used the phrase (1 Cong. Ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73, Sec. 8). I owe this information to Steven G. Calabresi.

A single footnote can not affect the overall merit of a scholarly book filled with more than seven hundred pages, but, by itself, it shows that there is no substitute for a firsthand analysis of an important issue. Footnote 35 refers to an Appendix (pgs. 445-49), where Reverend Forrest Church defends the notion that George Washington added a sacred codicil to his presidential oath. Unfortunately, his presentation wanders off beyond the limits of reasonable credibility, and the second item, a reference to the secondary oath for federal judges contained in the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, completely overlooks the basic oath taken by all federal employees except for the president as specified in "An act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths." This act was signed into law by George Washington nearly three months earlier on June 1, 1789, and it is this generic federal oath that is most similar to the presidential oath.

If a person takes a serious look at the Church's Appendix, then several glaring deficiencies become apparent. First off, Washington Irving was not the first person to describe George Washington as having added the "so help me God" codicil to his presidential oath. This so-called honor belongs to Rufus W. Griswold, who preceded Washington Irving's 1857 account by three years when he published his book, The Republican Court; or American Society in the Days of George Washington, pgs. 138-42. It turns out, neither author ever specified a source for their rendition of Washington's oath. Griswold may have used Washington Irving as his source, since he mentioned listening to a retelling of the inaugural ceremony by the master storyteller of his day. But, whatever Griswold learned from Irving no one can say just what that was. In contrast, it is absolutely clear that Griswold did use the widely circulated anonymous account, which originally appeared in Philadelphia's Federal Gazette of May 8th, as cited by Reverend Church.

The fundamental problem with Irving's account is that it does not come from what can be called a personal recollection. Instead, it is a fact that Washington Irving plagiarized the bulk of his inaugural narrative from the Memoir of Eliza Susan [Morton] Quincy (see footnote, bottom page 52). Another telling point is that, elsewhere in Irving's biography of George Washington (Vol 5, pg 21), Irving states that Washington's inaugural coach "was drawn by a single pair of horses" "on the panels of which were emblazoned the arms of the United States." (Forrest Church, unlike Washington Irving, chose six horses.) This assertion is contradicted by several contemporary newspaper reports that describe Washington as riding alone in an elegant state coach, which was the only one pulled by four horses. The elegant coach with its gilded trim was loaned out for the inaugural parade by the wealthy Beekman family, and, in contrast to what Irving described, bore the Beekman family coat of arms. Furthermore, according to Griswold's placement of young Irving's viewing position, Irving was located at the "corner of Wall Street and New Streets," one block (about 200 feet) west of Federal Hall, where he was not even in a position to see any part of the inaugural parade. (It would also have been an absolute marvel if Washington Irving could have heard the inaugural oath, since Eliza, who was directly across the street, "so near," she "could almost hear him [George Washington] speak" when he took his oath.)

Next, Reverend Church tries to support his case by a May 9th Pennsylvania Mercury article. This turns out to be a real bummer, because David Humphreys, "Washington's principal aide," had absolutely nothing to do with the cited article. When I investigated this matter, I found out that Church's reference actually came from Philadelphia's Federal Gazette of May 9th, where the introduction to the article stated, "Extract from an essay published by Mr. Humphreys, in the Pennsylvania Mercury, this morning." Further examination conclusively shows that the "Mr. Humphreys" identified here is Daniel Humphreys, the publisher and editor of the Pennsylvania Mercury, and not "David Humphreys, Washington's principal aide." The truth of the matter is that the editor, Daniel Humphreys, had published a rambling and very long-winded month-long serialized essay that had been submitted by a pseudononymous Apocalypsophilos from which the Federal Gazette had selected a snippet.

Shortly after the "Mr. Humphreys" fiasco, Reverend Church refers to the ad hoc House oath of April 6th, but he fails to present any evidence that this oath was ever considered in any other context. It's simply wrong to say that this House initiated, God-laced oath was either a "competing" oath or was overturned "two months later" during the legislative process. The first piece of legislation that passed by Congress was named, "An act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths." Washington signed this bill into law on June 1, 1789. From the time just preceding Washington's inaugural ceremony through to the time when Congress submitted the bill for the President's signature, the bill contained the exact same wording for the proposed federal oath. This oath, which was taken by all federal employees other than by the president, simply reads, “I, A. B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” (No reference to God.) One should note that this oath is the precursor of our current day federal oath, which is also the first oath taken by all federal judges.

The last item presented by Reverend Church comes from a responding letter written by Chief Justice John (not "George") Marshall and addressed to President-elect Thomas Jefferson. Here, Church claims, "I can conceive of no other reason for this exchange apart from Jefferson wishing assurance from Marshall that he would not be required to add the words 'So help me God' to the oath as spelled out in the Constitution." Now, that's a stretch. It is much more reasonable to view Jefferson's March 2, 1801 letter as asking Chief Justice Marshall whether he had not only to swear to the presidential oath, but to also first swear to the same basic oath applicable to all other federal employees. This was just another way of asking that since the Chief Justice had to swear to two different oaths, did the president need to follow a similar protocol? As indicated by Church, "Marshall replied, 'That [oath] prescribed in the Constitution seems to me to be the only one which is to be administered.'"

I can only speak for myself, but, in summary, I do not see how Reverend Forrest Church came close to making a persuasive argument to support the proposition that George Washington had likely added "so help me God" to his oath.

The second part of footnote 35 refers to the Judiciary Act of 1789. In this instance, the attempt to invoke some sense of proleptic rationale so one can be persuaded that "it is likely that [Washington] may have also used the [So help me God] phrase" just doesn't pass muster. As I have already indicated, judges appointed to the judicial branch must submit to two different oaths. The first oath, with no reference to God, was the standard oath until the Civil War for all federal employees to "support the Constitution," whereas the second oath exclusively commits the justices of the Supreme Court and the other federal judges to "administer justice" ... "agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States. So help me God"

The president and members of the congressional branch do not have a charter to administer justice. Washington understood the distinctly unique nature of the Judiciary Act when he stated in his farewell address, "A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?"[my italics] In contrast, had Washington ever intimated that obligatory oaths for federal office specified a declaration of religious commitment, then there would be a case for considering whether Washington had added a sacred codicil to his oath of office. In reality, the opposite is most evident. When Washington signed his May 12, 1778 Continental Army oath of allegiance as legislated by the Continental Congress, he did not add the words "so help me God." (For more on this subject, see Historic Oath of Allegiance Comes Home.) Again, when on September 17, 1787, Washington's signature headed the list of delegates who endorsed the proposed godless Constitution, he was fully aware that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Finally and most notably, at the time of President Washington's second inauguration he planned that inaugural ceremony without a single indication of religious acknowledgement. (See American Creation: David Barton and His Seven Signs.)

What is most surprising about footnote 35 is that Professor Wood credits Professor Steven G. Calabresi as the source for his information about Washington's presidential oath, while completely ignoring the 1-12-09 History News Network article, “So Help Me God”: A George Washington Myth that Should Be Discarded, by Peter R. Henriques. You can find the associated endnotes to Henriques' article at my earlier American Creation blog (see http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/01/so-help-me-god-george-washington-myth.html).


Endnotes:

Further examination conclusively shows - I wasn't surprised, but when Reverend Church was presented with my research on the identity"Mr. Humphreys, he replied:

----- Message sent August 29, 2007 -----

Dear Ray,

Just got back from vacation to receive your research on Daniel Humphreys. I was hasty in my identification and will change the attribution in my appendix on line. [No change has ever been made.] I needn't have included that piece to begin with, and it doesn't change my sense that Washington is more likely than not to have said "So help me God" when he was inaugurated, though you will note that I nowhere claim that we can be certain about this. It is secondary to the argument of my book—that after a fierce, pitched battle between the forces of liberty and order (pluribus and unum), strict church-state separation was not firmly established until following the War of 1812 during the Monroe administration. There can be no doubt, however, that Washington's first inauguration (unlike his second) was a religious as well as a secular rite.

Best, Forrest

Professor Wood credits Professor Steven G Calabrisi - This is the same Steven G. Calabrisi who posted a January 25, 2009 Balkanization Guest Blog entitled, Steve Calabrisi on the Oath Controversy. In the concluding sentence of Calabrisi's guest blog he parades his outdated picture of the first "two centuries" of inaugural history by saying:

The addition of the words including the President’s name (in this case “Barack Hussein Obama”) and “so help me God” are permissible both because they do not take away any of the words the Constitution mandates and because two centuries of practice starting with George Washington himself have established that the addition of these words is permissible.

Hitler: God's Plan?

I attempted to allow Dr. Frazer to walk away from our debate over Romans 13 by agreeing to disagree and it seems he wants to keep discussing this so I might as well put all the cards on the table.

I left my last post stating that it seems that his whole premise for thinking that tyrants should be submitted to and obeyed is that he believes in Pre-Destination and the logical conclusion that everything that happens is God's plan so why resist it? In other words, if a government makes it into "authority" God's plan was for that to happen so who are we to resist that plan?

If this is true then what he is saying is that Hitler was God's plan. At least that seems to be the logical conclusion to his line of reasoning. If this is true then I would submit this statement: No wonder people think Christianity is absurd. What logical sense does this make? Why would God plan for Hitler to kill millions of Jews? Plan implies purpose and intent by definition. So is Frazer saying a God of love before Creation planned for Hitler to kill millions of Jews?

I know some will think this is unfair and others will say what does this have to do with American History and the founding? Well there is a poem I have posted boldly in front of my American History class and it goes more or less like this:

"First they came for the Communists and I was not a Communist so I did not speak up. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak up because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics and I did not speak up for the Catholics because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up for me."

I tell my kids all the time that History is full of Hitler's that seek to label, discriminate, enslave, and kill people in order to control the world and one will come around again as History repeats itself. It all starts with trying to take someone's rights away slowly until they have none.

That is what the King of England did to the Colonists. That is what they fought against. They tried to separate themselves from his rule and he pressed the issue, hunted them down and tried to kill them. The Jews were willing to leave the rule of Hitler and he would not let them. Many tried to flee Mao and Stalin and were not allowed. If "they" from the poem are coming then one has no choice but to fight or die. There is no reasoning with "they". "They" are coming to kill anyone who will not bow at their feet.

This was King George. He was a Hitler. According to Frazer both were God's plan. So I guess God wanted Hitler to kill millions of Jews so they should just sit back and let it happen right? I ask Dr. Frazer: Why would God purpose for this to happen in His plan?

I know TVD hates when this historical debate turns theological but there is no getting around it. By definition "Christian Nation" bears the name of Christ. If Christ is associated with God then we have to ask who that God is and if this nation is founded in His image? If God purposed for Hitler to kill a bunch of innocent Jews so he could create the Master Race or intended King George and all the other tyrants that were Kings of England to do similar things, then I want nothing to do with Him nor do I want to be part of a Nation that might be based on His image and bear His name. This is the heart of what I think Brad was trying to get at in his posts about Columbus.

Who is worse the Dictator or King that does this nonsense or the people who sit by letting it happen passively because Romans 13 supposedly says to submit and obey these jerks? I think we all know what the person who wrote the poem about Hitler coming for them would say. I first saw this poem after walking through the Holocaust Museum in D.C. where I saw thousands of pairs of shoes that represented a whole village that was slaughtered by Hitler's minions. Some of the shoes were baby shoes. I was appalled when it hit me that this was one of thousands of villages. Those shoes brought that poem to life as I read it up on the wall as I walked out.

Dr. Frazer, I was willing to let this go but you kept it alive. I must ask you to defend your assumption that all that happens, including Hitler, is God's plan. Why? I feel it is the central root cause behind your literal reading of Romans 13 and your exhortation for Washington and company to just sit and take it more than 200 years ago.

As for those of you who have not chimed in because you feel like you do not know the Bible enough or care about it to join the discussion:

This should simplify things and as the rubber meets to road allow for others to join in this discussion about evil happening because good people say nothing.

I think this is a topic related to the founding that we all can relate to. I want to state again that I respect Dr. Frazer and am not trying to be a jerk to him. I really do appreciate all the time spent on this blog whether I agree with him or not. These tough questions in no means are intended to make him look like a bad guy. He is not.

Joe Winpisinger

Book: “The Forgotten Founders on Religion and Public Life”

Gregg Frazer emailed me about this book published by University of Notre Dame Press and edited by Daniel Dreisbach, Mark Hall, and Jeffry Morrison. Dr. Frazer has a chapter, one that reflects his views, on Hamilton entitled, “Alexander Hamilton: Theistic Rationalist.” Other scholars are from Stanford, Virginia, Cal Berkeley, American Univ., and other prominent institutions.

The American Revolution vs. the Bible and Romans 13

Britain's own Glorious Revolution
of 1688 was a dry run for 1776
by Tom Van Dyke

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.---Epistle to the Romans, 13:1

As for Romans 13 and "the meaning understood for 1600 years," let's be precise as to what "1600 years" means.

Leaving aside the long history of arguments that initiated with

---John of Salisbury in 1150 [his Policratus was universally read] through
---Aquinas and the Schoolmen [by what right does one man rule another?], through
---Jonathan Mayhew and other Founding era Protestant preachers and theologians,

let's look back to 1600s Britain: the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, to the thinkers like John Locke and Algernon Sidney who directly influenced the American colonials.

In short, 'twas all a dry run for the American revolution: Britain's "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 brought peace to the land and resulted in the restoration of the monarchy with King William and Queen Mary. It came to two theological solutions:

1) It was wrong for the English Civil War to execute Charles I in 1649;

2) King James II "abdicated" when he fled to France in 1688, and so the Glorious Revolution's restoration of William and Mary to the throne made them rightful monarchs

The American Revolution [actually, they called it the "War with Britain" at the time] handled both these problems at the outset in the Declaration of Independence:

1) "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."

The American Revolution was no coup d'etat, no replacement of the head of state, as was the execution of Charles I. It was a separation of one people from another.

2) "He [King George III] has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us."

Abdicated. Theological problems solved, in the way that Britain had solved them nearly 100 years before. We may also add

3) that the Crown [William and Mary] accepted the primacy of Parliament when they accepted the throne. That was the deal.

So when the Declaration of Independence condemned the Crown---a personification of the British Government as its titular head of state

3) "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent..."

"For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever."

...it announced that the deal between one people and another had been broken. And so, when the Declaration states

"Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us."

the British are now the colonists' "brethren," and parliament were not their masters or rulers, because by whatever right one man [parliament] had to rule over another [the colonies] was "unwarrantable jurisdiction" because of the lack of consent of the governed.

And so when the Declaration asserts

"They [Parliament] too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation..."

it's the end of "consanguinity," then, of being of the same blood, the same tribe. What had been one people was now two peoples: without a legislature of their own, or representation in the British parliament, the colonists were second-class citizens, and that meant they did not consider themselves citizens atall.

The Biblical argument against revolution is per Romans 13, which reads:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

and concludes

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Wherefore [ye] must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

But the American colonists came to the same arguments as the British themselves before them, and found their way around and through Romans 13. It was a "separation," not a revolution, and as for the "higher powers," the Crown had abdicated, and the parliament, first among their equals, abrogated the colonists' rights as Englishmen.

It's said by some observers that the Continentals didn't talk about Romans 13 much. True perhaps, but I say Romans 13 was between the lines, every line. The colonists were conscientious men who wanted to do the right thing, before man and before God. And that's why the Declaration of Independence reads the way it does.

Hey, they didn't even cut off the King's head. Compared to the British themselves, the Americans were quite reasonable and decent about the whole thing.

Frazer Responds to "Joel Mark"

I've watched Gregg Frazer debate other evangelicals on Romans 13, in particular two of my evangelical co-bloggers, Jim Babka at Positive Liberty and "King of Ireland" at American Creation. While I've learned from their debates, I, a non-Christian observer, notice some arguing from different premises. I get the impression that they believe in different kinds of orthodox Christianity, though all three ARE "orthodox" in their Christology. I would term Babka and KOI "moderate" evangelicals, who hold some beliefs that the more fundamentalist types (like Dr. Frazer) deem heretical. Both Babka and KOI, for instance, believe in Darwin's evolution. And KOI has explicitly stated Genesis was an allegory and

that some of the verses used to prove an eternal judgement in a lake of fire are interpolations of the royalty of the time using religion to scare people into submission.

I have no proof other than the fact that the major religions of the world seem to have spread when the elite of that culture excepted it. I am suspicious that they pervert it to their own ends. I am afraid that Christianity may not be an exception.

Note, I have no problem with this kind of Christianity and were I to convert it would probably be to that kind as opposed to strict fundamentalist, verse and chapter citation that reads Genesis as a literal tale and believes Darwin's evolution false. However, if those are the premises to which one holds, Gregg's understanding of Romans 13 is the more authentic expression of evangelical-fundamentalism. Again, it's ironic that David Barton appeals to so many evangelical-fundamentalist, strict verse and chapter quoters.

So when I observe Gregg debating them, as opposed to the more moderate theological types, I see them playing by the same (or a more similar) set of rules. And Gregg always does an effective job refuting them on strict, Sola Scriptura fundamentalist grounds.

For instance, on this thread, an evangelical-fundamentalist Rev. named "Joel Mark" tried to justify political rebellion on biblical grounds when he commented:

The simplistic platitude that rebellion against authority IS rebellion against God applies in some cases and not others. It’s not that simple in Scripture or in real life.

The church herself does not have as her main mission political rebellion or activism. Using the church for political reballion as if that is her main mission is wrong-headed. But Christians are legal citizens too and they have a right to participate in dissent and/or rebellion, in many various forms–depending on the context. Where one draws the line between dissent and rebellion is a subjective call. But a right understadnig of scripture does not lead to a mandate for some sweeping ban on all social or political dissent or rebellion on all believers in all circumstances.

Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt was more than dissent. It was a rebellion, a godly and just rebellion and God called Moses to lead it.

David respected Saul’s office as king but when David was de-throned, he allowed a civil war to dethrone his own son and get his throne back.

Jesus, on some occasions, rebelled against political, civic and religious aauthorities and they had the politica authority to have him killed unjustly for it.

The apostle Peter refused to submit to the command of the Sanhedrin to shut up.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer rose in rebellion against Hitler (even to articipate in an effort to assassinate him) and he did so rightly and bravely as a faithful man of God.

Martin Luther King, Jr, was a Christian who rebelled against laws and was in the right to do so.

There are Mao’s, Stalins, Hitlers and others in this world and God’s Word did not give Christians some free pass not to care or act on that concern to deal with such tyrannies.

I think that Christians have a legitimate option and even a responsibility in some cases to dissent and/or rebel in some ways against exploitative racism, oppression, tyranny, political deception, and injustice. In fact, unbelievers and others are harshly critical of Christians when they may fail to rise in the name of earthly justice.

While the earthly fate others is an acute concern for Christians, it is still not our main mission in the end to seek earthly justice. Our main mission remains the same: calling sinners to repentance and forgiveness of sins through Christ. Our ultimate citizenship is still in heaven. But the Bible allows for the role of the soldier (in fact it treats it honorably) and even the role of those in legitimate dissent of abusive authority.

It does not change my point to say that God sent the plagues. God clearly used Moses in the rebellious and defiant process of delivering the Israelites from political slavery and tyranny.

One of my points had to do with David and Absalom, not necessarily David and Saul.

I have read and studied all those biblical accounts for myself and it strains them too thin, in my view, to deprive them of their plain meaning in order to fit them into an agenda that calls for some universal legalistic ban on all Christians from any political rebellion or defiance or perhaps even dissent in all cases.

[...]

Jesus lived in a theocratic culture and when he defied authorities in the Temple, quite rebelliously, he was defying the ruling authorities of his time and culture sure enough.

With Jesus as our model, we see that there are times and circumstances for total submission to governing authorities and there are times for total defiance. He did not operate on some over-arching ban or mandate. He applied principles of God’s will to the need of the moment faithfully.

[...]

Jon wrote; “This deals with disobedience NOT submission.”

I see no moral or consequential discinction here. This seems to be a false dichotomy. To dosobey is to refuse to submit and to refuse to submit is to disobey–total compatibility.

Jon wrote; “The one time Christians are permitted to disobey civil authorities is when need to avoid committing a sin to do so.”

This is always the reason we would ever be permitted to disobey civil authorities.

Accepting the punishment may well be our fate for not submitting or not obeying civil authorities, but that does not speak to the notion of whether Christians should or should not do it in the first place.

And what follows is Gregg's rebuttal on strict biblical grounds to every single point Joel Mark makes:

Joel Mark has conflated and confused a number of different terms and activities. He is quite right that Scripture does not mandate a sweeping ban on “dissent” – but quite wrong in suggesting that it does not ban “rebellion.” The initial problem, of course, is the suggestion that the two are the same thing or even in the same category.

By definition, “dissent” is disagreement; a “difference of opinion.” “Rebellion” is “open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance or resistance to an established government.”

In the American situation, King George had no problem with “dissent” – but he fought a war to put down “rebellion.” On the other side, one wonders why the Americans went to the expense and insecurity of rebellion if they could achieve the same by dissent. If they’re the same, they would have the same result, right? We have different words for them because they’re quite different. The U.S. Constitution says that the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended in times of “rebellion.” We continually have people expressing dissent (picketing, Tea Parties, etc.) – does anyone suggest that habeas corpus should be perpetually suspended? Did Lincoln send the Union army into the South when the southerners expressed dissent or to put down rebellion when they took violent action against Sumter?

How, exactly, is obeying an order from pharaoh “rebellion?” In Exodus 12:31, pharaoh commanded Moses to take the people and leave. Moses obeyed that order. There was no rebellion whatsoever. What swords were drawn? Who organized a rebellious army? Which verse talks of an Israelite army fighting its way out of Egypt? For that matter, what did Moses do besides speak the word of God to pharaoh and throw down his staff? God handled whatever coercion was necessary – as He always does when He wants a ruler’s authority over a people to end. The only One Who took action against pharaoh was God – and God outranked pharaoh in authority.

David was the king – Absalom’s false claim did not change that. David is identified as the king throughout the account. So, David did not rebel against authority – he defended his authority against rebellion.

JESUS NEVER REBELLED against ANY authority. He rebuked them and warned them and chided them – but he never attempted to overthrow them or even challenged their authority. If He had, they would have had REAL charges to bring against Him at his “trial” – instead of paying men to lie. Joel Mark’s statement is curious: he says that Jesus rebelled and then says that they killed him “unjustly” for it. If he were a rebel, His execution would have been just!

Peter and the apostles did, indeed, refuse to stop preaching the gospel – that’s “disobedience,” not rebellion. Disobedience targets a law; rebellion targets the authority behind law. We may have to disobey a law if it requires us to disobey God (Acts 5:29); but we are never to resist authority (Rom. 13:2).

To be in subjection is to recognize the legitimacy of the authority over you (it is legit whether or not you recognize it); to obey is to do what they say in a specific instance. One can disobey a particular command (because it requires disobedience to God) and yet remain in subjection by maintaining respect for the authority behind the law. It usually means taking the punishment (Daniel, Shadrach et al, the apostles).

Re Mao, Stalin, Hitler, et al: the emperor when Paul told the Romans to be in subjection to authority without exception – was NERO! He was so bad a ruler that a branch of theology says that he was THE ANTICHRIST. We are, of course, free to care and to act on that concern – but we are not free to disobey God in doing so. The most powerful action we could take is to PRAY to the sovereign God of the universe. Unless you know someone stronger? (Isaiah 14:26-27)

Unbelievers may well be critical of Christians refusing to take actions of which they approve, but God does not. Many first century Christians were martyred for that very reason; and Daniel went into the lion’s den; Shadrach et al went into the furnace. Our testimony to unbelievers is, in fact, tied up in our faithful subjection to authority, according to I Peter 2:12-15. We must not disobey God in order to gain the approval of unbelievers. We may certainly “rise in the name of earthly justice” in various ways – but rebelling against authority is not one of them.

John Adams Addresses A Nation of Christians & more on what is "Christianity"?

I think TVD's recent post hits upon an important point; the "key Founding Fathers," in their public addresses, especially as their role as the first four Presidents of the United States, did their best not to ruffle the feathers of "the orthodox" or any powerful, socially viable branch of Christianity. Indeed the internal theory of their Founding politics demanded "consent" of the governed, many (perhaps the majority) of whom were "orthodox."

Jefferson too. In his second inaugural he stated:

I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with his providence, and our riper years with his wisdom and power; and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications, that he will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures, that whatsoever they do, shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.

I think this and John Adams' above sentiments were sincere; however both are consistent with unitarianism or what has been termed "theistic rationalism." These same first four Presidents could turn around while addressing unconverted Native Americans and speak as though their "Great Spirit" God was the same one that Jews, Christians, Muslims and Unitarians worshipped.

If there is an incompatibility between orthodox Christianity and the American Founding Presidential political theology, it's that the latter is too ecumenical. Orthodox Christianity is not eccumenical; it believes Christ the only way to God. Evangelicals and Roman Catholics can gather together over their shared belief in Nicene orthodoxy; but the America's Founding political theology went further.

I noted this on an evangelical thread (I choose this thread because the smartest, most well educated evangelicals tend to comment there AND the blog has high standards for civility) where I pose a question that most folks there have trouble answering. I noted the "key Founders" tended to present their theological opinions under the auspices of "Christianity" and greatly respected CERTAIN tenets about "Christianity." But...the million $$ question:

“What is Christianity without original sin, trinity, incarnation, atonement, eternal damnation and infallibility of the Bible?” Whatever it calls itself, is it still "Christianity" or some "other" theological system?

I don't think there is a clear cut answer; the answer depends on one's premises or definitions.

The irony is -- and I'm all about playing up delicious philosophic irony -- those who most loudly and popularly defend the "Christian Nation" idea have a tight definition of "Christianity" and are likeliest to term such a theology as "not Christian." In other words, they evaluate what is a "Christian" as it relates to "their beliefs on doctrines of salvation." Gregg Frazer doesn't even do this when he constructs a definition of late 18th Century "Christianity" that excludes what the first four Presidents believed. Gregg forms a 10 point lowest common denominator among the creeds of the largest "Christian" sects in 18th Century America. And this includes Roman Catholics and Anglicans who would not pass the "born again"/salvation standard of evangelicals.

In other words, while it's still a tight test, Dr. Frazer's is a rung lower (or broader) than the evangelical/salvation test for Christianity.

This is a point evangelicals need to understand. When they hear folks like David Barton claim George Washington was a "Christian," they hear in their minds a "born again" or "regenerate" Christian.

Some folks believe this to the point of delusion. I was shocked once debating a seemingly intelligent evangelical blogger who claimed that while St. Augustine probably wasn't a "Christian," George Washington was. What nonsense.

Again -- delicious irony -- the "Protestant Christianity" of orthodox evangelicals of both today and the Founding era is, despite whatever differences they might have, theologically CLOSER to Roman Catholicism than what George Washington or John Locke PROVABLY believed. After all, Roman Catholics believe in the Nicene Creed, some might even say, they WROTE the creed and constructed the biblical canon. And neither Washington nor Locke provably believed "in the Trinity, the deity of Christ, original sin, the atonement, or justification by faith." Roman Catholics believe in all of these things.

My million dollar question remains. I'm interested in the different answers and defenses thereto.

The Public John Adams on Christianity

Jonathan Rowe notes below John Adams' socio-historical musings on Christianity ["most bloody religion that ever existed"]. And that's OK as far as it goes: although the Aztecs [among others] were certainly worse, some very bad things were done in the name of Christ.

But that's what Adams wrote in a private letter in 1816, well after he'd retired from the public stage. What he said on the public stage was this, in his 1797 inaugural address:

"I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service, can enable me in any degree to comply with your wishes, it shall be my strenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two Houses shall not be without effect."

One blogger ran with Jon's post to claim the "most bloody religion" quote as proof that the United States was not a Christian nation. Mr. Rowe rightly replies that that's far too much to read into that quote. As for this quote, I'd say it's also too much to read into it to say that Adams did believe it was a Christian nation.

But I will say he certainly sounds like he's addressing one.

Conference on Ellen White and the Seventh-day Adventists

Over at Religion in American History, Randall Stevens and Amanda Porterfield have written a couple of interesting posts on the Conference of Ellen White, which took place this past weekend in Portland, Maine. And while White has very little to do with the actual American founding, she was an extremely provocative and influential figure in American religious history and helped to shape the Christian landscape of 19th century America.

As co-founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, White's life and legacy are of paramount importance to the doctrine and beliefs of over 15 million adherents world wide. In fact, her works (often referred to as the "lesser light") are regularly read in conjunction with the Holy Bible ("greater light") and are accepted as official doctrine of the church.

And though this blog focuses primarily on 17th and 18th century issues, I think it would be a mistake to omit Ellen White and the Adventists from our ongoing inquiry into religion and the founding, and the Conference on Ellen White provides us with a unique chance to do just that.



At this conference, a group of specialists on Ellen White and the Adventists, have collaborated on a joint book effort (to be published by Oxford University Press), which they hope will help shed light on this often forgotten figure of American religious history. As Randall Stephens (who attended the conference) states:

I know so little about White and Adventism—something I found on further investigation that I share with other participants Spencer Fluhman, Peggy Bendroth, and some others—that I hesitated to take part at first. But the organizers hoped that those outside the field would ask broad questions about research and writing. I rushed to my library to read Ron Numbers’s bio Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White. Yet, I only had time to crack the book. So, into the breach. The papers/chapters have been fascinating. I never knew how much White, and her contemporary Adventists, was wrapped up in sex reform, visionary mysticism, the shouting Methodist tradition, hydrotherapy, vegetarianism, creationism . . . and on and on. Panels have been asking about the 19th-century context of Adventism, the legacy and influence of White, and the role of emotion in religious experience.

In addition, Amanda Porterfield posts two of the more provocative questions brought up during the conference:

Randall Stephens posed the question, how did Ellen White build a movement out of the discredited wreck of the Millerite movement, and in the face of public scorn? Part of the answer is that her husband and other handlers enabled her success. Her own interpersonal and organizational skills obviously contributed to her authority, and to the authority of her visions. Her emphasis on the Saturday Sabbath enabled believers to separate themselves from others, and also to raid mainline protestant groups for recruits. Both recruits and longtime members relished the perfectionist discipline that promised to bring them into close relationship to heaven. This dynamic allowed for reversing scorn visited on Adventists back onto others.

Spencer Fluhman asked the question, why was Ellen White reproached and vilified by people outside of her movement? Clues to the answer might be found in protestant narratives that instantiated the fiction of mainstream Christianity and used Adventism, like Mormonism, as a foil against which “American” Christianity could be defined. White participated in this dynamic with some enthusiasm, even as her self-proclaimed alterity exerted its own pressure on American society, and on protestant denominations, especially with respect to temperance, diet, and health.

Interesting questions on an important and often ignored religion that has had a dramatic impact on American Christianity.