Thanksgiving is a national holiday for which Christians have special claims. As most of us know, we recognize the roots of Thanksgiving as the Pilgrim’s celebration in the Colony of Virginia in 1619, praising God for his protection from danger and preservation through the plenty of the land.As early as 1789, George Washington declared a national day of Thanksgiving by writing:”Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be—That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks—for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country…for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed…and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions—to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually…To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us—and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.”It wasn’t until Abraham Lincoln, however, that the last Thursday in November was established as the national holiday that we now know as Thanksgiving.Contrary to the beliefs of some, however, this does not confirm that our nation was founded on Christian principles. It does, however, show that the founding fathers had a religious (mostly deistic) consciousness. Have you heard Thanksgiving linked to the Christian origins of our nation? Insofar as Thanksgiving is linked to the Puritans, this is correct, but insofar as it is linked to its establishment by the founding fathers, I think this is a misguided notion. Any thoughts?
Wilderness Wonderings
conversations on the journey from deliverance to final rest
Current Conversations
 | Suegro on Commentary on Saint Louis… |
 | tina on A Biblical View of Angels and… |
 | brosunshine on Science and Faith: Conflicted … |
 | Ruthie on Wisdom in Relationships |
 | Molly on The Weakness of Messages |
Vicinity of Visitors
Wes,
Wel technically it was FDR in 1939 who set the current date (4th Thursday) we use. Lincoln set the last Thursday which we do not currently use.
But to your question, I think history shows that we as a country were indeed founded on the Christian religion, even if some of the founders were deists. I think it goes without saying that Thanksgiving is linked to our being a Christian nation. Just look at Washington’s proclamation and of course at his life.
Here are but a few samples of words of our founding fathers:
Patrick Henry, the great orator who said on the floor of the House of Burgesses in Virginia, “Give me liberty or give me death” also said,
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
John Adams of Massachusetts, a lawyer and the second president, wrote in a letter to Jefferson on June 28, 1813. He said, “The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general principles of Christianity.”
Samuel Adams, cousin of John Adams, is called the “Father of the American Revolution.” He incited the Boston Tea Party, signed the Declaration of Independence and called for the first Continental Congress. He said as the Declaration of Independence was being signed, “We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come.” Samuel Adams also said, “First of all, I … rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.”
Thomas Jefferson…said, “The reason that
Christianity is the best friend of government
is because Christianity is the only religion
that changes the heart.”
Benjamin Franklin, considered a deist by many, said, “He who shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of a primitive Christianity, will change the face of the world.” And Thomas Jefferson, also considered a deist, said, “The reason that Christianity is the best friend of government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart.”
Now, some today want to deny these founders words, but they cannot.
Les
Les, I highly recommend a book by three very fine scholars of American religious history, Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and George Marsden. The title is “The Search for Christian America.”
http://www.amazon.com/Search-Christian-America-Mark-Noll/dp/0939443155/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195931422&sr=8-1
Wes, good thoughts about the founding fathers. I also blogged re: Thanksgiving, only about the “founding fathers” of the Western Civ., the Greeks.
http://weinhold.blogspot.com/2007/11/turkey-day.html
To clarify, the Pilgrims/Separatists celebrated what we call the First Thanksgiving in the summer of 1621 to celebrate God’s provision and providence.
The Pilgrims did want to escape the religious persecution in England, but they also wanted to found a new Christian land in the New World.
Thanks for the correction on the history of observance. Basically, our nation has been celebrating this holiday consistently for a long time.
I too would recommend the book by Marsden et. al.
This is probably a discussion to be had in person, but I would emphatically argue that our nation should not be seen as a Christian nation and that there is no “Christian” heritage that we should be recovering. Indeed, our nation was founded by people who desired religious freedom (as Natatlie articulated), to set up a nation that would allow religious pluralism. Some of these “founding fathers” were Christian; many of them were not. John Locke held much more sway over the intellectual climate in the forming of our nation than John Calvin. Alas, there is much more to say, but there is a pub night coming up!
Wes,
With all due respect I would again repeat my statement above and stand by it: “history shows that we as a country were indeed founded on the Christian religion, even if some of the founders were deists.
I have done a little study on this over the last 24 years, as well as taught on the subject in a high school. I am no Noll, et al, but there are a number of scholars/historians who would agree with me.
My contention is not that the US is a Christian country or founded as a Christian country. Rather my point is that Christianity indeed trumped all else and governed by and large the founders.
But, then again maybe I really just do not know.
Les, what about the Treaty of Tripoli?
I would argue that the Pilgrims were not seeking to found a pluralistic society. Rather, they were attempting to establish a “city on a hill,” from which they wanted to exert Christian governance. This is partly evidenced by their frustration with their Dutch counterparts, while seeking relief in Holland before sailing back to England and then on to America in 1620.
Les, would you mind explaining a little more what you mean by “we as a country were indeed founded on the Christian religion” and “Christianity indeed trumped all else and governed by and large the founders?” I would love to understand a little more where you’re coming from so I can interact better. Do you mean the founders were Christian? Do you mean that a Christian worldview influenced their political views? A clarification would help…
Natalie, you are right to point out that many of the Puritans thought they were on God’s mission to start a new Israel. But the politicians who crafted the constitution etc. at the end of the eighteenth century were quite different and had a very different mindset than the seventeeth century Puritans. They definitely thought that America was unique, but I think the intellectual climate at that time was a unique blend of Christianity, deistic civil religion, and republicanism.
To clarify what Paul is talking about, the Treaty of Tripoli was ratified by the US on June 10, 1797.
Article 11 reads:
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
And also, “Search for Christian America” was one of the best books I read in college. I also recommend it!
Wes et al,
First, to clarify Natalie’s point. She was merely commenting on Wes’ post stating the Pilgrims favored pluralism, which certainly is not true.
Second, the Treaty of Tripoli was little more than a treaty with Islamic pirates, and is given far more importance by atheists and critics of Christianity than it deserves. The US was terrified by the effects of piracy on their trade, and was attempting to make a treaty with the pirates at any cost. This treaty ultimately broke down, resulting in the first and second barbary wars. The treaty of tripoli is a moot argument in regards to the question of whether America was founded as a Christian nation.
Third, let’s not forget Hobbes when we talk about Locke. He was equally important to the founders, especially when considering human nature. It is undeniable that Christianity was the major paradigm within which the founders worked. Also, I take exception to the claim that a majority of the founders were deists. Although many were not orthodox Christians, a super majority certainly held firm to many of the major aspects of Christianity (which dramatically differs from deism). The founders did not intend America to be a theocracy. That said, they did found this country and its government on the basis of Christian principles and with the mind that its people would always believe in the Creator God.
I have not read this specific Noll work, but I have read several of his other works. He provides thoughtful criticism for modern Christianity. But, we too often, in reacting with Noll, go to far in our judgements. Noll is criticizing the claim some evangelicals make that America was once a great Christian nation, and we should try and retrieve that. America was not founded as a Christian nation (theocracy), like the Pilgrims hoped for, but it was founded on Christian principles, and any historian who denies that has an agenda of her/his own.
Thanks for your comments, Tom.
To clarify, though, I never said that the Puritans desired pluralism. I was going off what Natalie said about religious freedom and applying to our nation’s founders, most of whom were not Puritan in origin. The Puritans were pivotal in helping to settle our nation, but by the time 1776 rolled around, the Puritan mindset had morphed and melded with other mindsets.
Any more thoughts on Tripoli, Paul? I thought you might want to speak on this, since you raised it in the first place. I have to admit my knowledge of this is slight.
Tom, when you refer to the founder’s belief in the Creator God are you thinking of the Creator God mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, that the people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?” If so, I would like to mention that the Declaration was mostly the brainchild of Thomas Jefferson, who clearly did not believe in the Creator of the Bible. Indeed, Jefferson cut out all the sections of his Bible that did not pass the test of rationality and the enlightenment.
I appreciate the distinction between America as a Chritian theocracy and America as founded on Christian principles. But I am curious: what principles are you thinking of that are unique to Christianity? Many principles that I often hear named could be shared by people who do not believe in our Trinitarian God and the Gospel of Jesus. I would be interested in your thoughts…
Here is a little blurb on the Treaty of Triopoli from Wikipedia:
“Article 11 has been a point of contention regarding the proper interpretation of the doctrine of separation of church and state. Supporters of the separation of church and state contend that this article is significant in that it confirms that the government of the United States was specifically intended to be religiously neutral. Supporters of the “Christian Nation” theory dispute this, arguing that the article in the treaty carries little or no significance.
Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in May 1797, the entire treaty was read aloud on the Senate floor, including the famous words in Article 11, and copies were printed for every Senator. A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification, and the treaty was ratified by a unanimous vote of all 23 Senators. The treaty was reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.”
For everyone’s reference, here’s how Noll, Hatch, and Marsden summarize their argument in The Search for Christian America:
“The argument of this book can be stated quite simply.
1) We feel that a careful study of the facts of history shows that early America does not deserve to be considered uniquely, distinctly or even predominately Christian, if we mean by the word “Christian” a state of society reflecting the ideals presented in Scripture. There is no lost golden age to which American Christians may return. In addition, a careful study of history will also show that evangelicals themselves were often partly to blame for the spread of secularism in contemporary American life.
2) We feel also that careful examination of Christian teaching on government, the state, and the nature of culture shows that the idea of a ‘Christian nation’ is a very ambiguous concept which is usually harmful to effective Christian action in society.”
Regarding the Treaty of Tripoli, I think it has quite a bit of relevance. If Adams merely signed the treaty to resolve trade issues, then I think that speaks to the importance of economic concerns over and against religious concerns. In a manner of speaking, it makes Adams seem a bit like Peter before the rooster crowed.
But as someone mentions above, and as the authors of The Search for Christian America also acknowledge, we needn’t attempt to purge Christian influences from America’s history. Even if one argues that deism and unitarianism dominated the scene in the late 18th century, these also shared much with traditional Christianity even while simultaneously departing from it.
Unfortunately, one of the Myers girls has my copy of Search for Christian America and some other key texts I used for American Religious History.
I did find another book on my shelf that is very helpful in this discussion. In Awash in a Sea of Faith, Jon Butler of Yale University has an interesting discussion on the role of religion in American independence.
He summarizes, “The Declaration of Independence provides clear-cut evidence of the secondary role that religion and Christianity played in creating the revolutionary struggle. The religious world invoked in the Declaration was a deist’s world, at best; at worst, the Declaration was simply indifferent to religious concerns and issues. The god who appears in the Declaration is the god of nature rather than the God of Christian scriptural revelation…Elsewhere, all was secular: taxes, troops, tyranny. Despite its length, not a single religious issue, including the dispute over the Anglican bishop, found a place in the “history of repeated injuries and usurpations” that closed the Declaration and that established the Revolution’s most authoritative list of offensive British action in American.”
But he goes to explain that “the Declaration’s remarkable silence on religious issues should not obscure the importance of religion in secondary issues.”
First of all, please stop putting words in my mouth. I spoke only of the Pilgrims, never of any founding fathers. (see a copy of my first post below).
“The Pilgrims did want to escape the religious persecution in England, but they also wanted to found a new Christian land in the New World.”
Wes, you brought up Pluralism, when you said, “Indeed, our nation was founded by people who desired religious freedom (as Natatlie articulated), to set up a nation that would allow religious pluralism.”
I disagree with this statement concerning the Pilgrims’ intentions.
On a different note, I, as well, am uninformed on the Treaty of Tipoli. However, I did not realize Wikipedia was an accurate online resource. Is this authoritative and unbiased?
The Pilgrims and Separatists are synonymous, by the way. They are a different group of people than the Puritans.
Natalie, you are certainly correct regarding the reliability of Wikipedia or any other such internet source. They can be good references but must always be double-checked. Here is a link from Yale Law School containing the entire treaty. Reference article 11:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm
Wes, et al:
What is your point and what do you hope to gain by convincing others of your point “that there is no “Christian” heritage that we should be recovering?”
Couple of quotes:
Historian C. Gregg Singer traces the line of influence from the seventeenth century to the eighteenth century in his book, A Theological Interpretation of American History. He says,
“Whether we look at the Puritans and their fellow colonists of the seventeenth century, or their descendants of the eighteenth century, or those who framed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, we see that their political programs were the rather clear reflection of a consciously held political philosophy, and that the various political philosophies which emerged among the American people were intimately related to the theological developments which were taking place. . . . A Christian world and life view furnished the basis for this early political thought which guided the American people for nearly two centuries and whose crowning lay in the writing of the Constitution of 1787.”
Historian Page Smith points out that Thomas Jefferson was not only influenced by secular philosophers, but was also influenced by the Protestant Reformation. He says,
“Jefferson and other secular-minded Americans subscribed to certain propositions about law and authority that had their roots in the Protestant Reformation. It is a scholarly common-place to point out how much Jefferson (and his fellow delegates to the Continental Congress) were influenced by Locke. Without disputing this we would simply add that an older and deeper influence — John Calvin — was of more profound importance.”
I could go on, but frankly this whole discussion seems fruitless. It appears there are not a few who would question the validity and historicity of almost everything these days.
My apologies, Natalie! I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth. I was simply launching off something you said to talk about the founders of our nation. I guess I assumed that in escaping religious persecution you meant they desired religious freedom, which would entail a pluralism of sorts (One of the downfalls of written conversation).
Actually Les, I think this is a very important topic, because history influences the way we live today. Paul already quoted one of the purposes of the book by Marsden, Noll, and Hatch, but this is one of the major rationales: “We feel also that careful examination of Christian teaching on government, the state, and the nature of culture shows that the idea of a ‘Christian nation’ is a very ambiguous concept which is usually harmful to effective Christian action in society.”
Neither Paul nor I would deny that the founders of our country were influenced by Christianity. What we have been taught to be suspect of, however, is the notion that this influence makes our nation a Christian one, or a nation founded on Christian principles.
In addition, I do not understand your last comment about questioning the validity and historicity of almost everything. Historians such as Marsden, Noll, and Hatch are recognized worldwide as the most careful and erudite Christian historians in our contemporary world. Indeed, they have devoted their lives to doing good history, so I would not put them in the camp of questioning the historicity of everything.
Wes, I would argue that it is very important as well. My point is precisely that since this country presupposes a base rooted in the Christian religion we should seek to write and enforce laws consistent with those Christian teachings: e.g. 1 man/1 woman marriage (as opposed to Mormonism or homosexual marriage), pro-life, etc.
On what basis do we seek to impose our belief in the sanctity of marriage ot life, for example, on the people of this country. We could go on and talk about laws respecting race, sex, etc. Other religions do not all seek the fair and equitable treatment of women, for example (see Saudi Arabia).
Fot the Nolls of the world, there are the Marvin Olaskys as well who said,
“The first amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. …” That initial clause, in the language of two centuries ago, means that Congress shall not establish – give preference to – a religion. The second clause means that people who believe in God should be able to carry through on that belief not just for an hour on Sunday but all through the week. Let me emphasize this: “An establishment of religion” means designating one religion as the one that receives preference and direct funding from government, to the exclusion of other religious views. Madison assured members of Congress debating the first amendment in 1789 that it would not cut off government support from religion generally. The amendment was needed, he said, because “the people feared that one sect might obtain a preeminence.”
Even Thomas Jefferson, who as president wrote in a private letter those famous words about “a wall of separation” between church and state, signed treaties with Indian tribes that included the provision of federal money to build churches and support clergymen. Jefferson even extended three times an act that designated federal lands for “the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren missionaries for use in civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity.” Jefferson, more than any of the other founders, wanted a wall, but even he did not put broken glass on top of it.
The U.S. Supreme Court for a century and a half assumed a friendly relationship between church and state. Famed Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story even wrote in 1833 that the first amendment allowed “Christianity … to receive encouragement from the state, so far as not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship.” Jefferson’s wall metaphor languished for years until the Supreme Court pulled it out of the historical dust in 1947, but even then “separation of church and state” did not mean separation of people who believe in God from any governmental connection.
One of the leading Supreme Court secularists, Justice William O. Douglas, wrote in 1952 that if church and state were always separated, “the state and religion would be aliens to each other?- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly.” Douglas’s most famous sentence, when he wrote the majority opinion in Zorach v. Clausen, was, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” But he went on to emphasize “the religious nature of our people” and the need for an understanding that “accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. … [We] find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.”
Other justices have reasoned similarly. In the 1960s, Justice Arthur Goldberg warned of the need to avoid “a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious.” In the 1970s Chief Justice Warren Burger played with the “wall of separation” metaphor, writing that “the line of separation, far from being ‘a wall,’ is a blurred, indistinct and variable barrier.” In the 1980s now-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, dissenting in Wallace v. Jaffree, wrote that “The ‘wall of separation between church and state’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”"
If you were in congress or some other political office, how or on what basis would you govern?
Wow, these quotes and questions would open some very big cans of worms, which are good cans to open, but I think I’ll wait to deal with those creepy crawlers for another time.
It seems that if our government would privilege any one religion, it would be contradicting itself. What does this mean for electing officials and leading our country and making legislation? That’s where it gets sticky, but needless to say I am overjoyed that we have Christians in our government who have the law of the Lord written on their hearts.
How far do we go in seeking to enact laws based on the Christian teaching?
Should we seek to enact legislation that outlaws adultery? Sabbath-breaking? Dis-honoring parents? Having any gods before Yahweh? This is perhaps where it gets sticky. Why do we fight the homosexual marriage fight but not these?
Just questions…actually, this is something I have been thinking through quite a bit lately and I would love to hear people’s thoughts on it!
Yeah, great things to ponder. I do think the Bible can and should inform on things like you mention. Adultery was illegal on the books for decades until recent years (some states probably still have laws on the books, never enforced). Should be again. Back in the middle 20th century adultery was a huge factor in determining divorce settlements, before no-fault divorces. Blue laws were and perhaps still are on the books. Stores could not be open on Sunday. That is a good thing.
A moral code, based on the Bible, can be a good thing in society. Where do laws against murder and manslaughter come from? Bible. Where do property rights laws come from? Bible. Where do laws on usery come from? Bible. Where do laws requiring gas stations to adhere to proper measurements when dispensing gasoline come from? Bible.
These do not come naturally.
This county was founded by several Christians along with non-Christians which inherently makes it a county with Christian tones. Inasmuch as a Christian worldview dictates how we react and relate to events around us now, so would a Christian worldview formulate the way in which brothers and sisters in Christ ages ago would construct the workings of a new nation – no matter if unsaved humans were involved or not.
Perhaps America has (in the words of some of my favorite Mennonites) back-slid’n, however that does not mean that we are not a nation founded on Christian ideals and wants. Does founding a county on Christian beliefs and enacting laws based on The Moral Law mean religious toleration is out the door, no! Why, because we’re told that The Law is written on the hearts and minds of all men, thus justice can be objective. It also means the founders loved a non-Christian sole enough to realize that hindering people to live in this nation because of their religious beliefs was no different than the land they were fleeing.
A few notes; we use the Bible to swear in Presidents, we use the Bible to begin oaths of honesty in court, we are “one nation under God” as a much protested pledge states, and like it or not, lawmakers begin sessions in prayer. Now, I realize that not all of these processes were laid out at the formation of the country, not all are solemnly “reformed”, however – all this alludes to a Christianity based country.
I also think it important to remember that there have been many posts, here and elsewhere that states a mission of the church is to redeem creation. Redeeming creation does not just mean art, worldviews and philosophies; it also means the governments in the land and the institutions therein. Perhaps we should focus on the fact that we can serve our country and mold our country in a Biblical, Godly fashion. Not only that, we should be pursuing ways we can move from “God, Bless America” to “America, Bless God” in everything that this country does and stands for.
Signed, the
“Thankful to be living in a land of freedom where Christianity is still tolerated, no matter the existence or non-existence of a Biblical basis for founding said land… Jared”
I agree…a fascinating discussion. Les, in connection to your points in the last post, I think of the difficulty of appealing to Scripture in public debates and in a secular political setting. We have interacted on Moreland on your blog, but one of his concerns is that evangelicals have become “overcommitted to the Bible” is the sense that they have not been very good at interacting in public discourse (politics included) on the basis of natural law and general revelation. I smell another post coming…
By the way, are you a theonomist? I don’t think we’ve talked about this before…
Good thoughts, Jared. I agree that we need to work on the basis of the law written on the hearts of all people. I am glad you mentioned this, because this is the basis of an argument for public discourse based on natural law and general revelation, which I find very appealing.
I absolutely agree that one important Christian calling and vocation is to redeem and transform the public sphere of politics. Much ink has been spilled in working out what this means.
I agree with you that we need to be working to build an America in which God is pleased. But to loop this back to some previous comments, this does not mean that we are creating or reclaiming a Christian America. Christian is not an adjective that should be joined with any nation. It is used to describe the invisible empire in which we live, the kingdom of God, the kingdom that requires our primary allegiance.
I look forward to that future post. Yes, I am a theonomist. We who believe in the bible are all theonomists to some degree. Agree?
While I agree with you that these things are in the Bible, I don’t think this is necessarily why our government upholds these things (laws against murder, property rights, proper measurements). They uphold these things because they are protecting people’s rights and mainting an orderly society. Of course God’s laws will portray the same order and protection. Certainly we as Christians can say these things come from God’s moral code, however, the average secular person on the street won’t concede to this.
It gets sticky when the government starts upholding certain practices that are specific to one religion or another.
If our constitution provides freedom of religion and holds that the state should not prefer one religion over another, why should the state close stores on Sunday and not on Saturday (for the orthodox Jews among us?) Why should the state not legalize polygamy (for the Mormons?) If we say that the state should show special favor for Christian practices but not Jewish, Mormon, or Muslim practices, then we open up the possibility of the state showing special favor to Jewish, Mormon, or Muslim practices above OURS.
Should we really call it a good thing if the government were to uphold a Christian practice (like closing stores on Sunday)? What if suddenly the law changed to close stores on Saturday instead and Sunday became a day of work?
I guess my point is that the founders were doing a wonderful thing when they placed some sort of separation between church and state (as fuzzy as that might get at times). The freedom for Muslims or Mormons or Buddhists to worship in this country is as important as our own. It seems to me that it is not the government’s role to uphold all the laws of God, but the Christians’ role.
Does that make sense? This would probably be better hashed out in person. Thoughts? I surely have many more!
By the way, I do not see how we can be over committed to the Bible. Dare we accuse Geo. Washington of such when he used the Christian language in his Thanksgiving proclamation?
My prayer, and efforts should be for, that every individual in these United States would bow the knee to Christ in this life as Savior, not in the next as Judge.
Regarding your first point, do you not see the wisdom of being able to interact with unbelievers in such a way without always using “because Scripture says so” as a rationale? I think general revelation can and should be a means with which to draw unbelievers to the special revelation of Christ in Scripture.
I echo your prayer wholeheartedly.
I for one am very thankful for Sam Adams, and the rich legacy of suds he has passed down to us back slidden folk.
Cheers! (with the sound of glasses clinking and thick ale sloshing onto the wooden table)
General revelation is everywhere. I think the more Scripture we can use the better. God’s Word is generally the means whereby people are saved. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
Sure it repel some. Always has. Always will. But the more we can demonstrate that our faith system is grounded in the authoritative Word of God the better.
That is why I think many of the founders stated that the Christian religion should be taught and that it possessed the only true hope of real moral change. Maybe that is why the Bible used to be taught in public schools.
Further, I think it is intellectually dishonest to try and convince people that murder is wrong on any other basis than God’s Word.
On what other basis is it wrong?
People need to know that they are indebted to a Creator who is their sovereign and that they will answer to Him. He has set all things into being and is ruler over all and will have His vindication–in Christ on sinners behalf or in unrepentant sinners who refuse the proclamation of God’s Word.
Can I be 100% certain if we’d be trying to reclaim a Christian Nation or not – no, I wasn’t there at the founding, no matter how much I’ve read on it!!! I would say though, that our country used to at least look more Christian than it does now (even though perhaps hypocritically so). Could be that 1963 thru 1968 changed much of that, or maybe Roe v. Wade, but I DO think that this country used to have more Christian ideals blanketing society – thus the reason why Sunday is a day off, Christmas is a national holiday, etc….
I guess that would take me back to the “back-slid’n” comment earlier! Are we reclaiming, maybe, maybe not. Has the country digressed, I would argue yes (even though great revivals are taking place elsewhere) and that because of mans sinful nature… but that could be my premillenial view talking!
I think reformation, revival and redemptive times happen circularly and one day this land will again awake and turn toward God. It’s our job as Christians in America to hasten that moment in everything that we do!
Jared
I have to say I am confused by much of the argument going on here. Are we arguing about the Pilgrims or our Founding Fathers? I am not a history buff (I studies numbers in college) but I paid enough attention to know that the Mayflower and the Declaration of Independence were several years (generations) removed! Are you all even talking about the same thing?
And… If Merriam Webster’s online dictonary is as reputable as I would assume then I am also a theonomist:
theonomous
Main Entry:
the·on·o·mous
Pronunciation:
\thē-ˈä-nə-məs\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
the- + -nomous (as in autonomous)
Date:
1947
: governed by God : subject to God’s authority
I’m guessing there’s more involved to it than this, but on the surface I would have to agree 100%.
Becky, you are correct there is more to it. But, the basic definition is right. Theos (God) and nomos (law). God’s Law. The question in Christian circles is to what degree one would see God’s law enacted in society, is I think what was being asked.
I said earlier we are all theonomists, as Christians. I stand by that. But, I am not sure we are all theonomists as to governmental laws, or to what degree we are theonomists.
I would argue that a law preventing abortion is God’s law based. I suppose that makes me a theonomist. I would not, however, seek to enact laws enforcing stoning disobedient children. That would be a mis-application of God’s law. But, is there a post Old Testament application to the stoning of disobedient children?
Where did everyone go?
I’m pretty sure we’re talking about the Founders. It kind of started out with the Pilgrims, but as happens in conversation, things have morphed.
Another seeming point of confusion: what does it mean that a country is (or was) a “Christian nation?”
Here’s what I’m wondering: Isn’t the freedom with which we worship that is written into the constitution the same freedom with which others worship in their religions? Live as they see fit? We live in an extremely free society. We are so free that we can’t even imagine what it would mean to not be free. I wonder if the backslidn’ of our society simply people expressing their freedom as far as it will go (sexual, moral, religious, etc). Basically, in this country we are free to do whatever we want as long as it does not violate the rights of someone else or present a public danger or threat.
Shouldn’t the government exist merely to maintain public order and protect people’s rights from being violated? It seems to me that it is not the role of the government to uphold the specific law of any religion. I think the existence of government in the major role that it plays today is an effect of the fall. Without the fall we would not need lawyers, policemen, etc. Certainly before the fall people would organize themselves (governance), but no restraint of evil or balance of power would be required (government).
I don’t think redeeming government means Christianizing our system. I think it has more to do with purging corruption and dishonest leaders. But I will have to think about that some more. The spread of the kingdom of God is the task of the church by making disciples, reaching hearts, not enforcing all of God’s laws on people who don’t believe. American will not become a “Christian nation” by restoring Christian practices into our system, but by changing hearts. Hmmm…lots more to think about
We must remember that the national government was created by the collective colonies (states) and I think was never meant to speak on religion or Christianity specifically. Christianity already held sway in the colonies in a major way. The intent in part was for the fed govt to not prefer one denomination over another.
May I humbly refer all over to
http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/02-09-05.asp
where more can be be gleaned, and on the Treaty of Tripoli.
I do love talking about this!!
Wow, I think 44 comments is a record! I think it is very important to be talking about to what extent our Christian identity and American overlap and inform each other. It probably comes as no surprise to you that I disagree with the first and second “statements of belief” articulated by the American Vision website. America’s success in the Revolution was not a result of the nation’s obedience to the Lord. Even if it was, how would we know this?
To clarify my point regarding redeeming the government and institutions, less conclusions be read into my comments that I did not actually make, the redemption of government is not the forced Christianization that we’ve seen in the past. Rather, and what I would contend the founding fathers had in mind when they first founded this nation, is the idea that biblical principles can be applied to everyday life in order maintain order of the fallen race in concordance with the biblical moral law.
The reason we have laws is to keep order, the reason we need order is because we have sin. There is no contention on this issue with this group I would surmise. However, in redeeming the government and institutions therein, we are enacting change that surround the biblical law written on hearts, murder is wrong, abortion is murder, adultery is sin, homosexuality is sin, and the like. Never has a “Christian” work of art, no matter how you define it, saved a sole. Neither will a biblical government basis or Christian Nation. You cannot impose righteousness and that is not the intent of a Christian Nation.
However, in creating or recapturing a Christian Nation, you are in a very real sense instilling and acknowledging the laws the creator has set in place for the rule and reign of a fallen race. And this is what I believe the founding fathers of this country intended.
Jared, yes, I think I hear you. My biggest questions concern what it actually looks like to instill and acknowledge the laws the creator has set in place for the rule and reign of the fallen race. Which rules? All of them? Including “You shall have no other gods before me?” Which rules/laws does the government instill and enforce?
Les, thanks for the link. Regarding American Vision and Gary DeMar, their agenda frightens me about as much as the atheist’s. Both approaches, I think, tend to distort the truth. Regarding the Treaty, I’m aware that other documents can be used to mitigate its significance, and rightly so. On an issue such as this, nobody can hold up a single document that “proves” America was or wasn’t a Christian nation. What it takes is careful, precise historical research and writing, the kind I am no longer inclined toward doing.
I can, however, still read good works on this subject, and I would be more than happy to read a work you mentioned earlier, A Theological Interpretation of American History. A colleague of mine owns a copy, and so I can borrow it from her. Perhaps you would also be interested in reading The Search for Christian America, after which we (and anyone else interested in the project) could exchange notes and observations via the blogosphere in the form of reviews. What say ye?
I am equally as frightened by the American Vision vision. But I would be willing to check out this book as well. Les, do you own a copy I could borrow?
Anyone want to be the next person to comment in order to be the big #50?!
50
Wes and Paul,
I will look forward to reading the book by Noll. Wes, may I read your copy?
As to American Vision, as with many organizations, I do not agree with every jot and tittle (to invoke a bit of biblia lingo) but I am not afriad of their ministry at all. I have followed DeMar for many years and find him sound.
Fifty-two.
What was the question?
For those of us born before 1970, we knew of a different America, and likewise for those even older. I’m going with America being founded on Christian principles (Biblically based). Yes, freedom of religion, however rooted in Christianity.
This may neither be here nor there, but personally I believe that the actual action (revolutionary war) of us becoming a nation was un-biblical…yes…thats right, I’m a loyalist. I really have a difficult time finding legitimate reason for us to break away from British rule in the first place.
Err…hm.
I’m rather curious why you believe this, Jon. I have mixed feelings about the subject for what it’s worth. I suppose my conclusion is that democracy is something worth fighting for, perhaps even dying for. “Make the world England” is a foreign policy worth distancing oneself from, regardless of your take on the events that led up to the Boston Tea Party and the rightness of starting a war largely over unfair taxation. There was more to it than that.
In contrast, can you cite examples of any war that you would consider just?
*sees thread trainwreck in the distance
One writer, FYI:
Some people contend that the American Revolution represented a violation of basic Biblical principles and embodied rebellion, or a spirit of anarchy. They argue from Romans 13 that since government is of God, then all government decrees are to be obeyed because they proceed from God.
But this is only one of two theological interpretations of Romans 13–interpretations representing a debate that has existed among American Christians for centuries.
On one side was the belief that when government speaks, God requires us to obey. This same theological position resulted in the “Divine Right of Kings” philosophy which reasoned that since the King was chosen by God, God therefore expected all citizens to obey the King in all circumstances; anything less was rebellion against God.
The other interpretation of Romans 13 was set out in a 1579 work by Frenchman Philippe du Plessis Mornay, which was printed in English as “A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants.” This treatise took the position that government being ordained of God was referring to the general institution of government rather than to each distinct government.
God ordained government in lieu of anarchy. Yet, there clearly have been governments in recent years that promote anarchy, rebellion, and wickedness (e.g. Qadafi in Libya, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Idi Amin in Uganda). Has God endorsed those governments? If so, He has contradicted His nature and is commanding submission to the very things that He hates–which isn’t possible.
Most Christian denominations during the American Revolution all believed that Romans 13 meant they were not to overthrow government as an institution and live in anarchy, but that this passage did not mean they had to submit to every civil law. (Note that in Hebrews 11, a number of those who made the cut in the “Faith Hall of Fame” as heroes of the faith were guilty of civil disobedience–including Daniel, the three Hebrew Children, the Hebrew Midwives, and Moses.) Furthermore, the Apostles in Acts 4-5 also declared they would obey God rather than civil authorities.
The real key to understanding civil disobedience and Romans 13 under this latter view, then, is to determine if the purpose of opposition is simply to resist the institution of government in general (which would be anarchy and would promote a rebellious spirit), or if it is to specifically resist bad laws, bad acts, or bad governments. The American Founding Fathers embraced the second interpretation of Romans 13, and therefore strongly opposed “Divine Right of Kings” theology, which was derived from the first interpretation of Romans 13. For example, Founding Father James Otis in a 1766 work argued that the only king who had any divine right was God; beyond that, God had ordained power to people.
Despite their rejection of the theory that the King spoke for God, a generally submissive attitude prevailed among the Americans. The Founders pursued peaceful reconciliation; it was Great Britain that terminated the discussions. After the separation had occurred–following years of peaceful entreaties–some British leaders specifically accused the Americans of anarchy and rebellion. To this charge, John Quincy Adams responded:
“[T]here was no anarchy….[T]he people of the North American union, and of its constituent States, were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians in a state of nature, but not of anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct.”
The spiritual nature of the American resistance became so clear that even in the debates of the British Parliament, “Sir Richard Sutton read a copy of a letter relative to the government of America from a [Crown-appointed] governor in America to the Board of Trade showing that….If you ask an American, ‘Who is his master?’ He will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ.”
Therefore, under the Framers’ understanding of Romans 13, the American Revolution was not an act of anarchy or rebellion; rather it was an act of resistance to a government that violated the Biblical purposes for which God had ordained civil government. In fact, so cognizant were the Founders that they would account to God for what they had done and be justified in His eyes, that the flag of the Massachusetts Army proclaimed “An Appeal to God,” and the flag of the Massachusetts Navy likewise declared “An Appeal to Heaven.”
Additionally, the original State constitutions were overtly Christ-centered in their wordings and appeals. Quite simply, the Framers and most American Christians of that day believed they had conducted themselves in a manner in which they were not in rebellion to God or the Scriptures.
The second factor which the Framers believed gave them Biblical justification was the fact that they did not initiate the conflict. The Framers had been committed to peaceful reconciliation and had pursued that course for 11 years before the separation from Great Britain. There was no desire to raise arms against England, their mother country and the land of their birth.
Nevertheless, in the last two years of their peaceful reconciliation attempts (e.g., as in May 1776 with their Olive Branch Petition), their entreaties and appeals were met solely by military force. In fact, King George III dispatched 25,000 British troops to invade his own Colonies, enter into the homes of his own citizens, take their private possessions and goods, and imprison them without trials–all in violation of his own British common law, English Bill of Rights, and Magna Carta.
The Framers cited Biblical justification to defend their homes, families, and possessions. In their understanding of the Scriptures, God could bless a defensive war but not an offensive war. In fact, so reticent were they to separate from Great Britain that it was a full three years after King George III had sent armed troops against his own citizens in America before they announced their separation.
John Adams authored a manifesto that reflected submission to God: “We, therefore, the Congress of the United States of America, do solemnly declare and proclaim that…[w]e appeal to the God who searcheth the hearts of men for the rectitude of our intentions; and in His holy presence declare that, as we are not moved by any light or hasty suggestions of anger or revenge, so through every possible change of fortune we will adhere to this our determination.”
The fact that they had been attacked completely changed their status in the eyes of God, for the Bible justified self-defense against an aggressor.
Some pacifists have noted that the American Revolution resulted in a loss of life, and therefore cannot be justifiable in the eyes of God. This position demonstrates a lack of Biblical understanding about life. Clearly, protecting innocent life is a recurring theme in the Bible. Since God is the author of life, and since He alone holds the keys of death, He is to determine when life is to end. However, taking of life is not always taking of innocent life. God allows humans to take human life on three occasions: for the cause of civil justice; for military conflict, and in defense of one’s life, family, or property. Therefore, the fact that the American Revolution was a defensive rather than an offensive war made all the difference in whether it could be a righteous war.
A final indication that the Framers believed they were engaged in a defensive war was the fact that throughout the course of the struggle, the conflict was often described by the Americans as a civil war rather than a revolution. Only in later years was it called a revolution. Under the view of Romans 13 as understood by the Framers, the American Revolution was indeed a Biblically justifiable act.
WW2…just war in my eyes. The blatancy of Hitlers tyrany dwarfs King George,
cheers.
interesting Mr. P
By the way, hello Jon.
Les, who are you quoting from in your post?
Jon, it’s good to see you on the blogosphere! I would love to hear your thoughts more often!
I had a professor at Covenant College who called the War of Independence a Rebellion and not a Revolution. It is a complex historical argument, to be sure. Paul, do you remember how Morty liked to push us on this one?
Wes, I only remember one of Dr. Morton’s famous outlines, in which he wrote:
I. The American Revolution
A. It Happened.
Ah…Good memories of the not-so-elaborate Morton outlines.