Founding Believers
September 22, 2010
Joe Carter
What were the religious beliefs of the founding fathers? That question is at the heart of many of the most contentious debates about the role of religion in the American public square. Countless arguments are centered on claims that the founders were either God-fearing Christians or Deistically-inclined secularists.
But while historical documents are often mined for justifying quotes, few people bother to muster historical evidence to shore up their claims with the necessary academic rigor.
David L. Holmes, a professor of religious studies at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, provides a useful methodology for examining the relevant evidence in his book, The Faiths of the Founding Fathers. Holmes offers four types of evidence that can help us discern whether a Revolutionary-era political leader was a Deist, an orthodox Christian, or something in between:
1. Examine the actions of the founding father in the area of religion (e.g., Did they attend church regularly?).
2. Examine the participation of the founding father in a church’s ordinances or sacraments (e.g., Did they have their children baptized? Did they take Holy Communion?).
3. Comparison of inactivity versus activity in regards to religious involvement.
4. Examine the religious language used by the founding father.
Using these criteria, Holmes claims that the religious beliefs of the founding fathers can be broadly classified as: Non-Christian Deists who rejected all sacraments and rarely attended church services’ Deistic Christians/Unitarians who held Deistic beliefs, attended church regularly, but rejected the Lord’s Supper and confirmation;. and Orthodox Christians who accepted orthodox Christian beliefs, attended church regularly, and participated in the sacraments and ordinances.
Let us examine Holmes’ four types of evidence in the life of the pre-eminent founding father:
1) Although he was raised in the Anglican Church, Washington was never confirmed.
2) Washington appears to have consistently refused to take Holy Communion, the principle means by which, as Holmes notes, “Anglicans displayed a commitment to Jesus Christ.”
3) Washington was active in the Episcopal Church, serving as both a vestryman and churchwarden. He attended services with some regularity (about once a month). And
4) Washington consistently used Deistic language in reference to God. Although he often used such terms as “the Deity” and “the Supreme Being” in his correspondence he only uses the name Jesus Christ once (in a letter to an Indian tribe)
A careful examination of the evidence would therefore lead us to the conclusion that Washington was, using Holmes taxonomy, a “Deistic Christian.”
Applying the method to other founding fathers, the list could be roughly delineated as:
Non-Christian Deists: Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen.
Deistic Christians/Unitarians: Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe.
Orthodox Christians: Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Elias Boudinot, John Witherspoon.
The leaders during the revolutionary era may have subscribed to a Judeo-Christian view of morality, but few of them were orthodox believers. The majority subscribed to a religious view that we would nowadays classify as Unitarianism. A rejection of Trinitarianism clearly puts one outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity. We should not claim that a historical figure is a Christian when he held heretical views of the central Christian dogma .
However, while we Christians can claim few founding fathers as fellow believers, the atheists and secularists can claim none. Not one of the significant leaders was an atheist, much less subscribed to the modern idea of secularism.
Most—whether they were non-Christian Deists or Deistic Christians—appear to have been held to the classic “five points of Deism”: (1) There is a God; (2) He ought to be worshiped; (3) Virtue is the principle element in this worship; (4) Humans should repent of their sins; and (5) There is life after death, where the evil will be punished and the good rewarded.
The views of the Deistic founding fathers would have been as repugnant to the modern secularist as those of the so-called Religious Right. The founding believers considered belief in a deity to be necessary for good citizenship, believed in intelligent design, had few qualms about establishment of state churches, and took a low view of atheists. They might not pass muster as orthodox Christians, but if they were around today they would considered theocrats.
Regardless of what was believed at the time of the founding, our country is not a “Christian nation” but rather, as the Baptist theologian Albert Mohler duly notes, “a nation of Christians.” America, he argues, “is not Christian by constitutional provision or creedal affirmation—but its people are overwhelmingly Christian by self-affirmation. Thoughtful evangelicals will not overestimate the convictional character of this self-identification. Secularists ought not to overestimate its superficiality.”
In an age when even believers are hostile to religiously-informed public philosophy, it’s understandable that traditionalists would turn to the past as an example. But such an effort is likely to be as unproductive as it is unpersuasive. If Christians wish to build a polis informed by Christian convictions—“mere Christendom”—we must the look to the future, thick with possibility, rather than to the thin material left over from our founding.
Joe Carter is web editor of First Things.
RESOURCES
Steven Waldman, The Pious Infidel
Peter L. Berger, Secularization Falsified
Michael Novak, The Faith of the Founding
Comments:
9.22.2010 | 8:49am
Maria V. says:
There is the ad on top that talks about how history would help all to become Catholics .
Seems esp. for this land , it is even easier to start with that history of the founding or rather finding - how Chritopher ( Christ bearer ! ) Columbus had set out with the most noble intention , with support from Catholic monarchy , to bring the message of truth of God's love for His people and instead of finding India , gets directed here !
That incarnational truth ,to be considered as THE foundational truth , esp. the appearance of The Virgin as early as 1531 , to the poor peasant Juan Diego and whose role helps not so intellectual such as me , to stay on these forums , even at the risk of being annoying :) !
The above and adherence or falling away from that Incarnational truth , the dignity imparted to every human , the call to come to The Father , united with one's brother and his debts and enemy claims , to be brought to The One who paid the price , can this not also account for all that has been noble or wicked in her history , like it can for every human !
Seems esp. for this land , it is even easier to start with that history of the founding or rather finding - how Chritopher ( Christ bearer ! ) Columbus had set out with the most noble intention , with support from Catholic monarchy , to bring the message of truth of God's love for His people and instead of finding India , gets directed here !
That incarnational truth ,to be considered as THE foundational truth , esp. the appearance of The Virgin as early as 1531 , to the poor peasant Juan Diego and whose role helps not so intellectual such as me , to stay on these forums , even at the risk of being annoying :) !
The above and adherence or falling away from that Incarnational truth , the dignity imparted to every human , the call to come to The Father , united with one's brother and his debts and enemy claims , to be brought to The One who paid the price , can this not also account for all that has been noble or wicked in her history , like it can for every human !
9.22.2010 | 10:49am
Paul says:
J. C. is right to add Sherman to the list. While I still think Madison is the most important framer as concerns the shape of the Constitution, Sherman actually won more votes at the Constitutional Convention and is a close second or third. And Sherman's views are within the mainstream of orthodox, mere Christianity. James Wilson should also be on the list. Together with Madison and Sherman, Wilson is among the three most important framers. I would be interested to see how Holmes situates Wilson. As a specialist in this area, I'm not at all sure that he's got Madison right--Madison is actually tough to nail down. But Garrett Ward Sheldon's account of Madison's religious belief rather merits serious attention, I think. Many of the founders he names may have been "founding fathers" but they were also relatively unimportant or entirely so from the standpoint of framing the Constitution--thus Jefferson is entirely unimportant for American constitutionalism (as is Paine) and Franklin is relatively unimportant (he was much more important relative to the Articles of Confederation than to the Constitution). Add to this, John Adams influence is equivocal at best (as historian Gordon Wood shows). Meanwhile, an important founder like Hamilton (whose most important work was in The Federalist and in the early years after the Constitution's adaptation) went from a rather less traditional theology to a rather more traditional one (as historian Douglas Adair noted in a famous article on Hamilton).
Finally, it bears mentioning that the heritage of political thought and practice bequeathed to us by our founders and framers may not be just the same as the rather lackluster religious heritage they left. This is the problem with both the Christian nation thesis and the Godless Constitution thesis. It is entirely plausible that the common religious heterodoxy among them notwithstanding that the Constitution they left is nevertheless built out of thick rather than thin material. It would be a modal logic mistake of the first order to conflate the Constitution (and the philosophy that best accounts for it) with either the intentions or will of the framers for it or with their political philosophy. Of course, I would submit that as with folks like Plato and Aristotle, the political philosophy of many of the framers (not all) is of a rather better caliber than their theology. And I would add that the philosophy that best accounts for the Constitution is better still.
That said, the religious pronouncements of folks like Franklin or Jefferson is sheer hogwash.
Finally, it bears mentioning that the heritage of political thought and practice bequeathed to us by our founders and framers may not be just the same as the rather lackluster religious heritage they left. This is the problem with both the Christian nation thesis and the Godless Constitution thesis. It is entirely plausible that the common religious heterodoxy among them notwithstanding that the Constitution they left is nevertheless built out of thick rather than thin material. It would be a modal logic mistake of the first order to conflate the Constitution (and the philosophy that best accounts for it) with either the intentions or will of the framers for it or with their political philosophy. Of course, I would submit that as with folks like Plato and Aristotle, the political philosophy of many of the framers (not all) is of a rather better caliber than their theology. And I would add that the philosophy that best accounts for the Constitution is better still.
That said, the religious pronouncements of folks like Franklin or Jefferson is sheer hogwash.
9.22.2010 | 11:36am
Jon Rowe says:
James Wilson's exact religious beliefs are as difficult to pin down as any of them. He did write quite a bit about his public theology in Works, but writes at a general level that leaves my friends and I arguing over what he really meant.
I'm friendly with Mark David Hall of George Fox who is probably the premiere Wilson scholar living today and we both agree that there are unanswered questions on Wilson's specifics and when we find his private letters that for instance discuss what he really thought of the Trinity and other orthodox doctrines we will let the other know.
Wilson did believe in Providence and religious truth from reason and revelation. He believed in natural law/natural rights and at times sounds like a Thomist, thru the lens of Scottish Enlightenment rationalism.
Here are some of the quotations from "Works" over which my friends and I dispute what Wilson really means.
"Reason and conscience can do much; but still they stand in need of support and assistance. They are useful and excellent monitors; but, at some times, their admonitions are not sufficiently clear; at other times, they are not sufficiently powerful; at all times, their influence is not sufficiently extensive. Great and sublime truths, indeed, would appear to a few; but the world, at large, would be dark and ignorant. The mass of mankind would resemble a chaos, in which a few sparks, that would diffuse a glimmering light, would serve only to show, in a more striking manner, the thick darkness with which they are surrounded. Their weakness is strengthened, their darkness is illuminated, their influence is enlarged by that heaven-descended science, which has brought life and immortality to light. In compassion to the imperfection of our internal powers, our all-gracious Creator, Preserver, and Ruler has been pleased to discover and enforce his laws, by a revelation given to us immediately and directly from himself. This revelation is contained in the holy scriptures. The moral precepts delivered in the sacred oracles form a part of the law of nature, are of the same origin, and of the same obligation, operating universally and perpetually."
[...]
"But whoever expects to find, in [Scripture], particular directions for every moral doubt which arises, expects more than he will find. They generally presuppose a knowledge of the principles of morality; and are employed not so much in teaching new rules on this subject, as in enforcing the practice of those already known, by a greater certainty, and by new sanctions. They present the warmest recommendations and the strongest inducements in favour of virtue: they exhibit the most powerful dissuasives from vice. But the origin, the nature, and the extent of the several rights and duties they do not explain; nor do they specify in what instances one right or duty is entitled to preference over another. They are addressed to rational and moral agents, capable of previously knowing the rights of men, and the tendencies of actions; of approving what is good, and of disapproving what is evil."
[...]
"These considerations show, that the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supercede the operations of reason and the moral sense. The information with regard to our duties and obligations, drawn from these different sources, ought not to run in unconnected and diminished channels: it should flow in one united stream, which, by its combined force and just direction, will impel us uniformly and effectually towards our greatest good."
What my friends and I dispute is whether Wilson's quotes support the traditional Thomist notion that natural reason is to be a handmaiden to Scripture. Or whether like a lot of Enlightenment rationalists, he flipped that around and made the Scriptures the handmaiden to Enlightenment rationalistic philosophy. I see him as doing the latter. By I have smart friends who swear this is Thomism.
I'm friendly with Mark David Hall of George Fox who is probably the premiere Wilson scholar living today and we both agree that there are unanswered questions on Wilson's specifics and when we find his private letters that for instance discuss what he really thought of the Trinity and other orthodox doctrines we will let the other know.
Wilson did believe in Providence and religious truth from reason and revelation. He believed in natural law/natural rights and at times sounds like a Thomist, thru the lens of Scottish Enlightenment rationalism.
Here are some of the quotations from "Works" over which my friends and I dispute what Wilson really means.
"Reason and conscience can do much; but still they stand in need of support and assistance. They are useful and excellent monitors; but, at some times, their admonitions are not sufficiently clear; at other times, they are not sufficiently powerful; at all times, their influence is not sufficiently extensive. Great and sublime truths, indeed, would appear to a few; but the world, at large, would be dark and ignorant. The mass of mankind would resemble a chaos, in which a few sparks, that would diffuse a glimmering light, would serve only to show, in a more striking manner, the thick darkness with which they are surrounded. Their weakness is strengthened, their darkness is illuminated, their influence is enlarged by that heaven-descended science, which has brought life and immortality to light. In compassion to the imperfection of our internal powers, our all-gracious Creator, Preserver, and Ruler has been pleased to discover and enforce his laws, by a revelation given to us immediately and directly from himself. This revelation is contained in the holy scriptures. The moral precepts delivered in the sacred oracles form a part of the law of nature, are of the same origin, and of the same obligation, operating universally and perpetually."
[...]
"But whoever expects to find, in [Scripture], particular directions for every moral doubt which arises, expects more than he will find. They generally presuppose a knowledge of the principles of morality; and are employed not so much in teaching new rules on this subject, as in enforcing the practice of those already known, by a greater certainty, and by new sanctions. They present the warmest recommendations and the strongest inducements in favour of virtue: they exhibit the most powerful dissuasives from vice. But the origin, the nature, and the extent of the several rights and duties they do not explain; nor do they specify in what instances one right or duty is entitled to preference over another. They are addressed to rational and moral agents, capable of previously knowing the rights of men, and the tendencies of actions; of approving what is good, and of disapproving what is evil."
[...]
"These considerations show, that the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supercede the operations of reason and the moral sense. The information with regard to our duties and obligations, drawn from these different sources, ought not to run in unconnected and diminished channels: it should flow in one united stream, which, by its combined force and just direction, will impel us uniformly and effectually towards our greatest good."
What my friends and I dispute is whether Wilson's quotes support the traditional Thomist notion that natural reason is to be a handmaiden to Scripture. Or whether like a lot of Enlightenment rationalists, he flipped that around and made the Scriptures the handmaiden to Enlightenment rationalistic philosophy. I see him as doing the latter. By I have smart friends who swear this is Thomism.
9.22.2010 | 11:48am
Edward Alleyn says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Declaration of Independence seems relevant here. "Creator" covers both deists and Christians.
Still, I would argue that our nation is founded not in Christian beliefs about God and Christ, but in Christian principles or values, all of which we share with our Jewish brothers and sisters.
The Declaration of Independence seems relevant here. "Creator" covers both deists and Christians.
Still, I would argue that our nation is founded not in Christian beliefs about God and Christ, but in Christian principles or values, all of which we share with our Jewish brothers and sisters.
9.22.2010 | 11:54am
Paul says:
@ Jon Rowe,
I rather agree with Mark here (and your assessment of him as a Wilson scholar). I would say at a minimum that there are Thomistic elements in Wilson. He frequently sounds like Witherspoon to me--in that he sees multiple sources for moral knowledge. I tend to think moral sense theory is a bit confused. But clearly Witherspoon and Wilson thought it could be made to work, though perhaps only in conjunction with rational knowledge of the first principles of morality.
I wonder if Wilson (or Witherspoon) would quite embrace your dichotomy--or even if they need to. I say this in light of the fact that what we're discussing here is moral knowledge rather than special revelation. Thoughts?
I rather agree with Mark here (and your assessment of him as a Wilson scholar). I would say at a minimum that there are Thomistic elements in Wilson. He frequently sounds like Witherspoon to me--in that he sees multiple sources for moral knowledge. I tend to think moral sense theory is a bit confused. But clearly Witherspoon and Wilson thought it could be made to work, though perhaps only in conjunction with rational knowledge of the first principles of morality.
I wonder if Wilson (or Witherspoon) would quite embrace your dichotomy--or even if they need to. I say this in light of the fact that what we're discussing here is moral knowledge rather than special revelation. Thoughts?
9.22.2010 | 12:07pm
Jon Rowe says:
Paul,
I agree that Wilson and Witherspoon's political-theology/philosophy are strikingly similar. Wilson is assumed a Deist, Witherspoon a Calvinist Christian. And one would conclude (wrongly) that Wilson had a deistic politics, Witherspoon a Calvinistic politics, that the two starkly contrast. But no, in their political philosophy, they were both the product of the moderate Scottish Enlightenment rationalism that sounded Thomistic at times.
I also agree that moral knowledge theory ala Scottish common sense rationalism can make one's position on special revelation seem superfluous.
I agree that Wilson and Witherspoon's political-theology/philosophy are strikingly similar. Wilson is assumed a Deist, Witherspoon a Calvinist Christian. And one would conclude (wrongly) that Wilson had a deistic politics, Witherspoon a Calvinistic politics, that the two starkly contrast. But no, in their political philosophy, they were both the product of the moderate Scottish Enlightenment rationalism that sounded Thomistic at times.
I also agree that moral knowledge theory ala Scottish common sense rationalism can make one's position on special revelation seem superfluous.
9.22.2010 | 12:29pm
Huston says:
I appreciate and agree with Carter's work here, but have four small quibbles:
1. Is it fair to rate the Christianity of the founding generation by their "religious language"? In my readings from the era, it seems it was fairly rare--certainly compared to today's usage--for people to directly invoke the name of Jesus Christ. Even the ardent believers and religious leaders of the day were more likely to use deistic language or, sometimes, titles like "Lord" or "Savior," but rarely overt references to Christ.
2. What are Thomas Paine's deistic qualities? Maybe I'm just swayed by popular convention here, but his atheism seems pretty well established.
3. Why these thriteen founders only? I'm glad to see an ordained minister like Witherspoon mentioned, but leaving out Hamilton seems an odd omission, for example. Would a broader range have revealed a more or less Christian picture?
4. Is it really accurate to call Trinitarianism "the central Christian dogma?" Shouldn't that be the substitutional sacrifice of Jesus Christ--the atonement by His suffering, death, and resurrection--as per 1 Corinthians 15:3-8?
1. Is it fair to rate the Christianity of the founding generation by their "religious language"? In my readings from the era, it seems it was fairly rare--certainly compared to today's usage--for people to directly invoke the name of Jesus Christ. Even the ardent believers and religious leaders of the day were more likely to use deistic language or, sometimes, titles like "Lord" or "Savior," but rarely overt references to Christ.
2. What are Thomas Paine's deistic qualities? Maybe I'm just swayed by popular convention here, but his atheism seems pretty well established.
3. Why these thriteen founders only? I'm glad to see an ordained minister like Witherspoon mentioned, but leaving out Hamilton seems an odd omission, for example. Would a broader range have revealed a more or less Christian picture?
4. Is it really accurate to call Trinitarianism "the central Christian dogma?" Shouldn't that be the substitutional sacrifice of Jesus Christ--the atonement by His suffering, death, and resurrection--as per 1 Corinthians 15:3-8?
9.22.2010 | 12:42pm
Kevin J Jones says:
"Washington appears to have consistently refused to take Holy Communion, the principle means by which, as Holmes notes, “Anglicans displayed a commitment to Jesus Christ.”"
Considering America was in rebellion against Britain, could a revolutionary leader in good conscience have communed in a church whose head was the King?
What about M.E. Bradford's take on The Founders and religion? Didn't he end up categorizing far more leaders as Christians and far fewer as Deists?
Considering America was in rebellion against Britain, could a revolutionary leader in good conscience have communed in a church whose head was the King?
What about M.E. Bradford's take on The Founders and religion? Didn't he end up categorizing far more leaders as Christians and far fewer as Deists?
9.22.2010 | 12:49pm
Jon Rowe says:
Kevin,
I looked into the Bradford thing and found it totally unconvincing. He found 52 out of 55 delegates to the CC in some way affiliated with orthodox Churches. In fact, all 55 were, even his 3 "Deists" Franklin, Wilson, and Williamson. It was not uncommon for elites to belong to orthodox churches while disbelieving in what the churches taught as formal doctrine.
Does that make them hypocrites? No more hypocritical than belonging to the Anglican Church -- a church that preached loyalty to the crown as a political-theological doctrine -- while rebelling against England.
I looked into the Bradford thing and found it totally unconvincing. He found 52 out of 55 delegates to the CC in some way affiliated with orthodox Churches. In fact, all 55 were, even his 3 "Deists" Franklin, Wilson, and Williamson. It was not uncommon for elites to belong to orthodox churches while disbelieving in what the churches taught as formal doctrine.
Does that make them hypocrites? No more hypocritical than belonging to the Anglican Church -- a church that preached loyalty to the crown as a political-theological doctrine -- while rebelling against England.
9.22.2010 | 1:23pm
Publius says:
One of our key founders turned to Christianity near the end of his life, in the wake of what he saw as distrubing trends among Jeffersonian Republicans, many of whom he viewed as Jacobins. Alexander Hamilton wrote in an 1802 letter to James Bayard: "I now offer you the outline of the plan they have suggested. Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States."
9.22.2010 | 1:24pm
harry says:
"If Christians wish to build a polis informed by Christian convictions—'mere Christendom. — we must the look to the future, thick with possibility, rather than to the thin material left over from our founding."
We want much more than merely a 'polis informed by Christian convictions' and have a moral obligation to do whatever it takes (constrained by ethical considerations) to obtain much more than that. We want a government whose right to exist is bestowed and withdrawn by humanity -- which is what the founders created -- not the reverse, which we have today: a government that illegitimately claims for itself the right to bestow and withdraw humanity's right to exist, as in, for example, the "legalization" of the killing of the child in the womb. It is not Caesar's to bestow and withdraw the inalienable, God-given rights of humanity; it is his only to protect them. There can be no compromise on this point, whether or not that fact infuriates the godless, elitist “ruling class” who want to continue playing God with the lives of the rest of us.
A very thoughtful discussion of the notion that the United States was founded as a Christian nation:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0040.html
We want much more than merely a 'polis informed by Christian convictions' and have a moral obligation to do whatever it takes (constrained by ethical considerations) to obtain much more than that. We want a government whose right to exist is bestowed and withdrawn by humanity -- which is what the founders created -- not the reverse, which we have today: a government that illegitimately claims for itself the right to bestow and withdraw humanity's right to exist, as in, for example, the "legalization" of the killing of the child in the womb. It is not Caesar's to bestow and withdraw the inalienable, God-given rights of humanity; it is his only to protect them. There can be no compromise on this point, whether or not that fact infuriates the godless, elitist “ruling class” who want to continue playing God with the lives of the rest of us.
A very thoughtful discussion of the notion that the United States was founded as a Christian nation:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0040.html
9.22.2010 | 1:25pm
jh says:
Of course one problem we have is what is a "Founder" It seems a lot gets left of the list.
Charles Carroll of Carrollton last surviving Signer of the Declaration of Independence and a Devout Catholic
Charles Carroll of Carrollton last surviving Signer of the Declaration of Independence and a Devout Catholic
9.22.2010 | 1:55pm
Tony Christian says:
Washington may have "refused" to take Communion due to personal rejection of the atonement of Christ, Incarnation of Deity, etc., or he may have taken to heart the injunction to "discern the body" (I Cor.), infrequent Communion in reaction to a sense of unworthiness was fairly common, especially in that age. Not being Confirmed may also be explained by the fact that there were no bishops in America to perform such, at least bishops that dwelt and ministered in America. In any event, we in this time are merely guessing, with all the ultimate lack of certitude that entails when trying to divine what founding fathers believed. We do know however that Washington eschewed a secular nation, from his clear remarks on the necessity of religion and morality for a republic like ours in the Farewell Address.
9.22.2010 | 3:05pm
Jon Rowe says:
Tony,
There were Episcopal Bishops to confirm GW by the 1780s. In fact, William White of Phila. was a moderate Whig with whom GW wouldn't feel any hostilities (I understand why GW would refuse to be confirmed by Tory Bishop Seabury). Or if he really wanted a radical Whig to confirm him, he could have picked Bishop James Madison of VA. (cousin of his namesake) who probably would have confirmed Jefferson if he had the chance.
There were Episcopal Bishops to confirm GW by the 1780s. In fact, William White of Phila. was a moderate Whig with whom GW wouldn't feel any hostilities (I understand why GW would refuse to be confirmed by Tory Bishop Seabury). Or if he really wanted a radical Whig to confirm him, he could have picked Bishop James Madison of VA. (cousin of his namesake) who probably would have confirmed Jefferson if he had the chance.
9.22.2010 | 4:08pm
senex says:
Apart from limiting the number of 'Founders', there is the risk of drawing up any set of criteria. By establishing the criteria on which decisions will be made, one can focrce predetermined conclusions.
9.22.2010 | 5:14pm
Adam Greenwood says:
William Paterson put forth the New Jersey Plan at the Constitutional Convention that is the basis for our Senate. He wa a major drafter of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and was an early Justice of the Supreme Court. He as an orthodox Presbyterian.
Obviously not of the same rank as Washington, etc., but he actually had more to do with the Constitution and the early structure of our government than many more famous founders.
Obviously not of the same rank as Washington, etc., but he actually had more to do with the Constitution and the early structure of our government than many more famous founders.
9.22.2010 | 6:52pm
Tim H says:
>>>Although he (Washington) often used such terms as “the Deity”
>>>and “the Supreme Being” in his correspondence
Washington was a Freemason. An discussion of Washingon's faith must take place in light of what Freemasonry professes and the oath's one must swear when one becomes a Freemason.
Freemason's oaths require belief in a "Diety" or a "Supreme being" but not in the Triune God - the God of Abraham. Freemason's profess that there are many ways to God, this in direct ignorance (or defiance) of Jesus' teaching that the only way to God the father is through him.
"I am the way, and the truth, and the light. No one comes to the Father except through me."
This could explain some of Washington's (and any freemanson's) hesitation with regards to participation in the sacraments, expecially confirmation. The sacramental rites of initiation into the Church are, at some level, oaths of loyalty to Jesus Christ. Based on the discription of the Anglican Eucharist as "The primary means by which Anglican's display a commitment to Jesus Christ", and in defference to his masonic oaths regarding many ways to God, a generic diety, etc., I can see why any Freemason would hesitate.
I note with some amusument however, that Washington was not adverse to participating in the administrative functions of the church as a member of the vestry.
Let's pray for his soul and for all freemasons, including my father.
-Tim-
>>>and “the Supreme Being” in his correspondence
Washington was a Freemason. An discussion of Washingon's faith must take place in light of what Freemasonry professes and the oath's one must swear when one becomes a Freemason.
Freemason's oaths require belief in a "Diety" or a "Supreme being" but not in the Triune God - the God of Abraham. Freemason's profess that there are many ways to God, this in direct ignorance (or defiance) of Jesus' teaching that the only way to God the father is through him.
"I am the way, and the truth, and the light. No one comes to the Father except through me."
This could explain some of Washington's (and any freemanson's) hesitation with regards to participation in the sacraments, expecially confirmation. The sacramental rites of initiation into the Church are, at some level, oaths of loyalty to Jesus Christ. Based on the discription of the Anglican Eucharist as "The primary means by which Anglican's display a commitment to Jesus Christ", and in defference to his masonic oaths regarding many ways to God, a generic diety, etc., I can see why any Freemason would hesitate.
I note with some amusument however, that Washington was not adverse to participating in the administrative functions of the church as a member of the vestry.
Let's pray for his soul and for all freemasons, including my father.
-Tim-
9.22.2010 | 7:59pm
Blake Helgoth says:
Seems Charles Carroll should be mentioned as one of the Christians. In fact, he was the only Catholic signers of the constitution and was steeped in Thomistic thought as well as Catholic practice. He is credited as the designer of the structure of the senate, since it was based on the model he used for Maryland. A new book, American Cicero, details much about this forgotten founder.
9.22.2010 | 11:41pm
tom van dyke says:
"Judeo-Christianity" dispenses with all the Trinity and the tall weeds of sacraments and the Atonement and a bunch of other stuff that made no difference in developing America's political theology. Natural law, as understood as not in conflict with the Bible [James Wilson explicitly says so], works for this world, soteriology being concern for the next.
"Judeo-Christianity" is not an ideal term, but many folks are comfortable with it, and it carries a fairly universally understood meaning, unlike most others.
"The law of nature and the law of revelation are both Divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source. It is indeed preposterous to separate them from each other."
---James Wilson, Of the Law of Nature, 1804
"Judeo-Christianity" is not an ideal term, but many folks are comfortable with it, and it carries a fairly universally understood meaning, unlike most others.
"The law of nature and the law of revelation are both Divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source. It is indeed preposterous to separate them from each other."
---James Wilson, Of the Law of Nature, 1804
9.23.2010 | 1:34am
Michael Snow says:
While this article looks at the beliefs of those of the revolutionary era,[to discern the extent of Christian influence in the forming of the new government] do we ignore the rock from which they were hewn?...the groups that settled the land and formed the sociieties which developed?
Does Thomas Paine [who only arrived here at the end of 1774 and then years later left and went on to agitate for the French Revolution] rate as a more formative influence on this country than Jonathan Edwards or William Penn or Roger Williams and a host of other Christians?
Does Thomas Paine [who only arrived here at the end of 1774 and then years later left and went on to agitate for the French Revolution] rate as a more formative influence on this country than Jonathan Edwards or William Penn or Roger Williams and a host of other Christians?
9.23.2010 | 1:30pm
Siger Brabant says:
The author write: "The views of the Deistic founding fathers would have been as repugnant to the modern secularist as those of the so-called Religious Right."
I don't think so: Deism is the modern-day equivalent of the "Spiritual but Not Religious" crowd, and these folks are generally not as repugnant to the modern secularist as the Religious Right. They are hardly Theocrats. They believe in some kind of warm-and-fuzzy non-personal Higher Power that inspires their awe and respect, but they are hardly the type to punish non-conformance to their own beliefs, which they generally come to after a long journey.
I don't think so: Deism is the modern-day equivalent of the "Spiritual but Not Religious" crowd, and these folks are generally not as repugnant to the modern secularist as the Religious Right. They are hardly Theocrats. They believe in some kind of warm-and-fuzzy non-personal Higher Power that inspires their awe and respect, but they are hardly the type to punish non-conformance to their own beliefs, which they generally come to after a long journey.
9.24.2010 | 10:57am
VonBerger says:
I am always surprised when the somewhat ambiguous faith of the Founders is discussed without any mention of Freemasonry. My hat is off to Tim H. above, for making the connections. There have been entire books written about this subject (Founding Brothers, and the one about G.Washington from Michael Novak come to mind), where it doesn't seem to have crossed their mind that this could be an important factor, or at least a clue. It's as if historians read about their Masonic affiliation and just gloss over it as being some kind of social club. Having been a Freemason before becoming Catholic, I can see now what the differences are. Much of their deist thinking can be explained by knowing some simple facts about Freemasonry, as Tim H. points out.
9.25.2010 | 10:00pm
Kolya says:
It is indeed ironic that the views of many of the founders would have been attacked by many conservatives as un-American. some of the things Franklin, John Adams, Jefferson and others wrote about religion (and even about Jesus) would have been used today to basically state that they are unworthy of holding office.
(FWIW, over 25 percent of US Presidents were Freemasons.)
(FWIW, over 25 percent of US Presidents were Freemasons.)
10.25.2010 | 10:34am
Whitney Lohry says:
Obviously not of the same rank as Washington, etc., but he actually had more to do with the Constitution and the early structure of our government than many more famous founders. James Wilson's exact religious beliefs are as difficult to pin down as any of them. He did write quite a bit about his public theology in Works, but writes at a general level that leaves my friends and I arguing over what he really meant.
11.18.2010 | 4:57am
Sunday Flower says:
Still, I would argue that our nation is founded not in Christian beliefs about God and Christ, but in Christian principles or values, all of which we share with our Jewish brothers and sisters. We want much more than merely a 'polis informed by Christian convictions' and have a moral obligation to do whatever it takes (constrained by ethical considerations) to obtain much more than that. We want a government whose right to exist is bestowed and withdrawn by humanity -- which is what the founders created -- not the reverse, which we have today: a government that illegitimately claims for itself the right to bestow and withdraw humanity's right to exist, as in, for example, the "legalization" of the killing of the child in the womb. It is not Caesar's to bestow and withdraw the inalienable, God-given rights of humanity; it is his only to protect them. There can be no compromise on this point, whether or not that fact infuriates the godless, elitist ruling class who want to continue playing God with the lives of the rest of us.
7.23.2011 | 10:00am
Frank says:
I'm not sure what you mean by the term "intelligent design." Capitalized, it is what has been well-described as "creationism in a tuxedo." I doubt if your intent was to claim some pre-Darwininan existence of a response to the theory of evolution or natural selection, but could you qualify your remark?
9.11.2011 | 1:49pm
Gume says:
Washington may have "refused" to take Communion due to personal rejection of the atonement of Christ, Incarnation of Deity, etc., or he may have taken to heart the injunction to "discern the body" (I Cor.), infrequent Communion in reaction to a sense of unworthiness was fairly common, especially in that age. This could explain some of Washington's (and any freemanson's) hesitation with regards to participation in the sacraments, expecially confirmation. The sacramental rites of initiation into the Church are, at some level, oaths of loyalty to Jesus Christ. Based on the discription of the Anglican Eucharist as "The primary means by which Anglican's display a commitment to Jesus Christ", and in defference to his masonic oaths regarding many ways to God, a generic diety, etc., I can see why any Freemason would hesitate.
Here's a quote from Mr. Sherman to show his Orthodox views, “I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. That the Scriptures of the old and new testaments are a revelation from God and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him. . . I believe that God . . . did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind, so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer.” - The Life of Roger Sherman, pp. 272-273.
Another quote to drive home his Orthodox beliefs, “God commands all men everywhere to repent. He also commands them to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and has assured us that all who do repent and believe shall be saved… [G]od… has absolutely promised to bestow them on all these who are willing to accept them on the terms of the Gospel – that is, in a way of free grace through the atonement. “Ask and ye shall receive [John 16:24]. Whosoever will, let him come and take of the waters of life freely [Revelation 22:17]. Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out” [John 6:37].” - Correspondence Between Roger Sherman and Samuel Hopkins, (1889).