American Government and Christianity - America's Christian Roots

Probe Ministries ^ | 2004 | Kerby Anderson

[Tailgunner Joe]

John Adams was the second president of the United States. He saw the need for religious values to provide the moral base line for society. He stated in a letter to the officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.{1}

In fact, John Adams wasn't the only founding father to talk about the importance of religious values. Consider this statement from George Washington during his Farewell Address:

And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.{2}

Two hundred years after the establishment of the Plymouth colony in 1620, Americans gathered at that site to celebrate its bicentennial. Daniel Webster was the speaker at this 1820 celebration. He reminded those in attendance of this nation's origins:

Let us not forget the religious character of our origin. Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary.{3}

Religion, and especially the Christian religion, was an important foundation to this republic.

Christian Character

It is clear that the framers of this new government believed that the people should elect and support leaders with character and integrity. George Washington expressed this in his Farewell Address when he said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports."

Benjamin Rush talked about the religious foundation of the republic that demanded virtuous leadership. He said that, "the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid on the foundation of religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments."{4}

He went on to explain that

A Christian cannot fail of being a republican . . . for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self- denial, and brotherly kindness which are directly opposed to the pride of monarchy. . . . A Christian cannot fail of being useful to the republic, for his religion teaches him that no man "liveth to himself." And lastly a Christian cannot fail of being wholly inoffensive, for his religion teaches him in all things to do to others what he would wish, in like circumstances, they should do to him.{5}

Daniel Webster understood the importance of religion, and especially the Christian religion, in this form of government. In his famous Plymouth Rock speech of 1820 he said,

Lastly, our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be trusted on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits. . . .Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens.{6}

John Jay was one of the authors of the Federalist Papers and became America's first Supreme Court Justice. He also served as the president of the American Bible Society. He understood the relationship between government and Christian values. He said, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."{7}

William Penn writing the Frame of Government for his new colony said, "Government, like clocks, go from the motion men give them; and as governments are made and moved by men, so by them they are ruined too. Wherefore governments rather depend upon men, than men upon governments. Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad."{8}

The founders believed that good character was vital to the health of the nation.

New Man

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.{9}

Actually, the line of influence extends back even further. Historian Arnold Toynbee, for example, has written that the American Revolution was made possible by American Protestantism. Page Smith, writing in the Religious Origins of the American Revolution, cites the influence of the Protestant Reformation. He believes that

The Protestant Reformation produced a new kind of consciousness and a new kind of man. The English Colonies in America, in turn, produced a new unique strain of that consciousness. It thus follows that it is impossible to understand the intellectual and moral forces behind the American Revolution without understanding the role that Protestant Christianity played in shaping the ideals, principles and institutions of colonial America.{10}

Smith argues that the American Revolution "started, in a sense, when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door at Wittenburg." It received "its theological and philosophical underpinnings from John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion and much of its social theory from the Puritan Revolution of 1640-1660.{11}

Most people before the Reformation belonged to classes and social groups which set the boundaries of their worlds and established their identities. The Reformation, according to Smith, changed these perceptions. Luther and Calvin, in a sense, created a re- formed individual in a re-formed world.

Key to this is the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer where each person is "responsible directly to God for his or her own spiritual state.... The individuals who formed the new congregations established their own churches, chose their own ministers, and managed their own affairs without reference to an ecclesiastical hierarchy."{12}

These re-formed individuals began to change their world including their view of government and authority.

Declaration of Independence

Let's look at the Christian influence on the Declaration of Independence. 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.{13}

Another important influence was William Blackstone. Jefferson drew heavily on the writings of this highly respected jurist. In fact, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England were among Jefferson's most favorite books.

In his section on the "Nature of Laws in General," Blackstone wrote, "as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature."{14}

In addition to the law of nature, the other source of law is from divine revelation. "The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures." According to Blackstone, all human laws depended either upon the law of nature or upon the law of revelation found in the Bible: "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws."{15}

Samuel Adams argues in "The Rights of the Colonists" that they had certain rights. "Among the natural Rights of the Colonists are these: First, a Right to Life; second, to Liberty; third, to Property; . . . and in the case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another. When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent."{16} This concept of natural rights also found its way into the Declaration of Independence and provided the justification for the American Revolution.

The Declaration was a bold document, but not a radical one. The colonists did not break with England for "light and transient causes." They were mindful that they should be "in subjection to governing authorities" which "are established by God" (Rom. 13:1). Yet when they suffered from a "long train of abuses and usurpations," they believed that "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish [the existing government] and to institute a new government."

Constitution

The Christian influence on the Declaration is clear. What about the Constitution?

James Madison was the chief architect of the Constitution as well as one of the authors of the Federalist Papers. It is important to note that as a youth, he studied under a Scottish Presbyterian, Donald Robertson. Madison gave the credit to Robertson for "all that I have been in life."{17} Later he was trained in theology at Princeton under the Reverend John Witherspoon. Scholars believe that Witherspoon's Calvinism (which emphasized the fallen nature of man) was an important source for Madison's political ideas.{18}

The Constitution was a contract between the people and had its origins in American history a century earlier:

One of the obvious by-products [of the Reformation] was the notion of a contract entered into by two people or by the members of a community amongst themselves that needed no legal sanctions to make it binding. This concept of the Reformers made possible the formation of contractuals or, as the Puritans called them, "covenanted" groups formed by individuals who signed a covenant or agreement to found a community. The most famous of these covenants was the Mayflower Compact. In it the Pilgrims formed a "civil body politic," and promised to obey the laws their own government might pass. In short, the individual Pilgrim invented on the spot a new community, one that would be ruled by laws of its making.{19}

Historian Page Smith believes, "The Federal Constitution was in this sense a monument to the reformed consciousness. This new sense of time as potentiality was a vital element in the new consciousness that was to make a revolution and, what was a good deal more difficult, form a new nation."{20}

Preaching and teaching within the churches provided the justification for the revolution and the establishment of a new nation. Alice Baldwin, writing in The New England Clergy and the American Revolution, says,

The teachings of the New England ministers provide one line of unbroken descent. For two generations and more New Englanders had . . . been taught that these rights were sacred and came from God and that to preserve them they had a legal right of resistance and, if necessary a right to . . . alter and abolish governments and by common consent establish new ones.{21}

Christian ideas were important in the founding of this republic and the framing of our American governmental institutions. And I believe they are equally important in the maintenance of that republic.

Notes

1. John Adams, October 11, 1798, in a letter to the officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts. Charles Francis Adams, ed., The Works of John Adams - Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, Notes, and Illustration (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1854), Vol. IX, 228-229.
2. George Washington, Farewell Address (September 19, 1796). Address of George Washington, President of the United States, and Late Commander in Chief of the American Army. To the People of the United States, Preparatory to His Declination.
3. Daniel Webster, December 22, 1820. The Works of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1853), Vol. I, 48.
4. Benjamin Rush, "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic," Early American Imprints. Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and Samuel F. Bradford, 1798), 8.
5. Ibid.
6. Webster, The Works of Daniel Webster, 22ff.
7. John Jay, October 12, 1816, in The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: G.P Putnam & Sons, 1893; reprinted NY: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, 393.
8. William Penn, April 25, 1682, in the preface of his Frame of Government of Pennsylvania. A Collection of Charters and Other Public Acts Relating to the Province of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: B. Franklin, 1740), 10-12.
9. C. Gregg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History (Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1964), 284-5.
10. Page Smith, Religious Origins of the American Revolution (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976), 1.
11. Ibid, 2.
12. Ibid., 3.
13. Ibid, 185.
14. William Blackstone, "Of the Nature of Laws in General," Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 1, Section II.
15. Ibid.
16. Samuel Adams, "The Rights of the Colonists" (Boston, 1772), The Annals of America, Vol. II, 217.
17. John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1987), 94.
18. James H. Smylie, "Madison and Witherspoon: Theological Roots of American Political Thought," American Presbyterians, 112.
19. Smith, Religious Origins, 3.
20. Ibid., 4
21. Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (Durham: Duke University Press, 1928), 169.

[tpaine]

Tailgunner Joe wrote:

Our form of government may separate denominations from the state but it does not separate religion or God from the State. --

--- This nation was founded on the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. --

--- Self-government and religious toleration is God's design. --

-- There can be no king but King Jesus.

______________________________________


These sentences from the post above are typical of your disjointed arguments on this thread.

First you admit that religious denominations are separated from the State by the establishment clause. --

-- Then you insist that "Natures God' wrote the laws of nature, a denominational belief.

-- Followed up by another denominational holding that it is "Gods design" that we have self-government and religious toleration.

--- And capped off with your belief in "King Jesus", which is fine, but inappropriate to the topic.

Joe, do us all a favor, and preach your denominational religious views on the religion forum.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Sorry Pain, this thread is about the Christian roots of our form of government. People like you want keep out of government anyone whose view of the divine inspiration of our laws and form of government is consistent with the views of the Founders of the Republic.

You can degrade and malign the religious philosophical roots of our nations founding, but in doing so you are on the side of tyrannical repression and stand in opposition to American values and traditions.

[Tailgunner Joe]

The Declaration of Independence clearly states that the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" entitle us to govern ourselves.

Is the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional too, along with Thanksgiving, Christmas, school prayer, the pledge of allegiance, and every State Constitution?

Your outright rejection of the principles this nation was founded upon show that either you are completely ignorant of what these principles were, or you misrepresent yourself as a champion of liberty when in fact you are an enemy of religious freedom, and therefore an enemy of the Republic.

[Long Cut]

"I never denied making personal attacks. I simply pointed out that you have made nothing but personal attacks."

Omitting posts of mine that MIGHT be called "personal attacks" by someone hypersensitive (although I found only three that referred directly to other posters at all), my posts # 21, 22, 27, 28, 33, 53, 85, 123, 134, and #137 had nothing of the kind. You are, to be VERY kind, exxagerating severely, in the face of easily available facts. You're also quite sensitive to disagreement, aren't you? DISAGREEMENT, Joe, and a statement of it, does not constitute an "attack", nor does pointed questioning or analysis. In actuality, only one post I can find came anywhere near an attack. You just killed your credibility there.

" Your's sure weren't."

I'll let others decide that...the others who read this thread. You are hardly unbiased.

" Not by you."

I just asked questions. Others DID, so that comment was irrelevant. Besides, the things I did post were accurate.

"You see, I don't have to refute your posts with facts because you don't present facts. All you do is insult and smear so all you are worth is insults in return."

Let's get this straight...you first lie about my posts being "attacks and smears", when you have been doing just that for the past fifty posts at least, then you claim no need to refute with facts? Incredible.

To all: anyone wishing to verify Joe's contentions is advised to read the whole thread. It's illuminating.

I guess once you're through pasting the latest pamphlets, attacks and slander are all one has after people respond with logic, reason, and Constitutional cites.

And you wonder why I so profoundly mistrust those, like you Joe, who insist that "just this little bit" of tyranny is O-K?

[jimt]

The Declaration of Independence clearly states that the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" entitle us to govern ourselves.

Yes, it certainly does. And the phrase was written by the Deist, Thomas Jefferson.

He also reported to us that the attempt was made to insert the words "Our Lord, Jesus Christ" after the work "Creator" in the Declaration, and that the founders voted it down.

The fact that the founders were religious men, even deeply religious men, does not support your contention that they intended to found a "Christian" theocracy. Indeed, given their votes like the above, and the absence of any stated intent to found a "Christian" theocracy, makes it clear you're all wet on this contention.

[risk]

Maybe one day you'll understand why our President's words of personal faith instil comfort and unity, while yours raise my hackles.

[tpaine]

My quotes from Locke were meant to show that your side cannot claim him as an advocate of the "Separation of Church and State." This nation was founded on the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. Self-government and religious toleration is God's design. Those are the principles of Locke.
119 -Joe-

______________________________________

The Declaration of Independence clearly states that the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" entitle us to govern ourselves.

Yes, it does. -- And that "Natures God entitles us" to do anything is a personal opinion of the men that wrote the Declaration.
-- I have no problem with that opinion as written.
-- I have a problem with YOU, joe, -- and your claim that such opinions authorise our governments to ignore the principle of separation of church & state.

Your outright rejection of the principles this nation was founded upon

Idiotic, unfounded claim, joe. -- I've supported our Constitution on FR for six years. I swore an oath to support & defend it almost 50 years ago, one I've honored.

show that either you are completely ignorant of what these principles were, or you misrepresent yourself as a champion of liberty when in fact you are an enemy of religious freedom, and therefore an enemy of the Republic.

Babble on joe. You're making a fool of yourself with these unfounded accusations.

Sorry Pain, this thread is about the Christian roots of our form of government.

No, this thread is about your fanatical insistence that there is no need for a separation of church & state. The establishment clause says otherwise.

People like you want keep out of government anyone whose view of the divine inspiration of our laws and form of government is consistent with the views of the Founders of the Republic.

Sheer bull, joe. I, nor anyone here have ~ever~ said ANYthing about keeping anyone out of office that is prepared to swear an oath to support the Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land.

Can you swear such an oath Joe? Is our Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land" to you?

[PhilipFreneau]

>> You're conveniently ignoring my first point - when it was moved to insert the words "Our Lord, Jesus Christ" after the word "Creator" in the Declaration, the founding fathers voted it down.

Cite your references and let us debate them.

[tpaine]

Joe, - read this article, and weep for your apostacy.

Caught Up in The Rapture
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1204002/posts?page=1




"The Founding Fathers—most of them deist in their religious orientation—understood the supreme importance of the separation of church and state, even if they sought the entitlements of rights and revolution on the basis of the "laws of nature and of nature's God."
For those of us who understand the equally important separation of economy and state, it is clear that the erosion of these principles has led to the erosion of the very rights for which the Founders fought."

"It will take nothing less than an intellectual and cultural revolution to rediscover—and implement—these sacred political principles that stand at the core of the distinctly American imagination."

[tpaine]

Lets cut to the chase Phil..

Can you swear an oath to support the Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land?

Is our Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land" to you, -- without reservations?

[NCPAC]

Did I cry wolf, TJ? All I recall saying is that you can't take seriously the claims of anyone who plays the victim card - especially when the "victim" is part of a majority.

As for the war against islamic jihad, you will find no one more willing to annihilate the jihadists than me. No one.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Ok LC, if you feel that way, then perhaps you'd like to show a post you've made on this thread which uses evidence to refute anything in the article or anthing I've posted?

Like I said, I don't bother to respond to your posts with evidence because your posts are worthless ignorance. I'm sure my "quote salads" won't make any sense to you anyway. Just stick to personal attacks wihich is what you know best.

[Tailgunner Joe]

And the phrase was written by the Deist, Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson was a Christian and a Theist as I have shown on this very thread.

The fact that the founders were religious men, even deeply religious men, does not support your contention that they intended to found a "Christian" theocracy. Indeed, given their votes like the above, and the absence of any stated intent to found a "Christian" theocracy, makes it clear you're all wet on this contention.

I have not made this contention regardless of how much you and your friends have tried to ascribe it to me.

I'd suggest that your negative opinion about certain strains of Christianity that has led you to believe that we cannot be a Christian Nation without being a Taliban-like Theocracy.

Equating the Christian Right with the Taliban reveals a great ignorance of the essence of the terrorist threat this nation faces.

[Tailgunner Joe]

I have a problem with YOU, joe, -- and your claim that such opinions authorise our governments to ignore the principle of separation of church & state.

We simply have a different definition of the separation of church and state. I agree with the Founders' definition, which is that no one denomination may be established as the national church. I also believe in that OTHER clause in the First amendment that you are so ambivalent to, the one that supposed to mean that people like you can NEVER use the apparatus of the state to forbid public worship.

Is our Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land" to you?

I can recognize the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land because it presupposes that our rights are inalienable because they come not from the permission of "social contract", but from the hand of God. A man who does not recognize that our rights come from our Creator is not to be trusted.

[tpaine]

Joe wrote;

The Declaration of Independence clearly states that the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" entitle us to govern ourselves.

Yes, it does.
-- And saying that "Natures God entitles us" to do anything is a personal opinion of the men that wrote the Declaration.
-- I have no problem with that opinion as written.
-- I have a problem with YOU, joe, -- and your claim that such opinions authorize our governments to ignore the principle of separation of church & state.

We simply have a different definition of the separation of church and state. I agree with the Founders' definition, which is that no one denomination may be established as the national church.

Your "definition" is based on unfounded speculation, joe. Respecting ANY of the establishments of religion is not allowed to any level of government.

I also believe in that OTHER clause in the First amendment that you are so ambivalent to,

I am not "ambivalent" to freedom of religion, joe. That's a flat out fabrication.

the one that supposed to mean that people like you can NEVER use the apparatus of the state to forbid public worship.

-- Why do you think I want public worship forbidden?
Another idiotic, unfounded claim, joe. -- I've supported our Constitution on FR for six years. I swore an oath to support & defend it almost 50 years ago, one I've honored.

Sorry Pain, this thread is about the Christian roots of our form of government.

No, joe, -- this thread is about your fanatical insistence that there is no need for a separation of church & state. The establishment clause says otherwise.

People like you want keep out of government anyone whose view of the divine inspiration of our laws and form of government is consistent with the views of the Founders of the Republic.

Sheer bull, joe. I, nor anyone here have ~ever~ said ANYthing about keeping anyone out of office that is prepared to swear an oath to support the Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land.

Can you swear such an oath Joe? Is our Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land" to you?

I can recognize the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land because it presupposes that our rights are inalienable because they come not from the permission of "social contract", but from the hand of God.

I see; - you have reservations.. -- Unless 'WE' all agree that your "hand of God" give us our rights, you can not accept our Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land.
Thanks joe... Just as I thought.

A man who does not recognize that our rights come from our Creator is not to be trusted.

A man who cannot swear an unreserved oath to support the principles of our Constitution is ~worse~ than untrustworthy joe..

[Tailgunner Joe]

I see; - you have reservations.. -- Unless 'WE' all agree that your "hand of God" give us our rights, you can not accept our Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land.

You are the one who has reservations. You cannot swear an oath to accept our Constitution as the supreme law of the land because it presupposes that our inalienable rights come from our Creator.

[tpaine]

Tailgunner Joe wrote:

You are the one who has reservations. You cannot swear an oath to accept our Constitution as the supreme law of the land because it presupposes that our inalienable rights come from our Creator.

I swore that oath in Jan of '55, joe. I still honor it.

Our Constitution does not presuppose that our inalienable rights come from our Creator.
That wording is used in our Declaration, and I have no problem at all in its use as written.

You are using that wording as a reservation to avoid supporting the Constitutions principles as written, joe. Admit it.

[Tailgunner Joe]

I will not admit your slander. Begone, louse.

[tpaine]

Thank you joe. -- Your own words prove me correct.

[EdReform]

BTTT