Another Christian Nation Myth Debunked
Jonathan Rowe on Jul 27th 2007
This one is primarily promulgated by Peter Marshall, whose historiography is abominable.
Part of the myth involves conflating America’s two foundings — the earlier colonial founding of Virginia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, etc. — with the Founding of the federal government from 1776-1789. (This helps to peddle the “Christian Nation” myth generally.) To distinguish between the two, Michael Zuckert suggests we use different terms to describe these two “foundings.” The federal Founding Fathers were Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al. Men like John Winthrop, John Smith, Thomas Hooker, and Roger Williams were planting fathers.
Whereas the Federal Founding documents are arguably secular (or perhaps generally theistic), earlier colonial charters of the planting fathers used explicitly biblical language and otherwise covenanted with the Triune Christian God (save for Roger Williams’ Rhode Island). Therefore, “Christian America” proponents try to find some explicit connection between the planting and Founding Fathers to show they were of one vision.
Peter Marshall’s myth is that George Washington, as leader of the Constitutional Convention, handed out the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut for the delegates to use as a model. As he put it:
George Washington, who served as president of the Constitutional Convention, ordered that that every delegate have a copy of Connecticut’s Constitution. He did so, said Marshall, “because it was so powerfully done, so rooted in Holy Scripture, in the Word of God, such an effective document, [that] Washington wanted that to be a reference work for the federal Constitution work they were about to get into.”
Nothing in the text of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers or the hundreds of pages of Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention and of the others who kept notes, shows this. (Or, if I missed something, please let me know.)
The kernel of truth in the myth is that the colonial orders did anticipate some of the ideas of representative self government that the Founding Fathers would later implement. The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut was in some sense, an early example of an experiment with self-government. Perhaps some of what the Founders thought to be novel ideas in their Novus Ordo Seclorum, turned out to be not so new after all.
However, whatever useful ideas the Founding Fathers took from the earlier colonial charters were secular. When comparing the language in the earlier colonial charters to that of the US Constitution what’s striking is just how different their approaches are to religion and government. The US Constitution completely and utterly lacks explicitly biblical language or a covenant to the God of the Bible, but instead imposes a religiously neutral “no religious test” clause in Article VI, Clause 3. This language is 180 degrees from the preamble of the FOC which states:
For as much as it hath pleased Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield…well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God…to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed as followeth:
Similarly look at the language of the Mayflower Compact:
”In the name of God, amen. We, whose names are underwritten . . . having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and the honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the Ends aforesaid.”
Now compare those with the preamble to the US Constitution:
”We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The [Mayflower Compact] gives us a crystal-clear example of how a charter is worded by people deliberately founding a Christian polity. We are told directly that the colony is being “undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith.” The Founding Fathers could have used similar wording, but didn’t. The rationales for creating the Union is purely secular: insuring tranquility, providing for defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty.
Moreover, the language in the Massachusetts Body of Liberties is the very opposite of the First Amendment and Article VI:
94. Capitall Laws.
1.
Deut. 13. 6, 10.
Deut. 17. 2, 6.
Ex. 22. 20.
If any man after legall conviction shall have or worship any other god, but the lord god, he shall be put to death.
As noted, the Founders may well have borrowed some ideas from the planting fathers of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Virginia, etc. But what they borrowed was by in large secular. The explicit language in their documents that established these colonies as “Christian Commonwealths” is entirely missing from our federal founding era documents. It’s “covenant theology” with the very hearts — the covenants to the Triune God — ripped out.
On religion and government, if the Founding Fathers followed any of the planting fathers’ models, it was Roger Williams’ Rhode Island, the man who coined the term “wall of separation” between Church and State. And whose government was in principle a secular entity, not founded on a covenant to the God of the Bible.
Filed in The Belfry, The Bureau
Jon, I have no factual objections to what you propose above, especially the salient point re GWashington. For a man who quite purposefully never let out a peep about his own theological convictions, such a thing would be severely out of character.
However, the conceptualization of the Founding as it was understood at the time indicates to me that it (and the Constitution) are more properly thought of as a non-sectarian contract between the several states, each of which was entirely free to be sectarian, even theocratic. One was a Virginian first, a United Statesian second.
In my view, we didn’t become “America” until after Virginia, et al., were defeated in the War of Northern Aggression: until then, our government was more pluralistic than “national.”
I can’t vouch for it, but this site looks legit. The Framers may have pulled a fast one in slipping through the “no religious test” clause re federal office, but it appears that religious tests for statewide office were far from uncommon.
Of course now that Mr. Lincoln has imposed his tyranny on the entire American people, and religious tests would never withstand a liberal reading of Amendment XIV’s “equal protection of the laws,” the point is moot.
But I do not think the principle can be traced to the Founding as it understood itself.
Few of the principles of the Framers were new. They took existing principles, from England, from the colonies, and took them a bit more seriously, or altered them somewhat.
Many of the principles that we think of a secular were not so secular in their original conception. Roger Williams’ espoused separation of church and state in theological terms. Limited government, checks and balances, divided government, found early justification in the Calvinist notions of original sin and total depravity. In the hands of the Framers, these principles were secular principles and gained a bit more coherence and took forms closer to those we recognize.
We can say that we are a “Christian Nation” if by that we mean that the nation is founded on principles that carry a memory of various forms of Enlightenment Christianity. Of course, using that broad definition, the Soviet Union could have been called a Christian Nation, as could any government of Europe or the Americas.
Jon, here is research suggestion:
As related in Washington’s General: Nathanael Greene And the Triumph of the American Revolution by Terry Golway, 2004, page 13
“The New World, however, quickly proved to be no refuge from the divisions and dissents of the the Old. William shocked the citizens of Boston when he asserted that political authorities should not have the power to enforce religious dogma. More disputes followed as Williams preached the importance of individual conscience, insisting that the phrase “so help me God” should be removed from the colony’s oath of allegiance. It was, he said, offensive to those who didn’t believe in God.”
Can you, Jon, identify the contemporaneous eyewitness source document(s), if any, that support this claim regarding his opposition to the so help me God phrase?
Tom Van Dyke, “However, the conceptualization of the Founding as it was understood at the time indicates to me that it (and the Constitution) are more properly thought of as a non-sectarian contract between the several states, each of which was entirely free to be sectarian..”
Yes. America’s founding fathers were, like politicians everywhere, constrained by the circumstances of the day. The state governments already existed when they did their work. We don’t know how the government of South Carolina might look, had the founding fathers had the opportunity to recraft it.
“Of course now that Mr. Lincoln has imposed his tyranny on the entire American people..”
The confederate conception of liberty is unconstrained power for the original states, i.e., the state’s “freedom” to establish chattel slavery, to establish a state religion, etc. To the Lost Cause sympathizer, the Civil War and the reconstruction amendments represent tyranny, because their states can no longer do these things. The liberal, in contrast, values freedom for individuals. This pits South Carolina’s “freedom” to establish slavery against freedom for the individual slaves, Virginia’s freedom to establish religion against individual Virginians’s freedom from such establishment, and Georgia’s freedom to ban abolitionist literature against individuals having the freedom to write and publish their views.
As someone who believes in individual liberty, I say: three cheers for the 14th amendment!
EA: After corresponding with Ray Soller, I agree with him that the primary sources cannot prove GW ever said “So Help Me God,” but rather there was an oral tradition of him doing this. GW certainly was a devout theist and believed the religious element in oaths to be vital. Yet, I agree with Newdow that it would be out of character for him to add words to an oath not specified in the Constitution.
Because you mentioned Roger Williams here I thought it appropriate to point out that I have encountered several times the assertion that Roger Williams specifically opposed the phrase ’so help me God’ in governmental oaths of allegiance. In addition to Terry Golway, this claim was made by Rob Boston in Americans United for Separation of Church State newsletter some years ago. The problem is that I have so far found no citation and therefore I am uncertain whether this is a genuine historical claim, backed by contemporaneous eyewitness accounts, or an ahistorical myth.
I have no idea about it. It would be interesting to see.
it would be out of character for [Washington] to add words to an oath not specified in the Constitution.
But it does appear that taking his presidential oath on the Bible was Washington’s idea, or one that he agreed to.
You know, Washington kept rather elaborate and extensive records. Were he to pass out a publication to the delegates, it would probably be recorded in his daily journal, plus the record of the purchase would be in his accounts.
If Marshall were correct, he would be able to provide a couple of confirming citations.
The Mount Vernon Ladies Association has a good library, experienced researchers, and access to records they don’t hold. Have you checked with them? For your purposes, all they could provide would be more confirmation that there’s no record of Washington passing out the publication — but why not seal the deal?
Oh, and it’s Novus Ordo Seclorum, “a new order for the ages.” What is seculorum?
A typo. And perhaps a Freudian slip.
Tom Van Dyke: My understanding, having reviewed many accounts of the inauguration, is that it was Livingston, probably after Washington had made his first appearance on the balcony, who requested that someone (Jacob Morton) quickly get a Bible from the Masonic Temple. G.W. temporarily retreated back from public view, probably waiting for the Bible. It doesn’t appear that the bible was G.W.’s idea but G.W. had no problem with using a bible. Also, there is at least one close up eyewitness account that G.W. kissed the bible after completing his oath, although other eyewitnesses just say he bowed.
Thanks, Mr. Atheist. Somehow asking for a Bible seemed out of character for Washington, which is why I added the qualifier. That he would go along with the idea seemed quite in character, if you follow my thinking.
IMO there is too much emphasis on the thoughts of the founding fathers. Their thoughts should be taken with a grain of salt.
As most Christians know, Jesus gave the Apostles a last command. Take the Good News of my death to the world so that they may choose between Me and the Liar, Satan. The Christians is Europe wasn’t having much luck getting the message out after 400 years of persecution by that great ‘ism’ of Catholicism. [All 'religions', idol worshipers of gods created by "men", are 'of', subject to, Satan. ]Christianity is not an ‘ism’ or ‘religion’ of “men”. That now being out of the way,,,
The Mayflower Compact 1620 says it all. The Constitution FOR the United States, “union of several states”, of America, Republic, under God agrees. Why? Because the Constitution says no state may have a Constitutional Law that is in conflict with the Constitution For, By and “Of”, subject to, the authors, We the People, of the Republic.. The Constitution says we are ‘blessed’. In those days, only God could bless an Englishman. They had remove the Popery already. Chucky Cheese had not arrived yet. The Declaration of Indepedence and all the Constitutions of the 13 [50] Nations verified their Government being under God with one of His many names.
Today the Great Commission is being fulfilled by American TV [TBN, CBN, etc.], 24/7 in a 150 countries, with tens of thousands of TV stations coming off of 50-60 Satelites. [Isn't is nice to see God's beleif that His Evanglical TV preachers should be "properous" in being fulfilled with their homes, cars and planes. God takes care of His own.] People are literally being saved by the millions each day. And I do not ignore the great work of the thousands of Missionarys and the Church supporters who are Trusting and Obeying the Lord for a Great work “in His name”. The sons of Christian America headed West and claimed every mile in His name. Those pagans that refused the Good News, and didn’t move aside , were trampled into the dust. These were sons , pagans, of Satan, and were of no value to God when they were dead in the spirit. [Blame the International Jews who were taking over with the assistance of the Masonic, Zionist, Illuminati cohorts, who now rule through Political Correct immorality, NWO, UN and the boys from Shull and Bones, the Bush President to name a couple..]
The Liberal Political Correct Democrats of Baby Killing–ism, , secularism, humanism, socialism, communism, judaism, atheism, Satanism are corrupting the minds of the young, and the not so young. Are you a “citizen” of the US, Democracy, Corporation of Socialism, Lutherism, subject to ‘men’ ? Or maybe the USA, Republic, under God. Do you know? Only one is Christian.
Jesus is Lord, Christians are “kings” “in His image”.
America is to Christians as what Israel is to Jews, of, Israel.
jim