If you do a simple Google search for “founding fathers not christian” you will find a slew of blogs, publications, and whatnot that offer their take on the issue of Christianity and the Founding. These opinion pieces, such as the one I am writing here, offer quotes from Founders such as: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, George Washington, and others.
I have already addressed the fact that Natural Law was the essential influence in the Declaration and the Constitution. That in itself establishes that the United States of America was founded on principles that flowed from Christian doctrine.
But nonetheless, lets look at this notion that somehow, in the aftermath of the Great Awakening and George Whitefield (who deserves credit for influencing some –if not many– of those Founders such as Samuel Adams), and an era of what some would call today fanatical religious tendencies, that miraculously the Founders were not Christians and at best Deists. By the way, though I think it could be fair to declare some of the Founders as Deists, by definition they stilled believed in God and called themselves, as you will see, Christian. A Deists simply rejects the notion that God intervenes in human affairs (more of a by product of the Enlightenment). This is a reaction, during the 18th and early 19th Centuries, when many rejected the “dogma” of religious institutions; not God.
It would take more time than I am willing and able here to tackle each Founder in one shot, so for this first installment I will tackle two of the prominent Founders that are pointed to as “not Christian”: Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.
THOMAS JEFFERSON
The man is a riddle, an enigma, and wrapped in a … vortex, or however the saying goes. I love Jefferson. For all his imperfections in modern eyes, he was still perfect in so many other ways. If it is true that Texas has taken him out or reduced his importance, than I am no fan of their new curriculum.
Let me take you back to 1803, Jefferson is into his second year as President. He had been mauled by the Federalists as being essentially an atheist. (I love how pundits today act like the political shenanigans of today are somehow new!) He wrote what is the best letter that I have found concerning his Christianity or lack there of. The letter was to his esteemed Friend Dr. Benjamin Rush (April 21, 1803) and in it Jefferson was clearly reflective on his record as a Christian, and was writing in response to a long standing promise — apparently — to Rush regarding his (Jefferson) stance on Religion and his religious beliefs.
Jefferson started off by stating, first and foremost, “I am a Christian…” and then he qualifies it, but the statement is clear. Now I can stop there and say, “bring it on,” but sense I know there are those who will have the, “yeah buts,” I will continue. [read letter here if you would like.]
Jefferson’s convictions were indeed complex, which is what one would expect with such a complex thinker. Jefferson continued in this letter, but did so hesitantly as he iterates: “I know it will not be expressed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations and calumnies.” Jefferson did not know it, but even today there are those with political motivations (like the Federalists) to essentially demonize him by misrepresenting and distorting a few of his words here or there.
Yet Jefferson is complicated and that cannot be denied. Just read the letter noted above and you will see how three dimensional his mind worked. But to say he was not a Christian is a gross and “malignant perversion” of his words.
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
To me Franklin is the key as those who insist that the Founders were not Christian point lovingly to Franklin as the poster child for their argument. Indeed, some of his thoughts and writings can be taken out of context and used to give the impression that he was not a Christian and did not care for religion. He probably did not care for the Church, the institution and did so for reasons he clearly articulated.
Franklin was a child of the Enlightenment and viewed Christianity through that prism. Franklin was a pragmatist and had no tolerance for religious persecution of one religion over another. The “dogma” as he called it. He believed in free will but also wrote very clearly that God, a supreme being, was benevolent and powerful. He believed in Natural Law and also believed in tolerance and utility with regard to living a Christian life. What Franklin did not want was a Preacher telling him how and why he ought to believe in God. [Source: Papers of Benjamin Franklin; also, see Walter Isaacson, "Benjamin Franklin: An American Life," Simon & Shuster, 2003; 84-88.]
Final Note, this government website has an array of documents regarding the dedication of Jefferson, Madison, ect., and their religious convictions come Sundays. Strange how non-Christian folks such as Jefferson and Madison would bother dedicating, religiously, their Sundays to God and church.
Next Segment: Washington and John Adams
And then there’s this clause in the U.S Constitution which recognizes the Christian “Sabbath”:
“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return in which Case it shall not be a Law.”
For an excellent source on how Christianity impacted the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution, I would highly recommend John Eidsmoe’s “Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers.”
Jon Rowe has gone into depth on the issue of the faith of the founders: http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/.
Isa thanks for posting that I took a look and appreciate the counter points. Chris
Richard, thanks for posting. I don’t know if that means they acknowledged it themselves, it just means they understood that Sundays were for almost all Americans a day of church and prayer. On the other hand, I think your argument that it is their own recognition of, as you say, Sabbath…
For example, using a post on the Daily Kos that the blog Ira listed linked to, there is a debate over whether or not Congress published bibles or authorized the publishing of bibles after the Revolution. First off , read the full resolution below:
“Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled, highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report, of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorise him to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.”
To me Congress clearly “highly approve the pious and laudable” work of Mr. Atkens “as subservient to the interest of religion as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country.” Seems clearly Congress approved of his wish to print bibles and recognized its importance in the interest of religion.
Yet the guy at the Daily Kos, though felt just fine hammering some historians interpretation of the above quote, comes to this conclusion:
“The secular benefit of this resolution, omitted by Hutson and others, was that it acknowledged “an instance of the progress of arts in this country.” Publicizing the accuracy of this Bible was a great way for Congress to promote the American printing industry.”
What!!?? Ok so they recognized both its utility and its spirituality… This seems a far bigger leap than what the so-called “Religious Right” was doing with the same quote.
The fact is the Founders and the Founding generation can be and will be used by everyone (Right and Left) for their own current political agenda as there is simply so much data (letters/manuscripts/newspapers) from the Founders that you can find enough to support your point of view, no matter what it is!
They were Christians, they were complex, but they understood Natural Law and the utility of Religion as the keeper of virtue and the maintainer of the Republic!
Chris
Chris: Modern secularists and statists must contort their writings on this subject to such an extent as to border on the insane. As you know, many of the Founding Fathers were, indeed, orthodox Christians. Others, like Jefferson and Franklin, were not. That being said, it is undeniable that even men like Jefferson and Franklin were heavily influenced by the Bible and the Christian culture in which they lived. An attentive stroll through DC, with special attention being paid to monuments is something that the curious should consider.
See: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=2441
I have a post on this subject coming at some point and will link back to your discussion here. I think the evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable that the Founders purposely founded these United States on Judeo-Christian principles. Thanks for the post.
Also, see:
http://oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com/2009/07/teaching-us-history-as-gods-plan.html
And, as the Library of Congress even admits:
“. . . most American statesmen, when they began to form new governments at the state and national levels, shared the convictions of most of their constituents that religion was, to quote Alexis de Tocqueville’s observation, indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions.”
To suggest the Founders intended otherwise is, in my opinion, quite absurd.
In a related post:
“I was in Normandy in June 2004 for the 60th anniversary of D-Day when I picked up a souvenir front page of the New York Times from June 7, 1944, which reported on the invasion of the day before . . . it provides a clear window into the role that Christianity and Judeo-Christian values played in American culture on that ‘Day of Days.’ Two, it proves, in no uncertain terms, how radically the New York Times, the Democrats and their kindred political spirits have shifted to the left in the 66 years since our nation’s finest hour.”
See: http://biggovernment.com/kbyrne/2010/06/06/d-day-when-dems-and-the-n-y-times-prayed-for-america/
Hello All,
Since my name was mentioned….My jonrowe.blogspot.com site is intended to catalog my work that I publish on my group blogs, one of which is “American Creation,” where discussions often break out.
Re “Christian” it helps to define what the term means. Simply calling yourself a “Christian” as Barack Obama and Phil Donahue do? In the formal/nominal/identificatory sense, yes, you’ll get no argument from me that Jefferson, Franklin, Washington were all “Christians.”
Further they weren’t “Deists” in the strict sense because they believed in an active personal God.
However, they were not orthodox Trinitarian Christians who believed the Bible the inerrant, infallible Word of God. And to many “orthodox” (especially those on the religious right who promote “Christian Nationalism”) that makes them “not Christians,” regardless of WHAT they called themselves.
Jon thanks for commenting. I think you could make the argument that some were Deists, but anyway. We’re splitting hairs. You said, ” they were not orthodox Trinitarian Christians who believed the Bible the inerrant, infallible Word of God…”
I am a Christian and do not attend church very often and because of science and the evolution of thought since the Enlightenment, I do not take the bible word for word. I have not read it since my childhood. Yet I am a Christian and live by the values instilled in me by Christians I grew up with.
I don’t care what the far right Christians say, I am a Christian and the Founders were deeply Christian. I don’t care about the far right and how they define it.
So, the Founders were Christians, good, glad we could agree. This isn’t about politics for me, Obama is a Christian as well, yes.
Kind Regards,
Chris
Wow! What a timely post. I just finished reading Jon Meacham’s American Gospel, which deals precisely with this topic!
As I read the post here (excellent BTW, as usual) and the comments a couple of things struck me.
I’ll work from the bottom up.
Chris, I think I understand what you are getting at when you say: “This isn’t about politics for me, Obama is a Christian as well, yes.” It is isn’t for me to judge someone else’s religious conviction. While we are told that we can recognize true Christians by their fruits, only God knows the heart. So, I’m not willing to consign Obama to the fires of hell, either.
John states that the Founders weren’t “Deists” in the strict sense because they believed in an active personal God. He’s right, a good many of the Founders like James Madison and George Washington stated time and time again that God seemed to be taking an active role in the proceedings.
It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of the Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution. James Madison
However, John’s blanket assertion that : “… they were not orthodox Trinitarian Christians who believed the Bible the inerrant, infallible Word of God.” is wide of the mark. Some of the Founders, like Franklin (who at the end of his life said he hadn’t made up his mind about the deity of Christ, but that he’d find out soon enough) and Jefferson tended to a more Unitarian bent. However, more of the Founders were Trinitarian Christians – like Samuel and John Adams.
The thesis of Meacham’s book is that arguments like these are unnecessary because of the legacy and wisdom of the Founders. Regardless of their particular beliefs, the Founders and many subsequent presidents were careful to build a system that, while reliant on faith in a Creator, even one as loosely defined as “Nature’s God”, went no farther in imposing Him on the populace. Meacham refers to this a “public” vs “private” religion. Thus, he takes both sides to task – the evangelical far right who would impose sectarianism into the Founding documents, and the left who seek to systematically extirpate God from government.
(I reviewed here).
Jefferson and Franklin were not what most would consider orthodox Christians. Washington most certainly would fit within that framework of belief.
Martin:
” the Founders and many subsequent presidents were careful to build a system that, while reliant on faith in a Creator, even one as loosely defined as “Nature’s God”, went no farther in imposing Him on the populace. ”
Though I would tend to agree with you on that generally, I thnk it is important to qualify your statement by pointing out that our Founding documents, as well as our Common law tradition, are all based on Judeo-Christian principles. Thus one could say that, at least indirectly, “He” is imposed on the populace.
Richard, thanks for taking the time to respond. I hope you can find the time to check out the review that I linked to earlier. I too, “generally agree”. What I was referring to was Meacham’s thesis in his book. I found that I disagreed or did not entirely agree with some of his premises, but that I agreed with his conclusion: The Founders created a system of government that, like God Himself, ensured people free will in choosing what religion to choose (or none. In one of the appendices, Meacham has an essay which posits that secularism is a religion in and of itself. Meacham touches on this theme lightly in the course of the book.)
I’ve started and stopped long responses to this piece several times. It’s very thought-provoking and the discussion has been really interesting. I’m excited for what’s coming regarding Washington and Adams.
Regards,
Joel
Martin:
“The Founders created a system of government that, like God Himself, ensured people free will in choosing what religion to choose”
On that we are in absolute agreement.
Joel happy to hear that and I look forward to posting it and your future response!
Chris
Maybe all that religion in our Founding documents warrants a warning label. I’m not kidding:
http://oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com/2010/06/warning-label-for-us-constitution.html
Although I have read the term: Orthodox Christian often I have never seen a definition of the term. From Illuminating the darkness Europe the years 400 to 900 there is a presentation about early Christian beliefs/values these included:
Egalitarianism in that everyone was “equal in the eyes of the lord.
A set of values that are opposed to Social hierarchy.
Christianity shared with the Roman belief system in the value of demonstrating civic responsibility.
All early Christian writings spoke against explicit sexuality and the value of virginity even though it seemed to have little impact on behavior.
Christianity since its beginning had the belief in doing Charity for the poor.
The original Catholic Church accepted slavery as not being in conflict with the religion, yet freeing slaves was seen as an act of piousness.
The church under Gregory sought uniformity and also realized it did not have the power to make decisions over variations.
I would imagine a number of the leaders of early America could see the value of these beliefs. I just never understood why conversation over this tends to lead to one or the other atheists or believers without accepting this wide area in between.
I believe the generally accepted definition of Orthodox Christianity would be:
the belief in Creation, the Virgin Birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the Trinity, Heaven, Hell, the need for personal salvation through faith in Christ, and the physical return of Christ to earth.
Well, I thought I was done but Martin is pulling me back in.
No, I stand by my statement they were not orthodox Trinitarian Christians who believed the Bible the inerrant, infallible Word of God.”
John Adams wasn’t just a “unitarian” but he was fervently and militantly anti-Trinitarian. He bitterly mocked the doctrine of the Trinity and its cognate doctrines, the Incarnation and Atonement.
“An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity.”
– John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816.
And if John Adams could have been so militantly unitarian, then it’s likely many others you think are “orthodox Christian” are so too.
The post that keeps on giving, eh? When is the next installment coming out – on Washington and John Adams? I keep coming back to check!
I just finished reading and reviewing a reprint of Life of Washington, written in 1842 and published by the American Sunday School Union. There are some interesting things that would fit next in response to your promised installment on this topic.
“if John Adams could have been so militantly unitarian, then it’s likely many others you think are “orthodox Christian” are so too.”
That is what is commonly known as a deductive fallacy. Certainly, even those Founding Fathers who professed an active faith in Christ may have strayed from some orthodoxy. But to suggest that most of them fell outside of the framework of orthodox beliefs is quite a stretch.
Rich,
I never said, “most.” What I’d like for you folks to consider is “more” than you think. Certainly J. Adams and Jefferson. Likely Washington and Madison, and a few other heavyweights.
Jon:
I would judge both Washington and Madison within the framework of orthodoxy. Sorry for misquoting you.
. In discussing if someone was religious or not from 200 year telescope is practically useless but fun in a political sense. Even defining how would you measure how or even if someone was religious? By their saving so help me G-d, or having a minister there at their bedside as they wait for death? In politics religion has always had two faces, 1. A show for the electorate. and 2. A personal value. Quotes and correspondence must be seen in the context of the time. My favorite quote about religion by Jefferson was “I am a church of myself (something like that.) Can anyone tell me what it means?
Rich,
I’ve done pretty meticulous research (most of it armchair, that is on blogs, but some of it in actual in print scholarly places) on the record w/ both Madison & Washington and note, there are no “smoking guns” with them as there are with the other three mentioned, but the case for their orthodox Trinitarianism is very doubtful.