Christian Nationalism and the Original Meaning of the term "Religion"

In the United States Constitution, the term "religion" is used in the First Amendment and in the unamended Constitution, Art. VI, Cl. 3, the term is "religious." The term "religion" is like a genus that could give rise to various species. What is meant by that term and consequently what is "protected" constitutionally is contentious. 

I've observed a tendency in certain Christian Nationalist circles to attempt to limit the meaning to only those religious sentiments that are "acceptable." So for instance, "religion" here doesn't just mean "Christianity," but certain "acceptable" kinds of "Christianity." Roman Catholicism for instance, may or may not qualify. Some religious conservatives accused of "Christian Nationalism" have no problem with adding "Judeo" to the prefix, perhaps in an attempt to form an alliance between traditionally minded Jews and Christians. ... But not others. Not Islam. Not Hinduism. On the other hand, today's Alt-Right breed of Christian Nationalists tend to agree that Judaism is NOT Christianity, and ought to be placed in the same "outside the box" category as Islam and Hinduism. 

After intensely researching this matter for over 20 years, I've concluded that when America's founders used the term "religion," it transcended "Christianity," and "Judeo-Christianity." It may not have meant blatant Satanic demon worship; but other religions like Islam, Hinduism and unconverted Native American "Great Spirit" worship qualified as "religions." 

Here is a quotation from John Adams that well illustrates this:

It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized world.

–- John Adams to M.M. Noah, July 31, 1818.

I've amassed many other quotations over the years that illustrate the point. But that one above will suffice for now. 

John Fea Featured on PBS Regarding America's 250th

Dr. Fea emerges as the voice of reason in this attempt to put into perspective "Christian Nationalism" and America's 250th. 

See here. 

And I've embedded a YouTube clip:

Frazer, Fea and Hall Featured on the Christian Nation Question

Drs. Gregg Frazer, John Fea, and Mark David Hall were recently featured in an AP article that got lots of press. A taste:

“Neither side really wants to hear what I say,” says Frazer, a professor of history and political studies at The Master’s University, a Christian school in Santa Clarita, California.

The founders, Frazer says, did not create a Christian republic. Several key founders either rejected core Christian doctrines or were vague enough to keep historians debating. For Frazer, that often disappoints audiences of his fellow Christians.

[...]

The long-running debate over the founders’ intentions about religion has been turbocharged with the approaching 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence on July 4. Amid the America 250 celebrations, some Christian activists and authors are redoubling claims that the U.S. had a Christian founding.

[...]

Why do the founders’ beliefs and intentions matter?

“Everyone’s looking for what we historians call a usable past,” says John Fea, author of “Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?”

“We go into the past looking for what we want in order to advance a particular political or cultural agenda,” says Fea, a fellow at the Lumen Center, a Christian research institute and study center in Madison, Wisconsin.

[...]

Historian Mark David Hall argues that Christianity did strongly impact the founding. While core founders did not hold traditional Christian beliefs, he contends many other founders did, and that this shaped their thinking about how to form the new republic.

“There’s plenty of evidence Christianity had an influence,” says Hall, author of “Did America Have a Christian Founding?”

He says founders’ attention to human dignity harmonizes with the Bible’s teaching of humanity created in God’s image. The system of checks and balances — to prevent the concentration of power — reflects teachings about human sin that would have permeated a largely Protestant culture, he says.

[...]

There is no reference to any specific religion in the Constitution beyond the date — “in the year of our Lord” 1787. It forbids religious tests for officeholders. The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees religious freedom and forbids “establishment” of a national religion.

[...]

Frazer argues that the Bible is not cited as a source for any governing principles in the documented proceedings of the Constitutional Convention or in the influential Federalist Papers, which advocated for the Constitution. He says the founders drew on influences such as Enlightenment thinking on such concepts as human equality, accountable government and freedom of religion. Early critics of the Constitution faulted it for lacking religious content.

The Declaration of Independence does have religious language, declaring that rights come from the “Creator.” It appeals to “divine Providence” and to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

Thomas Jefferson and other founders — adroitly, Frazer says — used terms acceptable to Christians as well as followers of other religious and philosophical movements.

Quotations For The D.O.I.'s 250th: John Adams on the General Principles of Christianity

I'm trying to motivate myself to start posting more here, especially as America approaches the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here is a quotation that we oft-see cited to prove the Christian Nation hypothesis: It's from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813:

The general principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved [sic] Independence, were…the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty…Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.

The context of the quotation though, shows that it's a wildly heterodox and quite pluralistic notion. Adams considered himself to be a "Christian" -- a "liberal unitarian Christian." He was militantly anti-Trinitarian and bitterly rejected the doctrine of the Incarnation. So it stands to reason that his understanding of the "general principles of Christianity" might be unconventional. Indeed, when we examine the sects that were united under these principles that's exactly what we see:

Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and “Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"].” Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.

Of late I've been reflecting on the just how pluralistic the sectarian nature of religion was during America's founding era and Adams' quotation perfectly illustrates this. There's also the following passage where Adams used various philosophes associated with challenging conventional Christian notions as authoritative support for the quotation:

I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.

See also here for a more detailed analysis. 

Dr. Ken Berry On Romans, Peter and Resistance In Tennessee

This post relates to some issues of personal interest, intersecting. For all the years I've been blogging, I've been a libertarian. And I think I've always been "political independent." As the years go by, I've become even more so; I really dislike the current "culture war," divisive climate in which we live and so I'm happily on the sidelines. I have taken an interest in nutrition science and for some time I've been convinced that there is something to ketogenic diets and that they are probably optimal (though, they are very limiting and thus, for most, too hard to stay on). I even sympathize with the case for "carnivore." 

Unfortunately, this issue has now become politicized. I came to my conclusions on keto before #MAHA existed. There are all sorts of things that come out of RFK Jr.'s mouth that I don't agree with or that otherwise strike me as "off." But things like keto and carnivore are now, in many people's minds, associated with MAHA/RFK Jr. This is unfortunate because it distracts from getting to the truth of the matter. But I am happy that they give it institutional support. 

Ken Berry is a medical doctor from Tennessee and is one of the more notable influential voices in the keto-carnivore space (his YouTube page has 3.8 million subscribers, as it stands). He's the author of "Lies My Doctor Told Me." To me, he's very likeable and down to earth. And he seems to be a "meat and potatoes" (he doesn't eat the latter, lol), conservative evangelical.

Berry is now starting to research and argue the issues of political theology that is the subject of this site. Welcome aboard, Dr. Berry. Drs. Mark David Hall and Gregg Frazer, also reformed/evangelical types, are two of the most learned scholars on the issue of the reformed influence on the political theology of the American founding. And they differ on certain details. And this site has featured their dialog and debates. 

With that, the following is from Dr. Berry's Substack:

Still, that does not mean every disagreement is tyranny. It does not mean every official gets to do whatever he wants in the name of conscience. And it certainly does not mean every frustrated citizen can drape himself in the language of righteous defiance. This doctrine only makes sense if it stays tied to Scripture, tied to real office, and kept within the limits of law. 

Put simply, the doctrine of the lesser magistrate holds that a lower civil authority may, and in some grave cases must, resist a higher authority when the higher authority acts unlawfully or commands what is sinful. The doctrine is not about private citizens taking matters into their own hands. It is about lawful officeholders using the authority of their own office rightly under God and law. 

Scripture gives us the basic tension. Romans 13 says governing authority is from God and calls the ruler “God’s servant for your good.” First Peter says believers are to be subject “for the Lord’s sake” to human authorities, and it describes the proper end of government as punishing evil and praising good. Christians are not anarchists. Civil government is not merely an unfortunate necessity. It is a real institution ordained by God for human good. 

But obedience to earthly rulers is not absolute. In Acts 5:29, Peter and the apostles say plainly, “We must obey God rather than men.” The Hebrew midwives in Exodus refused Pharaoh’s murderous command because they feared God. Daniel continued to pray when the king’s decree forbade it. Scripture does not teach blind obedience to wicked commands. It teaches ordinary submission to rightful authority, always bounded by prior obedience to God. 

That is the tension. Christians are told to honor governing authority, but also to refuse obedience when obedience would require sin. The doctrine of the lesser magistrate grew out of that tension in public life. It asks a question many people today no longer know how to frame: what is a lower civil authority supposed to do when a higher authority becomes lawless, tyrannical, or morally corrupt? 

The best-known historical statement of the doctrine came in the Magdeburg Confession of 1550. ...

Dr. Berry isn't discussing the American founding here; rather he's discussing how Christians like himself should view these issues and the Tennessee Constitution. Though, these issues HAVE been discussed in the context of how they relate to the American founding. He has noted he plans on writing more about these issues and the American founding in the future. We look forward to it and perhaps having him join us in the discussion. 

"Accidental" Influences on the American Founding

Over the years I've noticed claims of "accidental" influences on the American founding. What does that mean? Influences that they rarely if ever cited, but who somehow deserve credit for their ideas, nonetheless. Here are a few examples:

1. Thomas Hobbes. America's founders almost never positively cited him, and often negatively did. John Locke was no "accidental" influence, but to the contrary. He was arguably the most cited philosopher. The argument is that Hobbes gets smuggled in through Locke and the "state of nature/social contract and rights" teachings. The followers of Leo Strauss (or at least a number of them) teach this. 

2. Thomism. There was some kind of meaningful anti-Roman Catholic bias in the zeitgeist of the American Founding such that Catholic figures like Thomas Aquinas were rarely if ever cited. The Anglican Thomist Richard Hooker is nominally, positively cited by Locke. Some of America's actual founders like James Wilson cited Hooker, but they were much more imbibed in Locke and others.

3. Roman Catholic canon law. Late Catholic scholars Brian Tierney and Charles Rice make the case that such anticipated and incorporated the concept of "rights" as was understood by America's founders and the Declaration of Independence and later documents and writings. 

4. Calvinist resisters. The work of Mark David Hall and others. Someone like Samuel Rutherford whom the founders rarely if ever cited. John Adams cited Stephanus Junius Brutus’ Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos and the work of a few other notable figures in one place. If Algernon Sidney counts in this tradition, Thomas Jefferson cited him as one of four chief ideological sources behind the Declaration of Independence. There are attempts to credit "Calvinism/the resisters" for all sorts of things where they weren't explicitly cited (like Madison's quotation in The Federalist Papers about "depravity"). This might be more "half accidental." 

5. The Bible. The much discussed study of Lutz et al. Few understand the nuanced dynamic around it. The study shows that prior to the writing and ratification of the US Constitution, the Bible was cited quite a bit in places like revolutionary era sermons. Those sermons, interestingly, also cite John Locke and his concept of "state of nature/contract and rights" which Leo Strauss has termed "wholly alien to the Bible." Many of the notable ministers were heterodox and arguably count as more "Enlightenment" types as opposed to traditional orthodox Christians. And the Declaration of Independence itself doesn't authoritatively cite the Bible/Jesus/Jehovah/Christianity. 

However, the Lutz study stresses that the Bible was NOT cited for the US Constitution and credits "Enlightenment rationalism" for such. Many "Christian America" apologists mistakenly cite the Lutz study as standing for the proposition that the US Constitution explicitly sourced the Bible. One could still make an argument that the Bible's influence on the principles in the US Constitution was "accidental." They would note that there are principles of "republicanism" found in the Old Testament that "match up" with what's written in the US Constitution. 

6. Roger Williams. A figure America's founders rarely if ever cited. It's ironic in that he was the founder of an American colony. His idea of religious liberty which he innovated, they later championed. He also coined the term "separation of church and state." James Burgh likely was familiar with Williams and got the phrase "separation" from him. And Jefferson in turn likely got it from Burgh. 

7. Spinoza. I think Matthew Stewart argues this. I haven't read Stewart's book, but rather critical reviews of it. From James H. Hutson:

Stewart contends that the founders wanted to “bestow upon America the blessings of popular deism,” “the radical and essentially atheistic philosophy on which the modern liberal state rests.” 

The subtext of Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind" makes a point similar to Stewart's; though Hobbes and Locke are the "atheists" whose esoteric philosophy gets embedded into the American Founding. The enterprise of arguing on behalf of "esoteric" and "accidental" influences will always be contentious. I know that scholars might rightly object to imputing Hobbesianism to Locke and consequently to America's founders. 

But as I read the record, they may be objecting for the wrong reasons. The subtext seems Hobbes was irreligious in a way that Locke wasn't. America's founders rejected Hobbes because he argued on behalf of a big beastly government, which they militantly opposed. Yes, people accused Hobbes of being an "atheist" back then, as today. They also accused Rousseau and yes, Locke of esoteric atheism, deism, among other things.

All three of them dressed up their teachings under the auspices of "Christianity." In fact, Hobbes' "Christianity" seemed to be extremely similar to Locke's and perhaps Rousseau's. Hobbes believed that God was the first cause of the world and reduced essential Christian dogma to one, simple claim: "Jesus is the Christ." Locke believed this. And both stressed materialism. 

The point is that Hobbes is exoterically as much of a "Christian" as Locke was, with similar minimalistic, materialistic theologies and philosophies. Objecting to attempts to paint Locke as some kind of esoteric atheistic hedonist is fine. We can object to those esoteric readings of Hobbes as well, as theologically they seemed to be on a similar if not the same page. 

.

Asking the Right Questions

On America's Declaration of Independence and In General. 

I noted when discussing the sentiments of Leo Strauss' followers that I didn't think America's Declaration of Independence was a "Christian" document but rather, it's a "theistic" document. My reasons for this is the document doesn't invoke the Trinity, Jesus Christ or even Jehovah, but rather speaks of a God of some sort (in four places) in more generic terms. Further, it doesn't quote verses and chapter of scripture authoritatively. I got pushback from a friend. And I understand the reasons why; some of them apt. I would concede, for instance, that some/many of the important ideas contained in the DOI were earlier posited by serious Christian thinkers. 

In my post on the Straussians, I noted that "[t]hey ask the right questions" even if one doesn't always agree with their conclusions, hence they are worth seriously engaging. One obvious point for the "pro-Christian America" side is that America's DOI emerges out "Christendom." Renowned evangelical/reformed scholars Drs. Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and George Marsden in their book "The Search For Christian America" raise the bar beyond watered down, "generic Christendom" in their analysis of the "Christian America/Nation" question. In doing so, they didn't find the American founding to be very "Christian." 

But here is an example of the kind of pertinent questions that they, and the Straussians (I don't think the three scholars are Straussians, but their methodology and conclusions are similar and they also at times have cited one another) ask:

"Is the authoritative invocation of Aristotle and Cicero authentically 'Christian'?" 

I write this because, on the subject of America's DOI, Thomas Jefferson in his 1825 letter to Richard Henry Lee tells us of its sources:

All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c. …

Aristotle and Cicero were neither Jews nor Christians. Whether authoritatively citing them is "Christian" is debatable. Francis Schaeffer, the very influential reformed philosopher and theologian to whom Noll, Hatch and Marsden were responding in their aforementioned book, did not think that authoritatively citing Aristotle was authentically "Christian." Schaeffer didn't appreciate the theology of Thomas Aquinas that incorporated Aristotle into Christendom. Yet, America's founders authoritatively cited Aristotle, and even more so, the later "Romans" like Cicero. 

One problem with Schaeffer is that he tried to claim the American founding on behalf of his kind of reformed theology that looked to the four corners of the Bible and excluded sources like Aristotle et al. that other Christian traditions incorporate. This is a key criticisms that Noll, Hatch and Marsden make against Schaeffer. 

There was such a Calvinistic "reformed" influence on the American founding. Schaeffer was partial to Samuel Rutherford of "Lex Rex" fame. This tradition still arguably doesn't "own" the founding, certainly not Schaeffer's understanding of it. For one, as J Daryl Charles has noted, many of these reformers didn't eschew authoritative invocations of Aristotle; they incorporated the natural law and didn't break from Aquinas. 

Jefferson had strong disdain for Calvin and probably had some kind of bias against Calvinists (though he was friendly with Calvinists of his day who had similar political beliefs). We might understand why he would be hesitant to credit that tradition for ideas which he supported and successfully implemented. Out of the four sources for America's DOI that he named, Algernon Sidney arguably was the authoritative representative for "reformed resistance." 

And then there's John Locke who is the most influential of the four sources that Jefferson named. How "Christian" were he and his ideas? Schaeffer wanted to credit Rutherford et al. for his ideas. But for reasons I need not go into here, that's problematic. Locke did nominally cite the Anglican Thomist Richard Hooker, but then proceeded to articulate ideas that seem unrelated to Hooker but looked more like a modified version of Hobbes, whose name Locke "justly decried." 

America's founders also negatively cited Hobbes, but it wasn't because of his "state of nature/social contract and rights" dynamic -- ideas Leo Strauss aptly termed "wholly alien to the Bible." Rather, it was because Hobbes' version of the ideal state was a big beast -- a Leviathan. 

There's also the question of whether Hobbes and Locke were themselves "Christians." Both identified as such. Both were suspected back then as of today as of atheism, deism, or otherwise esoterically holding unconventional religious beliefs. At minimum, both held esoteric unconventional religious beliefs in an era where one couldn't legally publicly proclaim such. 

Locke authoritatively cited the Bible when making his novel propositions. I don't know enough about Hobbes to comment on whether he did. Rousseau likewise dressed his philosophy up in "Christian" clothes. 

This is my understanding. I will let others make of all this as they will. It's more important, as I see it, to ask the right questions and clarify one's understanding of the dynamics and let others do the same and decide for themselves.