The Acton Institute's "The Birth of Freedom":

Last Thursday I had the pleasure of seeing the premiere of the Acton Institute's "The Birth of Freedom," in Washington, DC accompanied by my friend and co-blogger Jason Kuznicki and friend David Boaz.

I give it a mixed review. The production values were great. My biggest problem was with the content. And given I have very strong opinions on the subject matter, it should surprise no one that I might have issues with it.

First, in fairness, the special was only an hour and therefore time constraints prevented them from including everything they could have, everything I thought they would. I expected to respond to a different documentary. There were stronger arguments, I thought, they could have made.

The basic thesis of the movie was to show how religion (particularly Christianity) was greatly responsible for notions of human rights, particularly the classic liberty and equality rights of liberal democracy, and the consequent abolition of slavery, and formation of modern "republican" government.

The Institute features many notable scholars and academics in the Roman Catholic tradition (though the documentary had non-Catholics as well). And those scholars, for the most part, do very valuable work (Rodney Stark and Robert P. George, probably the two most notable). Contrast this to D. James Kennedy's "Christian Nation" propaganda specials, which likewise featured some prominent scholars (like Daniel Dreisbach, James Hutson, Donald Lutz, and Mary Thompson) but intermingled them with hucksters like David Barton, Peter Marshall and William Federer, all filtered through D. James Kennedy's extremely un-academic, distorted lens. The "Christian America" thesis, within the academic community, rightly has a reputation for being very un-scholarly, but still greatly appeals to quite sizable conservative evangelical circles.

The Acton Institute, on the other hand, uses sound scholarship, attempting to engage academia on their grounds. Mark Noll wrote a book on how evangelicals let their scholarly standards slide, how Roman Catholic intellectuals -- like those featured in First Things Magazine -- better maintain those standards. The Acton Institute follows in the "First Things" tradition of high scholarly standards.

Though more academically authentic, the Acton Institute's special to me still projected an air of superficiality. But again, perhaps this is because they only had one hour. Perhaps they have plans to market this documentary to a "mass audience" who tend not to care about scholarly footnotes.

As for the show's content, John Locke was mentioned (of course, given his centrality to the Founding, he'd have to be). And I expected them to follow the chain of tradition that traces Locke to Aquinas and then to Aristotle: Locke appealed to "the judicious Hooker" who was the Anglican heir to the Christian natural law tradition of Thomas Aquinas to which the Roman Catholic Church still adheres. And of course, Aquinas' method of appealing to "nature" and "reason" traces to Aristotle. So in Locke, it could be argued that we see the synthesized classical-Christian natural law tradition. Along the way, they could have noted Grotius and Suárez as key expositors of the traditional natural law from which John Locke drew. And of course, that case can be answered -- it could be argued that Locke was not as "authentically Christian" as some understand him to be. But I'm not going to answer that case here, because the program didn't argue it (as you would think Roman Catholic intellectuals would!).

Rather, they turned to John Witte of Emory School of Law who simply asserted that Locke drew from the Calvinist-Protestant tradition and that social contractarianism was developed in Calvin's Christendom. Now, I'm sure that Witte can make a respectable scholarly case for his thesis, but I was utterly unsatisfied by his bare assertion. When one posits novel, revisionist theses (and that's what the tenor of this special attempted -- to "revise" the current record in academia that is too slanted towards secularism), one has the burden of providing compelling evidence (i.e., I want to see the footnotes) to support the claims. Again, perhaps that evidence exists, but a one hour special full of "sound bites" might not have been the proper place to present all of it.

My understanding of Locke is that he was not at all a Calvinist, that there is no evidence that ties Locke to Calvin, other than a Calvinist component in Locke's late 17th Century British cultural environment. Some try to connect Locke to Calvin through Samuel Rutherford of Lex Rex fame. But Locke never cited Rutherford. And the program didn't even claim this.

The program also, surprisingly, avoided the scholarship of Brian Tierney, of Cornell, who traces Locke's ideas to various Roman Catholic natural law sources. As Rick Garnett put it, summarizing this body of scholarship: Arguments similar to those put forth by Locke "were advanced regularly by recusant Catholics in England, in the late 16th and very early 17th centuries." Again, this is a contentious scholarly claim and much work needs to be done in order to convince the academy of its veracity. But the program barely touched it, other than some brief assertions that human rights were developed in the Catholic Middle Ages.

The program addressed the issue of slavery and noted how the Christian West was the first to abolish slavery, a fact that academia mostly ignores. This, of course, is true.

Though, experts on slavery, most notably David Brion Davis, note it was the Quakers, in the early 1600s who first questioned the morality of the universal institution of slavery. Dr. Stark advances a novel claim that the Christian West actually abolished slavery much earlier in the Catholic dominated "Middle Ages," but that slavery somehow made a comeback for "economic" not theological reasons. The program highlighted Stark's novel assertion, without any scholarly explication, and totally avoided the Quakers' key role in 17th Century in getting the ball rolling which finally led to abolition in the West. Rather it picked up on William Wilberforce's later crusade. Perhaps that was because Wilberforce was an evangelical while the Quakers were theological liberals. In any event, even if medieval Catholics first advanced moral objections to slavery, given slavery's persistence in the West and universality until the 18th Century, it is not at all clear that these early objections to slavery were anything but aberrations in the Christian West, which traditionally justified chattel slavery on biblical and philosophical grounds. Again, the program didn't touch this historical nuance.

The program also, typical of the Christian right, bashed the French Revolution and tried to connect it with modern secular leftism. They contrasted the traditional religious beauty of the cathedral at Notre Dame with some sterile monument made to the French Revolution. As one of the first question askers, I noted that they drew a false dichotomy between America's and France's Revolutions. Sure there were differences between the two (obviously -- the two events turned out quite differently) but both appealed, at base, to the same ideals, the same Enlightenment principles of a generically defined Supreme Being who grants men unalienable rights to Liberty and Equality. I noted, these ideals, though "religious" or "theistic" were hardly "biblical." I further noted that most of the American population including George Washington and many traditional Christians supported and viewed the French Revolution as a parallel ideological event to the American -- twin republics founded on "liberty" -- and only after the fact did most folks realize the subtle but profound philosophical differences between the two. That France had an aristocracy to unseat and a national Church to disestablish most likely caused the different outcomes of the two revolutions. The response -- as expected -- was the French Revolution was more influenced by Rousseau/the French Enlightenment, the American, more by the conservative or moderate Scottish Enlightenment. I don't disagree, but that doesn't change the fact that the two events, at base, appealed to the same Enlightenment ideals of a generically God-granted rights to political liberty and equality.

Finally, the program concluded, somewhat disappointingly, by simply giving Robbie George a soapbox for numerous minutes to bemoan modern secularism and relativism -- how that is a terrible place to rest notions of human rights.

Where I agree with the program's assertions: The notion that men have unalienable God-given rights to liberty and equality is a very "solid" place to rest human rights. And the Western tradition of "rights," especially as articulated by America's Founders, was done in a context of a complementary, warm public religion, not a cold anti-religious secularism.

Still the notion of unalienable liberty and equality rights will always exist in great tension with traditional biblical religious principles. The biblical authenticity of "unalienable rights" to "liberty" and "equality" is highly suspect. As Allan Bloom put it in The Closing of the American Mind,:

From the earliest beginnings of liberal thought there was a tendency in the direction of indiscriminate freedom. Hobbes and Locke, and the American Founders following them, intended to palliate extreme beliefs, particularly religious beliefs, which lead to civil strife....In order to make this arrangement work, there was a conscious, if covert, effort to weaken religious belief, party by assigning -- as a result of a great epistemological effort -- religion to the realm of opinion as opposed to knowledge. But the right to freedom of religion belonged to the realm of knowledge. Such rights are not matters of opinion. No weakness of conviction was desired here. All to the contrary, the sphere of rights was to be the arena of moral passion in a democracy. p. 28.

And I would note, perhaps contra Bloom, that the sphere of Liberty and Equality rights ought to be the arena of moral passion. But how do we "know" that men have a "right" to Liberty and Equality? The answer: Because God grants them such rights. The problem is such rights are not really found within the text of the Bible, and only evolved over much time in Christendom, and tended to be articulated by heretical philosophers. A "selective" reading of the Bible can vet such rights; but traditional biblical readings may hold the contrary. Jefferson held that men had an unalienable "right" to worship no God or twenty gods. Jefferson's and Madison's (he helped pass it) landmark statute on religious liberty in Virginia -- one based on "natural right" -- held such rights extended to "the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."

In other words God grants men an unalienable right to break the very First Command (as well as other parts of the Decalogue and Bible) something that Hindus, Muslims, and others do simply by practicing their creed. The Bible nowhere speaks of "unalienable rights," certainly not of a God given right to worship as one pleases and many of its texts intimate the opposite.

The Bible also nowhere abolishes slavery, but arguably intimates its legitimacy. Whenever the term "liberty" is used, the Bible invariably refers to "spiritual" liberty, or freedom from sin, not political liberty. Therefore, as Robert Kraynak notes, the Apostle "Paul could say (without contradicting himself) 'for freedom Christ has set us free ... do not submit to the yoke of slavery' (Gal. 5:1) and 'slaves, obey ... your earthly masters' (Col. 3:22)." One could be both a chattel slave and "free" in Christ at the same time.

The tension between traditional religious notions and modern politics is called the "political-theological problem," a problem the program did not address. Those, like the Acton Institute, who attempt to tie notions of human rights to their theology either explicitly or implicitly argue the following: "Since our theology gives you human rights in the first place, you only have the right to do what this system holds to be moral." Regarding morality derived from the Bible alone, such a thesis is utterly inconsistent with the idea of universal religious freedom as championed by America's Founders. That principle holds men have an unalienable right to do not just what the Bible forbids in the First Commandment but that for which the Bible proscribes the death penalty. (See Deuteronomy 13).

Natural law scholars hold something more consistent with America's Founding principles -- that you only have the natural right to do what is consistent with the natural law. This is, I understand, Robbie George's position. Worshipping "false gods" might violate the Bible but doesn't violate the natural law. Hence it's not a problem to say men have a natural right to worship as they please. However, this system can be extremely archaic and unsatisfying when it comes to, among other things, sex -- that Elephant in the room. The traditional natural law holds masturbation, even in the privacy of one's home, to be "unnatural" and hence there can be no "natural right" to it. Ditto with contracepted sex, even between married couples.

Somehow, I think the natural right to political and personal liberty is more meaningful than that. After all, the text of America's Declaration of Independence does not suggest such a narrow dynamic but rather broadly proclaims that men have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I Want To Enjoy My Death:

This morbid thought comes to mind from reading a post on LewRockwell.com about Tim Russert's death. The post was referred to me by PositiveLiberty co-blogger Jim Babka whose dealings with "Meet the Press" the post discusses. As Johnny Kramer's LRC article notes:

[Russert] was cut down far too soon by the same insidious, previously-asymptomatic, sudden cardiac death that was at least similar to what also claimed, among others, Bing Crosby in 1977; our own Murray Rothbard in 1995; and John Ritter in 2003. According to coverage of Russert’s passing, three-hundred thousand Americans suffer sudden cardiac death each year, taken from their loved ones with no warning and no previous signs or symptoms.

While it’s a terrible shock for the family and friends, apparently it’s an ideal way to go for the person who dies. On the June 16 episode of CNN’s Larry King Live, Dr. Mehmet Oz, New York cardiac thoracic surgeon, responded to the question of whether Russert suffered with, "I suspect he did not have much pain because as soon as you develop fibrillation, within seconds you pass out. From that perspective, it's the way I'd like to pass away, but I would rather do it when I'm 90."

No one wants to die a painful death and certainly an instantaneous death is preferable to that. However, from what I understand (and informed readers, please correct me if I am wrong), the actual experience of the brain "shutting down" (you know you hear the stories about your life flashing before your eyes) is supposed to be one of the pleasantest experiences a human can have. When dying people make that sound -- the "death rattle" -- I'd imagine is when that shutting down process is occurring.

Dying an instantaneous may deprive one of truly enjoying their death. Though as noted, it's certainly preferable to dying a violent painful death.

Don't think I have a death fixation when reading this. Like the doctor I don't want my death to occur until much later in life. But I'm even more optimistic and hope to have 100 good years. Everything after that would be gravy.

George Washington & The French Revolution:

Apparently, like most Americans of the Founding era, he vigorously supported it (though obviously not its excesses). France was a key ally of America's in the Revolutionary War and their Revolution, at the time, was viewed by most as an extension of the American Revolution. "Liberty, Equality & Fraternity" were viewed as American as apple pie. Jefferson, in France at the time, helped write their Declaration of the Rights of Man, which, intuitively, contained ideas strikingly similar to those in America's Declaration of Independence. In short: In the ideal, both the American and French Revolutions were based on the same Enlightenment principles. And traditional orthodox Christians supported the principles or ideals of both revolutions (though obviously such Christians did not or would not have approved of how the French ended up treating traditional Christianity). Further, a key player in the Revolution, Marquis de Lafayette, was one of George Washington's closest friends.

Right now when composing this post, I've yet to read the following article from JSTOR entitled George Washington and the French Revolution. I can't access it for free from home but will do so the next day I go in to work (I'm still working every day though; I'm a college prof; it's the summer and I'm teaching online courses until the Summer B session).

Rather, I've just stumbled upon a letter George Washington wrote to the French Minister January 1, 1796, what I'm basing my claim on. I'm going to reproduce it in whole and then comment on it:

Born, Sir, in a land of liberty; having early learned its value; having engaged in a perilous conflict to defend it; having, in a word, devoted the best years of my life to secure its permanent establishment in my own country; my anxious recollections, my sympathetic feelings, and my best wishes are irresistibly excited, whensoever, in any country, I see an oppressed nation unfurl the banners of Freedom. But above all, the events of the French Revolution have produced the deepest solicitude, as well as the highest admiration. To call your nation brave, were to pronounce but common praise. Wonderful people! Ages to come will read with astonishment the history of your brilliant exploits! I rejoice, that the period of your toils and of your immense sacrifices, is approaching. I rejoice that the interesting revolutionary movements of so many years have issued in the formation of a constitution designed to give permanency to the great object for which you have contended. I rejoice that liberty, which you have so long embraced with enthusiasm, liberty, of which you have been the invincible defenders, now finds an asylum in the bosom of a regularly organized government; a government, which, being formed to secure the happiness of the French people, corresponds with the ardent wishes of my heart, while it gratifies the pride of every citizen of the United States, by its resemblance to their own. On these glorious events, accept, Sir, my sincere congratulations.

In delivering to you these sentiments, I express not my own feelings only, but those of my fellow citizens, in relation to the commencement, the progress, and the issue of the French revolution: and they will cordially join with me in purest wishes to the Supreme Being, that the citizens of our sister republic, our magnanimous allies, may soon enjoy in peace, that liberty which they have purchased at so great a price, and all the happiness which liberty can bestow.

I receive Sir, with lively sensibility, the symbol of the triumphs and of the enfranchisement of your nation, the colours of France, which you have now presented to the United States. The transaction will be announced to Congress; and the colours will be deposited with the archives of the United States, which are at once the evidences and the memorials of their freedom and independence. May these be perpetual! and may the friendship of the two republics be commensurate with their existence.

This letter clearly shows how Americans viewed the French Revolution as a continuation of the American: Sister republics founded on "liberty." One thing that strikes me about this letter is its date: January 1, 1796. By that time the French Revolution had gone seriously haywire and they had already terribly mistreated Washington's dear Lafayette.

One pattern I've noticed with Washington (frustration for those of us trying to determine his exact opinions on things) is that he constantly tries to be all things to all people and has kind words to say for all sorts of various incompatible religious and philosophical systems. Except of course, for British Toryism. And notice his use of the term "Supreme Being" was exactly as the French referred to God in all three [one, two, & three] of their Declarations of the Rights of Man, another pattern of Washington's -- using the same "God-words" that the recipients of his correspondence used. Except, when speaking to orthodox Trinitarian Christians, with whom he often corresponded and to whom he was quite friendly and approving, he never spoke in Trinitarian terms, but rather used generic God words.

Were David And Jonathan Homosexually Unionized?

That's David and Jonathan from the Bible. I think John Boswell first posited this notion. I bring this up because I noticed this claim advanced in the landmark wedding ceremony of the male priests who married in Anglican church's first gay wedding:

Mr Dudley blessed the union with the words: "As David and Jonathan's souls were knit together, so these men may surely perform and keep the vow and covenant betwixt them made."

From what I know of Boswell's work, I am not too impressed with most of his claims. As I understand his thesis in short: The Bible is a progay book and its antigay passages can be scrubbed away with proper understanding of the context. In reading what the Bible says in Leviticus and what the apostle Paul says elsewhere, I am not convinced. And neither is Wayne Dynes, the most distinguished gay historian who demurred from Boswell's thesis.

However one area where I think Boswell gets it dead on right is the story of Sodom & Gomorrah. He leaves himself open to criticism by describing the sin of Sodom as "inhospitality," clearly not the best word. But he was right insofar as a plain literal reading of the text indicates what these men did was try to gang rape two angels, that this was not ordinary consensual homosexuality. If "inhospitality" equates with the "inhospitality" shown to a fresh faced prison inmate who is gang raped as an initiation, then maybe that term is not improper. But that's not what "inhospitality" means to most folks. Also keep in mind that the Bible's text says the whole town was involved in this, and, were that so, how could the town repopulate itself it all were homosexual? Also keep in mind that the Bible's text says the whole town was involved in this, and, were that so, how could the town repopulate itself if all were homosexual? Also human nature shows that only somewhere between 3-5% of any given population are going to be exclusively or predominantly homosexual. Thus, if the whole town was involved it had to be mostly "heterosexual" men. But then again, I'm starting to deal with real world facts, and if any of the tales of the Bible seem so utterly and self-evidently unreal, it's that one.

John Corvino, not someone who wants to scrub the Bible of its antigay passages, writes a good column that pretty much parallels my point on Sodom and Gomorrah. The Bible is not pro-gay; but based on a literal, plain reading of the text, Sodom and Gomorrah by no means identifiably speaks of the kind of ordinary consensual homosexuality associated with places like San Francisco, CA. Rather it condemns the attempted brutal gang rape of strangers. And as I understand the act of homosexual prison rape, this is not at all an act that most of the time predominantly homosexual men perpetrate. Rather it's an act of violence that most of the time heterosexual men commit.

Though I agree it is wrong to try and gang rape strangers, the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah embeds this moral message in an extremely strange and as noted above self-evidently unbelievable factual context. For more on the utter bizarreness of that biblical tale, see Dr. Corvino's column.

If Boswell is right regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, it's relevant in that the term "sodomite" has historically been used to tar homosexuals. If "sodomite," properly understood, means any person -- probably a heterosexual -- who forcibly tries to have oral or anal sex with another person of either the same or opposite sex, then we should systematically purge such a term from our language when speaking of homosexuals. Indeed, even though "sodomy laws" as they existed on the books, could have, in theory, applied to ordinary homosexual acts, in America at least they were invariably used to prosecute non-consensual behavior.

But back to David & Jonathan, I am not convinced of their homosexual covenant. The following is the standard Protestant fundamentalist response well articulated by John MacArthur, though I almost entirely disagree with his worldview on these issues. It's kind of entertaining to listen to him "freak out" a little over the opposing arguments. I think his straight forward reading of the Bible is correct on what the Bible actually says except when he gets to Sodom and Gomorrah where he clearly fumbles. He notes Boswell's case that the story really isn't about ordinary homosexuality but gang rape and can't seem to answer it except note ordinary homosexuality is what Bible scholars have traditionally always associated with Sodom and Gomorrah.

Sunday Music:

Steve Morse Jammin'. One of the coolest rock-fusion virtuoso guitarists on the planet.

Recent Pics:



From left to right: Me, my Dad, my older brother Jamie, and family friend Louis "Bill" Schack -- next door neighbor while growing up and Jamie's best man & vice versa. Would you believe we are all attorneys?



This one is priceless. Bill's youngest daughter with my nephew James F. Rowe III.

Friday Night Music:

I understand this song has become very popular through one of the "Guitar Hero" games. It's Through the Fire and Flames by Dragon Force. When I first heard this song on the radio, my first reaction was "who is that?" The song is notable in that the music is virtuostic "shred" metal; but the song is really good -- a rare combination. I like Dream Theater. But they need to work on writing songs this good.

Oaths as the Smoking Gun in GW & Religion:

I'm glad to see American Creation coblogger Roger Saunders dissent on the position that Brad Hart and I have been pushing there -- that George Washington was not an orthodox Trinitarian Christian. The purpose of this blog is to engender civilized debate on these issues, not to push one particular point of view. And Washington's religious creed is disputed for good reason: Washington systematically spoke of a warm intervening Providence and used many honorific, diverse philosophical titles for God. But he never explicitly revealed his exact religious opinions on matters like original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, eternal damnation, infallibility of the Bible, etc. Therefore it's possible for many of us to "read in" a more specific creed to Washington's rather generic God template (keeping in mind, it is beyond dispute that Washington's God was an active personal God, not a distant non-intervening Watchmaker).

In making an argument for Washington's specific religious creed, one searches for "smoking guns" or "key evidence" to "settle" the issue. I've concluded there are no smoking guns in Washington's case, but rather pieces of a puzzle. Saunders invokes the same "smoking gun" that Peter Lillback and Michael and Jana Novak invoke, and that is when Washington became a vestryman and then a Godfather in the Anglican Church he took a set of oaths to God that he believed in the orthodox Trinitarian doctrines of said Church.

Now, Mr. Hart and I, following the most distinguished scholars in the historical academy, argue that Washington probably didn't believe in those Trinitarian doctrines, which touches upon a bit of controversy: many "key" Founding Fathers were affiliated with Trinitarian Churches (all of the established churches in the Founding era were Trinitarian until the 1780s, when the first church officially proclaimed itself "Unitarian" even though ministers had preached unitarianism since long before) but didn't believe in those doctrines which their church confessed.

Those who are particularly disturbed by this nuance and wish to downplay it often say something like, "if they were members of churches in whose doctrines they didn't believe, then they were hypocrites." Indeed, both the Novaks and Lillback make this argument with Washington. And in 1831 Origen Bacheler, in a classic "Christian v. Freethinker" argument over America's Founders religion, said the following about John Adams:

As John Adams was a member of a congregational church, he was either a believer in Christianity or a hypocrite. Should Mr. Owen therefore succeed in proving him to have been a skeptic, he will in so doing likewise prove him to have been a hypocrite; in which case, he would be perfectly welcome to him.

But we now know that not only was John Adams a theological unitarian since 1750, but his own minister in the New England Congregational Church preached unitarianism from the pulpit as of that date.

I don't feel the need to address the "hypocrisy" claim; I see it as a way of trying to paint scholars into a corner where they will be afraid to uncover facts about the Founders that may disturb some folks. Given the Founding Fathers owned slaves and many secular scholars routinely trash them as racist, sexist, classist, etc., I don't think the charge of "hypocrite oath breaker" is going to scare off secular historians from drawing certain conclusions about the Founders' orthodoxy.

[This is, I understand, a larger theme that plays out in the historical community: History as hagiography v. the modern tendency to "deconstruct" sacred historical cows. One of the best episodes of The Simpsons with guest Donald Sutherland satirized this theme.]

I simply stress John Adams, Jefferson and many other elite Founders were affiliated with Trinitarian Churches in whose doctrines they didn't believe to show that it was not uncommon then. For many "key Founders," it was par for the course and thus shouldn't be inconceivable that this also applied to Washington.

Regarding those "oaths," let's examine them:

I, A B, do declare that I will be conformable to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, as by law established.,

Saunders' post reproduces a longer one:

I, AB, as I do acknowledge myself a true son of the Church of England, so do I believe the articles of faith therein professed, and do oblige myself to be conformable to the doctrine and discipline therein taught and established; and that, as Vestryman of this Parish, I will well and truly perform my duty therein, being directed by the laws and customs of this country, and the canons of the Church of England, so far as they will suit our present capacity; and this I shall sincerely do, according to the best of my knowledge, skill, cunning, without fear, favor, or partiality; so help me God.

George Washington signed the vestryman oath for Fairfax Parish in Alexandria on August 19, 1765 according to PICTORIAL FIELD BOOK OF THE REVOLUTION. VOLUME II, by BENSON J. LOSSING, 1850, Chapter 8, Footnote 30.

The most important of the many doctrines taught by the Church of England are found in the 39 Articles of Religion as they existed when the oaths were taken. In a past post I focused on Article XXV: Of the Sacraments to show these articles command believers to take communion and systematically refusing such arguably violates those oaths.

But there is perhaps an even bigger issue to confront: Vestryman oaths, on the whole, pledge the oath taker not simply to orthodox Trinitarian Christianity but high Church Anglicanism and are extremely Toryish. Bishop Meade in Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, Volume II, pp. 41-42 details the oath of allegiance Vestrymen in VA had to take:

"I. Oath of Allegiance.

"I, A. B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty King George the Second, so help me God."

[...]

"II. Oath of Allegiance.

"I, A. B., do truly and sincerely acknowledge and promise, testify and declare, in my conscience, before God and the world, that our sovereign Lord, King George the Second, is lawful and rightful King of this realm and all other his Majesty's dominions and countries hereunto belonging...."

Peter Lillback to his credit, gives this information in the footnotes on pp. 1043 of "George Washington's Sacred Fire"; however, he completely misses the issue that these oaths are part of a covenant to the divine right of King George II to rule not just England but America (I know we were under a new King when rebellion actually took place; I'm not sure if that works as a "loophole"). Again, this was Tory, high church Anglican doctrine to which Washington pledged an oath before God. And indeed, many American Anglican colonists remained Tory loyalists precisely because they took similar oaths and believed they had a Christian duty to remain loyal to the King. If we take these oaths too literally, we might be forced to conclude that Washington violated his vestryman oaths by not just engaging in but leading a rebellion against said King to whom he pledged loyalty.

Primary Sources on GW & Religion:

Christian America apologist blogger "Hercules Mulligan" reproduces from google books key testimony on the debate regarding George Washington's religion. I linked to those same primary sources here. He reproduces the very long debates between freethinker Robert Dale Owen and conservative Christian Origen Bacheler. The information produced in these debates ended up playing a key role in establishing that Washington was not an orthodox Trinitarian Christian but "something else." I entirely disagree with the blogger's analysis and won't reproduce all of it, but instead will reproduce the primary sources. Let me briefly respond to his analysis before I do. He notes Dr. Abercrombie's (George Washington's own minister) case against Washington's orthodox Christianity turns on the fact that GW systematically avoided communion, but points out that taking communion is not one of the essentials of "real Christianity." The blogger essentially states that communion is irrelevant to "Christ only" Protestant Christianity, which the blogger assumes arguendo is the only "real" form of "Christianity." As he writes:

Abercrombie gave the usual Anglican explanation: you can't have God's grace imparted to you without the communion, and since Washington was not a communicant, he didn't have God's grace. However, a biblical understanding of the matter does not support Abercrombie's (or the theological Anglican) opinion. The Bible says that grace comes only through faith in Jesus Christ (see, for instance, Paul's epistles). Therefore, I believe that Abercrombie's conclusion is inaccurate.

Therefore, since he sees no evidence that GW rejected Christianity in the "Christ only" sense, GW remains a "real Christian" in his eyes. What the blogger fails to address is that little if *any* evidence establishes GW as a "Christian" in the traditional orthodox sense apart from his being a devout Anglican/Episcopalian! (The syllogism is as follows: 1. Anglicans believe in orthodox Trinitarian doctrine; 2. GW was a devoted Anglican; therefore 3. GW was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian.) Devout Anglicans, however, according to their doctrine, expressed their faith in the Atonement by engaging in communion. Those who systematically rejected communion in the Founding era usually did so because they rejected what communion symbolized: "Christ's Atonement." Therefore, GW's systematic avoidance of communion almost certainly signified either or both of the following: 1. that GW disbelieved in the Atonement; and/or 2. that GW was a nominal Anglican. If GW was a "nominal Anglican" who nonetheless believed in the fundamentals of "orthodox Christianity," the burden is on the blogger to so demonstrate entirely without any appeal to GW's affiliation with and consequently his belief in the doctrines of the Anglican/Episcopal Church! The problem is he can't because Washington never explicitly endorsed belief in doctrines like original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, infallibility of the Bible, etc. His supposed belief in such doctrines is invariably tied to his being a devout Anglican/Episcopalian. And his systematic avoidance of communion in said church belies his being a "devout" as opposed to "nominal" Anglican/Episcopalian.

Anyway the following is key testimony in the primary sources from Robert Dale Owen, Origen Bacheler, Rev. Dr. James Abercrombie, and James Renwick Willson (who is referred to as "Rev." or "Dr." "Wilson").

... The sentence from Weems' Life of Washington, produced by Mr. Owen is shown by its style to have been only designed as a sally of fancy. A wonderful reason this, for rejecting as false the grave, historical part of the account. As to Jefferson's testimony touching the skepticism of Washington, he has given none such: he did none pretend to be the author of it; nor did Morris pretend that Washington told him he did not believe in Christianity. And the statement of Jefferson, that Washington in his public documents spake favourably of Christianity but once, I have amply refuted, by extracts from the documents themselves. That the Rev. Mr. Jackson, more than thirty years after the death of Washington, has not chanced to find any of the few surviving scattered individuals who communed with him, (if indeed any are still living,) is about as strong evidence of his skepticism, as that he did not deliver a long Christian valedictory in his dying hour, when he could hardly articulate a syllable on account of his quincy. I have proved positively that he was a professor of religion; that he was a communicant; that he was in the habit of secret prayer, &c. &c.: and I have now only to add, that if he cannot be proved to have been a believer in Christianity, no man can.

I do not perceive the irrationality of the question proposed by Ethan Allen's daughter to her father. She very naturally concluded that if he would give his real opinion at such a time, and if that opinion was, that infidelity would not do to die by, it would be a reason why it should not be confided in at all, and would likewise show that the reasons which her father had urged in its behalf were unsound even in his own estimation. It was therefore the highest rationality, to put this question precisely under the circumstances that she did.

Jefferson might construe that into skepticism which perhaps another would not. As John Adams was a member of a congregational church, he was either a believer in Christianity or a hypocrite. Should Mr. Owen therefore succeed in proving him to have been a skeptic, he will in so doing likewise prove him to have been a hypocrite; in which case, he would be perfectly welcome to him. Considering, however, the mistakes to which Jefferson was liable, and the testimony furnished in Rev. Mr. Whitney's letter, I rest very easy on this point.

Franklin's case will do very well without further defence, while his epitaph remains, and his condemnation of his youthful skepticism retains a place in his memoirs.

My opponent has made a rather slim work, in his attempt to substantiate his assertion, that three quarters in our revolutionary struggle were sceptics. Ethan Allen was not a leader, unless there were a great many leaders; for he was only a colonel. Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and Patrick Henry, three of the most conspicuous leaders, were decided friends of Christianity. This will not be disputed. Washington and John Adams were communicants in churches. Franklin shows himself to have been a believer in the Bible. And there were many other distinguished leaders, such as Laurens, Gates, Greene, Putnam, Montgomery, Warren, &c., &c., none of whom has my opponent even attempted to prove have been sceptics. What then becomes of his assertion? ... ORIGEN BACHELER.

... R. D. O.

Albany, November 12, 1831.

P.S. I am now enabled to furnish two further documents relative to the private opinions of distinguished republicans. One is, an extract from a sermon delivered on the 23rd October last by Rev. Dr. Wilson, a clergyman of Albany, and reputed to be a man of as much zeal and learning as any in the city; a sermon, I may incidentally remark, in which Dr. W. says, in speaking of the framing of the Constitution of the United States, that "the proceedings as published by Thompson, the secretary, show, that the question was gravely debated in Congress whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and after solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it;" that "the men whose arguments swayed to vote God out of the Constitution, to declare that there should be no religious test, and that Congress should make no law to establish religion, were atheists in principle; that among our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than unitarianism;* that among all of the governors of Pennsylvania and New-York only two of the former and one of the latter were professors of religion. &c." In this sermon, as reported in the Daily Advertiser of this city (of the 29th October last) occurs the following paragraph:

"Washington was a man of valour and wisdom. He was esteemed by the whole world as a great and good man, but he was not a professor of religion, at least not till after he was president. When the Congress sat in Philadelphia, President Washington attended the episcopal church. the rector, Dr. Abercrombie, has told me, that on the days when the sacrament of the Lord's supper was to be administered, Washington's custom was to rise, just before the ceremony commenced, and to walk out of the church. This became a subject of remark among the congregation, as setting a bad example. At length the doctor undertook to speak of it, with a direct allusion to the president. Washington was heard afterwards to remark, that this was the first time a clergyman had thus preached to him, and that he would henceforth neither trouble the doctor nor his congregation on such occasions. And ever after that, upon communion days, he absented himself altogether from the church."

As this important paragraph, being only from a newspaper report of a sermon, could hardly be considered authentic, I myself called, accompanied by a gentleman of this city, on Dr. Wilson, this afternoon. After giving my name, and stating the object of my visit, I read to the doctor, at his request, the above paragraph. When I had completed, he said: "I endorse every word of that." He further added: "As I conceive that truth is truth, whether it makes for or against us, I will not conceal from you any information on this subject, even such as I have not yet given to the public. At the close of our conversation on the subject, Dr. Abercrombie's emphatic expression was, for I well remember the very words, 'Sir, Washington was a deist!'" "Now," continued Dr. Wilson, "I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges himself as a professor of Christianity. I think any man who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a deist, and nothing more. I do not take upon myself to say positively that he was, but that is my opinion."

Dr. Abercrombie, the associate of Bishop White in the pastoral care of Christ's Church in Philadelphia, is now alive, to corroborate the statement of his brother clergyman. So much for WASHINGTON, of whom you say, if he cannot be proved a Christian, no human being can.

...

The admissions of opponents are, as you once reminded me, "so much pure gold." I therefore the more willingly adduce so unquestionable authority. R. D. O.

*John Adams and his son, he thinks, were unitarians; in inquired himself, he said, of Madison what were his opinions on religion, and Madison "evaded any expression whatever of his religious faith;" of Monroe's opinions, he says, he knows little, except that he never heard of any religious profession from him; and Jackson, he believes, though not a regular professor either, is the most religious president we have ever had.

O. B. ...

"With regard to the Postscript of Mr. Owen from Albany, I have to observe, that I have dispatch three letters to the Rev. Dr. Wilson, requesting him to give the names of those atheists whose arguments swayed the Convention that formed the Constitution of the United States to vote the name of God out of it; but no answer have I succeeded in getting from him. This assertion of the doctor must therefore pass for an unsustained one. Indeed, in the very next breath, in the sermon under consideration, he contradicts it by saying, that some of the men were deists. So much for his testimony on that point. Besides, the fact that a religious test is excluded from the Constitution, is no proof that its framers were not even Christians. I have received a letter from Rev. Dr. Abercrombie; but as he wishes not to appear before the public in print, I shall not insert it. I will only say, that he denies all recollection of having told Rev. Dr. Wilson that Washington was a deist, and says it was evidence he was a professing Christian, though he did not commune in his church. The following additional testimony relative to the religious character of Washington I have received from Rev. Mr. Jackson of Alexandria:

Alexandria, Nov. 22, 1831

'I have heard my grandfather, the Rev. Lee Massey, who was a rector of Pohick Church, near Mount Vernon, say, that General Washington was a communicant in his church. The above information was given in answer to a question after returning from Pohick Church, where I occupied the general's pew. The substance of the grandfather's reply was, that he (the general) was a communicant, and that a better Christian never lived or died. MARGARET M. GREER

DEAR SIR,

Your letter found me in the bustle of changing my residence. I have however given it my attention. The above certificate is the best information I can at present obtain, and ought to be sufficient. Mrs. Greer is a very respectable lady, and may be depended upon. A daughter of the Rev. Mr. Massey is expected in town, from whome I have the hope of obtaining some of General Washington's letters.

The parish of Pohick has not had a rector, I believe, since the general's death. He afterwards attended in Alexandria. This accounts for the church not giving the evidence which you desire.

I beg you will make use of me again, should the case require.

Yours very respectfully,

WILLIAM JACKSON

[To] Mr. Origen Bacheler, New-York.

Alexandria, Dec. 7, 1831.

DEAR SIR,

I am sorry, after so long a delay in replying to your last, that it is not in my power to communicate something decisive in reference to General Washington's church membership. The branch of the family from whom I hoped to obtain information, are yet absent from Mount Vernon on account of sickness, and I now begin to think it doubtful whether they will be there this winter. Nor can I find any old person who ever communed with him, though not one expresses any doubt on the subject. It may seem strange that none can certify the fact; but it is not difficult to account for, when we remember, that the parish to which he belonged has not had a rector for, perhaps, thirty years; that the number of the communicants in the episcopal churches after the revolution was very small, and those probably, in general, persons advanced in years; and further, that none of the church records can be found. All these circumstances render it exceedingly difficult to obtain such testimony as is desirable. Universal tradition in the families of those whose parents or friends were acquainted with the general, is, that he was a regular communicant.

I may say again, that all his relations in this part of the country are decidedly of opinion that he was a professed and real Christian, and in full standing as a member of the protestant episcopal church. I regret that the pains I have taken to gain satisfactory evidence have not been more successful, though I think it ought and will be deemed sufficient by all but such as are determined to believe, that they have the sanction of his great name on the side of infidelity.

Wishing you may be more successful in some other quarter,

With respect yours,

WILLIAM JACKSON

[To] Mr. Origen Bacheler, New-York.

" ... In view of the foregoing, the reader will see what dependence is to be placed on the pretensions and assertions of sceptics with regard to the religious opinions of our other distinguished men. Could the inquiry be made, we have now fair grounds for concluding, that it would result in their cases as it has resulted in those now under consideration. I have but to add by way of conclusion, that it appears by the Evangelist, that Rev. Dr. Wilson is an opposer of revivals in religion. This circumstance will have its proper weight with the public, whenever they think of his concessions to Mr. Owen.

ORIGEN BACHELER.

The blogger did edit with ellipses: "...". However, his edits were on point. The final primary source to reproduce is Dr. Abercrombie's (Washington's minister!) letter where he states because GW avoided communion, he wasn't a "real Christian." The original can be found here.

[O]n Sacrament Sundays, Gen'l Washington, immediately after the Desk and Pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation, always leaving Mrs. Washington with the communicants, she invariably being one, I considered it my duty, in a sermon on Public Worship, to sate the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations, who invariably turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President, and, as such, he received it. A few days after, in conversation with, I believe, a Senator of the U. S., he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who, in the course of conversation at the table, said, that on the preceding Sunday, he had received a very just reproof from the public, for always leaving the church before the administration of the Sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candour; that he had never considered the influence of his example; that he would never again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never become a communicant, were he to become one then, it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal arising altogether from his elevated station. Accordingly, he afterwards never came on the morning of Sacrament Sundays, tho', at other times, constant attending in the morning.

Of the assertion made by Dr. Wilson in the conclusion of a paragraph of your letter, I cannot say I have not the least recollection of such a conversation, but had I made use of the expression stated, it could not have extended father than the expression of private individual opinion. That Washington was a professing Christian is evident from his regular attendance in our church; but, Sir, I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a channel of divine grace. This, Sir, is all that I think it proper to state on paper. In a conversation, more latitude being allowed, more light might, perhaps, be thrown upon it. I trust, however, Sir, you will not introduce my name in print.

I am, Sir,

Yrs.

James Abercrombie

If I can comment on the overall tone of the exchange: Many of the folks who want to claim Washington as a "Christian" express their hope to do so because they don't want him to be categorized as an "infidel." This illustrates the social prejudice of the early 19th Century: America's key Founders were secret unitarians and that doctrine, according to Founding era cultural prejudice, was viewed as a softer form of "infidelity." However, as has been shown, many of these "Christian" key Founders did indeed believe in softer, "unitarian" infidel principles. For instance, the conservative Christian in the debate, Origin Bacheler, notes, "John Adams and his son, he thinks, were unitarians," and "[a]s John Adams was a member of a congregational church, he was either a believer in Christianity or a hypocrite. Should Mr. Owen therefore succeed in proving him to have been a skeptic, he will in so doing likewise prove him to have been a hypocrite." But we know that the "Christian" John Adams was, like Jefferson, a self-defined "unitarian" who rejected original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, infallibility of the Bible, and eternal damnation. If this means Adams was a "skeptic" and not a "Christian" then Owen was right on Adams. According to this standard which deems hypocrisy as being affiliated with a church in whose doctrines one doesn't believe, if Washington didn't believe in the Anglican's doctrine on communion, as Hercules Mulligan intimates, then Washington was a "hypocrite" as well.

But, in any respect, the evidence that Washington was an "orthodox Trinitarian Christian" is utterly lacking, and Washington's words and deeds, rather strongly point in the direction of his belief in a different system.

"Unitarianism" v. "unitarianism":

I agree with my American Creation coblogger Brad Hart's post on "unitarianism" as the descriptive religion of America's key Founders (it was the political theology of the American Founding). He is absolutely right that an "enlightened" preacher like Charles Chauncy, who was both a theological unitarian and a universalist, spoke more to America's key Founders than did Jonathan Edwards, the prototypical Calvinist orthodox Christian theologian of that era.

However I must caution Hart about using the capital "U" when he speaks of "Unitarianism." (I know spell check tells you to capitalize it.) When we call America's key Founders -- Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, & Franklin -- "Unitarians" and capitalize the "U," invariably some critic will take that out of context and note these Founders weren't members of "Unitarian" Churches. Washington, Jefferson and Madison were all likely "unitarians" in their theology, but none was a member of a "Unitarian" Church; all were affiliated with the Anglican/Episcopal Church.

Even John Adams, who was a "Congregationalist," testified his own church preached "unitarianism" as of 1750 and that he was one since that time. But I don't believe they were an official "Unitarian" Church until the early 19th Century.

Gary North notes this difference between unitarianism and Unitarianism in his Ebook. They were "unitarians," not necessarily "Unitarians." Likewise what Dr. Gregg Frazer terms "theistic rationalism" has unitarianism as an element (along with theism, Arminianism, universalim, syncretism, and rationalism; and by the way, this system with those elements was likely to present itself under the auspices of "rational Christianity" or "unitarian Christianity"; indeed Charles Chauncy presented himself as a "Christian minister" in a Congregational Church). That might be one reason why "theistic rationalism" is preferable to "unitarianism." But I use both terms interchangeably and sometimes write to purposefully alert the audience that the two terms are interchangeable; at least they are not inconsistent with one another, similar to how one can be a "Calvinist" and an "orthodox Christian" at the same time. Or how one can be a "Thomist" and a "Roman Catholic."

Notable News:

Talk2Action asked me to post to their front page my post on Gary North's E-Book. The front page has included such notables as Barry Lynn, Susan Jacoby, Sarah Posner, Max Blumenthal, Frank Schaeffer, and of course my friend Ed Brayton.

They are more secular left-progressive in their politics; I am more a soft-secular minded libertarian. However, we agree on the need to combat Christian Nationalist historical revisionism and if I post more in the future there, it will be about that.

More on "Christian America" as a Social Myth and Historical Standards:

I want to thank historian/blogger Clayton Cramer for getting the word out to his very traditionalist conservative readers on the "unconfirmed quotations" of the Founding Fathers in the primary sources. I noted in my last post I think the kernel of truth that David Barton et al. get at is if you go back one hundred and some odd years ago a lot of folks really did believe in the Christian America myth. Many do today, but they don't write respectable works of history or schoolbooks. This is one of Barton's talking points: School books in the 1800s used to teach ideas like mine but we don't do that anymore and we should.

I've debated a number of these Christian America apologists who really believe that in the 1800s and early 1900s history was more "accurate" and the secularists of the 20th Century have "stolen" history from them. This is a ridiculous claim. History, if anything, is far more accurate in the modern era. History, like medicine, is an evolving science that depends on increasing information. We know much more now, in a purely factual sense, than we did one hundred years ago.

The following anecdote should illustrate just how superior history is now than to the 1800s. For instance, the following is a fragment of a PROPOSED ADDRESS TO CONGRESS that I've seen some folks offer for evidence of Washington's orthodox Christianity (if you read further you see GW mentioning "The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God"). Washington never used this address and as a "fragment," it's an incomplete document. But read the editor's explanation for why this document may only exist in fragmentary form:

Note: This document now exists in fragmentary form only. The first pages are missing. Apparently intended as Washington's inaugural address, or as his first annual message to Congress, it was discarded and not used. Jared Sparks, finding that the document had no official existence, did as be had done in other instances (specifically the Washington "Diaries"), split up the document and presented pages and cuttings of pages to his friends. The complete manuscript was more than 62 pages in length, Washington having numbered each page himself. It was most carefully written and evidently was considered of importance at the time it was inscribed. Some of the widely separated pages bear Sparks's initialed statement that this is Washington's handwriting, and on the margin of page 33 Sparks has written "Washington's handwriting, but not his composition. J. S." Comment is needless. It is extremely doubtful that the complete document can ever be recovered.

Jared Sparks was the President of Harvard and a very distinguished historian and intellectual for his day. But could you imagine a present day historian doing something so utterly incompetent? I suppose historians today do do things that are this bad. But when found out they are rightly disciplined. Clayton Cramer himself helped to bring down an Emory historian for his incompetence or downright fraudulence. I don't think Sparks' behavior caused any controversy because it was probably par for the course in the early 19th Century.

Likewise Parson Weems, a well respected biographer of George Washington in his day, made stories up out of whole-cloth about GW, most famously the cherry tree myth, but also stories about Washington's supposed piety.

We see this pandering to the Christian America social myth with American Vision (and other sources like Townhall and WorldNetDaily) selling a book from 1864 entitled "The Christian Life & Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States." You don't need to buy it from them; you can download it for free.

As could be expected from any history book written in 1864, it's riddled with factual errors. In five minutes of perusing I noticed the book begins with one of those "unconfirmed quotations," and recites Parson Weems' fraudulent account of George Washington's death. This may have been acceptable according to 1864 standards of historiography, but not present day standards. If you read the book with a grain of salt and not judge it by present day standards, it could be a fun and informative read. But if Christian America apologists think this book, standing alone, will win them a factual or historical argument, they are in for a rude awakening.

Gary North's Ebook:

Every year, out of tradition, I do a post promoting the following E-Book by Gary North entitled "Conspiracy In Philadelphia."

North is a Christian Reconstructionist in whose first best world, the civil law would impose Old Testament style punishments. This is obviously totally anathema to me. However, the book itself is well researched and argued with impressive historiography. You might expect such a book to rely only on extremist sources (and indeed, there are citations to RJ Rushdoony, et al., but usually to argue against their claim that the US Constitution is consistent with Christian Reconstructionism). In addition to primary sources, North relies on the work of the most well respected members of the historical community -- Bailyn, Wood, Mcdonald, Gaustad, Boller, Koch, Adair, & Rakove to name a few.

The thesis of the book is that the key US Founders -- the ones who pushed through the ideas upon which America declared independence and then constructed the Constitution -- were secret theological unitarians, whose heterodox religious creed inspired them to found American government upon the notion of religious neutrality and consequently break the tradition of covenanting with the Triune Christian God. His book focuses on Article VI Clause 3 of the US Constitution ("no religious tests") as the device for achieving "secular government."

From what I have researched, North is correct in his essential claim. Other scholars have noted something similar. For instance, in this post I noted Thomas Pangle and Cushing Stout, whose work North cites, concluding that there is a connection between the US Constitution's benign approach to religion and the key Founders' enlightened and benign personal religious creed. Indeed, one could argue, as does Dr. Gregg Frazer, that the Founders' unitarianism or theistic rationalism was the "political theology" of the American Founding.

Ideas have consequences and it was these heterodox unitarian ideas, not orthodox Christianity, that drove the US Founding's approach to religion and government. However, such heterodoxy or heresy wasn't a popular creed, but rather was disproportionately believed in by the elite Whigs. Whatever the religion of a majority of the US population (either nominal Protestant Christianity, which itself can tend towards "Deism," or orthodox Protestant Christianity) orthodox Churches held a great deal of institutional power. With such power, they had to essentially "consent" to the elite Whig's new plan on government. And they did. But not all of them. For instance, the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (Covenanters) to whom North dedicates his book. From the very beginning they "smelled a rat in Philadelphia."

So the notion that there was a secret coup, a "bait and switch" as Michael Zuckert put it, to "sell" a Christian audience non-authentically Christian ideas is not new. James Renwick Willson was one of those covenanters who in 1832 made arguments very similar to North's. And he was burned in effigy for this sermon which called all of the Presidents from Washington to Jackson "infidels" and not more than "unitarians." I think Willson got at the truth, but did so by shattering a sacred cow -- a social myth. The kernel of truth that David Barton et al. have is that many folks in the 19th Century did believe in the "Christian America" social myth as a cultural prejudice. And many of their bogus, unconfirmed quotations source back to 19th Century places that pushed this social myth.

Now the non-respectable has become the respectable and secular scholars more or less agree with the claims of James Renwick Willson and Gary North that America didn't have an authentically "orthodox Christian" Founding.

Anyway the following are some of North's amusing reactions. He reacts to the US Constitution the way a hard core theocrat should.

On Jefferson's and Adams' personal religious beliefs:

In their old age, Adams and Jefferson renewed their friendship in a long correspondence that lasted for more than a decade. Their letters reveal that they were almost totally agreed on religion. They hated Christianity, especially Calvinism....After surveying their letters, Cushing Strout concludes: “Whatever their political differences, Jefferson and Adams were virtually at one in their religion.” Strout identifies the creed of this religion: unitarianism. pp. 140-41.

On James Madison:

James Madison was a covenant-breaking genius, and the heart and soul of his genius was his commitment to religious neutralism. He devised a Constitution that for two centuries has fooled even the most perceptive Christian social philosophers of each generation into thinking that Madison was not what he was: a unitarian theocrat whose goal was to snuff out the civil influence of the trinitarian churches whenever they did not support his brainchild. For two centuries, his demonic plan has worked. pp. 374-75.

On George Washington and his avoidance of communion:

Here was the strange situation: George Washington was formally a communicant church member who systematically refused to take communion. The institutional problem here was the unwillingness of church authorities to apply formal church sanctions. Any church member who refuses to take communion has thereby excommunicated himself. A refusal to take communion or a prohibition against one’s taking communion is what excommunication means. Self-excommunication is excommunication, just as surely as suicide is first-degree murder. Nevertheless, the churches to which Washington belonged did not take official action against him by either requiring him to take communion or by publicly excommunicating him. It was this disciplinary failure on the part of these churches that led to the public legitimizing of Washington as a Christian. This failure later indirectly legitimized the Constitution that he conspired to impose on the nation. Without Washington’s support of the actions of the Convention, the Constitution would never have been ratified. But Washington was deemed either too powerful or too sacrosanct to bring under church discipline. pp. 160-61.

Jaffa on Thomas Jefferson's Religion:

Timothy Sandefur emails me the following from Harry V. Jaffa's Crisis of the House Divided. This quotation not only aptly sums up Jefferson's personal views as well as the theology of the Declaration of Independence, but also, in my learned opinion, with slight variation, what America's other key Founders -- Washington, J. Adams, Madison & Franklin -- believed in:

"While he repeatedly exhorted men to the ethic of Christianity--as he understood it--(Jefferson) never concealed his detestation of the theology of its churches.... Although Jefferson is the arch-apostle of religious freedom, there is no question but that he hoped and believed the effect of religious freedom would be a withering away of credence in all, or nearly all, revealed theology. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that, for Jefferson, such an attrition of what he was pleased to call superstition was essential if men were to claim their natural rights and republican freedom was to endure. The preamble to the Declaration of Independence invokes not the God of Israel or the persons of the Trinity but the God of Nature and is wholly a document of the rationalistic tradition. This God reveals himself, not in thunder from Sinai, nor through any gift of faith, inspiration, or private judgment upon sacred scriptures. He reveals himself through "self-evident" truths; i.e., through the unassisted processes of ratiocination."

P. 229

War, Christianity & Liberal Democracy:

The recent spike in oil prices and drop in the stock market prompted witty Volokh Conspiracy commenter Bruce M to remark: "I thought we were trading blood for oil. We got ripped off on that deal."

No doubt oil was some kind of big tangential issue to recent war in Iraq (it was a bigger issue in the first Iraq War -- the successful one). However, this war most certainly was not chiefly about oil. If it were, we would have just tried to take it.

The war was actually about the misguided desire to spread democracy at the point of a gun, something in which Bush's Straussian advisors strongly believe. And though Bush isn't a Straussian, I genuinely believe he genuinely believes liberal democratic rights are God ordained; thus his fanaticism/idealism (whichever term you prefer) on establishing democracy in Iraq. I've read Strauss and have blogged quite a bit about the tension (of which the Straussians are aware) between traditional Christianity (the kind Bush believes in) and liberal democratic theory (ala the theology of the Declaration of Independence).

One point I've taken from Straussians like Allan Bloom (Paul Wolfowitz's mentor) is that average folks or the "gentlemen" leaders like Bush probably aren't sophisticated enough to appreciate the tension between Christianity and liberal democratic theory; so just sell them a "synthesis" -- convince them their Christian God grants the liberal democratic rights found in the Declaration of Independence. Something similar occurred during the US and French Revolution. Yes the French Revolution. I know the term "Jacobin" has been levied at Bush and his neocon advisors. And it seems strange that a movement -- Jacobinism -- that was associated with the secular/anti-Christian fanaticism of the French Revolution is associated with a traditional conservative Christian like Bush. But, many traditional orthodox Trinitarian Christians supported the French Revolution and saw it as the dawning of a new millennium of the "rights of man." This is what non-orthodox Christians like Joseph Priestley and Richard Price believed. But there were also traditional Christians like Ezra Stiles, former President of Yale, who were just as zealous and fanatical Francophiles.

Nussbaum on "The Rights of Conscience":

I just got Martha Nussbaum's book, Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America's Tradition of Religious Equality. It looks to be a great read. And given her weight as a preeminent public intellectual, it's must reading for any serious student of the philosophy behind the religion clauses of America's Constitution.

From what I've read so far, I agree with her notion (something I've long trumpeted on the blogsphere) that equality-neutrality is the driver behind the Establishment Clause. This is important because in order for the Clause to properly incorporate and bind state and local governments (something which Justice Thomas and a few others have raised powerful reasons as to why it should not) it must relate to "rights," and equality is that right.

Yale law professor Akhil Amar made a similar point in his seminal book on the Bill of Rights, that even if the Establishment Clause doesn't properly incorporate, the Equal Protection Clause could still do much of what the Court currently has the Establishment Clause doing because it is equality rights that the Clause vindicates.

This notion of equal respect for citizens without regard to religious belief is paramount. Christian fundamentalists, Hindus and atheists all take their rights on an equal basis and are entitled to be viewed as equal citizens.

"Separation" in and of itself is not a "constitutional value" about which the religion clauses should be concerned. There may be some practical reasons as to why Church & State ought to be separated in particular circumstances -- avoiding entanglements, keeping religion pure from corrupt secular interests -- but it is always equal rights that should drive Establishment Clause inquiries, not "separation." Though the result may well be "separation." For instance, "under God" is not neutral and does not treat atheists or polytheists like equal citizens. Therefore, if this theory is taken thus far, under God should be taken out of the Pledge Of Allegiance because it does not treat its citizens equally along religious lines.

Princeton Provost Christopher Eisgruber and Dean of the University of Texas School of Law Lawrence Sager make a similar argument in their book Religious Freedom and the Constitution.

Finally, the University of Chicago Law blog features a lecture that Nussbaum recently gave on her thesis. Her research focuses extensively on Roger Williams (the man who coined the term "Separation of Church and State") as the originator of liberty and equality of conscience. It's amazing how such a fanatical orthodox Christian as Williams speaks to such a modern secular liberal as Nussbaum.

Nussbaum's book also answers Philip Hamburger's attempt to deconstruct the notion of Separation. Hamburger also explores Roger Williams as the originator of the phrase "separation of church and state" but tries to show how anathematic Williams' views were. And indeed, they were. When Williams first argued his case for secular government, theocracy was the prevailing norm in the American Colonies and the Puritan theocrats in Massachusetts banished Williams to found Rhode Island. Originators of world changing concepts (like secular government and religious liberty and equality) invariably start out as anathematic radicals.

Kid Who Kill Sitcoms:

When you add a little kid to a well established sitcom, you know it's over for the show. I came across this because it linked to a post I did on Robert Reed's pedantry. Still, it's kind of cool. What strikes me is that a number of the killer kids -- Leonardo DiCaprio, Ralph Macchio, and Janet Jackson -- ended up much bigger and more important that the original shows they killed.

More on Why Washington Was Likely Not An Orthodox Christian:

At the American Creation, we've gotten some comments skeptical of the claim that GW was not a "orthodox Christian." Arguing the claim, Brad has, after David L. Holmes, stressed among other things that GW was not confirmed, that he didn't take communion in his church, as well as the fact that he didn't talk like an orthodox Trinitarian Christian, but rather spoke almost exclusively in generic terms for God. It's true that one need not take communion, be confirmed or even be a member of a church to qualify as a "Christian" in the orthodox Protestant "Christ only" sense. The problem is, the case for GW's Christianity rests almost entirely on his being a devoted member of the Anglican or Episcopal Church. And that he was not confirmed and systematically avoided communion in said Church gives strong reason to doubt he was anything other than a nominal member of the Church who saw "religion" as a "social duty" and not a set of orthodox doctrines like original sin, the trinity, incarnation, and blood atonement of Christ. In fact, one reason why we skeptical scholars doubt Washington was an orthodox Christian was because he didn't publicly confess that he were one, or speak like one at all.

The closest thing to a "confession" of orthodoxy GW made was in the form of oaths he was forced to take in order to achieve certain ends -- 1) becoming a vestryman and 2) a Godfather. Yet, those were not oaths to "Christ only" Protestant Christianity, but to high church Anglicanism. The vestrymen oaths required him both to commune and to remain loyal to the King of England. The acts of refusing to commune and rebelling against England itself arguably violated those oaths which supposedly prove his orthodoxy.

Why is the matter important at all? Well, in case you haven't noticed those folks who most zealously try to "claim" Washington as a Christian also have a fairly narrow (but one that is arguably justified in historical terms) understanding of "Christianity." "Christianity" means belief in the infallibility of the Bible along with the traditional doctrines of orthodoxy found in places like the Apostles' Creed -- i.e., original sin, the trinity, incarnation, blood atonement of Christ, resurrection, etc.

Other than the above mentioned perfunctory oaths to high-church Anglicanism, GW never confessed orthodoxy and his language gives strong reason to doubt that he was one such "Christian." In fact, the historical record shows GW rarely even identified as a "Christian." Peter Lillback could marshal only one letter from 1763 where Washington explicitly identifies as a Christian. In a number of other letters Washington speaks of "the Christians" in the third person.

For instance:

“I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church, that road to Heaven, which to them shall seem the most direct, plainest, easiest, and least liable to exception.”

Or:

“I was in hopes, that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far, that we should never again see their [my emphasis] religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of Society.”

There are some references where he speaks to his troops as "Christian" in a "we" sense; but the idea that GW thought of himself as a "Christian" in some broad, loose sense is entirely compatible with my thesis. Founders like Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin also thought of themselves as "Protestant Christians," and were more likely to present their heterodox theological ideas under the auspices of "Christianity" not "Deism." They thought of it as "rational Christianity" and such rejected among other things original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement and infallibility of the Bible. Here Franklin argues true Christianity rejects original sin:

But lest they shou’d imagine that one of their strongest Objections hinted at here, and elsewhere, is designedly overlook’d, as being unanswerable, viz. our lost and undone State by Nature, as it is commonly call’d, proceeding undoubtedly from the Imputation of old Father Adam’s first Guilt. To this I answer once for all, that I look upon this Opinion every whit as ridiculous as that of Imputed Righteousness. ’Tis a Notion invented, a Bugbear set up by Priests (whether Popish or Presbyterian I know not) to fright and scare an unthinking Populace out of their Senses, and inspire them with Terror, to answer the little selfish Ends of the Inventors and Propagators. ’Tis absurd in it self, and therefore cannot be father’d upon the Christian Religion as deliver’d in the Gospel. Moral Guilt is so personal a Thing, that it cannot possibly in the Nature of Things be transferr’d from one Man to Myriads of others, that were no way accessary to it. And to suppose a Man liable to Punishment upon account of the Guilt of another, is unreasonable; and actually to punish him for it, is unjust and cruel.

Why are the opinions of Franklin et al. relevant? Because Washington never explicitly identified his exact theological opinions other than constantly speaking of a warm intervening Providence, we must turn to other sources for a proxy. Peter Lillback et al. turn to the teachings of the Anglican/Episcopalian church to which GW belonged for such a proxy. But that church at that time was filled with nominal members who disbelieved in its orthodox doctrines. They were the one's who, like George Washington got up, walked out, and turned their backs on communion.

John Marshall was one such nominal Anglican. And here is his daughter's testimony on why he didn't commune.

The reason why he never communed was, that he was a Unitarian in opinion, though he never joined their society. He told her he believed in the truth of the Christian Revelation, but not in the divinity of Christ; therefore he could not commune in the Episcopal Church.

The theological connection between unitarianism and not communing is that communion represents Christ's blood atonement and you need an Incarnate God to make such an infinite sacrifice to pay for man's original sin against an infinite God. Original sin, the trinity, incarnation, and atonement all rise and fall together. And notice, as with Franklin's quote above, how such "unitarianism" tried to present itself under the auspices of "Christianity," not "Deism." But ultimately, the deists and unitarians in the Church were the ones who didn't commune because they didn't believe in what the act stood for.

We also have Washington speaking positively on a number of occasions about "Christianity." And a critic implores us to investigate "[w]hen Washington told his troops that he desired the character of a Christian from them, what did he mean?" The answer is every single time Washington ever spoke of "Christianity" in the positive sense he invariably equated it with virtue or its utilitarian or positive civilizational effects and NOT with orthodox doctrine like original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, infallibility of the Bible, etc. In short, to be a "Christian" was to be a "good person," not necessarily someone who is redeemed through Christ's blood atonement. Accordingly, men were saved through their good works, not grace.

Again, I'm getting more explicit here than George Washington was, but Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin were explicit that this is what "rational Christianity" means. Here is Jefferson elevating works over faith:

“My fundamental principle would be the reverse of Calvin’s, that we are to be saved by our good works which are within our power, and not by our faith which is not within our power.”

– Thomas Jefferson to Thomas B. Parker, May 15, 1819.

Here is Franklin on how works, as opposed to faith, defines the essence of true Christianity:

“Faith is recommended as a Means of producing Morality: Our Saviour was a Teacher of Morality or Virtue, and they that were deficient and desired to be taught, ought first to believe in him as an able and faithful Teacher. Thus Faith would be a Means of producing Morality, and Morality of Salvation. But that from such Faith alone Salvation may be expected, appears to me to be neither a Christian Doctrine nor a reasonable one….Morality or Virtue is the End, Faith only a Means to obtain that End: And if the End be obtained, it is no matter by what Means.”

– Benjamin Franklin, “Dialogue between Two Presbyterians,” April 10, 1735.

Here is John Adams on how "good people" are Christians:

“I believe with Justin Martyr, that all good men are Christians, and I believe there have been, and are, good men in all nations, sincere and conscientious.”

– John Adams to Samuel Miller, July 8, 1820.

And here George Washington speaks of the death of a loved one and suggests that people are justified through works:

“She is now no more! But she must be happy, because her virtue has a claim to it.”

If GW were an orthodox Christian what I'd expect him to say is "But she must be happy because she has trusted in Christ and His blood atonement."

[For more see here and here.]

I could have offered (and have offered in past posts) much more such as quotations from GW's contemporaries doubting his orthodoxy or "real Christianity," pietiests of his day trying to "smell him out" to no avail and thus testifying that he hid in a religious closet by refusing to disclose his specific religious opinions. Making my case in toto would require a book, which, who knows, there may be one in the future.

New Blog:

I've just accepted an invitation to blog for American Creation with Brad Hart and Lindsey Shuman. The purpose of this blog is to explore the issue of religion and how it relates to America's Founding, one of my primary scholarly interests.

This will not affect my blogging at either jonrowe.blogspot.com (which collects everything I blog about) or positiveliberty.com (which collects mostly everything I blog about). The new blog will collect only my posts on the American Founding and religion. As a medium-time blogger, my goal is to have the widest possible readership, given my narrow range of interests. As such, I feel the more outlets my research is syndicated to, the better.

Of course, I would only say "yes" to other folks whose work meets my high standards and Brad's and Lindsey's certainly do.

American Revolution Blog on George Washington's Prayers:

Drawing from Peter Lillback's book on George Washington's faith, Brad from the American Revolution blog looks at the phrases Washington used when praying and aptly concludes that Washington's language was not that of an orthodox Trinitarian Christian. Yet, because Washington prayed at all (and it's something he did constantly) Washington was no Deist either.

Jared Sparks on British Unitarians:

I may need to remind readers why it's important to discuss what the key American Founders really believed, aside from the fact that some find it interesting history. One key tenet of the Christian Nationalists is that their biblical God Founded America. And if He did, of course He would use real spirit filled Christians -- "Christian Statesmen" as they like to term them -- not secret deistic or unitarian heretics as His instruments in doing the Founding.

It's mainly evangelicals/fundamentalists -- David Barton, William Federer, D. James Kennedy, etc. -- who posit the "Christian Nation" idea. And their idea of who God is and what Christianity is can be quite narrow and distinct. As I noted before in dealing with one of these Christian Nation apologists, he stated:

The Bible is not unclear on issues like the deity of Christ, His atonement, the existence of one God in three Persons, etc. "Orthodoxy" is what the Bible teaches....[T]he ONLY ASSUMPTION I AM MAKING IN OUR EXAMINATION OF THE FOUNDERS is that "Christian" means "Christian" (which is synonymous with "orthodox").

While we can debate just how clear the Trinity is in the Bible's text, there is a strong tradition in Christian orthodoxy (perhaps self serving) that indeed strictly defines Christianity according its Trinitarian orthodoxy. You either believe in the Trinity and its related orthodox doctrines, or you aren't a "real Christian," whatever you call yourself. Hence Mormons aren't Christians even if they call themselves such. The same can be said of America's key Founders.

Indeed, Dr. Gregg Frazer's PhD thesis operates under this assumption. Christians believe in the Triune God and other doctrines of orthodoxy, and since what America's Founders often called "rational Christianity" rejected those doctrines, it was not "Christianity" but something else -- "theistic rationalism." That's why when you see out of context quotations of the Founders making nominal positive affirmations of Christianity and scripture, traditional biblical Christians cannot necessarily assume the Founders referred to what they would understand as "Christianity."

Jared Sparks (1789-1866) was President of Harvard University from 1849 to 1853 and one of the most notable early historians of the American Founding. He was also a Unitarian minister. And because Sparks vehemently denied the Trinity, orthodox Christians of today would say -- just as they did in Sparks' era -- he wasn't a "Christian" even if he understood himself to be one. From what I've been able to garner, Sparks was, like Joseph Story and John Marshall, a "biblical unitarian" who believed the Bible as the Word of God disproves the Trinity and its related orthodox doctrines. "Rationalist" unitarians like Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin believed the Trinity untrue because it violated "reason," regardless of what the Bible said.

Sparks has written a number of interesting works on Unitarianism's history, most of them available in their entirely on googlebooks. In this one Sparks discusses the early British Unitarians who just happened to be some of the most notable philosophical influences on the American Founders. Sparks reproduces a number of letters he exchanged with his Trinitarian critics, indeed critics who stress the point that Unitarians are not Christians, and notes if that's so, then lets look at the list of men who aren't "Christians." In one passage Sparks states:

Your sweeping denunciation embraces all Unitarians of every age and country. If your charges are well-founded, Newton, Locke, and Chillingworth, were "no christians in any correct sense of the word, nor any more in the way of salvation, than Mohammedans or Jews?"

Sparks was adamant that Locke was indeed a Unitarian. Again, replying to a Trinitarian critic:

And Locke must still be considered a Unitarian, till he can be proved a Trinitarian ; a task, which it is not likely you will soon undertake. At all events, he had no faith in the assemblage of articles, which you denominate the essence of christianity, and without believing which, you say, no one can be called a Christian. His whole treatise on the Reasonableness of Christianity bears witness to this truth. For the leading object of that work is to show, that "the Gospel was written to induce men into a belief of this proposition, 'that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah,' which if they believed, they should have life."* He says nothing about total depravity, the atonement, the "sanctifying spirit of an Almighty Surety," nor any of your peculiar doctrines. Yet who has done more to elucidate the sacred Scriptures, or to prove the consistency and reasonableness of the religion of Jesus? Your rule, however, will take from him the Christian name.

Sparks notes how Unitarians often held high positions as Anglican Divines:

Those ornaments of the Episcopal church, Dr. Samuel Clarke, Hoadly, Law, and Blackburne, must be ranked with those, among whom "we look in vain for the monuments of the reforming and purifying power" of their faith.

Sparks then rattles off a whole slew of names of prominent theologians who believed in the unitarian heresy:

Envlyn, Whiston, Priestley, Lindsey, Price, Jebb, Wakefield, Chandler, Taylor, Benson, Cappe, Foster, Kippis, and a host of others among the English Unitarians,...

Along with the better known Locke and Newton, Joseph Priestley, Richard Price, Benjamin Hoadly, and Samuel Clarke were some of the most important British Whig thinkers who influenced America's Founders. When asked to speak on the attributes of God, James Madison turned to Samuel Clarke (not John Witherspoon!) for theological authority. Here is how the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy describes Samuel Clarke and his "controversy":

In 1712, apparently against the advice of some of Queen Anne's ministers, Clarke published The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, which was accused of Arianism, the view that Christ is divine but created. The ensuing controversy culminated two years later in his humiliating promise to the Upper House of Convocation not to preach or write on the topic any longer. However, this act of submission did not silence the correct rumors that he, like Newton himself, was still an Arian.

The entry goes on to describe what the "orthodox" thought of Clarke's opinions:

How much these suspicions of heterodoxy damaged his ecclesiastical career is unclear. However, Voltaire reports that Bishop Gibson effectively prevented Clarke's elevation to the see of Canterbury by pointing out that Clarke was indeed the most learned and honest man in the kingdom, but had one defect: he was not a Christian.

Again, whether Unitarians like Sparks, Locke, Clarke, America's key Founders, et al. are entitled to the "label" Christian is a matter of debate. But when debating Christian America apologists, it's important to point out to them that their theology doesn't consider these men to be "Christians," but rather "heretics" at best, "infidels" at worst.

Hulk Hogan, Calvinist!

TMZ has the deal on Hulk Hogan's theological explanation for why his jailed son's friend was nearly killed and is now paralyzed for life as a result of Hulk's son's reckless drunk driving.