Were the founders a group of conservative Baptists who set up the constitution with the Bible in mind? Or where they deists who cared not for religion? The answer to those questions depends greatly on who you ask.
Historians know that the answer is not so simple. Is today's congress Christian? Many of them are. Many of them are not. The answer requires us to appreciate the complexity of the members of congress and the many viewpoints there. It is the same for any group we study in history.
However, I'm certain that the founding fathers were football fans who would have supported the Dallas Cowboys. See those five guys standing before Congress? That's the country's first offensive line. Notice how football never caught on in England.
Since most of us are not U.S. historians, Brian offers some advice for discussing these important men. Here's my favorite:
...The "Founders" were a diverse group of people, with a diverse set of beliefs on everything.
- The Constitution did not fall out of heaven already complete, with everyone in perfect agreement on its divine origin. It was forged through days of debates, and scores of compromises. No single man at the Constitutional Convention got exactly what he wanted. What every man did get was a document of compromise that they could all settle with, even if they didn't agree with everything in it.
- The Constitution did not fall out of heaven already complete, with everyone in perfect agreement on its divine origin. It was forged through days of debates, and scores of compromises. No single man at the Constitutional Convention got exactly what he wanted. What every man did get was a document of compromise that they could all settle with, even if they didn't agree with everything in it.
Every historian knows that variety is present in every group we study. Great variety leaps out at us from the pages of history and out of the work of archaeologists to show us that diversity of thought is no modern trend. This applies to the founders of our country, so when we discuss them we do them a disservice to assume that they were all the same.
This might weaken your talking points. You may not be able to say that churches should run the country because the founders were all believers. Likewise, it is foolish to say that the founders were all atheists who hated religion. Neither of these viewpoints holds up to historical scrutiny, and, as such, Brian's advice is simply not to bring up the founding fathers in these conversations.
But I've rambled long enough about a field I don't study. Brian's post is helpful, so go and read the whole thing.
20 comments:
2 things:
#1. I would argue that very VERY few of our congressmen are Christians. There are several that call themselves Christians or believe that they are Christians, but the evidence in their lives tell otherwise.
#2. Its hard having this discussion as you pointed out, but I believe it is because of a reason that is more specific. Through a genuine, close relationship with Jesus, I understand and benefit from the freedom that comes through glorifying God. It is similar, not exactly the same, but similar to the freedom given to our country through the founders and founding documents. The Gospel is centered on the Good News of "freedom" from sin, which what the founders were fighting for in America.
We were put on earth for one thing only: to glorify God. the moment we stop, sin is the result. Romans 1 explains that God gives us over to sin when we choose to exchange the glory of God for the Glory of man. This is why I believe so strongly that glorifying God THROUGH our government is so important. We, as a nation, have put earthly liberties over glorifying God, which has resulted in a nation living in sin. I understand what people are arguing with separation of church and state, but that is not Gods will for us.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
What really gets me is that people assume that because the Founders believed it (whatever they're claiming they believed), it should be the way it is today. The Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted according to the world we live in today, not the world the Founders lived in. The principles are still applicable, but only a fool thinks that it's a 100% stoic document that hasn't and shouldn't change with society.
Anonymous. You say that we should not exchange the glory of God for that of man. Then, you say we should glorify God through the government. Those two ideas have nothing in common.
I like personal liberty, because it gives me freedom and helps me to glorify God without Uncle Sam getting in the way. I am not putting liberty above God in doing so.
Justin: If the Constitution is perfectly malleable with society, then there's no purpose for having one. There's a process for amending it, intentionally difficult.
And naturally it should be interpreted according to the its intention when written, because anything else is nonsensical. When I read Shakespeare, I don't define passages according to the words' modern usage.
Oh, but I also wanted to mention that Brian makes an incredibly excellent point here. Of course, nowadays people only know of the more philosophically Deist Founders in an effort to paint the rest of the Founders' with the same brush, but Christians can be guilty of the same misrepresentation.
For me, the key is on what points did they agree, and what principles were uncompromisable, and how were systems set in place to preserve or diffuse certain points. As they were a diverse group of people, that on which they agreed should be even more supportable by all peoples today.
That's what I think, Jared. They agreed that we should have religious freedom despite their differences, and I like that.
Adam, can you truly tell me that you believe that God thinks He should be out of government? what a joke. sorry.
Keeping the government from being able to restrict religion is what keeps us able to glorify God in our own lives.
Do you think it glorifies God for you to speak so condescendingly to me on my website? Calling me a joke is not very loving, yet you want to lecture me on Christian values.
That is not what I meant by that and you know it.
The only thing I meant by that is that if you truly believe God is the worlds creator and Lord over all, why wouldnt you want the leaders of your country to be led by Him. If you dont believe that, then I would argue that you dont believe God is as important as He is. Thats all I meant. Too little emphasis is being put on God. If you believe you will be standing in front of God one day, why dont you think everything should be centered around God? Thats the part I dont understand in the argument.
If there is a separation of our government and God, there will be(has been) a separation between God's character and the laws we write and decisions we make.
Thats what I mean.
"That is not what I meant by that and you know it."
That's exactly what I thought you meant. It seemed like an insult.
I would love it if all of our leaders thought and believed as I do. But, they don't. And I can't force them to.
Anonymous,
It seems like the goal of believers in society ought to be to seek the conversion of all; this can't be done through legislation, even from the godliest government ever (and history shows us no promising examples of a wonderful religiously run government -- Christian or otherwise; your argument would be much more compelling if you could discuss successful implementation).
In fact, a society like ours, where freedom of religion, thought, speech, etc, are cherished is a much more promising mission field in my opinion. I don't think liking the separation of church and state is saying that God is not important, but rather saying that government is a useless -- and dangerous -- tool for Christians to try to control in their ultimate quest.
I agree with you, Adam. The only angle I am looking at it from is the angle that it is not ok, in my opinion, that we as Christians find it "ok" if someone wants to believe in a false religion. It wasnt ok when the Israelites worshiped a different God, and its not ok now. We, as Christians, in America have become such pushovers when it comes to this. the belief that it is ok for someone to worship a false God as long as they dont bother me is not the attitude Jesus promoted. He told us to go into all the world preaching and expect persecution.
We can't expect persecution if the government is a Christian one. And allowing people to have liberty doesn't mean we don't share the gospel with people. None of these things speak toward our debate.
JG, I want as little government in my life as possible. Thats the way God intended it in my opinion. BUT, I am baffled by the fact that Christians have this attitude: "the government can do whatever it wants, just let me go to church." The belief that it is ok to be governed by people who not only dont believe what you believe, but go against what you believe. thats my only problem.
So many of our rights and priveleges and freedoms have been taken away from us in the name of "freedom" and we dont realize it. It has become such an unloving and hateful thing to oppose to people living in sin in this country. We are constantly worried about the governments involvement if we "cross the line" with Christianity.
I'm really curious to know what right's you have thought we have lost as Christians? I have never felt imposed upon, but I guess that depends on where you stand in regards to separation of church and state.
As I Christian, I don't want the govt. to be any religion at all. Fact is, the U.S. has always prided itself on being a melting pot and people from all religions, nations, etc, can come here and experience that freedom. Its a bit hypocritical if we expect it to change. If we begin to legislate religion, we are no better than the other countries (for instance, some Muslim countries) who demand and persecute if you don't believe as they do.
Finally, nations have been living in sin way before we were even born. Difference is, now we have the great influence of the media and internet age to tell us about all the horrible things that are going on.
I like JG's statement - "I don't think liking the separation of church and state is saying that God is not important, but rather saying that government is a useless -- and dangerous -- tool for Christians to try to control in their ultimate quest."
I'd like to emphasize the word "dangerous."
A limitation of government power over the exercise of religion is not a separation of God from government, Anonymous. The prohibition of religion exercise in government is, to be certain, but that's equally protected by the 1st Amendment, even if we mostly ignore that today. But even so no where are Christians commanded in Scripture to force into place the lawful authority from which God can never be deposed, anyway.
You also speak as if you do not know who the authority on this planet is.
On the other hand, a free society is not possible without Christianity.
Jared-
The idea that the Constitution shouldn't change doesn't mesh with the way society changes. When the Constitution was written, there was scarcely the technology that we have today, and issues that couldn't have possibly been foreseen require a complex analysis that the Framers simply couldn't have predicted. We use the principles the iterated, but a literal interpretation is pretty much impossible these days. Additionally, the views of society then are not reflected in our modern country. Back then, black people were allowed to be owned as property, women couldn't vote, and many other differences that we have shunned as abhorrent today. It's not consistent to say that the Founders' intent should be given absolute authority unless you agree that some ideas simply aren't tenable, and thus require an interpretation consistent with our modern beliefs.
The character of man does not change with improved technology. The Constitution provides women the right to vote and all men equal freedom regardless of skin color in its Amendments.
If we are to interpret the Constitution according to modern sensibilities, then it is merely law, a hollow symbol of freedom masking the kernel of tyranny.
Jared,
I'm a little confused about your last comment because amendments are the result of interpreting the constitution by modern sensibilities. The founders did not intend a nation in which all races were equal of women could vote. We decided to amend their vision. If you don't allow the for the constitution to be a living document, then you make the constitution inspired Scripture and the founders infallible gods.
Post a Comment