"The Founders" - Four Reasons You Should Avoid Using Them

It's primary season in Texas, so it's that time again.  That time when we get to hear this phrase over and over again: "The Founders believed..."

In any political argument, it's the ultimate evidence; the ultimate trump card; the ultimate way of stopping your opponent in his tracks.  Just start your sentence with these three words. "The Founders believed..."

Unfortunately, using these three words is very intellectually risky, and often a terrible blunder. Here are four reasons why you should either be slow to invoke "The Founders," or avoid doing so at all:

1. There is no one recognized club of "Founders"
Unfortunately, creating a Founders Club for historical discussion isn't as easy as creating one on Facebook.  Are you talking about some of the common big names, like George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson? Or, are you talking about some lesser-known but important men like John Witherspoon, Patrick Henry, John Marshall, and John Jay? Or, maybe you're more progressive and you want to talk about Abigail Adams and Mercy Otis Warren.

Turns out, hardly anyone is EVER talking about the same individuals when they invoke "founders" in their arguments.

2. There is no one point in American History that can be officially dubbed "THE founding."
When people talk about "the Founding" they are often referring to different times, documents, and events.  Could be the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Could be the the nation's first constitution, the 1781 Articles of Confederation. Could be the writing of our current Constitution, ratified 1787-89.  Or, do you mean the settling of Jamestown in 1607, or Plymouth in 1620, or the peopling of America by Indians in the hundreds of years previous to these?

Who your "Founders" are will depend on which "founding" you are assuming.

3. The Constitutional "Founders" were a diverse group of people, with a diverse set of beliefs on everything, including the Constitution.
The Constitution did not fall out of heaven with everyone in perfect agreement on its divine origin.  You chuckle, but we often forget that the Constitution was not merely written down.  It was forged through months of debates and compromises in every city and state in the nation.  Major Revolutionary leaders like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams initially rejected the Constitution as antithetical to the ideals of the Revolution. No single man at the Constitutional Convention got exactly what he wanted. What every man did get was a document of compromise that he could settle with, even if he didn't agree with everything in it.


4. The "Founders" were humans, who changed their minds over time.

A good example of this is James Madison. In 1787, he was the primary architect of the Constitution, pushing for a stronger national government than many of his contemporaries wanted (like Jefferson and Henry). Only a decade later, in 1798, he helped Jefferson draft the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, now considered classic defenses of the rights of states to challenge the power of the national government. So if you're referring to Madison in your founders argument, which Madison are you referring to - the 1787 Madison, or the 1798 Madison?  We change our minds and thought processes over time, and so did they.

The Founders were many, diverse, and human. Appealing to them collectively as biblical prophets or as a historical unified front is ahistorical, unfair, and unhelpful.

The First Thanksgiving, or, The First American Protestant Christian Thanksgiving

If you went through elementary school in the United States then you probably know all about The First Thanksgiving.  In 1620, weary Pilgrims set out from the Old World in search of a home: The New World of America.  After a terrible first winter, they established homes, befriended local Indian peoples, and planted their first crops.  By late 1621, the Pilgrims were reaping a bountiful harvest, complete with pumpkins and little hand-traced turkeys decorating the table (at least, that's what I learned).  They invited their Indian neighbors to join in the feast and thank God for the harvest.  The First Thanksgiving.

But it wasn't The First Thanksgiving.

People all over the world had celebrated harvests for centuries, so it wasn't really first.

Indian peoples had been celebrating the fall harvest in America long before the Pilgrims arrived.

Spanish colonists celebrated thanksgiving masses in Florida and Texas for decades before the Pilgrims arrived in Massachusetts.

The Pilgrims weren't even the first Protestants to do this!  That distinction goes to the French Huguenots who held a thanksgiving service and celebration in 1564 near present-day Jacksonville, Florida.

So, what do we call the Pilgrims' feast in 1621?  Robert McKenzie, a professor and chair of the department of history at Wheaton College tongue-in-cheek suggests:

"The First American Protestant Christian Thanksgiving"

Over the last week, I have been reading McKenzie's newest book, The First Thanksgiving: What the Real Story Tells us about Loving God and Learning from History.  It has been fascinating, eye-opening, and challenging to me as a historian, as an American, and as a Christian.

By taking apart this American myth of The First Thanksgiving, he is not trying to ruin the holiday.  It's a great holiday!  We should keep celebrating it, with great thanks!  But McKenzie is calling us not just to thank, but to think.  Think not just about the holiday, but about our myths and assumptions as American Christians when it comes to our past.

What is true?  What purposes do our national myths serve?  Are we remembering stories that are helpful to us, and purposefully forgetting stories that shed light on parts of our history we would like to keep in the dark?

For my part, I will be pondering this over Thanksgiving: What would my life look like if I thought about it as part of a broader context, rather than as just my own?  The Pilgrims were not the first, nor were they alone.  They were part of something bigger than themselves.  If my life belongs not just to me, but to those around me, before me, and after me, then my life will be about more than me.  I will reach out to my neighbors.  I will seek the advice of people older than me.  I will remember the contributions of people different from myself who have made my life possible.  I will be thankful for so much more than Thanksgiving.

NOTE: This blog was wholly inspired by Professor Robert Thomas McKenzie's work.  You can find more in:
- His book: The First Thanksgiving
- His blog: Faith and History: Thinking Christianly about the American Past
- His faculty page at Wheaton College

"Revisionist" History is a GOOD Thing

I spend lots of my time around Christians and/or self-identifying conservatives or Republicans.  When they find out that I am a historian, one of the most common subjects that comes up is so called "revisionist history" or "revisionism."  Questions and comments usually sounds something like these:

"You don't practice any of that revisionist history, do you?"

"What do you think about all the liberals and their revisionist history?  How do you even function as a Christian in the academy?"

"Why are all these ivy-league/ivory-tower people changing our history?"

Behind all these questions is a common assumption: history, the way this person understands it, is the way it really was.  There is rarely any consideration for the idea that their understanding of history may be incomplete, or even flat-out wrong.

Rather than getting offended or trying to defend all of these phantom historians (who happen to be colleagues, mentors, and pros), I have recently begun practicing a new tactic: embracing the idea of revisionism.  This so-called "revisionist" history a non-issue; it is actually a GOOD thing.  It is a good thing, which all people, including Christians, should embrace.

As Christians interested in history, we should be interested above all in the truth.  We may never be able to get at the whole, complete truth of a particular historical person or event, but that shouldn't stop us from aiming for it.  When one historian makes an attempt at telling a story, it is then the obligation of people following to revise the story, and aim for even more truth.  This would include:

1. Continual discovery of new sources, and re-interpreting events according to them

2. Retelling old stories from new angles, particularly from the point of view of people who have been ignored or marginalized by historians in the past

3. Retelling well-known stories by emphasizing different subjects, people, movements, or sources.

These are all forms of "revising" history, and they are all good.  Again, if we as Christians are interested in getting at as much truth as possible in history, then we should embrace revisionism as an obligation.

I'm not talking about purposefully twisting facts, purposefully ignoring facts which contradict our stories, or purposefully misrepresenting historical actors or ideas.  This isn't revisionism.  It's just a clever form of lying.  If these sorts of historians exist anywhere in the academy, I haven't met them yet.

Unfortunately, the only place I have met such so-called historians is within the walls of the church. Many Christians, well-intentioned or not, have revised history in order to place Christianity at the center of everything, from early American history to present-day politics.  This, my brothers and sisters, is the worst kind of so-called "revisionism."  It's misrepresentation.  It's lying.  Let's dump those selfish practices and embrace "revisionism" in our understanding of history, for the sake of the truth.

P.S. - For another take on "Revisionist" History, check out the blog of Robert Tracy McKenzie, professor and chair of the Department of History at Wheaton College.  McKenzie actually argues that we should get rid of the term "revisionist" altogether,  because it's simply not helpful.

Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?: A Complicated Answer to a Complicated Question

Was America founded as a Christian nation?

Take a few minutes to look at or listen to news of any kind - internet, tv, or radio - and chances are that you will find someone, saying something, about the United States, religion, the founders, or a combination of all three.  Our climate is ripe with opinions about the relationship between religion and society today, and what the history of the United States can tell us about it.  Often, the discussion is boiled down to this seemingly simple question - Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? - and our answer to it.

I say "seemingly simple" for a very clear reason: despite what many people believe and argue, this is a complicated question, which demands a complicated answer.

As a Christian historian who thinks and writes about these issues, it discourages me to tell you that the place where I have found the most hesitation, pushback, anger, and even slander for thinking critically about this issue is...the church.  Many of my brothers and sisters who have reacted in this way to my discussion of this issue attest to loving history.  But at root, they seem to have been less concerned with the complexities of history, and more concerned with using history for present-day political battles.  My brothers, this should not be so.

If we want to pursue truth and understand the history permeating this question, we need to be ready for a complex discussion.  This complexity begins with the question itself.  How a person asks the question, and how a person answers, are wholly dependent upon how that person defines the terms in the question.

Walk through the question with me, and consider the following:

"Was" and "Founded"
These words refer to a particular point in the past - the American founding.  The problem with the question, and with our often-simplistic answers, is that we haven't agreed on when this founding happened, or what this founding actually was.

When was it?  1492?  1620?  1776?  1787?
What was it?  European discovery?  Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock?  English, Spanish, French, or a combination of them all?  The Declaration of Independence?  The ratification of the Constitution?

When and what you deem the founding will help determine much of what you think American history and society is all about.  For 1620 supporters, religion and religious freedom are the story.  For 1787 supporters, unification under a common law is the story.  For 1492 supporters, multiculturalism is the story.

"America" and "Nation"
What is this America or nation? Is it a geographical location? A people? A nation-state? A government?

Again, if we don't define our terms, and agree upon them, we shouldn't be surprised when our discussion about the role of religion in "American" history devolves into a morass of confusion.  How can two people actually get a useful answer to the question when one defines "America" as a place or people characterized by union around a common law (the Constitution) and the other defines "America" as the land settled by Puritans dedicated to establishing Christianity?  They can't.

"Christian"
Finally, the most complicated term of all.  What is this "Christian" in the question?  To what does it refer?
A predominately Christian population?
An explicitly Christian state?
A law defined (or influenced by) Christianity?
And which Christianity? Puritan Massachusetts, Anglican Virginia, Catholic Maryland, Quaker Pennsylvania, or something in between?
And what about all those non-Christians who helped frame the colonies, states, and nation?

Was America founded as a Christian nation?

Well, that's a complicated question, with a complicated answer.

If we refuse to acknowledge the complex nature of this issue, we reveal our pride, and will never make progress as a Church, or as a nation.

But there is hope.  Once we humbly acknowledge the complexity of religion and American history, we can actually begin to make the progress we want in our discussions with fellow Christians and with our non-Christian fellow citizens.