Research On Religion » John Dickinson

Daniel Dreisbach on Biblical Rhetoric in the Founding Era

tonygill — Sun, 15 Jan 2017 09:00:18 +0000

The Bible was the most common book to be found in houses throughout the United States in the late 18th century, and it is no surprise that the Founders would rely upon passages from Scripture to inform the dialogue around the building of a new nation and governmental system. Prof. Daniel Dreisbach, a professor in the School of Public Affairs at American University, elaborates on how the Bible was used to frame political ideas during this revolutionary era. Our conversation begins with how religious symbolism manifested itself in the first presidential inauguration of George Washington, and how the choices made back then still echo throughout the ages and up to the present. We also discover that despite all the thoughtful planning that went into the pageantry of the first inauguration, the planners almost forgot one crucial thing. (You will have to listen to the audio to find out what that was.) We then turn to a discussion of the role of literacy, religion, and the King James Bible in the British American colonies and how this impacted how political leaders would frame their arguments for the new republic and communicate with the citizens. Irrespective of the religiosity of any given Founder, the presence of the Bible in American education meant that it was a references point for all people and a literary source for speaking a unified language in a new nation. Daniel notes that the King James version had a certain rhythm and poetry to it that lent itself to rhetorical uses. He also points out how Protestantism’s “dangerous idea” about a “priesthood of all people” also became a crucial component of justifying a democratic republic placing sovereignty in the common person as opposed to a monarch. We then discuss how the Bible was used rhetorically, with Daniel emphasizing its importance in crafting metaphors, providing weight and authority to political language, modeling new precedents that were being established with this revolutionary form of government, and promoting the notion of Providence at work in American history. Prof. Dreisbach provides specific examples of how this plays out and gives reference to a couple critical biblical passages including Micah 6:8 (on the role of government by covenant), Proverbs 14:34 (the need for an informed and virtuous citizenry), and Proverbs 29:2 (on the character of the magistrate). Daniel points out that while the Founders desired a virtuous political class, the Calvinist emphasis on original sin made it necessary to create institutions that built in a “Plan B” to contain the worst desires and actions of are all-too-human leaders. We finish off with Daniel providing his personal thoughts on what all this means for our contemporary period, what he learned over the decades of studying this era, and promising to come back later in the year to talk about the role of religious rhetoric in justifying the notion of liberty within the American experiment. Recorded: December 19,2016.

Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers, by Daniel Dreisbach.

Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation between Church and State, by Daniel Dreisbach.

Faith and the Founders of the American Republic, edited by Daniel Dreisbach and Mark David Hall.

The Sacred Rights of Conscience, edited by Daniel Dreisbach and Mark David Hall.

The Forgotten Founders on Religion and Public Life, by Daniel Dreisbach, Mark David Hall, and Jeffry Morrison.

The Founders on God and Government, edited by Daniel Dreisbach, Mark David Hall, and Jeffry Morrison.

RELATED PODCASTS

Daniel Dreisbach on Abe Lincoln’s Religious Rhetoric.

Mark David Hall on Religion and the Founding Fathers.

John Fea on Religion and the American Founding.

Mark David Hall on Roger Sherman, American Patriot.

Mark David Hall on Religious Accommodations and the Common Good.

Mark David Hall on Religious Minorities in the U.S. Founding.

Chris Beneke on Religion, Markets, and the Founding Era.

Kyle Swan on Christianity and (Classical) Liberalism.

John Fea on the American Bible Society.

Jonathan den Hartog on Patriotism and Piety.

Jonathan den Hartog on the Spiritual and Political Life of John Jay.

Gary Scott Smith on Presidential Faith.

Mark David Hall on Religious Minorities in the U.S. Founding

tonygill — Sun, 29 Jun 2014 08:00:56 +0000

Most people have heard about the role that Congregationalists, Anglicans, and so-called Deists have played in the founding of the United States, but what about Jews, Quakers, and other religious minorities. Prof. Mark David Hall, the Herbert Hoover Distinguished Professor of Politics at George Fox University, returns for his fourth episode to document the important influence exercised by individuals affiliated with lesser-known denominations. This discussion is informed by the scholarship of various authors in a volume Mark co-edited with Daniel Dreisbach entitled Faith and the Founders of the American Republic (see below for link). For those not familiar with Prof. Hall’s work, we start off the interview with a quick summary of his interest in religion during the Founding Era and what importance that may have for our contemporary society.

The first religious minority we focus on are Jews. With only about 2,000 Jews present during the time of the Revolutionary War, one might not think this group would have much influence. Based upon the writings of Prof. David Dalin, Mark notes that Jews were tolerated fairly well throughout colonial history and that George Washington had a very favorable relations with Jews, including Haym Solomon who helped for fund the Continental Army. Mark cites from Washington’s letter to a Newport synagogue to show how Washington’s view on religious freedom reflected more than mere tolerance. He also covers Jewish influence on Alexander Hamilton (educated by Sephardic Jews) and John Adams (a Christian supporter of Zionism), as well as the direct action of Jonas Phillips to help end religious tests in America.

We next talk about the role of Islam, with Mark summarizing the chapter in his volume written by Tommy Kidd. The influence of Islam on the American Founding and subsequent development of the republic was very indirect. First, it was noted that many of the slaves who were exported to the Americas came from Islamic regions of Africa thus there were most likely some Muslim slaves, though the numbers are not certain. Islam was also used in revolutionary era rhetoric to set up the trope of despotism, sometimes used by the Anti-Federalists in their arguments pertaining to the constitutional structure of the new republic. The other important realm in which Islam comes to play in the formation of America’s identity is through the contact with Barbary pirates, one of the first major foreign policy conflicts that had to be managed by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Mark also addresses the controversial interpretation surrounding the Treaty of Tripoli, which is often as evidence that the U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation.

We then move to the topic of Deism, not necessarily a denomination, but nonetheless a real belief system that was floating around in late 18th century America. Most folks are probably more familiar with Deism given that it is often associated with major historical figures of the time such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Mark defines what Deism is, a “squishy definition” at best. He then discusses whether any of these folks fell solidly within the Deist camp using the notion of an “interventionist God” as a baseline. Mark notes that several of the Founders most people associate with Deism — such as Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington — did make reference to an deity who does intervene in human history, most notably George Washington who wrote quite a bit about the role of Providence. When it comes down to it, Mark says that maybe only one or two of the major historical Founders — Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine — would qualify as strictly Deist in their philosophy. Our conversation on Deism tends to focus on the writings of Paine with Mark pointing out that even despite Paine’s Deist bent, he cites Scripture quite liberally in writings such as Common Sense knowing that the American public was more in tune with an orthodox view of Christianity as compared to a more Enlightenment philosophical posture. Mark also uses the general repudiation of Paine’s “Age of Reason” by many of the intellectual leaders of the U.S. at the time to illustrate that Deism may not have been as deeply woven into American elite culture as is now commonly assumed. (It is also at this point in the interview where Mark compliments Tony’s social scientific acumen. Just sayin’.)

We then finish up talking about the use of The Bible in the writings of American Founders, making reference to the scholarship of Daniel Dreisbach, and a handful of other Christian denominations including the Quakers (the denominational affiliation of George Fox University) and the Baptists (the affiliation of Baylor). We spend some time on the thought and influence of John Dickinson and John Hancock, a flamboyant albeit philanthropic Calvinist. Mark also gives us a sneak preview of his current research, something that will probably be heard next year during the Fourth of July! Recorded: June 5, 2014.

Faith and the Founders of the American Republic, edited by Daniel Dreisbach and Mark David Hall.

Roger Sherman and the Creation of the American Republic, by Mark David Hall.

America’s Forgotten Founders, edited by Gary Gregg and Mark David Hall.

RELATED PODCASTS

Mark David Hall on Roger Sherman, Puritan Patriot.

Mark David Hall on Religion and the Founding Fathers.

Should Christians Have Fought in the U.S. War of Independence?

Chris Beneke on Religion, Markets, and the Founding Era.

John Fea on Religion and the American Founding.

Evan Haefeli on the Dutch Origins of Religious Tolerance.

Jonathan Den Hartog on the Spiritual and Political Life of John Jay.

Gary Scott Smith on Presidential Faith.

Thomas Kidd on the Great Awakening.

Jonathan den Hartog on the Spiritual & Political Life of John Jay

tonygill — Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:00:57 +0000

With Independence Day quickly approaching, we once again take a look at the role of religion in shaping America’s Founding. Prof. Jonathan den Hartog, associate professor of history at Northwestern College (St. Paul, MN), surveys the life, times and influence of John Jay, one of the “forgotten Founding Fathers.” A few folks will recognize John Jay as one of the three authors of The Federalist Papers and as the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but not very many individuals can elaborate the extensive role that religion played in his life.

We start the interview off with a general overview of Jay’s public life, noting the significant roles he played during the Revolutionary Era, then during the process of establishing the governmental framework we have today, and finally to his final three decades as a champion of civil society. Prof. den Hartog then takes us back more deeply into Jay’s history and points out two influential religious strands that are interwoven in his political thought and actions, namely his French Huguenot ancestry and his experience with orthodox Anglicanism. We then break down Jay’s life into three phases: the republican era, the Federalist era, and his voluntarist period.

Jay’s “republican phase” marks the period leading up to the Revolutionary War and its immediate aftermath when the nation was tasked with the mission of crafting a government. We learn that Jay had some mixed feelings about going to war with Britain, being a supporter of the Olive Branch Petition, but quickly came to support the war once it began in earnest. Jonathan reveals how much of Jay’s theology motivated his political views, with particular attention to the role of Providence, as well as communal guilt, repentance, and blessing. Jay’s concern over the poor treatment of the Indians reflects this religious stream of thought. Jay played little direct role in the construction of the new national government, but his doubts regarding the weakness of the Articles of Confederation, and his view of Providence working in American history, push him to advocate for a more centralized federal government.

Upon ratification of the Constitution, we enter into Jay’s “federalist period,” wherein he plays an active role in shaping the various components of the nation’s new government, including as the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, an important ambassadorial role, and then as governor of New York. The radicalization of the French Revolution plays a significant role in shaping Jay’s thought during this period as he witnesses the “de-Christianization” efforts of the Jacobins. We bring up a concern over the so-called “Bavarian Illuminati” as one of the early conspiracy theories that informs the thought of the age. Both Jonathan and Tony note how the decade of the 1790s was a very turbulent period in American history and that many of the themes arising then have echoes throughout the next two centuries. Due to Jay’s concern over this socio-political turbulence, he advocates as a governing figure for a stronger presence of religion in the public arena, including the call for a public day of thanksgiving.

John Jay’s “federalist era” comes to an end with his retirement from politics in 1801 and issues in the “volutarist period.” Although he didn’t believe he would live much longer, in part brought about by the death of his wife shortly after his political retirement, he does live nearly three more decades. It is during this time that he continues to advocate for the strong presence of religion in American culture via civil society. In addition to a number of voluntary organizations that includes missionary groups and clergy training groups, he eventually comes to head the American Bible Society (ABS). We learn what the ABS, an organization that still exists today, is all about. Prof. den Hartog makes the case that this phase of Jay’s life is really a more private expression of his previous federalist period, once again emphasizing the role of God’s Providence on the imprint of human history and America’s role in that plan.

We finish with Jonathan’s thoughts on what John Jay would think about our political scene today as well as Jay’s last words — “The Lord is better than we deserve.” Recorded: June 18, 2013.

RELATED LINKS

Prof. Jonathan den Hartog’s biography at Northwestern College.

Historical Conversations, Jonathan den Hartog’s blog.

James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions (Princeton University).

The Forgotten Founders on Religion and Public Life, edited by Daniel Driesbach, Mark David Hall, and Jeffry Morrison (with chapter by Jonathan den Hartog).

RELATED PODCASTS

Should Christians Have Fought in the US War of Independence? (A debate with three responses.)

Mark David Hall on Roger Sherman, Puritan Patriot.

John Fea on Religion & the American Founding.

Mark David Hall on Religion & the Founding Fathers.

Chris Beneke on Religion, Markets, and the Founding Era.

Tracy McKenzie on The First Thanksgiving.

Should Christians Have Fought in the US War of Independence?

tonygill — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:00:08 +0000

Should Christians have picked up arms during the American War of Independence following the first salvos at Lexington & Concord in April, 1775? We pose that question to three Christian academics — Gregg Frazer, Jonathan den Hartog, and Mark David Hall — who offer different perspectives on this subject.

Prof. Gregg Frazer, professor of history and political studies at The Master’s College (Santa Clarita, CA), argues for the “no” position by noting that The Bible unequivocally teaches participation in any revolution are wrong. Prof. Frazer also notes that the situation of the colonists were hardly in a tyrannical situation in 1775, but even if it was tyrannical he clearly states that biblical teachings forbids rebellion against secular authority. Gregg cites Romans 13:1-2, John 19:11, and (later on) Acts 4 and Acts 5. Tony presses Gregg about whether or not the American War of Independence (a.k.a. The Revolutionary War) was a revolution or a war. Our discussion continues to explore whether or not there is a level of tyranny that could justify a rebellion against secular authority, and Prof. Frazer holds strong to his argument that there is no such instance. Gregg notes that you are to obey the government until the government asks you to disobey God, but then you rely upon a sovereign God to remove the authority and only engage in civil disobedience accepting the consequences. The discussion also encompasses issues of free will and what would history have looked like had he colonists never rebelled.

We then turn to Prof. Jonathan den Hartog, associate professor of history at Northwestern College in St. Paul, MN, who gives us the “yes” position by practicing the historian’s trade and getting into the head of the patriot colonists of the day. (It should be noted that Prof. den Hartog is not an unambiguous “yes” vote in this debate from his personal position.) We begin by noting the political imperative for rebellion in 1775 and Jonathan notes how the “squishy middle” disappeared quickly, specifically after John Jay’s Olive Branch Petition was rejected by King George shortly after Lexington & Concord. Jonathan then connects these political issues to the moral concerns of Christians at the time, noting that many pastors (e.g., Whitefield, Witherspoon) gave the issue of independence a great deal of thought and debate. Concern over the erosion of religious liberties was of major concern to many preachers of this era, and we explore whether this was a real concern or a threat merely whipped up to further a political agenda. Prof. den Hartog provides a telling anecdote of a colonial militiaman (Levi Preston) who noted his inspiration to fight came from The Bible and catechism. We talk about other justifications offered by Christians via “just war theory” wherein ministers like John Carmichael and David Jones conceive of the conflict as a defensive war to protect hearth and home.

The “squishy middle” position is then taken up by Prof. Mark David Hall of George Fox University in Newberg, OR. Prof. Hall first answers the specific question by examining a more abstract position of whether or not Christians can rise up in rebellion against secular authority, essentially examining what Romans 13:1-3 says and what “legitimate” government means in light of various Catholic and Protestant theologians such as John Knox. (It should be noted that Prof. Hall did not have knowledge of our discussion with Prof. Frazer, but these two have argued these points in the past.) Tony then prompts Mark to put this into the context of the American colonies of the middle-late 18th century, arguing that the level of tyranny experienced by the colonists really wasn’t all that tyrannical. Tax levels were low and the colonists did exercise a degree of self-governance that was not available to their peers in English towns. Mark responds by noting how the Reformed tradition, of which encompassed about 75% of all religious believers in the colonies at the time, is particularly sensitive to the possibility of tyranny. He then details the threats that the patriot forces perceived in the 1760s and ’70s, which makes Tony think that Mark would be quick to join the militia after Lexington & Concord. Thus, Tony prompts Mark about why he agreed to take a “wait-and-see” position. Prof. Hall responds that based upon hindsight regarding various “threats” during the Revolutionary era (e.g., the Quebec Act) there seems to have been much more room for reasoned negotiation. However, he also cautions against “presentism,” the intellectual tendency to view history from our current position. As such, Mark does argue that the colonists may have felt sufficiently threatened such that war may have been the most prudent option at the time. Tony finishes up the questioning by asking Mark what would have happened had the patriots not have picked up arms, whereupon Mark speculates that the commonwealth option that may have arisen, just as Gregg Frazer did earlier. Tony finishes off with his brief thoughts on the debate and listeners will have to get to the end of the podcast to see if he changed his position at all. Recorded: Mid-June 2012.

Visit our Facebook Fan Page and/or our Twitter feed for regular updates on what is coming up on the show!

RELATED LINKS

Prof. Gregg Frazer’s biography at The Master’s College.

The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders: Reason, Revelation, Revolution, by Gregg Frazer.

Prof. Jonathan den Hartog’s biography at Northwestern College.

James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions (Princeton University).

Prof. Mark David Hall’s biography at George Fox University.

America’s Forgotten Founders, by Gary L. Gregg II and Mark David Hall. For other books by Prof. Hall, please see his earlier interviews on our podcast series.

RELATED PODCASTS

Mark David Hall on Roger Sherman, Puritan Patriot.

John Fea on Religion & the American Founding.

Mark David Hall on Religion & the Founding Fathers.

Chris Beneke on Religion, Markets, and the Founding Era.

Thomas Kidd on the Great Awakening.