Research On Religion » War of Independence

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.

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!