One would think that after more than two hundred years, this question would already have been well answered. It has not. Heated rhetoric on both sides continues, with some claiming that the United States was designed to be a Christian nation, the earthly realization of God’s chosen people and the New Testament Israel in the mode of the most Evangelical and enthusiastic of conservative Christianity, and others claiming it was designed to be a purely secular nation and society with only reason and natural science to guide its course. The problem facing those who wish to find an answer to the question today is that both sides are able to cherry pick quotations and actions from the early years of the nation that seem, when viewed in isolation, to confirm the view for which they were cited in support.
The fact is that neither of these extremes is true. While society at the time of our nation’s founding was generally and nominally Christian – even Protestant Christian – neither was it a unified whole nor was it dominated by either the kind of Christianity represented by the “right wing Evangelicals” of today nor the “Christianity” affected by the Age of Elightenment. While representatives of both of these camps existed, they were both in the minority. The dominant religious strains at the time were the Congregationalists especially in the north (with roots in Puritanism) and the Anglican Church especially in the south (Church of England with doctrines closely aligned with Presbyterianism). What should be clear, however, if one examines all the documents of the time, is that the predominant view was that morality and virtue are necessary for beneficial freedom and good government and that true morality and Biblical morality are one and the same. While it can well be argued that the Constitution with its first ten amendments was designed to establish a neutral government (as opposed to secular), it can also be shown even from the acts and writings of those cited in support of the secularist view that no one of that time wished either government or society to be free of the influence of religion.
One of the difficulties in addressing this question is that people have a diversity of definitions for “Christian”. For some “Christian” and “religious” are pretty much synonymous. For others “Christian” refers only to those of a conservative Fundamentalist faith and must include even their “Evangelical” views about the working of the Holy Spirit. In my own faith I recognize there are certain “fundamental” beliefs that are necessary for true Christian faith, but these are not identical with the fundamentals of a “Fundamentalist” church. I do not include Mormons, Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Christian Scientists in my assessment of what is truly Christian, but each of these groups considers itself Christian and is generally recognized by society at large as being under the “Christian” umbrella. Thomas Jefferson considered himself a Christian. “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus,” he wrote in 1816. Jefferson’s focus was primarily on the moral teaching of Jesus, not the doctrinal teachings of the New Testament (and there is debate on his views of those), but one must still acknowledge that to his way of thinking his views were “Christian” views. For this essay I am going to step out of my conservative Lutheran robe and clarify that in this writing “Christian” refers to those faiths and religions that are commonly grouped together under the “Christian” umbrella and those that espouse, for the most part, the morality of the Bible – the so-called Judeo-Christian ethic.
Secondly, what makes a document a Christian document? Some documents teach the doctrines of Christianity. Some trace their lineage directly from other Christian documents or from the Bible itself. Some reflect the Christian environment in which their authors grew and lived, either by the topics covered or by language and syntax that is similar to the Bible . Some are “Christian” simply because they do not attack Christian ideas and ideals. A fiction novel might be Christian because it uses story to teach Christian doctrine and ideals, or because its protagonist comes to Christian faith, or because the characters are Christians and act accordingly. When we ask, “Is the Constitution a Christian document?” what are we asking? Does it teach Christian doctrine or morality? Can it be shown that its words were chosen because their content is advocated by the Bible? Are its words and phrases what one would expect to come from people who have a habit and tendency to express themselves in ways they picked up from being well versed in the Bible?
Consider, for example, David Barton, a long time conservative Christian historian who has argued for years that America’s government is solidly based on Christian teaching – specifically Evangelical Christian teaching and ideals. He is almost a lone voice today, when so much “scholarship” is piled up in support of the secularist view. I appreciate David Barton and credit him with amassing an extensive library of original documents to support his claims, but my final verdict on him is still out, for he seems, at least at times, to overstate his case. For example, he claims that the Constitution’s requirement that the President be native born (Article II, Sec. 1, Par. 5) is based on Deuteronomy 17:15.
There is certainly a similarity. I can see how those who were aware of Dt 17 would not find the Constitution here to be strange or unusual. But I can find no evidence that proves the founders specifically had Dt. 17 in mind as they wrote this paragraph. The founders wanted to avoid divided loyalties with European powers. The most common reason for God’s commands against foreign entanglements in the Old Testament, even through marriage, was to avoid the influence of false gods. David Barton seems to be arguing that because there is a similarity there must be a connection, even if the founders did not say there was. But correlation does not prove causation. I need to check the details of Barton’s other arguments before finalizing my verdict on his work, but I find it sad that he seems to leave himself open for criticism. His antagonists call him a “pseudo-historian”. (Interesting that name calling comes out so quickly, as in calling creation scientists “pseudo-scientists”, as if that appellation alone proves one’s argument to be false. Creation science is not pure science, but science guided and informed by God’s revelation. Evolution science is not pure science either, but science constrained and restricted by the dogma of naturalism.)
I recently found and read a book that I would gladly recommend as a “must read” for all, except for the fact that many, and I fear most, of today’s readers are too illiterate to be able to understand the rhetoric and syntax of the “founding fathers.” Rather than pontificate on what the founding fathers meant by their words, this book presents a fairly broad spectrum of their actual words. I found the book very helpful is supplementing my understanding of the issue and my knowledge of those original words. The book is The Founding Fathers and the Debate Over Religion in Revolutionary America – A History in Documents, edited by Matthew L. Harris and Thomas S. Kidd. (tFF)
American society at the time of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution with its first ten Amendments was predominantly “Christian” oriented. If people had a book at all it was most likely a Bible. Bible phrases and patterns of speech were common and a number of the provisions in the Constitution sound similar to some of the wording of the Scriptures. And while there were clear differences in doctrine and practice, there was general agreement across all denominations and even among the Deists that Biblical morals and virtues were true morals and virtues, that there is one real God, and that God judges mankind and dispenses justice appropriate to man’s behavior, whether good or bad. Therefore, it is not surprising that some have found numerous quotations and legal records that support the view that America was founded as a Christian nation.
But the sentiment was not unanimous. The Constitution makes no mention of God or religion except what is necessary to keep it neutral on the matter. There were those who strongly opposed making a “Christian” government. “Deists” like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin are often cited as proof that America was designed to be a secular government of a secular nation. The question is: did these “Deists”, in fact, so argue?
One needs to realize that the adoption of the First Amendment by the first Congress was not a foregone conclusion. Government neutrality toward religion was a new concept except in Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. When made part of the Constitution by the First Amendment, the philosophy applied only to the Federal Government, not to the States, some of which continued to “establish” particular religions into the 1830s. That argues that the founders found the “establishment” of religion acceptable if the States chose to do so, but that the Federal government did not have that power. While this is, in part, true, it’s also true that those who favored government neutrality at the Federal level expressed their desire that it would spread also to the States, even as they recognized that they did not have the power to effect it.
One learns from this history is that the word “establishment” in the Constitution’s First Amendment is not a synonym for “promotion” or “encouragement”. The primary issue in “establishment” was the use of taxation to provide for the support of pastors and the construction of church buildings, even if those taxes were directed by the taxpayer to the church of his choice. The word “establishment” in the dictionary of the times refers to founding, ratifying, or ordaining by law and “5. Fixed or stated allowance for subsistence; income; salary” The context of the arguments over the “establishment” discussions in the decades before and after the adoption of the Constitution reveal that it was not the establishment of religion in general that was at issue, but the funding and endorsement of a particular religion by law or tax.
One also benefits from the arguments of those often cited in support of the secularist view, especially the reasons they give for a religiously neutral government. They were not arguing for a secular society, but for the freedom and protection of religion, truth, and virtue. Those arguments have three main themes. One, they argued that religious truth did not need civil (government) endorsement and, in fact, would suffer from it. Two, they wanted religious and pious people and groups and society in general to be spared the atrocities that had been the norm throughout history when leadership in religion was taken from men of God and given to men of politics. The emphasis was on putting up a wall to separate religion from the threat of the state, and not to separate the state from the influence of religion as citizens applied their moral and virtuous reason and logic. Three, they deemed government incapable of controlling a person’s conscience. While it might force behavior, it cannot force beliefs. Interestingly, the group that, arguably, most supported Jefferson and his neutrality was not the atheists, nor the Deists, but the Baptists, to whom the words “wall of separation between church and state” were first given as an assurance.
So, what does Thomas Jefferson, the “champion of secularism” have to say? In his first inaugural address he speaks of the nation as, “enlightened by a benign religion, professed indeed and practices in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude and the love of man, acknowledging and adoring an over-ruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here, and his greater happiness hereafter…” (tFF, p. 128) This is not “Christian”, but neither is it secularist. The “benign religion”, though unnamed, is Christianity, the predominant religion of the country at the time. Nor is it “orthodox Deism” (if one could ever think of such a thing), for the impersonal God of Deism doesn’t delight in anything. The use of “Providence”, while consistent with Deism, is inconclusive, for it was common for Christians of the time to refer to the Trinity as “Providence”.
Jefferson once wrote, “...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty Gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg...” For this he was accused of being an atheist. But just two sentences before this he wrote, “We are answerable for them to our God.” Jefferson’s point is that the government is not and should not be concerned with eternal matters, but with the welfare of people here on earth. To be sure, it does one eternal harm if you convince him there is no God, but it does not necessarily lead to physical harm here and now.
John Adams is another “Deist” who argued for the religious neutrality of the government. Still, note that well after the adoption of the First Amendment, he, as President of the United States, proclaimed a day of fasting and prayer. “As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God; and the national acknowledgement of this truth is not only an indispensible duty with the People owe to Him, but a duty whose natural influence is favorable to the promotion of that Morality and Piety, without which social Happiness cannot exist nor the Blessings of a Free Government be enjoyed…” “…when existing or threatening Calamities, the just Judgmentss of God against prevalent Iniquity, are a loud call to Repentance and Reformation…” “Under these considerations it has appeared to me that the Duty of imploring the Mercy and Benediction of Heaven on our Country demands, at this time, a special attention from its Inhabitants. I have therefore thought fit to recommend, and I do hereby recomment, that Wednesday the Ninth Day of May next be ovserved throughout the United States, as a day of Solemn Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer: That the Citizens of these States, absaining on that Day from their customary Worldly Occupations, offer their devout Addresses to the Father of Mercies, agreeably to those forms of methods which they have severally adopted as the most suitable and becoming: That all Religious Congregations do, with the deepest Humility, acknowledge before God the manifold Sins and Transgressions with shich we are justly chargeable as Individuals and as a Nation; beseeching him, at the same time, of his infinite Grace, through the Redeemer of the World, freely to remit all our Offences, and to inline us, by his Holy Spirit, to that sincere Repentance and Reformation which may afford us reason to hope for his inestimable Favour and Heavenly Benedicion…” (tFF p.126) While Jefferson would later say that this proclamation was inconsistent with the First Amendment, Jefferson is just one man’s opinion. John Adams was his ally in the push for the neutrality of government and certainly understood the meaning and intent of the First Amendment, yet he did not consider this call for repentance a violation of the “establishment” clause, even though this call included the “Father”, the “Redeemer”, and the “Holy Spirit” by name. This is the same John Adams who said, “Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion.” (Letter to Benjamin Rush – tFF p.156.)
James Madison was another founder who argued against the establishment of religion. He was President after Thomas Jefferson. Even he issued three proclamations for days of fasting and prayer during the War of 1812. He did not, however, use Trinitarian terms.
The First Congressional Congress, the same that adopted the First Amendment, elected two Chaplains to serve alternately in the House and Senate. It is not likely they would have done so had they considered such action to be in violation of the Amendment they crafted.
In 1803, the treaty between the United States and the Kaskaskia Indians provided for seven years of salary for Roman Catholic priests and at least partial support for the building of a house of worship. While this might seem an “establishment” of a particular religion, it can be argued that it was not because 1) they were not establishing anything new, but providing for something that already existed, and 2) this was viewed as “ample compensation for the relinquishment made to the United States.” (tFF p. 129) Still, I believe it noteworthy that this treaty was signed by the “wall of separation” President, Thomas Jefferson. In any case, it was not considered then to be a violation of the First Amendment as it almost certainly would be today.
Was America a Christian nation at its founding? Yes and No and Sort-of.
Yes, the predominant religion of the people was Christian. Christian idioms and language filled the vocabluary in both speech and in print. Bible motifs were well known and generally honored. The Bible was well used in school text books, especially for primers. Over the years many laws were enacted as a result of Christian morals and ideals. The standard of morality across the nation was the Bible.
No, the government and its formulating documents were not directly inspired by any Scriptures. It was designed to be totally neutral as to religion. The founding fathers were a mix from a wide spectrum of religious and philosophic thought, and even after the Constitution was established did not always agree with each other.
No, while generally professing Christianity, there were many examples of non-Christian behavior and attitudes. The bane of slavery continued. The Native-Americans were lied to and repeatedly cheated. Racism against Blacks, Native-Americans, Irish, and others was rampant. Abuse of women and children in the workforce was long a problem. Capitalists let their greed and avarice rule their business actions and unions and company owners clashed with violence and murder. Prostitution reigned notoriously in the opening west.
Sort of. While neutral, the government was clearly open to and even appreciative of Christian morality and virtue. The right of Christians (as well as others) freely to exercise their faith was guaranteed. Note the words of John Adams in 1798, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
George Washington, even though his personal beliefs are hard to pin down, was another who truly knew and demonstatively held the principles of the Constitution. Note his words from his Thanksgiving proclamation of 1789: “…that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, descreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of sciency among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.” (tFF p. 118) Again, not “Christian” but neither is it secularist.
Through the late 19th Century and through the first half of the 20th Century, there was not much to cause people to focus on the question of whether America is or is not a Christian nation. It was pretty much the common opinion, the neutrality of government notwithstanding, as many of the patriotic songs and hymns of those years demonstrate, even if that Christianity was a generic pan-denominational Christianity based merely on common moral convictions. Christian and Biblical themes and motifs were common in art and literature, and were engraved on public buildings. Christian worshiip services were held regularly in the halls of Congress until after the American Civil War, and Jefferson and Madison both regularly attended. It’s not that everyone applied Biblical morals to their own lives, but that there was general agreement that Biblical morals were good and that the nation’s prosperity depended on God – even if some kind of generic God. The point is that, whether the nation and government could be called “Christian” or not, American society and government was awash in religion, especially “Christian” religion – with the approval and participation of those who are claimed to have desired a religion-free secularism.
An interesting development in American thinking came in the 1950’s. After World War II, the threat of Godless communism moved Americans to call upon God’s aid to avert this threat. In 1953 the words “under God” were added to the Pledge of Allegiance. In 1956 and 1957, the words “in God we trust” were added to coins, currency, and the Great Seal of the United States – a clause that had appeared from time to time before that and can be traced at least as far back to the 4th verse of the National Anthem (“and this be our motto: in God is our trust”) which dates back to the War of 1812 and was adopted as our National Anthem in 1931.
Sadly, the title question of this essay is, for all practical purposes, moot today. Whatever our nation may or may not have been in the past, it is not a Christian nation now. How it changed merits its own study. Arguably a turning point can be seen in the 1962 Supreme Court decision banning prayer in the public schools. Our universities – even those that were begun as Christian seminaries – have ruled out the teaching of a creator God. Even the courts have forbidden the teaching of divine creation in public schools, as well as any use of the Scriptures, prayer, and even in some cases the wearing of Christian symbols. In their contempt for Christ, historians have replaced B.C. and A.D. (“Before Christ” and “Anno Domini – the year of our Lord”) with B.C.E. and C.E. (“before the current era” and “current era”). Christian art is increasingly banished from public view and Christians are being penalized for exercising their faith even through peaceful commentary against sins that violate God’s created order and his commandments. They are required under penalty of imprisonment and loss of property to participate in their businesses with behaviors that they in their conscience find reprehensible. Women are encouraged to elevate their personal ease and comfort to the level of mental health and are encouraged by society and government’s laws to murder their unborn babies. Sexual intimacy apart from marriage is considered normal and abstinence until marriage considered at best unrealistic. Government policies encourage unwed motherhood and fathers abandoning their responsibilities. One of only two major political parties advocates the destruction of the Biblical family structure and condones and excuses (openly and tacitly) violence and rioting, destruction of property, and bodily injury and murder. Christian mission work and publicly visible prayer is labeled “hate speech” and “racist”. It’s not just that society in general and government regulations have become anti-Christian, many “Christian” churches have joined in, denying Biblcal morality, divine creation, the divine inspiration of Scripture, and historical truth, even, in some cases, denying the divinity and resurrection of Christ. People are encouraged to make decisions not on the basis of morality and virtue guided by Scripture, but on the basis of pure selfish emotion and a sense of entitlement. Following the pattern of the government’s policy of wealth redistribution, many of the poor think they have a right to take the wealth of those who are “advantaged” by history or race. Both in government and in society at large, America has largely turned its back on Biblical morality and virtue. The riots across our nation in 2020 are proving John Adam’s words of 1798.
The Old Testament said, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” Today our nation’s God is not the Lord. It’s money or power or self indulgence or sex or fame or a combination of all these. That fact, however, does not change the reality of God. He remains the judge of all, and while he delays his wrath for the sake of the few who may still repent, as with Israel and Judah of old and as with Sodom and Gomorrah, there will come a time when he executes his judgment on a godless, sinful, and violent nation. May God preserve his people through the trials. Better yet, may he come quickly.