When Americans were still British citizens before the Revolution, it had been illegal to print English-language Bibles in America, but with the final American victory over the British at Yorktown, that policy was terminated. Robert Aitken, a local Philadelphia printer, therefore approached Congress, seeking permission to print an English language Bible on his presses, pointing out that it would be “a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools.”
Congress agreed, approved his request, and appointed a congressional committee to oversee the project. 16 In late summer, 1782, the committee announced that the Bible was ready for print; 17 on September 12, 1782, Congress officially approved that Bible and it soon began rolling off the presses – the first English-language Bible ever printed in America. In the front of that Bible is a congressional endorsement declaring: Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled . . . recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States.
Of this event – and the Bible it produced – an early historian observed: Who, in view of this fact, will call in question the assertion that this is a Bible nation? Who will charge the government with indifference to religion when the first Congress of the states assumed all the rights and performed all the duties of a Bible Society long before such an institution had an existence in the world!
Another well-documented (but today unfamiliar) part of America’s Godly heritage involves the account of a young George Washington during a fierce military battle in which his life precariously hung in the balance for two hours but was miraculously spared. In fact, following that event, Washington himself openly acknowledged that it had been by the direct intervention of God that he remained alive.
The incident occurred during America’s French and Indian War (1753-1763). At that time, England and France – two long-standing bitter enemies that had warred against each other for centuries in Europe – claimed the same land in America along the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. They went to war to settle that dispute; those living in America at the time took sides, with most of the Indians joining the French and most of the American colonists joining the British.
Great Britain, seeking to drive the French from the inland parts of America, dispatched 2,300 handpicked, veteran British troops to the colonies. Those troops, under the command of distinguished veteran General Edward Braddock, arrived in Virginia and were joined by a hundred Virginia buckskins, led by their twenty-three year old colonel, George Washington.
They then set out for the mouth of the Ohio River to expel the French from Ft. Duquesne (now the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). Having marched hundreds of miles, Braddock temporarily halted his troops at Fort Cumberland. They were still more than a hundred miles from the French fort, but Fort Cumberland would serve as a staging ground for the attack. Braddock dispatched his force in four waves, with himself, George Washington, the Virginians, and 1,200 chosen British troops comprising the third wave and principal military force (the first two groups had been the engineering force with its workers and their military protection, sent out to open a road through the wilderness; the fourth group was the baggage and equipment wagons bringing up the rear). By July 9, 1755, Braddock’s force had moved within seven miles of the French fort, and while following a path leading through a wooded ravine, they marched into a waiting ambush; the French and Indians opened fire on them from both sides.
Fortunately, Braddock’s group was composed largely of battle-hardened British veterans accustomed to war, but unfortunately they were veterans of European wars. European warfare was traditionally conducted in the open: one army lined up at one end of an open field and the other army lined up at the opposite end; they faced each other, took aim, and fired. The British now found themselves in the Pennsylvania woods with the French and Indians firing at them from the tops of trees, behind rocks, and under logs; the British were completely unfamiliar with woodland warfare.
When they came under fire, they responded according to their training and lined up shoulder-to-shoulder along the bottom of the ravine; not surprisingly, they were promptly slaughtered. Over the next two hours, 714 of the 1,300 British and American troops were shot down, with only thirty of the French and Indians being shot – nearly all of those by Washington’s Virginia buckskins, who were accustomed to woodland warfare and had sought cover when the attack began.
Even among the officers the British losses had been enormous: of the eighty-six British and American officers in that battle, twenty-six were killed and thirty-six more wounded. Significantly, George Washington was the only mounted officer not shot down off his horse – and he had been particularly vulnerable, having courageously ridden back and forth along the front lines, delivering General Braddock’s orders among the troops.
Late in the battle General Braddock was seriously wounded and Washington took charge, gathering the remaining troops and heading back toward Fort Cumberland. Along the way, Braddock died, and on his death, Washington performed the role of a military chaplain, conducting the funeral service, reading Scriptures, and offering prayers. 21 Braddock’s body was buried in the middle of the road, with col. washington conducting gen. braddock’s funeral wagons driving over his grave to prevent the Indians from finding and desecrating his remains.
Washington and the remaining troops arrived back at Fort Cumberland on July 17, 1755. During the week-long return to the fort, word had spread across the colonies that the slaughter of the British and Americans had been complete – that the entire force had been wiped out; so after his safe arrival at the fort, Washington wrote a letter to his family, assuring them that despite reports to the contrary, he was still very much alive:
As I have heard since my arrival at this place a circumstantial account of my death and dying speech, I take this early opportunity of contradicting both and of assuring you that I now exist and appear in the land of the living. Having confirmed his safety to his family, he then recounted what had occurred during the battle – that when he had removed his jacket at the end of the battle, he found four bullet holes through it but not a single bullet had touched him; he had horses shot from under him, but he had not been scratched. He therefore concluded: I now exist and appear in the land of the living by the miraculous care of Providence that protected me beyond all human expectation. As word of God’s Divine protection of Washington spread across the colonies, the Rev. Samuel Davies even referred to the incident in a sermon only a few weeks after the momentous battle. (Davies was a leader in the American revival known as the Great Awakening and was considered the greatest pulpit preacher in America.) Significantly, the devastating defeat of the British troops left American settlers on the frontier completely unprotected. They therefore banded together into volunteer military companies to defend their home.
When Americans were still British citizens before the Revolution, it had been illegal to print English-language Bibles in America, but with the final American victory over the British at Yorktown, that policy was terminated. Robert Aitken, a local Philadelphia printer, therefore approached Congress, seeking permission to print an English language Bible on his presses, pointing out that it would be “a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools.”
Congress agreed, approved his request, and appointed a congressional committee to oversee the project. 16 In late summer, 1782, the committee announced that the Bible was ready for print; 17 on September 12, 1782, Congress officially approved that Bible 18 and it soon began rolling off the presses – the first English-language Bible ever printed in America. In the front of that Bible is a congressional endorsement declaring:
Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled . . . recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States. Of this event – and the Bible it produced – an early historian observed:
Who, in view of this fact, will call in question the assertion that this is a Bible nation? Who will charge the government with indifference to religion when the first Congress of the states assumed all the rights and performed all the duties of a Bible Society long before such an institution had an existence in the world!
Another well-documented (but today unfamiliar) part of America’s Godly heritage involves the account of a young George Washington during a fierce military battle in which his life precariously hung in the balance for two hours but was miraculously spared. In fact, following that event, Washington himself openly acknowledged that it had been by the direct intervention of God that he remained alive.
The incident occurred during America’s French and Indian War (1753-1763). At that time, England and France – two long-standing bitter enemies that had warred against each other for centuries in Europe – claimed the same land in America along the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. They went to war to settle that dispute; those living in America at the time took sides, with most of the Indians joining the French and most of the American colonists joining the British.
Great Britain, seeking to drive the French from the inland parts of America, dispatched 2,300 handpicked, veteran British troops to the colonies. Those troops, under the command of distinguished veteran General Edward Braddock, arrived in Virginia and were joined by a hundred Virginia buckskins, led by their twenty three year old colonel, George Washington.
They then set out for the mouth of the Ohio River to expel the French from Ft. Duquesne (now the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), a young washington miraculously spared durng a particularly fierce battle gen. braddock. Having arched hundreds of miles, Braddock temporarily halted his troops at Fort Cumberland. They were still more than a hundred miles from the French fort, but Fort Cumberland would serve as a staging ground for the attack. Braddock dispatched his force in four waves, with himself, George Washington, the Virginians, and 1,200 chosen British troops comprising the third wave and principal military force (the first two groups had been the engineering force with its workers and their military protection, sent out to open a road through the wilderness; the fourth group was the baggage and equipment wagons bringing up the rear). By July 9, 1755, Braddock’s force had moved within seven miles of the French fort, and while following a path leading through a wooded ravine, they marched into a waiting ambush; the French and Indians opened fire on them from both sides.
Fortunately, Braddock’s group was composed largely of battle-hardened British veterans accustomed to war, but unfortunately they were veterans of European wars. European warfare was traditionally conducted in the open: one army lined up at one end of an open field and the other army lined up at the opposite end; they faced each other, took aim, and fired. The British now found themselves in the Pennsylvania woods with the French and Indians firing at them from the tops of trees, behind rocks, and under logs; the British were completely unfamiliar with woodland warfare.
Silas Deane, also a member of that Congress, declared that it was “a prayer . . . worth riding one hundred mile to hear” 3 (i.e., that it was worth spending three days on horseback to arrive in time for that prayer), and that as a result of that prayer, “even Quakers shed tears.” 4 Additionally, the Congress read from four chapters in the Bible that morning, and as John Adams reported to his wife, Abigail, one particular chapter especially impacted the group:
I never saw a greater effect upon an audience. It seemed as if Heaven had ordained that Psalm to be read on the morning. . . . I must beg you to read that Psalm. . . . [Read] the 35th Psalm to [your friends]. Read it to your father. 5 (Numerous other delegates also commented on that profound time of prayer and Bible study. 6 )
After meeting the first year in Carpenters’ Hall, the Continental Congress then moved to Independence Hall, which served as its home for the next several years. From the Continental Congress came many of our famous Founding Fathers, great national leaders, military generals, and U. S. Presidents. In fact, America’s first four Presidents all served in Congress in Independence Hall.
An interesting anecdote involving one of those four occurred in 1777. John Adams of Massachusetts, who went on to become America’s second president, became close friends with Dr. Benjamin Rush of Philadelphia while serving in Congress, and both signed the Declaration of Independence. Dr. Rush, known as the “Father of American Medicine,” had been appointed by Congress as the Surgeon General of the Continental Army, and in 1777, he traveled to the different battlefield hospitals, helping the wounded and monitoring the medical conditions before returning to Congress.
At that point in the American Revolution, things were not going particularly well: America was losing many more battles than it was winning. With such a bleak prospect of success, Dr. Rush leaned over to John Adams and candidly asked if he thought that America could actually win the Revolution. Adams’ answer was clear and unequivocal.
He confidently replied:
Yes! – if we fear God and repent of our sins! 7 This account, unknown to most Americans today, was characteristic of the tone so often manifested within Independence Hall. In fact, during the American Revolution the Continental Congress issued fifteen separate prayer proclamations calling the nation to times of prayer and fasting, or prayer and thanksgiving (depending on the circumstances at that time); 8 those proclamations were characterized by overtly Christian language.
In 1787, Independence Hall served as home to the body that eventually produced the U. S. Constitution. Yet, few today know that virtually every one of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who framed the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches 9 and that many were outspoken evangelicals.
Many assume that the term “evangelicals” is a modern descriptor, but such is not the case. Webster’s original 1828 dictionary defined “evangelical” as “consonant to the doctrines and precepts of the gospel published by Christ and His apostles; sound in the doctrines of the gospel; orthodox.” Modern definitions have changed little, currently meaning “belonging to or designating the Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the Scriptures, especially of the New Testament . . . and that stress as paramount the tenet that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in the atonement of Christ.” Therefore, whether using the old or the new definition, numbers of the Founding Fathers do indeed conform to the appellation “evangelical.”
Similarly, few today know that of the fifty six Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration in Independence Hall in 1776, over half had received degrees from schools that today would be considered seminaries or Bible schools. 11 In fact, it was signers of the Declaration of Independence who started the Sunday School movement as well as several Bible societies and missionary societies. They were also responsible for penning numerous religious works and publishing many famous Bibles, including one by signer John Witherspoon in 1791, 12 another by Charles Thomson in 1808 13 (Thomson and John Hancock were the only two individuals to sign the Declaration on July 4, 1776; on August 2, the others signed the famous copy so familiar today), and one by Dr. Benjamin Rush in 1812. 14 In fact, a famous 1782 Bible directly connected to Independence Hall is an important part of America’s Godly heritage.
Does America really have a Godly heritage? It definitely does, and abundant proof of this fact is available in tens of thousands of historic documents. In fact, copious evidence is readily visible in a consideration of the individuals and incidents in and around just one small building: Independence Hall in Philadelphia – the birthplace of American liberty and the origin of American constitutional government.
In that building on July 2, 1776, the Founding Fathers in the Continental Congress voted to approve a complete separation from Great Britain; on July 4th, they approved the Declaration of Independence; and on July 8th, they carried the Declaration outside Independence Hall, read it to the assembled crowd, and then rang the Liberty Bell. Most citizens assume that the famous bell
derives its name from the fact that it rang when America announced its liberty, but such is not the case. It is called the Liberty Bell because of the Biblical inscription from Leviticus 25 Proclaim liberty throughout the land, to all the inhabitants thereof.
Next door to Independence Hall is Carpenters’ Hall – the building in which the first American Congress met. In 1774, forty of America’s leading statesmen from across the thirteen colonies (including luminaries such as Patrick Henry, John Adams, George Washington, John Jay, Samuel Adams, and many others) met in that Hall to prepare for the approaching conflict with Great Britain. That Congress opened with prayer, but according to historical records, it was not a superficial prayer like might be prayed in a public gathering today. To the contrary, it was a profound time of prayer led by the Rev. Jacob Duché, a local minister from nearby Christ Church.
Christ Church is where many of the Founding Fathers worshipped, and where seven signers of the Declaration of Independence are buried: Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Rush, James Wilson, Francis Hopkinson, Joseph Hewes, and George Ross. So many Founders worshipped at Christ Church that around 1910, a famous stained glass window (now called “Patriot’s Window”) was added, showing many of the Founders and famous Americans attending church there, including:
patriots’ window with the congregation worshpping in 1790. in the front row is robert morris and his children, white and harrison; in the aisle to the left is francis hopkinson and his son; in the second row is george and martha washington, alexander hamilton, and betsy ross; in the third row is benjamin rush and joseph hopkinson; in the fourth row is john penn and his family, and in the fifth row is benjamin franklin and his daughter, sarah
• Robert Morris and his family (Morris was one of the elite group of six Founding Fathers who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution);
• George Washington and his wife, Martha;
• Alexander Hamilton (a signer of the Constitution and an author of the Federalist Papers);
• Dr. Benjamin Rush (a signer of the Declaration and the “Father of Public Schools Under the Constitution”);
• Joseph Hopkinson(a federal judge and a constitutional attorney who was the son of Declaration signer Francis Hopkinson);
• Francis Hopkinson and his family(Hopkinson was a signer of the Declaration and an early federal judge appointed by President George Washington);
• John Penn and his family (Penn was the grandson of Pennsylvania founder William Penn and was a governor of Pennsylvania before the Revolution); and
• Benjamin Franklin and his daughter, Sarah (Franklin is another of the six who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution; he was also Governor of Pennsylvania)
Yet many Americans today, including many Christians, have fallen into believing that Christians should not be involved in civil government – that there should be some sort of a compartmentalization – that faith should be kept in one arena, real life in another, and the two should never meet. The Bible does not teach that; and our Founding Fathers and early ministers did not believe that.
Yet many critics today try to invoke what Jesus said in Matthew 22 as proof that Christians should not be involved; but this is a complete mischaracterization of that passage. Matthew 22:21 says that we are to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” But does this mean that God’s people are not to be involved with “Caesar”? Why did Jesus make this statement? He was asked whether it was right to pay taxes. In response, Jesus picked up a coin, asked whose inscription was on it, and when they said, “Caesar’s,” Jesus replied, “Then render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” That is, render your due to the government, and render your due to God – you have responsibilities in both areas. He clearly was not saying to avoid the governmental arena. Beyond the passage in Matthew 22, there are many other Biblical passages where God endorses the involvement of His people in the civil arena – an institution that He Himself created and ordained. For example, in Romans 13:4-6, on three separate occasions, the Scripture declares that those who are in civil government are “ministers of God.” (Perhaps this is why so many ministers were involved in the civil arena during the Founding Era – they believed and obeyed the Bible.)
Hebrews 11 is the “Faith Hall of Fame” where the great heroes of our faith are held up to us as examples; in fact, Hebrews 12 declares that it is these heroes who are cheering us on. Yet, notice that the heroes of our faith listed in Hebrews 11:22-34 were involved in civil government. Why would God hold them up to us as examples to emulate if He thought it was wrong for His people to be involved in the civil arena? In I Timothy 2:1-2, we are told to pray “first of all” for all people – for our leaders and those in authority. Notice: God tells us to pray for our civil leaders “first of all” – before we pray for ourselves, our families, or our churches. There is nothing else in the Bible that God tells us to pray for “first of all.” This must mean that God considers civil government important.
Recall the parable of the minas in Luke 19. The Master calls His servants together and gives them all a mina – a trust – a stewardship. The Master departs and then later returns to take account of their stewardship. One had taken the mina and turned it into ten; another had turned his into five; and another had taken his trust and not used it at all. The one who refused to get involved with what the Master had entrusted him was the one who got in trouble; but notice the reward for the other two. To the first, the Master said, “Well done good and faithful servant; I will make you a ruler over ten cities”; to the second he said, “Well done, I will make you a ruler over five cities.” Notice the reward of the Master for their faithful stewardship: he places them into civil government! Today, most Christians don’t think of being in civil government as a reward from the Master; maybe it is time to rethink our beliefs about civil government based on what the Bible says. Despite the rich heritage of Christian faith and expression in America and the strong foundation that it has provided for our country, things have begun to change dramatically. Hundreds of years of religious freedoms have been erased by courts in only a few short decades. While there have been scores of horrible rulings, perhaps none is any more egregious than the ruling in a case that went to the U. S. Supreme Court: Jane Doe v. Santa Fe Independent School District. Santa Fe is a small rural town outside of Houston, Texas; it has a long tradition of prayer at graduations and prayer at athletic events such as football games. Yet a handful of students in that school were offended by the practice; they did not want anyone else praying. So they went to a federal judge and asked him to force everyone else to stop praying. The judge ruled that he would allow prayer to continue at graduations and athletic events – but only if students prayed the right words when they prayed. He warned:
Following that ruling, nearly a dozen major “abstinence only” curriculums were placed in public schools (a number that is still increasing); furthermore, nearly two-dozen states have now passed laws mandating “abstinence only” teachings in schools. And just as the removal of religious moral teachings had a verifiable negative impact, so, too, did their reintroduction have a verifiable positive impact. The reversal in teen pregnancy rates following the return of abstinence teaching is so marked that the teen pregnancy rate has reached its lowest point in three decades, and current studies report: [A]mong unmarried teenage girls ages 15 to 19, increased abstinence accounted for 67 percent of the decrease in the pregnancy rate. Similarly, a 51 percent drop in the birth rate for single teenage girls ages 15 to 19 is attributed to abstinence. . . . These findings are significant because they refute the previous – and widely accepted – claims that the decrease in birth and pregnancy rates is due primarily to the increased use and effectiveness of contraception, such as condoms.
Numerous other studies confirm similarly effective results, demonstrating that the inclusion of basic religious principles does indeed produce morality and self-control, exactly as predicted by George Washington, Fisher Ames, and many other Framers. Other indications of positive emerging judicial trends are seen in recent Supreme Court rulings that now make it permissible to have evangelism, prayer, and Bible clubs on public school campuses; show films – in school facilities – that present family values from a religious perspective; and pay for some student religious publications with school funds. In fact, the Bible can even be taught as a for-credit course on public school campuses.
In another promising trend, the Supreme Court now upholds the right of states and local communities to ban nude dancing. (In recent years, courts have ruled that nude dancing was “free speech” or “free expression” and therefore could not be prohibited.) The Court has now held that nude dancing per se is not speech but rather is behavior and therefore can be regulated. In fact, the Court cited statistics to prove that in communities with nude dancing, the crime rates and sexual assault rates were higher than in communities without nude dancing, explaining that nude dancing “encourages prostitution, increases sexual assaults, and attracts other criminal activity.” The Court therefore held that it was not only permissible but even desirable to uphold certain moral standards, even though many may consider those standards to be religious (the Court calls this the Secondary- Effects Doctrine).
In yet another positive change, there is now a renewed interest in teaching accurate history in schools, even when specific aspects of that history are overtly religious. Consequently, nearly a dozen state legislatures have passed laws encouraging teachers to post in classrooms the writings of the Founding Fathers and the documents from our history that have strong religious content, but which have largely disappeared from textbooks (e.g., the Mayflower Compact of 1620, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, George Washington’s “Farewell Address” of 1796, Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address of 1865, etc.). These new laws prohibit content-based censorship of American history due to the religious references found in those documents. In conclusion, historically speaking, the “separation of church and state” was never intended to become a tool to secularize the public square; to the contrary, the Founding Fathers intended that Biblical principles be part of public society and believed that the “separation” doctrine would preserve those principles in the public arena rather than prohibit them. And statistically speaking, the inclusion of Biblical principles and values in societal programs produces positive measurable results. Therefore, citizens should not be intimidated from utilizing those principles or values, not only because they were constitutionally protected and are now being slowly reaffirmed by the courts, but especially because they work! America will be morally and culturally strong only to the degree that Biblical, religious and moral principles are incorporated throughout society and its institutions, so take courage and stand up for what has been proven to be successful
God has indeed blessed America. Under His Providence over the last two centuries, America has risen to levels and achievements attained by no other nation in the history of the world. Yet, ironically, in a nation once distinguished for its faith and made great by its people of faith, in recent years public expressions of that same faith have been viewed as a menace to society rather than an asset; and nowhere had this change been more evident than in the courts.
For example, in the case Warsaw v. Tehachapi, a federal court ruled that it was unconstitutional for a public cemetery to have a planter in the shape of a cross because – according to the court – if someone were to view that cross, it could cause emotional “distress” and thus constitute “injury-in-fact.”
In the case Roberts v. Madigan, a federal court ruled that a teacher at school could not be seen publicly with his own personal copy of the Bible, and then ruled that a classroom library containing 237 books must remove from the library the two books dealing with Christianity.
In the case Alexander v. Nacogdoches School District, a member of the federal drug czar’s office was prohibited from delivering an anti-drug message to students in a Texas school district. The court agreed that the speaker was indeed an anti-drug expert, admitting that he had already delivered his secular anti-drug message to over 3,000,000 students at thousands of public schools across the nation; but because the speaker was also publicly known as a Christian, he was therefore disqualified from speaking.
In the case Commonwealth v. Chambers, a man was convicted and sentenced by a jury for taking an axe handle and brutally clubbing to death a 71-year-old woman in order to steal her Social Security check. The jury’s sentence was overturned because the prosecuting attorney – in a statement that lasted less than five seconds – had mentioned a Bible verse in the courtroom. For mentioning seven words from the Bible in the courtroom, the court set aside the jury sentence of a man convicted of a brutal murder.
Does that decision to overturn the jury’s sentence represent good government? From a Biblical standpoint, the purpose of government is to reward the righteous and punish the wicked (c.f., I Timothy 1, I Peter 2, Romans 13, etc.), and this has long been the American policy; but in this case, the wicked was protected and the righteous was punished – a decision that violates every traditional standard for sound government.
Such egregious decisions (and others like them on issues ranging from private property protection to education, from environment to criminal justice) fuel the outcry for better government. Yet how to achieve good government has been the subject of debate for over three centuries in America, with differing conclusions reached on how to achieve that goal.
For example, in the 1660s when the people of Carolina were drafting their first constitution, they sought help from political philosopher
John Locke. He authored their lengthy 1669 constitution on the thesis that good government would be secured through the establishment of good laws. Locke reasoned that if righteous laws were embedded directly into the constitution, then no matter who was in office, he would always be bound by those righteous laws.
However, William Penn applied a dramatically different approach when he established the government of Pennsylvania under a short and brief governing document at about the same time. Penn believed that good laws were necessary, but he did not believe that a long constitution filled with righteous laws would be the means of securing good government. He explained that something more was necessary:
Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men give them. . . . Wherefore governments rather depend upon men, than men upon governments. Let men be good and the government cannot be bad. . . . But if men be bad, the government [will] never [be] good. . . . I know some say, “Let us have good laws, and no matter for the men that execute them.” But let them consider that though good laws do well, good men do better; for good laws may [lack] good men. . . but good men will never [lack] good laws, nor [allow bad] ones.
Penn argued that the soundness of government depended more upon the quality of leaders than the quality of laws – the same position set forth in Scriptures such as Proverbs 29:2, which declares:
When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.
Significantly, our Founding Fathers understood and embraced this approach – a fact demonstrated in the first governments they created.
Their opportunity to create those governments was the result of approving the Declaration of Independence. The day before they approved the separation from Great Britain, each of them had been a British citizen, living in a British colony, with thirteen crown-appointed British governors running the state governments. But by separating from Great Britain, they had effectively abolished their existing state governments. As a result, they returned home from Philadelphia to their own states and began creating new state constitutions to establish new state governments.
For example, Declaration signers Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Robert Treat Paine, and John Adams helped write Massachusetts’ first constitution; signers Benjamin Franklin and James Smith helped write Pennsylvania’s; William Paca, Charles Carroll, and Samuel Chase helped write Maryland’s; George Read and Thomas McKean helped write Delaware’s; etc.
Notice the governing philosophy incorporated in these documents
– such as in the Delaware constitution:
– Every person, who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust . . . shall . . . make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: “I do profess faith in God the father, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore, and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”
Today, this belief would be a desirable prerequisite for entering Christian seminaries; ironically, however, this was the Founders’ requirement for leaders to enter politics. Notice, however, that the emphasis is on the quality of individual placed into office, not the quality of laws. The other state constitutions reflected the same approach. For example, the Pennsylvania constitution declared:
And each member [of the legislature], before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: “I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.” The Massachusetts constitution likewise stipulated: [All persons elected must] make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I do declare that I believe the Christian religion and have firm persuasion of its truth.” North Carolina’s constitution required that:
No person, who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the [Christian] religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit in the civil department, within this State. (Similar declarations can be found in other constitutions penned by our Founders.)
Significantly, the state constitutions written by the Founders followed the same general pattern: they established a republican form of government, delineated its general operations and scope of powers, included a bill of rights to protect individual liberties, and then focused on the types of individuals that would fill the offices and operate the form of government they had just created. This approach of focusing on the quality of leaders rather than of laws directly affected the length of those early documents in a manner strikingly different from contemporary ones.
For example, if individuals today were placed in the position of writing a new constitution for their state, the result might be similar to that found in some of the more recent (relatively speaking) constitutions of territories that entered the United States. For example, when Oklahoma became a state in 1907, its constitution was over 100 pages long; however, the average length of the constitutions created by the Founding Fathers was a mere five pages! (The same characteristic lengthiness is also visible in the constitutions of other twentieth-century states, including those of Arizona, New Mexico, Hawaii, Alaska, etc.)
The lesson was clear: the correct caliber of leader, joined to the right set of guiding principles (i.e., a republican form of government whose powers are specified in a written constitution, coupled with a list of inalienable rights not to be infringed by government), will produce the right kind of laws. Using this approach, those early American states became shining models of good government, and their example was emulated by nations across the world.
Having embedded these principles at the core of American government, our Founding Fathers went to great lengths to ensure that we would neither forget nor neglect these principles of sound governance. Seeking to transmit these principles to subsequent generations, many Founders became directly involved with education. In fact, in the ten years following the American Revolution, they established more colleges in America than in the 150 years preceding the Revolution; they were indeed committed to transmitting sound principles from generation to generation.
In recent years, right-thinking Americans have been repeatedly shocked and perplexed by unimaginable random acts of violence. The numbers of mass shootings at schools, cafeterias, subways, postal facilities, and churches, and bombings at government and private office buildings have been almost mind-boggling. And who would have imagined that an unpopular court decision in California and a victorious basketball game in Illinois would each cause widespread rioting and looting with human casualties and massive property destruction? Such events not only offend the sensibilities of normal citizens but they also serve as reminders of the unhappy fact that far too many among us no longer possess the time-honored qualities of civility and decency – far too many lack the internal restraints necessary to prevent explosive violent outbursts. Perhaps such tragic events may yet result in lasting good if they cause us to re-embrace the teachings and public policies that once produced the individual character and virtues necessary for a genuinely civilized society. Significantly, numerous Founding Fathers and early statesmen asserted that religious faith was the most important source of those civil virtues. Among those holding this view were Declaration Signers John Hancock, John Adams, Benjamin Rush, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Treat Paine, Charles Carroll, John Witherspoon, etc.; Constitution Signers George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James McHenry, Abraham Baldwin, Gouverneur Morris, William Paterson, etc.; Famous Statesmen Patrick Henry, Noah Webster, John Quincy Adams, Daniel Webster, etc.; and many, many others. And religious faith not only produced America’s most important civil virtues but it was also a primary reason for the founding of America. As U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall affirmed:
One great object of the colonial charters was avowedly the propagation of the Christian faith. The same religious faith that founded America also guided her through her establishment as an independent nation. As John Adams acknowledged:
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. Leader after leader, from generation to generation, from the Framers to contemporary statesmen, reaffirmed this fact – such as when President Harry Truman openly avowed: In this great country of ours has been demonstrated the fundamental unity of Christianity and democracy.
The principles of faith were incorporated into our governing documents from the very beginning, and the positive results have been obvious. As French observer Alexis de Tocqueville reported in his famous work Democracy in America:
There is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America – and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.
America truly has been blessed with a unique form of government. Its governing documents (the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights) have brought this nation to a position unrivaled by any other over the past two centuries, and religious principles were a powerful influence in shaping each of those documents.
Yet, notwithstanding the positive influence of religious faith in forming America’s distinctive culture, it seems that the greatest influence today in sculpting the faith and values of American culture is the extraconstitutional phrase “separation of church and state.” Significantly, that now-popular phrase is found in none of our governing documents, despite the widespread modern belief to the contrary.
A conversation I once had with a U. S. Congressman (who is also an accomplished attorney) illustrates how deeply this non-constitutional phrase has been infused in our constitutional thinking. As we were discussing the importance of basic religious values and teachings to public behavior and society in general, he lamented, “We know these values are important; it’s unfortunate that we can’t do anything to promote them.”
Surprised, I queried, “Why not?”
He replied, “We just can’t.”
I persisted, “Why not?”
He answered, “Because of ‘separation of church and state.’”
I responded, “‘Separation of church and state’? What about it?”
He replied, “It’s in the Constitution – the Constitution won’t permit us to have religious values in public arenas.” I returned, “That phrase is not in the Constitution!” Forcefully he countered, “Yes it is!”
“No it’s not.”
“Yes it is.”
We went back and forth. I finally gave him a copy of the Constitution and asked, “Would you please find that phrase for me?” He replied triumphantly, “I’d be happy to!” He immediately turned to the First Amendment, read it – and became very embarrassed. He said, “I can’t believe this! In law school they always taught us that’s what the First Amendment said!” Amazed, I asked, “You’ve never read the Constitution for yourself?” He replied, “We were never required to read it in law school!” This conversation illustrates a common misconception. Many citizens believe that the phrase “separation of church and state” is language found in our governing documents; it is not. Concerning religion, the Constitution (specifically, the First Amendment to the Constitution) states only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The words “separation,” “church,” or “state” are not found in the First Amendment, the Constitution, or in any other official founding document.
Clearly, John Locke had a powerful political influence on America and the Declaration of Independence. Interestingly, critics today classify Locke as a deist or a forerunner of deism, but this is completely erroneous. Not only was John Locke considered a theologian by previous generations, but he even wrote a verse-by-verse commentary on Paul’s Epistles and also compiled a topical Bible, which he called a Common Place-Book to the Holy Bible, that listed the verses in the Bible, subject by subject. When anti-religious enlightenment thinkers attacked Christianity, Locke defended it in his book, The Reasonable-ness of Christianity as Delivered in the Scriptures. And then when he was attacked for defending Christianity in that first work, he responded with the work, A Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity. Still being attacked two years later, Locke wrote, A Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity. No wonder he was considered a theologian by his peers and by subsequent generations! However, the writing of John Locke that most influenced the Founders’ philosophy in the Declaration of Independence was his Two Treatises of Government. In fact, signer of the Declaration Richard Henry Lee declared that the Declaration itself was “copied from Locke’s Treatise on Government.” Even though that book is less than 400 pages long, Locke refers to the Bible over 1,500 times to show the proper operation of civil government! This is the primary work influencing the Declaration of Independence; no wonder the Declaration has been such a successful document! Our Constitution has also been successful – so successful, in fact, that America is the longest on-going constitutional republic in the history of the world. Significantly, our Constitution was an original and uniquely American document; it was not a compilation of the best clauses of other constitutions from across the world. It contained simple ideas that had never before been embodied in written constitutions – politically new and novel practices such as the separation of powers, checks and balances, and full republicanism. Where did the Founders get their specific ideas for this most successful of all constitutions?
In an attempt to answer this question, political scientists embarked on an ambitious ten-year project to analyze some 15,000 writings from the Founding Era. Those writings were examined with the goal of isolating and identifying the specific political sources quoted during the time surrounding the establishment of American government. If the sources of the quotes could be identified, then the origin of the Founders’ political ideas could be determined. From the 15,000 writings selected, the researchers isolated some 3,154 quotations and then documented the original sources of those quotations. The research revealed that the single most cited authority in the writings of the Founding Era was the Bible: thirty-four percent of the documented quotes were taken from the Bible – a percentage almost four times higher than the second most quoted source. In fact, signers of the Constitution George Washington and Alexander Hamilton acknowledge that the principle undergirding the separation of powers was the same principle found in Jeremiah 17:9 – a principle that had been the subject of numerous sermons during the Founding Era. Many other Bible verses and principles also found embodiment in the Constitution. For example, compare the Art. I, Sec. 8 provision on uniform immigration laws with Leviticus 19:34; compare the Art. II, Sec. 1 provision that a president must be a natural born citizen with Deuteronomy 17:15; the Art. III, Sec. 3 provision regarding witnesses and capital punishment with Deuteronomy 17:6; and the Art. III, Sec. 3 provision against attainder with Ezekiel 18:20. And notice that Isaiah 33:22 defines the three branches of government, and Ezra 7:24 establishes the type of tax exemptions that the Founders gave to our churches (that still exist today). The concept of republicanism set forth in Art. IV, Sec. 4 – that is, of electing our leaders at the local, county, state, and federal levels – has its origins in Exodus 18:21. In fact, Noah Webster, the Founder personally responsible for Art. I, Sec. 8, ¶ 8 of the Constitution, specifically cites Exodus 18:21; and John Jay and George Washington also attributed God’s providence as the reason that America elected its own leaders.Since so many of the ideas that found application in our government were taken from the Bible, it is not surprising that John Adams had identified Christians and ministers as being so influential in American independence. Nearly four decades after the American Revolution, he reaffirmed this position, declaring: The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . Now I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.
The new congressional leadership refused to act on her bill – or to act on additional recommendations offered by other Members.
Those Members therefore concluded that the general public needed to be made aware of the situation within the CVC so that they could apply pressure to Congress. To that end, in early July 2008, we began work on an 8-minute video to highlight some of the many problems with the CVC. (That short video – “The War on God in America” – can be viewed on YouTube or at www.wallbuilders.com.)
While working on that DVD, on July 23, 2008, we were asked to give a formal briefing about the problems within the CVC to a group of several dozen House Members. Eight days later on July 31, 2008, 108 House Members sent a letter to the Architect of the Capitol (responsible for the construction of the CVC), expressing their deep concern over what they saw (or rather, what they did not see) in the CVC, explaining:
We have been troubled to learn in recent weeks that some aspects of the new CVC – including displays, videos, and historic interpretations – may be historically incomplete and reflect an apathetic disposition toward our nation’s religious history. . . . It is clear that those who designed and developed the displays produced products excluding any significant references to God or faith. . . . In fact, not only is our national motto, “In God We Trust,” not a central theme of the CVC, it has been totally excluded from any effective presentation. . . . Some omitted facts are so glaringly obvious that to exclude them offers a distorted view of American history that is not acceptable to us and that we believe will ultimately not be acceptable to the American taxpayers. None of us should want to construct a $621 million shrine to political correctness that does not accurately reflect a significant part of American history.
Under this growing pressure, the Architect promised to make changes – including the addition of the National Motto. Amazingly, the part of the Visitor Center designed to replicate the actual House Chamber omitted its prominent phrase “In God We Trust,” even though it’s boldly displayed in the actual House Chamber (and it is also displayed in the actual Senate Chamber). However, despite the promises, no changes were made by the Architect. (The Architect had previously been a central figure in the national controversy about prohibiting the word “God” from the personal flag certificates that Members of Congress award to individuals to commemorate notable achievements and events.
Shortly after that letter was sent to the Architect, our “War on God in America” video was released. Many Members posted it on their own websites and even showed it at town hall meetings to urge citizens to put pressure on congressional leadership. Media stories and viral marketing also spread the word, thus further increasing the public pressure. In September 2008, an opportunity finally arose in Congress to make positive changes.
When the CVC was originally proposed in the 1990s, it was projected to be a $71 million structure. By 2000, the proposed price had risen to $265 million, and when construction finally began in 2002, the predicted price tag had soared to $368 million, with construction to be finished in 2004. However, construction was not finished until late 2008, and the price tag was $621 million – four years late and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. Because of the numerous cost overruns, the CVC repeatedly returned to Congress seeking more money, and in September 2008 they sought the final monies necessary to finish the facility and open it to the public in December 2008. Additionally, HR 5159 was introduced to transfer the permanent administrative authority over the CVC from the congressional oversight committees and move it to the Architect of the Capitol. This situation offered Members an opportunity to leverage positive changes in the CVC.