Okay team, welcome.
We are inveterate storytellers.
We instinctively implot our lives, embed ourselves in some narrative which gives us a sense of identity and meaning and orients us and energizes our being, becoming, and believing in the world.
And we've spoken of how, as Christians, we seek to have the gospel narrative principally formative.
But in addition, we find our imaginaries under the influence, perhaps even under the thrall, of other stories we live within and out of.
Stories which color our lenses and animate our actions and our reactions.
And some of these stories, powerfully operative for believers and unbelievers alike, are those we tell and inhabit about who we are as a nation.
What was our beginning as a people and how that formative origin has a bearing, perhaps even a claim, on who and how we ought to be today.
So my ambition this morning is to take us back in history to examine some of the stories that have become some of the weight-bearing columns in the narrative edifices erected around our nation's founding.
Central pillars in the stories of how America came to be.
And so, in some enduring sense, who we are.
So, let's do so in relation to what we might think of as two foundings.
First, largely the Puritan settling of America in New England.
And second, the political founding of our nation and the nascence of its independence.
First, a disclosure.
This historical territory is heavily trodden by vast research and seasoned judgment.
And my boots are not nearly as well trodden as such experts.
So, if some present can provide thicker ice for my thin, always likely at a place like this.
I see history PhDs, even as I glance out here.
Okay.
Then I thank you in advance.
Well, with that, let's turn to the first founding.
The vision of the first settlers of New England is well captured from the pen of one of its principal architects,
John Winthrop, aboard the Arbella, conveying these zealous old England intrepids to their new home.
This new plantation, Winthrop urged them, was to be a city on a hill.
A shining display of a society or commonwealth, as they called it,
ordered in all things according to the will of God.
And the controlling framework for understanding this errand in the wilderness was that of covenant.
As Winthrop had explained to his fellow immigrant seafarers,
God hath entered into covenant with us,
and we with him, giving us a special commission.
And, quote, we,
and when God gives a special commission, Winthrop warned,
he looks to have it strictly observed in every article.
He continues,
The eyes of all people are upon us,
so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken,
and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us,
we shall be made a story and a byword through the world.
We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God,
and all professors for God's sake.
We shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants,
and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us,
till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going.
So, who were these hopeful covenanters,
so zealous to render God a heartfelt, comprehensive obedience?
Surely, if they were partied in such a covenant, they were saints.
Those in whose souls God's spirit had miraculously wrought his gracious,
saving, regenerative work?
Well, not entirely.
Not at least by their own reckoning.
They made a distinction and considered it vital
between visible saints,
the manifestly regenerate,
and those perhaps hopeful of regeneration,
but not yet subject to the spirit-saving work.
Only visible saints could comprise the church
and be its members.
All others could and must consistently attend
all the means of grace,
the preaching and all,
but not as communicant members.
So, the first order of business for the collective commonwealth,
the covenanters,
was to constitute or gather, as they called it,
from among themselves a church.
From the newly arrived,
I mean, fresh off the boat,
seven were chosen,
whose regeneration was undoubted to all,
had to be a unanimous vote.
And that core of seven sifted, in their terms,
sifted all the rest.
Every candidate for membership
had to give an account
of God's gracious, saving work in their life
and show how their subsequent life
exhibited conclusively its effects.
If they were able to give a credible account
in the judgment of charity,
they passed the test
and were permitted then to subscribe
to the church covenant.
So, this is a different one.
The church covenant,
by which they promised to join the other members
in worship, holy living,
and mutual watchfulness.
And this was the pattern and practice
across the first plantations of New England.
It was so in New Haven Colony,
our very own.
1638, when the first settlers got off the boat,
they immediately gathered a church.
By unanimous selection,
the first core of visible saints were chosen,
who then sifted all the aspirants.
Many were called to the trial,
but fewer were chosen to the church covenant.
But all were part of the common covenant
of plantation, as they called it,
to render a full obedience to God's will
outlined for his people in the scriptures.
Nothing shall be attended unto
in the ordering of this plantation,
wrote the first foundation document,
except the word of God.
We're not going to pay attention to anything else,
just the word of God.
Now, one may wonder
how those commonwealth covenants felt
who failed the trial of the church membership.
The majority.
And it's difficult to say.
I mean, doubtless there were some hardened sinners
who cared more for their tankard of ale
than who were bothered about their exclusion
from the communion cup.
As one cleric put it,
the people be like the blacksmith's dog.
So you've got to imagine the image here,
sleeping soundly next to the anvil,
though the preacher clang,
with the hammer blows and be preaching,
ever so loudly upon it,
they're unstirred, asleep like the dog.
So yeah, yeah, yeah.
There were people like that in Puritan New England.
Okay, at least the preachers say so.
But it seems a great majority
of these non-visibly elect
were conscientious Puritans
who diligently attended upon the means of grace
and prayed that those means
might be effectual in their operation upon them,
but did not want admission to the church without that.
They were serious about that.
And it was these neighbors,
they called them neighbors of the saints,
fellow members of the commonwealth,
who unanimously voted, unanimously,
to restrict the civil vote
to the visible saints,
excluding themselves.
For, as they expressed it,
they preferred that civil government
be in the hands of the saints.
For, so shall the power be less likely abused.
Interesting.
Not a power grab.
Interesting.
Here, you take it.
Please.
We trust you more.
And if there were those
who thought themselves abused
by this arrangement of godly rule,
there are surprisingly few complaints on record.
And it's worth realizing
that allowing all the church members to vote
significantly extended the franchise
compared to their mother England.
Hardly anybody was going to have
any sort of access to political activity,
you know, in old England.
Also worth noting,
one group excluded from holding office
in civil government was the clergy.
So if we think of,
or refer to,
Puritan New England as a theocracy,
let's be careful of what we mean by that.
Yes, the entire commonwealth
was in covenant to obey God
in all particulars of life.
The Bible was the blueprint for society.
There was not much of a written code of laws,
as the laws were just simply adopted
from the Bible.
In New Haven,
they just said,
they called it,
Moses,
his judicials.
Just brought them over.
Okay?
By the way,
people,
you know,
sometimes I'll talk about this
and people,
you know,
to secularists,
they'll,
oh,
how barbaric.
You know,
they're only,
you know,
they're,
in,
uh,
common law in,
in England,
you know,
there were over like 300 capital offenses.
The Old Testament only has 11.
You know,
I mean,
so this is really the height of legal progressivism,
you know,
if you think about this.
But in any case,
that's an,
that's an aside.
Um,
uh,
so,
uh,
yeah,
so Moses,
his judicials,
that's what they call the law in New Haven.
And if some trouble arose on the New Haven green,
you know,
some offending perpetrator would be brought to the governor,
Theophilus Eaton,
who would open his Bible and,
and read the divine ordinance that,
that had been transgressed.
You know,
maybe he would read Romans 13,
13,
not in rioting or drunkenness,
not in chambering or wantonness.
All right.
And,
uh,
then depending upon the severity,
prescribe the discipline,
perhaps the stocks for,
for,
for the night.
Um,
if Governor Eaton found a particular case really difficult,
he might call upon the minister,
John Davenport,
but not in any official capacity.
No,
no office to do that.
Only as a consultant expert in scripture,
the civil government was in the exclusive hands of lay church members,
lay church membership.
Uh,
uh,
one of the remarkable features of these New England commonwealths was their internal unity.
And indeed,
this was thought critical for God to bless their special commission.
Remember,
this is their term.
We have a special commission to be a city on a hill.
Now,
of course,
such unity was possible because there was so little diversity.
diversity,
or stated positively,
uh,
such a homogeneous society among the,
you know,
among the citizenry.
There was no Jew.
There was no Turk.
There was not even a Roman Catholic to find the commonwealth objectionable or athwart their religious convictions.
But,
and this is going to be one of the key themes here,
but eventually the mass migration of the 1630s,
the 1630s,
it was planted in 1630,
Massachusetts,
May God,
would,
would bring in a human flood.
And with these swelling inhabitants,
more religious diversity.
At first,
those who failed to fit in and threatened the unity of the commonwealth could simply be expelled.
Like Baptist Roger Williams.
There was land enough available in which to relocate the difference.
Just sweep it out.
Or,
rarely,
but in more extreme cases,
executed.
Such as Quaker Mary Dyer.
You know,
we expelled her three times.
She'd keep coming back.
Didn't get the picture.
So,
hey,
we executed her.
Most commonly,
exiles would end up in Rhode Island,
which became a byword among Massachusetts Bay Puritans
for that receptacle of all that is blemished, blinkered, and pestilential.
Boy,
I love this stuff.
Yeah.
That's where the Baptists locate.
But when such minorities of divergent conviction began to increase in number as they did,
not only through immigration,
but also through proliferation,
stress fractures began to appear in the long,
hallowed model of government-upheld uniformity.
And especially significant for the proliferation of diverse sects was the Great Awakening.
Conspicuously,
the Spirit seemed to be at work in the Great Awakening beyond the confines of religious establishment.
Thus,
religious authorities were questioned and challenged.
And to stir with the Spirit,
new and freer forms multiplied,
and new congregations outside the established church sprang up like mushrooms in damp shade.
It's a place that the Baptists like.
Damn shade, I guess.
But many of them were Baptists who chafed at the unfair, unjust advantage of the established government-supported congregational churches that they enjoyed.
It was the Baptists who passionately and trenchantly offered a critique of the New England way of establishment religion.
Was it fair that Baptists, who were not part of the established churches, yet had to pay taxes expressly for their support?
Was that just?
Was this not an instance of taxation without representation?
Just grabbing that, you know, the aphorism that was so effective and applying it a little bit more widely here.
Was it right for Baptists to have to petition, often unavailingly, for permission to preach?
Which, if granted, was done so sparingly and grudgingly as a favor granted, not as a right inherent.
Should it be so that the sacred content of our faith and religious practice should be subject to civil law?
Surely, religious opinion should be excluded from the objects of legislation.
If the prosecution of this case for religious freedom is of interest to you, I commend the writings and labors of New England Baptist Isaac Bacchus, 1724-1806, and John Leyland, 1754-1841.
Both strove mightily for the disestablishment of religion in the colonies.
When will this great truth be acknowledged, pled Leyland, that neither the legislative, executive, nor judicial arms of government in their official capacities have anything to do with the souls of men, conscience, or eternity?
Why was this governmental non-interference and non-support viewed so vital to Leyland?
Because he was convinced that history demonstrates that government involving itself in religion is bad for both religion and for government.
For it creates tyranny in government and hypocrisy in religion.
It fosters tyranny in government.
Leyland's earliest memories was that of being forcibly baptized against his will and conscience as a little boy in Massachusetts, the religious policy that the state government enforced.
It also fosters hypocrisy in religion.
Leyland regarded Constantine's government support of Christianity, the subtle beginnings of disaster.
He had listened to Tyler's lecture.
See, that's what happened there.
And Constantine announces, I have cushy jobs for any Christians in the civil sphere.
Are there any Christians out there?
Should we be surprised that multiple hands are waving?
We are Christians!
We're Christians!
Give us those jobs!
You know, it would be hard not to suspect, as Jesus did, that some were following for the loaves and the fishes.
Referring to the Constantinian support of the church, Leyland grieved that it was then and there that, quote,
Christianity was disrobed of her virgin beauty and prostituted to the unhallowed principle of state policy where it has remained in a criminal commerce until the present moment.
And if government may support religion by acts of legislation, what's the limit to their intruding into the sphere of grace?
Rather tongue-in-cheek, this is kind of a reductio ad absurdum, rather tongue-in-cheek, Leyland writes,
How often have I wished that when rulers undertake to make laws about religion, they would complete the code?
Not only make provision for building meeting houses, paying preachers, and forcing people to hear them,
but also to enjoin on the hearers' repentance, faith, self-denial, love to God and love to man.
That everyone who did not repent of his sin should pay five pounds.
That all those who did not believe should pay ten pounds.
That every soul who did not deny himself and take up his cross daily would pay fifteen pounds.
That whoever did not love God with all his heart should be imprisoned for a year.
And that if a man did not love his neighbor as himself, he should be confined for life.
Yes, these are Christian moral duties.
But are they not the vocation of the church?
The body of Christ?
The assembly of the regenerate?
Where God's spirit animatingly dwells?
Indwells, in fact?
It is Christ's own who are, by his own saving work, gladly under the law of Christ,
who have been made his happy subjects through regeneration, not legislation.
Yes, we appeal to our neighbors to be reconciled to God through Christ,
but this appeal is by invitation and persuasion.
Never force, however benignly intended.
And until they, our neighbors, freely enter the fold, while they remain outsiders,
what reason or right would we have to think that they ought to behave or believe like believers,
as the church believes or behaves?
Really?
We're going to expect that of them?
We're going to demand that of them?
Really?
As the apostle writes, 1 Corinthians 5.12,
For what have I to do with judging outsiders?
Is it not those inside the church whom you, as Christians, judge?
Whom you are to judge?
So this takes us to the heart of what appears to be a muddle of our first founders,
which muddle has had a long afterlife and indeed continues with us still.
Did our first founders rightly affirm a covenant relationship between their New England plantation and God?
Has God granted them, like the King of England, granted them their charter,
a special commission as a commonwealth, to quote Winthrop?
This is their claim.
Well, let's probe.
What was this national covenant?
It certainly was not the new covenant.
That was between Christ and his bride, the church.
And the Puritan planners recognized this and distinguished the church from the commonwealth,
the saints from the citizens or the neighbors.
Well, if not the new covenant, what covenant was this civic commonwealth covenant?
Well, it was based in their mind on the old covenant that God entered with the commonwealth,
third nation of Israel.
The covenant between God and the seed of Abraham according to the flesh.
But surely we must ask, is any such covenant between God and some favored nation in present operation?
It's exceedingly doubtful, to say the least.
Hebrews attests, in speaking of a new covenant, God makes the first obsolete.
Hebrews 8.13.
Paul argues in Romans, say 2.28.29, that the special covenant status of Israel, Abraham's physical seed,
does not pass to some other specially commissioned nation or nations.
Galatians rather passes to the gathering of individuals from all and any nation united by inward faith,
the inward faith of Abraham.
And as Paul insists in Galatians 3.29,
if you belong to Christ, not Massachusetts Bay Colony or Old England or New England or America
or any other nation, if you belong to Christ,
then you are Abraham's offspring and heirs to the promise.
It would appear that biblically there is no national covenant.
Did I just say it would appear biblically that there is no national covenant in present operation?
I believe I did say there is no currently operating national covenant.
Okay.
To sum up,
we have told a story of our first foundation as a commonwealth overwhelmingly zealous
to establish a society governed in all things by the will of God.
What must strike us as a breathtaking errand,
they were fortified in by their conviction that they were in plantation-wide covenant with God.
And that they were so long and broadly successful,
realizing this vision was largely a function of how united behind it
their rather religiously homogenous society was.
But there were outliers and losers in this New England Israel,
in the growing array of inhabitants who did not share in the vision
or differed in conscience in some particular
and chafed under the imposition of conformity.
Progressive expulsion of non-conformists
helped to let the steam out of the growing dissonance,
but the swelling influx of newcomers,
of deeper and more determined diversity,
put more and more pressure on the covenant model and its maintenance.
And it's noteworthy that the most articulate and impassioned critics
of this privileged establishment religion,
albeit Christian religion,
were not the secularists or the irreligious,
rather those with deep Christian conviction
who were convinced that such a union of church and state
was bad for both religion and for government.
And it was these views of Leyland and his Baptist brethren
and their experience of state persecution
that would prove germinal and salient
in what we are calling America's second founding,
to which we now turn.
The second founding.
By the second founding,
I refer to the coming together of the 13 colonies
in pursuit of the common goal of independence from Britain.
And one thing is noteworthy,
perhaps even remarkable,
is that when it came to forging a policy
for the nascent nation on religion,
these founding fathers,
or the second founding here,
contemplated the approach taken by their first founding forebearers
and ultimately rejected it,
very self-consciously.
They ultimately rejected it.
Through a process of contestation and compromise,
what eventually prevailed
seems to be well summarized
in a three-fold creed.
And here I'm drawing on the work
of one of the more acute scholars of this question,
Stephen Waldman.
And if you want to read one good book on this stuff,
this would be a good one.
Whoops.
That would be a good one.
It might upend some of your current views.
It's symbolic of that process.
So this little three-fold creed.
One, religion is essential to the flourishing of a republic.
Two, to thrive,
religion needs less help,
not more, from government.
Three, all have the right to full religious freedom.
Freedom.
What came to be inscribed in our foundation documents
was the commitment to religious liberty,
a formula for promoting religion
by leaving it alone by the federal government.
How did this radically new approach to religion emerge?
Why did it commend itself to the founders of our nation?
Well, for one,
the old model of an established state-supported religion
imposed by law,
workable under conditions of a homogenous commonwealth,
ceased to be viable
in the face of growing religious diversity of the population.
By the time of the revolution,
the religious minorities,
once few enough to be handled by exile or execution,
were now in the majority.
Before 1690,
90% of the churches across the colonies
were of the established denomination.
90% were of the established denomination.
So this would have been congregationalism up in New England,
Anglicanism in the southern colonies.
And 90%
by 1770,
only 35%
were part of the established,
the establishment church.
Such was the effect of the Great Awakening,
we've already mentioned that a little bit,
and immigration.
As far as immigration,
the population swell that we've already noted
in the colonial period,
it just continues unabated
in the young republic.
From 1776 to 1820,
it's less than,
you know,
not much time.
250,000 immigrants arrived
to make a new life in this new nation,
bringing with them
a new range of religious practices and beliefs.
Lutherans,
Presbyterians,
Moravians,
Mennonites,
Catholics,
Huguenots,
Dunkers,
I could go on.
More.
And now,
to our modern eyes,
this might seem pretty uniform.
I mean,
after all,
with the exception of a smattering of Jews,
everyone was still some stripe of Christian.
True.
But,
to the first settlers,
they felt awash
in a kaleidoscope
of religious exoticism.
Yeah,
and just,
I mean,
to,
and to the patriot leaders,
the new boots on the ground,
coming in from all over the place,
put the writing on the wall,
to mix my metaphors.
There was no dominant faith,
and there would likely never be one
in this new nation.
And there were many for whom,
seemingly,
religion was not that important.
Judging by church attendance,
historians estimate that religious adherence
in 1776
is only at 17%.
Wow!
That's certainly lower than America today.
I mean,
even with this kind of new slump
and record lows,
we're at least at 30% now.
That's 17% in 1776.
Puts a new spin on the good old days.
Um,
another solvent
of the old official religious establishment model
was the need for joint action
in the common endeavor
of fighting Britain
for American independence.
George Washington's Continental Army
was probably
the first truly national institution.
The fighting men came
from all parts of the country.
Massachusetts Congregationalists,
Rhode Island Baptists,
New York Episcopalians,
and Dutch Reformed,
New Jersey Presbyterians,
Maryland Catholics,
Pennsylvania Quakers,
and all manner of sects in Pennsylvania.
They were a little looser there.
And even a scattering of Jews
fought in Washington's army,
the Continental Army.
And throw in the mix somewhere
between
something,
between 5,000 and 12,000
German Hessian mercenaries
mostly Lutheran
who defected to the American side
during the war.
And you have
what certainly the neighbors
would have felt
looking across the fences
to be
pretty exotic
a menagerie,
a religious menagerie.
Commander-in-Chief Washington
knew
that if he were to forge
an interfaith army
he would have to cultivate
and uphold
some religious tolerance.
And so the Continental Army
became the first laboratory
of this experience,
this experiment.
As the men fought
and slept
beside each other
and were
hospitably
housed
and fed
across the land
as they traveled
by strangers
of different faiths,
bigotry
slowly gave way
to respect.
And their
commander-in-chief
was model
in this regard.
He allowed his soldiers,
Washington allowed his soldiers
to pick their own chaplains
unconstrained.
Some wanted a Unitarian chaplain,
they got a Unitarian chaplain.
And he insisted
on mutual tolerance.
Don't bash
the Roman Catholics.
They're fighting
just as bravely,
they bleed
the same kind of blood.
Don't bash them.
Well,
while we are contending
for our own liberty,
Washington urged his troops
and the nation
for which they fought,
we should be very cautious
of violating
the rights of conscience
of others,
ever considering
that God alone
is the judge
of the hearts of men.
And to him only
in this case,
they are answerable.
Well,
as nearly as diverse
as the new
Continental Army
was the Continental Congress
with delegates
of various states
coming together
including
Episcopalians,
Dutch Reformed,
Lutherans,
Baptists,
Methodists,
and even
a Roman Catholic
in the Continental Congress.
One of the first
acts in Congress
was to consider
a resolution
that the next day's session
be opened with prayer
read by
my Anglican minister.
Well,
at first,
the motion floundered
as some non-Anglicans
opposed.
Not hearing any prayer
from an Anglican.
Finally,
it was Sam Adams.
Oh,
and Sam Adams
was no friend
of the Church of England.
Oh,
no.
Sam Adams rose
and stated a view
that would slowly
but increasingly
become prevalent
that he
was no bigot
and could hear
a prayer
from any gentleman
of piety and virtue
who was at the same time
a friend of this country.
As with their brethren
in arms,
part of Congress's evolution
toward pluralism
was likely due
to the simple fact
that it,
the Continental Congress,
was the most
religiously diverse
that any of the delegates
had ever encountered.
and to defeat Britain,
they,
like their brethren
in arms,
would have to set aside
their religious disagreements
and work together
for the goal.
If these experiences
influenced the nation's leadership
and the nation itself
to greater receptivity
to an approach
to religion
differing
from their first
founding forebears,
perhaps most critical
for this shift
in its formulation
was the experience
of its chief architect,
James Madison.
It was a wave
of religious bigotry
in Madison's backyard
that changed the course
of religious policy
in America.
In 1774,
from his Virginia home,
Madison fumed,
that diabolical,
hell-conceived principle
of persecution
rages.
Well,
he referred to
a wave of persecution
unleashed by officials
of the established
Anglican Church
in Virginia
against local Baptists.
from 1760
to 1778,
there were at least
153 serious
instances of persecution
in Virginia
involving 78 Baptists,
including 56 jailings
of 45 different
Baptist preachers.
Many of them,
many of those incidents,
clustered around
Madison's own county.
So this is right
in his backyard.
Baptists were beaten,
whipped,
assaulted,
incarcerated.
They'd even put him
in a little jail cell
and everybody would
urinate on him.
What was their crime?
Well,
unofficially,
simply being a Baptist
minister
in an Anglican Virginia.
Officially,
they were charged
as being, quote,
vagrant and itinerant
persons
and for assembling
themselves unlawfully
at sundry times
and places
under the denomination
of Anabaptist
and for teaching
and preaching
schismatic doctrines.
Though the court records
have been lost,
there's good indication,
I'm confident
that he did,
that Madison,
as their attorney,
defended the Baptists
in Virginia courts.
Madison,
in his memoirs,
writes that he had,
quote,
spared no exertion
to save them,
the Baptists,
from imprisonment
and to promote
their release from it.
He was an attorney
who was working there.
So, he...
Patrick Henry,
also a Virginia attorney,
he defended dissenters,
Baptist dissenters
in court
and he'd do it for free,
gratis.
They tried to pay him,
the Baptists would,
you know,
pass the hat
and try to get up
as much as they could.
They were pretty poor
and he gallantly
just gave it all back,
becoming a real hero
to the Baptists.
Another Virginian,
Jefferson,
for his opposition
to the forced imposition
of state-sanctioned religion
on minorities,
the Baptists,
he also became a hero
of the persecuted Baptists
who they hailed
as defender
of the rights of man
and the rights of conscience.
This is the Baptists
of Jefferson.
Those were the words
of John Leyland
who continued,
Pardon me, my hearers,
if I am overwarm.
I lived in Virginia
14 years.
The beneficial influence
of my hero,
Jefferson,
was too generally felt
to leave me a stoic.
When Jefferson
attained the presidency
in 1801,
jubilant Baptists,
all over Massachusetts,
collectively convened,
900 cows
to furnish milk
to make an enormous,
a mammoth cheese roll.
Cheese, you know,
ah,
that they had to,
but yeah,
they had to just put it
in a massive wagon
and bring it down
and Leyland delivered it
down to Washington, D.C.
to Jefferson
to present to him.
Jefferson is,
he is,
Jefferson was no
Orthodox Christian,
let alone Baptist.
and Leyland had
no illusions here,
but they were united
in this,
that any intermingling
of church and state
came from,
to quote Leyland,
the same rotten nest egg
which is always
hatching vipers.
I mean the principle
of intruding the laws
of men
into the kingdom
of Christ.
Well, back to Madison.
The upshot
of Madison's experience
of the religious
persecution of the Baptists
in his Virginia backyard
crystallized his conviction
which he formulated
as a policy proposal
for the new nation,
the Constitutional Convention.
quote,
that all men
are equally entitled
to the free
exercise of religion
according to the
dictates of conscience,
unpunished
and unrestrained
by the magistrate.
Now notice,
notice this is going
beyond toleration
to the recognition
of a fundamental
human right,
the exercise
of religion
according to the
dictates of conscience.
And integral
to the upholding
of this right
for Madison
was the buttressing
clause
of non-establishment.
So you've got
free exercise
and non-establishment.
If the dominant
religion could establish
their religion
as privileged,
it would necessarily
abridge
the religious freedom
of minorities.
This position
of Madison
was by no account
unanimously embraced
by the state delegates
at the Constitutional Convention.
While Madison
wanted a strict separation
of church and state,
others did not.
Delegates,
especially from
our own New England,
wanted continued
privilege
and state support
for the present
established religion,
their own.
Surprise,
surprise.
Okay.
The solution
that Madison
shepherded through
to adoption
was a compromise
and agreed upon
for reasons
that were often
opposite
among the delegates.
they embraced
this formulation
for opposite reasons.
While
Madison
wanted the First Amendment
to apply
as widely
as possible,
right down
to the local level,
he realized
there was no
consensus
for this.
Too many
wanted to keep
their privileged,
established churches.
churches.
So Madison
conceded
at the state level
and clarified
that this
First Amendment
was a declaration
that at the,
don't miss this,
at the federal,
federal government
could not support
or regulate religion.
But,
that the First Amendment
was also a declaration
that the individual states
absolutely could.
They absolutely
could regulate religion.
That was part
of the compromise
that enabled
the First Amendment
to gain wide
and sufficient support.
Notice
that for many
what appealed
in the First Amendment
was that it
protected
the state
from
federal government
imposing
any restriction
on the state's ability
to make their own laws
with respect to religion.
It protected
the state's ability
to establish religion
as they desired.
Establishment
religion
persisted
in many states
for many years.
1817,
New Hampshire.
It's not
disestablished
until 1817.
Connecticut,
not disestablished
until 1818.
Massachusetts,
not disestablished
until 1833.
The First Amendment
liberties did not
legally apply
to individual states
until 1866
in the aftermath
of the Civil War
when Congress
passed the 14th Amendment
prohibiting states
from enacting laws
that infringed
upon individual citizens'
liberties.
And since then,
since 1866,
the courts
have interpreted
this to mean
that the original
federal
Bill of Rights
now
applies to the states,
a doctrine called
incorporation,
if I've got that right,
Tyler.
In the end,
so in the end,
Madison
got what was his way.
He got his way.
It was not
the way
favored by many
of the founders.
Many thought
separation of church
and state
a bad idea
for religion
because the state
could and should
help it to flourish.
Christianity,
the religion concerned here,
would be better
and stronger for it,
so thought many
and most.
So I am,
along with Madison
and my Baptist
forebears,
convinced they were,
however well-intentioned,
wrong.
I'm persuaded
by Scripture
and history
that government's
support
of Christianity,
at least Christianity,
let's just regard
Christianity,
government's support
of Christianity,
ultimately
harms it.
Now,
I know this is,
just as it was,
contested.
While John Adams
and George Washington
generally approved
religious freedom,
they thought,
because religion
is so important,
it should be encouraged
by government.
Patrick Henry
went further
and pushed for it
to be actively supported.
Thomas Jefferson's
worries were
on the other side,
that religious influence
would distort
and corrupt
the even-handedness
that the state required
toward all of its citizens.
The state should
protect its citizens
to believe and practice
whatever they liked,
so long as it hurt
no one in life,
limb, liberty,
or property.
The legitimate
powers of government,
Jefferson clarified,
extend to such acts
only,
as are injurious
to others.
But,
it does me no injury
for my neighbor
to say there are
20 gods or no god.
It neither picks
my pocket
nor breaks my leg.
But Madison,
that was Jefferson,
but Madison,
to my mind,
helpfully integrated
the insights
of both Jefferson
and the Baptists
that a separation
of church and state
was critical
for both democracy
and faith.
He discerned
both the threat
of government
restriction
of religion
and equally
the harm
of government
support of it.
The first,
I think,
is probably pretty clear.
I mean,
we don't want government
to tell us
what to believe,
to intrude upon
the domain of conscience.
us.
The second insight
is perhaps
a little more subtle,
that government help
will ultimately hurt.
Well,
clearly it hurts
the unfavored faiths.
If one religion
is given favored
first-class treatment,
the rest receive
second-class status.
And this,
of course,
creates just resentment
toward the favored.
It's not going to help
the favored
for everybody
to be bitter
toward the favored.
The privileged Joseph
with his government
bequeath colored coat
is surrounded
by common-frocked
bitter brothers.
than Joseph
has deservedly
held in disesteem.
Okay?
And political support
makes religion,
surprise,
political.
Political support
makes religion
political.
And that leads
to distrust
of Christians
by outsiders.
And a snare
to insiders.
For we like
power,
privilege,
and patronage.
And that
corrupts us.
If I
have been given
preferential treatment
for being a Christian,
how do you know,
or even I know,
that I'm not a Christian
just for the perks?
Privilege
paves the way
to hypocrisy.
If I'm even
given a better
parking place
for my faith,
how do you know
that I'm not doing it
for the parking place?
I mean,
after all,
this is New England.
Parking place is quite tough.
If we treasure
our faith
and its purity,
do we want
to intermingle it
with such
irresistible
allurements
of power,
privilege,
and patronage
which government
support can supply?
Do we really
want that?
If we love
our faith,
do we want
government
to touch it?
I wish
I were godly
enough to be
immune from
such blandishments,
but I'm not.
So I want
to put up
some protective
structures
to buttress
my best intentions
but weak resolves
to keep
my faith
pure.
As one has put it,
church and state
when married
bring out
the worst
in each other.
It's kind of like
two mischievous boys
in the back
of the classroom
who went together,
get up to no good,
best for everyone
to just keep
them separated.
So in sum,
this story
from history
I have offered
is that
in the ongoing
experiment
in this land
of how to relate
religion
and civil government,
some insights
emerge.
The venture
of the first
founders
to establish
a Christian
national
religious covenant
between God
and this people,
however sincerely
intended
and zealously
prosecuted,
ultimately floundered
not only
on the impracticality
of the religious
uniformity
it required
of an increasingly
diverse population,
but even
on its own
terms
by its theological
incoherence.
The Bible
does not
endorse
a Christian
national
covenant.
In the second
founding,
an alternative
arrangement
was hammered
out
and launched,
albeit only
on the federal
level,
the free
exercise
and non-establishment
of religion.
For all the
challenges
of interpreting
and applying
this arrangement
to the intricacies
and complexities
of American
life,
I have suggested
there is a
genius to it.
I think it
a good formulation
that seeks
to preserve
two related
goods,
free exercise
and non-establishment.
Perhaps I might
put it memorably
like this,
free exercise.
I don't want
the government
to feed me
to the lions
for being a
Christian.
But beyond
self-interest,
neither do I
want my
Jewish,
Muslim,
Sikh,
or atheist
neighbors
to be fed
to the lions
for following
their consciences
and religion.
Non-establishment.
I'm not safe
to drive
when drunk.
So I want
my keys
to be taken
from me.
It's better
for me
and it certainly
is better
for everyone
else.
Power to
impose your
will on others
is intoxicating.
It makes you
drunk with the
power of possibility.
When Christians
have had political
power to impose
our will on others,
we have left
a fairly consistently
bad track record.
We have bullied
and abused
our non-Christian
neighbors
and even our
differing
Christian sisters
and brothers.
When we get
behind the wheel
drunk
with the power
of that opportunity
to enforce
our vision
of the good,
there is,
as we have seen,
lots of blood
on the highway
and it is blood
on our hands.
We should not
be given the keys.
It's not good
for us
or anyone else.
This is so
for Christians,
I believe.
That, sorry,
that it is so
for Christians,
I believe,
is more of a scandal.
It ought not
to be so
with us.
We ought not
to exercise
power
as does the world
as our master
himself makes clear.
Matthew 20,
25, 26.
A worse scandal,
but I'm not sure
ours is a worse
level of abuse.
I'm not persuaded
by history
that non-believers
or other religionists
do any better
with unrestricted power
to impose
their will.
people,
how often
has the cry
gone up,
Christians to the lions
or it's endless
variation,
Christians to the gulags,
Christians to the killing
fields,
Christians to the machete.
I don't want
other religions
established
or atheism
established
for the same worries.
I don't even want
Christianity established
until Christ returns
and establishes
his perfect expression
in his perfect way.
I just don't trust myself
or frankly
any of you.
I know myself
and us
all too well.
And so I am grateful
in excelsis
for the constitutional
arrangement
we providentially
live under
in America.
Let us give thanks
to God
that it is so
and seek to support
the institutions
which protect
and preserve it
for us
and our neighbors
and hopefully
our children
and our children's
children
until the Lord
returns.
Even so,
come Lord Jesus.
Amen.