“RELIGION AND THE FOUNDERS”

 

A Sermon by the Rev. Bruce Clear

Sunday, November 1, 2009

All Souls Unitarian Church

Indianapolis, Indiana

 

"It is error alone," said Thomas Jefferson, "which needs the support of government.  Truth can stand by itself." 

This statement is the best summary I know of how the American founders felt about religion, and why they wrote the Constitution the way they did. 

"It is error alone which needs the support of government.  Truth can stand by itself."  My sermon this morning will try to understand Jefferson's statement in light of the American Constitutional tradition.  For now, I want you to file that sentence away in the back of your minds; we will certainly return to it again.  

If you have ever visited the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., you have stepped on holy ground.  The building is understood to be a museum and research center for important American records and documents, but no one can enter that imposing building without feeling somehow they have entered a temple. 

The building architecture resembles a Greek temple.  When you enter, you find yourself in a giant open room several stories high, not unlike the sanctuary of a cathedral.  Across the sanctuary, at the center of the wall opposite the entrance -- where the altar would be found in a cathedral ‑‑ you see a large display, specially lighted.  As you approach, you notice guards protecting the valuable display, and as you get closer, you understand why. 

Underneath bulletproof glass, and kept at carefully regulated temperatures and atmospheric conditions, your eyes glance upon the original Constitution of the United States of America. 

It isn't just the guards and the bulletproof glass that let you know how sacred this document is.  If you pick up literature, you read that this display case is unlike any other.  Underneath the display is a thick-walled, lead‑ covered encasement, and in case of fire, earthquake, or nuclear attack, the document will automatically be lowered and sealed into this impenetrable coffin. 

You and I and the rest of the people of the United States may be transformed into nothing else but cinders.  Great cities may be leveled, and a nuclear winter may wrap the entire planet in a cold blanket of death.  But the Constitution of the United States will be preserved ‑‑ it is as if there is faith that as long as this physical document continues to exist, the soul of our nation will remain alive. 

The Shroud of Turin must surely turn green with envy about how the Constitution is protected.  No sacred object anywhere in the world enjoys the reverential deference afforded the Constitution of the United States.  

I have deliberately described the Constitution using explicitly religious images and language.  Over two hundred years, the document has gained for itself a nearly spiritual aura.  It has become the Bible of our republic.  Its authors are considered to be American saints.  Any action that is declared to be "unconstitutional," is treated very much like an act of sin. 

In medieval Christendom, biblical scholars examined the Bible in minute detail to look for meaning and nuance, giving rise to such esoteric arguments as "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin."  Similarly, constitutional scholars have examined each word of the constitution for subtle meaning and revelation of eternal truths. 

Please know that all I have said so far is not intended to be critical of the Constitution.  I want rather simply to observe that the Constitution has been cloaked in religious garb.  One cannot understand the Constitution then, nor can one appreciate the Constitution now, without understanding the religion surrounding it. 

Yes, there is religion surrounding the Constitution.  It is not the religion of creed, nor is it the religion of churches.  It is what some historians call the religion of the American Enlightenment. 

What I propose to do this morning is to look at the religious influence of that American Enlightenment -- that cultural movement which shaped the thinking of many, though not all, of the key founders -- and suggest how the Enlightenment religion came to be reflected in the Constitution itself. 

Let me say it a bit differently.  Two hundred years ago, our country's founders created, for the first time in Western history, a government which was separate from sectarian religious control and influence.  That was a radical experiment indeed.  There was no precedent in history for separating church and state, as they did. 

But there is a historical irony in what they did.  The reasons for separating church and state were, in fact, religious reasons -- deeply rooted in the tradition of the American Enlightenment.  It is useful for us to look at that tradition, and see how it is reflected in the Constitution. 

I don’t want to quibble too much about use of the word “religion” here.  Call it a “secular religion” if you prefer, but the American Enlightenment view included a faith: a faith in democracy, a faith in human equality and human rights – but it was a faith.  It was a faith that required separation of church and state. 

There are many popular misconceptions about the U.S. Constitution.  For example, a survey of knowledge about the Constitution shows that 51% of the people believe the Constitution allows states to declare an official state prayer, and 64% believe that the Constitution establishes English as the national language. 

One misconception about the Constitution is that it is filled with explicitly religious language.  While it is true that the Declaration of Independence refers to "the Creator" and "Providence," and so forth, the word God, or any other word referring to God, does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The word "religion" appears only twice:  once, when it says that there shall be no religious test for holding public office, and again, in the First Amendment, which guarantees religious freedom and separation of church and state.  So the only two sentences that mention religion serve to prohibit the blending of religion and government.. 

How, then, can I say that the Constitution reflects the religion of the American Enlightenment?  To do that, we have to look at the Enlightenment itself. 

One of the classic books about this era is entitled "The Enlightenment in America", by Henry F. May, Professor of History at the University of California, Berkeley.  In his Introduction, May writes, "[This book] is not about the Enlightenment 'and' religion, but rather about the Enlightenment 'as' religion." (emphasis original).  Further, he says, "I think we can understand (the founders') political thought better if we start where they nearly always did, with religion."  

What is the religion of the American Enlightenment?  Let me try to outline the components of that religion.  My comments do not refer, of course, to all those who participated in the Constitutional Convention, whom we call the "Founding Fathers," but rather to those who were most influenced by Enlightenment thought which was raging in Europe.  The people I am referring to tend to be most of the key actors whom historians identify as most influential in the shaping of our nation:  Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (who was not at the Convention, but strongly influenced its course), and most of all James Madison, who is credited as the most influential person in the writing of the Constitution. 

While many other delegates may have been more traditional in their religious views, these few disciples of the American Enlightenment had the most direct influence in crafting the language of the Constitution. 

The religion of the Enlightenment was first of all deistic.  You don't hear much about deism these days, but in the eighteenth century, at the time of the nation's founding, deism was probably the most dominant belief about God among the most direct authors of the Consitution, even if it wasn't the most common belief. 

Deism is a belief in God the Creator and sustainer of life, but certainly not God the Father or God the Judge.  Deism is distinguished from theism in this way:  Does God intervene in human affairs?  Can we call upon God to help us get out of a jam or fix something that is going wrong?  Theism says "yes," God is in fact a person who acts in human history, who hears and answers prayer, who judges, condemns, and rewards human behavior.  The Deist says "no." To the Deist, God is the Creator and little else.  God is Nature and Nature’s Laws, personified.  It is God who set the world in motion, who designed the laws of nature and the moral rules of behavior, but, having begun the vast cosmic system, does not interfere as that system unfolds. 

Let me offer what is probably a risky and very limited analogy.  Someone, somewhere, designed my Plymouth.  Whoever did so is not accessible to me, but was wise enough to give me a manual about how it works.  If my car breaks down, and the warranty has lapsed, I can go to the manual for help, or I can consult an outside expert for advice, or I can fiddle around the engine myself, but what I cannot do is expect for the Designer of the Plymouth to come by and fix my car.  Likewise, God is the Designer of the universe and does not step in to help when the system needs fixing. 

The Designer of my car left not only instructions about repair, but also left instructions about proper maintenance: what kind of oil to use, what size and type of parts to replace, how to avoid damaging the engine.  I ignore that maintenance advice at my own peril. If I ignore the maintenance advice, the Designer of my car does not step in and punish me.  The system itself provides adequate consequences. 

To the Deist, God also provides moral rules which are not unlike the maintenance suggestions for my car:  it is dangerous to ignore them.  God does not step in to punish if the rules are broken; just like my car, the system itself provides its own dire consequences without needing outside help. 

This is the God of the Deist.  But if my car Designer left behind instructions for maintenance and repair of my car, what has God given us that will help us know how to live?  In the Enlightenment religion, there are three sources of understanding God's system, and I list them in order of descending importance:  Natural Law, Reason, and Revelation (in the 18th and 19th century, these words are nearly always capitalized). 

Natural law is the most important source for understanding the universe designed by God.  Enlightenment thinkers had a deep faith in science as a revealer of truth, confident that nature operated by discoverable laws rather than by the fiat or will of a divine ruler.  This is why it was not unusual for Enlightenment people to do the kinds of things Jefferson did: he measured temperature several times a day, recorded rainfall over long periods of time, studied geneology to determine life expectancy of generations, and he even tried to discover the mathematical formula for happiness! 

Jefferson had such faith in the laws of nature that he refused to believe dinosaurs were extinct.  He claimed that if any species was extinct, that would indicate that nature had made a mistake, and nature does not make mistakes. 

This Enlightenment faith in nature developed into a religion that took the name "natural theology" -- religion that is justified by natural law.  In 1755, Harvard College established its most distinguished lectureship called the "Dudleian Lectures," and the purpose of the lectures was for "the proving, explaining, and proper use and improvement of Natural Religion." 

But natural law did not just govern nature.  It also governed human affairs, so that Enlightenment believers were confident of a science of government, for example -- a government that is consistent with the way nature works.  That faith is reflected in the Constitution we inherited from them. 

The second great source for understanding God's universe is reason.  There was infinite faith in the human ability to discern truth through rational thought.  The greatest European Enlightenment thinker, John Locke, wrote a defense of Christian religion which he entitled "The Reasonableness of Christianity", attempting to prove Christianity to be "rationally" true, without appealing at all to the supernatural. 

Recall Jefferson's famous line from the Declaration of Independence about "self‑evident truths."  What truth, I wonder, is "self‑evident"?  That "all men are created equal?"  That they are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"?  Don't we in fact believe that truths should be tested? That it is better to doubt things until they are proven true?  The Enlightenment faith in reason was so strong that they believed reason could penetrate and discover truth, and lead to "self‑evident" truths -- proven by reason alone. 

The third source for understanding God's universe was revelation. Specifically, this means biblical revelation.  To most of the American Enlightenment, the Bible remained a valuable resource, but primarily for understanding morality.  They certainly did not accept the Bible in any literal, text‑book sense.  And they were quite skeptical about the creeds that developed out of the Bible. 

Mostly, they looked to the Bible for truths about morality.  For most of them, Christianity was primarily useful for its moral teachings.  Jefferson went so far as to edit and publish his own Bible.  He took the New Testament, literally cut out everything except what Jesus said -- what was left was essentally ethical teachings, because Jesus rarely spoke of anything else. 

Benjamin Franklin did not believe the creeds, did not believe in the Trinity, and only rarely attended church.  He did, however, feel that the Christian churches served a crucial function in teaching morality.  For that reason, he said, he gladly gave money to the church even though he did not belong.  

Deism, Natural Law, Reason, and Ethical Revelation -- these are the central tenets of the religion of the Enlightenment.  They were passionately believed, and they became the background for most of their thinking about issues of politics and society. 

It remains now to say a few words about how these ideas became reflected in the constitutional treatment of religion.  

The most significant thing that the Constitution says about how government and religion should relate -- is that they shouldn't.  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  In the words of Jefferson, this language from the First Amendment was to erect a "wall of separation" between church and state. 

It is difficult to overstate how radical this provision was at the time. All other countries had "established" religions -- that is, clergy were paid by taxes, government had a say about creeds, the church had a role in government.  The church was an arm of government, as the government was an arm of the church, so that when government spoke, it was granted divine authority.  To say that a religion is "established" is to say that government formally recognizes and supports one specific religious group over all others.  And you can be sure that government expected something in return for its support.  Not only did other countries have established religions, but most of the colonies had established religions as well.  With rare exceptions such as Rhode Island, the mixing of church and state was the only system known to them. 

Radical as it was, the system of separation of church and state was widely accepted, and it was accepted for reasons arising from the religion of the American Enlightenment. 

"It is error alone," said Jefferson, "which needs the support of government.  Truth can stand by itself." 

To the Enlightenment mind, the establishment of religion was a violation of the laws of nature, and therefore a violation of the laws of God.  Through reason, all people can come to know truth.  That was the faith of the Enlightenment religion.  Truth does not need government to defend it.  But error, falsehood, bad religion can only prevail if it is artificially promoted by government. 

In the Virginia Declaration of Religious Freedom, Jefferson wrote these words:  "Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself.  She is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from conflict, unless by human interposition (she is) disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate." 

This underlying faith in reason and natural law led to another radical view that supported separation of church and state.  Religious conviction, they felt, must be formed by "persuasion and not coercion".  James Madison is considered responsible for the language of the First Amendment.  In a petition he sent to the Virginia legislature on behalf of religious freedom, in 1775, he wrote, "Religion...can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." 

According to the deism of the American Enlightenment, God set the world in motion, making it self-perpetuating, and then stepped out of human affairs. Any time government establishes or lends its support to religion, government presumes to speak for, or on behalf of, God.  To the deists among the founders, such a system violates the divine scheme of deism because government seeks to bring God into human affairs, having God meddle with society.  The only system consistent with the religion of the American Enlightenment is to separate religion from government. 

To the founders, that separation is healthy for both religion and for government.  It is clear that they thought government sponsored religion corrupts both religion and government.  It corrupts government because government presumes to have divine authority, which inevitably leads to tyranny.  It corrupts religion, because it violates the private nature of religious belief and makes belief a political matter. 

Madison put it this way:  

 

 "Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had the contrary operation.  During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial.  What has been its fruits?  More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy;    ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.... 

 "What influence in fact have the ecclesiastical establishments had in Civil Society?  In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny...; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people."  

 

It is one of the great ironies of history that at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the Enlightenment founders formed a strong alliance with the evangelical movement, and particularly with the Baptists. 

Back then, of course, separation of church and state was a cornerstone of Baptist and evangelical thought -- and with good reason.  Baptists were a minority religion; in no colony were they established, and in some colonies they were persecuted by the government sponsored church.  In 1784, in a letter petitioning against a bill for government support of religion, the General Committee of Virginia Baptists wrote this statement:  "Every person ought to be left entirely free in respect to matters of religion.  The holy Author of our religion needs no such compulsive measures for the promotion of his cause. Taxing the people for the support of the Gospel...will be destructive to religious liberty."  

The fact that most people find difficult to believe is that religion is better off without the support of government than with it.  The founders knew instinctively that good religion would thrive without the artificial endorsement of civil government. 

Near the end of his life, in 1822, nearly forty years after the Constitution was written, Madison reflected on the fact that we are the first nation without royalty or nobility.  He said, "We are teaching the world the great truth that Governments do better without Kings and Nobles than with them." Then he added, "The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government." 

For whatever reason, the principle that separation of church and state is healthy for religion is true.  In Europe, most countries have established religions, religions that are supported and promoted by the government -- England, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Scandinavia.  On a given Sunday morning, only six or seven, maybe at best ten percent of the population in Europe attends church. In our country, where government is separated from religion so much that the government cannot even loan teachers or textbooks to parochial schools, we have a steady church attendance between forty percent to fifty percent.  Before the American Revolution, when most colonies had established religion, church attendance was half of what it is today. 

The reason should be obvious.  If government is looking out for religion, if the state is protecting it, then religion doesn't need our support.  But if we care about religion, and it is up to us, not government, to promote it, there is greater need for people to become active. 

"It is error alone," said Jefferson, "which needs the support of government.  Truth can stand by itself."  

The Constitution was the product of a religious faith grounded in Enlightenment principles of democracy and individual human rights.  That Enlightenment faith held as a central tenet that church and state be separated. 

It is true that the Constitution was shamelessly flawed in its original.  Full citizenship was granted only to white, male, property owners.  Through amendments over the years, as well as through difficult struggle by those left out of legal society, the constitution has improved substantially with age, and still remains a unifying symbol of the American people. 

There are many reasons why the constitution continues to be revered as a seemingly sacred document.  It is partly because the words have proven to be incredibly durable, far beyond the imaginings of the authors themselves.  And it is partly because it has over time earned the allegiance and confidence of nearly all factions of our society.  After all, when Martin Luther King urged this nation to “live out the true meaning of our (national) creed,” he was referring directly to these principles. 

            But it is also because the constitution itself is grounded in principles which reflect religious conviction – the religion of the American environment that honors true freedom, and disavows any intrusion by the state. 

 


READING  from “America:  Religions and Religion”

by Catherine Albanese

 

After Congress proclaimed independence (in 1776), its declaration was solemnly read throughout the colonies.  Cannons were fired, cheers raised, toasts made, and liquor consumed.  A year later, there were unofficial celebrations with bells and fireworks along with the cannons, cheers, and toasts.  In 1778 Congress gave official orders to honor the Fourth of July and a year afterward told its chaplains to prepare sermons suitable for the event.  By the following decade, Americans were giving similar praise to the Constitution.  Huge constitutional parades were staged in most of the new state capitals to pay tribute.

The one in Philadelphia, held on the Fourth of July, 1788, after enough states had ratified the Constitution to make it the law of the land, was particularly spectacular.  It seemed as if the whole city was either participating or standing in the ranks to watch the eighty-eight divisions that extended for a mile and a half.  Exhibits included the Constitution, erected in a carriage pulled by ten white horses, and the federal ship of state on another float.  Meanwhile, trades-people walked to express their enthusiasm as workers in the new union.  There were sacks of federal flour and signs for a federal cabinet shop and a federal printing press.  Most significant was the division of the clergy.  Here, members of different Christian denominations and the Jewish rabbi walked together linking arms -- eloquent testimony to the sermon that the parade was preaching.  The real ground of unity in the United States was not from the sects or denominations, but the civil religion of the American Revolution that the Constitution summed u p.