Gospel Perspectives on Politics Part 3

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,

in,

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,

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.

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,

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.