Prior to the history of curriculum development, which began in the early 20th century, the separation clause of the First Amendment was not applied to the public schools or what was taught in the schools including in the subject of American History. The following entry in the Library of Congress reflects the general understanding of the Christian religion in the role of the founding of the United States through the 19th century:

The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."

According to an Edsitement lesson on one room schoolhouses, “Laura Ingalls Wilder, author of the popular Little House on the Prairie books, was a teacher in a one-room schoolhouse… when she was just 15 years old..” Many students in the 18th and 19th centuries learned in such one-room schoolhouses, some of which were in churches, and helped each other learn to read from the Bible, and the Biblically-oriented New England Primer. One such student I recently spoke to attended a one-room schoolhouse in the Midwestern United States in the early 1940’s. She recalled that every morning, the children would sing Good Morning to You to their teacher, say the Pledge of Allegiance, and pray. She explained that along with subjects such as math, science, English, and penmanship, they learned American History by reading from the original documents, and studying the lives of historical figures. They memorized portions and recited them for the class, and occasionally during school presentations for the parents and community.

Since students read both the Bible and the original founding documents, they learned American History from the perspective of the Founding Fathers, who often quoted the Bible, and used scriptural references in their writings.

In the early 20th century, social and political pressures were placed on the public schools by Atheist activists such as Madelyn Murray O’Hair, as accounted by American Atheists, and by communist organization members such as Earl Browder of the ACLU, who once called the American Civil Liberties Union, “a transmission belt,” for the Communist Political Association, according to federal whistle blower, Devvy Kidd.

In 1953, the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education was the first famous example of the many times the ACLU has sought the application of the fourteenth amendment to the first amendment to override the will of the majority on behalf of a minority or individual.

Later, according to American Atheist Conrad F. Goeringer:

Madalyn Murray [O’Hair}…was a plaintiff in the historic MURRAY v. CURLETT [1963] case which helped to end coercive prayer and Bible verse recitation in the public schools of America. She founded a series of organizations including American Atheists, wrote books, articles, and pamphlets, lectured at major colleges and forums throughout the country, and appeared in the media as an impassioned advocate for Atheism and the First Amendment. For years with her son, Jon Murray and her granddaughter, Robin Murray O’Hair, she remained an important part of the American cultural scene.

Also during the early part of the 20th century, the subject of curriculum development changed from a study for “curricularists,” who specialized in general curriculum development for colleges and universities to a field of educational psychology, according to Marshall, Sears and Schubert, in their Turning Points in Curriculum (pp. 19-20).

Jerome Bruner, a leader in the field of cognitive studies, published his book, Process of Education, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961) was instrumental in turning the field of curriculum development into a forum on how children and adults learn, and how educators can shape public thought. “When we understand the cognitive processes," says Explorer Bruner [in Time Magazine in 1961], "we will certainly be able to design education that will use man's potential for learning far more effectively than it has been used before."

This change in the role of education along with the legal “civil rights” precedents opened the door for today’s political and social activists of every persuasion to begin utilizing the national curriculum to push various social agendas. For example, feminist Petra Munroe, a member of Women Educator Activists, teaches curriculum development at the University of Oregon, and has written influential books in the field, such as Pedagogies of Resistance: Women Educator as Social Activists 1880-1960, and Engendering Curriculum History, according to her website.

David Barton, American historian, describes the shift from teaching American History by studying the lives and writings of the Founding Fathers (many of whom were Christian ministers) to studying American History form a more secular, economic perspective:

Because in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, a group of secular-minded writers (including Charles and Mary Beard, W. E. Woodward, Fairfax Downey, and others) began penning works on American history that introduced a new paradigm. For this group, economics was the only issue of importance, so they began to write texts accordingly (their approach is now described as “the economic view of American history” and since the 1960s has been widely embraced throughout the education community).

The Gay Lesbian Straight Educational Network (GLSEN) according to its website, “Strives to assure that each member of every school community is valued and respected regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.” They do this through public policy campaigns, through promoting Gay-Straight alliance (GSA) student groups in the schools, through hosting workshops and providing resource materials for teachers to learn how to “to make schools safer and more affirming for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students.”

Secular Humanist activists, through the Council for Secular Humanism / Campus Free Thought organizations, and Atheist activists, through organizations such as Americans United, have had a tremendous impact on the national curriculum, especially in the study of science, and social studies. Religion is no longer allowed to be taught in the public schools, but has been replaced with the secular humanist philosophy.

In less than one century, schools in the United States have gone from one-room school houses run by the churches and local communities to support parents in educating their children, to national laboratories for re-shaping public thought. Where will this “Progressivism” in our nation’s curriculum take us next?

Jenn Sierra
January 7, 2007
jennsierra@gmail.com

Those who wish to promote the secularization of the United States often point to the writings of a few Founding Fathers in order to assert that the Founders were primarily Deists, rather than Christian, and that their original intent was to establish a secular nation. Certainly, there is evidence to suggest that some highly respected intellectuals and politicians of the day, including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, James Madison and Benjamin Franklin may have, at least at some points during their lives, been more Deistic than Biblical in their thinking.

Deists believe in the existence of God. However, the Deist belief system generally views God as the Creator of the Universe, and not much more. (See Deism.) A Deist would not see God as being involved in the outcome of a war, the election of government official, the establishment of a law, or the rise and fall of nation, and in this respect, Deism is contradictory to Christian beliefs, and more in line with secular humanism.

The Puritans were a predominant influence in early colonial life, and came to the new world specifically to move away from the secularization of the Church of England, and the intolerance of the leaders of the Church of England towards any alternative views. In their Mayflower Compact, they wrote:

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten…by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith…Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith… (See the Mayflower Compact.)

The population of the colonies during the American Revolution, however, was over 99% Christian, and the Founding Fathers were elected by this general population to represent them at the government level. As representatives of the people, politicians, including professed, closet, or experimental “Deists,” respectfully worked within the general mindset of the people they represented.

The vast majority of the colonists and the Founding Fathers were Christian, and saw the successful Revolution and formation of the United States as a blessing from God God as being very active in their personal, religious, and political lives. Just one example is the establishment of the first Thanksgiving:

Forasmuch as it is the indispensable Duty of all Men to adore the superintending Providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with Gratitude their Obligation to him for benefits received, and to implore such farther Blessings as they stand in Need of; And it having pleased him in his abundant Mercy not only to continue to us the innumerable Bounties of his common Providence, but also to smile upon us in the Prosecution of a just and necessary War, for the Defence and Establishment of our unalienable Rights and Liberties; particularly in that he hath been pleased in so great a Measure to prosper the Means used for the Support of our Troops and to crown our Arms with most signal success...(See the establishment of the first Thanksgiving.)

Note: For additional study on this subject, I recommend the online resources posted by David Barton’s WallBuilders, and a Tutorial explaining Founding Fathers quotes that seem to show they weren't Christian created by Thomas and Misha Eades.

Jenn Sierra

September 23, 2006

JennSierra@gmail.com
http://www.jennsierra.com/

 

The “Freedom from Religion Foundation,” which boasts on its web page that it is, “…an educational association of non-believers and secularists, (which) has been working since 1978 to keep state and church separate…” (http://www.ffrf.org) has posted a list of reasons the United States of America is not a Christian Nation. (http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php)

Well, no, that’s exactly true. There is no way to logically prove a negative, so they have instead taken ten well-established, generally-believed concepts regarding Christianity in America, and attempted to explain them away, using secularists ideals. This is commonly known as “revisionist” history.

Here are the arguments, in an abbreviated version, with my comments regarding why these arguments don’t hold water in Bold…

1) “The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of ‘God’ or ‘Christianity.’”

The Constitution does not mention, “non-believer,” or “secularism,” either. So, how is it a secular document. Remember, “secularism” is not simply a neutral position between the religious and the non-believers. It is a an active political and social movement…see http://www.secularhumanism.org, and http://www.secularism.org.uk. Secularism seeks to provide “freedom from religion” in public places.

2) “In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that ‘the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.’ This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.”

This statement is found only in the Arabic first version of the treaty of Tripoli, and probably was not found in the English translation…it was not included in the either the Arabic or English versions of the treaty written a few years later.

The best answer I have read thus far to this argument is a lengthy and excellently-researched article by James Patrick Holding, called Yo Ho Ho and a Bottle of Flub? He concludes by saying, “The essential message would be that America was not a Christian theocracy, or a state where the church had political power, as the religious authorities in Muslim nations had power -- which is something no one argues for America…Our conclusion: Article 11 is a skeptical dud that proves nothing about the founding principles of this nation and says nothing about to what extent Christian influence has shaped us or our government.

3) “What about the Declaration of Independence? We are not governed by the Declaration…The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.”

Interesting…the FFrF is Willing to include the first version of a foreign trade agreement as a legitimate “founding document,” (see #2 above), but not the Declaration of Independence?

References to “Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" don’t exactly endorse secularism, or a system of non-belief. Thomas Jefferson may have been a Deists, but does not make the United States a “Deist” nation?

And actually, the term “Providence” is specifically a Christian term. See http://jennsierra.com/2006/07/providential-declaration.html

4) “What about the Pilgrims and Puritans? The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom…Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the ‘wrong’ faith. The framers of our Constitution in 1787 wanted no part of religious intolerance and bloodshed, wisely establishing the first government in history to separate church and state.”

Here’s an excerpt from the Mayflower Compact: “In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten…by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith…Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith….” Sounds pretty “Christian,” to me. (http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/mayflower.htm).

The remainder of this topic is addressed in the next two sections.

5) “Do the words ‘separation of church and state’ appear in the Constitution? The phrase, ‘a wall of separation between church and state,’ was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words ‘separation of church and state’ do not appear in the Constitution; neither do ‘separation of powers,’ ‘interstate commerce,’ ‘right to privacy,’ and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.”

Again, I’m puzzled...the letter to the Danbury Baptists is considered a legitimate founding document, while the Declaration of Independence is not?

Also, see #1 above…the FFrF is willing to use the absence of certain religious terms in the Constitution as evidence that this Nation is not a Christian one, yet when it is pointed out that its most important doctrine (separation of church and state) is not mentioned in these same documents, it simply brushes of the argument by saying that many “well-established constitutional principles” are not mentioned either. How does the FFrF justify this double standard?

6) “What does ‘separation of church and state’ mean? Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase to the Danbury Baptists, said, ‘the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions.’ Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.

“The Supreme Court has forged a three-part ‘Lemon test’ (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.

1. A law must have a secular purpose.
2. It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.

“The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle supported not only by minorities, such as Jews, Moslems, and unbelievers, but applauded by most Protestant churches that recognize that it has allowed religion to flourish in this nation. It keeps the majority from pressuring the minority.”

The First Amendment only prohibits the Federal government from establishing a state religion (i.e., the Church of England). It also protects freedom of religion for Christians and all others. The states, however, were free to make their own laws regarding religion, and other civil rights issues. An example of the states exercising the right to exercise their religion, with the full support, but not legislative interference, of the federal government is found in excerpts of the constitutions of all 50 states. (See http://faithinfocus.org/index.php?action=website-view&WebSiteID=73&WebPageID=4967)

Please note the date on the Lemon test – 1971. This could hardly be considered a Founding Document. In Fact, it is the type of judicial activism which Christians have been fighting ever since the 1940’s and 1950’s, the ACLU became adept at using the 14^th amendment – ratified almost a century earlier - to enforce the 1^st amendment – ratified almost two centuries earlier - in a way that would prevent the free exercise of the majority in cases in which the individual liberties of minorities were deemed to be violated; the federal government was now able to effectively override state’s laws in freedom of religion and other civil rights cases. (Meese III, E. (2005). The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Washington D.C., pp. 302-316). In short, this Lemon test is an example of why we’re even having this discussion.

7) “What about majority rule? America is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion. Not only is it unAmerican [sic] for the government to promote religion, it is rude. Whenever a public official uses the office to advance religion, someone is offended. The wisest policy is one of neutrality.”

In answer to the first part of this regarding majority-minority rule, see #6 above. This nation is a republic, and as such, the government represents the majority of Americans.

And what is this? “…because it’s “rude?” Might offend someone? Christians are deeply offended when someone goes around proclaiming that the God they love and serve does not exists…that anyone who needs religion is weak-minded and superstitious…we find this behavior quite “rude.” But we really just have to get over it and get on with our lives. The Constitution of the United States does not give us the right not to be confronted with opinions that may offend us…it only gives us the right to practice our religion according to our consciences.

8) “Isn't removing religion from public places hostile to religion? No one is deprived of worship in America. Tax-exempt churches and temples abound. The state has no say about private religious beliefs and practices, unless they endanger health or life. Our government represents all of the people, supported by dollars from a plurality of religious and non-religious taxpayers…Some countries, such as the U.S.S.R., expressed hostility to religion. Others, such as Iran ("one nation under God"), have welded church and state. America wisely has taken the middle course--neither for nor against religion. Neutrality offends no one, and protects everyone.”

A quick study of the history of Marxism and Communism will reveal striking similarities between what has happened in Communist regimes, and what is happening in our government and public school system since the ACLU became active, and began systematically removing religion from the textbooks and public places across America. Iran certainly has not welded “church” and state – the church is a Christian institution. Iran is an Islamic Republic that has many characteristics of a Theocracy…as do most other Muslim nations. For a discussion on the difference between a Theocracy, a State Religion, and a Christian Republic, see (http://jennsierra.com/2006/08/theocracy-state-religion-christian.html)

Again, secularism is not neutral… It is a an active political and social movement… “…(Secular Humanists are) opposed to all varieties of belief that seek supernatural sanction for their values…” (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declaration)

9) “The First Amendment deals with "Congress." Can't states make their own religious policies? Under the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868), the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states. No governor, mayor, sheriff, public school employee, or other public official may violate the human rights embodied in the Constitution. The government at all levels must respect the separation of church and state. Most state constitutions, in fact, contain language that is even stricter than the First Amendment, prohibiting the state from setting up a ministry, using tax dollars to promote religion, or interfering with freedom of conscience.”

Again, see excerpts of the constitutions of all 50 states. (See http://faithinfocus.org/index.php?action=website-view&WebSiteID=73&WebPageID=4967. Some of these were ratified before and some after the 14^th amendment.

10) “What about ‘One nation under God’ and ‘In God We Trust?’ The words, ‘under God,’ did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, ‘In God We Trust’ was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as ‘Mind Your Business.’ The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum (‘Of Many, One’), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.”

Again…I’m seeing some inconsistency here. In #6 above, the FFrF quotes a 1979 Supreme Court ruling as being part of the Founding Documents, but summarily dismisses congressional action taken twenty years later as being irrelevant, because of the date? What this shows is that right up until the ACLU began to gain momentous influence, most American’s took it for granted that they lived in a Christian Nation, and apparently desired to keep it that way.

11) “Isn't American law based on the Ten Commandments? Not at all! The first four Commandments are religious edicts having nothing to do with law or ethical behavior. Only three (homicide, theft, and perjury) are relevant to current American law, and have existed in cultures long before Moses. If Americans honored the commandment against ‘coveting,’ free enterprise would collapse! The Supreme Court has ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is unconstitutional. Our secular laws, based on the human principle of ‘justice for all,’ provide protection against crimes, and our civil government enforces them through a secular criminal justice system.”

A system of law is “the collection of rules imposed by authority” (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=define:law&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title) and will reflect a value system. If a country is settled by Muslims, the legal system is probably going to reflect Muslim law and values, even if its dictator proudly claims to be a secular Marxist (as in the former Iraq). If a country is settled by Jews, the system of laws will be based on Jewish law. If a country is settled by secular humanists…You get the idea. The United States was settled primarily by Christian Protestants, and the system of law obviously reflects Christian values – otherwise, why would the secular humanists be complaining?

12) “Why be concerned about the separation of church and state? Ignoring history, law, and fairness, many fanatics are working vigorously to turn America into a Christian nation. Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state. America has never been a Christian nation. We are a free nation. Anne Gaylor, president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, points out: ‘There can be no religious freedom without the freedom to dissent.’”

Freedom to dissent? Is the anyone at the FFrF seriously worried about personal retribution for publishing this website? They have freedom to dissent, as does everyone else. This is a free country, for women, religious minorities, atheists, and GLBT’s, And no one is suggesting that church and state unite. America was founded by and for Christians, but welcomes others who are willing to participate in the “E Pluribus Unum,” idea.

It is not logical or reasonable to expect the majority of Americans to act as political schizophrenics…living according to one value system at home and another in public. No one is guaranteed the right not to be offended. Be offended. Speak up about it if you wish. But don’t be surprised if the Christians in America talk back.

A Theocracy is defined at Princeton as “the belief in government by divine guidance,”and Wikipedia gives generally-accepted definition of a State Religion as “religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state.”

The United States is neither. Instead, it is a government which is unique in history, in that it was formed by a group of people, most of whom were Protestant Christians and considered the Bible to be one of their most important sources of truth. The essence of Biblical Christianity, or “the Gospel,” is salvation by grace, freely given, and accepted at will. Christians seeking to emulate Jesus Christ will not feel the need to force others to follow Christ. Christians pray to God, directly, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and do not depend on others to tell them what God wants them to do.

Christians are required by the scriptures to attempt to win others to Christianity, but only by example through lifestyle, and respectful discussion. Christians are able to live in peace with those of other faiths and religions, and those who are not religious. These ideas may or may not prevail in a Theocracy where one person on group of persons claims to speak for God. It may or may not prevail in a country with a State Religion, where the government can not only kill you for disobedience, but, at least theoretically, also send you to hell.

But true freedom of religion will, and did for many years, prevail in the United States…a Christian Republic…a representative government consisting primarily of Christians, based on Biblical principles and ideals.

An entry in the Library of Congress eloquently describes the role of Christianity in the formation of the government:

The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United
States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious
men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of
religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American
national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially
authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object
to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators
and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote
a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication
of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public
lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving
and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least
twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a
Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that
God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement
stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their
general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were,
accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a
nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public
prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less
than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our
citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that
so we may be a happy people." (Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, Library of Congress, 10/27/03)

Jenn Sierra
August 5, 2006

JennSierra@gmail.com

Political and social secularists have used the absence of certain Christian terms in our nation’s Founding Documents to support their agenda. These humanists suggest regardless of the Founders’ personal beliefs, they sought to form a government founded on more “enlightened”, secular principals, which reject religion as superstition. (For more information on secularism, see www.secularism.org.uk, and www.secularhumanism.org)

The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, intellectual progressives note, do no contain terms such as Jesus Christ, the Ten Commandments, the Bible, or a Christian Republic. This, they postulate, is evidence the original intent of the Founders was to form a secular society and government, rather than one founded on Christian doctrine and principles. They concede there are references to a supreme being, such as Creator, and Providence, but that these terms are general, non-specific to a particular religion.

Well…not so fast!

It has traditionally been common throughout Christianity to refer to God and to Jesus Christ, rather than by name, by describing the way He is affecting one’s life at the moment. There are many different names for Jesus, such as Savior, Shepherd, The Word, and Divine Providence.

John Wesley, a Christian minister very influential in both England and America, and the founder of modern-day Methodism, routinely referred to Christ as Divine Providence relative to man’s need to exercise faith and obedience to God’s Will. This term was common among Christians in the 17th and 18th centuries, and was used by the Fathers in the Declaration of Independence, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Was this a general term for a supreme being, non-specific to any particular religion? Let’s pause and go back – way back. Back before the Puritans sailed to North America to escape the Age of Enlightenment, before the Protestants protested, and before there was a Church to be kept separate from the state…even back about 4000 years before Jesus was born.

Around 6000 years ago, the birth of Jesus Christ as the manifestation of God to man, was prophesied to Abraham in a very dramatic illustration of sacrifice and atonement. Because of Abraham’s unquestioning faith and obedience to God, it was prophesied the Messiah of the world would be his descendant. In gratitude for God’s provision of both an immediate sacrifice for his own sins, and God’s eventual sacrifice for the sins of the human race, Abraham referred to God as Jehova Jireh, (Genesis 22:1-14) which roughly translates into modern English, as The Lord will Provide or Divine Providence.

The Founders chose the name Divine Providence for a reason. They believed they were fulfilling the Will of God in forming this new government. This name expressed faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and gratitude for His guidance, direction, and protection in the formation of this new government.

 

"And for the support of this Declaration,
with a firm reliance on the protection of
divine Providence, we mutually pledge
to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and
our sacred Honor."

(Declaration of Independence, 1776)


"Not what we say about our blessings, but
how we use them, is the true measure of our
thanksgiving."

(W. T. Purkiser, 1910-1992)

The purpose of this blog is to exhort 21st century Americans to live in a manner that is deserving of the sacrifices made by earlier Americans. “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.” (Luke 12:48 b-c, KJV)

Rather than specifically endorsing any denomination or political party, the purpose of this blog is to remain true to the ideals of religious liberty, as described by George Washington: “For you, doubtless, remember that I have often expressed my sentiment, that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.” (To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia, May 10, 1789)

Throughout the history of our country, from the Mayflower Compact through the American Revolution, and from the foundation of our government to the daily prayers that are still uttered in Congress, the Bible, prayer in the Name of Jesus Christ, and thanksgiving to Divine Providence have been an integral part of our lives as Americans. In humble gratitude, therefore, to God and to our forefathers, my goal is to learn about and live out the covenant of federalism that has made our country great and has given our nation an important place in the history of Christianity.