The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

A Further Perspective

Religiously Claiming Jefferson

By on 7.31.12 @ 6:07AM

Scholars and activists on both left and right continue to think he is one of them.

This week a twitter feed for retiring United Methodist bishop William Willimon exclaimed: “[Thomas] Jefferson created a polity with religion completely free as long as it was personal and private… [creating] essentially [an] atheist national polity.” Earlier this year, Willimon, who’s returning to Duke University, faulted Jefferson for the “privatization” of God through the “modern democratic, liberal nation state in order to neutralize Christianity, to bury God in the confines of the self, to trivialize the Trinity, and to keep this governmentally troubling faith from going public.”

As Willimon asserted, the Jeffersonian experiment has created the “omnipotent state and its capitalist economy.” Of course, Jeffersonians believed in minimal government. And an omnipotent state is a contradiction to a free market economy. Although Methodist, Willimon belongs to the neo-Anabaptist perspective, most popularized by his popular Duke colleague Stanley Hauerwas, that demonizes American democracy while not offering any alternatives, except “the church.” Mainstream Christianity professes that God has ordained other institutions besides the church, such as the state, rightly ordered.

Sensibly, Willimon did note that the “government has found that Christians (well, any believer who thinks that his or her God might be more important than the state) are easier to manage if they will confine their faith to something within.” But this modern drive to privatize religion was launched by secularists and strict separationists, not Jeffersonians, who believed in a thriving civil society that included robust religious institutions. Religious enthusiasts and evangelicals of the early 19th century supported Jefferson and his party instead of the Federalists and the established churches of the eastern seaboard.

Debating Jefferson and his impact on religion is a favorite American pastime. Secularists and strict separationists ardently quote Jefferson’s opposition to state churches. Religionists with equal fervor quote Jefferson’s robust defense of religious liberty. Popular conservative religious activist David Barton has just released a new book called The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson. It’s a full throttle defense of Jefferson’s character and specifically of his personal faith.

Barton’s group, Wallbuilders, specializes in spotlighting America’s Christian history to rebut secularist attempts to marginalize public faith. Spotlighted in a New York Times feature last year, and appearing on the Jon Stewart Show this year, Barton infuriates secularists and liberals with his chapter and verse citations of early American religious history. Some conservatives have also challenged his alleged exaggerations of early American religiosity and virtue. Two Grove City College professors have published Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims About Our Third President to correct many of Barton’s assertions about Jefferson’s rectitude.

In his latest book, Barton asserts that Jefferson strayed in and out of Christian orthodoxy, was influenced by the first and second Great Awakenings, and later was influenced by the prevalence of Christian Primitivists and Restorationists in the Charlottesville, Virginia area. These movements emphasized “primitive” Christianity based ostensibly only on the Bible while they rejected what they thought was church tradition, like belief in the Trinity or Christ’s specific deity. They emphasized the Gospels but not the Epistles or the Old Testament. They also were interdenominational and anti-Calvinist. Beyond saying that preachers of these doctrines were common in Jefferson’s neighborhood, and showing how some of their themes were similar to Jefferson’s, Barton does not specifically demonstrate their direct influence on Jefferson. Barton insists Jefferson was theologically orthodox until middle aged. But other writers, including conservative Christians, date Jefferson’s departure from orthodoxy to his early manhood.

Barton readily admits that Jefferson was an enthusiast for Unitarianism during his final years, even as he continued to attend and financially support Trinitarian churches, especially the Episcopal Church, in which he had served as vestryman during his younger years. Although acknowledging Jefferson’s heterodox theology, Barton concludes Jefferson was “pro-Christian and pro-Jesus.” Barton’s critics cite this rhetoric as evidence of Barton’s crusade to enlist the Founding Fathers as posthumous friends of the modern Religious Right. Some Religious Right authors, like the late Peter Marshall (son of the famous U.S. Senate chaplain of the same name), have demonized Jefferson as an infidel who contrasted with more devout Founders. But Barton sides with others like Pat Robertson, who also claims Jefferson as a friend to religion and to liberty whatever his personal theology.

As even his critics grant, Barton successfully recalls lots of forgotten early American religious history, including obscure clergy, which they complain only makes him more dangerous. Barton’s linking Jefferson to early 19th century Christian Primitivism and Restorationism (whose descendants largely became Trinitarian and are today in the modern Churches of Christ and the Christian Church-Disciples of Christ) is provocative but, at least in his book, somewhat lacking in direct evidence. Most religious writers tie Jefferson’s religious beliefs to European Enlightenment thinkers.

A definitive book on Jefferson and religion is probably yet to be written. What is needed is a work like Michael Novak’s recent Washington’s God or Mary Thompson’s In the Hands of a Good Providence. Both these books subtly disprove the frequent charge that George Washington was a deist without exaggerating his piety or orthodoxy.

Jefferson was a lifelong church goer and supporter who regarded himself as a Christian, even while privately rejecting its key doctrines as a distraction from its moral teachings. Like any good politician, he nurtured friendships with believers in nearly all religious groups then in America. And he sincerely believed that religion was essential to national character. For him the free exercise of religion fully in public life was especially important to restraining unlimited government.

It’s pointless to claim Jefferson for the modern Religious Right. But it’s even more absurd to equate him with Norman Lear. And Bishop Willimon’s implication that Jefferson was a sort of Robespierre who drove religion into the closet is equally baseless. Like nearly all the Founding Fathers, Jefferson spoke and acted on grand themes that transcend most modern American ideological categories. That the Religious Right and secular Left can both at times claim Jefferson likely would delight him. 

About the Author

Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.


Letter to the Editor View all comments (53) |

Nancy in NC| 7.31.12 @ 8:11AM

Jefferson would surely be more clear about his religious leanings if he were to see what has happened to our Nation.

I can see nothing good coming from the secular thinking which is so popular today. To quote an old ditty: "When anything goes, everything's gone". There are many good and decent Americans. Unfortunately, we don't seem to elect many of them to public office. Instead we choose those who would like to be king, and morality seems like a feather to be used when convenient. Clinton was reelected after his dalliance with Lewinsky had been exposed. So the electorate has accepted immorality in our elected leaders as par for the course.

I believe Jefferson was brilliant and questioned everything with boldness...even the existance of God. A deist? Perhaps, but a very decent man that would be appalled by what passes as decent today.

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.31.12 @ 1:05PM

Perhaps Jefferson was a Stanist.

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.31.12 @ 1:06PM

A Satanist.

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 5:22PM

Idiot.

Bill8472| 8.1.12 @ 12:44PM

Maybe it's Santaist.

Reggie Love| 7.31.12 @ 8:29AM

Back in the day his Federalist foes like Adams and Hamilton called him an aetheist. I think Jefferson believed in God,but had conflicts and doubts. Not unlike most people. He was just more honest.

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 8:33AM

He's a Methodist.

That makes him a Homo.

And, that makes him a Far Left Loser.

Who cares what it has to say?

Ryan| 7.31.12 @ 8:38AM

Someone doesn't know much about Methodism when it was originally founded...John Wesley wasn't exactly a pushover...

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 9:13AM

I was Baptized a Methodist.

I went all through Sunday School, as a Methodist.

These people are not the same.

They are Religious/Political/Hermaphrodites, who lost their way, a long time ago.

They belong to The Religious Left, which makes perfect sense, seeing as how Religion left the LEFT, also, a long time ago.

Ryan| 7.31.12 @ 9:52AM

Sorry, misinterpreted somewhat. However, I knew some relatively conservative ones in the South growing up. Your statement borders on false witness.

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 10:09AM

My statements are Factual Witness.

I was there.

Ryan| 7.31.12 @ 11:27AM

How can you claim the author a "homo?"

Quartermaster| 7.31.12 @ 12:38PM

TLP is simply being his normal idiot self. The UMC's "leadership" is loopy, but they didn't get their way at the recent General Council. In fact most of what they wanted got tabled because they knew it would never pass. The next GC will likely see prfound changes in church agencies because the Evangelicals are ascendant in teh denomination with the help of the people in foreign lands they have led to Christ. That really torques the Libtards, and it's a pleasure to see.

Presently, the libtards in the UMC are running scared.

Harry the Horrible| 7.31.12 @ 9:53AM

Dunno where you're going to church, but that isn't the way it is here in Georgia.
The upper levels of the UMC are loopy, but our church preaches the Grace of God and ignores the clowns upstairs.

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 10:10AM

North East.

Now, whadda ya think?

Ryan| 7.31.12 @ 8:42AM

Barton's main fault is not seeing the religious perspectives of the founders in their own day - he tries to bring them over to modern evangelicalism, when the concept was barely even started at that point.

Yes, most were Christians to one aspect or another, but their religious perspectives would probably challenge many in the pews today of the evangelical world. Many were probably Calvinist-leaning, had little concept of a "prosperity Gospel," and were far better grounded in scripture.

Quartermaster| 7.31.12 @ 12:40PM

I would agree some were more Calvinist leaning. Methodists dominated on the frontier. Like all Arminains, they knew if people were to reached for Christ, it would be through people that carried the Gospel to those areas in which they unreached lived. For many years the Methodists were the largest denomination in the country.

nathan| 7.31.12 @ 8:45AM

Jefferson like many of his fellow Founders appear to be deists more than Christians. His famous copy of the Bible has been recently restored where he removed all references to the deity of Christ. You cannot by common definition refuse to believe in deity of Christ and still be considered a Christian. Being a life long church goer is irrelevant, the Bible makes it clear that faith in the resurrection of Christ saves you, not by "works" (which is what attending church is), or any other actions. But we do not know what he believed at the time of his death.

With the rare exception of Tom Paine who was a self professed atheist, most of the Founders had some belief in "god" but the evidence suggests a lot of them were not Christians as commonly understood. That, along with their other failings if you wish to consider it one, does not detract from their brilliance in terms political thought, and what they meant to this country. No group past or present comes close to them and modern day conservatism is or should be defined by the principles they established.

Ryan| 7.31.12 @ 9:53AM

"Christians as commonly understood" does not mean "deist." It simply may mean "not evangelical," which is a more 20th-century phenomenon. Many of the founders were committed Christians - but the Christian movements of their day were completely different from ours.

Bill8472| 8.1.12 @ 12:48PM

All but a handful of the Founders were regularly church-going Christians. Jefferson attended church irregularly, and is known as a deist; I accept that. Jefferson also believed that a democratic government can only work if people subscribe to a moral code with agreed-upon values, and that religion, particularly the Christian religion, provided that moral code to most people. There were a couple of non-traditional Christians among the Founders, but each of them in his own way agreed with Jefferson's view that a democracy requires a moral foundation, which is most readily provided by religious belief.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.31.12 @ 9:55AM

Jefferson and Franklin had deist leanings, but neither one of them was really interested in religious debate. They were more interested in politics. Yet both respected religion and traditional morality. Jefferson, after all, wanted homosexuals to be castrated, and Franklin called for prayer at the Constitutional convention. In addition, Jefferson refused to see Paine at the White House, but would only meet with him privately. Jefferson's introduction to one of Paine's books was included without his permissioin, as he explained to Madison.

In fact many of the founders, at their deathbeds, confessed that they relied on the merits of Christ. Many of them were a lot more strict in their Christian beliefs and morality than today's evangelicals (e.g., Sabbath-keeping).

Jefferson, Madison, and the rest wanted religion to be private, but only in the sense of liturgy and theological opinion. They did not, however, separate religion and public morality as Washington pointed out in his Farewell address, and as Jefferson himself would affirm in his letter to the baptists. In other words, for them religion was private, but morality was public.

I agree with your last sentences.

Al Adab| 7.31.12 @ 11:14AM

You express the conditions of the time quite well. Whether Jefferson was a practicing Christian or not he, and the other "founders" as well recognized that the culture was a Christian one and their thoughts and creation reflected that culture.

There existed a consensus of what constituted proper behavior and proper action. If we have lost that consensus, as seems likely, the difficulty lies in replacing a common culture with a relativistic one. The social issues with which we struggle are simply the symptoms of that missing consensus, that common cultural view.

Louis Jenkins| 7.31.12 @ 9:21AM

While religion was important to Jefferson, his thoughts on politics were even more important. A co-writter of the Constitution, he was in the right place at the right time.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.31.12 @ 9:56AM

No, Jefferson wrote the Declaration, not the Constitution. That was Madison.

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 5:24PM

Exactly.

KyMouse| 7.31.12 @ 9:33AM

I have read the "Bible" that Jefferson created with his scissors. He cut out everything that spoke of Jesus' divinity, His miracles and the atonement He purchased with His blood on the cross, and ended it with His burial in the tomb. No resurrection, no power to save those who put their faith (obedient trust) in Him.

Through Paul, the Holy Spirit said that "if Christ is not risen...your faith is in vain...you are still in your sins" (I Corinthians 15:12-17).

Many people, including Jefferson, have said that Jesus was just a good man, a teacher of ethics. But as one person put it, if He isn't God, He isn't good, because He claimed to be God, claimed to forgive other people's sins, and accepted worship from His followers.

Sorry, Jefferson, but "He was a teacher of ethics" is no substitute for "My Lord and My God!" (John 20:28).

gray man| 8.2.12 @ 1:27AM

Jefferson wrote two "Jefferson Bibles" the first he wrote was for the american indians. It included all Jesus' teachings, miracles, and resurrection. 6000 copies were printed with Jefferson's own money to be used to convert american indians to Christianity.

THKrupp| 7.31.12 @ 10:11AM

One of the above writers was correct..It really doesnt matter what Jefferson did or didnt believe theologically. It was his political writing that is important. We wont ever really know what he believed.

I always dislike it when writers proport to know how a person from another time period would have thought about current events. Even worse is when they try to judge or fit that historical person into the constraints of our own time period. Each side claims that he would be on their side, when in fact he would probably be on neither

ansonheath| 7.31.12 @ 12:04PM

Yes, THK, I agree.
As a Christian, I particularly dislike the modern evangelical pharisees who evaluate everyone else on their own (and often limited biblical understanding) experience. One actually told me outright that I would be denying my Lord and Savior if I voted for Romney, because he is a Mormon. Christian maturity is in short supply.
I have read several of Barton's books and find that they are generally rather balanced, when compared to typical history about the colonial period. He relies heavily on primary sources.

Ryan| 7.31.12 @ 2:48PM

Barton doesn't use his sources well. His misuse of an Adams quote is quite telling.

Sources require context, and Barton is bad about context. He has a problem in trying to put modern ideas of Christianity - particularly evangelicalism - into a period where evangelicals didn't really exist, and interpreting his sources through that lens. It just doesn't work.

gray man| 8.2.12 @ 1:23AM

actually he does use them well, it just takes understanding.

THKrupp| 7.31.12 @ 2:56PM

Im not familiar with Bartons books so I cannot comment. However as far as Christians and voting goes Ill paraphrase Martin Luther who said that he would rather have a wise Turk as king as opposed to a foolish Christian.

gray man| 8.2.12 @ 1:21AM

then martin luther was a fool about that, turks were muslims. martin luther would have had to convert.

THKrupp| 8.2.12 @ 11:46AM

At the time the Turkish empire was tolerant of other religions to a certain point. That wasnt the point Luther was trying to make. His point is that it doesnt matter what the religion of the national leader is. Its better to have a good leader rather than a fool.

ansonheath| 7.31.12 @ 12:04PM

Yes, THK, I agree.
As a Christian, I particularly dislike the modern evangelical pharisees who evaluate everyone else on their own (and often limited biblical understanding) experience. One actually told me outright that I would be denying my Lord and Savior if I voted for Romney, because he is a Mormon. Christian maturity is in short supply.
I have read several of Barton's books and find that they are generally rather balanced, when compared to typical history about the colonial period. He relies heavily on primary sources.

ansonheath| 7.31.12 @ 12:08PM

Dear editor: Please cancel out my inadvertent double click. Thanks!

Kingofthenet| 7.31.12 @ 11:55AM

I as an Atheist have NO problem with Deist beliefs, I just don't like Yahweh.

Quartermaster| 7.31.12 @ 12:43PM

That's a shame. One day soon you are going to meet His son, and you will see he has no truck with your unbelief. Alas, your end will be ghastly beyond human ability to imagine.

Kingofthenet| 7.31.12 @ 1:32PM

I am screwed EITHER way, there is NO WAY I can believe what I feel is a load of BS in the Bible, and IF I were to 'pretend' I did, ANY real God would see thru the Charade, I think it's best to be HONEST to myself and take my chances.

cowgirl| 7.31.12 @ 3:16PM

The root of evil in this world is pride. Lucifer had it and the list is long of the people presently living on earth - obviously yourself included - who are full of themselves and their "feelings" about issues. Pride leads to rebellion and rebellion leads to sin. Pride and then rebellion led Adam and Eve to exile from God and pride then rebellion led Jonah to the belly of the fish. It is easy to be "HONEST" with yourself and take chances when pride is what is driving you to believe what you say you believe. Besides, rebellion and then sin open the door to an opportunity to justify all types of behavior - that which usually leads us humans into an endless circle of vomiting out sin and then eating our vomit again. Only amazing grace and redemption selflessly given by God through his Son Jesus Christ came make all that is bad good again.

My thoughts and prayers are with you. Hopefully you can get on Grace Train one day and understand the peace and joy of submission to the One who not only created you, but loves you unconditionally. Pride, Rebellion, Sin and all.

God Bless.

Kingofthenet| 8.1.12 @ 12:23AM

Are you SINGLE Cowgirl, can you help me FEEL the light? Inside you?

cowgirl| 8.1.12 @ 11:31AM

You are an easy read - pride, sex, and feelings. The devil is dancing with you King Net!!! Have fun while it lasts!!!

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 5:26PM

Yeah.

Good luck with that.

Kingofthenet| 8.1.12 @ 4:04AM

OK, it was a LONG SHOT, but I find these believers make GREAT Sexual Partners.

cowgirl| 8.1.12 @ 11:32AM

Yep - when hell freezes over...

MK48| 8.1.12 @ 1:54AM

KingOnet..........think about this.

I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't.

Than live my life as if there isn't, and find out there is.

Sir....I will pray that God show's Himself to you.

Bill8472| 7.31.12 @ 5:47PM

Didn't Jefferson attend Christian services sporadically but hold that a country ruled by the consent of the governed must possess a basic and commonly agreed-upon set of moral values, which for most people comes from religious belief?

If true, this is consistent with the views of the classical Greeks and Western thinkers, who thought that virtue arrived at via rational philosphical thought was too demanding and time-consuming for the average person, and religion, by providing a God-given moral system, would provide the ideal substitute for rational moral inquiry.

Bill8472| 7.31.12 @ 5:49PM

Jefferson was also undoubtedly aware of Pascal's Wager, although I don't know how compelling he found it as a spur for religious belief.

C Smith | 8.1.12 @ 1:07AM

All those who reverence Jefferson's Declaration and alter ego as "American Scripture," and eulogize the like-minded pseudo sainthood of our founding fathers, would do well to read the "Jefferson Bible." Eliminating angels, miracles, and concluding with the stone sealed sepulcher in his final verse, Jefferson created a "sanitized" version of Scripture to fit his "faith":

"... the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus... will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" (Jefferson to Adams, April 11, 1823).

http://popularapostasy.blogspo.....bible.html

"That the Religious Right and secular Left can both at times claim Jefferson likely would delight him."

Probably the least of his concerns now!

"... there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

gray man| 8.2.12 @ 1:19AM

actually the first "jefferson bible" he wrote was a compilation of jesus teaching, miracles, and resurrection, to be used to convert american indians to Christianity.

stephena| 8.1.12 @ 4:40PM

Jefferson didn't "trivialize" the trinity, he totally, 100%, unequivocally DENIED it and ridiculed it. Often. As in: "It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one" (1815)

gray man| 8.2.12 @ 1:17AM

that is simply because the "trinity" was not in the bible, and was made up centuries after the death of Christ at the council of nicaea.

bdavis34| 8.2.12 @ 12:12PM

Where is your evidence for that?

More Articles by Mark Tooley

More Articles From A Further Perspective

The Devils Koch

May 24, 2013 | Marta H. Mossburg

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

May 22, 2013 | Doug Bandow

Flatten the IRS

May 20, 2013 | Ray V. Hartwell, III

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

May 17, 2013 | Marta H. Mossburg

Pick Obama’s Brain

May 16, 2013 | Paul Kengor

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/31/religiously-claiming-jefferson

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|63 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|36 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|41 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|68 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|22 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|16 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|1 comment

The Spectacle Blog

NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 12:45PM

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 12:36PM

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 11:03AM

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 10:29AM

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 6:00AM

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 12:41AM

Good Luck Quin

Aaron Goldstein | 12:13AM

One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born

Aaron Goldstein | 5.23.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.