Consider for a moment the questions we’ve asked thus far:
- What is the Common Book of Prayer?
- What is a Puritan?
- Why did the British refer to the Revolutionary War as a “Presbyterian Rebellion?”
- How many times did Congress call for a National Day of Prayer, Fasting and Humiliation?
The first two questions outline the way in which the Anglican Church was replacing the “Lord’s Prayer” with the “Common Book of Prayer” along with several other directives that positioned the monarchy over the Trinity. This lead to the Puritans wanting to “purify” the doctrine espoused by the Church of England and return to a biblically based approach to one’s relationship with Christ.
By the 1700s, the “Act of Uniformity” had been expanded to include mandates pertaining to church government – something very beligerent in the mind of a Presbyterian who subscribed to a Scriptural approach to elders and deacons as they are described in the New Testament.
Moreover, part of the “Common Book of Prayer” included prayers that were to be made for the king, which implied a form of political support regardless of that monarch’s character or conduct.1
This is what was meant by the “separation of church and state.”
The delegates that formed the Constitutional Convention were not attempting to facilitate a potentially godless society with the First Amendment. Rather, they were honoring the Authority of God’s Word by placing a limitation on the way the government could dictate the manner of your worship.
Congress could not tell you how to pray or fine you for not attending church on Sundays. There would be no legislation that dictated how a church’s government was to be structured.
But while the individual is free to choose how they worship God according to the dicates of their own conscience, the individual is not at liberty to reconfigure the Foundation upon which that right was based.
In a 2019 ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of context in determining meaning in defamation cases. They said that context is “a factor of considerable importance” and that the “…words complained of should not be fixed by technical, linguistically-precise dictionary definitions divorced from the context in which the statement was made. Nor should individual words be removed from their context and defined in isolation, before reconnecting them to the rest of the statement.2
If that ruling is to apply to the debate surrounding the separation of church and state, then you’re obligated to conclude the the Founding Fathers were not looking to limit Christianity’s influence on government as much as they were resolved to limit government’s influence on Christianity.
John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli which was designed to ensure the militant Muslims that were preying on American ships that the US was not planning on invading Jerusalem. Part of that Treaty says:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries (Treaty of Tripoli).
Some will take the statement, “…America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” to mean that the Declaration of Independence represents nothing more than a token acknowledgement of God and the sixteen Congressional proclamations calling for a National Day of Prayer and Fasting had no specific reference to Christ.
That’s just not the case.
Adams himself said:
The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities Sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.3
In 1789, James Madison, the architect behind the Bill of Rights, wrote a “Memonstrance and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments.” His goal was to discourage the use of tax dollars to financially support teachers of the Christian religion.
His point wasn’t to discredit Christianity or minimize its place in the public square. Again, it was a concerted resolve to avoid the sins of the Church of England in the way government was used to obligate people to process and revere God in a specific way, if they were to even worship God at all.
Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered.4
Again, while the individual is free to choose how they worship God according to the dicates of their own conscience, the individual is not at liberty to reconfigure the Foundation upon which that right was based.
While Madison is brilliant in his defense of not using public funds to finance religious education, bear in mind he was part of the group of men that wrote the following Congressional Proclamation:
The United States in Congress assembled, therefore do earnestly recommend, that Thursday the thrid of May next, beay be observed as a day of humiliation, fasting and prayer, that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous sidpleasure, and through the merits of our blessed Savior, obtain pardon and forgiveness…5
The Separation of Church and State was never designed to be used as a way to normalize Homosexuality or justify Partial Birth Abortion. The government of the United States, while it will not dictate how or to whom you pray, it will not be redefined in a way that removes the Divine Absolute that is both its heritage and its Foundation.
1. “Variations in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer”, “The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England (1662)”, http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Variations.htm, accessed June 13, 2023
2. “Supreme Court emphasizes importance of context in determining meaning in defamation cases”, https://hsfnotes.com/litigation/2019/04/11/supreme-court-emphasises-importance-of-context-in-determining-meaning-in-defamation-cases/, Herbert Smith Freehills, April 11, 2019, accessed November 5, 2022
3. “John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 28 June 1813”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0208, accessed November 5, 2022
4. “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. 20 June] 1785”, “National Archives, Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0163, accessed June 13, 2023
5. To see an image of the Proclamation as its preserved in the Library of Congress, click here.
