America's National Day of (Fighting Over) Prayer

If you've followed my posts over the past couple of years it should come as no surprise that I absolutely, 100% reject the "America is a Christian Nation" nonsense. My reasons for such a stance are numerous (and I won't dive into them today) but sufficeth me to say that I believe such as stance is actually quite anti-Christian in nature. With that said, I don't want to be misunderstood here. This does not mean that I believe religion played no role in the founding of America. Quite the contrary. I believe it was (and still is) a fundamental component of American republicanism; one that we cannot and should not do without. Religious freedom and diversity is as important to us as are our separation of powers.

And I don't believe I am alone in my beliefs. The role of religion has always been a difficult juggling act throughout American history. The question of when and how religion can be taken too far (or not far enough) in relation to government was a question even our Founding Fathers wrestled with. And in our modern era the story is no different.

Which bring us to today, which is, by presidential proclamation, the National Day of Prayer. And as can be expected, the typical pro and con voices of "reason" have emerged to support/lament this time-honored practice of fighting over prayer, more specifically prayer being sanctioned by government officials. And though I tend to oppose the "Christian Nation" crowd on a regular basis, I am choosing to stand with them today. The National Day of Prayer is a good thing and the secularists need to back off. Here's why:

First off, let's travel back a ways to the era of our Founders. Yes, many of them were "Theistic Rationalists," "Unitarians," "Deists," "atheists" or any other "ist" you can think of. However, these same heathens LOVED to pray (it's true). Take, for example, the First Continental Congress. You all know the story. It was suggested that the first official act of business should be to begin with a prayer but when deadlocked over who should give that prayer, Samuel Adams (a pious man to say the least) arose and stated 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 to his Country." Shortly thereafter, Jacob Duché, an Anglican minister, was selected to lead the group in prayer.

Fast forward to the war for independence. One of the first General Orders issued by General Washington required soldiers to adhere to a moral code that included prayer:

The General most earnestly requires, and expects, a due observance of those articles of war, established for the Government of the army, which forbid profane cursing, swearing and drunkeness; And in like manner requires and expects, of all Officers, and Soldiers, not engaged on actual duty, a punctual attendance on divine Service, to implore the blessings of heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense.

And then there is the case of John Hanson, president of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, who, in 1782, issued a proclamation calling for a national day of thanksgiving in which the nation was to "give thanks to God" for their good fortune during the war.

And let us not forget, despite the controversy over whether or not he said "So Help Me God", President George Washington stated in his first inaugural address:

No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.

And then there are the numerous Thanksgiving proclamations made by several early presidents, each of which implored the American populace to give thanks to God through prayer. Bottom line: prayer, in whatever form, is as American as apple pie.

Of course not everyone liked the idea of prayer being sanctioned by government. In 1812, John Adams actually lamented his call for a national day of prayer and thanksgiving:

The National Fast, recommended by me turned me out of office. It was connected with the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which I had no concern in. That assembly has alarmed and alienated Quakers, Anabaptists, Mennonists, Moravians, Swedenborgians, Methodists, Catholicks, protestant Episcopalians, Arians, Socinians, Armenians, & & &, Atheists and Deists might be added. A general Suspicion prevailed that the Presbyterian Church was ambitious and aimed at an Establishment of a National Church. I was represented as a Presbyterian and at the head of this political and ecclesiastical Project. The secret whisper ran through them “Let us have Jefferson, Madison, Burr, any body, whether they be Philosophers, Deists, or even Atheists, rather than a Presbyterian President.” This principle is at the bottom of the unpopularity of national Fasts and Thanksgivings. Nothing is more dreaded than the National Government meddling with Religion."

-- John Adams to Benjamin Rush, June 12, 1812

And Thomas Jefferson:

Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the time for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and right can never be safer than in their hands, where the Constitution has deposited it. ...civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.

~Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808.

And James Madison:

There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive Proclamations of fasts & festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms. In this sense, I presume you reserve to the Govt. a right to appoint particular days for religious worship throughout the State, without any penal sanction enforcing the worship.

~James Madison to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822.

And while most modern presidents have followed suit by declaring national days of prayer (Harry Truman even signed a bill requiring presidents to do just that), some presidents sided with Jefferson. Presidents Ulysses S. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt spoke up for what Roosevelt called "absolutely nonsectarian public schools." Roosevelt added that it is "not our business to have the Protestant Bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in schools."

Yes, truly the debate over prayer has a long and tedious history. As Diana Butler, author of the controversial book, A People's History of Christianity points out:

When it comes to prayer, Americans love to fight -- and our prayers have driven us apart. Arguing over prayer is an American tradition.

In the 1600s, Puritans rejected the formalized prayer of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and founded their own churches as a way of protesting state-supported prayer. For their trouble, the Anglicans put them in jail. When they got out, they left England and settled in the New World. But the Anglicans were already there with their own colonies and outlawed Puritan prayers again. So the Puritans outlawed Anglican prayer in their own colonies. Quakers, disgusted with the Puritan-Anglican quarrel, rejected verbal prayers altogether, choosing to pray silently instead.

In the 1740s, during the Great Awakening, the new evangelical preachers practiced extemporaneous prayer. They rejected all written prayers in favor of being "moved by the Spirit" and making up public prayers on the spot. Many in traditional churches -- Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Congregationalists -- found extemporaneous prayer to be theologically shallow and "unlearned" and forbade its exercise in their churches. These groups didn't imprison each other over prayer. Instead, they consigned each other to hell and set up rival denominations to insure their own salvation. American churches split over prayer, leaving some to free-form prayer and others to written and ritualized prayers.

After the Revolutionary War, a puzzling question arose: Whose prayer would undergird the new nation? How might prayer be practiced in the commons? What words should bless state functions?

The political leaders (perhaps recognizing that prayer was above their pay grade) came up with a unique and practical answer: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." In other words, "We won't touch that prayer-thing with a twenty-foot pole. You are on your own, people."

Of course, the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the Constitution didn't solve anything. Congress, despite trying to avoid the issue, had chaplains -- most typically of the formal type -- who prayed for their work. And Americans -- even in the early period when most of them were Protestants -- kept arguing over whose prayer was theologically accurate and most spiritually effective. Entire denominations were formed on the basis of devotional style. And as Americans argued and denominations split over prayer, religious leaders and politicians continued to proclaim days of prayer for national unity.

And though it's likely that the debate over prayer's role in the halls of government is sure to remain for as long as the stars and stripes continue to fly, I believe it is important for us all to recognize one important fact: whether you favor prayer being intertwined with government or not we must acknowledge its role in American history. Americans are, for the most part, a prayer-loving people. I am reminded of the very first post ever done at my other blog (American Creation) entitled, "Did Washington Pray at Valley Forge?" In that post, I pointed out that the story of Washington kneeling in prayer (and made famous by Arnold Frieberg's now infamous painting) is surely a farce. Despite its obvious mythology, fellow blogger Brian Tubbs made an excellent point. He stated, in this blog's first ever comment:

Whether GW knelt in prayer at Valley Forge as depicted by the paintings is like asking whether he stood in the boat when he crossed the Delaware. GW probably didn't kneel in the snow at Valley Forge. But I'm sure he prayed at Valley Forge. That GW prayed in the exact manner depicted in the famous painting may be called into question. That he was a man of prayer cannot be challenged.

And so it is with prayer on a national level. Perhaps we are not a Christian Nation and that a separation of church and state does keep the men of the cloth from dictating policy. This truth, however, does not mean that we need to throw the baby out with the bath water. We have been, and probably always will be, a nation of praying people.

And maybe both the pro and anti-prayer advocates can appeal to Jesus for a resolution on this matter:

"Thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men...

"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret." ~ Matt. 6:5-6

What is Cinco de Mayo (and Why Americans Should Care)

A Brief History of Cinco de Mayo and its
Important Role in American History

Happy Cinco de Mayo everyone!

With the recent controversy over immigration, this year's Cinco de Mayo celebrations have been obscured by political, social and racial tensions, all which have created a climate of animosity between two nations that actually share more in common than they realize. Now, it's not my intent today to weigh in on the current immigration issue. I know that both sides of this issue feel passionate about their views and believe they are justified in their respective protests. With that said, I ask that you check your politics at the door. This post isn't political in nature but instead focuses on the forgotten history of this day...a day that even Americans should be thankful for.

For whatever reason, most people think Cinco de Mayo is the Mexican independence day. Not so. Mexican independence day is actually celebrated on September 16th (this year will be the 201st anniversary of Mexican independence). Cinco de Mayo is a commemoration of an important battle that impacted both Mexico and the United States.

On the morning of May 5, 1862, while the United States was embroiled in its greatest crisis (the Civil War) Mexican forces under the command of General Ignacio Zaragoza Seguín soundly defeated a French invasion in what became known as the Battle of Puebla. This unlikely victory not only shocked the invading French, but it also sent sound waves to the North. American leaders (better put Union leaders) were overjoyed at the news that the Mexican Army had defeated the French. After all, the French had been unofficially favoring the Confederacy, hoping that a Southern victory would help to cripple the United States. In fact, President Abraham Lincoln was so concerned with the impending French invasion of Mexico that he granted permission to several hundred Union soldiers to join up with the Mexican military. Many Union leaders sincerely believed that America's future depended on a Mexican victory. It was no mystery that French Emperor Napoleon III, who detested the United States, hoped that the invasion, occupation and eventual domination of Mexico might serve to better supply the Confederacy and once again give France a legitimate presence in the Western Hemisphere.

It seems that Mexico, however, did not get that memo. The French invasion was forced to retreat with their tails between their legs, humiliated and soundly beaten by the "inferior" Mexicans. Their quest for conquest died a sudden death as did their desire to provide aid to the Southern Confederacy. This shift in momentum came at a perfect time for the Struggling United States. It is no mystery that the early part of 1862 was not a high mark for the Union. Robert E. Lee was on a roll, the South was still strong and the Union was in desperate need of a turn of fortune. Cinco de Mayo (or perhaps better put, the Battle of Puebla) gave them at least a small turn of that fortune. This shift in momentum was later coupled with the Union victory at Gettysburg (just 2 months after 5 de Mayo). Without the coveted French aid, Confederate forces eventually succumbed to the obvious superiority of the Union's resources and manpower.

Now, I'm not suggesting that those brave 4,000 Mexican soldiers (and the few hundred Americans who accompanied them at the Battle of Puebla) saved the United States. Nobody knows what would have happened had the French won on that day. Perhaps they would have been able to strengthen the Confederacy enough to give the Union a longer fight. Perhaps not. Nobody knows. But those points miss the main point: Cinco de Mayo matters to the United States. If Americans are able to embrace and accept the Irish St. Patrick's Day holiday, surely we have enough room to accept and embrace Cinco de Mayo. After all, it had a legitimate impact on our history. At a time when our nation was saturated with nothing but crisis, our southern neighbors gave us a hand. I think that calls for a day of celebration!

Everyone raise your Coronas and Tamales! Viva Mexico y Los Estados Unidos! Feliz Cinco de Mayo a Todos!

Wood/Hitchens on Religion and America's Founding

Sorry for my absence from blogging. Life has just been busy. In an effort to return to my blogging roots I have decided to post the following videos. The first is of renowned early American historian Gordon Wood (my favorite American historian). In the video, Dr. Wood discusses the role that religion played during the founding of America. The second video is of well-know atheist Christopher Hitchens, who discusses the same thing.

What I find interesting in these two videos is that both men draw some of the same conclusions but from different angles. Wood makes it clear, from a historical perspective, that religion was a big deal for the American masses, but that the key Founding Fathers (Jefferson, Madison, etc.) held reservations as to how religion was to be treated in a republic. Essentially Wood makes it clear that though skeptical of organized religion, the Founders understood that religion (in the general sense) was necessary for a republic to survive. On the other hand, Hitchens argues that the founders saw religion as a threat to any free society, and endeavored to have its power and influence put in check. Take a look:

Wood:


Hitchens:


Now it might be our nature to give Wood more credit than Hitchens, since he's a historical juggenraut and doesn't have the disdain for religion that Hitchens exhibits on a regular basis. I myself admit that I agree more with Wood's synopsis. However, Hitchens does make some valid points that Wood himself makes from a different angle. Hitchens is right when he points out that the founders saw organized, government-sanctioned religion as a terrible threat to the infant republic. But Hitchens' assumption that the key founders detested religion in the general sense just isn't true. As Wood points out, religion was still a big deal to the masses of colonial America, and as the infant U.S. became more democratic, their religious zeal found new outlets, hense the massive Evangelical explosion of the early 1800s (not to forget the explosion by other groups like the Mormons, Shakers, etc.).

Happy Green...I Mean Blue...I Mean Orange St. Patrick's Day

Happy St. Patrick's Day to all my blog readers!

Yes, America's favorite imported Irish holiday replete with drinking, shamrocks, leprechauns and hidden pots of gold is upon us! And while it's fun to enjoy the wonderful symbols of this day while adorning one's self in your favorite shade of green, let us not forget that St. Patrick's Day has a unique history that might surprise some.

The first recorded St. Patrick's Day celebration in colonial America was held in 1737. According to the Charitable Irish Society, it was a group of 18th century Irish immigrants in New England who first brought the St. Patrick's Day tradition to the New World:

The origins of Boston’s Irish community stretch back to the early 18th century when considerable numbers of Ulster Presbyterians came to New England in search of economic opportunity and the religious and political freedom which the Penal Laws denied to Dissenters and Roman Catholics alike. Merchants and artisans of Ulster stock founded the Charitable Irish Society in 1737 with the express purpose of assisting fellow Irish immigrants in the traumatic process of settling in a strange new city and country.

Interestingly enough, these Irish immigrants from Ulster were NOT Catholic but Protestant. Their Presbyterian beliefs had also incorporated the St. Patrick's Day holiday as more of an expression of cultural heritage rather than a recognition of Catholic faith and tradition.

Approximately three decades later, New York City became host to the first ever official parade commemorating the celebration of St. Patrick's Day in America. On that day, Irish soldiers, serving in the British military, marched proudly through the streets of New York, while eager crowds gathered to praise their bravery during the Seven Years' War (French & Indian War) and to recognize their Irish heritage.

What? Where did the green go you ask? How un-Irish of me you say! Well, the answer is actually based in the history of this day. It was during the early part of the 17th century that the celebration of St. Patrick's Day became the officially recognized feast of Ireland. During those first centuries, St. Patrick's Day was regularly recognized with the customary blue, since blue was associated with the ancient colors of Ireland (and St. Patrick himself). If we had lived during this time it would be blue clothing, food, decorations, etc. that we would see throughout town, not green. It wasn't until many years later that the "wearing of the green," meaning to wear a shamrock on one's clothing, made its appearance, thus forever changing the "official" color of St. Patrick's Day.

And perhaps we should change the blue to orange, since many Protestants actually chose to wear orange on this day as a symbol of defiance to the Catholic faith. And while this tradition is still continued by some Irish Protestants to this day, it is interesting to note that many attribute the wearing of orange to William of Orange (William III), who defeated the Catholic King James II to take over the throne of England. Perhaps those who credit William III should remember that the "Orange" in William's nickname has nothing to do with the color, but the French province in southern France. In fact, the orange color in Ireland's flag is actually used to recognize Ireland's Protestant minority.

So should we start pinching those not wearing blue...or orange??? Either way, a very happy St. Patrick's Day to you all!

Potty Party @ Chuck E. Cheese

It's official: both of our kids are POTTY TRAINED! This past month Zakary made the momentous jump from diapers to underwear, and we as parents couldn't be happier! As a reward, we as a family, along with some friends of ours, had some fun at Chuck E. Cheese:

Shooting guns is always a highlight for our kids.

Mom and Zakary doing a news broadcast.

Jaxson in the virtual reality boat racer.

Zakary actually won the jackpot on one of the games. Here are his 100 tickets.

Chuck E. Cheese himself.

Jaxson and Zakary won a grand total of 437 tickets.

Happy Colonial Valentine's Day

As we've discussed at length, holidays, and the means of celebrating them, were very different during the colonial era than they are today. Most of the holidays that we enjoy today were hardly even recognized by the first generation of Americans, due to the fact that they had a very different set of social and cultural norms.

As far as Valentine's Day is concerned, the differences are almost night and day. First off, colonial America did not celebrate Valentine's Day with chocolates and cards. They did not seek Cupid's arrow, nor did they send flowers. In short, Valentine's Day was hardly on Colonial America's radar.

With that said, this does not mean that early Americans completely ignored celebrating Cupid's favorite day. Though they did tend to avoid any formal recognition of Valentine's Day, many colonial Americans joined in celebrating some even older festivities, like the Roman holiday of Lupercalia. Lupercalia was a holiday to commemorate both Romulus and Remus, the two fabled founders of Rome. During Lupercalia, men would chase women around in goat-skinned clothing, hoping to be able to catch a virgin. The women were also lightly whipped with leaves as they were chased. The men were to laugh as loud as possible, in the hopes of scaring away the evil spirits associated with winter (this would also supposedly aid in female fertility).

In addition to these festivities, young colonial women regularly pinned five bay leaves to their pillow (four leaves on each corner and one leaf in the middle). The belief was that the leaves would inspire the dreams of the young damsel, who would recognize her true valentine in her dreams. Young women also wrote the names of the village men on pieces of paper, which were then rolled into clay. The clays were then dropped into a vassal of water, where the women would wait for the first clay piece to rise to the water's surface. It was believed that the first clay piece to rise to the top was the young woman's true valentine.

Early Dutch settlers in the American colonies also celebrated a few Valentine's Day customs as well. The most popular tradition of young Dutch women was the belief that the first man she laid eyes upon on Valentine's Day was to be her future spouse. As a result, many young women would arise in the morning, keeping their eyes shut until a friend or family member advised them otherwise. It was usually planned by the family to have a pleasing male awaiting the young woman's first gaze. One can only imagine how much fun it would have been to play a practical joke on these helpless girls! =)

So whether it took the form of Valentine's Day, Lupercalia, etc. the bottom line is that February 14th (or thereabouts) has always been an excuse to spread the love!

Keep Cupid's arrow sharp, everyone!

Trip to Rudy's Barbecue

This afternoon our family had lunch at the semi-famous Rudy's Barbecue. Our friends introduced Elizabeth and I to Rudy's last night and we could immediately tell that it would be a hit with our kids. Rudy's is a popular local attraction here in the Springs thanks in large part to their signature BBQ flavor (I sound like a commercial). We like Rudy's because it is extremely kid friendly. You can make a mess and it's no big deal. Take a look:



And a video:

Cartoon Propaganda/Racism: Volume XIX

It has been a few months since I posted one of these videos in my ongoing Cartoon Propaganda/Racism series. I think we sometimes forget just how prevalent racist stereotypes were in cartoons from the 30s and 40s. And let's not forget just how saturated some of these cartoons were with political propaganda. I invite you to take a look at the other 18 cartoons I have posted in this series (See "Blog Topics" on the right-hand side of my blog and select "Cartoon Propaganda/Racism) and see for yourself.

For today's installment, I give you "Uncle Tom and Little Eva" from 1934:

The Founding Fathers as Mormons?

Vicarious baptism -- more commonly known as baptism for the dead -- is one of the more controversial points of doctrine in the Mormon religion. For devout Mormons, this practice is seen as a holy and ultra-spiritual event, which brings salvation to the souls of the deceased. For the critic, vicarious baptism for the dead is viewed as a bizarre and secretive practice with little or no backing in traditional Christian doctrine. Yet despite the criticisms leveled against it, baptism for the dead has become a centerpiece in the religious lives of Mormon faithful.

The Mormon Church has practiced vicarious baptism since the 1840s, when their founder and prophet, Joseph Smith, revealed the doctrine to the Mormon congregation. Since then, baptisms for the dead have continued to be conducted in Mormon temples. To support the practice of vicarious baptism, Mormons will usually point out a few biblical verses from the New Testament. The first of which is Paul speaking to the Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 15:29, Paul is quoted as saying:

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

In addition, Jesus' advice to Nicodemus in John 3:5 has been used to support the practice of vicarious baptism. The scripture states:

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

One important factor to remember about Mormon baptisms for the dead is that the baptism DOES NOT guarantee salvation. Instead, the deceased is given the opportunity -- in the afterlife -- to accept or reject the baptism that has been performed on their behalf. In other words, the PHYSICAL act of baptism, which is believed to be required of God for salvation, is performed on Earth, while the deceased is given the chance to accept the ordinance or reject it.

So what does all of this have to do with the Founding Fathers?

In 1877, President Wilford Woodruff -- the 4th President and Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints -- related the following experience that allegedly took place while he was working in the St. George Temple:

Before I left St. George, the spirits of the [Founding Fathers] gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, “You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God.” These were the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and they waited on me for two days and two nights...I straightway went into the baptismal font and called upon Brother McCallister to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men, making one hundred in all, including John Wesley, Columbus, and others. (Wilford Woodruff, The Journal of Discourses of Brigham Young, His Counselors, and the Twelve Apostles. Vol. 19, Pp. 229).

In addition to this account, President Woodruff recalled this experience before the 1898 April General Conference of the Church:

Those men who laid the foundation of this American government and signed the Declaration of Independence were the best spirits the God of heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice spirits, not wicked men. General Washington and all the men that labored for the purpose were inspired of the Lord...Everyone of those men that signed the Declaration of Independence, with General Washington, called upon me, as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the Temple at St. George, two consecutive nights, and demanded at my hands that I should go forth and attend to the ordinances of the House of God for them. (Conference Report of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. April, 1898. Pp. 89-90).

In addition, President Ezra Taft Benson -- the Church's 13th President, who also served as the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture in the Eisenhower Administration -- had the following to say about Wilford Woodruff's experience:

The temple work for the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence and other Founding Fathers has been done. All these appeared to Wilford Woodruff when he was president of the St. George Temple. President George Washington was ordained a high priest at that time. You will also be interested to know that, according to Wilford Woodruff's journal, John Wesley, Benjamin Franklin, and Christopher Columbus were also ordained high priests at that time. When one casts doubt about the character of these noble sons of God, I believe he or she will have to answer to the God of heaven for it. Yes, with Lincoln I say: "To add brightness to the sun or glory to the name of Washington is . . . impossible. Let none attempt it. In solemn awe pronounce the name and in its deathless splendor, leave it shining on."

So, not only were the founding fathers given a vicarious baptism, but George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and others were ordained to the highest office of the Mormon priesthood. An interesting and controversial prospect to say the least

What I find so very interesting about this entire story is that it demonstrates -- on the part of the Mormon Church -- a powerful devotion to the idea that the United States was founded by the hand of God. What is even more interesting is that this ideology was not a new concept, but it began in the latter part of the 1800s, while tensions between the Mormon Church and the United States government remained hostile. This idea of American providentialism has continued to the present day for the majority of Mormons. In fact, I found it surprising that Brigham Young University has the largest ROTC program in the country. Obviously relations beteen the Mormon Church and the U.S. government have changed over the past few decades.

Christ's Poor

Historian Gary Nash on the
Religion of the Average "Joe Sixpack"

When studying any topic of history, one of the main "sins" that is regularly committed is to focus on the stories of the "great man" while ignoring the sometimes boring and mundane tales of the average Joe. After all, the lives and legacies of the select (and often elite) few tend to be more exciting for both the reader and the researcher. As a result, the story of the subaltern often goes lost in the shuffle.

Such is the case with early American religion. When we stop to think about what our nation's earliest citizens believed we tend to focus on the select few (usually the Founding Fathers), whose beliefs, though important, sometimes differed from those of the common man/woman. While belief systems like deism, theistic rationalism, theological unitarianism, Christian orthodoxy, etc. each played a role in shaping the religious constructs of those we affectionately call the founders, these same forces were at work, in a very different way, on America's colonial "Joe Sixpack."

One of the best works of history in recent years on the life and influence of the common American during the American Revolution is Gary Nash's The Unknown American Revolution. In this book, Nash dissects how average colonial Americans (most of whom would have thought of themselves as British) played some of the most fundamental roles during America's quest for independence. And, among a plethora of other factors, Gary Nash mentions just how important religion was for the common American.

According to Nash, "Christ's Poor" as he refers to them, were the heart and soul of America's firestorm of religious enthusiasm, which literally devised new religious concepts for how an individual could commune with the divine. This "Great Awakening" as historians call it today, began to rebuke the traditional religious institutions, which had maintained a spiritual monopoly on the souls of common American for over a century. As a result, the colonial "Joe Sixpack" began to see religion as a personal endeavor that did not require the traditional sacraments or assistance of the clergy. As Nash states:

God did not operate through the elite corps of the learned clergy and their aristocratic allies. Rather, god worked through the inner light given to every man and woman regardless of their station in life, with lack of education or even slave status posing no barrier to achieving grace through the conversion experience (8).

In addition to this newfound sense of personal ecclesiastic independence, Americans of the founding generation began to see church attendance not as a prerequisite for salvation but rather as an optional alternative. In 1776, only 17% of Americans were official members of an organized church, as opposed to the estimated 80-85% from a generation before. And while some of the low attendance figures can be attributed to the difficulties surrounding a commute to church (colonial roads were poorly maintained and churches often located far from family farms) the reality is that Americans of the founding generation put less emphasis on habitual church attendance as a necessary component for salvation.

Not only were the traditional concepts of religious authority and Sunday worship questioned, but the very doctrine of Christianity had begun an evolutionary process, which developed independently from the traditional clergy of the 18th century. This evolution toppled the pulpit as a source of ecclesiastical domination, which had sought to subjugate the citizenry under its religious umbrella. By toppling the status quo, Americans were, for the first time, put on equal footing with their former clergymen. As Nash points out:

The message was one of social leveling, for it put all people on one footing insofar as the conversion experience was concerned. Moreover, the message was one that condemned the clergy as unconverted and deplored their love of velvet garments and other luxurious trappings (9).

With the emergence of enthusiastic preachers like George Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, etc., "Joe Sixpack" religion became the religion of the "uneducated masses that had no minds of their own." At least this was the fear of the ecclesiastic and gentry class.

Even slaves, who, for the first time, were taught the principles of emerging evangelical Christianity, grabbed hold of the "good news" and found a refuge from the tyranny of servitude. As Nash points out, it was the gospel of early evangelical Christianity that gave Blacks the hope for freedom, even if it was only to be obtained in the world to come.

And while Nash devotes only a few pages to the impact of "Christ's Poor," the importance of the religion of the masses is not lost. For Nash, it was in this "Great Awakening" that Americans, as a mass movement, first challenged the authority of their day. It was under the fires of religious revolution that Americans learned to throw their first punches, all of which was to hone their skills in their eventual bout with the "Motherland" itself.