Customer Reviews

The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book is the best on its subject which I have come across in a very long time -- after a fairly long course of reading books on US church-state relations over the years -- in history, law, policy...

I came to Lambert now after wading through a score or so of recent books on this -- tracts, I'll call most of the others, because they were nearly all horribly-biased. This has been part of a personal project to explain, and defend, the extraordinary depth and richness of US religiosity to some overseas friends. Foreigners never do understand how we can have such strong religious activity and belief, here in the US, while at the same time we maintain a "wall of separation" between church and state.

Lambert does an admirable job of explaining this -- and he does it fairly, with great balance, and with wonderful style in his writing. He has a point of view himself, but he does not let it become a bias -- anyone possessing any of the many opinions which exist, on these issues, can get much out of reading this book.

Lambert is a master of the topical and well-timed historical anecdote: he weaves these together, gently, in an entertaining and informative account of the US Colonial record on the difficulties of accommodating "varieties of religious experience". But he also has a keen historian's eye for the value of generalizations. He confines his text very carefully to his chosen historical period, 1600-1800. But he is not at all afraid to draw out a universal theme, occasionally, from his account of what those little bands of English expatriates and descendants of same were doing, or thought they were doing, back then in their "13 colonies".

So we get the intriguing suggestion that the world -- or at least the Western European and particularly the New World American British Colonies part of it, but not just that last -- was proceeding, during that period, from a religious politics dominated by the clergy to one governed by the individual -- and perhaps that, more than quarrels over belief, is what the fuss was all about... "The central question for the Founders had not been religion's role," he asserts, "Rather, they worried about religion's place, deciding in the end that it would fluorish more through persuasion... than through government coercion." (p. 206)

And, along the same lines, Lambert gives us the suggestion -- this one heard in the French Revolution as well -- that more than a matter of doctrine the religious changes of the times were political, again, and more of a shift in power from Ministers to Lawyers -- "Lawyers, not clergymen, took the lead in challenging Parliament's new imperial policies..." (p. 210). So the US Revolution certainly changed US politics, but unlike the French the US Americans still were free, afterward, to believe whatever they wanted to believe in matters of religion.

Lambert's "Introduction" ought to be mandatory reading for anyone interested in current issues in these areas. As already mentioned, the body of the book is devoted to careful, balanced, US Colonial history: interesting stories, intriguingly presented, but meticulously crafted so as not to become the sweeping over-generalizations and "moral lessons" so often presented in other literature on this subject. In his Introduction, however, Lambert is not afraid to take a shot at characterizing current controversies: and it is a very careful and balanced and complete one --

"This study looks at the cultural and political boundaries that circumscribed the Founders' decisions and actions," he warns in his Introduction (p. 8) -- his implication, at least, being that passionate controversies today have their "contexts" as well...

"During the last two decades of the twentieth century and continuing into the twenty-first, Americans have engaged in a culture war... On one side of the debate are those who insist that America has been since its conception a 'Christian Nation'... They blame 'liberals' for not only turning their backs on the country's religious heritage but openly attaching those who embrace 'traditional' Christian values... these conservatives often conflate the planters -- such as the New England Puritans and the Chesapeake Anglicans -- and the Founders into one set of forefathers...", Lambert says.

But in addition, "Partisans on the other side of the culture war also consult the nation's Founders for a 'usable past' of their own. They, too, tend to conflate the two sets of progenitors by making both the Founding and the Planting Fathers impassioned champions of a religious freedom that extended liberty of conscience to all..."

The book presents a really interesting controversy, then: good history, and also invaluable ammunition for both sides in the current fight, hopefully for use in moderating their own extremist positions and coming to a better understanding -- an understanding of the necessities for change, if those exist, but also of the reasons for maintaining continuity, as those do too.

In a time of White House "faith-based initiatives", and of Department of Justice "Moslem" roundups, and of Supreme Courts which grant certiorari to "Under God" cases, Lambert's book should be required reading -- not just for religion classes, but also for history classes and law classes and decision-makers, and for all members of the general public... who either do or do not love the US... There is a great deal of wisdom about what makes the US a strong and good place, in this book.

Jack Kessler...

This very good book is a concise history of church-state relations in Colonial and Revolutionary America from the early British settlements to the election of 1800. Lambert describes the nature of early religous establishments, the increasing diversification of American religion, the impact of the Enlightenment and radical Whig ideology, and the emergence of church-state separation after the Revolution. There will be little new in this book for scholars of this period but this is definitely the best overview I have seen on this very contentious topic. Aimed at a broad audience, The Founding Fathers is written well, organized well, and is objective.
Lambert comes to this subject from an interesting perspective. His prior major work has been on the history of 18th century evangelism and his is an expert on Colonial religous practice. He particularly stresses that most of the colonies were founded originally with established churches and that establishment crumbled under the pressures of religous diversification. By the mid-18th century, the colonies contained a remarkably diverse set of Protestant sects and even some Catholics. This religous diversity, some of which arose from immigration and some from separatist movements within established churches, placed great strains on established churches. The mid-century Great Awakening resulted in further diversification and undermined the authority of the parish system throughout the colonies. Around the same time, the Enlightenment, with its Deistic views, and radical Whig ideology, with its emphasis on individual liberty, were becoming increasingly influential in the Colonies. All these factors converged to form a widespread belief that individuals, not the state, should determine religous faith. Individual churches would have to compete for adherents in a marketplace of ideas without the support of the state. These ideas eventually culminated in the post-Revolutionary separation of Church and State in the Federal Constitution. Separationism was supported most strongly by a coalition of relatively secular political leaders, like most of the Founders, and Protestant dissenters whose churches had suffered discrimination under the established churches in several colonies. This coalition believed correctly that religion was best served by being separated from the state. This was truly a revolutionary development and the USA was the first polity to enact church-state separation. Indeed, a number of European states still have established churches and almost all of them preserve a constitutionally sanctioned special relationship with one church. Lambert concludes by discussing the Presidential election of 1800, which some Federalists and sectarians framed as a referendum on Jefferson's unfitness to be President because of his deist-unitarian beliefs. Lambert argues convincingly that the election of 1800 acted as a referendum of sorts not just on Jefferson but also on church-state separation. Perhaps the only significant defect of this book is that the conclusion leaves one with the impression that the Church-State separation was settled after the election of 1800. It was not, and some of the more unattractive subsequent aspects of our history are consequences of imperfect separation. The Federal separation of Church and State applied originally only to the actions of the Federal government, some states continued with established churches into the 19th century. More important, state and local political power became vehicles for religous bigotry, notably abuse of public school systems in ways that infringed the rights of minority religions. One of the reasons we have a large system of Catholic private education is that 19th century Protestants used public schools to harass Catholics. Lambert demonstrates nicely that separation was engendered by the religous diversity of 18th century America. We have even more religous diversity today and separation continues to be a guarantee of a vibrant religous culture.
The issue of Church-State separation continues to be very contentious. Since many partisans in this debate appeal to the Revolutionary period to support their points of view, writing in this field can be emotionally charged. Lambert has clearly written this book in an effort to provide a fair and dispassionate presentation of what actually happened. Reflecting a broad consensus of knowledgeable historians, he has succeeded, though his conclusions will not be palatable for many on the religous right.

I have to agree with the other reviewers here (like Jack Kessler below):

This is a book that should be read by BOTH pro-separationists and anti-separationists. Of all the books that I have read on the subject, this book was *refreshingly* honest, accurate and scholarly, not to mention, a rather enjoyable reading.

The author stays clear of attacking either pro-separationists or anti-separationists--I truly appreciated that. (Can I assume this man is a Christian, or at least a good man?) Its been awhile since I've read a book on this subject that was historically accurate and could be trusted because it does not come across as biased.

Even if I agreed with him for the most part, the author forced me to think about my own stance. As another reviewer stated, this man also addresses the issues and policies that are being debated about around the first amendment, some of which I did not understand as clearly until I read this book.

As the other reviewer here said, this book should be a *textbook* for everyone, because it shows some of the history that many of us Christians (on both ends of spectrum) don't know about.

The book even gave me a greater respect for our nation's founders, after learning about the issues they grappled with.

Of ALL the books on the subject, this is my favorite, and probably the only book that I would recommend as a MUST READ for people at both ends of the political spectrum! :)

In The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America, author Frank Lambert puts forth the thesis that America originally began as two colonies which both established particular Protestant sects as their state-supported official churches, but that by the time the Constitution was written, both the Founding Fathers and most of the sect leaders supported a secular government which would be prohibited from supporting a particular sect or even supporting religion. The decision was seen as necessary in order to guarantee religious freedom, which the Founding Fathers valued more than religious purity.
Beginning with the reestablishment of the state-supported Anglican Church by Elizabeth I in 1558, the author establishes the motives of the Virginia colonists and the English government, and eventually of the Puritan New England colonists, in settling America. Virginia's mission was, among other things, to bring a particular brand of Christianity with them; states Lambert, "King James I [Elizabeth's successor:] was making certain that Reformed Christianity overspread the New World." Moreover, James had explicitly instructed the Virginia Company to see that the colony conducted its religious services "according to the rites and doctrines of the Church of England." Therefore, one of the premeditated goals was to transplant not only Christianity but the established Christian church--as opposed to the colonists forming an independent church of their own. The Puritan Fathers came to America with the opposite goal: to break with Anglican doctrine and practice their own version of true Christianity. However, they did share the Virginians' belief in and expectation of official state support for religion, and so the Congregational church became the established church in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
However, as Lambert makes clear, state-supported churches could not maintain their supremacy for long; the reason was the inexorable and seemingly inevitable growth of religious pluralism and sectarianism. Congregational New England and Anglican Virginia were joined in America by a multitude of other religious sects, some of them not even Protestant: first the Quakers in Pennsylvania, who notably attempted (with their 'Holy Experiment) to bypass sectarianism by eschewing a state religion and promoting the unity of all Christians but failed because the other sects were unable to ignore their differences; then the very diverse religions (and ethnicities) of the European immigrants flowing into America, such as the Ulster Presbyterians of Ireland, the Pietists of Germany, and Roman Catholics from various locations. Immigrants and newly chartered colonies were not the only source of religious pluralism: the Great Awakening of the 1740's brought new choices, not in the form of more religious sects, but more intense expressions of Protestantism offered by itinerant preachers who deliberately worked outside an established church, often in direct violation of local law, and urged personal religious conversion--'New Birth' over adherence to a church doctrine. From this point, the established churches and the new churches inspired by the itinerants (Old Lights versus New Lights) competed bitterly for new members. Between their competition and the new emphasis on individual judgment by the new sects and by a nonreligious group of thinkers, the Enlightenment-inspired Deists, an intense and widespread clamor for religious liberty began to replace the goal of religious purity held by the older an and Congregational churches.
This was the mood carried into the Revolution, and through to the writing of the Constitution. In deliberating over the place religion would have in relation to government within this document, The Framers, most of whom were not explicit Christians but Enlightenment thinkers who may have been raised in Christianity--John Adams was a Congregationalist with an Enlightenment-based education from Harvard College, and George Washington was a "moderate Deist" from an Anglican background, but Thomas Jefferson was a complete Deist who scorned the supernatural--generally agreed with the freethinkers and the independent religious sects that the individual should retain total freedom to make his or her religious choices (if any), and that freedom would be best facilitated by making the state completely neutral and disinterested in matters of religion (notwithstanding the accepted argument that religion served to foster civic virtue). This was to be done on not only the national but the state level, as all states were drafting new constitutions, and the Framers urged them to follow suit by disestablishing their churches. On both levels, various clergy, citizens and legislators sought a middle ground with oft-repeated suggestions of an established national church that 'tolerated' all other sects or religions and could not compel worship according to its doctrine. Ultimately, the final language of the first amendment to the Constitution not only barred Congress from choosing one sect as the national religion, but even barred it from proclaiming national Christianity in any form. Thus, according to Lambert, the United States is not, and never was, a Christian nation in any official sense.
The book concludes in modern times, with observations of how some conservative Christian organizations and individuals are, in reaction to the contemporary moral degeneracy and weakening of Christianity's influence, urging that America return to its Christian heritage--in apparent disregard for religious pluralism and the constitutionally mandated secularism of the government.

The historical evidence presented in this book was enough to convince me that Lambert's argument is correct, even though I personally disliked it and hoped the evidence would support a different conclusion. The Founding Fathers' apparent decision to give religion no position vis-a-vis the government speaks for itself in proving that America is not an explicitly Christian nation; even more so when Lambert points out that their decision was vigorously supported by every church or religious sect which was not a state establishment.
The author's treatment of his subject is, in most places, detached, neutral and professional. I thought he did have an anti-Christian bias that poked through on some occasions; it was just that the bias shows up at the end of chapters or arguments and is relatively inconsequential to the point Lambert is trying to make. The most egregious example was in the epilogue (when an argument has long since been made, and evidence is perhaps no longer needed), when Lambert cites a quotation by antiabortion activist Randall Terry:
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good [italics mine:]. ... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."
The second half of the quotation is helpful in illustrating Randall Terry's willful disregard for the principles of the Founding Fathers and the non-establishment religious sects which supported them, but the first part is so bizarre that it begs an explanation of the full context and leaves the reader wondering what was the point of quoting that and what it has to do with the thesis.

Frank Lambert, professor of history at Purdue University, does an excellent job of surveying this complex topic over a 200-year period. He does so thoroughly, yet concisely, in only 296 pages. While making generalizations at times, he often illustrates his points with quotations from original sources of the time period.
He begins by criticizing extremists on both sides of the issue, and proceeds to present a balanced approach. However, as I will explain at the end of this review, he shows his bias at the end.
Lambert's thesis is this: America WAS first settled by people who wanted to make it a Christian nation, whether Puritans in New England, Anglicans in Virginia, or Quakers and others in Pennsylvania. These early founders had a vision of making America "a city on a hill," a model Christian commonwealth. However, two major influences led the founding fathers to establish a government that separated church and state. These two influences were the Enlightenment and the Great Awakening. Men like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, who were influenced by the Enlightenment, felt that men should be free to use their own reason in matters of religion. The Baptists and others who benefitted from the rapid growth of "free" churches in the Great Awakening were persecuted by established churches and wished to have no established church, so they joined with men like Jefferson in calling for separation of church and state.
Lambert shows that there was great division over these issues, and gives interesting anecdotes and quotations from both sides. He quotes frequently from religious leaders on both sides of the issue. However, near the end of the book he spends much more time quoting Republicans like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and gives little space to Federalists like George Washington and John Adams. At one point, on page 161, Lambert implies that John Adams was a deist, even though biographies of Adams have shown him to be a devout Christian with a Puritan heritage.
Lambert shows his view in his conclusion, as he criticizes accomodationists such as Judge William Rehnquist and "religious right" preachers like Pat Robertson.
While Lambert gives both sides of the argument, he clearly leads the reader to his own separationist interpretation. Because the book is so full of useful information, I highly recommend it as a textbook on the subject, but let the reader understand that Lambert has his own bias, too.

Lambert offers a rare erudite examination of the issue of religion at the founding of our nation. Given the heated partisan rhetoric coming from all sides in this debate, it is refreshing to hear a voice of moderation.

Although Lambert offers a compelling case for a secular government and pluralistic religious culture, such an argument, although cogent, may obscure an underlying problem among those who look to the past for direction on present-day policy: That which "was" is not necessarily "as should be."

Consider this: Our founders tolerated slavery; the subjugation of women in the spheres of education, occupation, and politics; legal disregard for the Native peoples, whose legal definition was left ambiguous, etc.

Is it not safe to assume that we have become a different society and culture since the late eighteenth century? Therefore, even IF the "Christian-nation" pseudo-historians could convincingly make their case, it does not follow that America SHOULD be a Christian nation today any more than we would conclude that slavery or disenfranchisement of women and blacks are acceptable features of our culture.

In the end, my response would be, "So what?" I have no antiquarian reactionary neuroses that compel me to embrace the ideas of past generations. Indeed, it is the lack of a compelling message that forces evangelicals to cherry-pick history to buttress their unpersuasive arguments.

Having said that, Lambert's book should be applauded for successfully undermining the simplistic, quote-mining, de-contextualizing, de-historicizing pretensions of fundamentalist revisionists who ransack history in search of only "useful" evidence.

Lambert's book is not bombastic or partisan. He demolishes cherished myths with subtlety and nuance. One in particular is this persistent notion that the Puritans founded this nation, and we can thus look to them for guidance as to our proper trajectory. Such "School House Rock" views of history distort reality, and encourage ill-begotten movements like the "Christian-Nation" movement. By the Puritans' own assessments, the theocratic communal vision of the "City on a Hill" failed within the second generation. Regardless, the truth is that the Puritans were but a tiny stream (and not the first) that eventually combined with many other streams to form a mighty river at the point of the Founding. It is in this environment that the Founders had to deal with religion. They chose to make it a personal matter, mainly because of the diversity already present among the people. They chose not to emulate certain state constitutions with established churches. One must ask why. As one reviewer put it we may have been a "Christian Nation" in the sense that the majority of the population identified with some form or flavor of that faith, but we were self-consciously established as a "Secular state." This is a fine, but necessary, distinction as partisans call for a return to an imagined and longed-for past. Lambert makes this distinction with cogency and grace.

Lambert's book provides a valuable overview of sectarian strife in early America. His examination of Adams' view of church-state relations was especially helpful.

In the intro, though, he claims to be writing a book that takes the middle road on church-state relations. Previous reviewers proved themselves highly suggestible readers in this regard, as his view of the Founders take on church and state is decidedly imbalanced. If you're going to write a book focusing on the Founders' two most vociferous separationists, at least present some truth in advertising.

* Lambert spends 70 pages on Jefferson and Adams and a mere 16 on Washington and Hamilton. Any coincidence that the former two were vociferous separationists, while the latter two were integrationists?

* Lambert doesn't once mention Washington's farewell address. Such an omission in a book on church-state relations defies comprehension, until you see that Lambert's agenda, contra claims, is to buttress contemporary support for a complete separation between government and religion.

* Lambert fails to apply the common distinction between state-established religion and civic religion to the modern debate.

* Instead, he finishes the book by providing a damning quote from Jerry Falwell and proceding to refute the televangelist. And again, in an omission that reveals his barely concealed agenda, Lambert provides no similar quote-and-refutation regarding today's separation absolutists. The implication in the Falwell quote is that integrationists are mostly establishmentarians rather than civic religionists.

Consider this book a useful supplement on certain aspects of the church-state issue in early America, especially on the importance of sectarian divisions. But don't buy the neutrality nonsense he offers in the intro. As happens with most professors today, Lambert's worldview so thoroughly dominates his profession that it can't help but emerge through even the most determined efforts to remain objective.

What a well-balanced review of how religion started in the colonies. I believe this is a fair assessment although it contradicts an anti-religious & pro-religious viewpoint. I am a christian and was surprised to learn the religious community's attempt to oppose Thomas Jefferson's election to President in 1800. In fact, based upon what you hear from the religious right, all our Founding Fathers were christians and never considered a separation of church and state. This text, as I noted earlier, contradicts this notion.

Being a christian I would prefer a christian president but no litmus test was established so the Founding Fathers must not have thought it to be critical for the new republic. What was also interesting was the fact the northern states were more religiously conservative than the southern states (the fight to keep Jefferson from the White House came from preachers in the north). Based upon other texts I have read, it appears the south became a more religiously conservative haven after the civil war.

The only minor dissapointment with the book was that I wanted the author to address the current church/state issues such as having the ten commandments in the courtroom and prayer in public schools. I of course support the prayer and ten commandment issues. The author could have addressed whether the Foundng Fathers would have supported these notions also. The author could have at least took a position on what the Founders would have wanted. He did indicate whether the favorable tax status of religious institutions violated the 1st ammendment. Again, the text provided a fair protrayal of the environment in our early years but could have done more to project what the Founders would have done today, in today's environment, with the current church/state issues.