The faith of the Founding Fathers | Wes Huff & Dr. Thomas Kidd

Hi friends. I am grateful to be partnering again with Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary for today's video. And I'm especially excited about this conversation because today I have the pleasure of talking with Dr. Thomas Kidd. Dr. Kidd is someone who I've been following on social media for years now. I think I first caught wind of him in 2022ish when I saw his biography of Thomas Jefferson and comments that he had made on Jefferson's faith on X. I guess then it was Twitter. But Dr. Kid is a historian, theologian, and author who has done incredible work helping Christians understand the history of the church and the role of the faith in America. And even for this Canadian, the context of how a nation's past continues to shape the present, I think is going to be relevant no matter what country or continent you find yourself in. One of the things I really appreciate about Midwestern Seminary is they don't just bring in great scholars, they invest in professors who are deeply committed to the church and helping students think faithfully about the world around them. One thing that my friend uh my intrepid colleague and president of Apologetics Canada Andy Stiger continually says is that the church is not God's plan B. And whether that's us at AC or MBTS then ministering to and for the church I think is always going to be vital and needed. And if you're watching my conversation with Dr. Kid and think to yourself, this stuff is really good. I'd love to be able to learn more about this and related subjects. You can actually go and study with Dr. Kidd at every level through Midwestern Seminary and Spurgeon College. Whether you're pursuing undergraduate studies, a master's degree, or doctoral work, you have the opportunity to learn from professors like Dr. Kidd who are committed to equipping their students for the church. And one specific opportunity is online through Midwestern's global campus where students can study wherever they serve. Dr. kid is teaching a really interesting course this upcoming fall, a live online course called Religion and America's Founding where students get to interact with him in a virtual classroom setting. Not just watching recorded lectures, but actually engaging with him through live discussion and conversation, no matter where you find yourself in the world. And for listeners of this episode, you can apply to Midwestern and Spurgeon College for free using my personal code, HUF, HUFF, all caps, to wave your application fee. And one quick last thing, because this episode is releasing around July 4th, we're doing something special for this episode in my partnership with Midwestern Seminary. We were throwing around some unique ideas to get you guys excited and involved and we landed on doing a giveaway for an incredible all-inclusive trip for two to the Museum of the Bible in Washington DC. I'll share all the details later in the episode, including how you can enter to win. So, make sure you stick around. Uh you can always learn more about all of these opportunities at mbts.edu/weshuff. All right, let's get into the conversation. Well, I am excited to have with me digitally in the studio uh Dr. Thomas Kidd. He's the research professor of church history and the John Sharon Yeetsz endowed chair of Baptist studies at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and the author of countless books related to theology in American history. If you look him up, he's got lots to sift through there. Uh Dr. Kid, thank you so much for joining us.

>> Thanks for having me. So your area of expertise is related to theology in American history. Uh I think you know leading up to July and you know uh especially the the 250th anniversary of the United States of America um even me as a Canadian from the great white north amffected and influenced by all of that stuff. So, um, if we even just jump right into it, uh, if we're talking about that particular subject, in what sense, if any, does the United States, um, or can the United States be described as having a Christian founding?

>> Right. Well, um, of course, if you were able to do a survey in 1776 among the white people in America, I mean, you know, 99% would say that they're Christians. Now how many of those are born again people? Who knows? But but um you know vast you know overwhelming at least nominal Christian commitment among the people who were involved in the revolution. Also the the loyalists who opposed the revolution were overwhelmingly Christian. So um they brought to the table all kinds of Christian assumptions about politics and human nature and good government and ideas about equality and justice. Um so there are Christian influences just all over the place in uh the the American founding. But I I think you know whether we were founded as a Christian nation is is a little more specific kind of question to ask and there's one really clear way in which we're not and that is um that we didn't have an official national church and of course the the traditional model there is that the the church of England had had and still is the the official national church of England and that gives it, you know, legal status and tax support and and those kinds of things. And so when you get to the US Constitution in the 1780s, uh they decide that the on at least on the national level that there will be no official uh national church. Um and instead they they decide to emphasize free exercise of religion um and and religious liberty um which which are somewhat in in tension. um because if you have an official national church, they're going to, you know, reserve the right to kind of call balls and strikes uh denominationally and theologically and and so forth. So, um that does not mean that the founding was anti-religious at all. Uh but there is a specific way in which it was secular and not legally Christian.

>> Yeah. I often hear about kind of the theological influences of say the Puritans or the um you know those who came over on the Mayflower. Um in in terms of those origins, how much do you think that actually has a a bleedth through effect as the decades go on as the United States of America comes into more of a formulated view? Well, the the New England colonies in particular, uh, Massachusetts and Connecticut and the Plymouth colony that the pilgrims founded, um, you know, are founded for specifically Christian reasons. And that's, you know, about half the colonies, um, of the 13 that revolted against Britain were originally founded for religious reasons. Uh, and of course, the the Puritans are just enormously theologically astute and sophisticated and articulate. Uh and so if you look to the Puritan tradition, you can find, you know, just vast resources as far as theological reflection on politics and the purpose of government and good rulers and and those sorts of things. Uh, I mean, when you look specifically at the Mayflower Compact of of 1620 with the the pilgrims, I mean, this is arguably the sort of, you know, a first kind of very informal American constitution. Uh, that reflects a a kind of idea that a constitution is a compact among the people. Uh, and and among other things, they say that we're doing this for the glory of God. I mean, so, so those kinds of ideas are just in the water culturally for the colonists, for the patriots. Um, and I mean, Thomas Jefferson, just to give one example, says, you know, that in Virginia when they're trying to get their act together to declare a day of prayer and fasting in the 1770s that they have to go back and rumage through Puritan proclamations to sort of remember how you do this. And so I mean even someone like Jefferson who is not a Puritan, let's let's put it that way. Uh you know it knows automatically where to look when you're say looking for how do you articulate a day of prayer and fasting. So there there's influences all over the place.

>> Hey, just a quick reminder about the giveaway we mentioned earlier in the episode in partnership with Midwestern Seminary. As I previously mentioned, myself and Midwestern are giving away an allinclusive paid trip for two to the Museum of the Bible in Washington DC. The winner and a guest will receive flights, hotels, accommodations, and museum tickets, all included. It's an incredible opportunity to experience one of the most unique museums in the country and explore the story, history, and impact of the Bible. You'll be able to see the Megiddo Mosaic, which was featured in episode 3 of Can I Trust the Bible? They also boast a first edition Gutenberg Bible, a thousand-year-old Pentatuk, a number of third and fourth century biblical papyrie, and of course, they still currently have the Dead Sea Scrolls on display, which are well worth your time to see. So, enter to win, just head over to mbts.edu/weshoff. That's mbts.eduhuff and fill out the quick form. I'll also throw a link of that in the description below. All right, let's get back to the episode. And what do you think of interpretations of America's founding as either wholly Christian or wholly secular? Because I often hear in the back and forths, especially in like online dialogues, people will make much of the founding of America being a Christian nation, but then there's a fair amount of push back in regards to that as well, which I think, you know, is evidenced by uh both sides in in various streams. What do you what do you think of that as a as someone who researches this?

>> Yeah, I mean, especially on social media, we go to extremes about everything. Um, and so, uh, the the Christian founding question is is one example among among many, but it's is especially pertinent this anniversary year. And so um you know secularists will say well the founding is entirely uh secular and irreligious and even anti-religious and all the founding fathers are you know deists if not closet atheists um which is ridiculous. None of them are atheists but but um uh you know some of them are deists for sure. Um and uh and then Christians will sometimes overcorrect um and want to say things like you know one American politician uh I think very well-intentioned uh but erroneously said recently that America was founded on the gospel of Jesus Christ.

>> And I'm just like well not if that gospel is specific at all. Well, I mean, you know, to me, the gospel gets into Christ is the only way of salvation and salvation's only by grace and and you you know, these kind of things and and when you look at at the landscape religiously in 1776, it's just far too diverse. Um, you know, you have people like Jefferson and Franklin who deny the divinity of Christ. They, you know, deny the trinity. they I mean just the most basic theological issues uh they they're clearly not Christians. Um and and so you know for me I I tend to say look Christianity is influential in many many many ways on the founding but let's let's not exaggerate to a point I mean my my biggest concern is that we would exaggerate to the point where we're confusing the gospel um you know and somehow implying that say someone like Jefferson is a when uh he he denies basically all basic tenants of Christianity and and I think you know the the if we're defending civil religion more than we're defending the gospel then you're tempted to say well look I mean they're all Christians because they have to be because they're American founders and that that that that's just a mistake that I I think Christians should be uncomfortable with. Where would you say the nuance should be articulated then?

>> Yeah. Well, I mean it it's the the idea that uh Christianity is uh the Bible is is the coin of the realm. I mean in 1776 it it it frames the way people think and speak. uh even even someone like Jefferson um and I did a book on Jefferson a few years ago and trying to understand Jefferson's you know complex religious views. So here you have somebody like Jefferson who denies all these basic Christian doctrines and yet he knows the Bible uh better than I'm afraid a lot of church-going evangelicals know the Bible uh today. Uh Jefferson evidently uh reads the Greek New Testament um and the Septuagent.

>> Uh he he does he does not know Hebrew and and and and John Adams will not let him forget it. John Adams tells him, "Well, a truly educated man knows Hebrew and can read the Hebrew Bible in in Hebrew." And Jefferson basically tells him to shove it. But but uh any anyway since he can't read Hebrew, he reads the Septuagent uh for you know evidently for just kind of personal devotions um uh I don't know how much he reads the Bible in English but but um he he he has a phenomenal level of familiarity. I mean that that today we would probably associate with scholars of the Bible. But for Jefferson it's it's just an avocation. I mean, it's, you know, and so what, you know, what category do you put somebody like this in? And, you know, you asked about nuance. It's like, here's somebody who denies the divinity of Christ, who doesn't believe in the authority of scripture,

>> uh, but he's able to read it in Greek and does so regularly apparently for personal devotions. I mean, that I tell people like you don't know anybody like Jefferson today. maybe a few liberal Bible scholars, but but but I mean you don't just run into people like Jefferson

>> today. And so I mean that that's one of the things, you know, kind of history 101 is you you expect to be surprised by the unfamiliarity of the past. You you don't you don't go to the past looking for ammo in current, you know, political debates. Uh and and so if you do that and you say, you know, look, there are things about 1776 that are just going to strike us as weird and unfamiliar. That's the right way to start. I mean, as opposed to looking to just, you know, put stuff in today's political boxes.

>> The the scriptural lens is almost like the waters they swim in. Would that be like a like a a good way of putting it for someone as educated as Jefferson?

>> Yes. Yes. I mean it's it's you know fish and in water. I mean that you know sometimes uh they're so familiar with the Bible I think that they'll quote it and not even you know really think about you know where where this is coming from. But I mean you you you know same thing with Benjamin Franklin. I mean Franklin calls himself a deist um and uh is does not believe in the divinity of Christ. um you know is is certainly not a Christian in any kind of orthodox sense. Um but he grows up in a Puritan family in Boston. He's among the major founders. He's the oldest one. And so he he had been born in 1706 in a Puritan family in Boston. And so he says that he had read the whole Bible by the time he was five. I mean that's pretty predigious if he if he did. But with Franklin, I think I believe it because he just reads everything.

>> And and and so, you know, Franklin, the deist, he knows the text of the King James Bible better than any of the other major founders,

>> has a lot of it memorized. Um and and so when when he's giving speeches or you know, writing thing, I mean, it's just full of references and illusions to the Bible. Now, just because it's it's a a framing vocabulary does not necessarily mean that Franklin, you know, believes everything in the Bible or that his behavior is being guided by the Bible. But, uh, it it definitely does frame, you know, what his understanding of morality. I mean, um, you know, the he definitely believes in Christian morality. Um, and and Jefferson says he does too, although Jefferson isn't very good at living up to it. Uh, Franklin isn't either when it comes to the ladies in France. But uh, uh, anyway, I mean, it's just it's just everywhere. And so when when you're making a political argument, especially about something as grave as needing to support the revolution against the British, uh, you're you're going to turn to the Bible. I mean it it's just a very natural move for them to make. Um and and in the west I mean we still do that sometimes you know on occasions of like national tragedy like 911 or something like that. I mean it was you know very natural to have scripture readings and you know I remember President Obama on one of the anniversaries of 911 you read one of the psalms and its entirety and it just seems normal. The difference for President Obama is he has to tell us what like what the psalm is because we w you know we won't know it off the top of our head unless it's maybe Psalm 23. Um and so uh for the founders a lot of them just know it. I mean they they they know it you know it's just right at their fingertips and and and so many people know the Bible really really well that they can cite it. They don't even necessarily have to give chapter and verse and people will know what they're talking about. H it makes me wonder whether that can be the cause of some of the confusion in in statements of Christian founding in an era where biblical illiteracy is more common than it's not to look through the timeline of the recent history of America and see the proliferation and the saturation of biblical quotes and references and paraphrases and that almost coming across as well obviously these people were Christians obviously they're you know treating scripture like a modern-day individual who would be that familiar with the text would be like you say, you know, outside of a a number of specialists, liberal scholars, um, individuals who are, you know, non-confessional going to something like the Society of Biblical Literature, you just wouldn't you wouldn't be talking like that.

>> Yeah. And I mean with Jefferson, you see I mean a lot of people know about his the Jefferson Bible, quote unquote, which is uh a a compilation he did of the Gospels. It's it's not most of the Bible, but it's just it's just the Gospels u in in a kind of chronological uh compilation with most of the miracles cut out. Um, and he it's people sometimes evangelicals will look at that and they'll say, "Well, he he thought the Bible was so important that he did his own edition of it." Uh, and and I'm like, "Yeah, but like he's he's the Jesus seminar, you I mean, he's he he's like you, you know, making his own decisions about what we can believe that Jesus said and did and what so I mean, this is, you know, this is anti-Christian. I mean, that but and so if you take that kind of surface level view of it, it it's it's like, oh, this is great. He knows the Bible and he's he's interested in the Bible.

>> Yeah, he knows the Bible really really well and there's a lot of it he does not believe in. M

>> um and and so for Christians this is I mean you can be reassured about the level of biblical literacy at the time but biblical literacy you know doesn't always mean that you actually believe in what the Bible says

>> right so I'm curious then what did the founders mean by referencing things like nature's god or the creator or the supreme judge of the world divine providence these are words that we find in some of you know these early founding documents is That then an indication of a belief system or is it just the those would have been the terminologies that would have been used in that day given how people are understanding and referencing and and being saturated within the Bible.

>> Right? So the Declaration of Independence, you know, which is which is what we are focusing on on July 4th, uh this this year, um has several really notable theological phrases in it. Uh the Constitution says almost nothing about God, but that that's not the anniversary we're celebrating this this year. So um nature and nature's god like you said all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Uh you know supreme judge of the world divine providence. So um you know and Jefferson is the chief drafter. He's responsible for some of these others you know the congress or his framing committee put put these references in. Um and and especially I think nature and nature's god sounds deistic. Um, but I I tend to think that Jefferson and his, you know, committee and the people who are helping him with with this are are really referring to an idea that Dasing and Christians could could agree on. Uh, which is that um there is a created order. And on that topic, uh, someone like Jefferson, I think, has actually fairly conventional theological views. So if you get into the specifics of Christian doctrine is where Jefferson's views are problematic from from a Christian perspective. But if the idea is that there is a created order and and that our rights um come from God and our our rights and our dignity are reflective of the fact that we were created by God. Um I think Jefferson's views are pretty much totally conventional and and so uh you know nature and nature is God I think is just is it's just alluding to the fact that both by nature and reason and and also by revelation that you you can understand these truths about human nature and and rights and and equality. Um, and some readers might prefer the more rationalistic kind of kind of approach. Some readers might prefer uh recourse to Revelation, but um you know your average reader is not going to make some you know and so and so today we tend you know evangelicals tend to focus more on revelation but you know we also remember that the existence of the universe and the existence of existence suggests that there's also a creator. Um, and that that's the kind of thing that Jefferson is talking about about, you know, nature uh and and nature's God. I I I tend to think especially the bit about all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator is is a conscious choice by Jefferson and and his committee u to show the action of God in in creation. And the reason why I think that is because uh the Virginia Declaration of Rights had been promagated about a month before the Declaration of Independence. And in that and every statement of rights has something like this, you know, a reference to creation or nature. And the Virginia Declaration of Rights says all men are by nature equal,

>> you know, sort of sad trombone, right? It's not it doesn't have that, you know, the oomph of of what Jefferson said. And so they knew that. They knew the Virginia Declaration of Rights said that. And they decided instead of saying by nature equal, they said all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator. So they made it more theological. They made it more theologically active. Uh and and so so to me um that that's the section of the declaration to me that um is the the most theologically robust. Um and it's als it's also it's its robustness is why it's so memorable and why it has played such I mean it's it's the most important sentence in American history and the reason is because it's so theologically specific. H. So given the declaration's theological language, in your estimation, should it be understood as specifically Christian, broadly theistic, deliberately inclusive? What's the terminology that that um encapsulates that?

>> Well, I mean, in the language, it is not specifically Christian. Um, and why that is, I I I mean I it it could be some difference to Jews in America. I mean, there's not very many Jews, but there are some and there are some involved in the patriot movement. Um but I given Jefferson I mean I think he he's thinking in terms of people like himself uh who are I that are not interested in making really specific Christian claims and that the point is the created order. The point is not Jesus as the unique Messiah or something something like that. The point is the created order. And so I think that Jefferson is wanting to say something that is, you know, theologically general but also robust. I mean that which is pretty tough to do but boy they did it. I mean it's it that's again why the declaration is is so powerful. Um and Jefferson uh late in his life said that what they were going for with the language of the declaration is articulating I love this phrase he said articulating the harmonizing sentiments of the day. Okay. So so it's not sectarian. Um, it's appealing to something that the broad range of people involved with the patriot movement from evangelicals to deists and, you know, maybe even Jews could say, "Yeah, that that's right. That's where our rights come from." Um, and and showing the action of God in in creation, but not using specifically Christian language. So, I mean, I would say it's powerfully theological. Theistic reflects a created order, but not specifically Christian.

>> I think that's helpful. So, if we're painting with a broad brush and we're talking about the founders, I know that can refer to, you know, upwards of 150 individuals, but if we're talking about the 55 men who drafted the US Constitution or the 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, do we have any idea how many would have claimed to be like a confessional Christian? Yeah, I mean I I would say half to twothirds. I'm just I'm ballparking here, but but um you know the trouble is that you have people like uh Jefferson and Franklin and who are the most notable examples of skeptics and yet they both went to church a lot. I mean and you know in in their cases both the Anglican church uh in their adulthood. So I mean they have confessional denominational influences and they know the Bible really well and yet yet they're skeptics. uh you know somebody like George Washington um is uh clearly very very respectful of Christianity uh and the Christian tradition and Christian morality um but he is uh strangely guarded about his own beliefs um and that he's he's one I think his silence about his beliefs has led to a lot of speculation by evangelicals about well surely he was a Christian because you know he thought so highly of Christianity. Okay, I mean that that seems right but he he would never talk about his own beliefs. Uh and we also know that as an adult he evidently never took communion. Um and so what what's up with that, you know? I mean, um, evidently he would either leave before they serve communion or he would just not go on communion Sundays or whatever. Again, Anglican. Um, so, um, I I I say all that to say that there are a good number of people kind of in the middle that it's a little difficult to know. Now, John Witherspoon, Presbyterian pastor and president of the College of New Jersey at Princeton, uh, locked down confessional, you know, small or o orthodox Presbyterian. No, no question. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, John J of New York, uh, Elias Buddhau of New Jersey, Patrick Henry in Virginia. I mean, these are all very clearly confessional, solid Orthodox Christians. So you can find them. It's just that they don't tend to be in the top, you know, five or six founders that we spend the most time talking about. Now,

>> we've already mentioned that, you know, the Bible is prolific. Um, how frequently did American colonists use the Bible to explain or justify resistance to Britain? uh pretty much all the time. And and I mean it's a pattern that you see through uh you know American and and European wars for for a long long time. Um that you know if you're going to have a revolution, a war, you're going to send your kids off to die in war. I mean, you can't just say we'd prefer not to pay taxes, right? You you gotta, you know, say this is this is something that taps into issues of, you know, deep, profound issues about morality and and rights and justice. And if you're going to do that in in the culture of 1776, you just have to refer to the Bible. Um and uh uh a friend of mine named James Bird, he teaches at Vanderbilt and and he he did a terrific book called Sacred Scripture, Sacred War about the Bible and the Revolution. And Bird actually um in the published sources from the time period, he actually counted up, you know, what what passages were being cited the most often. Um and he actually found that um Romans 13 was I I I think you know the most often discussed passage both by patriots and loyalists. So you know Romans 13 on a plain reading as you know would seem to prohibit what the patriots did. Uh, and so I used to think, well, I guess the patriots just kind of avoided that that passage because it's not it's not convenient for them. But it's not true. I mean, they they actually had a really um sophisticated tradition of the conditions under which Christians could resist the government even to the point of violence. Um and and it gets into you know Christian just war theory and uh you know is it a just cause and do you enlist the lesser magistrates as they would call it about you know leading the revolution. I mean, they certainly didn't think you could just have a bunch of yahoos, you know, running around trying to, you know, overthrow the government or something that they they wouldn't put up with that, but they so they had a very sophisticated biblical argument for when the kind of revolution they're engaged in. Now, I, you know, whether it's a convincing argument, I think, is something the listeners will have to decide for themselves. But but um it did make me me feel better that they didn't just kind of blow off uh you know Romans 13 and 1 Peter 3 about honor the king and and and things like they they they knew that those verses were problems for them. Uh and so they they they took them on. I also often point out the fact that uh when you look at the most important pamphlet of the revolution is is Thomas Payne's Common Sense. Um and it has an extended uh exugesus. It's not a very good ex Jesus but it it does have an extended ex Jesus of 1 Samuel 8 where Israel asks for a king and God says you don't want a king. a king will abuse you and a king's going to raise taxes on you and and you're going to really regret it. And Israel says, "No, we have to be like everybody else. Please give us a king." And and and God tells Samuel, "They they, you know, they've rejected me as their king." And so Payne says, "Uh, th this is where God, you know, told his people that that monarchy is evil." And so it's kind of, you know, the original sin politically is is asking for for a king. And so this is why we know that we should reject the the authority of the king. Now I mean, as you know, the the Old Testament also has lots of nice things to say about kings. So I mean, even John Adams thought this argument was just stupid. Um but but the point is is that this is the most influential pamphlet of the revolution and one of the reasons it's so effective is because it engages in you know extended exugesis of of 1st Samuel 8 other biblical references um because that's what people need in order to support the cause of revolution. So I could give other examples but um that's the most influential pamphlet of the revolution and it has a lot in it not just quotes but even exugesus in the Bible.

>> No I think that's helpful. Um I want to back up a little bit and talk about the great awakening and and its kind of relation to the the revolution. So you know with the the first great awakening this is in the 1730s into you know 1740s. How did itinerant ministers and interc colonial religious networks contribute to what becomes a shared American identity? Yeah, this is a a debated issue in the literature on the great awakening is that um some historians and not just Christian historians have said that the great awakening is a is a kind of test run on the American Revolution. And that part of the reason for that is because it fosters this kind of intense spiritual interamerican colonial unity. Uh you know and it's just 30 years before the revolution. Um and I you know I think that there's probably something to that. I mean I if at a minimum the Great Awakening is the biggest religious and social upheaval uh in American colonial history prior to the revolution. I mean it it it affects you know virtually all the white population of the colonies and I mean it it it is a huge cultural phenomenon. And so whatever America is on the eve of the revolution is heavily conditioned by the great awakening. Um the where I would pump the brakes a little on that argument is it it's easy to forget that George Whitfield who is the most influential revivalist of the first great awakening is British. He he's English and he spends the majority of his life in England and he is as powerful of a revivalist in England, Wales and Scotland as he is in the American colonies. So, um I I mean you could make an argument that maybe the Great Awakening was was an even bigger deal in America than it was in in Britain. Maybe that's true. Um, but you know, Whitfield I is is British and and he dies in 1770, so we don't know for sure what he would have thought about the revolution. Um, if I had to guess, I would say he probably wouldn't have supported the revolution itself. I think he he definitely would have supported the resistance. Um, but he would have liked for it to remain just political. and uh he he I think had a lot writing on the continuation of the British Empire in America. Uh Woodfield is himself an Anglican minister. Um and has, you know, obviously transatlantic connections that he didn't want to see see broken, but he is friends with Franklin. Uh Franklin is his his lead publisher in America. Um and they're they're very close. And and so for instance, when Franklin testifies in parliament against the Stamp Act, uh in 1766, which is, you know, kind of the the beginning of the of the resistance movement that ultimately leads to the revolution, Whitfield is there uh supporting Franklin. Um, so I mean I think Whitfield definitely would have been supportive of, you know, the resistance movement, but it's, you know, it's kind of one of those counterfactuals because he's he dies and so we don't we don't know. But um, you you know, people definitely claimed Whitfield's memory uh, in the revolution. I mean, there there's a famous episode in uh in during the war that that there's Continental Army uh soldiers going up to to Canada, by the way, uh to fight fight in Quebec. And they stop in Newbury Port, Massachusetts uh on the way up to to Canada and and Newberry Port is where Whitfield is buried. Uh and allegedly they go down in the officers go down into the crypt and take pieces of his clothing off of his, you know, his clerical collar and wristbands. this is what they say, off of his dead body and cut it up and distribute the relics

>> among the troops. You know, just like what are we? Are we Catholics here? What's going on? I don't I don't understand. But uh and they never explained publicly why they did that. But to me, it seems pretty clear. They're saying what the revolution is about is what Whitfield was about.

>> Like he's the patron saint of the revolution. So, uh, whether that makes any sense or not, I don't know. But, I mean, it's it's a pretty visceral connection of the revolution to, you know, Whitfield. And again, Whitfield is the most important evangelist of the Great Awakening.

>> Yeah. Do you think the Great Awakening democratizes American religion before the Revolution, democratizes American politics?

>> Yeah. I mean, I I think that that I mean, one of the things that people forget about the Great Awakening is, you know, even Christians could look at the Great Awakening and they're like, "Oh, you know, this is just some kind of church affair and it's, you know, kind of quaint and isn't this nice that you have these revival?" Well, but it has deep political troubling political implications for colonial authorities. Um I mean because they're having to pass all kinds of laws and the colonial legislaturator is banning these radical itinerants from just barging into I mean they you know they show up at people's churches and and you know say can I preach from the pulpit and and and then they say pastor Bob here is going to hell and I mean you you think okay that was that's really rude and you know but pastor Bob uh is an agent of the state because they have established churches, right? I mean, so no one has ever talked about the pastors

>> in this kind of, you know, outlandish, you know, incendiary, one might say, revolutionary

>> way. And and I think I think this is where, you know, this kind of practice run type of model, uh, you know, it's the people rising up against the established authorities. I mean, there's there's one moment in Connecticut in 1742 where they have to call out the militia on these evangelical rioters, you know. I mean, so this, you know, the the Great Awakening is is scary. It's it's menacing. It's it's it's a popular uprising against the established authorities. And so, you know, I I don't want to draw too direct of a line from point A to point B, but it is, you know, this really powerful populist uprising against, you know, state and church power. So um you know if I that is a you know an outbreak of kind of democratic sent sentiment in the 1740s and it has to condition you know whatever America is when the revolution's getting ready to happen. Hm. So, I'm curious. You're Baptist. I'm Baptist. So, there's a, you know, a self-s serving aspect to me asking questions related to Baptist. But how did persecution of Baptists in places like Virginia influence the development of American religious liberty?

>> Yeah. So, um, one of the things that I think a lot of evangelicals are surprised by about the revolution and and the founding tradition is that uh, evangelicals, especially Baptists, are the staunchest advocates of the separation of church and state, which, you know, in the past 50 years in America has come into bad odor among evangelicals because evangelical ical hear it as anti-Christian. Um, but the the Baptists in particular uh in places like Virginia and Massachusetts on the eve of the revolution are terribly persecuted uh for illegal preaching, for refusing to get a state license to be a preacher uh having you know meetings that are considered to be illegal meetings. Uh and so Baptist preachers are being, you know, beat up, horse, jailed, fined for tax evasion, everything you could imagine, you know, short of outright murder. There, that's the way they're being treat. I mean, we talk about persecution today. Uh the Baptists in the 1760s and 70s are being persecuted by the colonial American governments. And so um when they're calling for religious liberty and separation of church and state, it is in with the memory of just having been persecuted by a lot of the same people who are now running the patriot movement. And so they they said, "What are we supposed to trust you now?" Uh you know, just yesterday you were horsehipping our pastor. Um, and so there there's there's tension there for a lot of evangelicals about we we see the argument for liberty and against the tax programs and against parliamentary sovereignty. We we get those arguments, but to us the most precious liberty of all is religious liberty. And too often the American state governments have denied religious liberty to evangelicals. And so Baptists say, "We don't want any more official state churches. They persecute people like us. All we want is for the government to leave us alone and let us preach the gospel and freedom. Stop making us pay taxes to support churches that we do not attend." And and you know, let it let us compete. Let give us a free market of religion and we'll take care of the rest. and and so that that that's the impulse of of evangelicals especially Baptists for uh religious liberty but it it does breed a kind of tension between uh Baptists in particular and a lot of the patriot leaders. So, you know, for instance, Isaac Bakus, the great Baptist leader in in revolutionary Massachusetts, is is pleading with Massachusetts leaders like Samuel Adams and John Adams to drop the official state church in Massachusetts. And they the the Adams are totally unsympathetic. They're they're like, "You you all are just a bunch of troublemakers. We you know, you're just always complaining, you Baptists. Uh we we're not dropping the state church." and and so people like Bakus, I mean, he ends up supporting the patriot movement, but he he's like, "What? Why should we trust you people? You're you're denying religious liberty to Baptists. Why why should we trust you people?" So, there was a surprising number of Baptists who did not support the revolution uh because of these reasons. They say, "You people persecute us. We're not interested in supporting your movement."

>> It's a helpful clarification. I see that term separation of church and state used and abused and um because it comes from correct me if I'm I'm wrong here 1802 right the letter that Thomas Jefferson writes to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut but it goes be it goes before that does it not the concept exists prior to him he doesn't you know pull it from whole cloth

>> um and it's actually a pro kind of religious liberty statement rather than kind disassociating church from the life of the American public. Do I have that correct?

>> Yeah. So I mean and the phrase is a wall of separation between church and state is and you know the the notion of separation church and state as you said is you know older than 1802 but uh Jefferson and it it's such a fascinating case because you as you said it is directed to a group of Baptists that that's really important to understand. So in Connecticut in 1802, they still have an official state church. Um the first amendment to the constitution only restricts Congress from creating an establishment of religion. The states are free to do what they want. And so the Baptists, they they love Jefferson because Jefferson's the champion of religious liberty and Jefferson was instrumental in getting Virginia to drop its official state church. And so the Connecticut Baptists say to Jefferson, who's now president, uh, we love you, present Jefferson, can you do anything to help us get rid of the Connecticut State Church? And Jefferson says, well, look, I'm only the president of the United States. I can't tell Connecticut what to do about his state church, which I love Jefferson for that. But but but he but he says, uh, aren't we glad that the First Amendment at least restricts the national government from having a state charge? Instead, it promotes religious liberty. Uh, thus erecting a wall of separation between church and state. And and and hopefully at some point Connecticut will also decide that the principle of religious liberty requires them to drop their state church, which they did in the 18s. Um, but do these Baptists want the government to be anti-Christian? Of course not. That would be that would be ludicrous. Uh Jefferson doesn't want them to be the government to be anti-Christian either. Even though Jefferson is a is a skeptic and you know uh by that point in his life he's kind of becoming a Unitarian. Um but he doesn't want the government to be anti-Christian. What they're talking about is official state denominations. Um and and so they're they're against that and I'm against that. I don't I mean imagine you know a governmentrun denomination. It's just gross. I mean, look at what the Church of England has become, you know, and particularly in England. It's it's it's just rotten. Uh and so from a Baptist point of view, we you know, we want the government to stay out of the business of running denominations. uh and and and have a free market of religion and you know as best you possibly can not play favorites denominationally but if the idea is you know promoting Christian morality yeah absolutely I mean because all law has to be based on some kind of morality um so so you know there's a difference there between you you know promoting morality in law which is you know just there's no other option than to promote a a form of morality and law and if I could choose, I would choose for it to be Christian morality. Uh and and then having an official national or state denomination. And it's the second part that in the Baptist tradition you you don't want.

>> So, let me get us into some hot water then. and um throughout the term Christian nationalism because that's a that's a a topic that I mean I see all over the place on social media, on YouTube, it's in the news every once in a while. What do we make of that term in light of something like I mean I'm in Canada but you know there's religious foundings colonial heritage similar although different from um you guys south of the border but with a term that's being

frequently used to label this thing or that thing Christian nationalism. What do you think is a proper use of that term and how do you see that going ary at the moment?

Yeah, I I don't I don't think it's a very useful term either on the left or the right. Um, I mean for the secular left, Christian nationalist just means a Christian who who thinks their faith has political implications.

Right?

And that that's that's useless. I mean, that that I mean, you know, is it Christian nationalism when you know liberal Christians, you know, are no they don't say that because they agree with liberal Christians politics. So it's just silly. I mean, it's that, you know, that that's extremely unhelpful. I mean, I I think that that, you know, I'm sympathetic obviously politically to if the idea is I I'm a Christian and I support pro-life laws.

If that makes me a Christian nationalist, okay, that's that that's fine. I I I I think that's a silly way to describe it, but pretty low bar. Yeah.

But but um what does concern me on the right is a kind of hankering for state religion. Um and it often it's not entirely clear what people are saying that they that they want. Um but um, you know, maybe uh, you know, religious test oaths for office holders, which is specifically banned in the US constitution. Um, you know, saying that we can only have uh, you know, Christian rulers or Christian politicians. Uh, maybe it's uh restricting immigration from, you know, people uh from non-Christian majority uh countries. Um, uh, you know, maybe it's having an official state church or something like that. And so many of these things to me are it's so theoretical and like politically unlikely, let's put it put it that way, to happen. Um, but, you know, I think some of this is just frustration with the excesses of the radical left. um that, you know, the transgender stuff and every I mean, it it's just gotten so unbelievably extreme and at times that the national and state and city governments have gotten behind this kind of radical left agenda and so there's a frustration on the Christian right and saying we have to fight fire with fire. Um, and I I I mean I'm certainly for that if if the idea is that we need to push back hard um along with friendly fellow travelers uh to to say uh no a man cannot be a woman and, you know, whatever political implications that has.

Um, however, uh, if the idea is collaborating churches collaborating with the state to promote and enforce Christian doctrine or norms or something like that. Um, I I think we should be very cautious about that because uh, it's never worked out well, uh, especially for groups like the Baptists. Um, and uh, as soon as the government is able to call balls and strikes and pick favorites uh, in terms of religious groups, you can bet it will be turned against orthodox believing Christians sooner or later. It it it always happens that way. Uh, it will it will I mean, if you start having tests of faith for, you know, office holders, we will start saying that, you know, I if it's a Republican who says that they're a Christian, then we say that's a Christian.

And that and theologically that is just super problematic. I mean, because you you know, being sympathetic to, you know, Christian morality does not make you a Christian. I'm I'm very happy for people to support Christian morality. It does not make you a Christian. So so those are areas where you really do want to separate church and state and let the church be in charge of preaching the gospel, protecting, you know, biblical theology, uh, you know, saying who's in and who's out and all all that kind of stuff. I mean, that that's the church's job. It is not the state's job. and and we can assume that the state will mess it up if we ask the state to do it. So I you know, that that's the part that I think we can we have to be really cautious about the so-called Christian nationalism.

Yeah. Well, thank you for solving the issue of Christian nationalism for us on on YouTube today. We can

Yeah, you bet.

Feel free to to not see it on social media anymore going forward.

Um, I'm sure that's always how it works. Uh, yeah, sure. Well, I this has been a great conversation. I I'm I'm uh, you know, I think it's it's helpful content even for me as a Canadian. Um, uh, love this kind of stuff. Um, for the the listener, the viewer, where can they find more of your content and material? Uh, maybe we can throw some of your books up on the screen here. Um, but if you were to point people to where you are, where where would you do that?

Sure. Well, I'm at Thomas SKID on social medias and probably most active on Twitter and X.

You you have a forthcoming book, don't you? That's that's coming out soon. Did I read that?

Always. Yes.

Always. Always.

Yeah. My my next book that's coming out is called The Death of Religion. Nuns, Others, and the Flourishing of Faith. And I'm co-authoring with with a friend of mine at Baylor University, Byron Johnson. Um, and we're basically uh, you know, tackling this whole is, you know, is religion falling apart? Is Christianity falling apart? And the answer is no. It's doing fine. It's changing all the time, but but it it's it's not dying.

Oh, that's great. Well, thanks again for being with us. Really appreciate it.

Thanks for having me, Wes.