Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?

Summary

Podcast Summary

Episode Overview

Podcast: Know What You Believe with Michael Horton
Episode Title: Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?
Date: July 2, 2026

To commemorate the 250th anniversary of the United States, Michael Horton hosts an in-depth discussion with historians Dr. Miles Smith and Dr. Darrell Hart, both professors at Hillsdale College. The episode focuses on a nuanced exploration of the American founding, investigating whether America was established as a Christian nation. The scholars analyze early American religion, church-state relations, Protestant influence, and how perspectives on Christianity in public life have shifted over time. The tone is thoughtful and historical, with an eye toward correcting common misconceptions among both secularists and Christian nationalists.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Approaching History: Dangers of Anachronism

• (02:23–06:31)
  • Lord Macaulay’s quote sets the stage: historians are warned against judging the past by the standards of the present and vice versa.
  • Dr. Smith: Emphasizes separating the study of "the church" as an institution from "Christianity" as lived religion.
    • Many frontier families in early America lived out their faith without regular church attendance or institutional oversight.
    • “The study of Christianity and the study of the church itself aren’t always synonyms.” (Dr. Smith, 04:08)
  • Not all 18th- and 19th-century Americans had regular church affiliation; religious life occurred often at home.

2. Church vs. Religion in the Early Republic

• (06:31–08:37)
  • Interviewer draws a comparison to the Middle Ages, where society was presumed Christian but actual church participation was low.
  • Dr. Smith: Validates the analogy; many 19th-century Americans lived “Christian” lives with infrequent institutional church participation.
    • “Even people who assumed they were Christians weren’t always churchy people.” (Dr. Smith, 08:19)
  • The distinction between church belonging and religious identity is crucial for understanding the era.

3. American Religious Order: Neither Theocratic nor Secular

• (09:20–13:38)
  • Discussion on the modern debates about Christian nationalism versus secularism.
  • Dr. Smith: Asserts that from the earliest days, the US had a unique arrangement—not a theocracy, but not strictly secular.
    • “The United States religious order was from the beginning neither theocratic nor secular.” (Interviewer quoting Smith, 09:20)
    • Practices such as state-initiated thanksgiving or fast days show Christian influence without creating a state church.
    • The church influenced the public, but the state avoided defining Christian doctrine.

4. Institutional Christianity & Civic Life

• (13:38–18:03)
  • Examination of how American churches and the state interacted over property, chaplaincy, and civic functions.
  • Churches owning property (glebes) was controversial—especially in Virginia, which only allowed incorporation of churches in the 21st century.
  • The function of the church as a community provider versus its spiritual role is debated.

5. Christian Institutionalism vs. Christian Nationalism

• (18:03–21:41)
  • Dr. Smith: Coins “Christian institutionalism” to argue that, while Christianity influenced civic institutions, the founders resisted the idea of a “Christian nation” governed by religious law.
  • In the early Republic, the government did not seek to define Christianity or enforce religious conformity; instead, ecclesiastical figures influenced public life.
  • “You might think of it this way: They’re happy with the church telling them what Christianity is, but they don’t want the state telling the church what Christianity is.” (Dr. Smith, 20:05)
  • Public prayers and overtly religious acts by politicians were rare or non-existent at the founding.

6. Historical Shifts: From Americanized Christianity to Christianized America

• (22:04–22:50)
  • Dr. Smith: The idea of America itself as a kind of civil religion or sacred entity arises more in the 20th century, not the early 19th.
  • “America becoming its own sort of religion is, I think, a creation of the 20th century, not the 19th.” (Dr. Smith, 22:41)

7. Protestants, Presbyterians, and Political Revolt

• (23:11–29:41)
  • Dr. Hart: Addresses the common claim that the American Revolution was a “Presbyterian rebellion.”
  • The real drivers of the Revolution were New England Congregationalists, not Presbyterians, though Presbyterians had a history of challenging authority going back to the Bishops’ Wars in 17th-century Scotland.
  • The legacy of Reformed protest against monarchy shaped attitudes but was distinct from American Presbyterianism of the 18th century.

8. Westminster Confession and Church-State Revision

• (29:41–35:04)
  • Discussion on how American Presbyterians modified the Westminster Confession’s chapter on the civil magistrate.
  • Dr. Hart: Original confession expected civil authorities to guide the church (like Constantine at Nicaea), but American revisions backed away from this.
  • By the late 18th century, American Presbyterians recognized the need for religious plurality; the revised confession acknowledges protection for various faiths, not just Protestants.

9. Historical Context and Principle

• (32:43–39:02)
  • The theologians of the Reformation depended on state support, not merely on principle but out of necessity.
  • Early American Presbyterians, even when they could have pushed for a state church, often chose not to—favoring liberty of conscience.

10. Multiple Presbyterian Strains and Canada’s Story

• (40:04–44:27)
  • Dr. Hart outlines four traditions within Presbyterianism on church-state relations (Covenanters, Church of Scotland, seceders, and Free Church), noting their interplay in North America and Canada.
  • Canada’s ‘confederation’ parallels American denominational unification, but with unique arrangements due to established churches.

11. Then and Now: Nationalism, Church, and Civil Religion

• (44:13–53:17)
  • Modern Christian nationalists often look back past American Presbyterianism to earlier, more “Erastian” models that wedded church and state power.
  • The founding generation, including Madison and Witherspoon, believed virtue was needed for a republic, but that virtue should come from the church, not be enforced by the state.
  • Dr. Hart: “They wanted to let the churches do it, encourage the churches to do this work, and the state is going to remain apart from it.” (Dr. Hart, 46:34)
  • The current rise in Christian nationalism flips the mainline Protestant idea of “America as Redeemer Nation” (early 20th century progressivism) and recasts it from the political right.
  • American civil religion—the conflation of national identity with sacred mission—has deep roots and is not exclusively a conservative phenomenon.

---

Memorable Quotes and Timestamps

• “The study of Christianity and the study of the church itself aren’t always synonyms.”
  – Dr. Miles Smith, 04:08

• “Even people who assumed they were Christians weren’t always churchy people.”
  – Dr. Miles Smith, 08:19

• “The United States religious order was from the beginning neither theocratic nor secular.”
  – Interviewer quoting Dr. Smith, 09:20

• “They’re happy with the church telling them what Christianity is, but they don’t want the state telling the church what Christianity is.”
  – Dr. Miles Smith, 20:05

• “America becoming its own sort of religion is, I think, a creation of the 20th century, not the 19th.”
  – Dr. Miles Smith, 22:41

• “They wanted to let the churches do it, encourage the churches to do this work, and the state is going to remain apart from it.”
  – Dr. Darrell Hart, 46:34

---

Notable Timestamps

• 02:23 – Lord Macaulay’s advice on historical perspective; dangers of anachronism
• 04:08 – Distinction between church institution and lived religion (Smith)
• 08:19 – The low pervasiveness of church attendance in Christian societies
• 09:20 – The US religious order: neither fully theocratic nor secular
• 13:38 – Differences between Jefferson and Madison on church property, secularism, and religious influence
• 18:20 – "Christian institutionalism" vs. Christian nationalism
• 20:05 – Who defines Christianity—the church or the state?
• 22:41 – America as civil religion: a 20th-century development
• 23:47 – Presbyterians' real influence on political rebellion and transatlantic religious history
• 29:41 – The Westminster Confession: original and revised on church-state relations
• 35:04 – Revisions to the Westminster Confession and the context for religious liberty
• 44:13 – Historical differences between early American Presbyterians and today’s Christian nationalism debate
• 46:34 – Founding generation’s preference for virtue from the church, not legal enforcement
• 50:49 – Progressive Protestant roots of “America as Redeemer Nation,” now echoed by the right

---

Tone & Style Highlights

• The conversation reflects measured, scholarly analysis—not polemic.
• Both guests stress historical nuance and resist imposing present-day assumptions on the past.
• The danger of conflating America’s Christian influence with a de facto Christian nation is a recurring theme.
• The hosts and guests maintain a tone of respectful disagreement with current trends, hoping to “equip” listeners with historical clarity.

---

Episode Takeaways

• America was not founded as a Christian nation in any simple or legal sense.
• Christianity deeply influenced American institutions, but religion and church were mostly kept separate from the instruments of government—both practically and theologically.
• Debates about Christian nationalism and secularism often project modern concerns onto the past.
• Virtue and citizenship were to be informed by the churches, not policed by the state.
• American “civil religion,” which sacralizes the nation itself, is a 20th-century innovation with roots in both liberal Protestantism and more recent conservative movements.

---

Suggested Listening Segments

• 02:23–06:31: On the dangers of anachronism when discussing American religious history
• 09:20–18:03: Examining how the US religious order avoided both theocracy and strict secularism
• 29:41–35:04: How Presbyterians revised the Westminster Confession for the American context
• 44:13–47:57: Contrasts between early American Presbyterian thought and today’s Christian nationalism debate

---

This episode is an excellent primer for anyone wanting to understand the complexities behind the idea of America as a "Christian nation," offering rich historical context and caution against modern simplifications.

Transcript

[Host]

Most of us consume more Christian media than ever podcasts, videos, social media. And yet slowing down and really thinking feels harder than it used to. Our newest project was designed with this in mind, introducing the Sola Newspaper, a quarterly print publication featuring articles on theology, the historic creeds and confessions, and reflections for the Christian life, delivered straight to your mailbox for free. [e-mail] newspaper and we'll send it to you at no cost. Read it, mark it up, leave it somewhere someone will find it. The Sola Newspaper, free [e-mail] newspaper

[Interviewer]

we don't want to live in the Village Green. At the end of the day, we can all leave and return to our houses of worship. But our goal? To encourage conversational theology in the Village Green, where we can rub shoulders with Christians from different traditions and expressions. Since the United States is celebrating its 250th anniversary, we thought that we would dive a little more deeply into the history of the Christian faith in America, especially focusing on the early Repub. And to do this, we're going to have two conversations with two distinct professors of history at Hillsdale College. Dr. Miles Smith is the author of Religion and Christian from the Founding to the Civil War, and also of the upcoming book Valiant and the Idea of a Christian soldier in America, 1800-1861. And Dr. Darrell Hart, longtime friend, has written many books. You might know him as a specialist on Jay Gresh machen, but he's also written Ben Franklin, Cultural Protestant, for Oxford University Press, and also the Lost soul of American Protestantism, most recently Protestants and Presbyterians in the Age of Revolution. So, first of all, I was struck by a quote, Miles, in your preface of your book, there are From Lord Macaulay, English historian There are two opposite errors into which those who study the annals of our country are in constant danger of falling the error of judging the present by the past and the error of judging the past by the present. The former is the error of minds prone to reverence whatever is old, the latter of minds readily attracted by whatever is new. The former error may perpetually be observed in the reasonings of conservative politicians on the the questions of their own day. The latter error perpetually infects the speculations of writers of the liberal school when they discuss the transactions of an earlier age. The former error is the more pernicious in a statesman and the latter in a historian. I want to ask you, Myles, first of all, as a historian, give us a little bit of advice on how we should approach the question of Christianity in America it's such a fraught topic with. With a lot of misunderstanding on both sides of the ideological aisle. And you really see the twin dangers there that Macaulay's referring to. Can you unpack that a little bit and why it's important for us to think historically recognizing the past is the past, and it's not necessarily an eternal idea.

[Dr. Miles Smith]

Yeah, so it's a good question. I think that one of the things I kind of realized as I got more and more into my profession was sort of asking the question if there's a difference between the study of Christianity and the study of the church properly, the church as an institution. And I think I'm probably more willing to draw a black line between the two in this way. I'm here in North Carolina on vacation, and I'm from western North Carolina, which is historically a very Presbyterian place, for example. But the church itself, there weren't a lot of churches. And so you had a lot of people who were doing what they perceived to be religious lives without a lot of ecclesiastical oversight or even a lot of just institutional affiliation. And so I think that the study of Christianity and the study of the church itself aren't always synonyms. And I think that this is one of the things that. I think that just sort of separating those two out means that, especially if you study religion, that your philosophy of history has to change a little bit. I mean, the 20th century was a clerical century. I mean, the church was big and active and influential in the 20th century. I think this is maybe where some conservative evangelicals missed just how influential the mainline was, this idea that everything was secular and sort of we've been under attack forever. Well, actually, the church was kind of in high heels for much of the 20th century. And so I think that in that regard there's. At least historically. Think about the 19th century, which is mainly where I study separating out the church and Christianity. Having some sort of taxonomical separation is important. And so because we live downstream from the 20th century, which was the more clericalist century, than the 19th, I think that we tend to sort of make assumptions about what church life was like during the early Republic, during the time of the Revolution, for example, I think we have this idea that everybody was in churches and their pastor got up and said, we hate Britain, and they took up rifles and as a church, went out and fought the Brits or whatever. And that's anachronistic. I mean, especially in frontier populations, they weren't in churches. All that often might have been the case in New England, but I Think those are just a few observations I think of as sort of thinking more seriously about the nuance of especially religion history in the U.S. in fact, you

[Interviewer]

talk about the importance of distinguishing not only church and state, but church and religion in the early Republic. What do you mean by that?

[Dr. Miles Smith]

Yeah, so think about the frontier family we have as an idea. They have maybe the King James Bible if they were Anglican, maybe a prayer book if they're Reformed, maybe a Geneva Bible or something like that. And so they have the Bible in their homes. And I was surprised even that wasn't as common as I thought. But nonetheless, these people perceive themselves to be living religious lives. Is family worship, church, for example? A lot of these people would have done something like family worship. Well, why? Because there was only an ordained minister around every six weeks or so. And so what does it mean to live a religious life without regular exposure to sort of regularly ordered ecclesiastical worship? And so I think I'm hesitant to anathematize this kind of religious life and say, well, it's not Christian. And I understand the impulse to say, well, if it's not the church, it's probably not Christian, but on some level, these people are Christian people. And I think we have to sort of ask ourselves, what does it look like to live a religious life when you don't have the regular exposure to the institutional life of the church? What does that mean? And so I think, at least in the early Republic, we have to separate those out a little bit.

[Interviewer]

Can an analogy be drawn to the Middle Ages, when the Fourth Lateran Council had to require people to go to Mass and make confession once a year? Society was kind of assumed it was Christian. You weren't anything else, the festivals and all that. But as far as institutional belonging, it was more. Something less pervasive, perhaps.

[Dr. Miles Smith]

Yeah. Rodney Storek actually makes that comparison. I think it's in the second volume of his books. I think it's the Triumph of Christianity. He points out that the Middle Ages, most people didn't go to church, especially on the intellectual right. There's this kind of prisonization of the medieval era that's gone on. We have this idea that everybody was in church and going to these big cathedrals, and that's just not the case. And sort of similar, I think there's an idea that Everybody in the 19th century had very Christian families and very church families. No, church was something people actually had to be sort of reminded to go do. And church was something that wasn't necessarily a norm. Even people who assumed they were Christians weren't always churchy people. And so, yeah, that analogy is very apt.

[Interviewer]

In the introduction of your book Religion and Republic, you write 70 years of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court and more. Recent battles over questions of theocracy or so called Christian nationalism have convinced a significant number of American evangelicals that any state involvement with Christianity is both un American or an invasion of supposedly pure religious practice. In conservative Calvinist circles, this has been particularly pronounced with breathless denunciations of theocracy or liberalism being thrown about by partisans of a secular spirituality of the church and devotees of robust public Christianity respectively. The United States religious order was from the beginning neither theocratic nor secular. How was the United States religious order neither theocratic nor secular?

[Dr. Miles Smith]

I think it was. I mean, there's the terms of religion. Think about this. The United States from the get go has sort of a social apparatus of Christianity that across the board was relatively observant of, say state initiated fast days or state initiated Thanksgiving. I mean, the holiday of Thanksgiving was designed to be celebrated in churches. So there would be a day of Thanksgiving and so they would go to churches. Now there's a good question. Is, is a day of Thanksgiving? Is a Thanksgiving service a church service? Maybe that's where someone might want to nitpick and that would be fair. But I think that inasmuch as if it's a clergyman leading it and if it's largely his congregation that's gathering for Thanksgiving, has that annihilated the churchiness of the church, that it was a magisterial proclamation that initiated it. And obviously, I think the question of chaplains becomes important too. I have a friend who is a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran. The Wisconsin Synod does not have chaplains because they're absolutely committed to. I think what would get called what we might think of in reformed terms is the spirituality of the church. And they take that very seriously. On the other hand, most reformed communions do have chaplains. And so if you think about the terms of chaplaincy, it doesn't necessarily mean that the state is telling the church what to do, but it does mean the state is setting terms for a churchman's cause. They're ordained engagement with what is more or less a sort of flock. And so I think these questions have just been a lot more fraught. Doesn't mean there's one great answer, but I just don't think any of the lines are as clean as anybody might want to assume. And I think one thing I might add is I think that our understanding of the state probably hasn't changed as much as our understanding of what the church is. I work at a place and we have a variety of different faith groups on campus. Think about the way that we describe a big evangelical church, the way they describe themselves and the way they kind of market themselves to potential parishioners. It's like, well, come here and we have community and you can get to know people and all that stuff is good. I'm not knocking it, but in some ways people are describing a town. They're actually describing a political association and not a spiritual one. So when you think about small groups, for example, why do you do small groups? Well, we want people to get to know each other. Okay, that's great. Is that actually the point of church? No, I thought the point of church is word and sacrament. So I think that in as much as we have, and Darrell's made this point a lot, and it's a good point, we have a big institutional break down in American life. A lot of the civil institutions that people used to sort of do to get to know each other, that to do civic life, have collapsed. And I think that big evangelical churches are sort of trying to step up and do what's essentially a civic work, maybe without realizing it.

[Interviewer]

Interesting. And that leads to your discussion of the differences between Jefferson and Madison, sort of, in a certain sense, freedom from religion versus freedom for religion that we've had a debate about for a long time. And I love in the Federalist Papers, Madison's argument, for example, against tax exemption for churches because the state would be making a determination of what a true church is. And he says, in fact, you quote him here, for nearly 15 centuries, what has Christendom's fruits been more or less pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, and in both superstition, bigotry and persecution. In other words, his argument wasn't that it was bad for the state, but that it was bad for the church. Can you talk a little bit about the nuances there that we still have with us today?

[Dr. Miles Smith]

Well, that's a great. I mean, the question of churches and property is where that's coming from. These guys live downstream from the Anglican establishment in Virginia. And so Anglican churches used to have attached them what were called glebes. Glebes, for people who've never heard that term, glebes are essentially church owned property that aren't the church themselves. It was something that was given historically by the king to a parish so that you could make rent money off of it or grow crops or something. And that that money would kind of be a little kickback to the church itself. But the church owned it. They were essentially grants from the state to the church. And in North America there were glebes. There were glebes in North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, even in New York had a few. Trinity Church on Wall street had a gleave attached to it at one point. And so the question that Massen's getting at is an important one, because Virginia decided alone amongst the states to not allow churches to incorporate. So if you don't know this, churches couldn't incorporate in Virginia until the first decade of the 21st century. And there was a series of court cases initiated by, funny enough, Thomas Road Baptist Church, which is the big Baptist church that created Liberty University as Jerry Falwell's church. And so the argument was, well, hey else allows churches to incorporate, why didn't Virginia? And the answer was, well, because they didn't want churches owning land. If a church could own its own property, it could therefore be something other than this kind of merely spiritual idea of a church. So for example, if your church owns its own property, you've already transgressed to a considerable extent, want Jefferson and Madison wanted. And so I think, think about this. I mean, does if your church owns its own land, does that make it something other than a church? If your church obeys the local construction codes, if your church obeys the fire marshal, does that mean you're subordinating your church to the state? And so I think some of it's the way we talk about the two kingdoms as well. Is the church merely spiritual? I'm not saying it's not spiritual. I'm saying is it only spiritual? Might be one sort of question to think about. And if your church is merely spiritual, should you own your building? Jefferson and Madison say probably not. And so in the state of Virginia until 2007 said no. And so these are just kind of some of the questions that they're assuming. And largely because they're living in the 18th century at a time when the church wasn't what we think of as the church. Churches were powerful semi political institutions. I mean, the Church of England was not a merely spiritual church. And so I don't want to knock Madison and Jefferson for sort of thinking about the legacy of church the way they do. I don't necessarily think they were the norm though, at all. And especially on the east coast, they weren't the norm. They were the exception.

[Interviewer]

You give some examples for your view of Christian institutionalism through legislation, the courts, the Sabbath, the treatment of Native Americans. What are some various points and anecdotes worth mentioning? What do they demonstrate to us?

[Dr. Miles Smith]

So I think what they demonstrate, I use the term Christian institutionalism, definitely to sort of push back against the idea of a Christian nation. And so because I think that in a lot of ways Christianity did make its influence felt in civic institutions. And that wasn't an inconsiderable influence. But in the early Republic, there's, across the board, there is a real sense that we do not want Christianity associated with the idea of an American nation. Christianity was something other than the government. And so everybody believes that our idea, especially in as much as people on the right sort of articulate what gets called Christian nationalism. It's an anachronism. And so you can only sort of think about Christian nationalism downstream from actually, I think is what historically what we might call liberal Protestant assumptions. And I'm not saying all of those liberal Protestant assumptions are heretical per se. But you can't get to Christian nationalism from specific sort of articulations of what you might call public or even state supported Christianity in the early republic, because they do not want the state making determinations about what Christianity is. So you might think of it this way. They're happy with the church telling them what Christianity is, but they don't want the state telling the church what Christianity is. And so in that sense, there's actually a pretty capacious place for ecclesiastical influence in the early republic. And I think people see that and they'll say, see, that's Christian nationalism. No, I think what's happening now is that we kind of want the government to do the leading on that. When historically, at least, in the United States it was churchmen, it was educational institutions, it was civic celebrations that aren't even necessarily state supported that are doing that. So in the early Republic there's a lot of people talking to the state. And now what we tend to want to do is, I think, have actual politicians, government officers doing this. A good example is the idea of a politician doing public prayer. You would never see that in the early republic. The most theocratic New Englander, if they were a representative member of the state House, governor, whatever, they would have never prayed in public. And now we have some cabinet officers who do it. And so that's a good example. Would some of those guys code in the early republic code as Christian nationalism because of what they think the government should do vis a vis Christianity? Sure, but they themselves would not have done what you might think of as churchy things. Gospel Presentations, praying. I think we've kind of seen, at least in the last 20 years, especially on the right, there's more a sense of, oh, we want the president to say something particularly Christiany, or we want whoever to say something kind of Christiany.

[Interviewer]

It's interesting that in even more theocratic periods and places, there was that distinction, especially in churches of the Reformation, there was that strong distinction. Right, between the king doing priestly duties versus the priests doing it.

[Dr. Miles Smith]

Yeah, I think that. I mean, one of the things that I think about as much as the history of Anglicanism, the monarchs don't pray in church. The priests or the bishops are still praying in church. And so I think what we've done is we've kind of in a lot of. It's the 20th century created a very particular idea of Christianized America instead of what I think was doing in the. In the early 19th century, which was an Americanized Christianity, for better or worse. So America becoming its own sort of religion is, I think, a creation of the 20th century, not the 19th.

[Host]

This is a production of Sola Media. This podcast is made possible by generous listeners like you. If you enjoy the show and want to help us continue this work, consider giving [e-mail] donate.

[Interviewer]

Well, let's rewind with Darrell Hart, swim across the Atlantic and talk about Protestants and patriots. You note that George iii, King George, described the American Revolution as a Presbyterian rebellion. How did calls from Presbyterians around ecclesiastical issues branch out into political revolution? Feel free to start earlier. Here you go, all the way back to Calvin's Geneva. And maybe even a good place to start, Darrell, would be to define Erastianism.

[Dr. Darrell Hart]

Well, I don't know if I want to get into Erasianism yet. It's a curious thing, really, when you think about King George's remarks about Presbyterians. I think it indicates in some ways the way Presbyterianism from the 17th century was in the monarch's head. But it really is the New Englanders that are much more aggressive about asserting their rights against parliament raising. I just did a tour with students, Revolutionary War sites and Concord, Lexington, Boston. These are the chief sites of the initial outbreak of the war. And these are all people, sometimes liberal Congregationalists, who are leading the charge, even some clergy preaching about tyranny and the rights of British citizens in the 1750s. Presbyterians are really kind of muted in those characteristics. Presbyterians in the 1750s, 60s, 70s, they never had an established church in North America. Well, minus Canada, whatever was happening up there. And the Congregationalists did. They lost their charter 1692 or whatever. There's very much a New England exceptionalism that New Englanders had and that continues to shape American national history. But the real Presbyterian revolution, I think, and I argue this in the book, is in the 1630s and 1640s when there was such a thing as the Bishops War, which breaks out. It's a very small war, but it is a war between the Scots and Charles I. 1639, 1640, it's sort of a forerunner to the Civil wars and the Scots aligning with Parliament against the King in the Civil wars of the 1640s and a spillover. But what happened in Scotland 1638 is the national Covenant, the affirmation of that covenant by Parliament, by the Church, by the people. It is very much committed to Presbyterianism, Reformed religion, opposed to Roman Catholicism. And it's harkening back to a covenant that James I, but he was James VI of Scotland, had made in 1581 as part of a, a negative confession or King's confession, which was also another kind of covenant that the Scottish monarchy had started. So the National Covenant for the Scots is re instituted in 1638. And when Charles then requires the Church of Scotland to use the Prayer Book, that leads to the so called Bishop's War. There were minor skirmishes, there were real armies formed, there were maybe a dozen lives lost, other people injured, but again, that is the trigger or at least a catalyst. And it's very much a religious one where people are objecting to the King imposing upon the Church of Scotland, where those religious matters spill over into the politics of England at this point. England and Scotland are two separate realms, although ruled by one king. And that's also where this gets a little dicey in how Presbyterianism enters its way into English politics. But the 1640s lead to the Civil War. Charles is defeated, Charles is tried for treason by the Rum parliament and executed 1649. And the Scots, even though they were opposed to Charles, they also opposed, because you don't kill the Lord's anointed. That's what you learn from the lesson of the Hebrew monarchy. David versus Saul. David had a chance to kill Saul, or his men did, didn't do it because you don't kill the Lord's anointed. Plus they had a covenant with the King, at least with the Stuart monarchy. And Charles was kind of sheepish about whether he was going to affirm that. So Presbyterianism, 1630s, 1640s, very powerful ingredient in the Civil wars and eventually the toppling of the monarchy, which again is a huge deal in the history of the West. French revolution echoes that. 1790 Whenever, when the French execute Louis, King Louis. But it's a big deal. There's a period of the Commonwealth era where Cromwell is the Lord Protector and beyond. And then there's a restoration of the crown in 1660. And most Presbyterians are relieved by that because most Presbyterians in Scotland would prefer a monarchy. They're not republican. Which again, makes the American Presbyterians of the 1760s and 70s very different from that, even though you could maybe have echoes of it. So I go back to your question, long winded way of trying to answer it. I think George III has in his head, and he's not a descendant of the Stuarts, but he has in his head that Presbyterians were a pain in the neck in the 17th century and they're up to it again. And Presbyterianism is the word he uses for that. But I think the American Revolution really does begin very much in New England.

[Interviewer]

Interesting. Talk a little bit about the American revision to the Westminster Confession of Faith regarding the magistrate.

[Dr. Darrell Hart]

Well, the original Westminster Confession, 1646 or 7. And it is useful to point out that this is an English document. Presbyterians love Scotland. They love the Scottish Reformation. They think of John Knox, they think of Presbyterianism in Scotland. But Westminster Confession is not a Scottish document. There were Scottish commissioners at the Westminster assembly, maybe four of them, they were giving advice. But this is very much an English document, I think, as Chad Van Dixel

[Interviewer]

would affirm, called by Parliament.

[Dr. Darrell Hart]

Yeah, but the language of chapter 23, I believe it is maybe 25. I can't keep. I think it's 23 on the civil magistrate really does talk about the magistrate. The way that Constantine ran the Council of Nicaea, it talks about the magistrate calling synods, presiding over those synods, kind of giving counsel to those synods. You read Eusebius accounts of Nicaea. That's what Constantine was doing. You know, was Eusebius always telling the truth or writing in a certain way for the good of the church? Okay, you can take it maybe with a grain of salt, but it is curious to me whenever I go back and read the original, that this sounds like Nicaea. They're envisioning a magistrate. And granted they're writing this for Parliament, they're not necessarily thinking about a king, but they're also not thinking about getting rid of monarchy altogether. So they're thinking about. But that relationship between magistrate and church. The way Constantine was in some ways relating to the council of bishops at Nicaea, they do clarify. He cannot Administer the sacraments, lead in worship, et cetera. But still there's a very much a religious dimension to his civic responsibilities. And I think it evokes a kind of sacral monarchy that had been part of the Christian west going back to Constantine, but that echoes back to the Old Testament, to the Hebrew monarchs as well.

[Interviewer]

Even Luther and Calvin calling on the emperor to act as Constantine and Charlemagne of old as nursing fathers of the Church to call a council, right?

[Dr. Darrell Hart]

Yes, very much. The Magisterial Reformation did very much depend and unleash magistrates intervening or some ways mingling in the affairs of the Church. And if not for that, the Reformed in Lutheran would have been the equivalent of the Anabaptists. They needed state support. So I'm not saying they did that artificially somehow, but they still needed state support.

[Interviewer]

That's a really important point. Darrell, what does that teach us, too, about historical context? Because sometimes we can go back and we could read the Reformers, we could read Rutherford, we could read all, you know, and treat it as a kind of theology for every time and place and not realize that they were fighting for their lives and the prince was their best hope. But that doesn't mean it was always consistent with their principles, right?

[Dr. Darrell Hart]

I mean, I don't think it was merely pragmatic. I do think Calvin, for instance, in Is it book two or three, I can't remember on the magistrate is genuine in talking about the magistrate's responsibility to promote religion, to protect the church, to enforce both tables of the law. And he does also invoke the pagan authors who also thought that the state needed to promote religion, obviously pagan religions. But he's saying this is a principle widely shared by both pagans and Christians. And today's Christian nationalists very much pick up on that. But on the other hand, if you didn't have either the Pope behind you, and the Protestants have rejected the Pope, there are two great authorities. There's the Pope and there's the crown, depending on where you are, which crown it is or which prince it is. And if you don't have the support of the state, you're Anabaptist, you're toast. But that also, then, I mean, Luther's, where he's pleading with the German nobles to reform the Church, even raise up the sword against the Church, is really kind of cool and striking. And it's also kind of scary that do you really want state going after priests and bishops that way? And yes, Luther was prone to excess at times, but that's the nature of the magisterial Reform, it's only going to happen with the state backing it.

[Interviewer]

How did the American Presbyterians revise the confession on that? What led to their change of viewpoint?

[Dr. Darrell Hart]

Well, it's still really a mystery. And I'm thinking even in retirement, when I'm going to be living a couple blocks from the Presbyterian Historical Society, God willing, seeing what they have in their archives. And I was also listening to a podcast earlier this morning. John Witherspoon, who was president of the College of New Jersey, a signer of the Declaration, the only clergyman to sign the Declaration. He was a representative of the New Jersey at the Continental Congress. He was instrumental, maybe had a big hand in the revisions, but he burned all of his private papers. But the church would still seemingly have records, but the revisions were basically backing away that the magistrate is going to protect all the churches. I think people stopped, stop there and say this is intended only for the Protestant denominations. But there are three or four lines toward the end of that first paragraph in chapter 23 where it talks about protecting everyone from certain kinds of molestation for their beliefs and practices. And I think they could have stopped earlier if they only wanted to protect Protestants. But I think they were meeting when they ratified it anyway. They were meeting in Philadelphia. There were Jewish congregations there, or at least one Jewish cemetery that dates before this. There was a Roman Catholic parish there. George Washington, even during the Continental Congress, when he was still a part of it, or maybe it was the Philadelphia Convention for the Constitution, worshiped at one of those Roman Catholic churches during his time there, was. It doesn't prove anything. It just means that Roman Catholics and Jews were part of the fabric of Philadelphia society. Philadelphia being part of the Quaker colony and unusual for having the kind of religious freedom that they had there. And the first presbytery in North America is in Philadelphia. And those ministers who met in 1706 would have been highly aware of that religious diversity. And I think they're revising it to make room for that religious diversity. And so that the magistrate, they understand that a state church, established church, and that a magistrate who's going to actively promote one religion or a state religion just isn't going to work in what's happening in the United States of America, which does exist at that point. The Constitution hasn't yet been ratified, so you could say that they're conceivably adapting this to the new reality of the United States. But I would also add that the adopting act of 1729, when the, sorry, the Synod of Philadelphia began to use the Westminster standards as the confessional standard and began to try to require subscription. They had two meetings. One was they would affirm the Westminster Standards. Second meeting the same day was to allow for exceptions to that. And all of the exceptions in 1729 even were about chapter 23. And the Civil magistrate, the Presbyterians in North America didn't want that understanding of the civil magistrate that the English and the scots had in 1646. Consequently, you could see then 1729 as a kind of preliminary to the revisions that actually took shape in 1788. But the actual debates or who called for the revisions, who initiated them, is still a mystery to me. Now, maybe there are historians out there who have nailed all this down, but I haven't seen people cite them yet.

[Interviewer]

Some recent work I've seen and alongside yours, has really explored the role that Presbyterians had at a time when they could have actually had probably a state church in New Jersey at least, but didn't, and that there was a principal move away from that. So what are we going to say is truly Reformed, the Calvin's Geneva or American Presbyterianism? Or again, the question of historical circumstances comes up, and you think on the Christian nationalist side at least, they seem to want to go back behind American Presbyterianism to a more Erastian kind of Westminster assembly in the 1640s, is that right?

[Dr. Darrell Hart]

Well, yeah, I think that's fair. I mean, I think you could actually identify at least four strains of Presbyterians on church state matters. And in America, three of those groups maybe are much less subdued. But you can have the original Covenanters, 1630s, who had then, after the Restoration, take a beating because they're still insisting on the Covenant and the monarchs don't like it and there's persecution of the Covenanters. There's a very small group, but that's one form. And eventually those Covenanters will hold on and some will go to Ireland, some will come to North America. Then you have the Church of Scotland. Finally we have Presbyterianism. It was always a competition between Anglican Episcopalians and Presbyterians in Scotland, but finally settled 1690, roughly with the Glorious Revolution. And that's a very moderate church. And they're moderate because they're not going to be like the Covenanters. We gotta back it down here, folks. But it's so moderate, you could argue it feels in some ways to American Presbyterians like it's the mainline church of the 20th century. It's kind of liberal, tolerant, squishy in its sentiments. But there are still conservatives in the Church of Scotland. Some of those begin to leave 1730s, the so called Seceders or the Associate Reformed form their own presbytery. They will also eventually go to Ireland and North America as well. And then in the 19th century, skipping way ahead, you have the free church that also says this state church business isn't working. We're going to come get out. We're still committed to an ecclesiastical establishment and we're going to try to function as if we're the state church. But in effect they really have to function as a denomination, as a free church, as a voluntary church. And all of those three groups, they do show up in the United States. Free church, much less so. But free church, Associate Reformed, the Covenanters and the Church of Scotland are all part of the original Presbyterianism in Canada. And they're trying to sort that out with Anglicans and Methodists. It's a really fascinating history. I think Americans don't take Canada as seriously as we should. This isn't necessarily pro Canada, but it's still a fascinating part of the way that British Protestantism moved to, to the New World. And it's a different kind of New world than the United States. But the way that they eventually had to sort out Miles early was talking about these Glebe lands. Well, they had similar arrangements so that Anglicans and Presbyterians in Scotland would receive support, some kind of encouragement from the state because oh, by the way, both the Church of Scotland and Church of England are the established churches in the United Kingdom. And so we gotta recognize those in Canada. But wait a minute, then there are all these other Presbyterian groups. Eventually the political arrangements bring the Canadian Presbyterians together so that by 1867 and then 1875 you have the Presbyterian Church of Canada form these different streams together. But it takes almost 70 years for that to to happen, which is roughly the same time as well as the formation of the Confederation of Canada. Basically the origins of Canada not as a separate nation, it's still in the Commonwealth, it's a dominion, but it's still kind of Canada beginning to operate on its own in ways within the British Empire that Ireland had tried earlier and America might have tried anyway. It's a very fascinating way of looking at Reformed churches in another part of the world up in Canada, which is

[Interviewer]

not very far in what ways are early American, I.e. u.S. Presbyterian, similar to or different from today's post liberal movements or proponents of Christian nationalism?

[Dr. Darrell Hart]

Well, I guess one way to answer that, and this is building off

[Host]

what

[Dr. Darrell Hart]

I was listening to earlier, a very interesting lively interview about John Witherspoon by Jeff Morrison, who wrote a book on Witherspoon almost 20 years ago, but was being interviewed about that again in connection with the 250th and Witherspoon's role in the Continental Congress. One thing you could argue is that today's proponents of a Christian America, which I think we also need to keep in mind, it's been going on for at least 40 years. When you think back to the Moral Majority and Francis Schaeffer and Jerry Falwell, they were also arguing for a kind of recovery of America's Christian roots. And you have a similar expression of that today, although I think it's very different, but where Witherspoon and Madison following him. Madison was a student of Witherspoon, and most of the founders believe that for a republic to truly function, you needed a virtuous people. And the way that you would get virtue was from the church or from the churches. And so in that way, for the state to encourage the churches, they were then therefore encouraging good citizenship among the people. But what this professor was also saying, Morrison, was that Madison and Witherspoon both, and this fits with the revision of the Westminster Confession, they didn't want the state to do anything religious, the way Miles was saying earlier that you wouldn't have a magistrate praying. They wanted to let the churches do it, encourage the churches to do this work, and the state is going to remain apart from it. And what we hear today is proposals for making the government Christian, making the prince or the magistrate a Christian who will then promote Christianity as part of the public good. And I think at the time of the founding and for Presbyterians, at the time of the American Revolution, they had had enough of the state promoting Christianity in that way. Let's try a different arrangement. We're going to have a small government with limited operations. The Constitution enumerates what those powers are of the federal government. And now let's let the churches do all that they want to do and create all sorts of Christians, and let virtue kind of come from the bottom up rather than the top down.

[Interviewer]

So when we look out at the situation today, it seems like, you know, both a kind of secularist nationalism on one side, Christian nationalism reacting against it, that there's this hollowing out, actually, of the church in the name of a kind of nationalism, that the nation becomes sacred. And who are the ministers of the nation? The senators, the princes, you know, the magistrates, and we have to have them affirming our Christian nation. Does that seem like what's happening right now?

[Dr. Darrell Hart]

It does. And I can't figure out the degree to which it's part of a

[Dr. Miles Smith]

2

[Dr. Darrell Hart]

or 3.0 of theonomy, which was trying to recover the Old Testament laws in some ways for the modern state, or whether.

[Interviewer]

Which would represent Doug Wilson today.

[Dr. Darrell Hart]

Yeah. Or if it's kind of civil religion, which has a very long history in the United States, which does turned the United States into a kind of sacred enterprise. I was reading a book review, oh this week of a new collection of John Quincy Adams speeches. And one of his long speeches was roughly from 1819, defending the Declaration and the Constitution, but talking about the eternal and sacred dimensions of the Declaration. And I think that evokes an older strain of New England and Presbyterian theology. Covenant theology and a covenanted nation. Covenanters were doing that in Scotland as well. But that the United States was in a kind of covenanted relationship with God. But then you turn that into a kind of American exceptionalism. And then you can get the idea that America alone has this covenanted relationship with God. And I do think that is part of the source of turning America into a redeemer nation, which is a long theme in American politics throughout American history. And for my money, as someone who's a spirituality of the church person and, and a amillennial person, it doesn't work well with me, but it's clearly there. And I'm still trying to figure out where those sources, how they're being used today by so called proponents of Christian nationals.

[Interviewer]

Yeah. Because as your colleague Richard Gamble has argued so well documented so well, it was actually mainline progressive Protestants who pioneered the idea of America as a redeemer nation, a Christian nation, of course, with earlier precedents, but really all the way up to Woodrow Wilson, this idea of America having this sacred mantle laid upon it for the redemption of the world.

[Dr. Darrell Hart]

Right.

[Interviewer]

But now it's sort of coming from the right rather than the left.

[Dr. Darrell Hart]

It's very odd. And I would add too sometimes I think, I mean, language of vocabulary. And Mike, you've written a lot about the importance of language in theology, but it does matter. I mean, you have certain terms, categories available for thinking about society or politics. And in America we have a long tradition of using Christian terms to think about this. But if you read other sources from the west, especially pagan sources, whether Roman or Greek, you do have other sources for thinking about a republic or a democracy and different kinds of government, different kinds of constitutions. But if you believe in the Bible and the importance of the Bible as your sole authority, if the Bible gave you some directions about democracy or republics or something not to be too literal. Okay then, that may be a point. But there's so many different authors from the ancient and modern worlds that you could use to talk about a good government. And some Christian nationalists do that, I think. In particular, I don't want to necessarily name names, but to give an illustration, Stephen Wolf does that in his book. He's trained as a political theorist, or maybe he prefers political philosopher. Those people get upset with the terms philosophy or theory. But he does do a lot of retrieval of older sources about political theory in his work, and he's much more conversant with those non Christian sources as well. But still, the outcome is to put it in Christian categories.

[Interviewer]

Well, Darrell, my good friend, it's great to talk to you again, even if it's behind a screen, and I wish you well. Thank you so much for all of your contributions and especially this latest work of yours, Protestants and Presbyterians in the Age of Revolution, published by Notre Dame Press. And it's been great to talk about this, especially as we celebrate the 250th anniversary of this great nation of ours.

[Host]

Thanks for listening to this production of Sola Media. If you enjoyed this episode, would you share it with someone you think would benefit from it? Your support helps us spread the riches of the Reformation and apply historic Christian theology to every area of life.