About the bibles influence on the american founders. Also talk about the founders view on religious liberty, democracy, and nation as republic. This was of sym bosom hosted by the museum of the bible in washington. Its an hour. Thank you, danielle. Good afternoon everyone. I hope you enjoyed your time at lunch and in the museum. If you would take a moment to silence your cell phone or any other device you have with you. Please join me in giving our speakers a round of applause. They have done an outstanding job. Today has really been an interesting look at how the bible influenced the people and events of the American Revolution and our nations founding. So im going to thank you to those submitted questions. Im going to randomly go through these for our speakers. And well start with dr. Kidd. Franklin quoted god helps those who help themselves. Could you put that in the context of your remarks about franklins believes . Well, thats an example of franklin that almanac was full offal for rhythms that sounded sort of like proverbs and sometimes they were proverbs. And i think that that type of philosophy is god helps those who help themselves is an excellent example of this type of emphasis on virtue and morality and industry and frugality that were the hol mar hallmarks of franklins philosophy on religion. I mean, that statement in particular i think sort of dissenters god in a way that his calvinist forbearers would not have wanted to do. So the point for his parents would be you dont just need god to help you. You need god to change your life. And what needs to happen is if we are converted by experience of god grace transforming power, then enabled to live a godly, moral life, where i think that type of philosophy of god helps those who helps themselves is more of a god is kind of a supplement. That if you follow gods principles and work hard and you are honest that things will go well for you, which is a kind of classic american creed. But it may be that its sits somewhat uncomfortable with the counsel of scripture. Would you say thats a deists statement . Yeah, i would say it has a deist flavor to it in the sense that god you know, maybe being active, but somewhat you need to take responsibility for yourself. That gods work, gods power is not the first thing that you need. The first thing you need in that kind of formula is your own initiative. So, again, i think god is being dissentered a little bit. And seems to me just knowing what i know about franklin, that its a sense of god is being a little bit secondary or distant. Great. Thank you. Another question from our audience for dr. Dreisbach. I understand our government is a republic. So many people in america say its a democracy. Can it be both . Or is it both . Well, the constitution explicitly makes reference to republican form of government. But i certainly dont think these are inconsistent in some ways in which they manifest themselves. I mean if you take the words and look at it in purist definition, there might be some restrictions. But let me just remind you have the core pf what republicanism would have meant to i think most late 18th century americans, which is government by extent of the government as exercised through representatives. In that second aspect, could perhaps come into some tension with democracy in its purist form. But as i think these words might have been used at this time in history, they would not seen such a sharp clash between the two, and they certainly did not view that some expressions of manifestations of the peoples voice as being intentioned with republicism as they understood it. If i could jump in there too. You know, when i explained this to my students, i mean, the founders view of pure democracy which they would have thought was a bad idea, as if every single question that any level of government deals with, then the people have to vote on, say a popular referendum, on every question. And so do they have expertise to make these sorts of decisions . Probably not. If its issue about some complex Foreign Policy issue or financial issue, banking issue or Something Like that. And so the ideal, the ideal is that you elect people who do have sufficient expertise in these kinds of areas who, founders would have hoped these people would also be virtuous, knowledgeable, independent people, who then on behalf of the people can make informed decisions about these various kind of policy issues. So thats why i think i mean we definitely became more democratic since 1776, 1787, because, number one, we have a lot more kinds of people voting. And, women, lets start with women, can vote. Lots of ethnic minorities now participate where they couldnt have at the time of the founding. But i still think that its, you know, its fundamentally a democratic republic that we have. As opposed to a pure democracy, that the founders would have considered to be ilconsidered and chaotic. Republicanism is another way of putting a check on the exercise of power. Again that comes back to this biblical anthropology that we are fallen creatures and we need as many checks and restraints as we can possibly manage in the way we frame our government. Thank you. Dr. Byrd, this one is for you. Lets see. Could you please expound more on Thomas Jeffersons religious views . Thomas jefferson . Yes. I didnt mention Thomas Jefferson. But you might be able to jump in. Yeah, my basic understanding of Thomas Jefferson is that he was only more purely deistic in what he had to say. He famously trimmed the bible of certain texts because they were miraculous because he wanted to focus on life and morals of this jesus and see morality which was the key theme for him. And other than that, you know, i dont know much else about his religious views. I sometimes use he was adherent of national religion, where he saw human reason as the final arbiter at the end of the day which gave him cause when he encountered the claims he read in the bible. If he couldnt understand it or explain it through reason, then he had questions, reason to doubt it. Having said that, he thought jesus of nazareth was the greatest moral teacher there ever was. And there was great value in studying that. The kind of religion that he would have warmed to would have been nondogmatic. It would have been nonhierarchical. I think he was very distrust fuful of churches which were hierarchical or oriented around bishop s for example. So he had a Certain Affinity with more congressional type expressions. Baptist and church governance. So he liked that kind of church governance. Quite a part from the belief system. But i think we are talking here about a very nondogmatic, a religion that could be explained in rational terms. Famously, he got along well with baptists because they agreed on political views, believed in separation of church and state. And he had a fascinating relationship with baptists. John we land who was one of the major baptist figures in the period, who was both kind of southern and new england, he moved around and preached, loved Thomas Jefferson. He actually talked about Thomas Jefferson. He was a very fervent bible believing baptist. But he believed jefferson. He thought jefferson was the gift of god. And he knew about jefferson to extent about jeffersons theology, and that he disagreed with, but he thought that jefferson was such a gift to the nation because of jeffersons politician, and he spoke about him like he was a biblical figure or something. So, yeah, so he had religious meaning and value for even for baptists who disagreed with him. And he valued the baptists take on politics because they agreed so well with what he thought of as, like you were saying, describing as his view of religion, basically about morality, and freedom for individuals. If you look at his account books, he was very generous in giving money to ministers. He maintained friendships with many ministers, including ministers that he would not have agreed with on theological matters. And i think this was of some importance to him. When you look at jeffersons views, especially some of the anticlerical statements that he makes, and he makes some harsh ones, i think its useful to look at the context in which he makes them. For example, some of the harsh anticlerical statements he makes is right in the midst of the war where he sees so many especially anglican ministers are leaving, siding with the loyalists. But at the same time hes expressing great friendship and admiration with other anglican ministers that sided with patriot cause. The same thing in 1800, he is harshly attacked by the congregational ministers in new england. So, again, i think hes deeply and personally wounded by some of the things they say about him. And so, again, i think you have to look at the context in will he makes some of the harsh statements against clergyman around the election of 1800. And if we jump ahead another decade and an ahead half, he runs into conflicts with presbyterians who is going to be the new one at the university. And there were some he didnt want to hire, and lashes out in harsh anticlerical statements. So i think its aus useflways uo look at the political statements in which he makes these statements to understands where hes coming from with that particular kind of expression from jefferson. Thank you. This next question is for dr. Kidd kidd. Did franklin make him a better Bridge Builder between religious groups . And did a similar thing work for lincoln . Yeah, i think it did. He was on friendly terms with lots of different churches and ministers. When he was in philadelphia, he most commonly would attend the citys Anglican Church or church of england. His wife i think was more devout and she was an anglican, so he would go with her to church. And he gave money for the Anglican Church to be expanded. Some people said he would have an entire steeple for electrical experiment. But i think he also thought the church was a good thing. But he even gave money to help build a synagogue in philadelphia. So it wasnt just charity and b benevolence to different christian associations but to jews too. I think thats franklin dogmatic approach, he definitely thought in a way that jefferson didnt, he thought institution as religion was a good thing. And so he was keen to help a lot of different kinds of churches. And if you were here from my talk this rng mo, you remember john adams saying every Christian Group thought he was probably part of them. And the reason for that is because he was so friendly to a lot of groups in a very harsh time of inter denominational conflict, especially between catholics and protestants. But when franklin had the opportunity to visit the continent of europe, he was very complimentary towards catholics and catholic churches, never quite got over some of his, you know, deep bread anticatholic se sentiments that he grew up so would make nasty statements about catholic, but he was a Bridge Builder between a lot of different denominations and religions, and that reflected the fact that he had a basically positive a view of religion and Church Building just as long as you didnt use it to beat people over the head with doctrine. And did the similar thing work for lincoln . Right. I dont know that much about lincoln, maybe professor byrd can Say Something about this. I think lincoln especially as a leader washington was like this too of making sure to reach out to different leaders of different denominations to say, you know, we need your support and you are valued here. This sort of thing. So i think in washington, lincolns case, that you see that independekind of principle outreach to different dou denominations. Yeah, i think thats true, with lincoln there is so much consistency with that, so thats why its helpful. Only thing about lincoln he had stronger sense of providence than anyone. Clearly believed in providence. However, he had a very pessimistic type of providence. Part of this was his time. Part of it was probably the war. But will he and you can see this in his famous speeches, where he talks about we need to be on gods side. He talks about maybe god is not in favor of what we are doing. Maybe we are going down the wrong roads in various ways. So he had a strong sense of gods judgment on the nation. And that i think may have been somewhat unique and probably, aga again, its easy to think of these figures as kind of isolated intellects who are reflecting out of kind of out of body. But they were living people in situations. As professor dreisbach talks about with specific discussions with jefferson, you have to think about the context. Lincoln is the same. Entire presidency and only president you can say this, i think, entire presidency was bounded by war from the time he took office, it was conflict. And thats what he dealt with. Yeah, i notice when i read david mccul la biography of john adams, he was attending different churches and denominations. And i find that unusual how we attend church tonight. Seems like we go to our denomination. Do you feel that visiting various churches, we mentioned that was bridge building with our earlier founders, is that something that could help us with that today . Well, i think that that, you are right, in the 1700s, there is such intense conflict between, especially catholic and protestant, but also between baptists and congressionalists, and arguing about had the difference between press buy tearian and congressionalist, church policy, thats like issue you shed blood over, right. And it speaks to a time when people were, number one, a lot more theologically conversant than we are today, but they also took these things, you know, so seriously. And i think in retrospect, especially in our day and time when you cant take christian commitment for granted in the culture. So it doesnt seem like you want to be fighting about those type of issues anymore. But i think one of the real break throughs came with the new evangelical movement of the 1730s and 1740s. If youve been to the museums, bible in america exhibit, youve seen about George Whitfield, and the great awakening theater they have here. And one of the things that was so dissting tive about whitfield which was the great eggs evangelist in that era, even though he was minister of and la can, especially in america he cooperated very avidly with nonanglicans, anybody who was supportive of his message of, you know, the new birth of salvation, being born again, that this is the experience all people need to have, he was quite willing to preach in their churches and to preach alongside them. And he was upgraded by anglican authorities about saying why are you cooperating so much with the dissenters, baptists and press b by tearians and quakers. Because he said i see born again people among all the congregations. So thats a unity thats borne to me out of a specific kind of religious principle, which is the belief in the need for conversion and being born again. So there is a way in which i think these two, you know, trends towards religious unity are happening at the same time. One is evangelical unity around the new birth of salvation. One is the enlightenment about that and we need to stop having wars and murdering people and differences in theology. These are both surging at the same time. So you end up getting people like jefferson and john leland that you mentioned before that have very different personal views about theology who have identical views about the role of religion in American Public life, which is that we need to have full religious liberty, that the government shouldnt persecute people because of their religious beliefs, that you should let people meet in their own churches and freedom, that you shouldnt force them to pay religious taxes to support a church they dont attend, which is what most people in the colonial era had to do. So i mean, yeah, i think there is this is why that traditional religious liberties is so important. It doesnt mean i mean, we all only have so much time, we dont have time to be attending everyones church, i understand that. But we should at least follow their example and say religious liberty is for everybody. I think there is a couple interesting things going on when you look at some of the communication that the founders and in particular early president s had with religious society. Washington especially around the time of his inauguration communicated with two or three dozen religious societies across the spectrum. These were main religious groups, but also religious groups from sort of the minority communities. And i think there are several things going on here. One is he wants to reassure them that they are part of this american experiment. He wants to bring them into the fold and ensure that they are full participants in the american experience. I think he also is uses this opportunity to communicate to the American Public at large. Lets remember, this is a time when there are limited ways in which a political figure can speak to the American Public at large, in writing letters to religious societies and groups was one of those ways to communicate to a broad audience. And all of our early president s used letter writing to religious societies as a way to communicate some pretty important ideas. Washington is talking very succinctly about conceptions of religious liberty. Lets not forget that Thomas Jefferson used alert letter to baptist between wall of separation between church and state. A few years later closing days, he writes to met does society in which he says the dearest part of our constitution is that part that protects liberty of conscious. So they are using these communications to really express, i think, some heart felt issues, some important issues, but i also think its important to focus on these communications. Because these societies are communicating with them too. And they are communicating what their concerns and fears are. Their concerns about whether in fact their liberty in matters of religion is going to be respected. And so it helps them understand the fears and concerns of religious minorities and begin to labor for an american understanding of religious liberty that would include them. Thank you. Dr. Byrd, this next question is for you. And its a long one. Take notes. Yeah. You referenced david as a model for war. A man after gods own heart. And yet a man of war. But god said to david that because he was a man of war and shed much blood on the earth david would not be the one to build god a house but rather his son solomon a man of peace. So god shows his displeasure. So please reconcile these two if you can. Okay. I t