Respect authority because god put them in authority for a reason. So what you call patriotism is really just ambition. Its selfishness in disguise. And all patriotic revolts do is create more violence. Now what about the patriotic argument . What are the patriots going to do with texts like fear god and honor the king . What are the patriots going to do with texts that say that the Civil Authority are the revengers of god on wrongdoers, obey them just as if youre obeying god . What can you do with that . Is there anywhere you can go with that . Well, of course. Lets see. Jonathan mayhew, long before the revolution, concerning unlimited submission. That title is really helpful. And people like john adams cousins use this text and many, many others. And lets thing about their argument. They say, look again at the historical context. Peter and paul, what they were really doing was making general statements about respecting authority. Submission didnt mean unlimited submission to any king or any authority. The problem with saying that they were endorsing unlimited submission to any king, there are too many biblical texts that show people of god disobeying kings, revolting against kings. I mean, anybody remember exodus and pharaoh . Anybody remember darius and daniel . There were bad kings. And the people of god did not have to just take it from any bad king. So it couldnt have been about unlimited submission to any king. Lets look at pauls situation. Paul specifically, writing to the romans, he was dealing with christians who were just taking a little too literally the idea that christs kingdom is not of this world. Sometimes christians take that a little too literally. Not of this world doesnt mean this world is gone. It means you still have to live in the world, but live in a different way. So paul is saying, the key to understand this is one specific verse. One specific section of a verse that people tend to overlook. And that is, paul said that the ruler was the minister of god to thee for good. So if the ruler is not acting in the peoples best interests, if the ruler is not gods minister for the peoples good, then christians should resist. Christians should rebel against that minister. Or against that king. Part of this, the patriots said, we have to have commonsense when it comes to approaching scriptures. These commands fear and honor the king, these commands for honoring the king as gods minister, theyre basic commands that deal with authority. The bible tells children to obey parents but does that mean that the bible wants children to obey a parent who throws a mad fit and tries to cut all his childrens throats . That was from mayhew. Speeches and sermons can be really sometimes more interesting back then with the graphic details. So the idea then is, respect the king. But based on how the king performs the kings duties. And not specifically for just because the king is the king. So evaluate leadership. So what the patriots are arguing against the loyalists is, really youre just proof texting without understanding the true context. You have to read the true context to understand it. But what it really becomes is an argument over what that context is. The loyalists have a view, the patriots have a view of what that context is overall. So some conclusions on this. The revolution, its arguable, was the most important event in American History. Revolution, it creates the nation, sets the nation in motion. And the revolution becomes like a we still think the revolution becomes an enduring symbol for what the nation is all about, fighting for liberty. There are many different ways in which fighting for liberty takes itself manifests itself. Even in the civil war, the revolutionary period is almost like a biblical text of its own. Because both the confederates and the unionists are arguing that they are the ones who are best following in the footsteps of the revolutionary patriots. So we could seriously make this case that the American Revolution was the most pivotal event in American History. And the bible was arguably the most influential book in the revolutionary period. Its the book that the most people knew about. The book that the most people read. The book that the most people honored as authority. Theres some differences in the way that people read the bible then and the way people read the bible now. When people read the bible then, this was before a lot of higher criticism and arguments over different ways of reading the bible, from historical perspectives and other perspectives. More or less when people read the bible, they read the bible. As it was. And pretty much took it as it was. Thats not to say there werent skeptics on the bible. Certainly some of the founders and others in the enlightenment era were skeptical about different views of the bible. There was some biblical skepticism. From my study, i believe that biblical skepticism did in no way interfere with biblical patriotism. Some of the same people who were rather skeptical about scripture as authoritative, as all word of god, as completely true, also used scripture and understood scripture to make claims about patriotism, loyalty, sacrifice, morality. So regardless of any kind of skeptical views of scripture as revolution, scrip tough was still politically significant. So through the revolution, then, columns became patriotically american. So did the bible. One of the things that i find reading through especially into the 19th century, it really would have helped if i had written a civil war book first, then i would have understood the revolution a little better. But then i had to write the revolution book to understand the civil war better. Its a vicious cycle. We probably should have to go back and rewrite our books. But one of the things i see over and over through the civil war, from both sides, in honoring the patriots and honoring the revolution, honoring scripture goes hand in hand. And as part of that, theres this sense that the bible itself is the nations book. That the bible that the nation itself has a biblical kind of aura around it. That its a biblical nation, although they disagree radically over what that means. But it did when i say that the bible became patriotically american, in many cases people see it as a patriotic book. That the bible preaches patriotism. If the bible did preach patriotism or teach patriotism, its a militant patriotism. One of the things that we cannot ignore Going Forward is the militancy of scripture. Thats something we really have to come to terms with. One of my favorite sections of professor George Marsdens book on Jonathan Edwards, he makes the comment Jonathan Edwards is one of my other kinds of interesting favorite people to read. Though i dont agree with everything he said and all the images he preached. But Jonathan Edwards lived in a world, and the world that he lived in was very much like the world we see in lord of the rings and star wars. Just this idea that were in this kind of enchanted world, and its good versus evil. That what we see on a daily life, in our daily life, is not just what we see. Theres more to it than that. Theres good versus evil everywhere, and were always in the midst of it. And its a very meaningful struggle. I think we have to remember that. I think that has to be part of that, part of any understanding of this time and understanding of scripture. Because scriptures read in that kind of context. Thats where we get to military and spiritual warfare and the violent imagery there. And im not saying its good or bad, im just saying we have to think about it. Its certainly part of the tradition. I mean, look through your hymns and in churches if you have a hymn book thats there in the pew. Notice all the imagery thats kind of militaristic imagery. Its part of scripture. Its there. That leads us into conversations about religious violence. And to the extent that thats still a conversation that we have to be a part of. We have to come to terms with how we view the militaristic images in scripture. In which contexts should they be interpreted . Theres also this just war and sacred war kind of question. Inevitably, people ask and the email correspondence that ive received on this book where people will ask, was the revolutionary war a just war, or was the revolutionary war a holy war . Were they fighting a holy war . Or were they fighting a just war . And my answer is always, yes. And by that i mean, they lived in a world in which just war theory was prominent. Specifically, they believed that they were not to be fighting wars of vengeance, wars in which god had sent them to war and they were just to annihilate everyone, in the hebrew bible, the Old Testament pajs. They believed in just war theory, and there were certain rules about going to war. So they argued specifically, many times revolutionaries would say, were arguing a just war, theyd talk in just war, just war terminology. At the same time, they couldnt help also talking about a just war could also an godly war because god was a god of justice. So theres not really a stark division. And i like another quote from George Marsden, George Marsden in one of his writings is talking about just war theory. He said the problem with just war theory is theory. Its too theoretical, it doesnt always deal with how people behave. I find that the case also in reading these texts on the bible and the American Revolution. Thank you. I really appreciate this. Its been a great opportunity. Thank you. Join us saturday at 9 30 a. M. Eastern on American History tv on cspan3. At the American Civil War museum in richmond, virginia, for live coverage of the civil wars impact on americans. Speakers include peter carmichael, director Gettysburg College civil war institute. James robertson, author of the untold civil war. Jane schultz, author of women at the front. Amy morrell taylor, author of the divided family in civil war america. At 8 00 p. M. On lectures in history, from the Georgetown University law center, guest speaker thomas west talks about the his book the political theory of the american founding. In a republican form of government, namely based on consent, elections, virtue is needed in more than in any other form of government. Because in a republic, the people themselves pick the rulers. Sunday at 4 00 p. M. On reel america, the 1956 film a city decides about the Historic Supreme Court decision brown v. Board of education. Intergroup youth had delegates from all the high schools in st. Louis. Well, all i know is at our school, theres some kids who just dont like colored people. Some of the kids at our school dont like white people either. I think its the individual that counts. How are you going to get to know a person unless you meet them . When the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was illegal, these children were ready. At 6 00 p. M. On american artifacts, we look at a selection of Clifford Berrymans popular political cartoons from the early 20th century. And Clifford Berryman continued to draw for the washington evening star for the next 42 years. His cartoons appeared almost daily. Usually on the front page of the paper. Very prominently placed. You have quite an illustrious career. Watch American History tv every weekend on cspan3. Monday on cspans landmark cases, well look at the Supreme Court case mccullough v. Maryland that solidified the federal governments ability to take actions not explicitly mentioned in the constitution and restricted state action against the legitimate use of this power. Explore this case and the high courts ruling with university of virginia associate law professor Farah Peterson and mark killenbeck, university of arkansas law professor and author of mccullough v. Maryland securing a nation. Watch landmark cases live monday at 9 00 eastern on cspan, cspan. Org, or listen with the free cspan radio app. For background order a copy of the landmark cases companion book, available for 8. 95 plus shipping and handling at cspan. Org landmarkcases. And for an additional resource, theres a link on our website to the National Constitution centers interactive constitution. Next, a panel of historians takes questions about the bibles influence on the american founders. They also talked about religious liberty, democracy, and a republican form of government. This panel was hosted by the museum of the bible in washington, d. C. Thank you, danielle. Good afternoon, everyone. I hope you enjoyed your time at lunch and in the museum. If you will please take a moment to silence your cell phone or any other device that you might have with you. Please join me in giving our speak areas round of applause, theyve 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. Im going to thank you to those that have submitted questions. Im going to randomly go through these. For our speakers. Well start with are dr. Kidd. Franklin quoted god helps those who help themselves, and can you put that into context in your remarks of franklins belief . Well, that is an example of franklin, that Poor Richards almanac was full of aphorisms that sounded like proverbs and sometimes they were proverbs. And i think that that type of philosophy, of god helps those who help themselves, is an excellent example of this type of emphasis on virtue and morality and industry and true gality that were the hallmarks of franklins philosophy about religion and morality. And so but theres a way in which i mean, it that statement in particular i think sort of decenters god in a way that his calvinist forbears would not have wanted to do. The point for his parents would be you dont need god just to help you, you need god to change your life. And what needs to happen is that if converted by an experience of gods grace transforming power and then were enabled to live a godly, moral life where i think that that type of philosophy of god helps those who help themselves is more of a god as a kind of supplement. That if you follow gods principles and you work hard and youre honest, that things will go well for you. Which is a kind of classic american creed. It may be that it sits somewhat uncomfortably with the council of scripture. Would you say that is a deist statement . Yeah, i would say that it has a kind of deist flavor to it in the sense of god, you know maybe being active, but also somewhat, you know you need to take responsibility for yourself, that gods work, gods power, is not the first thing that you need. The first thing that you need in that kind of formula is your own initiative. And so, again, god is being decentered a little bit. It seems to me just knowing what i know about franklin, that its a sense of god being a little bit secondary or distant. Great. Thank you. Another question from the audience for dr. Dreisbeck, 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 that these are inconsistent in some ways in which they manifest themselves. If you take the words and look at it in its purest definition there might be some restrictions. But let me just remind you of the core of what republicanism would have meant to i think most 18th century americans, which is government by the consent of the government as represented through representatives. In that second aspect could perhaps come into some tension with democracy in the purest form, but i think as these words might have been used at this time in history, they would not have seemed such a sharp clash between the two, they certainly did not view that some expressions and manifest case m of the peoples voice in republicanism as they understood it. If i could jump in there, too. You know, when i explain this to my students, i mean, the founders view of pure democracy, which they would have thought was a really bad idea, as if, you know, 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, you know, do they have the expertise to make these sorts of decisions . Probably not. If its an issue about some complex Foreign Policy issue or financial issue, banking issue, Something Like that. And so the ideal is that you elect people who do have sufficient expertise in these kind of areas, who the 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, weve definitely become more democratic since 1776, 1787. Because, number one, we have a lot more kinds of people voting. And so women, lets just 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 illconsidered and chaotic. Republicanism is another way of putting a check on the exercise of power. That comes back to the 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 or government. Thank you. Dr. Berg this one is for you. Could you please expound more on Thomas Jeffersons religious views . Thomas jeffersons religious views . Yes. Okay. I didnt mention Thomas Jefferson. That might be well jump in. You may be able to jump in. Yeah, i mean my basic understanding of Thomas Jefferson is that he was a little more purely deistic in what he had to say. He famously trimmed the bible of certain texts that were miraculous because he mainly wanted to concentrate on the life and morals of jesus and se