Michael Buckner and Jay Lucas Debate on America's Founding Documents--Part Six (Jay Lucas's Rebuttal)
26 July 2024
I’ve suspended Friday Freethought Perennials for a while in favor of alternating essays from two men I deeply respect. One of these, Michael E. Buckner, is my son and has been one of the two or three most important people in the world to me for over 50 years—and he’ll be presenting the side I firmly agree with. The other, Jay Lucas, is pastor of Grace Community Church in Washington Courthouse, Ohio. I not only respect Jay—I like him. Despite my strong bias in favor of Michael, I pledge even-handedness in this cordial exchange. The two will take turns presenting essays based on their opening statements in a debate back on 16 March on “America's Foundational Documents: Christian or Secular?” (see my Letter on 12 March for more detail), then at least one rebuttal each. The order will be:
MEB (Declaration)—Friday, 21 June
JL (Declaration)—Friday, 28 June
JL (Constitution)—last Friday, 5 July
MEB (Constitution)—12 July
MEB (Rebuttal)—19 July (last Friday)
JL (Rebuttal)—26 July (today)
With more to follow (?) if both men agree more is warranted—conclusions, perhaps, or second rebuttals, or concurrences for either or both that minds have been changed.
Both understand that they can include links, footnotes, referrals to the writing of others, etc. —and that they need not adhere too closely to their actual debate remarks.
Both have agreed to this process.
Today, Jay Lucas in Rebuttal—
The title of the debate Michael and I had on March 16 was America’s Founding Documents: Christian or Secular? The limitations of the title are obvious in that the topic cannot be reduced to the simple terms “Christian or Secular?”, for these terms are anything but simple. In his article “Christianity, the Founders’ Intent, and Post-Secular Society: Analyzing the Contrasting use of Religious Rhetoric Between Common Sense and the Federalist Papers,” Walter Edward Hart of Texas A&M University writes,
The fusion of political and religious language has created a confused legacy of religion in America as Americans continue to appeal to the founding fathers to argue that the United States is either a Christian or secular nation. In order to deconstruct both versions of this narrative, we must liberate the founding texts by situating them within their socio-historical context, objectives, and intended audience.
https://www.cooperative-individualism.org/hart-walter_christianity-founders-intent-vs-paine.pdf
In this essay, as in the debate, I am not arguing that America was founded as a Christian nation. However, I do think the evidence demonstrates that the socio-historical context (to use Hart’s words) was deeply influenced by Christian thought, and that influence is present in both founding documents. In support of this proposition I will respond to two issues Michael raised in his essay: 1) the alleged abuse of Romans 13, and 2) the significance of “to secure the blessings of liberty” in the preamble of the Constitution. Michael raised other issues but length constraints limits my response to these two.
In the debate I addressed Romans 13 because Michael addressed it in the book he co-authored with his father (and my friend) Dr. Ed Buckner, In Freedom We Trust: An Atheist Guide to Religious Liberty. In his book Michael wrote in reference to Romans 13,
The theory of government presented in the Declaration of Independence, then, represents a radical break with Judeo-Christian traditions that went back thousands of years.
Jonathan Mayhew (1720-1766)
In the debate I referred to the influential 1750 sermon of the prominent Boston pastor, Reverend Jonathan Mayhew, which was a verse by verse study of Romans 13 in response to the Church of England’s near veneration of the beheaded King Charles I. The title of Mayhew’s sermon was A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers. Mayhew persuasively demonstrated that Romans 13 does not grant human government unlimited and uncontestable power or an absolute authority to rule unchecked.
In his recent essay Michael makes no mention of Mayhew’s well-known sermon, but he does say this
. . . that first part of the thirteenth chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans did and does present a problem for Christians who supported or support the Revolution… That Americans during and before the Revolution managed to convince themselves that the Bible doesn’t say what it actually says is hardly unique, or even particularly unusual.
If we are going to make progress in this important debate we need to look more carefully at Romans 13 and analyze the exegesis done by Mayhew and other Christian teachers who held (and hold) that Romans 13 does not condone or promote government absolutism. Indeed, a verse by verse exegesis of Romans 13 teaches the opposite, and that is precisely why many American Christians in 1776, led by the clergy, believed the Declaration of Independence was consistent with their Christian beliefs. To dismissively say of them that they “managed to convince themselves that the Bible doesn’t say what it actually says” without offering even minimal exegesis really doesn’t get us anywhere.
Consider for example Romans 13:3-4A, For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who in authority? Then do what is good and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. It isn’t unwarranted to suggest that a government that does not follow these standards is not functioning legitimately. This loss of legitimacy at least raises the question of possible remedies. Consequently the Declaration of Independence declares this remedy:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government . . . .
It is fascinating how this portion of the Declaration’s complaint about King George III closely mirrors Mayhew’s complaint in his sermon against King Charles I, “He not only by a long series of actions, but also in plain terms, asserted an uncontrollable power . . . .” The Declaration says “For imposing taxes without our consent.” Mayhew preached, “He levied many taxes upon the people without consent of parliament.” The Declaration says, “For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” Mayhew had preached, “He refused to call any parliament at all for the space of twelve years together, during all which time he governed in an absolute lawless and despotic manner.” The Declaration says, “He is at this time transporting large armies of Mercenaries to compleat the works of death.” Mayhew had preached, “He sent a large sum of money, which he had raised by his arbitrary taxes, into Germany, to raise foreign armies, in order to force many arbitrary taxes.”
Rev. Mayhew’s sermon, which pre-dated the Declaration of Independence by twenty-six years, was widely read (in a letter to Jefferson, John Adams said Mayhew’s sermon “had great influence on the commencement of the Revolution” and that it was “read by everyone”), but it was not unique in Christian writings and sermons. Mayhew openly acknowledged his indebtedness to the writings of Bishop Benjamin Hoadly (1676-1761) who in 1705 preached a sermon on Romans 13 justifying political resistance. Hoadly used his sermon to justify resistance to King James II which had led to the Glorious Revolution of 1688.* Other Christian writers of that era said similar things. They in turn had followed the writings of John Calvin (1509-1564) and John Knox (died 1572). All of them made use of the Apostles’ defiant words to the Jewish governing body (the Sanhedrin) in Acts 5:29 “We must obey God rather than man.”
The Apostles themselves were dependent on the Old Testament example found in Daniel 3 when three men (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) resisted a decree by King Nebuchadnezzar with these words, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer to you in this matter . . . let it be known to you, O King, that we do not serve your gods nor will we worship the gold image you have set up.”
When Michael writes, “Paul’s letter to the Romans did and does present a problem for Christians who supported the Revolution . . . . That Americans during and before the Revolution managed to convince themselves that the Bible doesn’t say what it actually says is hardly unique, or even particularly unusual” he overlooks the core interpretive issue in Romans 13. Christians of the Revolutionary era universally agreed that they should submit to governing authorities. They did not hypocritically or ignorantly “convince themselves that the Bible doesn’t say what it actually says.” The question they wrestled with was whether or not the authority of government is absolute. Is the King above human law and accountable only to God? If the authority to rule is not absolute, where is the line drawn and what should be done when the line is crossed?
Are there Christian historians and theologians who disagree with Mayhew’s treatment of Roman 13 and with other like-minded clergy who supported the Declaration of Independence? Yes. And if Michael would like to cite them and specify the reasons for preferring their exegesis over that of Mayhew and his peers I would thoroughly enjoy interacting with him. But an even more basic consideration is this: Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Mayhew and the countless hundreds of Christian clergy who supported the Declaration were mistaken in their interpretation of Romans 13, the fact remains that they thought they were operating within the Christian worldview. They did not see resistance to King George III and Parliament and the theory of government presented in the Declaration as representing (in Michael’s words) “a radical break with Judeo-Christian traditions that went back thousands of years.”
Thomas Jefferson (a non-Christian) provided the Declaration with its beautiful style and compelling structure, but by his own admission the ideas expressed in the Declaration had been circulating throughout the Colonies for years. And if we say that the frequent references to Christianity made by the founders was merely rhetoric used to persuade Christians to support the Declaration then we have circled back to Walter Edward Hart’s words cited at the beginning of this essay, “we must liberate the founding texts by situating them within their socio-historical context, objectives, and intended audience.”
The following quote is from a speech delivered by John Quincy Adams on July 4th, 1837 while he was serving in the United States Congress, after having served as the sixth president of the United States. It might serve as a clear example of religious rhetoric, for Adams used the speech to explain and justify his political and religious philosophy.
Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon the earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity, and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies, announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest Hebrew prophets six hundred years before?
Like with Mayhew’s sermon, the contemporary reader might find much in Adams’ words with which to disagree. It might be dismissed as rhetoric. Nevertheless, it reflects the belief that the Declaration of Independence is consistent with a Christian view of government and that such a belief was at home in that socio-historical context.
Well . . . all that and I haven’t even touched the Preamble of the Constitution. I hope Michael and I can continue our interaction and if so, I will try to respond to that portion of Michael’s essay of July 19.
Note: Anyone may copy and publish what I or my guests write, provided proper credit is given, that it’s not done for commercial purposes, that I am notified of the copying (just mentioning in a comment is all you need to do), and provided that what we write is not quoted out of context or distorted. Share away if you agree to this note.