In chapter five of Jon Butler’s book Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People, a particularly unsettling quote appears, “If any of my slaves go to heaven… must I see them there?” This quote presents the moral dilemma of the practicing Christian during the era of American slavery. First off, we must note that the speaker is automatically assuming that he/she is going to heaven, making it not a question of if, but when. The rhetoric being used that way implies that the speaker feels some sort of worldly remorse, but doesn’t see the evils of slavery as enough to keep him/her out of heaven. However, the content of what the speaker actually says leads us to believe that the speaker does feel some sort of guilt in that, if they were to see these slaves they have owned within another context outside of Earth (i.e. Heaven) that they might not know how to respond if they went from being in a position of power over the slaves to becoming an equal to the slaves in the eyes of God. However, when this quote was brought up in class, I felt it was represented more along the lines of a slave owner being concerned with whether or not his/her slaves would be in heaven to continually serve the speaker in the afterlife, which I feel is contrary to the main idea which the author is trying to convey by inserting that particular quote.
1 Comment
Frank Lambert and Jon Butler each wrote a book about religion in colonial America. They both follow basically the same trajectory by first giving the reader a background of religion in Europe and especially in England. They then shift to the colonies and discuss religion there with emphasis placed on the colonies of Virginia and New England. Where the books diverge is in their messages which were shaped by and a response to the time frame in which they were written.
Jon Butler wrote Awash In A Sea of Faith during the late 1980’s. During this time, the country was seeing a rise in Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christianity and a belief in the strong effect the Puritans had on shaping early America and the founding fathers. So in response Butler wrote his book as a way to debunk the Puritan myth. Butler says, “It [the book] proposes that we attach less importance to Puritanism as the major force in shaping religion in America and more importance to the religious eclecticism that has long been prominent” (Butler, 2). In his attempt to prove his thesis, Butler in chapter 2 shows that the Puritans in Massachusetts were not all that different than the other colonies. He argues that they were not immune to the problem of lessening spirituality that was becoming prevalent in Virginia, New York and the other colonies. He says in New England they “fretted about real religious decline in societies that had once measured astonishing levels of Christian adherence” (Butler, 38). Butler in chapter 3 talks about the prevalence in early America of magic and the occult. In a way to further illustrate his point he notes that not only were the Puritans not immune from the practice of the occult but that it took shape immediately in their colony while it took twenty years to become a factor in Virginia. A week argument but one he makes anyway. I wondered on first reading why he talks about the occult as much as he does in the early part of the book. Then when I reread the introduction to write this reflection, I noticed that he makes a comment about Ronald Reagan having his daily schedule guided by horoscopes (astrology). He also writes about miraculous healings and some other “cultish” practices that were being practiced in the 1980’s. So I assume he was making a connection. Frank Lambert took a different approach in The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion In America. Lambert wrote his book in the early 2000’s during the ascension of George W. Bush to the presidency and the rise of the Christian right. This time frame continuing through to today saw the Christian right, or conservatives, attempt to tear down the separation of church and state, with their argument being that the Founding Fathers believed that the country should be a Christian nation. They draw from this time frame and say that the Puritans and the founding fathers operated from the same place. he other side of the debate says Lambert also uses this time frame to support their argument by saying just the opposite that Puritans, Virginians and the founding fathers all believed in religious freedom and separation of church and state. Lambert sets out to basically prove that both sides are in essence wrong. He uses a phrase called “usable past” which is a term I’ve been studying a lot of lately. Basically both sides are creating their own version of history out of the same material and applying it to their own ends. Lambert wants to put into context what was going on in the colonies and how that affected the founding fathers and how that shaped their thinking on church-state relations. By showing what was going on in the colonies, Puritans in New England, Anglicans in Virginia and Quakers in Pennsylvania, Lambert argues that this led the founding fathers to make “clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion” (Lambert, 11). Of the two books Lambert does a better job of articulating his position. His book is clear cut and honed to get his message across. It is more concise. Butler on the other hand seems to get lost in details and too caught up in showing how much research he did to write the book. Long passages and detailed lists of books read by certain people in the colonies detract, to me anyway, from his message. It is almost like a reader can’t see the forest for the trees. I understand that he is building a narrative and I look forward to the rest of the book especially the next chapter where he discusses slavery and religion amongst slaves in this time frame. Kelly Beck John Winthrop was one of the founding fathers of Puritan New England; in 1629 he was granted a royal charter from Charles I to settle the “New World” (Lambert 43). However, Frank Lambert and Jon Butler go about portraying John Winthrop’s Puritan New England in different manners.
Lambert mentions that it was Charles I who “harried some Puritans out of the land,” and Winthrop is quoted as saying “this land growes wearye of her Inhabitants” (Lambert 43). Lambert makes the point that John Winthrop didn’t necessarily want to leave the country, but thought that a move would help the Puritans form a state in New England based solely on God’s word. Lambert makes the point that religion was the mainstay of society in Puritan New England, while the state played an important role in the church, insisting on “religious uniformity within Massachusetts Bay” (Lambert 44). Lambert talks about how Puritan New England government, led by Governor John Winthrop for 12 consecutive years, recognized they needed political power to bring their holy mission of “order[ing] their lives in a way that fostered the practice of piety in all that they did” (Lambert 75). He also mentions that the Puritans as a whole were determined to establish a community “based solely on biblical principles,” achieved by building institutions that helped reach this goal (Lambert 77). He says that the family was the center of religious life, practicing piety through daily devotions and attending church regularly. He makes no mention of Puritans struggling with religious adherence or church numbers until 1662 when ministers met and created the Half-Way Covenant (Lambert 81). In Jon Butler’s book, we first see Winthrop as founding the New England colony in the name of God and that they would know when they succeeded when God commended them as described by Winthrop with such “praise and glory, that men shall say of succeeding plantations: ‘The Lord make it like that of New England’” (Butler 7). But Butler goes on to say that things were much different in early America than what was implied by John Winthrop, that the Christian faith was “lethargic” and laypeople “held views on the natural and supernatural that ranged from church-approved orthodoxies to officially denounced varieties of magic and the occult” (Butler 7). Butler does however say that churches in New England could be found “in every town” and that they “attended the churches they joined” (Butler 57). He too says that the “quest for individual piety also shaped New England society and politcs” (Butler 58). Butler places a large emphasis on numbers and how from the 30’s through the early 50’s Puritans were booming, but beginning in the late 50’s there was sharp decline in Puritans as the state became more and more secular. He says that by 1649 more than 50% of Boston men “already stood outside the church” (Butler 61). Why do these two men approach the settling of New England and how the numbers declined differently? We see in Lambert’s book that the Puritans were harried out of New England for disagreeing with the Anglican Church. He also talks a lot about how government and religion were strongly tied, and never really brings up the decline of Puritan numbers in Massachusetts until he briefly mentions the Half-Way Covenant, and after that he writes as if the Puritans were still strong in number and worked as if nothing had ever happen. Butler’s book however emphasizes that yes, the Puritans started out strong, but were beset from the beginning with problems in keeping the numbers high and trouble achieving the goal of founding the “true religion” in America. I believe this is due to Butler’s goal in writing a book that shows early religion in America as not just the stereotypical everyone-going-to-church-in-Puritan-New-England town; and instead emphasizes that there were other groups in early America too, and not one of them ever had it easy. They all struggled in dealing with religion in the New World. Lambert’s book is written seemingly about Puritan New England and the role they had in shaping the government in America. If he were to write about how the Puritans struggled to maintain religious piety among their members, and even struggling to maintain numbers, his book wouldn’t exactly be making a strong point for his case. I think this goes to show just how much people can take anything anybody says, or does, whether in history or in current events, and construe it to fit the mold of what they see fit. We see it in the social media today, and we can see it in these books. Both authors have access to the same historical documents, yet the aims of their respective books can take information they need to make a point that either author wants to convey. Sean Crews Frank Lambert’s The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America and Jon Butler’s Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People are two books written about early American religion that both reach very different conclusions. Lambert’s goal with his book is to show how the pervasive religiosity of the “Planting Fathers” turned into the “free marketplace of religion” of the “Founding Fathers,” (p. 8). In order to achieve this goal, Lambert greatly emphasizes the Puritan New Englanders; the Planting Fathers whose idea of religious freedom was “freedom from error,” which gives an interesting and dramatic foil for Lambert’s ultimate destination of the free marketplace (p. 44). In contrast, Butler argues that community “is defined too often by land deeds and town boundaries, too seldom by habits of mind and memorable tradition, even tradition that reaches back across the Atlantic,” (p. 5). Therefore, as if countering Lambert, Butler adopts a more broad perspective, exploring the “choices made among many available religious forms” and the “complex processes at work in places far beyond the narrow confines of Puritan New England,” (p. 6). These intentions of the authors paint their subjective interpretations of what is largely the same source material and often reach different conclusions. This essay will explore some of the parallels between the books and explore the contrasting use of evidence.
The discussion of early American religious dynamics begin with Virginia, probably because, chartered in 1606, it was the first colony (Lambert, 46). The characterizations of Virginia by both authors converge around the argument that in Virginia was run by a few of the elite tobacco planters in the interest of preserving their authority and profits. Thus, religion in Virginia was largely a reaction to the disorder caused by loose religious regulations. This opened the door for the Anglican church’s influence, which the elite regarded as “a tool for social control” (Lambert, p. 72). However, Butler diverges from Virginia as he plays up the analogous evolutions of religion in the other colonies: from the pervasive Quakers, who “found Maryland’s spiritual vacuum… nourishing,” to the New England Puritans, whose religiosity outstripped the remaining colonies and even England (Butler, p. 52). Lambert uses the example of Virginia to contrast with the Puritans in his later chapter, while Butler focuses on more global trends and the rise of occultism in light of religious struggles. Lambert’s focus on Puritanism relates to the battle of power structures between the people and institutions. Virginia had an overtly institutionalized take on religion, while the Puritans were congregational and functioned within smaller communities. This aligns with his goal of the transition to the Founders’ free market. However, Butler goes on to survey the responses of the respective colonies to the rise of occultism. In this way, Lambert characterizes the events in Early America, more or less, as a bipolar conflict with a linear progression, while Butler attempts to elucidate the complex dynamics of the colonies as a whole through the lens of different mediums (no pun intended). Butler makes the point that occultism’s “folklorization” happened because of governmental repression and the resulting social consequences, giving weight to the effect that policy can have on historical progression (p. 95). Lambert’s take is that the interplay between religious forces played the predominant role in the shaping of early America. Here, it becomes apparent that the stories told by each author are reflections of their own opposing viewpoints, and perhaps the political climate that shaped their own views. It is interesting how the two authors set up the first parts of their books in this way, giving a framework from which to view the later boom in America’s population. Lambert’s narrative captures the characters of the various religions at conflict, each shaping and responding to one another in a sort of dialogue. Butler’s narrative likewise includes the religious forces at work, however his characterization of Early America includes many who are not necessarily religious at all, but nonetheless end up shaping the face of religious practice and policy. It is important to realize the subjectivity of such undertakings as Lambert and Butler strive to portray how our country’s unique religious landscape formed, and at the same time, both manage to form a coherent and compelling narrative as they tell the story of our forefathers and foremothers. Luke Reese Frank Lambert’s The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America content’s timeline coincides with that of Jon Butler’s Awash in a Sea of Faith. Although written many years apart, the books both hit upon many of the same topics. However, Frank Lambert’s book explains how “the United States, founded as colonies with explicitly religious aspirations, come to be the first modern state whose commitment to the separation of church and state was reflected in its constitution,” while Awash in a Sea of Faith “recasts the landscape of American religious and cultural history.”
When discussing American History certain names prominently stand out more than others. The average American knows about the lives of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Other names although well known, bring about feelings of confusion and uncertainty. Bridget Bishop, Sarah Wildes, Elizabeth Howe, Susannah Martin, Sarah Good, and Rebecca Nurse: only some of the women who were killed during the Salem Witch Trials of Salem, Massachusetts. It can be expected that both authors would of course discuss the Salem Witch Trials and their relevance to religion in early America. What is truly interesting is the stance that each author takes. Lambert first discusses the Salem Witch Trials on page 97 of his book. The opening line for the topic is literally “Illustrating the decline of the ideal Christian community is the sorry story of the Salem witch trials in 1692.” His opinion is very clear that the Salem witch trials of 1692 were a weak point in history that aided in the destruction of the Christian community. He agrees with other historians “The central issue at Salem was not witchcraft, but violence, fanaticism, and fear…” Butler chooses to focus on magical practices and their place in religious America rather than the decline that witchcraft caused. He explains the importance of magical practices and that belief in them would eventually result based upon a person’s social class. He even goes as far as to discuss the reasoning behind the inflation of witchcraft in the colonies and eventually the decline. Butler’s true standpoint on magical practices is hard to define due to the large amount of just pure history recitation Lambert’s argument is clear from the beginning of the book. He argues that the Founding Fathers had a radically different conception of religious freedom, and the reader can pick this underlying topic out through the entire reading. However, Butler’s purpose is not so clear. It is easy to forget that he is arguing a particular point and the reader can begin to feel as if he or she is just reading random stories and facts from early American religion. The entire purpose of a historian is to argue his or her standpoint on a particular topic. It is quite apparent that Lambert succeeded in writing a novel as a historian, while Butler may have partially missed the mark. Anna Bardrick As varied as the ways religions around the world view and respect truth, so do historians strive to create cases for their views and opinions on history. Where a Hindu views life to be set on a karmic wheel, a Christian sees it as a linear, once-through, path. So just as religions seek to explain why their methodology, beliefs, and religio-social structure are best, so too do historians seek to build a case for their views of history. In reading Awash in a Sea of Faith by Jon Butler and The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America by Frank Lambert, we can see how two authors have a different, defensible view of the same issues in the same time period.
Paralleling each other closely in the structure of their books, they both begin their history of early America by giving an account of the English religious culture that the early American settlers inherit. It is important to keep in mind, first, what case each of the authors is trying to make, with their evidence. Lambert writes that his book is addressing the superiority of one faith as the foundation of a moral nation and the desire in a free society for unfettered religious liberty. Butler, however, claims that religion in early America was more of a tapestry, wound from different religious influences. It should be noted, and is obvious, that the evidence the two authors choose to site is in accord with their opinions. To compare the two authors, their analysis of the influence that European religious culture had on early Americas is a good topic. Reading Butler it immediately becomes evident, even apart from him explicitly stating it, that he is seeking to emphasize the diversity in religious culture in the early Americas. He writes about the discrepancy in religion in social classes. He, contrasting Lambert, cites many surveys taken in England regarding church attendance, and emphasizes the correlation between the upper class being the attending group. He uses this to show that while the upper class may be carrying one set of religious beliefs to the Americas, the lower, laypeople, may have an entirely different, eclectic set of beliefs. Butler also spends time in his first chapter discussing the America’s European religious heritage addressing the occult background of the laypeople. Lambert addresses it later in his work, but Butler makes a point of showing even more diversity than just what is found among the plurality of Christian denominations present during the time of America’s founding.. Examples of Lambert’s evidence that he uses to further his case of a strong singular religion can be found in the opening pages of his first chapter as well. He gives accounts that show the church as a much more unified, strong front that people could rally around. Lambert, after giving a history of the Anglican break from the Roman Catholic Church, proceeds to discuss the religious Reformation that took place even before settlers arrived in America. He uses this to point out that once they did arrive, the religious lines were drawn so deep that the Puritans, among others, viewed Catholics as “outside the Christian pale.” Lambert further emphasizes his argument that Puritan structure was a driving force in early America by showing the connection between the Puritan religion and government, and how this exclusion of Catholics influenced early societies. So while Butler focuses on diversity in religion that influenced the founding of America, Lambert argues that a more central faith, mainly Puritan structure, drove American development. While looking at historical events like the Reformation or early settler struggles, each author has a different filter that they view the information through and select their evidence for their respective arguments accordingly. Jared Hooley Frank Lambert and Jon Butler both make intriguing arguments concerning religion in colonial America in their novels. Lambert, in his “The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America,” leads the reader into the perspective that colonial America wasn’t purely a means of escape for the Puritans, but as a means of separating church and state and setting up what he calls a “free marketplace of religion.” Butler, on the other hand, in his “Awash in a Sea of Faith,” argues that the Puritans were not the sole religious faction in colonial America. Both authors weave their web of interpretation of colonial America and both have their distinct similarities and nexuses, as well as stark contrasts.
First of all, because each argument is unique, it is simple and obvious that both publications are not focusing on the same groups. Lambert can pinpoint his focus mainly on the Puritans and extend outward because he is arguing for separation of church and state in the first part of his novel. He strengthens his point of interpretation by using the Puritans as a prime example. The Puritans were Congregationalists, so they were bound to be cohesive groups of persons who were dissenting the English authority and searching for the right to practice a religion upon which they could remove any sort of secular supremacy. The main figure of Puritanism in New England in the late 1600’s was John Winthrop, who Lambert generously attributes to the whole idea of a “City on a Hill,” where Puritanism would be the “one” religious utopia for others to gape upon. This would become an isolated practice, which would lead to many other problems, including the Salem witch trials, but would begin with good intentions with a distinct separation of church and state. In contrast, Butler mentions few of the notions of the “City on a Hill,” that Lambert really grasps upon. But, as Butler is more focused on exposing the other factions of religious practice, this makes sense. Butler frames his work in such a way that a Christian crisis leads to diversity among religious practice in the new world. Given Butler’s details, we see the advent of a less than religious Virginia, a vicious, catholic Maryland, and a desolate scene of the Carolinas. Butler also makes his way to New England, but doesn’t center around Puritanism, which creates a refreshing contrast to a Puritan centered “The Founding Fathers.” In terms of nexus between the novels, there is one concept or idea that Butler does draw upon in his section involving the Puritans that relates to Lambert’s main idea. Butler introduces his audience to the notion of colonies that develop surrounding Massachusetts. Since the Puritans wouldn’t allow any other group or person enter their own “utopia,” it makes sense that other small Congregationalists would become somewhat envious or enamored and take the form of similar colonies outside of New England. Lambert can benefit from this idea because it allows for the spread of Puritan influence into other religious sects. It is reasonable to assume that these “satellite” colonies that evolve from the Puritan barricade would assimilate to the Puritan religion, but would also modify it in minute ways. In being like the Puritan colony, they could incorporate the benefits of separation of church and state, but could also become diversified, which strengthens both Butler and Lambert’s arguments. In terms of a nexus, this seems to be the most outstanding so far. Another contrast is the usage of certain figures that play significant roles in religion in colonial America. Butler uses Robert Keayne very shortly and only as a source to identify oppression to the church. On the other hand, Lambert uses Keayne a bit more emphatically to drive a point in the separation of church and state. However, this does make sense. Butler really has no use for Keayne, as he is just a figure of oppression, and not a passageway to a new religious movement. Lambert can use Keayne as an example of how church and state were sometimes not too separate. Keayne couldn’t help he lost product and had to raise his price. His conviction of sinning was a breach in an ecclesiastical/secular divider in which we was punished on the basis of sanctimonious injunction. This is clearly an instance of some of the struggles that were faced in developing a wall between church and state, but illustrates the point that isolation wasn’t advantageous. Finally, one of the greatest contrasts between the two authors is the time period in which they are writing. Butler is writing in the 1980’s, during an era of social and political reform in which the people and the president are following a more conservative political nature and engaging in ersatz occult like behaviors, such as that of horoscope predictions, etc. Because of these issues, it is clear that Butler is trying to analyze the past in a way that helps him understand the 80’s. Take for example, the chapter on magic and the occult. The entire chapter is a mechanism in which Butler argues that the country dwellers of England brought mysticism and the occult over to colonial America. He invocates that occult practice was somewhat common, and was popular. Eventually, the occult died down, but because of its popularity, it flourished for some time. This correlates to what was going on in the white house and why Nancy Regan was bringing in psychics and palm readers. It also strengthens the argument that there were more than just Puritans in colonial America. Overall, it is fascinating and somewhat unbelievable at times, but the literature is there. I don’t believe that everyone will be glaring into the eyes of a rattlesnake as a result though. Lambert is a bit more modern than Butler is, as he is writing in the early 2000’s. It seems as if the major influence here is the conservative compassion campaign that pushes the boundaries between church and state separative relations. Bush was getting himself into something that was controversial, but was quite significant. Lambert used this influence to take a non-partisan look into church and state relations in colonial America, which is refreshing to say the least. Without the political bias, it is intriguing to see how these religious movements function without direct interplay with secular authoritarian involvement. Lambert implies the push for a free religious marketplace and given his era of authorship, is a welcome approach to interpreting the past in a manner that helps to understand the early 2000’s. Chester Hendershot In support of his construction of “a more complex religious past” (Butler, p. 2) that grew and developed into modern American religious views, Jon Butler in his book Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People insists that Puritanism was not as important a factor as religious eclecticism, primarily because of the various complex religious choices available to colonists. Using this argument, Butler attributes several influencers of religion in early American history. On the other hand, Frank Lambert in his book The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America emphasizes the relationship between church and state in the colonies and the “changing meaning of freedom in the concept of freedom of religion” (Lambert, p. 3). According to Lambert, the founding fathers responded to the free marketplace of religions by endorsing it without a set state religion, while in pre-revolutionary America, religion influenced the legislature and tolerance within each colony. Lambert and Butler analyze historical data from colonial America and use it to support their respective arguments. The same data is indeed interpreted in different ways.
Lambert analyzes the origin and development of church and state and religious freedom in key colonies while emphasizing Christian sects, especially Puritanism. A major focus lies in Virginia. In 1609, the Anglican Church was used by Governor Thomas Gates as “an instrument of the state, a primary […] and effective means of restoring order in Virginia” (Lambert, p. 50). Religion was a form of martial law to gain “social and political control” (Lambert, p. 51). Religious pluralism was considered an instrument of chaos. According to Lambert, Virginian Anglicans viewed their colony as a state of religious freedom defined by the freedom to practice the one established faith publicly without public interference from detested Catholic, Quaker, and Puritan faiths. With Anglican establishment, the church was a tool of social control and legislative power wielded by the vestrymen. Therefore, church and state in Virginia were closely allied with vestrymen as the officers within both institutions (Lambert, p. 55). In contrast to Lambert, Butler emphasizes the periods of public Anglican practice and secularism among Virginian citizens. At first, Anglican Christianity was institutionalized in Virginia with Alexander Whitaker’s leadership and Lord De La Warre’s celebrity, and the legislation was designed to support the church. The secularism that ultimately arose in Virginia in the mid-1600s occurred when the strong Christian leadership declined. The vestries took control of the court and countered the clerics as to church salaries and land boundaries (Butler, p. 43). Church buildings and ministers became almost obsolete compared to the entire Virginian population. Butler also emphasizes the complexities of religion in Virginia in the localism across the colony with Puritan congregations in Nansemond and Lower Norfolk counties. With a strong Anglican Church power absent, localism of many religions dotted the landscape. In fact, religious tolerance could be evidenced in some areas. Trials for the occult were not taken very seriously even though the laws forbade witchcraft. John Craig, accused of witchcraft, did not have his charges heard by the magistrates (Butler, p. 86). Reverend Thomas Teackle’s diverse library of Calvinist, Puritan, Anglican, and magic books that “demonstrates the range of spiritual possibilities in seventeenth-century Virginia” evidenced the emergence of religious eclecticism in early Virginia (Butler, p. 77-80). In analyzing Butler and Lambert’s uses of the same data in colonial Virginia to support their own arguments, I argue that the role of religion in Virginia was strongly political. In Lambert’s argument, religion was a tool to keep social order in a potentially chaotic society. Vestrymen, as the top tier of the hierarchy, controlled the state and court. The relationship between church and state were closely allied because of the same representation of vestrymen in both institutions. In Butler’s argument, religion in Virginia was complex with periods of great Anglican influence and periods of secular government with degrees of Puritan localism. Religion was a political matter in that England refused to send bishops to Virginia during the division between church and state. A strong church presence would also compete with the vestrymen’s power. As the vestrymen overpowered the Anglican Church’s potential for widespread power, other religions became to take root in localisms. By reading into Butler and Lambert’s interpretations, I can also form my own interpretation between the two. All in all, Virginia is an excellent point of interest for Butler and Lambert in supporting their arguments. Stefanie Clark In "Founding Fathers" Frank Lambert argues that the Puritans founded the American Civilization in order to create "The City Upon a Hill". North America would aspire to be the model Christian Nation and of course - "a haven for religious freedom". The Puritans have long been applauded for laying the foundations for American society once escaping the religious persecution and doctrine of the Church of England. However the process and evolution that occurred within society contributed to the distinct differentiation between church and state relationships. Lambert addresses the different but equally important happening of 1639 and 1787 ( Constitution). He believes there is a paradox of religion in america where we have both a simultaneous belief in "the superiority of one faith" contributing to the morality of the population resulting and eventually molding into " a desire for a free society" with "unfettered religious liberties". The history of America and Religion is fueled by the tyranny and upheaval of religion in England. The church, a monopoly in its own right, and keen to the powers of those with "divine right" was corrupt and influential and when protestant immigrants came to America their concerns were broken between both dissenters and Churchmen. Dissenters being concerned with the ability for "state power to subvert faith" and Churchmen with the ability of religious strife "would undermine civil order" yet both cases saw freedom for religious liberties an immediate necessity.
However the first attempts at government were not similar to the situation we have today. The separation of church and state was far from a separation at all. Economically speaking, planters wielding the most power in the fields also had enormous power over the churches. These were the same men that contributed to the development and passing of local legislation that required citizens to contribute to churches. Puritans also believed the church was in place to support a good and appropriate government and their best service was to create and render over "fit instruments both to rule and to choose rulers." Thus, the church was responsible for admitting member to the community, and before the citizen could become into a place of power or public service, they must first be approved by the church. The church decided citizenship. But other than preparing "members to be moral persons suited to vote and rule" the church "hath nothing to do with government". Finally a change occurred when the Puritans rose up against Andros during the "Glorious Revolution". The expectation would have been for them to defend their right by quoting the authority of the scripture, but rather they turned to civil law, describing their English 'liberties and privledges'. A future reflection of the Revolutionary ideas to happen 100 years later. This was a shift of thought process in America, showing where Religion vs. Politics then stood. property was now higher then Godliness. Differently, Jon Butler describes in "Awash in a Sea of Faith" the ideas of converting Indians and settling New England to establish Christian communities simply rhetoric. Butler feels the situation of the "City on a Hill" was simply a public relations campaign. The actual colonist had beliefs ranging from church approved beliefs to officially "denounced varieties of magic and the occult". Even atheism as an possible category for the colonists. Magical beliefs and occultism played a large role in the regular beliefs of the immigrants. These ideas blended with the state religion and Puritanism itself creating a new local culture that contributed to entire nations foundations for belief. Butler sees religion in America in a much more primitive and colorful way. Butler describes historians as breaking religion into two categories . The church and its worshipers. Sustaining churches by having them adhere to theological and ecclesiastical principles, and overturning them by destroying theological and ecclesiastical traditions. This also included the transcendental and unearthly things bringing the realm of the supernatural and occult beliefs into a common understanding as part of religion. Magic, astrology, and divination and practicers of these occults were referred to as 'wise women' and witches were a natural accepted idea for the causation of unexplainable things. But above all, religion was a place for explanation of the unexplainable in all aspects, including floods, deaths, illness and of course - acts of God. However, having witchcraft and occult practices as a part of the community (regardless of whether or not it was illegal) developed the thought process for acceptance and tolerance in the colony. This presence also developed a new tactic for ministers to use in instructing their flocks. Christian ministers soon learned to manipulate the people. Not inherently, but simply by educating the people. By establishing the rules and regulations of Christianity, the people would soon become aware and concerned for the saving of their souls. Thus the more concerned the people became, the more power the ministers were given. Yet, this sense of acceptance would later contribute to an acceptance for religious liberties and eventually a separation between church and state. This outspoken and and condemning style of teaching is reflected in a very 'american style of religion' combined with the Puritan style of living. Puritans were obsessed with the salvation of souls, creating/experiencing emotional experiences and conversion episodes. Constantly referring to their conviction of their wickedness and need to saving. Early modern Christians saw little difference between Christianity and magic, astrology and divination or between supernaturalism of occult practices and the practices pursued by the church and Catholicism. The attempt to Christianize America was a lagging attempt up until around 1720. The number of Church of England owned buildings in Virginia doubled. This was because of the new use of law to establish churches, from this point on parishes were established in every county created. Abigail Grace Lloyd Both The Founding Fathers of America And the Place of Religion in America, by Frank Lambert, and Awash in a Sea of Faith, by Jon Butler address the concept of religion in America, yet each author approaches said issue from a different perspective. Lambert argues that there were two spiritual fathers that defined religion in America, the Planting and Founding Fathers. The Planting fathers sought to disperse the Old World tradition of church state institutions and emphasized one “true” faith to create a “City Upon a Hill”, whereas the Founding Fathers chose to separate church and state, making religion a private conquest. Butler argues that religion in America was not shaped by Puritan theology. Moreover, he states that it was the ascendancy of the fringe religions – Quakers, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and occult practices – that shaped ecclesiastical America. A comparison of documents, people, and events used by Lambert and Butler will explain their contention towards religion in America.
Lambert states on page 23 that the central theme of his book is to indicate how the idea of separation of church and state came to fruition in America: “Simultaneous belief in the superiority of one faith as the foundation of a moral nation and the desire in a free society for unfettered religious liberty.” Both the Planting and Founding Fathers believed in the necessity of religion to maintain civil order as well as religious freedom. However, the Puritans viewed religious freedom as religion free from errors. Their religious intolerance, Lambert argues, created external and internal tensions, which caused the “City Upon a Hill” to fail. The Half-Way Covenant was the solution to a decreasing Puritan population, which was weakening Puritan influence. He adds that Puritan allowance of children to become partial members of the Church maintained the façade of a “Christian Utopia.” Nevertheless, it is their continued practice of religious persecution, rooted in the belief that Puritanism is the “true” expression of New Testament Christianity, which limited Puritanical power. Butler agrees that the Half-Way Covenant indicated the decreasing power of the New England clergy, however, he argues that Puritan deterioration was caused by a lack of institutional discipline in Anglican authority. The Half-Way covenant exemplified the failings of the New England clergy, who could not theoretically exert executive control over a congregation. Thus, they resorted to creating consociations, which allowed ministers to discuss clerical dilemmas, but exercise no power over Puritan worshippers. Unlike the dissenting faiths, which increased their power through disciplinary institutions, the Puritan’s influence continued to dwindle towards the end of the seventeenth century. Puritan religious intolerance, Lambert argues, created uprisings within Puritan communities from outspoken members, who challenged Puritan theology. Anne Hutchinson was said community member. Lambert uses Hutchinson’s case to provide specific accounts of Puritan “religious freedom.” Hutchinson questioned the ministry’s teachings of covenant law, and thus, she was banished. Lambert’s employment of Winthrop’s statements, such as “(Hutchinson) disturbed the peace and unity of the Holy Commonwealth,”(Lambert 80) and “ to protect the covenanted community, Hutchinson must be ‘cut off from us,’”(Lambert 81) exemplified austere Puritan opposition toward outside views. Historical examples, such as Hutchinson’s case, illuminated the philosophical differences between the Planting Father’s Old World ideals of religious persecution, and the Founding Father’s enlightened concepts of religious tolerance. By detailing the controversy caused by stringent Puritan intolerance, Lambert shows how exclusive church state institutions became less popular in the New World. Butler mentions Hutchinson briefly as an example of the rising dissenting popularity, which the Puritans struggled to shrink and silence. Hutchinson symbolizes the growing opposition towards the Puritans towards the end of the seventeenth century. He argues that she became a threat to Puritan authority once she had a following of believers. On page 60, Butler states that none of Hutchinson’s followers were disciplined because it was difficult for the church to hunt down less vocal dissenters. Moreover, he uses Anne Hutchinson to support his argument that there was more religious diversity in America, which willingly challenged Puritanism. Hutchinson’s case conveyed how the “quest for individual piety” (Butler 58) changed New England from1650 to 1690. By 1662, the Crown had recovered its power in England; hence Puritans and non-Puritans alike immigrated to America in search of religious freedom. Thus, with the arrival of lower-class immigrants, new religions and occultist beliefs were brought into the New World. Lastly, after detailing the failures of the Planting Father’s “City Upon a Hill,” Lambert shifts his attention towards the Quakers in Pennsylvania, constructing the arrival of separation of church and state in America. The Keithian Schism shows how even the most religiously tolerant sects still faced internal strife from the union of church and state. Since William Penn negated to define and outline a set of Quaker beliefs, controversy over what it meant to be a Quaker arose. George Keith attempted to resolve the theological disagreement with his creed of laws, however the Yearly Meeting vetoed his proposal, and so he broke from Quakerism to form his own sect. On page 112, Lambert argues that the Keithian Schism went beyond a “theological division.” He dedicates two pages to Keith’s pamphlets, which questioned the Quaker government’s authority. Ultimately, the political implications of the Keithian Schism expressed Lambert’s argument for a separation of church and state. Conversely, Butler argues that the Quaker Schism demonstrated the rising power of dissenting religion’s institutional authority. Butler does not mention that Keith created a doctrine for Quakerism; instead he states that Keith asked the Friends (ministry) to create a dogma for the Quaker faith. He also does not describe the spark that caused the Quaker Schism. His focus is on the ministerial response that abruptly struck down the revolt. Butler uses the Keithian revolt to demonstrate the hierarchal power the Quaker faith obtained over its congregation. He adds that their institutional power allowed the Quaker religion to spread throughout the Delaware Valley. In conclusion, the successes of Quaker influence in the New World supports Butler’s argument that Puritanism did not sculpt American religion. Both authors used the Half-Way Covenant, Anne Hutchinson, and the Keithian Schism to explain the foundation of religion in America. As we can see Lambert is developing his argument for separation of church and state, exposing the pitfalls of ecclesiastical governments. However, Butler uses the same evidence to prove that the rise of dissenting faiths established the spiritual environment of the New World. Although both books cover the same topic, each has a unique approach, which attests that historical writing extends beyond the facts into a realm of higher discussion and interpretation. Lily Lewis |
Early American History--Faith and the Founding