My first comparison of Awash in a Sea of Faith and The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America discussed the different perspectives Jon Butler and Frank Lambert had on the role religion had in shaping America. In the second half of the books both Butler and Lambert share a different perspective once again, this time concerning the role of religion during the American Revolution.
In Awash in a Sea of Faith, Jon Butler asserts that “at its heart, the Revolution was a profoundly secular event” (195). “The Declaration of Independence provides clear-cut evidence of the secondary role that religion and Christianity played in creating the revolutionary struggle” (196). Religion existed during the time of the American Revolution, and it made it out on the other side anew, but it had no role within the Revolution itself. He seems to argue for the textbook definition of the American Revolution. Directly opposite of Butler’s argument is that of Lambert. In The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America, Lambert argues that “’with an emphasis on the heterodoxy of Dissent, the war was truly a war of religion’” (211). The Revolution revolved around the “fight for complete religious freedom” and in order to fully understand the American Revolution we need to take religion into account (207). Lambert’s assertion that the quest for religious freedom had a direct hand in the American Revolution helps to support his overall direction towards the separation of church and state. Once again the authors leave the reader thinking, “But who is right?” And once again, I believe that you need to take both authors’ arguments into consideration. Both Butler and Lambert had specific reasons in writing these books. They were writing to get across their perspective of these events in history. In doing so we as readers are given two very different accounts of the reasons and happenings of early American history. I think that we need to take both perspectives into account to get a full picture of the shaping of America. In closing I would like to comment on the writing styles of both books. While reading Awash in a Sea of Faith I often found myself skipping entire paragraphs and even, I’ll admit it, pages. The sheer amount of lists of names and dates, books and numbers overwhelmed me and left me wondering, “What’s the point in all of this?” While these lists lend credibility to the work I was just left bored. Though, towards the end of the book I did find myself enjoying Butler’s book more. The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America, however, was much easier for me to read. I found Lambert’s book to be straightforward and cleanly laid out. I enjoyed reading both of these arguments on religion in early America and they were both very informative, but I found myself favoring Lambert’s book more for the style itself. Meghan Clark Surely as randomly ordered as the Big Bang, the political explosion that the United States of America was born out of has many facets and components. The ingredients that contributed to its final recipe can apparently be interpreted in diverse ways, considering the degree of conflict between the perspectives our class has been discussing—those of Frank Lambert in his book, The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America, as well as Jon Butler’s in Awash in a Sea of Faith. Their two, nearly opposite opinions about some issues prove the complexity of the topic, given they are analyzing the same body of data. A specific and obvious point of contention is their conflicting opinions on the role of religion motivating or being victimized by the American Revolution.
Jon Butler’s stance on the interaction between the fledgling religions in the pre-revolutionary America and the revolution is that of victimization. He posits that the revolution was essentially a purely secular occurrence, motivated minimally, if at all, by the church. Although Butler acknowledges that there were points of religious contention between the British and their American colonies, he continues to build onto the overarching argument of the book by claiming that religion, the puritan denomination especially, was not a central cause. Butler points out the lack of religious references and language that compose the Declaration of Independence as a clear signal that religion was not a central component of revolutionist ideals. He claims that the revolutionists viewed issues like the introduction of an Anglican Bishop into the American colonies as oppressive acts of tyranny—they were less concerned with religious issues rather about political ones. Instead of religion influencing religion, Butler says that political Whig ideals and other political party’s positions ultimately influenced religious beliefs. Frank Lambert, on the other side of the spectrum, claims that Religion greatly influenced the Revolution. Adding to his overarching argument concerning the free market of ideas and religion in America, he says the American Revolution was a healthy time for religion and it played an integral role in the decision making of the revolutionists. As opposed to Butler’s picture of Whiggism influencing Christian religion, Lambert portrays the interaction as dissenting ministers working side by side with Whig lawyers to guarantee equitable rights for colonists. He agrees with another historian saying, “With an emphasis on the heterodoxy of Dissent, the war was truly a war of religion.” Influenced by religion or acting as an agent on religion, the revolution was certainly a sum of many unique political and social parts. Lambert’s analysis gives credit to the traditionally influential institution of religion, while Butler, in order to promote his ‘big-picture’ argument, takes the emphasis off of religion as a catalyst for the American Revolution. Jared Hooley At the midpoint of Awash in a Sea of Faith and The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America, both John Butler and Frank Lambert used the fall of the Puritans Father’s “City upon a Hill” to support their interpretation of religion in America. Butler utilized the decrease in Anglican authority to prove that the institutional power of dissenting faiths impacted religion in America, whereas Lambert portended the arrival of separation of church and state in America. In the second half of both books, Butler and Lambert’s interpretation on cornerstone events in American history, such as the Great Awakening, American Revolutionary War, become more distinct. Butler argues that theses events fostered the survival and embellishment of religious pluralism America: however, his argument is not always as prominent. Lambert further develops the foundations of the notion of separation of church and state in America. A study of theses events will depict the divergence in the authors’ perspective of ecclesiastical America.
Although Butler uses the Great Awakening to explain how the Anglican tradition of an allied church and state was demolished by religious pluralism, he devotes half of the chapter divulging his opinion of the Great Awakening as “exaggerated,” before arriving at the chapter’s thesis. He remarks on page 164, the term, “Great Awakening,” wasn’t used until 1841, approximately a century after the extreme growth in religious pluralism and competition occurred. Moreover, he argues that the Great Awakening was not as influential because of the ambiguities of dating the movement and determining its religious impact. However, Butler uses faulty evidence, which weakens the resonance of his viewpoint. For instance, in the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 170, he states that New England towns reacted, “in a variety of ways,” to the Great Awakening, and yet uses contradictory language in the next sentence, insinuating that “not a single” town responded to the event. Again he contradicts his argument on page 171, stating that there was religious variety in New England, but most citizens were Calvinists. Consistently it is barely discernible what Butler is trying to suggest because his opinion detracts from his argument. Even though Butler’s attempt to reduce the importance of the Great Awakening created more confusion than profound revelation, he finishes out the chapter with a moderately focused argument. He claims that religious pluralism allowed religion to survive the trials of the seventeenth century. He states that the New Light’s competition with Anglicans over church members essentially improved congregational attendance and involvement. He adds on page 187 that George Whitefield’s dramatic speeches on original sin and the doctrine of election made colonists question their salvation, thus they would be more likely to attend church. Furthermore, he asserts that the religious revivals were a cry for more authority in the church. Ministers adapted a paternalistic attitude towards their clergy, calling themselves “true shepherds” (181) of Christianity. Therefore, by strengthening and solidifying ministerial authority, the evangelical revivals replenished religion in America before the Revolutionary War. Lambert agrees with Butler that the Great Awakening did introduce more religious variety in America: however, he argues that religious pluralism resulted in the destruction of the Anglican monopoly over ecclesiastical power. George Whitefield’s New Light campaigns reduced Anglican authority utilizing mercantile strategies, which offered more religious choices to the colonists. During the Evangelical revivals, the concept of religion as a free market place of ideas first became popular. This theory places religious sovereignty on the individual, ultimately reversing the tradition of church institutional power. Moreover, Lambert explains on page 148 that “The Triumph of the Laity,” which questioned ministerial authority, internally challenged the authority of the Anglican Church. Contesting ecclesiastical power instigated the inquisition of traditional church-state relations. Therefore, Lambert ties the decline of ministerial authority to the encroaching campaign for separation of church and state. Butler continues his notion that religious pluralism shaped religion in America in his discussion of the Revolutionary War, which he argues as the imperative challenge to religion. Butler believes that religion was not the focus of the Revolutionary War because it was secular. To support this belief, he cites the opinions of two renowned eighteenth century American historians and politicians, David Ramsey and George Bancroft, who viewed the war, “as a thoroughly secular event” (195). Furthermore, he denotes the secular language used in the Declaration of Independence as proof that Christianity was deemphasized during the revolution. Ultimately, religious diversity was the only reason why religion survived the revolution. Without a distinct church authority in America, religion didn’t confront the Patriot assault on imposing power. Thus, the revolution did not severely harm dissenting faiths, which then flourished in the post-revolutionary revivals. Again Lambert opposed Butler’s interpretation. He believed the Revolutionary War was a religious war because it united the Dissenting faiths with Radical Whigs, who fought England for political and religious freedom. The Alliance between Dissenting ministers and Whig lawyers came from the belief that civil and religious rights were inherently equal. Thus when the King planned to install a bishop in America, colonists united to fight against a violation of their natural rights. Inherently, Lambert states that the Revolutionary War was a springboard for the decision to legally ensure religious freedom in the colonies. However, the place of religion in government stirred disagreement in state conventions. Page 212 presents the two arguments regarding establishment of a state church. The conservative argument proposed an established church to protect morality in society, while providing religious toleration to the fray religions. The radical argument campaigned for religious freedom as the safest option to prevent tyranny in the New Republic. Lambert uses the controversy over church establishment to depict separation of church and state as a vehicle for religious liberty. Both authors discuss the Great Awakening and the Revolutionary to attest their perception of religion in America. Butler depicts these events as trials to religion, which the dissenting faiths overcame, to further his argument that the fray religions shaped ecclesiastical America. The last two chapters of his book, which cover occultist religion in the antebellum era as well as Christianity’s pursuit of power in the new republic, emphasize the dramatic rise of dissenting faiths in comparison to the declining power of Puritanism. In the end, he uses Abraham Lincoln to prove that America is a religious nation, but not a church going nation. A novel perspective, however, Butler’s argument is not plausible because he fails to address the paramount Puritan influences, such as Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Patrick Henry, who contributed to America in regards to the jurisdictions of religion. In contrast, Lambert creates a more sound argument for separation church and state shaping religion, using the ideals of religious freedom inspired by the Great Awakening, Enlightenment, and American Revolution. His explanation of the ideological foundation behind the Constitution portrays the transformation of religion becoming a free market place of ideas. Conclusively, Butler and Lambert’s opposing positions on religion reflect a larger, historical debate and discussion at hand. Lily Lewis Jon Butler and Frank Lambert’s arguments on faith in early America had originally opposed one another, or better yet, traced off into different pathways. Butler in his Awash in a Sea of Faith aimed at identifying a pluralistic religious society in colonial America with many different religious movements and beliefs. Through the exploits of factions such as those who believed in magic and the occult, slaves, and Quakers, Puritans, etc, Butler’s laundry list of dates and erroneous people in history have served to convey that Puritanism was clearly not the only religion to be found at the time of the founding. Lambert, on the other hand, aimed to argue for a distinct separation of church and state with an emphasis on the Puritans. His goals encapsulated the idea that the secular division and religious manifesto were acted upon in ways to induce separation given other history that decided that religion was governmental.
Lambert and Butler’s arguments seemingly stray to different positions in colonial America. However, it is somewhat clear that the largest and most incredulous difference between the two figures lead to a shared conclusion of sorts. Lambert portrays early America in a timely, chronological manner that includes everything from English heritage to the early 1800’s. Butler, on the other hand, tends to skip around a lot and includes many dates that seem somewhat irrelevant to early American history, including the mid to late 1800’s during the Lincoln Era (However, the Lincoln argument plays out to be significant in the end). The difference in chronology is not the defining contrast of the two authors described, but their styles in the American timeline cannot allow either one of them to escape the definition of the birth of our nation. The American Revolution is described as the war that should have never been won. It was the war that allowed the colonies to succeed from Great Britain. However, this wasn’t the only point of the war. Brought on upon intolerable acts enacted to prolong and glorify mercantilism for Great Britain, colonists fought for the need for a free marketplace instead of a straight haul to the mother country. A free marketplace would allow the colonists to trade and exchange at their own discretion and leisure. However, the business marketplace wasn’t the only marketplace being fought over. Lambert argues that the Revolution was, in a way, a religious war. The free marketplace that the colonists were fighting for was religious as well as business. Mercantilism in Great Britain meant control over the colonies. In order to preserve their own business endeavors and to avoid religious control at the time, the fight for two free marketplaces had to ensue. Butler, however, seems to dodge the Revolution entirely. His antics describe the war as something that was fought primarily for the parting from England and the destruction of a controlling monarchy. Here Butler somewhat denies any religious intent of the people during the war. This seems somewhat shocking, as wartime usually brings about many religious concerns and exemplifies many religious sects. However, Butler plays this off. This is somewhat contributed to the fact that many of the men who are identified with the war were Puritan and that in his quest to identify every other religion in early America, this was inadequate. Whether religious or not, the Revolution was fought and won by the colonies. The time of founding of the nation was finally upon those Americans. Religion in the founding is where Butler and Lambert find a shared path. Both speak equally of the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution and how the wording denotes a distinct separation of church and state. They both also describe a free marketplace of religion during the founding period. Butler’s “network” rather than marketplace is much less detailed than that of Lambert’s, but it plays an important role in the connection between the two works. Finally, Lambert ends his work in the campaign and election of 1800. This is very interesting because this election was one great example of a mudslinging match. It invoked many religious ideas into secular government that were previously being made popular. Revolving mainly around Jefferson and his views into religion and politics, Lambert conveys the idea of a “wall” between church and state and Jefferson’s “No God” idealism in government to the forefront, which really seals his argument from the beginning that early America was intended to be a manifestation of separation of church and state and for the free marketplace of religion. Butler, however, ends his work with Lincoln. Given that the texts were primarily about faith in the founding, this seems out of place; however, it does play a significant role. Lincoln wasn’t Christian. Lincoln was fascinated by Christianity and by various other religions and spiritualities, but overall, Lincoln did not practice Christian belief. This makes sense for Butler because this shows that even the President of the United States down the road from the founding still displays a difference from the common belief born in Puritanism. Lincoln is different and that, in a way, nails in the idea that there were more religious beliefs and practices in early America than just Puritanism or Christianity in general. Chester Hendershot Every art has a medium. Painters use oils or acrylics. Sculptors use clay or plaster. Musicians use instruments fashioned or brass or wood. Vocalists use their vocal cords. Dancers use the human body. Historians use… history. One of the most important things I have learned in taking this course has been that historical accounts are not straight factual information, but arguments proposing the possible truth. All historians have a purpose and a voice in their publications. Awash in a Sea of Faith and The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America are two books by two different historians who are facing different situations and tackling different misconceptions. Though I do not doubt the validity of the facts presented in either book, it is hard to ignore the striking differences between the two works and one must wonder how unchanging information can yield such drastically different arguments. The answer lies in the aim and viewpoint of the author.
I believe that both authors effectively supported their arguments and that in the end, although the two works seem to be in great conflict on the surface, no choice must be made as to which book presents the best view of the truth. In fact, the best view of the truth may come from combining the two books and the information they present to give a full view of the spiritual atmosphere of early America. In reading Jon Butler’s book, Awash in a Sea of Faith, it often seemed that the class consensus was that the book felt scattered and unorganized. I must admit that I shared that same sentiment through the first two-thirds of the book. However, in reflection on the reading a few weeks ago I found myself asking why this was the case and why a book that seemed to jump all over the map had ended up in my university’s bookstore. I was drawn back to the thesis statement on page 2: This book is an attempt to open up the discussion of the first three centuries of the American religious experience by reconstructing a more complex religious past, one that reflects processes of growth and development far removed from a traditional “Puritan” interpretation of America’s religious origins. Considering the broad scope of this argument, Butler would have been hard-pressed to present all of the necessary information in 288 pages without seeming a bit scattered. In fact, maybe this sort of argument is best served in a form that leaves the reader’s head spinning. The confusion that my classmates and I complained about was essentially, “why does Butler pack all of this information about religious practices into this chapter without explaining its connection to the previous and later chapters?” What we failed to notice is that this excess of disconnected information was the entirety of the argument. Outside of Puritan New England, there was a lot of spiritually charged events and movements taking place that get little to no attention in today’s history books and/or political realm. Lambert followed a more conventional timeline of events and led us through the development of the church-state relations in early America throughout his book, The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America. The focus of his book centered on the occurrences in New England, because many events surrounding the framing the United States took place in these areas. The central question of Lambert’s book is: “How did the Puritan Fathers erecting their ‘City Upon a Hill’ transform into the Founding Fathers drawing a distinct line between church and state?” (page 3). Ultimately, Lambert aims to correct wrongs on both sides of the political debates in the earliest years of the twenty-first century. On one side of the debate were those who claimed that America was straying from her original purpose as a “Christian Nation,” citing the Founding Fathers as champions of the faith. On the other side of the fence were those who claim that the separation of church and state in the constitution intended to restrict religion to the private lives of citizens. Lambert uses the history of the Revolution (and the years surrounding it) as a tool to help highlight the flaws in both of these standpoints. Lambert aims to explain the intent of the framers, rather than break down the myth of exclusive Puritan influence, though his book effectively serves this purpose as well. When reading these books, the reader must realize that they are experiencing art in action. Both authors are artists. Both were given the same materials. But just as providing two separate painters with the same canvas and the same palette will inevitably yield different paintings, giving two historians the same wealth of information and the same time period will yield two very different arguments. Neither is superior to the other, but both open up a new window to the past that is truly unique. Each is a masterpiece in its own right. Valerie Gooden Although 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 both discuss matters of faith in the American colonies, they have little else in common. One of the most striking dissimilarities between the two works can be found in their respective discussions of religion in the American Revolution. Neither author spends too much time commenting on the war itself; however, it is vital to examine how they use it to bolster their larger arguments.
According to Lambert, the secular and religious justifications for colonial opposition to British authority were inextricably linked. He asserts that the revolution of religion actually began during the Great Awakening, a period characterized by defiance of “civil and ecclesiastical authority” – two types of authority that were “unbearable when united under the same regime.” Furthermore, he places significant emphasis on the relationship between church and state as one of the most hotly debated topics amongst the Founders – before, during, and after the Revolution. The result of this debate was a “free marketplace of ideas” created by the strict separation of faith and government. Conversely, Butler maintains that the Revolution “was a profoundly secular event” and that religion was “more at its margins than at its center.” Oddly enough, much of his evidence seems to prove the contrary. For instance, he states that the “bishop question” – the dispute over the presence of an Anglican bishop in the colonies – “carried significant long-term implications for revolutionary discontent.” He also mentions the Quebec Act of 1774, which Dissenters “associated with every attempt at tyranny in England since the 1640s,” and he even goes so far as to assert that “Protestant Christianity […] reinforced the Whig political convictions that lay behind early revolutionary rhetoric.” In any event, he is less concerned with religion’s effect on the war than he is with the war’s effect on religion, which he describes as a movement toward “syncretism and creativity” in the spiritual realm. On a more specific note, it is helpful to consider the many instances in which Butler and Lambert use the same evidence, but arrive at different ends. Perhaps the most blatant example of this is Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, which is referenced by both historians for two highly distinct purposes. Butler mentions the “arrogantly titled” work only briefly, citing it as a call for “independence based on a belief in a nonsupernatural inevitability” – a sensible interpretation, but one that completely ignores Paine’s reliance on the Old Testament to justify separation from Britain. Lambert, on the other hand, explicitly mentions that even though Paine eventually denounced “biblical revelation” as “hearsay,” he used the Bible to explain the origins of monarchy, concluding that it was “ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews.” Of course, this information is ill-suited to Butler’s argument, which is perhaps why he neglects to include it. In summation, though Jon Butler and Frank Lambert may comment on the same historical events (and occasionally use the same references), they do not share overarching arguments. By comparing Awash in a Sea of Faith and The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America, it becomes clear that history is not set in stone; rather, it is open to analysis and interpretation. Amanda Ack Frank Lambert speaks to Americans today about what he considers to be the truth behind the ideas of the Founders. “The center of the culture war remains the question of how to reconcile the notion of America as a Christian Nation with that of America as a haven of religious freedom” (Lambert, 5.) In contrast, Jon Butler seeks to explain the increase of American Christians in the twentieth-century compared to the small percentage of Christians around the period of the American Revolution. Butler also argues that “America’s religious identity emerged out of choices made among many available religious forms” (Butler, 6). For Butler, religious pluralism was a larger factor than Puritanism in shaping America’s dawn.
Throughout The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in Early America, Lambert argues that the Founding Fathers endorsed Adam Smith’s free marketplace of religion. A major event that influenced this was the Great Awakening during which colonists challenged religious and civil authority. The Great Awakening was, to Lambert, an explosion of religious competition that, in addition to Enlightenment ideas, led to the Founders to endorsing the check and balance of religious factions as a measure of unifying Americans under one government. The New Lights in Connecticut insisted that “civil authorities had no jurisdiction in matters of faith” while magistrates asserted that “the absence of state support would lead to collapse of religion” (Lambert, 156). When Deism came into the picture, they borrowed from Whig ideas and agreed with New Lights as to religion’s role in government: civil liberty is required for religious freedom to prevail. The conflict between the advocates for religious establishment and the advocates for complete separation of church and state still continues today, especially in politics. These religious tensions greatly influenced the politics surround the revolution and the drafting of the Constitution. “Whether Churchmen or Dissenters, all Patriots united in resisting British attempts to curb their religious freedom” (Lambert, 208). Ministers wanted freedom from tyranny set against the practice of their own religion, while dissenters wanted freedom from threat of religious control by Britain and the Quebec Act. To obtain religious freedom, civil liberty from Britain was required so that the Americans could construct their own government that specified the place of religion in America. The Whigs and Dissenters won their argument the end, because the Founders knew that without separation of church and state, “religious leaders would do as they had in the past and try to promise political support to the regime that would grant them privileges” (Lambert, 264). For Butler in Awash in a Sea of Faith, the Great Awakening did create pluralism by strengthening religious dissent, but the period was greatly exaggerated. Authority itself was not questioned; only certain kinds of religious authority were (Butler, 165). The efforts at religious revival did not “produce church attendance or membership rates equal to twentieth-century American practice” (Butler, 164). Puritan church membership dwindled as religious pluralism soared. The pluralism was supplied by Baptists, Quakers, Presbyterians, Jews, Scots, Germans, and other institutions and ethnicities. The sources of pluralism that led to the Great Awakening were different in every colony, and many colonies weren’t even touched by it. Church adherence was not necessarily affected by the Great Awakening for Butler. In fact, Butler argues that “the causes, experience, and course of the Revolution all too quickly began to expose the insecurity of Christianity’s place in American society” (Butler, 193). Religion was masked by the secular causes and ideologies of the Revolution, but religion overcame as denominations sacralized the ideas of the Revolution after the fact in order to bring morality back into citizens’ actions. As evidence, Butler cites the lack of religion in the Declaration of Independence, the political purpose of colonists opposing the Quebec act as opposed to religious fear of it, and ignorance of the military to chaplains’ sermons during the war. After the war, clergymen fought to strengthen religion by arguing that virtue was essential to a successful government. “This sentiment did not take root in a reborn Puritanism but in more modern eighteenth-century principles” such as riding new religious movements like Methodism, Mormonism, Shaker, Afro-American, and spiritualism, with elements of the supernatural (Butler, 207, 236). Denominational institutions were created to take over religious power and to strengthen it in the absence of state establishment of religion. Whose argument is more valid? The evidence Lambert and Butler use are similar, but their arguments contradict each other. Lambert explores both sides of the issue of the separation of church and states and, by doing so, explains the reasons for the same debate today. Lambert’s argument is chronological with the religious ideas from the Great Awakening and Enlightenment influencing the politics of the American Revolution and shaping the Founders’ ideas and establishment of government separate from religion. Butler also has good arguments as to the prevalence of religious pluralism during the Great Awakening, but he underplays the Great Awakening’s influence on politics in the period, because they do not strengthen his argument of pluralisms’ superior influence over Puritanism on shaping American religion. I disagree with Butler’s opinion that religion was shadowed by the politics of the Revolution and had to fight to get back into status, although it does support his argument of Christianity’s lower status then than now. It is a matter of opinion as to whose argument is more correct, but I lean more toward Lambert than Butler because of Lambert’s clarity and strong support. Either way, Lambert and Butler both offer interesting and thought-provoking arguments over religion in early America. Stefanie Clark Much has been discussed during class about how Butler’s Awash in a Sea of Faith and Lambert’s The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America differ. They focus on different religious denominations and geographic locations, they have different views on how the same people and events shaped early America and it’s politics. I don’t want to write about that. Instead I would like to focus on the difference and similarities of the reactions I had while reading these two books.
I will start with Lambert. While reading his book, the thing I tried to keep in mind was what he stated in his introduction as the central question; “How did the Puritan Fathers erecting their ‘City upon a Hill’ transform into the Founding Fathers drawing a distinct line between church and state?” (Lambert, pg. 3). Lambert spends his time tracing through the history of religion in the early colonies with a primary focus on Puritan New England and the “Puritan Fathers.” However throughout this book I felt like Lambert could have always gone a step further. Sure, I understand that when a historian writes a book he or she needs to be specific, but at times being specific can limit what actually happened in history. The Puritan Fathers may have been very influential in the history of religion and politics and how they have inter-played throughout American history, but to disregard the fringe denominations and the role they played seems to me to be a glaring mistake. I feel the same way towards Butler though, while he focuses on the fringe, he seems to ignore the Puritan point of view. Lambert in his epilogue again hearkens to the Puritan model and talks about how they would have reacted to some more modern events, such as a Catholic running for president, and even some older events that were past the Puritan time in talking about how they would have felt about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. I found these to be interesting, but almost irrelevant. Which is sort of how I felt while reading his book. The topic is interesting, but by broadening it just a bit and talking about how religion as a whole, and including other denominations could have made it more relevant and engaging in my opinion. We live in a society that is as plural as ever, and it hasn’t always been this way. It’s been like that from the beginning colonies, and I think writing about how that has shaped, and continues to shape our current state of politics and religious interplay would have been great. Overall I give Lambert kudos for sticking with his topic and writing a book that is insightful and interesting. Now as for Butler, he shows and focuses on the pluralism. However, I’m not too sure he did it in the best way possible. While reading Butler I got really confused by his jumping around, sometimes rather dry statistics and lists, and very anecdotal evidence. I was also confused at points where his book seemed to contradict itself. And lastly, Butler seems to be arguing an anti-history as his thesis, rather than a thesis itself. His point that I think he was trying to drive home was that religion didn’t really play a role in the founding of the United States. So if it didn’t happen how can you write a history about it? And yet, Butler writes a whole book on how it did. See what I mean, it’s a contradiction similar to how Starburst is both a solid and juicy like a liquid. Butler does do a good job though when he focuses on how the fringe religions and denominations did play a role in shaping the early colonies political foundations and later America’s political foundation. The one really big problem I have however with the way he goes about making some of his points are the extremely individual cases, and anecdotal stories. I’ll be reading along and I’ll think “ooh, that’s a good point!” but Butler then goes and backs it up with one individual case in South Carolina and then another story 40 years later in Virginia. (For example’s sake only, I just made that scenario up off the top of my head, but that’s how I felt with many of his points). Overall, after reading both of these books side by side and having had great discussions in class, I feel like I have learned quite a bit that I did not know about Christianity and the role of religion in early US history. But I think it’s only because we read both books, had we read just one or the other, my view would be skewed and slanted toward a particular point of view. Reading both books gave me two different enough points of view to find a middle ground, or even use both to see history in a new light. Sean Crews. One thing that Frank Lambert and Jon Butler seem to disagree on in the last few chapters of their books is the role of religion in the Revolution. Lambert says that during the Revolution, “dissenters wanted something more [than religious toleration], something as radical as the political revolution; they wanted religious freedom” (Lambert 207). His basic argument seems to be that the Revolution was centered on religion. He includes a quote from a British historian claiming that “at bottom the American Revolution was about religious differences, and with an emphasis on the heterodoxy of Dissent, the war was truly a war of religion” (Lambert 211). Butler, on the other hand, makes the claim that “at its heart, the Revolution was a profoundly secular event” and that “the Declaration of Independence provides clear-cut evidence of the secondary role that religion and Christianity played in creating the revolutionary struggle” (Butler 195). He includes a quote from a man named Joel Headley stating that the “religious element . . . did not give shape and character” to the Revolution (Butler 195). He does, however, admit that the Revolution helped to shape American religion.
Butler seems to argue that you can understand the Revolution without understanding the religion going on at that time, although it did have a huge impact on American religion; Lambert seems to argue that you can’t understand the Revolution without first understanding the religious struggles going on during that time period because they were so vital. So who’s right? I would argue that they could both be partially true. I agree with Butler’s argument that the American Revolution largely shaped American religion as we know it today. However, after reading about the religious struggles and controversies going on during that time, I don’t know that I believe that religion had absolutely no role in the Revolution. I tend to agree more with Lamberts argument in that aspect. On a completely different note, another difference that I’ve noticed in the two books has been the writing styles of the authors. Lambert’s has tended to be more organized and easier for me to comprehend. He usually describes or defines any new words or people he brings into the story, while Butler typically doesn’t. For instance, in one part of the book Butler states that “Loyalist clergymen could be found in every colonial denomination: most Anglican clergymen; various New England Congregationalists, including Jonathan Ashly, Mather Byles, Eli Forbes, John Hubbard, David Parsons, Ebenezer Parkman, and Benjamin Stevens; a Philadelphia Baptist leader, Morgan Edwards; and a Swiss Presbyterian in Savannah, Georgia, John Joachim Zubly” (Butler 204). There are many more instances in the book like that, and they tended to make it a little bit harder for me to comprehend because I had to sort through all of the names and places that he brought up. I’m not trying to belittle his ability to write at all by saying this; I would just argue that this book may be geared more towards people who already know a little bit about the history during this time and are already somewhat familiar with the people and places that he talks about. Kayla Sampson |
Early American History--Faith and the Founding