# This book notes that in 1776, only 17% of US were church affiliated...



## MMasztal (Dec 26, 2007)

The Churching of America, 1776-2005 ... - Google Book Search

Anyone familiar with this statistic? The book goes on to show that the church affiliation grew over the next 2 centuries.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 26, 2007)

What...I thought America was founded as a Christian nation!



Seriously, I read this in 2 books about the First Great Awakening. It seems that Deism had started to influence the colonies and they were quite Godless right before the Awakening began. Illegitimatacy rates for children were also given and were high but I forget the books.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 26, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> What...I thought America was founded as a Christian nation!
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, I read this in 2 books about the First Great Awakening. It seems that Deism had started to influence the colonies and they were quite Godless right before the Awakening began. Illegitimatacy rates for children were also given and were high but I forget the books.



Dougals Kelly contradicts this view in _The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern West_. He says that 75% were Calvinistic in their worldview. Frankly, I believe him. Deism was a late arriver to the Americas and never really had the influence secular historians claim. 

Furthermore, 52 out of 55 of the Signers were church affiliated, and the other three's worldviews are so problemetatic that they cannot be considered Deists. 

But let's assume you are correct. So what? Franklin and Jefferson explicitly [-]plagiarized[/-] borrowed Calvinistic political theory. The Declaration of Independence was copy and pasted from the previous Mecklenberg Declaration, which acknowledge its dependence on the Calvinistic Scots Confession a century earlier. That right there destroys secular historiography.

I can begin [-]fire-bombing[/-] listing quotations proving we are a Christian country. 

Indeed, if your view is correct, why weren't they quoting atheistic Frenchmen who were acknolwedged as the intellectual leaders of the world? Surely they would have. 

But let's assume that it is saying too much to call them Calvinists. Take Arminian John Locke's political theory. Locke, while an Arminian, did not consider himself a Deist.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 26, 2007)

Patrick Henry:
“It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!”

Samuel Adams, July 6 (?, it could be on the 5th) 1776, House of Burghesses,



> We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and with a propitious eye beholds his subjects assuming that freedom of thought and dignity of self-direction which he bestowed on them. From the rising to the setting sun, may his kingdom come!


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 26, 2007)

MMasztal said:


> The Churching of America, 1776-2005 ... - Google Book Search
> 
> Anyone familiar with this statistic? The book goes on to show that the church affiliation grew over the next 2 centuries.



I have a few issues with the authors' methodology. They freely acknowledge on page 21 that counting children of church members as members would "bias" the report. Says who? They understand that such a move, legitimate in non-Baptist circles, would tilt the scales to a larger Christian influence. And if that is the methodology, then one can easily see how only 17% are church-goers. 

But also consider the rural nature of colonial times. It was hard for priests/preachers to make it to each church, meaning that some churches only had services less than 20 times a year. But does that logistic difficulty preclude them from being Christian? Well, it may. But does that preclude them from using Christian categories in politico-military debates? I think not.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 26, 2007)

I am not sure why you picked up so hotly on this thread and threatened to fire-bomb quotations, but I do remember reading the Jefferson Bible and Thomas Paine's Age of Reasons as a teenager, as well as Franklin admitting to being a deist later in life and Madison's writings which seemed a bit deistic. It seemed that a very large proportion of our Founding Fathers are now in hell.

And so I concluded that the American colonies were influenced a great deal by a mixture of Locke and deism and Christianity (and the Roman writers as well). Deism seemed quite mixed into some people's beleifs and after the Revolutionary War seemed to increase a bit until the Awakening, which shaped the nation on the side of Christian doctrine. 



And really, since Israel stopped being a "body politick"is it even fitting to call any nation a Christian nation?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 26, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> I am not sure why you picked up so hotly on this thread and threatened to fire-bomb quotations, but I do remember reading the Jefferson Bible and Thomas Paine's Age of Reasons as a teenager, as well as Franklin admitting to being a deist later in life and Madison's writings which seemed a bit deistic. It seemed that a very large proportion of our Founding Fathers are now in hell.



And Patrick Henry despised Paine. Paine gets more treatment than he deserves. RE: Franklin. Franklin petitioned that the delegates pray, saying, "If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his eye, how can an empire rise without his aid." This is a startling and utterly contradictory admission by a Deist. Deist do not believe that "God governs in the affairs of men." So any line of evidence that Franklin was a Deist is simply moot. Jefferson, while being hostile to Christianity on some points, similarly made comments that preclude him from being labeled a Deist. 



> And so I concluded that the American colonies were influenced a great deal by a mixture of Locke and deism and Christianity (and the Roman writers as well). Deism seemed quite mixed into some people's beleifs and after the Revolutionary War seemed to increase a bit until the Awakening, which shaped the nation on the side of Christian doctrine.



Are you referring to the Great Awakening? That happened before the First War for American Independence. 

John Locke was a Christian, so that line of thought actually supports my position.

I have disprove the "Deist claims." 

Col. John Eidsmoe (Thomas Goode School of Law) noted that the majority of quotations from the Founders came from the Bible, and the majority of those quotations came from Deuteronomy. So while they quoted Roman writers, they quoted the Bible more.



> And really, since Israel stopped being a "body politick"is it even fitting to call any nation a Christian nation?



Insofar as the general equity requireth, which shows that people only read 1/2 of that clause.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 26, 2007)

> And really, since Israel stopped being a "body politick"is it even fitting to call any nation a Christian nation?





> Insofar as the general equity requireth, which shows that people only read 1/2 of that clause.



Not to mention various other portions of the Confession and Catechism along with the Scripture texts quoted in their footnotes.

Moreover since all nations are required to serve the ascended Christ (Ps. 72), then there must be the possibility of a Christian nation. Tell me Pergy, are you against the state deifying itself? If so why?


----------



## markkoller (Dec 26, 2007)

I recall seeing some familiar and surprising statistics a few years ago when I read Mark A. Noll's book A History of Christianity in the US and Canada. He says...

"Still, the churches were definitely disorganized in the wake of the revolution, and the role of Christianity in the new national culture was anything but secure. While church adherence remained high at least into the 1770s (with perhaps as much as 40 to 50 percent of the population attending church with some regularity), formal church membership was sinking, and in the 1790s reached an all-time low (somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of the adult population)."

Here are some interesting stats...

Table 6.1 Denominational Shares of religion adherents: US, 1776 and 1850

1776 
1. Congregationalist 20.4%
2. Presbyterians 19.0% 
3. Baptists 16.9% 
4. Episcopalians 15.7% 
5. Methodists 2.5% 
6. Roman Catholic 1.8% 

1850
1. Methodists 34.2%
2. Baptists 20.5%
3. Roman Catholics 13.9%
4. Presbyterians 11.6%
5. Congregationalists 4.0%
6. Episcopalians 3.5%

hmmmmm...


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 26, 2007)

.



> "Still, the churches were definitely disorganized in the wake of the revolution, and the role of Christianity in the new national culture was anything but secure.



I would dispute Noll's premise since the intellectual leadership before and after the War depended largely on Calvinistic political theory, if sadly secularlized on a few points. 

As to the churches being disorganised. That is not hard to understand. The British burned many (if not most) of the Presbyterian churches. And British ambassardor Walpole described the Revolution as "a Presbyterian rebellion."



> While church adherence remained high at least into the 1770s (with perhaps as much as 40 to 50 percent of the population attending church with some regularity), formal church membership was sinking, and in the 1790s reached an all-time low (somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of the adult population)."



Again, many moved across the Frontier *after* the War, making church attendance unorganised--I don't dispute that. 

Here are some interesting stats...

Table 6.1 Denominational Shares of religion adherents: US, 1776 and 1850



> 1776
> 1. Congregationalist 20.4%
> 2. Presbyterians 19.0%
> 3. Baptists 16.9%
> ...



Well, Noll's stats contradict Stark's, which was used by the OP. Either way, my point was that the intellectual leadership used Calvinistic political theory to justify their war with Britian. Such removes any "secularized' thought, which would be true if we would have seen more of a taste of the coming French Revolution.

Indeed, John Adams would write a pamphlet contrasting the two Revolutions: one was atheistic and one was Chrisitan.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 26, 2007)

Hmmm....obviously when you touch the "America is a Christian Nation" myth, you make people mad.


It does appear that the Founders were a mix of true Christians, Christians in name only, Deists, and freethinkers. When I was a "freethinker" I got many of my best quotes from the Founder.

Whether most are in hell or not, well, I guess perhaps I should leave that up to God.

I AM glad for those true Christians that did help found our nation.


I still affirm that church numbers dipped and a decline in morals appeared to happen between the time of the Revolution to the time of the First Great Awakening. 

Even Michael Haykin in a brief spoken bio of the missionary Adon. Judson speaks of the influence of deism on the colonies during this time (he blames it on the French who helped us during the war). Some universities entirely fell away within 30 years after the war. Judson's biography records some of this I think.



Ryan Setliff (where are you Ryan...give us another update) does bring up a good point in an email to me that many of the"anti-religious" quotes that they used are not anti-Christian but Anti-religion (i.e. rites and rituals), and usually anti-Catholic. He also suggests a book that looks very good by David Barton. So, I was glad to hear from this brother and the above which I gained from him is valuable.



Finally, my main points still stands. I challenge you to dispute these: 

(1)Theologically, there IS NO SUCH THING, since Israel ended, of a "Christian Nation" - America has a unique history and maybe the best in this respect, but it too was a mixture of Christians, deists, atheists/Frethinkers, etc.

(2) That a large percentage were not Christian at all but deists and Freethinkers.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 26, 2007)

Just a note:

Jacob (and Ryan too, bud, if your out there somewhere.....);

I realize that when it comes politics, which is a very large proportion of your posts on how, we agree very little...

Ha, I think I have now gone a whole year without hardly agreeing with you on a single post.


So, I just wanted to make sure that I wish you two guys a heartfelt Merry Christmas to my worthy colleagues and God's deepest blessings on you this season. Jacob, hows the betrothal going? Ryan, what's the next step for you?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 26, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> I still affirm that church numbers dipped and a decline in morals appeared to happen between the time of the Revolution to the time of the First Great Awakening.
> 
> Even Michael Haykin in a brief spoken bio of the missionary Adon. Judson speaks of the influence of deism on the colonies during this time (he blames it on the French who helped us during the war). Some universities entirely fell away within 30 years after the war. Judson's biography records some of this I think.



That is actually a true point, and I am glad you brought it up. Since the French helped us, many reasoned that their ideas were cool. That is why I John Adams wrote a pamphlet contrasting the two conflicts. One was an attempt to restore the rule of law, the other to establish the first atheistic world order. 



Finally, my main points still stands. I challenge you to dispute these: 



> (1)Theologically, there IS NO SUCH THING, since Israel ended, of a "Christian Nation" - America has a unique history and maybe the best in this respect, but it too was a mixture of Christians, deists, atheists/Frethinkers, etc.



Okay. I grant the point. That is not what I was arguing. I was arguing that their was a predominantly Christian influence in America. Christian presuppositions and decidely Calvinistic politics. 



> (2) That a large percentage were not Christian at all but deists and Freethinkers.



Are we talking about the rank and file commoner, or of the intellectual elite? Professor Douglas Kelly notes that the rank and file commoner was probably a Calvinist.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 26, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> So, I just wanted to make sure that I wish you two guys a heartfelt Merry Christmas to my worthy colleagues and God's deepest blessings on you this season. Jacob, hows the betrothal going? Ryan, what's the next step for you?



Engagement is going well. About 6 more months.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 26, 2007)

_Predominantly CHristian and even Calvinist....._hmmm.....

.... you might be right. It is, after all, usually the leaders that fall away first into new heresies. And the Revolution was called the Presbyterian Revolt.

So, even if I argued that 40-60% of the leaders of the colonies were unorthodox or Freethinkers, you could still be right about the common man still retaining his faith. 

I would like to Read Kelley, do you have a link? You have me very interested...


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 26, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> _Predominantly CHristian and even Calvinist....._hmmm.....
> 
> .... you might be right. It is, after all, usually the leaders that fall away first into new heresies. And the Revolution was called the Presbyterian Revolt.
> 
> ...



His book was titled _The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern West_. One of the chapters dealt with the founding of America. I went to google scholar and tried to find it. I can summarize that chapter later. And while I said John Locke was a Christian, I disagree with his natural law theory--even if I agree with most of his conclusions. 

And I will admit that men like D James Kennedy convert some men who probably wouldn't like conversion. I will also admit that there were some serious secularizations of Knox's thought that have had ramifications today (for instance, the first amendment. While I can build a case using both 1st and 10th amendments to justify establishing a Christian "state" in Louisiana or Alabama--it's a cool constitutional move, actually---, the wording of the 1st Amendment opened the door to secularism). 

Even a Reconstructionist like Rushdoony goes into great detail to document the widespread biblical illiteracy from 1780-1830.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 27, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> . . . the wording of the 1st Amendment opened the door to secularism).



That and the preamble:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, *do ordain and establish *this Constitution for the United States of America."

And again, who is it that establishes government? One reason Patrick Henry smelled a rat. 


Nevertheless, I still view it as a national covenant binding on the people-- who in turn have the responsibility to bind their representatives to follow it.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 27, 2007)

*Slight Sidestep*



Spear Dane said:


> RE: Franklin. Franklin petitioned that the delegates pray, saying, "If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his eye, how can an empire rise without his aid." This is a startling and utterly contradictory admission by a Deist. Deist do not believe that "God governs in the affairs of men." So any line of evidence that Franklin was a Deist is simply moot.




It's quite clear in Franklin's autobiography that he was capable of speaking so as to take advantage of the religious feelings of _other_ people: he stopped deconverting the simple-minded when they lost their morality and cheated him shortly thereafter. But it is also quite clear in the autobiography (and perhaps he would speak more forthrightly to a trusted son than he would in a public speech) that his own "convictions" were far from Christian.


----------



## markkoller (Dec 27, 2007)

> Well, Noll's stats contradict Stark's, which was used by the OP. Either way, my point was that the intellectual leadership used Calvinistic political theory to justify their war with Britian. Such removes any "secularized' thought, which would be true if we would have seen more of a taste of the coming French Revolution.



Can you elaborate on this? I am just curious about the accuracy of Noll's statistics compared to others. Interesting discussion...


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 27, 2007)

Some Frankling quotes:

I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it." 
- "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", 1728 
. 


"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity." 
- Works, Vol. VII, p. 75 
. 


"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England." 



He also quipped that lighthouses were more helpful than churches.


From his autobiography:

"My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself" (Autobiography, p. 66).

"Some volumes against Deism fell into my hands. They were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lecture. It happened that they produced on me an effect precisely the reverse of what was intended by the writers; for the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be refuted, appealed to me much more forcibly than the refutation itself. In a word, I soon became a thorough Deist" (Ibid, p. 66).


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 27, 2007)

py3ak said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > RE: Franklin. Franklin petitioned that the delegates pray, saying, "If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his eye, how can an empire rise without his aid." This is a startling and utterly contradictory admission by a Deist. Deist do not believe that "God governs in the affairs of men." So any line of evidence that Franklin was a Deist is simply moot.
> ...



My point was that Franklin saw that the masses (at this time) operated in Christian-worldview terms. I am not arguing that all the Founders were Christians--they weren't. I am arguing that key sections/intellectuals/locales operated in Christian categories.

Or to say it negatively: They used categories that were contrary to the Deist worldview.

Mark:


> Can you elaborate on this? I am just curious about the accuracy of Noll's statistics compared to others. Interesting discussion...



Not too much. It has been about 5 years since I have read Noll. His stats could be accurate for all I know, but they are misleading. His stats are about as accurate (like all statistics) as a Census Bureau. They tell you nothing of the worldview of the key players.


----------

