“Secular” Jefferson?

This is a second follow up to my initial thoughts on the latest “Christian nation” ballyhoo. In this post I would like to reflect on Thomas Jefferson’s “secularism.”

In my essay juxtaposing Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson’s contrasting understanding of human nature, I painted Hamilton as much more of an authentic Christian and referred to Jefferson as “much more secular.” (For the record, I consider Hamilton something of a latter-day Augustine of Hippo and would dissent from those historians who view the “robust” portion of his life as an absence of religion; instead, I see the Augustinian search for restfulness in that Truth found only in God. Admittedly, this is an ahistorical bordering on theological argument.) Peter Onuf and Annette Gordon-Reed’s scholarship communicated via the aforementioned “Christian nation” ballyhoo that Jefferson in fact considered himself a devout Christian forces me to reevaluate, or at least re-present my position vis-à-vis Jefferson.

Professor Gordon-Reed has claimed both on the C-Span book discussion and on Twitter it is not for her to define someone else’s Christianity, nor does she consider it appropriate for others to do so. In other words, without getting into her reasoning (she explains it on the C-Span discussion), if Jefferson says he is a Christian, she takes him at his word. Let’s use Gordon-Reed’s logic and apply it to two modern individuals:

I have implied in the past President Obama is not authentically Christian, despite the soon-to-be former President’s own words. John Fea, on the other hand, rather famously landed in Glenn Beck’s sights for positing exactly opposite my assertion.

Presidential nominee Donald Trump (God help us) claims he is a Christian. Articles such as this found on the Patheos Atheist Channel running through the veracity of Trump’s Christianity is indicative of any number of articles sprouting up recently on the Internet. Two additional samples, again from John Fea (he’s a veritable treasure trove of topical sources), of more recent variety – in each of them Professor Fea doesn’t explicitly denounce Trump’s Christianity, but he sure might be suggesting Trump’s Christianity is perhaps slightly suspect.

What’s the point to all this?

Who is and isn’t authentically Christian (or authentically X) won’t be going away anytime soon. The fact these debates aren’t going away seems to refute Gordon-Reed’s preference not to define someone else’s Christianity, for the simple fact there are standards of Christianity we Christians hold others accountable to (all the individuals I have discussed in these posts claim to be Christian: Onuf, Gordon-Reed, Fea, myself). We might fiercely disagree about these standards, but nevertheless these standards exist. In Jefferson’s day, the very same arguments were held, as Jefferson’s political opponents accused him of atheism. At bare minimum, to call oneself Christian obliges a particular disposition and set of outward behaviors.

Where it becomes thorny are articles of faith. But to use Jefferson and Unitarians as an example (I have heard some, such as my former professor Glenn Sunshine refer to Jefferson as a Unitarian rationalist, and to be honest I’m not sure if there’s a difference between “Unitarian” and “Unitarian rationalist,” because it’s not a term I’ve heard expressed outside of a handful of academics), to deny the supernatural and still refer to oneself as a Christian…that puts the individual within a decided minority, to the point where I imagine my allegation of a “secular” Jefferson carries weight. Some might rebut Jefferson attended Christian services regularly and used federal money to pay for weekly Christian services in federal buildings, yet if the account we have is in any way accurate, Jefferson only performed these actions to set a good example, not out of any personal belief.

Ultimately, no one can judge a person’s soul and no one can read a person’s heart, and we must be cautious to ensure we do not give that impression. However, as I indicated in my first post over this controversy, definitions do matter, and we can define someone else’s religion, or at least have the debate if nothing else.


To be clear, when I speak of “[denying] the supernatural and still [referring] to oneself as a Christian…that puts the individual within a decided minority,” I am harkening back to my previous post in which I reflected upon how the expunging of the miraculous from the Bible turns the book as well as Jesus into nothing but an ethical guidebook no different from what can be found in any number of other, non-Christian sources.

More on the Jefferson, Onuf, Gordon-Reed, & the “Christian Nation” Brouhaha

This is probably the first of what will be at least a couple additional follow up remarks to my initial thoughts regarding the latest “Christian nation” controversy.

Let me begin by stating I’m actually a bit overwhelmed (in a good way) at the response those initial thoughts generated, because that’s all they were – thoughts. It wasn’t an essay or other more formal piece of writing. Just mere thoughts assembled into a somewhat cohesive fashion. As someone “scratching and clawing” to make a name for himself I truly appreciate the notice of individuals in the field, all the more so as I don’t possess a PhD nor am I formally published or affiliated with a college or university, though I hope one day to have these things come to pass….

I commented last time how Onuf, Gordon-Reed, and Fea affirmed Thomas Jefferson desired the “teachings” of Jesus, if not Christianity itself, to be inculcated within the United States in order to bring about a “Christian nation.” I wanted to explore this idea of Jesus’s “teachings” a bit more, because this is an area of inconsistency within Jefferson’s thought. Or perhaps a more accurate way to characterize it is remark that for an individual who valued logic and reason as much as Jefferson, there is a glaring flaw with both in this instance.

When Jefferson wrote of Jesus’s “teachings” he referred to a strictly human Jesus: no divinity, no miracles (including the Resurrection). By extension, as noted by John Fea in his commentary, Jefferson also denied Biblical inspiration and anything supernatural or inexplicable in the Bible. Contrary to David Barton, Jefferson rewrote the Bible and stripped it completely of the miraculous and the inexplicable, and fashioned it into a common ethical guidebook that could have been written by a Greek pagan as much as a divinely inspired Jew.

The flaw in the logic in this otherwise logical man is the “teachings” of Jesus include the inexplicable. This is basic apologetics for Catholics, the stuff learned in many Catholic households, most Catholic high schools, and even some Catholic middle schools. The reason(s) Jefferson was blind to it (whether by choice or ignorance) requires me to read further into the sources but speculation is still fun, so here goes.

Take the Last Supper and the institution of the Eucharist, for example. That’s a rather explicit teaching. In Matthew 26:26, Jesus says, “Take, eat; this is my body.” In Mark 14:22, Jesus says, “Take; this is my body.” In Luke 22:19 Jesus says, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” This is a teaching. Why not this teaching but others if you’re Jefferson? Jesus literally teaches to take bread, for it is his body (again, literal body – he never says “it represents,” or “it symbolizes” his body), and consume it, in remembrance of him.

Superficially I would guess this to be a reflection of Jefferson’s Enlightenment influence, and its general rejection of what we commonly associate with religion: the supernatural, the inexplicable, the divine – the very things Jefferson expunged from his Bible (admittedly this is a gross oversimplification of the Enlightenment and scholars like my former undergraduate professor Glenn Sunshine would object to my oversimplification even though they agree with my premise). However, Jefferson apparently did not feel he was rejecting religion, based on the research of Peter Onuf and Annette Gordon-Reed; he ardently felt he was a Christian. But by what authority did Jefferson claim his version of Christianity to be correct? It seems rather arbitrary. The so-called “moral teachings” of Jesus can be found in any number of pagan, other organized religious, or secular sources – why call oneself a “Christian” then? What distinguishes Christianity from these other sources are precisely the aspects Jefferson claimed not to accept, intellectually or as a matter of faith.

In the C-Span book discussion I linked in my previous post, Professor Onuf discussed how Jefferson desired to be rid of all the “interpreters” and the “intermediators” such as “priests.” Yet, was Jefferson himself not being hypercritical in his actions? Was he not acting as an “interpreter” for others? Onuf has demonstrated, I think convincingly, Jefferson was no hypocrite when it came to slavery, a frequent charge, but I find him to be one in this instance, and glaringly so. He is behaving as arbiter and pseudo-teaching authority to those who would listen to him. What is that but an “interpreter,” “intermediator,” or form of “priest”? All the more so since he distributed his Bible.

Onuf continues Jefferson further reasoned a “miracle violates nature,” and “wouldn’t it make sense to study God’s creation to better understand Him? Isn’t that a form of worship?” Onuf then says “this is the Deist position.” This very reasoning actually explains the origin of science. And this reasoning is unique to Catholicism. Unlike the Catholics, though, Jefferson simply couldn’t accept a god who intervened in human affairs and contradicted the laws of nature He set in motion. What I find personally fascinating is the juxtaposition: that two “individuals” could begin at the same starting point, yet diverge so widely at the end. This is perhaps where Jefferson most reveals his Enlightenment influence. (For the time being I am leaving the “Deism” comment be, but I suspect I will return to it whenever I get around to reading Carl Richard’s latest book.)

In arbitrarily expunging Jesus’s teachings down to that of “nice guy,” Jefferson fell into C. S. Lewis’s famous apologetic: either Jesus says who he says he is, or he’s a lunatic. And for such a rationally-oriented individual, it is remarkably odd, and contradictory, for Jefferson to opt for the “lunatic” Jesus. But then again, not for nothing is Jefferson known as the “American Sphinx” and a walking contradiction.

Thomas Jefferson, Peter Onuf, & the “Christian Nation”

Historians Peter Onuf and Annette Gordon-Reed recently published what appears to be a watershed work on Thomas Jefferson entitled “Most Blessed of the Patriarchs”: Thomas Jefferson and the Empire of the Imagination. Onuf and Gordon-Reed are the acknowledged Jefferson scholars among historians, and it was my joy to have Professor Onuf as my instructor this past fall in my graduate class on Jefferson. Prior to Most Blessed, Onuf is probably best known for his book, Jefferson’s Empire: The Language of American Nationhood, a standard Jeffersonian text, while Gordon-Reed ruffled everyone’s feathers by confirming Jefferson was, in all probability, the father of Sally Hemings’s children.

A controversy has arisen in the past forty-eight hours from the back-and-forth historians were involved in with Gordon-Reed on Twitter (I watched this unfold live) over Onuf’s claim Jefferson desired a “Christian nation.” I have yet to read Most Blessed, and Gordon-Reed says this theme is more fully developed in the book, but Onuf made this particular claim as part of a book discussion which aired on C-Span found here.

Historian John Fea, who is a prolific writer and blogger, was one of the individuals involved in the skirmish with Gordon-Reed and he subsequently fleshed out his thoughts more precisely on his blog. His post really gets at why Onuf’s assertion is so controversial and provides some especially valuable insight I would like to respond to:

During the discussion, Gordon-Reed and Onuf claim that Thomas Jefferson believed he was a Christian.  You can see how they unpack this on the video, but I want to go on record and say that their claim is correct. (I also noted this in my post this morning on historical thinking).  Jefferson did believe that he was a Christian. As Onuf notes, his view of Christianity was grounded solely in the moral teachings of Jesus.  He did not believe in miracles, the deity of Christ, the resurrection (perhaps the ultimate miracle), the inspiration of the Bible, etc. Jefferson believed he could reject these beliefs and doctrines and still call himself a Christian.

Onuf even suggests (and he realizes he is being controversial and provocative here) that Jefferson wanted to forge a Christian nation.  For many who read this blog, or have read my book Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?: Historical Introduction, this claim will set off red flags.  Yet, I think Onuf’s point is a logical extension of his view of Jefferson’s religion.  Jefferson did believe that the American republic would be stronger, more virtuous, if everyone followed the teachings of Jesus. He wanted America to be a Christian nation as he understood the true meaning of Christianity.  As I say in my book, the answer to the “Christian nation” question really depends on how the terms are defined.

1. Fea is absolutely correct: we must define our terms. Let’s start with “Christian nation.” There are many definitions of this phrase. Faux-historian David Barton has one. Thomas Jefferson apparently had a different one. Present-day Evangelical Christians across the spectrum of Evangelicalism have an array of definitions to match their array of evangelicalism. The secularists and anti-theists have a counter definition. Non-Christians also proffer their own definition and meaning too. Part of the problem with a phrase such as “Christian nation” is this constantly shifting set of definitions and amorphous nature of its meaning. Historians like Fea and Thomas Kidd have attempted to present more historically-centered definitions in their respective works and thus ground the phrase’s meaning into something concrete and tangible. The definition I argue to be best, and one which as of now is the subject of my graduate thesis and one of my book projects, is in that historically-centered vein: that the United States is a Christian nation insofar as the principles and ideas upon which the country was predicated originate from Catholicism, which itself means, in part, “historic Christianity.” In other words, without Catholicism, I contend, there is no Declaration of Independence, nor is there a Constitution or Bill of Rights as those documents were conceived, written, and passed/ratified.

2. Staying with the theme of “definition,” on Twitter Gordon-Reed argued it was wrong, in some capacity, to “define someone else’s Christianity.” She then went on to claim Christianity itself is not for “others” (my term, not Gordon-Reed’s) to define. Fea and others took issue with this position, as do I. The context for this particular aspect of the debate was whether Jefferson was indeed a Christian, regardless if he considered himself one. I think Gordon-Reed is wrong. Christianity can be defined and that definition can be placed onto others. If not, then there is no difference amongst any religion, any worldview, any ideology, and it’s analogous to a pantheistic soup. Even though there are stark differences between Catholics and Protestants, for example, there remain some fundamental aspects of commonality that still make us all Christian. To suggest otherwise, well, reveals either an incredible lack of intellectual depth or honesty. Certainly there are truly far-out, nutty, fringe Protestant sects out there, but the majority fall under the auspices of a “Christian” umbrella and would never be mistaken for a Jew, Muslim, atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, and the like.

3. Jefferson has long been hailed by those hostile to Christianity specifically and religion more generally as one of their own, especially with their blatant misunderstanding of Jefferson’s “wall of separation” phrase. Onuf and Gordon-Reed, however, have further demonstrated that, whatever Jefferson’s personal beliefs, he nevertheless was no enemy of religion, and in truth, very much was typical of the founders in his assertion religion was necessary for the success of the American Experiment. And not just any religion, but at the very least the teachings of Jesus if not Christianity.

Back to Fea’s post. My thoughts are in bold.

A few more reflections:

  1.  Onuf suggests that Jefferson’s belief in a creator and an intelligent universe was an act of worship and a “leap of faith.”  That’s true.  But one does not have to be a Christian (at least how I define the term) to worship God and believe in an intelligent creator.  By Onuf’s standard, Abraham Lincoln was a Christian as well.  (Although I am guessing Onuf would have no problem calling him one, contra Allen Guelzo’s Gettysburg Prize-winning biography).  But I wonder, can one argue historically that Christians have always believed in certain non-negotiable doctrines and that the rejection of those doctrines means that you are not a Christian? To answer Fea’s question: Yes. This question alludes to the debate I discussed in Point 2 above. Have Christians “always believed in certain non-negotiable doctrines”? We have; it’s called Catholicism. Very simply, there are certain “doctrines,” as Fea calls them, that are non-negotiable if one is a Christian. If those doctrines are rejected, then one isn’t a Christian. This is an immensely important question, historically, because Fea raises the specter of Lincoln. I haven’t read Guelzo’s biography (Guelzo is about as authoritative as it gets on Lincoln), but many Christians have long embraced the Rail-Splitter as one of their own, myself included. In fact, the bishop in my new hometown even incorporates Lincoln’s axe as part of his coat-of-arms. And yet, Lincoln was seemingly no Orthodox believer. But is this an example of eisegesis, and thus poor history, as opposed to exegesis? More broadly, the individual cannot use his or her own definitions. Words, ideas, religion…even our bodies (to reference current zaniness), lose all meaning when we allow the individual to create his or her own definitions.
  2. And this leads to another observation.  It seems Onuf thinks the term “Christian” is important.  What is at stake if Jefferson is not a Christian?  (Or if a Unitarian is not a Christian?)  Why is this important?  (I guess I could ask myself the same question). I’m not sure there’s an answer to this query. I think the David Barton’s or some of the Evangelicals need Jefferson to be Christian to help fit their definitions of a Christian nation. For those of us who make more of a historical definition I don’t think it matters all that much. I have never considered Jefferson to be authentically “Christian,” which I suppose means I don’t consider Unitarians to be authentically Christian (which isn’t surprising because there are many denominations and sects I don’t consider Christian that others do, including adherents of the denominations and sects in question), so I guess I’m ambivalent about Jefferson’s Christianity in that I’ve never considered him “one of our own.” However, I would agree “the term ‘Christian’ is important” because it is unique: to be Christian and to adhere to Christianity means something that is unlike anything else in the world. Putting aside personal piety and the explicitly religious aspects, to speak strictly in a historical perspective, Christianity has brought about more good than any other variable in history. Ergo, I would agree with Professor Onuf that the very word “Christian” is important and we must understand what we mean when we use that word. It is also important for the other half of “understanding what we mean when we use that word”; namely, the flippancy of its use.

Onuf and Gordon-Reed certainly sparked a storm with their claim Thomas Jefferson desired  a Christian nation. Knowing the scholarship of both historians, it’s probably a thoroughly researched and documented claim; nevertheless, it has reignited fierce dissension within the discipline about just what is meant by “Christian nation” and even what it means to be a “Christian.” Perhaps more importantly, it has furthered the dialogue over the role of religion in society and government in the founding and Early Republic, which means our present culture will hopefully reevaluate its understanding of the role of religion in society and government.