Nuance and Honesty

Lambert offers a rare erudite examination of the issue of religion at the founding of our nation. Given the heated partisan rhetoric coming from all sides in this debate, it is refreshing to hear a voice of moderation.

Although Lambert offers a compelling case for a secular government and pluralistic religious culture, such an argument, although cogent, may obscure an underlying problem among those who look to the past for direction on present-day policy: That which "was" is not necessarily "as should be."

Consider this: Our founders tolerated slavery; the subjugation of women in the spheres of education, occupation, and politics; legal disregard for the Native peoples, whose legal definition was left ambiguous, etc.

Is it not safe to assume that we have become a different society and culture since the late eighteenth century? Therefore, even IF the "Christian-nation" pseudo-historians could convincingly make their case, it does not follow that America SHOULD be a Christian nation today any more than we would conclude that slavery or disenfranchisement of women and blacks are acceptable features of our culture.

In the end, my response would be, "So what?" I have no antiquarian reactionary neuroses that compel me to embrace the ideas of past generations. Indeed, it is the lack of a compelling message that forces evangelicals to cherry-pick history to buttress their unpersuasive arguments.

Having said that, Lambert's book should be applauded for successfully undermining the simplistic, quote-mining, de-contextualizing, de-historicizing pretensions of fundamentalist revisionists who ransack history in search of only "useful" evidence.

Fair and balanced?

Lambert's book provides a valuable overview of sectarian strife in early America. His examination of Adams' view of church-state relations was especially helpful.

In the intro, though, he claims to be writing a book that takes the middle road on church-state relations. Previous reviewers proved themselves highly suggestible readers in this regard, as his view of the Founders take on church and state is decidedly imbalanced. If you're going to write a book focusing on the Founders' two most vociferous separationists, at least present some truth in advertising.

* Lambert spends 70 pages on Jefferson and Adams and a mere 16 on Washington and Hamilton. Any coincidence that the former two were vociferous separationists, while the latter two were integrationists?

* Lambert doesn't once mention Washington's farewell address. Such an omission in a book on church-state relations defies comprehension, until you see that Lambert's agenda, contra claims, is to buttress contemporary support for a complete separation between government and religion.

* Lambert fails to apply the common distinction between state-established religion and civic religion to the modern debate.

* Instead, he finishes the book by providing a damning quote from Jerry Falwell and proceding to refute the televangelist. And again, in an omission that reveals his barely concealed agenda, Lambert provides no similar quote-and-refutation regarding today's separation absolutists. The implication in the Falwell quote is that integrationists are mostly establishmentarians rather than civic religionists.

Consider this book a useful supplement on certain aspects of the church-state issue in early America, especially on the importance of sectarian divisions. But don't buy the neutrality nonsense he offers in the intro. As happens with most professors today, Lambert's worldview so thoroughly dominates his profession that it can't help but emerge through even the most determined efforts to remain objective.

Christian Nation, Secular State

This very good book is a concise history of church-state relations in Colonial and Revolutionary America from the early British settlements to the election of 1800. Lambert describes the nature of early religous establishments, the increasing diversification of American religion, the impact of the Enlightenment and radical Whig ideology, and the emergence of church-state separation after the Revolution. There will be little new in this book for scholars of this period but this is definitely the best overview I have seen on this very contentious topic. Aimed at a broad audience, The Founding Fathers is written well, organized well, and is objective.
Lambert comes to this subject from an interesting perspective. His prior major work has been on the history of 18th century evangelism and his is an expert on Colonial religous practice. He particularly stresses that most of the colonies were founded originally with established churches and that establishment crumbled under the pressures of religous diversification. By the mid-18th century, the colonies contained a remarkably diverse set of Protestant sects and even some Catholics. This religous diversity, some of which arose from immigration and some from separatist movements within established churches, placed great strains on established churches. The mid-century Great Awakening resulted in further diversification and undermined the authority of the parish system throughout the colonies. Around the same time, the Enlightenment, with its Deistic views, and radical Whig ideology, with its emphasis on individual liberty, were becoming increasingly influential in the Colonies. All these factors converged to form a widespread belief that individuals, not the state, should determine religous faith. Individual churches would have to compete for adherents in a marketplace of ideas without the support of the state. These ideas eventually culminated in the post-Revolutionary separation of Church and State in the Federal Constitution. Separationism was supported most strongly by a coalition of relatively secular political leaders, like most of the Founders, and Protestant dissenters whose churches had suffered discrimination under the established churches in several colonies. This coalition believed correctly that religion was best served by being separated from the state. This was truly a revolutionary development and the USA was the first polity to enact church-state separation. Indeed, a number of European states still have established churches and almost all of them preserve a constitutionally sanctioned special relationship with one church. Lambert concludes by discussing the Presidential election of 1800, which some Federalists and sectarians framed as a referendum on Jefferson's unfitness to be President because of his deist-unitarian beliefs. Lambert argues convincingly that the election of 1800 acted as a referendum of sorts not just on Jefferson but also on church-state separation. Perhaps the only significant defect of this book is that the conclusion leaves one with the impression that the Church-State separation was settled after the election of 1800. It was not, and some of the more unattractive subsequent aspects of our history are consequences of imperfect separation. The Federal separation of Church and State applied originally only to the actions of the Federal government, some states continued with established churches into the 19th century. More important, state and local political power became vehicles for religous bigotry, notably abuse of public school systems in ways that infringed the rights of minority religions. One of the reasons we have a large system of Catholic private education is that 19th century Protestants used public schools to harass Catholics. Lambert demonstrates nicely that separation was engendered by the religous diversity of 18th century America. We have even more religous diversity today and separation continues to be a guarantee of a vibrant religous culture.
The issue of Church-State separation continues to be very contentious. Since many partisans in this debate appeal to the Revolutionary period to support their points of view, writing in this field can be emotionally charged. Lambert has clearly written this book in an effort to provide a fair and dispassionate presentation of what actually happened. Reflecting a broad consensus of knowledgeable historians, he has succeeded, though his conclusions will not be palatable for many on the religous right.