From a poll taken of lettered historians in 2010 it was a surprising discovery that the number one current interest for historians related to religion and history. This was a significant shift from former priorities, and interests of first concern for cultural differences in world societies. It also raised religion from low status in evidence of causes. One historian cast it: The place of religion in history must not be left only to the devout. Christian historians apparently agreed and welcomed engagement. This new emphasis generated from the confrontation of Islamic forces with the west after the turn to the 21st Century. Many Islamic believers tend to identify non-Islamic nations as either Christian to which many attach aggressive pagan reputation, or other faiths too greatly influenced by pagan (nature source, perhaps anti-god) beliefs.
There is no question but that Christianity had much to do with the founding and development of the American colonies. Columbus had Christian concern for the Indians he found in the New World. Leaders at every level: from peasant class, (Roger Williams) to clergy class (Jonathan Edwards) to wealthy class (Washington, Adams, Byrd) – and many more had much to do with a Christian identity of what became the United States. The dominant leadership in the colonies related strongly to the clergy, men who also were often the teachers and tutors of local children, and mentors to the collegians who aspired to higher education. Missions to the American Indians were a major interest in the church. George Washington wrote about, encouraged and contributed to Christian missions to Indian tribes. Results were mixed.
Winning the Revolutionary War, the American colonies disestablished the Anglican Church, which is to say that the Church of England was not made a part of the State, although it had been a part for some of the colonies up to the time of the war. One could be stopped in some colonies if he was found on the streets, and not in church on Sabbath Morning. George Washington was once stopped when traveling in an area for not attending church that day. He promptly found a church, and entered for worship. Church attendance was his habit when at home. In disestablishment (separation of church and state) the church was on its own with the public and the Constitution provided that the government would not make laws that would constitute hindrance to the church. Separation was made legal in the new United States. The main point was to protect religion from incursion, not to divest it from member participation. Perhaps most citizens today have inadvertently shifted to concern that the church may improperly affect government.
This new approach created a different context for Protestant Christian influence, so to include Catholic Christians, but also for other religious bodies. It was the beginning for the end of prejudice against non-protestant groups relating to backgrounds, for Jews, and other groups, even for the null-religions of deists and atheists. The context was personal freedom, with church inclusion. State and religion were related without legal ties. They were to be friends, working for the common good, within their parameters. In decades since the American Civil War a bit of rift has grown in public life related to religion and state.
Context has gradually shifted so that the two entities, concerned for the same people mass, are made to be in some tension (exclusiveness) with each other. Washington who favored disestablishment was a man of faith. He urged prayer, set up chaplains in the military and in public. He would lead in prayer wherever he might be invited. His wife urged him to have clergy offer grace when they were guests at Mount Vernon, rather than do it himself. He read sermons to his family, and found biblical language helpful even in public statements. He believed Christianity vital to the nation, and advanced faith in that context. He saw the two entities as separate, but friends and colleagues in serving society. Today, in the age of pluralism, there is a tendency to marginalize religion that may include tension from complexity. There is loss in the tension for both entities. The church has legitimate complaints, but so does the government in dealing with the persons holding some church authority who do not act in partnership with government or with ethical public standards. The church and government are called to serve. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020