No, the Founders Didn't Debate the Bible During the Constitutional Convention

Pete Hegseth's church spreads alt-history

Now, this is a doozy. Reconstructionist pastor and author George Grant was on The "Reformation Red Pill" podcast yesterday (12/8/24) and did what Christian nationalists often do with history — make it up.

The podcast is hosted by ministers Brooks Potteiger and Joshua Haymes. Haymes is a pastoral intern at the Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship, a Nashville-area church where Potteiger is the lead pastor. Pilgrim Hill is affiliated with Doug Wilson’s denomination (Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches). Oh, and according to published reports, Donald Trump’s nomination for Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is a church member and a fan of the podcast.

So, the fact that this podcast is so badly off the mark matters. And this is bad. Watch:

Brooks Potteiger (left), Joshua Haymes (center), and George Grant (right). The full podcast can be viewed here. This is a fair use excerpt.

To address the problems with this brief clip, I have the transcript below. I will take the topics in the order discussed here. The general theme is proving America is a Christian nation.

Faith of the Founders

Haymes: So, I have so much I want to ask you, but I'll try to confine it down. What are some others, as I've discussed this with people, I've come to realize that it turns out, like you said at the top of the episode, that the historical facts of the matter are actually really, really important in the discussion because, as you said, the left has won the day in many ways. And they are rewriting the history, they're currently rewriting the history. Right. And when I encounter just average people, they will just deny historical facts outright. They'll say, no, all of them were Masons and deists. Right. Right. And they'll believe it. Right. Because I don't know, they I don't they couldn't have read that in their public school textbook. That's maybe it's a vibe they got. I don't know what it is. Maybe it's an influencer that told them that. But it's just the history is being rewritten in real time.

One thing Haymes said is true. The facts are “actually really, really important.” So taking him at his word, let’s get to the facts. If any “side” is rewriting history, it is the Christian nationalist right. David Barton and his followers have been doing it for years. This is so well documented, I even wrote a book and produced a podcast about it. And as we shall see, history was rewritten during Haymes’ podcast in real time.

As for the Founders and their religious beliefs, I can’t name any historians (there might be some, I just can’t name them) who say all of the Founders were “Masons and deists.” The ones I know and read acknowledge that some were orthodox and some were not. In fact, some were members of Masonic Lodges. George Washington comes to mind. In fact, in 1793, Washington led the dedication of the Capitol building in a Masonic ceremony. However, some of the Founders, such as Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth were quite orthodox.

On the question of America’s Christian nation status, it doesn’t matter that much what they individually believed. What matters is what they did when they came together and wrote the charter documents. When they did that, they wrote a prohibition of religious tests for public service into the Constitution. They went further and added an amendment to the Constitution which made it impossible to establish a religion in the Unites States. The religion of the Founders is an interesting historical matter, but what they individually believed has little, if anything, to do with America as a Christian nation.

State religious establishments

Haymes: What are just some what are some, maybe like a slew of facts that you would point to, I'm putting you on the spot here, that you would point towards that say, this is solid evidence that we were actually a Christian nation in the past. What are just a few little things that you would point people to? You've already given some, but…

Grant: Yeah, well, one would be that every single state of the new nation, the first 13, and then when Vermont came in in 1791, every single one of those first 14 all had state churches. I mean, most people would just be flabbergasted to realize that.

Potteiger: And even when the Constitution was ratified, nine of them still did.

Grant: Nine of them still did.

Potteiger: Even when the Constitution was officially... 1789.

Grant: That's exactly right. you know, that's astonishing.

I don’t think it is astonishing at all. The colonies were chartered by Great Britain (or in the case of New York, the Dutch originally) and as such were not fully able to regulate themselves. Britain had (and still has) a state church and it makes sense that colonies would mirror Britain’s practice regarding religion. Just because the British wanted to encourage religious establishments in the colonies in the 17^th and 18th centuries doesn’t mean all American patriots wanted to do that at all times throughout early American history. In fact, they did not. The history of establishment is one big struggle toward disestablishment. My response to the fact that most colonies and states began with established religions is a big so what.

Having said that, Grant’s claim is a common one and there is some truth to it. Although Grant exaggerates and says every state in the new nation, including the 14th state, Vermont, had a state established church, this isn’t accurate. Points can be awarded to Brooks Potteiger for correcting Grant when he interrupted to say that nine states had establishments when the Constitution was ratified in 1789. Potteiger is more right than Grant. Let me explain.

Not all colonies had a state religion. Thanks to Roger Williams and his dissenters, Rhode Island never did. Another point is to examine what happened after the colonies gained independence. By 1800, five states had disestablished their state religion and by 1833, all states had done so. Although some vestiges of establishment lingered in some states well into the 1800s, the trend was away from state establishment of religion. The people wanted freedom of conscience and they voiced their opinion until they got it. Now that’s astonishing.

The anti-slavery movement started in the South?

Grant: The anti-slavery movement in the United States began out of a revival in Charleston, South Carolina. The fact that the anti-slavery movement began in the South at a time when Delaware was the primary slave trading center of the United States. And in fact, Delaware was the last state to abolish slavery. They continued to have slavery a year and a half after the Civil War was over, two and a half years after the Emancipation Proclamation. So the fact that the South began an anti-slavery movement before any other place, was solely because of this Christian impetus in the culture.

This is just a jumbled mess. The anti-slavery movement started in the North. Vermont, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and other states in the North banned slavery before 1800.

Perhaps, Grant meant the slavery movement expanded in the South. Did he forget that the reason the South seceded was due to slavery? Has he not read the Cornerstone speech by Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy which declared white supremacy? Did he forget that evangelist George Whitefield (1714-1770) was instrumental in slavery being legal in Georgia? Whitefield’s biographer James Gledstone in 1871 said this about the preacher who owned slaves: “neither can we forget that every man who owned a slave would be able to justify it by Whitefield’s example.”

The Christian nationalist whitewash of slavery is infuriating. It is almost as if white Southern Christians such Robert Lewis Dabney didn’t use Christianity to justify slavery. Trying to make a case for a Christian America using opposition to slavery is ridiculous. Please just stop with that.

And why does he pick on Delaware? What that has to do with his point, I have no clue.

What saith the Scriptures in the Constitutional Convention?

Grant: The other thing is, oftentimes, our founding fathers would wrestle with a policy. And you see this in the constitutional debates. Oftentimes, as they were wrestling with policy, they'd be looking at legal precedent, they'd look at Blackstone, they'd try and figure out from a lawyer's perspective what was right or wrong. And invariably, someone would interject and say, yes, but what sayeth the scriptures? And they would not resolve the discussion until they knew what the scriptures said.

No, not at all. This is a flat out lie. Anyone who reads the notes from the Constitutional Convention will know this is completely made up. I am embarrassed for him to be caught in such a lie.

First, Grant said the delegates would look at the English legal scholar Sir William Blackstone. Well, meeting almost every weekday from mid-May to mid-September of 1787, Blackstone came up twice during the debates. Two times.

Okay, did anyone say, “What sayeth the Scriptures?” Nobody said that exact phrase, but Bible verses were mentioned three times by Ben Franklin. Franklin is the Founder that Grant already said wasn’t an evangelical Christian. And he’s the only Founder that even mentioned the Bible. So Franklin mentioned Bible verses three times. Once, Franklin used the Bible to try to convince the delegates to offer daily prayers for the success of their meeting. But they didn’t do it. They didn’t “resolve their discussion until they knew what the Scriptures said.” They adjourned and didn’t pray. On the other occasions, old Ben was the only one who mentioned the Bible and no one tried to engage him in a Bible study. He used the Bible rhetorically and left it at that. There was no concerted effort to use the Bible to make policy.

Don’t believe me? Go read for yourself. Here are links to the debates in the Constitutional Convention edited by Max Farrand.

The Records of the Federal Convention, Vol 1

The Records of the Federal Convention, Vol 2

Go download them and use your search function to look for Scripture, Bible, God, Jesus, religion, anything you want. Let me know what you find.

If you begin reading (I hope you do), you will find delegates appealing frequently to the negative and positive example of England, Europe, Greece and Rome.

I invite Grant, Haymes, and Potteiger to go read the records as well. It would be better for them to do that than to make history up in real time.

Hat tip to Right Wing Watch