Categories: Articles

Fall 1998

Thanksgiving in America

This month, America will continue a tradition begun centuries ago: the celebration of a Day of Thanksgiving. The origin of this tradition is commonly attributed to the Pilgrims in 1621, even though some Thanksgiving services did occur elsewhere in America as early as 1607. While Thanksgiving celebrations became common in New England, they did not begin to spread southward until the American Revolution, when Congress issued eight separate national Thanksgiving Proclamations.

Then in 1789, following a proclamation issued by President George Washington, America celebrated its first Day of Thanksgiving to God under its new Constitution. That same year, the Protestant Episcopal Church, of which President Washington was a member, announced that the first Thursday in November would become its regular day for giving thanks, “unless another day be appointed by the civil authorities.” Yet, despite these early national proclamations, official Thanksgiving observances usually occurred only at the State level.

Much of the credit for the adoption of an annual national Thanksgiving Day may be attributed to Mrs. Sarah Joseph Hale, the editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book. For thirty years, she promoted the idea of a national Thanksgiving Day, contacting President after President until President Abraham Lincoln responded in 1863 by setting aside the last Thursday of November as a national Day of Thanksgiving. Over the next seventy-five years, Presidents followed Lincoln’s precedent, annually declaring a national Thanksgiving Day. Then, in 1941, Congress permanently established the
fourth Thursday of each November as a national holiday.

Lincoln’s original 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation came–spiritually speaking–at a pivotal point in his life. During the first week of July of that year, the Battle of Gettysburg occurred, resulting in the loss of some 60,000 American lives. Four months later in November, Lincoln delivered his famous “Gettysburg Address.” It was while Lincoln was walking among the thousands of graves there at Gettysburg that he committed his life to Christ. As he explained to a friend:

When I left Springfield [to assume the Presidency] I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ.

Following is the 1863 Lincoln Thanksgiving Proclamation–celebrated shortly after Lincoln committed his life to Christ and celebrated while America was still in the midst of its Civil War. It was this proclamation which eventually led to the establishment of our national Thanksgiving holiday.

Proclamation of Thanksgiving by the President of the United States of America

The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful years and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the Source from which they come, others have been added which are of so extraordinary a nature that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of almighty God

In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign states to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere, except in the theater of military conflict, while that theater has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.

Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plow, the shuttle, or the ship; the ax has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than theretofore.

Population has steadily increased notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege, and the battlefield, and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity, and union.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

 

Abraham Lincoln

 

A Biblical and Historical Perspective on the Clinton Scandal

The President, by his own admission, has violated several of the most basic laws undergirding both society and religion: the Ten Commandments. Specifically, the President willfully broke the 7th command (to maintain the sanctity of sex within marriage), the 10th command (forbidding coveting another person), and the 9th command (prohibiting perjury).

Such blatant violations of the Ten Commandments are no small matter. To reject the Ten Commandments is to disdain those laws which were described by John Quincy Adams as the “laws essential to the existence of men in society,” by John Adams as the “inviolable precepts in every society” that make it “civilized and free,” and by John Witherspoon as “the sum of the moral law.”

There can be nothing said in defense of the President. What he has done is wrong. Nevertheless, in an attempt to evade the consequences, the strategy pursued by the supporters and counselors of the President has been twofold: (1) to ask forgiveness and show public contrition, and (2) to degrade the culture by claiming that others also do what the President did–that it’s only sex–a private matter.

While seeking forgiveness is commendable, particularly if it is sincere, it never has, and never should, excuse someone from the consequences of his behavior. In fact, 1 Samuel 15:9-31 presents a striking parallel to the current situation. In that account, Saul, the national leader, committed a transgression. When Samuel uncovered and exposed the unrighteous act, Saul offered an apology, declaring, “I have sinned. . . . Now, I beg you, please forgive my sin.” Nevertheless, God had Samuel inform Saul that because of his behavior, “The Lord has rejected you as leader.” (See the account of a similar but separate incident in 1 Samuel 13:8-14.) Similar lessons may be learned through the stories of Esau, David, Hezekiah, Uzziah, Gehazi, and others. While each committed a wrong and later regretted his behavior, each still had to face the consequences of his own wrong behavior. In short, “I’m sorry” is insufficient to prevent the consequences of a leader’s willful, serious, and immoral misbehavior.

And the “everybody else is doing it” defense is wrong for at least two reasons. First, the Bible forcefully declares, on numerous occasions, that each person must face the consequences of and be responsible for his own actions—regardless of what “everybody” else does. (See, for example, Jeremiah 31:27-30). Second, to claim that such behavior is widespread and common undermines the mores of our society. In fact, the proper response should be to condemn the act rather than attempt excuse or justify the act. As explained by John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence:

[H]e is the best friend to American liberty who . . . sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind.

Under this standard, if the President’s supporters truly cared about America, rather than excusing immoral behavior, even if done “privately,” they would be condemning it. Unfortunately, the President’s defenders have done just the opposite, conveying to the public a perception that those who practice marital fidelity are the minority. That Americans actually perceive this to be the moral condition of America is illustrated by a poll earlier released by Family Circle magazine. The results of that survey, questioning respondents on the Ten Commandments, confirmed an interesting image of misperceptions.

For example, while only fourteen percent of the respondents had actually engaged in extramarital relations, amazingly, forty-five percent reported their belief that extramarital relations were common. Why would respondents believe that extramarital relations among that group occurred at a rate nearly three times higher than it actually did? Because they have been consistently pummeled–as a defense by those who engage in extramarital affairs–with the charge that such affairs are commonplace.

Not only do the efforts of the President’s supporters weaken the moral standards, they actually perpetuate historical revisionism. That is, in an attempt to excuse the President’s immoral behavior, his defenders are asserting that President George Washington also engaged in immoral and illicit sexual relations–a charge that is historically false. (To see a full rebuttal of the accusation, refer to chapter 16 in my book, Original Intent.)

A further point of defense raised by the President’s supporters is that this was a private matter and would an average citizen want an investigator looking into his life as the President’s has been? The fact of the matter is that the President is not an average citizen, and both the Bible and American history set a more rigorous standard for a leader. For example, James 3:1 warns:

Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

Similarly high standards for leaders are set forth in passages like Titus 1:6-9, 1 Timothy 3:1-12, Exodus 18:21-22, etc. Those standards specifically address moral and private conduct and also direct that a leader’s life should be held forth as a positive example for others to follow (see, for example, 1 Cor. 11:1). It is understandable that a leader is held to a higher standard than others because he possesses more power and has more opportunity to influence–for good or for bad–many more millions of lives than does the average citizen.

Our Founding Fathers understood this need for a higher moral standard in our leaders, and they specifically advocated investigating the private moral life of a leader. The Biblical reason underlying their logic is found in Luke 6:43-44 and Matthew 7:16-20, in which Jesus reminds us:

Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. . . . Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Very simply, if a tree has bad roots, it will produce bad fruits. Consequently, the “roots” of a public officer are important, for one who produces bad fruit in private life cannot keep from eventually producing it in public life.

Understanding this, Founding Father Elias Boudinot, a President of the Continental Congress, reminded us to “be religiously careful in our choice of all public officers . . . and judge of the tree by its fruits.” Other American statesmen made equally succinct declarations. For example:

He who is void of attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard of his country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections. . . . [P]rivate and public vices are in reality . . . connected. . . . Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men. Samuel Adams

 

Righteousness alone can exalt [America] as a nation. . . . [R]emember this! And in thy sphere practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others. . . . [T]he great pillars of all government . . . [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible. Patrick Henry

 

As governments are made and moved by men, so by them they are ruined too. . . . Let men be good and the governplainfs22 ment cannot be bad. . . . But if men be bad, the government be never good. William Penn

 

[I]f we . . . trifle with the injunctions of morality . . . no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us. . . . [No] government [can] be secure which is not supported by moral habits. Daniel Webster

 

In selecting men for office . . . look to his character. . . . [I]f the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. . . . When a citizen gives his [vote] to a man of known immorality . . . he betrays the interest of his country. Noah Webster

 

Those who wish well to the State ought to choose to places of trust men of inward principle, justified by exemplary [lifestyle]. Is it reasonable to expect wisdom from the ignorant? fidelity from the profligate? assiduity and application to public business from men of a dissipated life? . . . Those, therefore, who pay no regard to religion and sobriety in the persons whom they [elect] are guilty of the greatest absurdity and will soon pay dear for their folly. John Witherspoon

 

While it is too late for us as voters to apply these lessons to our current President, it is not too late for us to apply these lessons to the present election. Remember to vote–and to vote for God-fearing and moral individuals. As the Bible reminds us in Proverbs 29:2: “When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.”

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

In the midst of the debate surrounding a potential presidential impeachment, the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” has become a focal point. This phrase is found in Article II, Section 4, Par. 1, of the Constitution, and sets forth the reasons for the removal of a President:

The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Supporters of the President argue that what has been uncovered–thus far–does not amount to “high crimes and misdemeanors” like “treason [and] bribery.” While they admit the President’s actions to be disgusting and reprehensible, they claim that nevertheless they are not sufficiently serious felonies so as to constitute impeachable offenses.

Those who offer this argument are guilty of two errors: (1) they are ignorant of (or ignore) the clear declarations both of our Founding Fathers who authored this clause and of those who for a century-and-a-half afterwards enforced this clause, and (2) they group words together in the clause which should be kept separate that is, they talk of “high crimes and misdemeanors” as if they are they same thing; they are not.

The clause should be read “high crimes” and “misdemeanors”–two separate categories. No one can logically argue that a “high crime” is the same as a “misdemeanor.” What the Founding Fathers did in this clause was to offer a broad scope of impeachable offenses ranging from serious felonies (high crimes) to much lesser categories of misbehavior (misdemeanors).

This is further confirmed by the two specific examples the Founders included in the Constitution: treason and bribery. Treason was a serious capital offense, resulting in execution, while bribery–even though it was considered a moral wrong–was not yet a statutory crime when the Constitution was adopted! Clearly, then, what the Constitution specifies is a wide range of impeachable offenses, from high crimes (such as treason) to misdemeanors (such as bribery–not then illegal).

The definitions of “misdemeanor” confirmed this. For example, Alexander Hamilton and Justice Joseph Story (placed on the Supreme Court by President James Madison) defined a “misdemeanor” as political “malconduct,” and Noah Webster (responsible for the copyright and patent protection clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution) defined “misdemeanor” as “ill behavior, evil conduct, fault, or mismanagement.” Professor John Randolph Tucker (a U.S. Congressman, constitutional law professor, and early president of the American Bar Association) explained in his 1891 Commentaries on the Constitution that “misdemeanor” was “a synonym for misbehavior” and that “[t]he words ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ cannot be confined to crimes created and defined by a statute of the United States.”

Realizing, then, that the constitutional scope of impeachable offenses ranged from serious felonies down to misbehavior and evil conduct, Joseph Story, in his classic 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution, declared:

The offences to which the power of impeachment has been and is ordinarily applied as a remedy are. . . . what are aptly termed political offences, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interest.

And Professor John Randolph Tucker, in the 1891 Commentaries mentioned earlier, declared:

The process of impeachment is a political proceeding, against the accused as an officer of the government, to protect the government from the present or future incumbency of a man whose conduct has proved him unworthy to fill it. . . . The impeachment power was intended to cleanse the government from the presence of worthless and faithless individuals.

That this had been the intent of the Founding Fathers was irrefutable. For example, James Iredell (an original Supreme Court Justice appointed by President George Washington) succinctly declared:

Every government requires [impeachment]. Every man ought to be amenable for his conduct. . . . It will be not only the means of punishing misconduct but it will prevent misconduct. A man in public office who knows that there is no tribunal to punish him may be ready to deviate from his duty; but if he knows there is a tribunal for that purpose, although he may be a man of no principle, the very terror of punishment will perhaps deter him.

Therefore, in the current raging debate over what constitutes an impeachable offense, do not be misled by those who would define “high crimes” and “misdemeanors” as being the same, and then who raise the bar for impeachment so high that it protects an individual from being accountable for his conduct.

Meet a Friend

Once again, it is a pleasure to highlight an organization that is having a profound impact on our society. The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools is getting the Bible back into public schools nationwide. Founded in 1994 by Elizabeth Ridenour, this organization helps public schools set up elective Bible courses by first educating them to the fact that the courses are completely constitutional and then by providing the curriculum for the courses, with the Bible itself being the primary textbook.

According to the NCBCPS, the ultimate goals of these courses, in part, are to “equip the student with
a fundamental understanding of the influence of the Bible on history, law, American community life, and culture; give insight into the world views of America’sfounding fathers and to understand the Biblical influences on their views on human rights; . . . [and] familiarize the student with the Bible so that he or she becomes skillful in its use, such as finding references easily.” Currently, fifty-seven districts in twenty-six States have started teaching the Bible as an elective in public schools.

Black History Issue 1998

Honoring Godly Heroes

America’s Godly heritage has been under assault in recent years. Secularist spokesmen claim that America was created as a secular nation by secular individuals who intended that it always remain secular. These individuals understand that by destroying the knowledge of America’s religious heritage, it is easier to persuade subsequent generations to embrace secularism. Interestingly, this religious cleansing has no racial boundaries. An examination of the individuals often honored during February’s “Black History Month” (celebrated nationally since 1976) shows that the secularization of America’s history

Is directed against all Godly heroes, no matter their skin color. Therefore, to introduce Americans to little-known heroes, this WallBuilder Report will honor three famous Godly Black Americans all but ignored by today’s secularists: Benjamin Banneker, Phillis Wheatley, and Richard Allen.

Benjamin Banneker

Benjamin Banneker was born a free Black on a tobacco plantation near Baltimore in 1731. Although he received little formal education (his grandmother taught him to read), this was no handicap to a man with his work ethic and his intense desire to learn. In fact, his life was characterized by his passion for knowledge.

For example, in his early twenties, after studying the workings of a pocket watch, Banneker built a perfectly operating wooden clock that even struck on the hour! Although he loved to read, he was in his thirties before he was able to purchase his first book – a Bible (Banneker frequented the meetings of the Quakers throughout his life). By the time he was in his fifties, he had so completely mastered the science of astronomy through self-study that he was even able to point out errors in several noted scientific works of the day. And when he was in his sixties, because of his fame and reputation, he was picked as one of seven surveyors to lay out the District of Columbia – the new capitol city.

In the early 1790s, Banneker began to publish an almanac for Maryland and neighboring states. His work was in high demand because of his accurate predictions for sunsets, sunrises, eclipses, weather conditions, and even for his calculation of the recurrence of locust plagues in seventeen year cycles. At his death in 1806, he had actually lived eight years longer than he had calculated, and this is often referred to as the only time he made a mistake in his calculations! The knowledge he acquired by his study of the heavens earned him the title of “Star Gazer.”

Of all of Banneker’s writings, one of his most notable was a 1791 letter to Secretary-of-State Thomas Jefferson:

Sir, I am fully sensible of the greatness of the freedom I take with you on the present occasion; a liberty which seemed scarcely allowable when I reflect on that distinguished and dignifed station in which you stand, and the almost general prejudice which is so prevalent in the world against those of my complexion. . . .

I hope I may safely admit, in consequence of the report which has reached me, that you are a man far less inflexible in sentiments of this nature than many others; that you are measurably friendly and well-disposed towards us; and that you are willing to lend your aid and assistance for our relief. . . .

[Y]our sentiments are concurrent with mine, which are that one universal Father hath given being to us all; that He hath . . . made us all of one flesh . . . and that however variable we may be in society or religion, however diversified in situation or in color, we are all of the same family and stand in the same relation to Him. . . .

[I]t is the indispensable duty of those who . . . profess the obligations of Christianity, to extend their powers and influence to the relief of every part of the human race from whatever burden or oppression they may unjustly labor under. . . .

I freely and cheerfully acknowledge that I am of the African race, and in that color which is natural to them, of the deepest dye. . . .

[There] was a time when you clearly saw into the injustice of a state of slavery, and. . . . your abhorrence thereof was so excited that you publicly held forth this true and invaluable doctrine, which is worthy to be recorded and remembered in all succeeding ages: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” . . .

I . . . recommend to you and all others to wean yourselves from those narrow prejudices which you have imbibed with respect to [my brethren], and as Job proposed to his friends, “put your soul in their soul’s stead” [Job 16:4]; thus shall your hearts be enlarged with kindness and benevolence towards them. . . .

Your most obedient humble servant, Benjamin Banneker

Jefferson responded to Banneker, telling him that “Nobody wishes more than I do to seek such proofs as you exhibit – that nature has given to our Black brethren talents equal to those of the other colors of men.”

This wish by Jefferson became reality, for Benjamin Banneker – both during his life and after his death – was held forth as a shining example of the intellectual capacity and the moral uprightness of Blacks, something which was long denied by the pro-slavery advocates of that day.

Phillis Wheatley

Phillis Wheatley was born in Senegal, Africa, in 1753. She was kidnapped at the age of eight and sent on a slave ship to Boston. Purchased by a prosperous Boston tailor, John Wheatley, she was trained as a personal servant for John’s wife, Susannah.

Phillis was quick and perceptive, and Susannah and her daughter Mary were drawn in a special manner to Phillis. Susannah considered Phillis a daughter, and Mary treated her like a sister. Both tutored her in the
Scriptures and in morals, and within sixteen months Phillis had so mastered English that she was able to read the most difficult parts of the Bible with ease. Mary then taught Phillis astronomy, geography, ancient history, the Latin classics, and the English poets, all of which Phillis conquered with equal ease. Because of her aptitude for difficult knowledge and her ability as a brilliant conversationalist, Phillis was considered by the Bostonian intellectuals to be a child prodigy.

When she was only thirteen years old, Phillis wrote her first poetic verses; and then three years later, being an admirer of the celebrated Rev. George Whitefield, she authored a special poem about his life. This early interest in poetry continued for the rest of her life, and today Phillis is known as America’s first Black female poet.

In 1771, Phillis became a member of the famous Old South Church. It was later said that “her membership in Old South was an exception to the rule that slaves were not baptized into the church.”

In 1773, her health began to fail. A sea-voyage was recommended, and Mrs. Wheatley promptly saw to it that Phillis was manumitted (freed). Phillis traveled to England, where she was received by British royalty. While abroad, she published her first collection of poems, Poems on Various Subjects, Religious and Moral.

In 1775, while still abroad, and while the siege of Boston was underway in America, Phillis wrote a letter to the new Commander-in-Chief, General Washington, containing a special poem she had written for him:

His Excellency George Washington . . . Thee, first in place and honors, – we demand
The grace and glory of thy martial band Fam’d for thy valor, for thy virtues more, Here every tongue thy guardian aid implore! . . . Proceed, great chief, with virtue on thy side, Thy every action let the goddess guide. A crown, a mansion, and a throne that shine, With gold unfading, Washington, be thine. . . .

Washington was touched by the poem; and when Phillis returned to America, Washington invited her to his military camp at Cambridge to honor her before his staff.

Phillis had returned to America when she had learned of the declining health of Mrs. Wheatley, who died shortly after her return. Phillis remained close to the family. She continued her writings and purposed to bring out a second volume of poems to be dedicated to Benjamin Franklin. Misfortune, however, intervened.

In 1778, Phillis married John Peters, a free Black. Although he appeared promising (he was a writer and had studied for the law), his character was deeply flawed: he was slothful, did not provide for his new wife, and failed to give her the care that her delicate health required. He also demanded that she isolate herself from her former friends and even required that she cut off all contact with the Wheatleys. Peters finally deserted Phillis.

Under these circumstances, and only five years after her marriage, Phillis died in obscurity at the age of 30, alone and in poverty, buried in an unmarked grave. Of her three children, two died in infancy, and the third was buried alongside her.

Despite the hardships in her life, Phillis never complained. In fact, she found a silver lining – or rather a Divine one – even in her tragic life of slavery. In her poem, “On Being Brought from Africa to America,” she wrote:

‘Twas mercy brought me from my Pagan land Taught my benighted soul to understand
That there’s a God, that there’s a Savior too: Once I redemption neither sought nor knew. Some view our fable race with scornful eye, “Their color is a diabolic dye.” Remember, Christians, Negroes black as Cain, May be refin’d, and join th’ angelic train.

Phillis’ poetry was popular for generations after her death, and she was considered a heroine by those who fought to end slavery. She remains a shining example of a devout Christian, an accomplished poet, and a gracious and kind woman.

Richard Allen

Richard Allen was born as a slave to Benjamin Chew​ in Philadelphia in 1760. While still a youngster, he was sold to a farmer in Delaware. Allen was converted to Christianity by the preaching of the Methodists. His owner (known in Allen’s autobiography as “Stokeley”) was so impressed with Richard’s Godly lifestyle that he permitted the young Allen to conduct services in his home. In fact, Stokeley himself was converted during one of these services, after which he made it possible for Allen to purchase his freedom.

Allen traveled throughout eastern Pennsylvania and neighboring states, using every opportunity to preach the Gospel to both Whites and Blacks. At the meeting of the first general conference of the Methodist Church in Baltimore in 1784, Allen was accepted as a minister.

Allen began to preach regularly at the St. George Methodist Church in Philadelphia. He suggested that Blacks should have a separate place of worship apart from Whites; and although his suggestion was at first resisted, his forceful preaching attracted such a vast number of Blacks to the church that when objections were raised, Allen’s idea of a separate congregation was finally accepted.

In 1787, Allen led in the establishment of an organization known as the “Free African Society,” composed of both Black Methodists and Black Episcopalians. Black churches in New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland began to separate from traditional denominations to join this loose-knit society. In 1816, these independent churches merged to become the “Africa Methodist Episcopal Church” (the A. M. E. Church); Allen was chosen as its First bishop.

Allen ministered not only to the spiritual needs of his fellow man, but to his temporal needs as well. For example, when the yellow-fever epidemic ravaged Philadelphia in 1793 (killing over four thousand of the forty-thousand inhabitants), nearly all medical doctors fled the city to save their own lives. One of the few who remained was Dr. Benjamin Rush (signer of the Declaration). Richard Allen worked shoulder to shoulder as a medic with Dr. Rush throughout the danger to aid countless victims in whatever way he could.

In 1794, the year following the epidemic, Allen wrote a compelling work documenting his service during that tragedy: A Narrative of the Proceedings of the Black People During the Late Awful Calamity in Philadelphia. Allen’s humanitarian service ranks with the most heroic deeds of America’s history.

Allen urged others to humanitarian service whenever possible and in whatever cause. On one occasion, he charged his audience:

Consider, my brethren, that all we have and are is entrusted to us by Almighty God. . . . and to Him we must give an account at the great day of reckoning. . . . Our blessed Lord has not committed His goods to us as a dead stock, to be hoarded up, or to lie unprofitably in our own hands. He expects that we shall put them out to proper and beneficial uses, and raise them to an advanced value by doing good with them as often as we have opportunity.

Allen’s faith shone through in all of his accomplishments, and he openly proclaimed his gratefulness to God:

I believe it is my greatest honor and happiness to be Thy disciple; how miserable and blind are those that live without God in the world, who despise the light of Thy holy faith. Make me to part with all the enjoyments of life; nay, even life itself, rather than forfeit this jewel of great price.

When Allen died in 1831, it was said that the crowd which gathered to honor him “exceeded anything of the kind ever before witnessed in the country.” Richard Allen was described as “a man of deep piety, the strictest integrity, and indomitable perseverance; and his moral influence was unbounded.”

Summary

America’s Godly heritage encompasses heroes from many races – a fact both we and our children, regardless of our ethnic roots, must understand. The book of Revelation affirms this fact when it declares:

There was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people, and language, standing before the throne. . . . They cried out in a loud voice: “Salvation belongs to our God!” Revelation 7:9, 10

The universal truth of Psalm 144:15 has been proven by every historical age and should be remembered at all times – including Black History Month – that “Happy is that people whose God is the Lord!”

Late Summer 1998

A “Do-Nothing Congress”? Says Who?

America is unquestionably engaged in a culture war. On one side are Christians and other devout people of faith who embrace traditional and Christian family values, and on the other side are the secularists, humanists, separationists, and others who want a society free from Christian influence or traditions. The battlegrounds for the culture war are the primary power centers of the pulpit, education, government, and media. How are we doing in each?

Generally, the pulpit is still strongly supportive of Christian values in public; while occasionally silent, only rarely is it antagonistic. Despite positive gains in recent years, by and large the education establishment remains generally hostile to Christian values. In government, the Executive and the Judicial branches demonstrate a clear hostility while the Legislative branch is becoming an ally. And although the media is beginning to improve (as evidenced by the explosion of conservative talk-radio), the major outlets continue to be hostile. Yet, despite the fact that three of the four power centers currently reject Christian values, the overwhelming majority of Americans embrace those values, as confirmed by polls on belief in God, church attendance, support for school prayer, opposition to sodomy, support of traditional marriage, etc.

Therefore, since those parties advancing anti-Christian values are actually in the minority, to gain public support, they must do everything they can to portray themselves as the majority, pursuing reasonable and rational goals. Thus, they publicize their own victories (which means highlighting our defeats) while minimizing word of their defeats (by suppressing the reports of our victories).

An excellent example of this tactic is the media’s current characterization that we have a “do-nothing Congress.” This charge means either that (1) Congress actually has done nothing (at least according to the media’s agenda) or (2) Congress has furthered the Christian values agenda, and thus every effort must be made to halt this progress. Both suppositions are correct, especially the second one. As proof, consider the following facts:

Protecting Human Life

  • Congress expanded the Hyde Amendment ban on taxpayer-financed abortions in federal health programs to also include managed-care arrangements, Medicaid, Title X family planning assistance, Title XX social services Block Grants to States, and the Children’s Health-Insurance Block-Grant Program (Public Law 105-33).
  • Congress restored the ban–which President Clinton had lifted–on taxpayer-financed abortions in U.S. military facilities (Public Law 104-106), on abortion coverage in the federal employees health benefits program (Public Law 104-52), on taxpayer-financed abortions in the District of Columbia (Public Law 104-134), and on taxpayer-financed abortions in federal prisons (Public Law 104-134).
  • Congress permanently prohibited the American Council of Graduate Medical Education from forcing medical schools to require the performance of abortions (Public Law 104-134).
  • Congress also banned abortion litigation by the Legal Services Corporation (a government funded legal service), federal funding for assisted suicide and euthanasia (Public Law 105-12), and taxpayer-funded human embryo research (Public Law 104-134).
  • Congress has twice banned the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortions, and has fallen short of the two-thirds vote necessary to override President Clinton’s veto by only three votes in the Senate.

Promoting Marriage and the Family

  • Congress passed the “Defense of Marriage Act” which (1) federally defines “marriage” as “the union of one man and one woman as man and wife” for purposes of all federal benefits, and (2) allows each State (rather than unelected judges) to define marriage according to their traditions and values (Public Law 104-199).
  • Congress enacted several strong pro-marriage provisions as part of welfare reform, including a bonus system to reward States which reduce out-of-wedlock birth rates without increasing abortions (Public Law 104-193).
  • Congress enacted a permanent $500 per-child tax credit (Public Law 105-34) and passed homemaker IRAs so that work-at-home spouses could set aside up to $2,000 a year in a tax-deferred retirement savings (Public Law 104-188).
  • Congress made major reforms in adoption policies, including enacting (1) a $5,000 tax credit for adoption expenses, (2) a $6,000 tax credit for hard-to-place special-needs children, (3) a ban on “race matching” by adoption agencies so minority children can be placed in any loving family (Public Law 104-188), and (4) an accelerated procedure for moving abused and neglected children from foster homes into adoptive homes (Public Law 105-89).

Religious Liberties

  • Congress has advanced a number of religious liberty bills, including the first ever vote on a School Prayer Amendment by both the Judiciary Committee and the whole House, a bill to penalize those countries who participate in or condone the persecution of Christians and other people of faith (e.g., China, Sudan, Pakistan, Laos, etc.), a bill to protect the public display of the Ten Commandments, and a number of other positive bills. While not all of these bills were signed into law by the President, nevertheless, this is the best session the Congress has had on the issue of religious liberty in recent memory.
  • Congress passed a bill to allow faith-based charities to participate in delivering welfare benefits (Public Law 104-193).

Education

  • Of the 260 federal education programs overseen by the House Education Committee, 105 of the programs have been eliminated.
  • Congress passed a permanent ban on funding for Clinton’s federal testing scheme (the foundation for his plan for a national curriculum).
  • Congress killed a proposed new tax on education benefits for the children of school faculty members–a tax specifically targeted at teachers in religious schools (this was a big win for private religious schools).
  • Congress enacted educational IRAs to cover expenses for public, private, and home schools, and passed a school-choice voucher bill for students in Washington, D. C., (both bills were vetoed by the President).

Morality

  • Congress banned the funding of obscene art (Public Law 104-134), the distribution of indecent or patently offensive material to minors over the Internet (Public Law 104-104), the sale of pornography at military facilities (Public Law 104-106), and taxpayer-funded needle-exchange programs.
  • Congress strengthened child pornography laws (Public Law 104-71).
  • Congress funded $50 million dollars for abstinence-education programs (Public Law 104-193).
  • Congress moved against the gambling industry, appointing pro-family hero Kay James as the Chairman of the National Gambling Impact Commission to investigate and report on the effects of gambling (Public Law 104-169).

Other Issues

Also, Congress has pursued a number of measures to reverse judicial activism and to limit judicial intrusiveness and micromanagement. Additionally, Congress prohibited the United Nations command of U. S. troops, but that bill–like so many other good bills–was vetoed by the President.

Upcoming Votes

There are still a number of important votes scheduled for the final weeks of this Congress, including:

  • A ban (for the third time) on partial-birth abortions.
  • A ban on transporting minors across State lines in order to evade parental-consent or parental-notification abortion restrictions.
  • A ban on discrimination against homeschoolers and Christian schoolers in college admissions.
  • A Constitutional Amendment to prohibit the desecration of the flag.

Obviously, Congress has done much to advance Christian and traditional family values, and just as obviously, most citizens have not heard of these victories. Instead, they have been told that we elected a “do-nothing Congress.”

To understand the reason for this fallacious charge, recall how this Congress came to be. Between 1988 and 1994, the numbers of evangelical Christian voters rapidly increased. Those Evangelical voters were largely responsible for the infamous “Voter Revolution” of 1994 followed by the 1996 Senate elections. Those two elections swept scores of conservative Christians into Congress and thus changed not only the composition but also the agenda of the Congress. The secularists understand that they are in serious trouble if Christians return to the polls in 1998. And what better way to keep Christians home in this year’s elections than by telling them that all their hard work of recent years was a complete waste of time–that all it produced was a “do-nothing Congress.”

Unfortunately, many Christians have believed this propaganda. But the truth is that we are making a difference–our efforts are having an effect! Don’t be talked out of your vote in November! Remember the advice of two ministers of the Gospel, James A. Garfield and Charles Finney. Finney–a leader in America’s Second Great Awakening–reminded the Christians of his day that:

The Church must take right ground in regard to politics. . . . The time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and take consistent ground in politics. . . . God cannot sustain this free and blessed country which we love and pray for unless the Church will take right ground. Politics are a part of a religion in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as a part of their duty to God. . . . [God] will bless or curse this nation according to the course they [Christians] take [in politics].

Then, fifty years later, James A. Garfield, our 20th President, reminded the Christians in his day:

Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . . If the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.

The message of the last two centuries still resounds for us today. We must “take right ground in regard to politics” and “aid in controlling the political forces” by being active in this year’s elections.

One of the tools which can help motivate those around you to be involved is our award-winning video “Keys to Good Government.” I encourage you to get a copy of this video and show it to you family, friends, church, and others within your sphere of influence. Our duty is not only to vote, but to vote for the right type of leaders. As Proverbs 29:2 reminds us, “When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.” This video will help motivate citizens to vote–and to vote according to Biblical principles.

Summer 1998

Will We Go Forward or Go Back?

The primary purpose of The WallBuilder Report has been to educate and to inspire. Therefore, it is our practice to examine current issues through an historical lens, and to report from across the nation victories which typically do not receive much mainstream coverage.

We started this practice ten years ago when God providentially guided me into the series of research projects which eventually led to the formation of this ministry. During that start-up, I spent exhaustive time in the book of Nehemiah, seeing it as a Biblical plan for rebuilding a nation. Based on those studies, we not only chose the name “WallBuilders” from Nehemiah 2:17 but also discovered a principle in Nehemiah 2:18 which has since guided the content of this newsletter. In those two verses, Nehemiah pointed out areas where action was needed and called the people to rebuild; and he also reported to them “of the good hand of God.” This “good news” about what God was doing encouraged the people, and they rose to the challenge of rebuilding their nation. Based on what we saw in these verses, WallBuilders began to model Nehemiah’s practice.

The only trouble we have had with this policy of reporting what the “good hand of God” is doing across the country is that there have been far too many victories to be reported in each newsletter! The reports we receive from throughout the nation convince me that unquestionably we are winning far more battles than we are losing.

A Negative Trend

Despite this, I see a perplexing trend–an attitude, if you will–taking root among God’s people in America, and in many ways, it is a rerun of a story that occurred nearly four thousand years ago.

Throughout my Christian life, I have always been mystified by the attitudes and the behavior of those who were the beneficiaries of God’s amazing deliverance during the great Exodus. Recall? The Israelites were in slavery and bondage; God sent deliverance through Moses, Aaron, and a host of miracles; the people left their oppression behind and began new lives; their progress to the Promised Land was slower and more difficult then they expected; they turned on Moses and made him, rather than the Egyptians, the object of their wrath. You would think that being out from under bondage and oppression was something in which to rejoice; but no, they wanted to complain and quit.

It seems that this general scenario might now be occurring in America. Ten years ago, the pro-family Christian community, politically speaking, was in Egypt. Oppressed by a Congress whose policies were often hostile to the traditional family and to people of faith, we were losing battle after battle in the war to preserve our religious and moral principles. Then a dramatic change occurred.

In the 1994 election, Christian voter turnout reached its high point of recent years, and as a result, scores of aggressive pro-family and pro-faith Congressmen were added to Congress–leaders like Steve Largent (OK), Todd Tiahart (KS), David MacIntosh (IN), J.C. Watts (OK), Linda Smith (WA), Zach Wamp(TN), Dave Weldon (FL), Helen Chenoweth (ID), and numerous others.

Then, as a result of the 1996 elections, the number of “good guys” in the Senate began to climb through the addition of pro-faith and pro-family Senators like Sam Brownback (KS), Tim Hutchinson (AR), Jeff Sessions (AL), and others. In addition, more pro-family members were added to the House, including Jim Ryun (KS), Joe Pitts (PA), Bob Adderhold (AL), etc. The changes during these two election cycles did, in fact, deliver America from the oppressive stranglehold which the Congress had held over the family.

Good Progress

It is true that we are not yet in the “Promised Land” in the sense that many of the policies that pro-family Christians desire have not yet occurred. In fact, some of the Congressional leadership have promised measures and failed to deliver. Nevertheless, we apparently are out of “Egypt,” and notwithstanding the harsh criticism leveled against Congress by many within our own ranks, several major victories have occurred in the past four years.

Recall that six years ago, Congress did not have the pro-life numbers to confront the issue of partial-birth abortions (a practice occurring for years), yet in the past four years, Congress has debated and twice banned the procedure.

Although President Clinton vetoed each ban, the House overrode his veto on both occasions; the override fell short only in the Senate. Isn’t this a clear improvement over where we were six years ago when we could not even debate the issue?

Additionally, Congress has passed numerous other pro-life measures, including, for the first time during President Clinton’s tenure, a ban on all abortions on U.S. military bases.

On the educational front, even though federal programs like Goals 2000 and School-to-Work have not been eliminated (due in large part to President Clinton’s lobbying efforts),the funding for those programs has been dramatically cut. In fact, in the last four years the House Education Committee has successfully eliminated105 of the 260 federal programs it oversees. Six years ago, this, too, was impossible.

Similarly, six years ago, we could not successfully challenge many homosexual issues, yet today a ban on recognizing same-sex marriages has been passed at the federal level. Also, the House (although not the Senate) halted all funding for the National Endowment for the Arts–something else which was absolutely unthinkable six years ago. The list of our victories, while only modest in some areas, continues to grow.

Taking the Offensive

Notice, too, that our battles are now offensive rather than defensive. That is, six years ago virtually all of our time was spent repelling the attacks of terrible measures like HR 6 (which would have placed private and home schools under the same federal regulations as public schools) and the lifting of the ban on gays in the military. Similarly, we were fighting off the policies of Roberta Achtenberg (an assistant-secretary of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) which would have imposed civil penalties on those who might share their faith in the public workplace.

Today, however, the battles are no longer primarily over which policies we should fight but rather over which of our measures should go forward. For example, the House Judiciary Committee passed and the House voted on a Constitutional Amendment designed to restore school prayer and to protect religious liberties. Although it did not receive the necessary two-thirds vote for passage, nevertheless, it is the furthest that this religious liberty issue has advanced in the House in thirty-six years!

In fact, a genuine spiritual change has occurred in the Congress, evidenced by the fact that ten years ago only 20 Congressmen were involved in weekly prayer meetings and Bible studies. Today, there are over 120. And in recent weeks, I have personally stood in the halls of the U.S. Capitol with some of these Godly Congressmen, singing hymns and offering prayers.

Unquestionably, we are better off today than we were six years ago.

No Time to Quit

Although we are further along than we have been in decades, I cannot recall a period of time in which I have heard so much complaining by Christians, nor seen so many who are so frustrated and discouraged. They seem determined to quit and go back.

Perhaps the problem is that many are judging progress against the promises of some Congressional leaders rather than against where we were six years ago.

Or perhaps it is simply a matter of impatience–that they want to enter the Promised Land sooner. If that is the case, it is wise to recall God’s clear pronouncement:

I will not drive your enemies out in one year. . . . Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you are increased and can inherit the land. Exodus [user_id]23:29-30

The Lord your God will drive your enemies out little by little; you may not consume them all at once. Deuteronomy 7:22

People always want change to happen faster than God seems to permit.

Returning to the Exodus analogy, recall that although Moses was the one chosen for the initial deliverance, he was not the one who led them into the Promised Land. Similarly, even though the current Congressional leaders were instrumental in the transition from generally hostile to generally family-friendly policies, they may not be the ones to complete the journey.

And just as the people forgot Moses’ accomplishments and began to attack and malign him, many Christians now consider the current Congress their enemy and, by the tens of thousands, are abandoning the difficult journey. Here we are on the verge of victory, within sight of the Promised Land, and–explain this–Christian voter turnout has begun to fall dramatically! That fall first evidenced itself in the 1996 elections (following eight consecutive years of increased Christian voter turnout) and has continued to plummet throughout this year’s primaries.

Who can seriously believe that abandonment will accelerate our journey? Instead of shaking our fists in frustration at the Congress in general, we should focus our energies on sending home Congressmen who oppose faith and family and replace them with pro-family, pro-faith leaders!

Are we really going to give back the last ten years of progress? I certainly hope not.

If you are one of those who is discouraged, don’t quit now. Place your faith in God, not in the Congress, or even in the American voters –and especially not in the current opinion polls. Galatians 6:9 promises that we will eventually win–if we don’t give up. So hang in there!

Don’t let future generations point to us as the American version of the Biblical story of the Exodus. As the Rev. Matthias Burnet warned nearly two hundred years ago, “Let not your children have reason to curse you for prostrating those institutions and giving up those rights which your fathers delivered unto you.”

Remembering the Fourth of July

This Fourth of July America celebrates its 222nd birthday! The Fourth of July is one of our most celebrated holidays, and has been for nearly two centuries–a fact confirmed by a very elderly John Quincy Adams in a speech he delivered on the 4th of July in 1837–America’s 61st birthday.

John Quincy Adams properly reminded the crowd that one of the most important elements of the American movement for independence had been its spiritual underpinnings. He asked:

Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, our most joyous and most venerated festival occurs on this day? And why is it that . . . thousands and tens of thousands among us . . . year after year . . . celebrat[e] the birthday of the nation? Is it not that . . . the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?

The fact that there was a spiritual emphasis at the birth of the nation was confirmed by numerous others. For example, Benjamin Kent, in a letter to Samuel Adams, declared: “It is God’s doing!”

So clearly did John Adams see God’s hand in America’s independence, he even believed that to help America achieve her independence was the single reason God had created him. As he told his wife, Abigail: “The Colonies must be declared free and independent States. . . . When these things shall be once well finished, or in a way of being so, I shall think that I have answered the end of my creation.”

In a similar tone, John Page (later a Virginia Governor) told Thomas Jefferson, “I am highly pleased with your Declaration God preserve the United States! We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong [Ecclesiastes 9:11]. Do you not think an Angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?”

Yet, declaring independence was only the beginning; much sacrifice, patience, and reliance on God would still be required. As signer of the Declaration Abraham Clark explained: “This seems now to be[gin] a trying season; but that indulgent Father who hath hitherto preserved us will, I trust, appear for our help, and prevent our being crushed; if otherwise, His will be done.”

Our Founders knew that without Gods help–or, as they announced in the Declaration itself–”a firm reliance on Divine Providence”–they would never achieve their objective.

While we celebrate our liberties this year, let us not forget that those liberties came only through great personal sacrifice: nine of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration died during the War; and five were captured by the British and tortured before their death; twelve had their homes destroyed by British troops; and three lost their sons to the enemy. Such sacrifices remind us that liberty is never free–every generation must defend it anew.

The possibility that we might forget the sacrifices necessary to preserve liberty was something which troubled our Founders. This was made clear in a letter from Dr. Benjamin Rush to John Adams after witnessing the celebration surrounding America’s 35th birthday in 1811. Dr. Rush told Adams:

The 4th of July has been celebrated in Philadelphia in the manner I expected. The military men, and particularly one of them, ran away with all the glory of the day. But scarcely a word was said of the solicitude and labors and fears and sorrows and sleepless nights of the men who projected, proposed, defended, and subscribed [signed] the Declaration of Independence. Do you recollect your memorable speech upon the day on which the vote was taken? Do you re collect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the House when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress [John Hancock] to subscribe what was believed by many at that time to be our own death warrants? The silence and the gloom of the morning were interrupted, I well recollect, only for a moment by Colonel Harrison of Virginia [a large and powerful man], who said to Mr. Gerry [a frail and tiny man] at the table [just before he signed the Declaration]: I shall have a great advantage over you, Mr. Gerry, when we are all hung for what we are now doing. From the size and weight of my body I shall die in a few minutes; but from the lightness of your body, you will dance in the air an hour or two before you are dead!” This speech procured a transient smile, but it was soon succeeded by the solemnity with which the whole business was conducted.

While we should remember the sacrifices, more importantly we should remember the proper manner to celebrate the 4th of July. What is the proper manner? The answer was given in a letter that John Adams wrote Abigail on the day they approved the Declaration. He forecast: “I am apt to believe that [this day] will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the ‘Day of Deliverance’ by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty!”

Celebrate the Fourth of July with fireworks and festivities and parades–but also celebrate it by setting aside a time to thank God for His numerous blessings upon our country.

Summer 2006

Celebrating America’s Birthday
This Fourth of July, America will celebrate its 230th birthday. Neither our closest allies nor our fiercest enemies have experienced the stability with which we have been blessed. In fact, during the time that America has flourished under the Declaration of Independence, France has had fifteen different governments. And Brazil has had seven since 1822; Poland, seven since 1921; Afghanistan, five since 1923; Russia, four since 1918; and the story is similar for other nations throughout Europe, Africa, South America, and the rest of the world.

Some describe this remarkable achievement as “American Exceptionalism” – a term coined in 1831 by Alexis de Tocqueville, a famous French visitor to America who penned the classic, Democracy in America. As De Tocqueville expressed it:

The position of the Americans is quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one.

However, such a description should never be a cause for any sense of American superiority. On the contrary, Psalm 75:6-7 indicates that such achievements are from the Lord and therefore should be a cause for an appreciative humility. As President John Adams rightly observed:

It must be felt that there is no national security but in the nation’s humble acknowledged dependence upon God and His overruling providence.

Understanding this truth, earlier generations frequently incorporated thankfulness to God as an integral component of Independence Day celebrations. In fact, on the original Independence Day in 1776, John Adams had recommended:

[This day] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.

America regularly celebrated Independence Day with a recognition of our gratitude to God Almighty. For example, on July 4, 1837, some sixty-one years after the Declaration of Independence was first issued, John Quincy Adams delivered an oration in which he noted that America’s two most popular holidays (Christmas and the Fourth of July) were inseparably intertwined:

In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. It forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation. The Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission on Earth [and] laid the cornerstone of human government on the first precepts of Christianity.

Does the Declaration of Independence actually embody what Adams described as “the first precepts of Christianity” – does it truly incorporate Biblical principles?

To answer that question, consider the philosophy that undergirds the Declaration. Where did the signers find the ideas of God-given inalienable rights, religious freedoms, liberty of conscience, individualism, limited government, full republicanism, etc. – ideas that have now made the Declaration the most successful government document in the history of the world?

James Otis (the mentor of both Samuel Adams and John Hancock) identified the source of many of the signers’ ideas when he declared:

The authority of Mr. Locke has . . . been preferred to all others.

John Locke(1632-1704) was an English theologian and political philosopher, and Declaration signers such as John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Rush, and many others sang his praises. John Quincy Adams even affirmed:

The Declaration of Independence [was] . . . founded upon one and the same theory of government . . . expounded in the writings of Locke.

Locke authored numerous works that influenced America (including the original constitution of Carolina, 1669), but his writing that most influenced the Founders’ philosophy in the Declaration of Independence was his Treatise of Government. In fact, signer of the Declaration Richard Henry Lee declared that the Declaration was “copied from Locke’s Treatise on Government.”

Locke’s Treatise (actually two separate treatises combined into one book) is less than 400 pages long; but in the first treatise, Locke invoked the Bible in 1,349 references; in his second treatise, he cited it 157 times. Imagine! In the primary work influencing the Declaration of Independence, Locke referred to the Bible over 1,500 times to show the proper operation of civil government. No wonder the Declaration has been such a successful document!

(Locke’s Two Treatises of Government is still available today from most major booksellers; I highly recommend this work for modern readers.) Clearly, the Bible (and what Adams had called “the first precepts of Christianity”) did indeed rest at the base of the Declaration of Independence, and therefore the Fourth of July. So self-evident was this fact that generations later, President Abraham Lincoln reminded the nation:

These communities, by their representatives in old Independence Hall, said to the whole world of men: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” . . . [T]hey established these great self-evident truths that . . . their posterity might look up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew that battle which their fathers began, so that truth and justice and mercy and all the humane and Christian virtues might not be extinguished from the land. . . . Now, my countrymen, if you have been taught doctrines conflicting with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence . . . let me entreat you to come back. . . . [C]ome back to the truths that are in the Declaration of Independence.

As we commemorate this year’s Fourth of July, let’s remember John Adams’ admonition to celebrate it “as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”

To aid in that pursuit, President Ronald Reagan once offered a prayer request that is still worth honoring this Fourth of July:

Let us ask that God’s light may illuminate the minds and hearts of our people and our leaders so that we may meet the challenges that lie before us with courage and wisdom and justice. In prayer, let us recall with confidence the promise of old that if we humble ourselves before God and pray and seek His face, He will surely hear and forgive and heal and bless our land.

A Few Famous July Fourth Orations
1793 • Elias Boudinot
During the Revolution, Boudinot was in charge of securing the release of captured American soldiers from the British; he then became President of the Continental Congress. Also, he was a Member of the first federal Congress where he helped frame the Bill of Rights, the first attorney admitted to the US Supreme Court bar, a noted theologian, and the first president of the American Bible Society.

Who knows but the country for which we have fought and bled may hereafter become a theatre of greater events than yet have been known to mankind? May these invigorating prospects lead us to the exercise of every virtue – religious, moral, and political. May we be roused to a circumspect conduct – to an exact obedience to the laws of our own making – to the preservation of the spirit and principles of our truly invaluable Constitution – to respect and attention to magistrates of our own choice. . . . And may these great principles in the end become instrumental in bringing about that happy state of the world when – from every human breast joined by the grand chorus of the skies – shall arise with the profoundest reverence that divinely celestial anthem of universal praise: “Glory to God in the highest! Peace on earth! Good will towards men!” [Luke 2:14].

1794 • Dr. David Ramsay
Ramsay was a noted physician, a member of the Continental Congress during the American Revolution, and a famous historian.

We ought, in the first place, to be grateful to the all-wise Disposer of Events Who has given us so great a portion of political happiness. To possess such a country with the blessings of liberty and peace together with that security of person and property which results from a well-ordered, efficient government is – or ought to be – [a] matter of constant thankfulness.

1798 • Noah Webster
Webster is considered one of America’s three most significant educators, being titled the “Schoolmaster to America”; he was also a soldier in the American Revolution, and a legislator and judge afterwards.

[O]ur fathers were men – they were heroes and patriots – they fought – they conquered – and they bequeathed to us a rich inheritance of liberty and empire which we have no right to surrender. . . . Yes, my fellow freemen, we have a rich and growing empire – we have a lucrative commerce to protect – we have indefeasible [inalienable] rights – we have an excellent system of religion and of government – we have wives and children and sisters to defend; and God forbid that the soil of America should sustain the wretch who [lacks] the will or the spirit to defend them. Let us then rally round the independence and Constitution of our country, resolved to a man that we will never lose by folly, disunion, or cowardice what has been planned by wisdom and purchased with blood.

1824 • George W. Adams
George Washington Adams was the son of John Quincy Adams and grandson of John Adams.

The effects of this Declaration are now everywhere visible. Look through the country and behold our accumulated blessings: see nature robed in beauty, fertile in rich luxuriance; see health and plenty everywhere around you; see a dense and settled population stretching from the cold regions of the North to the exuberant [rich] valleys of the South, from the prolific intervals of the East to the flourishing prairies of the West; see your shores washed by two oceans and the soil your own. Are not these motives for rejoicing?

1826 • George Bancroft
Bancroft, a distinguished historian, has been titled “The Father of American History”; he also served as the Secretary of the Navy, was responsible for the founding of the Naval Academy at Annapolis, and then served as the Secretary of War – known today as the Secretary of Defense.

From the omnipotent Power Who dwells in the unclouded serenity of being, without variableness or shadow of change [ James 1:17], we proceed as from the Fountain of Good, the Author of Hope, and the Source of Order and Justice, now that we assemble to commemorate the revolution, the independence, and the advancement of our country! . . . The festival which we keep is the festival of freedom itself – it belongs not to us only but to man. All the nations of the earth have an interest in it, and humanity proclaims it sacred! . . . Trusting in the Providence of Him, the Universal Father, let the country advance to the glory and prosperity to which – mindful of its exalted privileges – it aspires! Wherever its voice is heard, let it proclaim the message of liberty and speak with the divine energy of truth [and let] the principles of moral goodness [be] consistently followed in its actions! And while the centuries – as they pass – multiply its population and its resources, let it manifest in its whole history a devoted attachment to public virtue, a dear affection for mankind, and the consciousness of its responsibility to the God of nations!

[These orations are available in our book: Celebrate
Liberty! Famous Patriotic Speeches & Sermons]

* * *

The following two proclamations are applicable to this Fourth of July. The first, issued in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan for that year’s National Day of Prayer, contains sentiments that befit the Fourth of July. The second, issued in 2003 by Texas Governor Rick Perry, also is appropriate. Enjoy!

1988 • Ronald Reagan
“Americans in every generation have turned to their Maker in prayer. In adoration and in thanksgiving, in contrition and in supplication, we have acknowledged both our dependence on Almighty God and the help He offers us as individuals and as a Nation. In every circumstance, whether peril or plenty, whether war or peace, whether gladness or mourning, we have searched for and sought God’s presence and His power, His blessings and His protection, His freedom and His peace, for ourselves, for our children, and for our beloved land.

That was surely so at the very beginning of our Nation, in the earliest days of our quest for independence and liberty. It could only be thus, for a people who recognized God as the Author of freedom; who cherished the ancient but ever new words of Leviticus [ch. 25, ver. 10], ‘Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof ’ and who cast those words where they would ring out forever, on the Liberty Bell; who affirmed along with Thomas Jefferson that the God Who gave us life gave us liberty as well.

So did they believe, those who gathered in Carpenters’ Hall in Philadelphia in 1774, the members of the First Continental Congress. They had come together, in times that tried men’s souls, to deliberate in the united interests of America and for our ‘civil and religious liberties.’ John Adams later wrote his wife Abigail about what followed: ‘When Congress first met, Mr. Cushing made a motion that it should be opened with prayer.’ Some delegates opposed the motion, citing differences in belief among the members; but Sam Adams, that bold lover of liberty and our country, arose to utter words of healing and unity. ‘I can hear the prayer,’ he said, ‘of anyone of piety and virtue who is . . . a friend to his country.’ He went on to suggest that a clergyman of a persuasion other than his own open the First Continental Congress with prayer.

And so it happened. Because Sam Adams gave voice to all the goodness, the genius, and the generosity that make up the American spirit, the First Continental Congress made its first act a prayer – the beginning of a great tradition.

We have, then, a lesson from the Founders of our land, those giants of soul and intellect whose courageous pledge of life and fortune and sacred honor, and whose ‘firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,’ have ever guided and inspired Americans and all who would fan freedom’s mighty flames and live in ‘freedom’s holy light.’ That lesson is clear that in the winning of freedom and in the living of life, the first step is prayer.

Let us join together, Americans all, throughout our land. Let us join together, in factories and farms, in homes and offices, in places of governance and places of worship, and in outposts everywhere that service men and women defend us. Let us, young and old, join together, as did the First Continental Congress, in the first step – humble, heartfelt prayer. Let us do so for the love of God and His great goodness, in search of His guidance and the grace of repentance, in seeking His blessings, His peace, and the resting of His kind and holy hands on ourselves, our Nation, our friends in the defense of freedom, and all mankind, now and always. . . .”

2003 • Rick Perry
“Whereas, the words of President George Washington ring true now as they did more than 200 years ago, ‘Almighty Father. Bless us with Thy wisdom in our counsels and with success in battle, and let our victories be tempered with humanity. Endow, also, our enemies with enlightened minds, that they become sensible of their injustice, and willing to restore our liberty and peace. Thy will be done. Amen.’; and

Whereas, as these words show, prayer has been a vital part of our shared national life since before the founding of our nation and state, providing comfort and direction in times of crisis and conflict, and reminding us of the calm assurance that God cares for us . . .

Whereas, many brave and courageous men and women of the United States Armed Forces who have been deployed in the Middle East and around the world to keep freedom and protect liberty now find themselves in harm’s way and in need of our prayers and petitions to God on behalf of their safety and wellbeing; and

Whereas, it seems right and fitting that the people . . . should join with the soldiers in their foxholes, the pilots in their planes, and the sailors on the seas and stand in solidarity with them through prayer for their safe return and the resumption of peace in the region and throughout the world;

Now, Therefore, I . . . [urge] prayers and petitions for peace and safety on behalf of our troops deployed in the Middle East and around the world, that they may return home safely to the care and comfort of their families and that we may return to our daily lives of peace and calm.”

Black History Issue 2006

The Civil War

Casual students of the Civil War often disagree about whether the War was fought over slavery, unjust economic policies, or “states’ rights.” Yet for millions of Americans in the 1860s, their reason for going to war is different. It can be found in a famous 1830 speech made by Daniel Webster in the US Senate.

At that time, South Carolina was threatening secession. On the floor of the Senate, Webster eloquently proved that there was no such right and that to secede would be an act of treason. (Founding Fathers such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, and others had rejected the doctrine of secession, later used by the Confederacy.) The closing words of Webster’s speech have become some of the most famous in American history:

When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union. . . . Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous [flag] of the republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced . . . not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured . . . [A]s they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, [may they unfurl] that sentiment dear to every true American heart: Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!

Black Americans

Liberty and Union. For millions in 1861, this was the driving motivation: Liberty (ending slavery), and Union (keeping the nation intact). Pursuing that double objective resulted in over 600,000 American lives being lost. Additionally, 410,000 were maimed and crippled. Thus, the Civil War was the bloodiest war in American history. Black Americans were not just spectators; from running the Underground Railroad to leading the charge in battle, they were often active participants.

Black Americans fought bravely in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, but their service in the Civil War silenced the myth that blacks could not perform well in battle. In fact, the battlefield bravery and tactical skill of black soldiers not only met but often surpassed that of their counterparts. And their deep Christian faith was just as visible as was their great courage.

The examples of distinguished black soldiers in the Civil War are many, but this issue will profile three heroic individuals.

Robert Smalls (1839-1916)

Robert Smalls was raised as a slave in Charleston, South Carolina, where he learned how to pilot large vessels along the Atlantic seaboard. He earned a reputation for exceptional navigational skills. At the outbreak of the Civil War, he was forced into service for the Confederacy as quartermaster on the Planter, a 300-ton side-wheel steamer. As quartermaster, Smalls was in charge of the ship’s steering. He was thus the de facto pilot of the Planter, but he did not hold that title. Such an important post was not allowed a black slave in the Confederate south.

The Planter

On the evening of May 12, 1862, the Planter was docked in Charleston. The Confederate officers left the ship to attend a party onshore, leaving Smalls and the rest of the crew to ready the ship for departure the next morning. Always watchful for an opportunity to gain his freedom, and recognizing the potential in this situation, Smalls alerted the families of the crew to be in hiding nearby. Upon receiving his signal, they quickly boarded the ship.

Smalls took the wheel and quietly headed toward open sea. Knowing he would have to pilot the ship past Confederate sentinels, he donned the captain’s clothing and hoisted the Confederate flag. Moving the ship along slowly, and blowing the usual signals, Smalls was successful in not attracting unwanted attention. In fact, a Confederate soldier later reported that he saw the Planter moving but didn’t “think it necessary to stop her, presuming that she was but pursuing her usual business.”

Sneaking Past Fort Sumter

Having surmounted the dangers of the initial departure, Smalls and his crew still faced two major obstacles. The first was Fort Johnson (which Smalls safely passed, giving the customary steam-whistle salute). The second – and much more ominous threat – was Fort Sumter, the starting place of the Civil War. As the Planter approached its stark gray walls, some of Smalls’ crew urged him to turn back, fearing that the Sumter guards would board and inspect the ship.

Smalls cried out to God: “Oh, Lord, we entrust ourselves into Thy hands. Like Thou didst for the Israelites in Egypt, please stand guard over us and guide us to our promised land of freedom.” Rather than retreating, he continued bravely on. He knew that if they were stopped or shot, at least they would enter Heaven as free men.

As they approached Fort Sumter, Smalls – still wearing the familiar hat and coat of the captain – turned his back slightly to the sentry in order to obscure his own face. He then signaled with the whistle, asking for permission to pass. The crew waited in tense expectation. After what seemed like hours, the Confederate guard finally answered, “Pass the Planter!”

To Freedom

Even though the most difficult part of the escape was now behind them, it was still too early to celebrate. When the Planter eventually reached the outer edge of Confederate waters, Smalls replaced the Rebel flag with a white sheet of surrender – but nearly too late. The commander of an oncoming Union vessel, the US Onward, had almost given the command to fire on the Planter before recognizing the flag of truce. He guided his ship alongside the Planter and the Union crew boarded the vessel. When they asked for the captain, Smalls proudly answered, “I have the honor, sir, to present the Planter, formerly the flagship of General Ripley!”

The ship was now in Union hands. Even more valuable to the Union was Smalls’ extensive knowledge of Confederate placements around Charleston. Upon delivering the ship, Smalls explained with a wry smile, “I thought they might be of some service to Uncle Abe.”

The Union Navy

President Lincoln personally invited Robert Smalls to Washington, where he and his crew were recognized for their bravery. Smalls was then commissioned as Second Lieutenant in the 33rd Regiment of United States Colored Troops. (For a black American to be commissioned as an officer was extremely rare and was an exceptional honor. At that time, most officers – even of black troops – were white.)

After receiving his commission, Smalls was made the official pilot of the Planter, now sailing for the Union. The Planter was assigned to transport service, delivering supplies along the coastal waterway near Charleston.

On a routine trip in November 1863, the Planter came under Confederate bombardment. The shelling proved so intense that the Union captain of the ship panicked, wanting to surrender. Smalls refused, knowing that he and the crew would be killed if captured. (The Confederacy had issued orders that blacks who surrendered were to be put to death on the spot.) The frightened Captain fled below deck, leaving Smalls in charge. He brought the ship safely through the shelling, landing amidst the cheers of thousands gathered at the dock awaiting the supplies. Union Major General Quincy Gillmore promoted Smalls to Captain, a position he held until the end of the war. Smalls eventually rose to the rank of Major General in the South Carolina Militia.

In Congress

After the War, Smalls was elected as a Republican to the South Carolina House. He was later elected to the United States Congress, where he served for nine years. As a Member of Congress, he pursued equal treatment for black Americans. As he explained: “My race needs no special defense, for the past history of them in this country proves them to be the equal of any people anywhere. All they need is an equal chance in the battle of life.”

Robert Smalls was a strong Christian, whose faith was evident in both the military and the political arena.

Andre Cailloux (1825-1863)

Andre Cailloux was a member of the Afro-Creole community of New Orleans. (The Afro-Creoles were French in language and culture, and Roman Catholic in faith.) Cailloux was a pioneer in black American military history. Although born into slavery, he received his freedom in 1846. He then quickly began to make his mark as a leader within what was considered one of the most prosperous black regions in the nation. Cailloux received a formal education. He later married, purchased a home, and bought his mother out of slavery. He also sent his sons to a prestigious school and was elected to various posts within the Afro-Creole community.

During the Civil War

At the outbreak of the Civil War, most battlefield activity initially occurred far from Louisiana, in the North and the East. With the Union’s desire to break the communication and supply lines of the Confederates, gaining control of the Mississippi River became a priority. In April 1862, the Union army captured New Orleans. It authorized the formation of the Louisiana Native Guards: black Americans from New Orleans who would fight for the Union.

In 1862, Cailloux was commissioned as captain of E Company in the 1st Regiment of Louisiana Native Guards. This was the first black regiment officially recognized for military service in the Civil War. Upon receiving his commission, Cailloux began recruiting both free men of color and runaway slaves from the New Orleans region.

An imposing figure in character and stature, Cailloux was a direct visual repudiation to the image of black servility, inferiority, and cowardice long perpetuated by racists. His gentlemanly demeanor, athletic build, and keen intelligence gave him a confidence and charisma that made him a natural to help lead the newly formed Louisiana Native Guards.

Cailloux and his men faced many challenges – and not all from their Confederate enemy. Too often they had to endure insults from white troops, insufficient supplies (less than what their white counterparts often received), and excessive manual labor pushed on them by lazy soldiers. Nevertheless, they continued to train, anxious to prove their mettle on the battlefield.

Ultimate Sacrifice

That opportunity arrived in May 1863. The Confederate stronghold of Port Hudson on the Mississippi River (north of Baton Rouge) was under siege. The forces were led by Union General Nathaniel P. Banks. The 1st and 3rd Louisiana Native Guards was assigned to Banks and were chosen to mount an attack on the heavily fortified bluffs and rifle pits protecting Port Hudson. It was a critical but dangerous assignment. Cailloux’s E Company was designated to lead the charge as the standard bearer for the entire regiment.

As the regiment took the field, Cailloux encouraged his men with calm words of assurance. They charged and were met by extremely heavy Confederate fire. Cailloux and the other officers regrouped and rallied their men on several occasions. At last, Cailloux led a charge all the way to the backwater of the Port, just 200 yards shy of the bluffs. He and his men finally got off a round of musket shot, only to be answered with a wave of Confederate artillery. Their losses were heavy; and Cailloux himself was wounded, taking a bullet through his arm just above his elbow. He rallied his men once again and charged across the muddy waters toward the bluffs, his useless arm dangling beside him. This charge was his final heroic act; he received a fatal blow in the head from an enemy shell.

All along the line, Union forces were pushed back with heavy casualties. Both the 1st and the 3rd Regiments were finally forced to break ranks and seek shelter in the surrounding willow trees. Nevertheless, the bravery of Andre Cailloux did not go unnoticed, or the actions of so many of his troops who fought fiercely against overwhelming odds.

Black Soldiers in the Civil War

The story of Cailloux and his men quickly spread across the North. The false stereotype had been shattered and the black soldier was now viewed as a valuable and integral part of the war. This reputation was strengthened with the accomplishments of the Native Guards’ counterparts in the North, the Massachusetts 54th. By the end of the Civil War, some 180,000 black Americans had fought in the United States Armed Forces.

Andre Cailloux – a hero in New Orleans – received a hero’s funeral. He laid in-state for four days, watched over by a military guard. His funeral procession was led by a band of musicians playing somber dirges followed by a horse-drawn, tasseled caisson with Cailloux’s body. Mourners lined the streets for almost a mile along the funeral route, holding tiny American flags as his remains rolled by. The attack in which Cailloux lost his life had been unsuccessful. (As was a subsequent attack two weeks later.) Union General Banks eventually pulled back and laid siege to Port Hudson, forcing their surrender a month-and-a-half later. That surrender was considered one of the Confederacy’s most devastating defeats, opening the Mississippi River to Union troop and supply movements.

Over 12,000 lives were lost at Port Hudson. 5,000 of which were Union deaths with many occurring during the initial attack led by Cailloux. Nevertheless, the attack had not only produced the first black hero of the Civil War, it also proved the strength and courage of black American troops. Thus firmly cementing their permanent place in future American military service.

William Carney (1840-1908)

Sergeant William H. Carney – another black American renowned for his heroism – was born into slavery in Norfolk, Virginia. While William was still a boy, his father escaped to freedom on the Underground Railroad. He soon purchased the family out of slavery and brought them to New Bedford, Massachusetts.
Upon the outbreak of the Civil War, black Americans – both slave and free – believed that God would use President Abraham Lincoln and General Ulysses S. Grant to bring them freedom in the same way that God had used Moses to lead the Israelites out of captivity. Viewing abolition as a spiritual mission made black Americans all the more eager to help, thereby hastening the arrival of freedom.

Joining the US Military

In 1863, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. The Union Army also began actively recruiting black volunteers. William understood the powerful spiritual dimension of emancipation and eagerly enlisted. This decision sprang from his deep Christian convictions. As he explained: “Previous to the formation of colored troops, I had a strong inclination to prepare myself for the ministry; but when the country called for all persons, I could best serve my God [by] serving my country and my oppressed brothers.”

Carney joined the Morgan Guards, who later became part of the Massachusetts 54th (featured in the 1989 movie Glory). The regiment was led by the 25 year-old white Colonel Robert Shaw, son of prominent Boston abolitionists. The all-black 54th had freeborn men and former slaves, including two sons of Frederick Douglass who played a major role in establishing the 54th. Upon completing their training, the 54th was assigned to attack Fort Wagner, South Carolina.

Fort Wagner

On the evening of July 18, 1863, the 600 men of the 54th lay along the sandy beach 1,000 yards from Fort Wagner. Chosen to lead the charge, they were awaiting orders to move out. Union guns had pounded the Confederate stronghold all day long, attempting to weaken its defenses. That evening, the order to advance finally came.

The men set with fixed bayonets, running toward the enemy. But the Union bombardment had failed to weaken the gun emplacements, so the 54th ran into heavy Confederate cannon fire and torrents of bullets. They suffered extensive casualties. Among those who fell was Sergeant John Wall, the carrier of the United States flag. Sergeant William Carney, who had been running next to Wall, dropped his rifle and caught the flag before it could hit the ground.

Protecting the Flag

As Carney carried the flag, he was shot in the leg, but he continued to lead the attack. Ignoring the searing pain, he and his forces pushed forward and were able to gain control of a small part of the fort. Carney proudly planted the American flag and held his position against the wall of Fort Wagner for nearly half an hour through hand-to-hand combat. In the darkness of the night, Carney saw troops moving toward him and made the mistake of believing them to be fellow Union fighters. Suddenly surrounded by Confederate soldiers, he quickly wrapped the flag around its staff as his unit fell back down the embankment.

Retreating across the chest high water, he held the flag high. He was shot twice more, once in the chest and again in the leg. Still, he continued on, resolved not to let the flag fall. A member of another regiment pleaded with the injured Carney to let him carry the flag, but he quickly replied, “No one but a member of the 54th should carry the colors.” Carney was shot again (for the fourth time), this time narrowly escaping death as the bullet creased his skull. At last he reached the safety of what remained of the 54th. He proclaimed breathlessly before collapsing, “Boys, I only did my duty. The flag never touched the ground.”

After the Battle

The attack against Fort Wagner was unsuccessful, and the battle was a defeat for the Union. The total lives lost that day were 351, only twelve of whom had been Confederates. But the 54th had acquitted itself courageously, just like their counterparts in the Louisiana Native Guards.

On May 23, 1900, Sergeant William Harvey Carney was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. (Several black Americans had already received the prestigious award for gallantry in both the Civil War and the subsequent western Indian Campaigns. However, Carney’s heroism at Fort Wagner was the earliest action of the Civil War to be recognized.)

He died eight years later in New Bedford, still strong in his Christian faith. His grave is marked with a gold image of his nation’s highest award for valor in battle.

Conclusion

The list of black American heroes of the Civil War is long and impressive. All the more impressive is that many of these men not only fought bravely against the enemy but also against occasional racism in their own army. Admirably, their response to racist opposition did not include personal animosity, bitterness, or hate, but rather an increased determination to prove wrong the misconceptions. In fact, to have harbored destructive feelings of ill-will would have violated their strong Christian faith. They lived by Biblical admonitions such as those delivered long before by the Rev. Richard Allen (himself a former slave), who had urged:

[L]et no rancor or ill-will lodge in your [heart] for any bad treatment you may have received from any. If you do, you transgress against God, Who will not hold you guiltless. He would not suffer it even in His beloved people Israel; and you think He will allow it unto us? . . . I am sorry to say that too many think more of the evil than of the good they have received.

The illustrious stories of Robert Smalls, Andre Cailloux, and William Carney are the stories of heroes who not only followed the teachings of Christianity but who also fought with exceptional courage, doing the work of the Lord in “Liberty and Union.”

“Be strong and of a good courage;
fear not, nor be afraid of them,
for the Lord thy God –
He it is that doth go with thee;
He will not fail thee
nor forsake thee.”
Deuteronomy 31:6, Joshua 1:9

Winter 2005

Inside Election 2004: A Moral Mandate?

Most observers of the recent presidential election were surprised by the size of President Bush’s win as well as by the fact that “moral issues” (i.e., marriage, abortion, selection of God-fearing judges) ranked among the top reasons for voting. A very effective way to analyze the election is on the basis of voters’ religious convictions rather than on partisan or any other affiliations.

A Religious Divide Among Voters

A major reason that Republicans won the election decisively (retaining not only the presidency but also increasing their numbers in both the House and the Senate) was that their stands on Biblical and moral issues more closely coincided with those of the voters. In fact, polls before the election indicated that the best predictor of how an individual would vote was frequency of church attendance. As Washington Post writer Thomas Edsall noted: “Pollsters are finding that one of the best ways to discover whether a voter holds liberal or conservative value stands is to ask: How often do you go to church? Those who go often tend to be Republican, those who go rarely or not at all tend to be Democratic.” Election 2004 reinforced these findings.
In this election, 61% of Bush’s vote came from people from all faiths who attend services weekly (a group comprising 41% of the electorate); conversely, 62% of Kerry’s vote came from people who never attend worship (accounting for 14% of the electorate). In fact, many groups that voted more Republican in this election than in previous ones did so largely because of Republican stands on Biblical and moral issues.

For example:

Evangelical Voters: 23% of all votes cast were by evangelicals (i.e., 27.1 million votes). Bush received 78% of those votes (21.2 million), representing an amazing 35% of his total of 60.7 million votes. (In 2000, Bush received 10.7 million evangelical votes, representing 21% of his 50.5 million total votes.) Undoubtedly, one of the reasons that moral issues were of such importance in this year’s election was the 80% increase in the number of evangelical voters compared to the 2000 election.

Catholic Voters: While Catholics have long been considered a safe Democratic constituency, in this election, 52% of Catholic voters supported President Bush. Associated Press writer Richard Ostling noted: “The majority of Catholics preferred an anti-abortion Methodist incumbent to one of their own – underscoring that today’s religious divide cuts across denominational lines.”

Hispanic Voters: Hispanics, another traditional Democratic block, accounted for 7 million voters, or 12% of the total vote; President Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote (the largest share for a Republican since recording began in 1972). Biblical issues helped President Bush make significant gains among Hispanics. In Spanish-language media, Bush ran ads against abortion and homosexual marriage; and one Hispanic voter summed up the feeling of many when he explained, “I voted for Bush based on his moral stance. Bush is pro-life; I’m pro-life. He believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, and so do I.”

African American Voters: While African Americans continue to be the Democrats’ most loyal constituency, President Bush increased his share of the black vote from 8% in 2000 to 11% in this election. While that gain seems small, it was actually greater than it appears. In 2000, Bush received 864,000 votes from African Americans; in 2004, he received 1.45 million votes – a 70% increase in the actual number of individual African Americans voting for President Bush.

As suggested by columnist Gregory Kane of the Baltimore Sun, the cause for much of the African American increase in support for President Bush was his pro-life and pro-traditional marriage position. Just days after the election, Kane explained:

The first inkling I had that Sen. John Kerry would lose the Nov. 2 election came exactly a week before, when I participated in a telephone conference call that the Massachusetts senator had with about 350 black clergy. After former President Bill Clinton introduced him, Kerry told the group that the issue of gay marriage was a red herring. ‘I ask you not to be diverted from the real issue in this case.’ . . . As if blowing off the moral issue that would eventually cost him the election weren’t enough, we have to look at what else was wrong with the picture: when you’re telling clergy folks that things many Christians regard as sins don’t matter, you might not want an admitted philanderer to be the guy introducing you. Earlier in the campaign, Kerry shared a stage with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, another fella not yet bitten by the monogamy bug, who [also] said moral issues in Campaign 2004 were a diversion.”

African American voting in this election demonstrated a growing trend of choosing candidates because of their Biblical positions on moral issues.

Youth Voters: There were 4.6 million more youth voters (ages 18-29) in this election than in 2000. Although youth supported Kerry by a margin of 54% to 44%, the expected gains from “Rock the Vote,” “Vote for Change,” and the “Vote or Die” efforts of MTV and secular entertainment artists were in large part offset by the “Redeem the Vote” efforts of Third Day and nearly three dozen other Christian bands who encouraged youth to vote Biblical and moral issues.

(To see other election stats, visit www.wallbuilders.com and click on “Election 2004: A Moral Mandate?”)

State Marriage Initiatives

One indicator that Biblical issues directly affected the election was the state traditional marriage initiatives. The first state to vote on the issue was Missouri (voting three months before the November election). Even though pro-marriage advocates in Missouri were outspent by a margin of 40 to 1, the measure passed with 71% support amidst record voter turnout. Matt Franck of the St. Louis Post Dispatch concluded, “values appeared to beat dollars at the ballot box.”
Ohio next confirmed the voter energy on the marriage issue. With only nine weeks to gather 323,000 signatures to place the issue on the ballot, citizens collected 557,000 signatures – and 54,500 Ohio citizens registered to vote simply to voice their support of traditional marriage at the ballot box.

On election night, traditional marriage proposals were on the ballots in 11 states, with almost 20 million Americans voting on the issue. The measures passed in all 11 states by an overall margin of 2-1, with support ranging from a low of 57% support in Oregon (still an impressive number) to an astounding 86% support in Mississippi. The marriage measures even passed by wide margins in blue states won by Kerry; and eight out of eight states also included a ban on civil unions as well as same-sex marriages.

Support for traditional marriage was also a defining issue in several US Senate races – including that of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, who was defeated by John Thune (the first time in 52 years that a Senate party leader has lost a reelection bid).

The Pro-Life Vote

The issue of abortion, like that of marriage protection, was another of the key “moral issues” in the election. In fact, 25% of voters said they voted only for pro-life candidates while just 13% said they voted a straight pro-abortion ticket, resulting in a distinct advantage for pro-life candidates.
For example, the Susan B. Anthony List (which endorses only pro-life candidates) placed almost $5 million into pro-life races, while Emily’s List (which endorses only pro-abortion candidates) placed almost $45 million into pro-abortion races. Despite being outspent by more than 8 to 1, 80% of the candidates endorsed by Susan B. Anthony won, compared to only 39% of those endorsed by Emily’s List. Furthermore, Susan B. Anthony candidates defeated six candidates backed by Emily’s List, 15 backed by Planned Parenthood, five by the National Abortion Rights Action League, 11 by the pro-abortion National Organization of Women, and 11 by the pro-abortion Women’s Candidate Fund. Pro-life victories were numerous in Election 2004.

The New Faces Elected

The voters’ support for life, faith, and traditional marriage helped produce an outstanding class of conservative freshmen House and Senate Members. For example, of the nine freshman US Senators, seven are pro-life (all the Republicans). Furthermore, the records of the American Conservative Union (ACU – a group that publishes the voting records of Members of Congress based on their adherence to conservative principles) demonstrate that the freshmen Republicans tend to be much more conservative than the Senators they replaced.

On the Democratic side, the two new freshmen Senators – Barack Obama (IL) and Ken Salazar (CO) – are both pro-abortion and both oppose marriage protection.

Seven New Pro-Life Senators
South Dakota John Thune (former House Member; ACU: 92%) will replace Tom Daschle (ACU: 22%).
South Carolina Jim DeMint (current House Member; ACU: 100%) will replace Fritz Hollings (ACU: 15%).
North Carolina Richard Burr (current House Member; ACU: 96%) will replace John Edwards (ACU: 30%).
Louisiana David Vitter (current House Member; ACU: 100%) will replace John Breaux (ACU: 42%).
Florida Mel Martinez (a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage Secretary of hud under President Bush) will replace Bob Graham (ACU: 20%).
Georgia Johnny Isakson (current House Member; ACU: 96%) will replace Zell Miller (ACU: 47%).
Oklahoma Tom Coburn (former House member; ACU: 97%) will replace retiring Don Nickles (ACU rating: 100%).

In the House, there are 40 new freshmen: 24 Republicans and 16 Democrats. Of the 40, 25 are prolife (63%). As in the Senate, the Democratic House Members tend to be pro-abortion and the Republicans pro-life.

A Few of the New Pro-Life Pro-Family Advocates
Geoff Davis Kentucky
Bobby Jindal Louisiana
Virginia Foxx North Carolina
Ted Poe Texas
Louie Gohmert Texas
Mike Sodrel Indiana
Patrick McHenry North Carolina
Kenny Marchant Texas
Bob Inglis South Carolina
Dave Reichert Washington

The US Senate has become significantly more pro-life over the last two elections. (The 2002 and 2004 elections added 19 new Members to the US Senate: 15 Republicans and four Democrats; all 15 Republicans are pro-life, but none of the four Democrats are.) The US House has also become much more pro-life (almost two-thirds of freshmen House Members in the past two elections have been pro-life.)

Post Election Reactions

Since “moral issues” was such a decisive factor in the 2004 election, a predictable post-election reaction includes a deliberate attempt to reshape the universally understood meaning of “moral issues.” For example, the Rev. Robert Edgar (the general secretary of the National Council of Churches and a former Democratic US Congressman) laments: “The religious right has successfully gotten out there shaping personal piety issues – civil unions, abortion – as almost the total content of ‘moral values.’ And yet . . . God doesn’t want 45 million Americans without health care.” Additionally, supporters of same-sex marriage are now asserting that it is “moral” to extend partnership rights to two men or two women who have “committed” themselves to each other; and pro-abortion advocates are now claiming that it is “moral” for a poor mother to have an abortion rather than give birth to a child she might not want. Imagine! Advocating abortion, homosexual marriage, and health care as part of “moral issues”!

Another frequently mentioned “moral value” involves taking care of the poor. As the Rev. Stephen Bouman explains, “One thing Jesus was absolutely clear about was helping the poor.” It is true that the Bible has much to say about helping the poor; but it is also true that the Bible prioritizes certain moral issues. Consider the fact that God took over 600 laws and reduced them into His “Top Ten” commandments. The protection of innocent life does make God’s Top Ten (#6); and the protection of the sanctity of marriage does make God’s Top Ten (#7); however, taking care of the poor does not make God’s Top Ten. Therefore, to elevate that moral issue above where God has elevated it is to usurp His authority and that of His Word.

A Moral Mandate?

Statistical indicators affirm that “moral issues” were indeed a major influence in Election 2004. As Terence Jeffrey of Human Events summarized it, “It’s the culture, stupid! While there were many important issues in this historic election, the single most important one for the largest bloc of voters was not the economy, the Iraq War, or the Terror War. It was the Cultural War. . . . A resolute army of voters . . . marched out in massive numbers to strike a peaceful blow at the ballot box for a traditionalist vision of American society.”

However, citizens must be just as involved after the election as they were during it; the Sen. Arlen Specter incident demonstrates that they are. The day following the election, when even the secular media was acknowledging a moral mandate in the election, pro-abortion Republican Senator Arlen Specter (the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) appeared to issue a thinly veiled warning to the President not to send conservative pro-life judicial nominees before his committee.

Within hours, Senate offices were inundated with thousands of calls, asking Senators to deny Specter the committee chairmanship (some Senators were receiving over 10,000 calls each day). That unorchestrated, spontaneous, and rapid response from citizens had a profound effect inside the Senate.

As a result of the citizen pressure, Senators confronted Specter. Following several closed-door meetings, Specter backtracked and issued a public and a written pledge to support the President’s nominees, help end the filibusters of judges, and move constitutional amendments through his committee, even if he personally disagreed with them (i.e., the Federal Marriage Amendment). This favorable outcome was the result of citizens staying involved after the election, thus ensuring that the message they delivered during the election will be heeded as policy is being made.

The new legislative session is now beginning, and legislators need to hear the same message from citizens that was delivered on November 2nd. Therefore, be active in contacting your elected officials! (If you do not know who your Congressman is, go to www.wallbuilders.com and click on “Find Your Congressman.”)

The War in Iraq

With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence . . . ” This phrase was more than just rhetoric in the Founding Era; it reflected Americans’ awareness of their complete dependence upon God, for in early America, death was an ever-present reality. In fact, with the high mortality rates, the average lifespan at that time was only 35 years. Children succumbed to countless diseases; women frequently died in childbirth; tiny scratches often became infected and resulted in death; fatal epidemics were rampant; and death from a hostile enemy – whether Indians, French, or British – was common. This daily reality of death prompted citizens – especially soldiers – to frequent consideration of their spiritual preparedness
for eternity. In fact, when Virginia soldiers were preparing for the French and Indian War,
Samuel Davies exhorted them:

Fly to Jesus on the wings of faith – all of you. . . . that are now about generously to risk your lives for your country. . . . What can do you a lasting injury while you have a reconciled God smiling upon you from on high, a peaceful conscience animating you within, and a happy immortality just before you?

Two decades later, signer of the Declaration John Witherspoon issued a similar admonition to soldiers in the American Revolution:

[T]here is no soldier so undaunted as the pious man – no army so formidable as those who are superior to the fear of death. There is nothing more awful to think of than that those whose trade is war should . . . expose themselves to the imminent danger of being [sent] to the blaspheming rage and despairing horror of the infernal pit. Let therefore everyone who . . . offers himself as a champion in his country’s cause be persuaded to reverence the name and walk in the fear of the Prince of the kings of the earth and then he may with the most unshaken firmness expect [God’s protection] either in victory or death.

This message is no less applicable for American troops today in Iraq. In fact, a French journalist who witnessed a group of US Marines holding a worship service shortly before entering the deadly hotbed terrorist city of Fallujah reported:

Men with buzz cuts and clad in their camouflage waved their hands in the air, M-16 assault rifles laying beside them, and chanted . . . lyrics in praise of Christ. . . . The US military . . . has deep Christian roots. In times that fighting looms, many soldiers draw on their evangelical or born-again heritage to help them face the battle. . . . [After reading Scriptures], the marines then lined up and their chaplain blessed them with holy oil to protect them. . . . The crowd then followed him outside their small auditorium for a baptism of about a half-dozen marines who had just found Christ. . . . [They] laid down in a rubber dinghy filled with water and the chaplain plunged their heads beneath the surface. “I just wanted to make sure I did this before I headed into the fight,” said one of the young men. . . . “Sometimes, all you’ve got is God.”

Let’s remember to pray not only for our leaders and those in authority (1 Timothy 2:1-2) but also for our troops – for the chaplains as they minister to the soldiers and for our soldiers as they face death from terrorist guns and bombs.

“God is our refuge and strength, a
very present help in trouble.” Psalm 46:1

“He teacheth my hands to war.” Psalm 18:34

Charles Thomson – the Life of the Cause of Liberty

America’s founding was blessed by the contributions of many individuals who are little, or even completely unknown to us today. Charles Thomson is one such unsung patriot.

In 1774 he was beginning to make a name for himself as a patriotic leader in Philadelphia. John Adams noted, “This Charles Thompson is the Sam Adams of Philadelphia — the Life of the Cause of Liberty, they say.”1

secretary-of-the-continental-congress-charles-thomson-2Though never a member of that august body, as Secretary of the Continental Congress for over fifteen years, Thomson had a front-row seat to the birth of the nation and his fingerprints are all over America’s establishing documents. For example, the copy of the Declaration of Independence included with the official Journals of Congress were in Thomson’s handwriting, and he was one of only two people who actually signed it on July 4th.2

secretary-of-the-continental-congress-charles-thomson-3 Thomson is also responsible for the Great Seal of the United States, which he prepared and Congress approved in 1782.3

As the First Congress took its place under the new government created by the Constitution, Thomson retired from that long-term post. His last official act was personally notifying George Washington that he had been unanimously selected the President of the United States.4

But Thomson was not only a great patriot and supporter of the American cause, he was also a champion of the Word of God. In fact, his name is associated with some of America’s earliest Bible editions.

For example, his name, as Secretary of Congress, is found in the introduction to “The Bible of the Revolution,” which was the first Bible printed in English in America. That Bible was printed by Robert Aitken, the official printer of the Continental Congress. Aitken described his Bible as “a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools.”5 It was reviewed and approved by a committee of the Continental Congress, and published with the official congressional endorsement prominently in the front. (All of the original books pictured below that are associated with Charles Thomson are from our collection at WallBuilders.)

secretary-of-the-continental-congress-charles-thomson-5 Thomson was also responsible for the first American translation of the Greek Septuagint (the full Greek Bible) into English in 1808 – a labor of love that consumed nearly two decades of his life.6 Called Thomson’s Bible, it is a four volume-set that is considered one of the most scholarly of American Bible translations.

secretary-of-the-continental-congress-charles-thomson-7 Thomson also produced an eight-volume set in which every other page was blank, thus allowing readers space to write notes on the Scriptures as they studied them.
secretary-of-the-continental-congress-charles-thomson-6 In 1815, Thomson published his famous Synopsis of the Four Evangelists, in which he took all the passages from the four Gospels and arranged them chronologically, producing something like one super long Gospel, with all Jesus’ words and acts arranged sequentially. Today, we call such a work a synoptic Gospel.

George Washington praised Thomson’s dedication, “Your Services have been important, as your patriotism was distinguished” He added his belief that “Posterity will find your Name so honorably connected…”7 Sadly, today, Charles Thomson has become a forgotten Founding Father, but his influence, both politically and spiritually, permanently shaped the course of America and blessed American life.

February 14, 2024 This post has been updated to correct information regarding Thomson’s American translation of the Bible. 

Endnotes

1 John Adams, diary entry from August 30, 1774, Adams Family Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society, accessed November 1, 2023.
2 John Hancock was the second and the other delegates signed weeks later. Journals of the Continental Congress 1774-1779, edited from the original records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts, Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1905, The Avalon Project, Yale Law School, accessed November 1, 2023.
3  “Original Design of the Great Seal of the United States (1782),” Milestone Documents, National Archives, updated October 23, 2023.
4 Lewis R. Harley, Charles Thomson: Patriot and Scholar (Norristown, PA: Historical Society of Montgomery County, 1897), 28-29.
5 The Holy Bible as Printed by Robert Aitken and Approved & Recommended by the Congress of the United States of America in 1782, reprinted (New York: Arno Press, 1968), Introduction.
6 Harley, Charles Thomson: Patriot and Scholar (1897), 33-34.
7 George Washington to Charles Thomson, July 24, 1789, Founders Online, National Archives, accessed November 1, 2023.

Summer 2005

We have closed yet another school year – America’s 363rd since the passage of its first public education law. Many changes in education have occurred over the past four centuries; this report will focus on the current state of education in America.

Americans & Education

Americans cherish education. Jesus said: “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matthew 6:21). We spend over $470 billion each year on education; therefore, judging by the amount of “treasure” we invest in education, it must be dear to our hearts. Sadly, however, current statistics demonstrate that Americans are not getting a good return on their investment.
American students now regularly finish at the bottom in international competitions in math and science. Recent international testing found that American elementary students performed above average, junior high students at average, and high school students below average. This sequence of results prompted one observer to remark: “The longer US students stay in school, the less they seem to know.”

America’s education system has become so substandard that it actually prevents many students from entering post-graduate work. As national columnist Thomas Sowell confirms: “For years, most of the PhDs awarded by American universities in mathematics and engineering have gone to foreigners. We have the finest graduate schools in the world – so fine that our own American students have trouble getting admitted in fields that require highly trained minds.”

Despite the fact that America far outspends other nations on education, our students are outperformed by students from Poland, the Slovak Republic, Czechoslovakia, Iceland, China, Taiwan, Canada, Korea, Wales, and many other nations. America currently has one of the poorest outcomes per education dollar spent among all industrial nations.

The performance of American education is now so poor that the US Department of Education has concluded:

The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a People. . . . If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves.

What has caused the current problems with American education? Three significant factors will be examined in this report: (1) the current philosophy of education; (2) curricular content; and (3) teacher competency.

(Addressing this third category may offend some, but as Jesus noted in Luke 6:40: “Every student, when he is fully trained, will be like his teacher.” It is therefore appropriate to examine whether academic scores are falling because students are becoming like their teachers.)

Changing Philosophy of Education

Unbeknown to most Americans, in the last few years the philosophy of education has been radically transformed in basic subjects such as reading, grammar, and math.

Math

In recent months, a controversy has emerged in Massachusetts; many shocked parents have become aware that teaching math is no longer the top priority for math teachers. Written priority #1 in the new standards for math class is to teach “respect for human differences” and “live out the system-wide core value of ‘respect for human differences’ by demonstrating anti-racist/anti-bias behaviors.” Written priority #2 is “problem solving and representation – students will build new mathematical knowledge as they use a variety of techniques to investigate and represent solutions to problems.”

The primary purpose of math no longer is the teaching of math skills (i.e., learning to use fractions and integers, or doing multiplication and division); it is now viewpoint inculcation. When challenged as to the source of this new philosophy, school officials pointed to the “Principles and Standards for School Mathematics” from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM).

A stark example of this new math philosophy is exhibited in the recent textbook that some have dubbed “rain-forest algebra.” In that 800+ page text, not a single question on math was asked until page 107. The first 107 pages were dedicated to coverage of Maya Angelou poetry, competitive chili cook-offs, the Dogon tribe of West Africa, etc. In fact, the questions in that math book included: “What role should zoos play in today’s society?”; “What other kinds of pollution besides air pollution might threaten our planet?”; and “The topic for the essay this year is ‘Why should we save an endangered species?’”

A US Senator correctly summarized the effect of such texts: “This new mush-mush math will never produce quality engineers or mathematicians who can compete for jobs in the global market place. In Palo Alto, California, public school math students plummeted from the 86th percentile to the 56th in the first year of new math teaching. This awful textbook obviously fails to do in 812 pages what comparable Japanese textbooks do so well in 200. The average standardized math score in Japan is 80; in the United States it is 52.”

Grammar

Just as the national council of math teachers has changed its emphasis, so, too, has the National Council of English Teachers. Claiming that providing grammar instruction, and teaching fundamental skills such as diagramming sentences, only bores students and turns them off to writing, such training was dropped several years ago. The result? A recent national study revealed that a meager one-fourth of students can now write at a proficient level – and only 1 percent can write at an advanced level.

Reading

In reading, national educational groups and teaching professionals demanded that phonics be dropped and whole-language reading be adopted instead. Scores plummeted; in fact, they tumbled so far that the California Board of Education eventually took what one national newspaper described as “the drastic step” of re-adopting phonics – of going back to what had worked for generations. Reading scores have since shown some recovery, but millions of students have incurred lasting academic handicaps in the meantime.

Encouraging Achievement

The new philosophy of education also opposes any competition that recognizes student achievement. As a result, many schools no longer post honor rolls or exemplary work on bulletin boards. Also disappearing from local schools are publicly graded events such as spelling bees as well as other academic competitions. As one elementary principal explains: “I discourage competitive games at school. They just don’t fit my worldview of what a school should be.”

Many traditional educational practices no longer fit the new “worldview of what a school should be” – including homework. Education specialists amazingly claim that doing away with homework will “give kids ownership over their education.”

The use of red ink also does not fit the new educational worldview; and in schools from New York to Alaska, red ink is now on the educational blacklist. Explains a Massachusetts teacher: “If you see a whole paper of red, it looks pretty frightening. Purple stands out, but it doesn’t look as scary as red.” A Florida teacher agreed: “I do not use red; red has a negative connotation, and we want to promote self-confidence. I like purple. I use purple a lot.” Color consultants concur: “Red is a bit over-the-top in its aggression.”

Of course, that is just the opinion of teachers and educational specialists; then there is the opinion of a student who voiced the common sense that the experts seem to lack: “I hate red. But because I hate it, I want to work harder to make sure there isn’t any red on my papers.”

School Discipline

Under the new educational worldview, students with the worst behavioral problems are protected from any accountability so long as they also have certain academic so-called weaknesses. For example, a Virginia student brought a loaded gun to school – and bragged about it – but went unpunished because he had been diagnosed with a “weakness in written language skills.” Similarly, a Georgia student repeatedly urinated on his classmates, but because of a similar “diagnosis,” he could not be punished. In Pennsylvania, a student set fire to a school cafeteria; upon being disciplined, he filed and won a federal lawsuit against the school for violating his rights. And in Oklahoma, a public school suspended nearly all of the sixth-grade class for disruptions and quasi-riots. The principal ruefully estimated that teachers now “spend 85 percent of their time reprimanding students.”

Since schools cannot punish the real offenders, they apparently go after whomever they can punish. For example, a 13- year old was recently ordered suspended for 10 days from a Florida school for committing a Level 4 offense – the most serious level. The offense? He “assaulted” and threatened others with a “weapon” (he shot a rubber band). In another school, two kindergartners were sent home for “assault” with “weapons” (they had pointed their fingers at each other and said “bang!”).

Viewpoint Indoctrination

While core academics, discipline, and red ink do not fit the new “worldview of what a school should be,” viewpoint indoctrination does. For example, the largest teacher’s group in America (the National Education Association) aggressively promotes what it calls “diversity education”; it has been relatively successful in passing state laws mandating such teaching at all grade levels.

In compliance with such a law, schools in one state held a “Week of Diversity” in which outside speakers made 82 presentations to students. Of the 82 presentations, 14 were pro-homosexual; 11 were pro-left, urging support for communist Cuba, guerilla forces in Columbia, etc.; 17 promoted animal rights, vegetarianism, and radical environmentalism; and 5 were anti-law enforcement. A week of academic instruction was sacrificed in order to indoctrinate specific viewpoints.

Another clear indication of viewpoint indoctrination was evident in the NEA lesson-plan distributed nationally to teachers following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The lesson taught that no group was responsible for the attacks and that instead, teachers should discuss “historical instances of American intolerance” in order to avoid “repeating terrible mistakes.” Unfortunately, the new educational “diversity” regularly expresses itself in anti-Americanism.

Apparently, many professional educators now want to be known more for introducing something “new” or “innovative” than for the success of the students they teach. Consequently, academics take a backseat as students become classroom guinea pigs for a new generation of educrats. Peter Murphy, a New York educational consultant, properly asks: “How many more years of declining scores will it take for the school committee and state officials to put a stop to this educational malpractice on schoolchildren?”

Evangelists for a New Worldview

Who has been behind these radical changes? A new breed of professional educators – working through two primary vehicles: teachers’ colleges, and teachers’ unions.

Concerning the former, a professor writing in the Texas Education Review charges: “Schools of education have been transformed into agencies of social change with mandates to achieve equality at all costs. Colleges of education no longer believe that knowledge should be the center of the educational enterprise. Colleges of education do not serve the interests of children or parents. Instead, they serve the interests of an educational bureaucracy by pushing the growth of the profession, protecting it from competition, and discouraging outside scrutiny.”

Anyone who doubts the accuracy of these charges need only review the resolutions passed at the annual NEA conventions. Those resolutions routinely avoid academic issues and instead advocate the teaching of social positions that most Americans oppose. For example, at recent conventions, NEA educators have passed resolutions calling for schools to encourage:

• Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people
• Globalism and nuclear disarmament
• The United Nations and the International Court of Justice
• School-based health clinics that promote abortion
• National healthcare, population control, and Earth Day
• Multi-culturalism and diversity education
• Pre-K-12 AIDS programs (yes, pre-K:
AIDS education for three and four-year-olds!)

While the NEA supports these issues, it also opposes many, including:

• Competency testing of teachers
• Standardized testing to evaluate students, teachers, or schools
• Educational choice or competition in education
• Homeschooling
• “Homophobia” (the belief that homosexuality is wrong or that marriage should
be between a man and a woman)
• A moment of silence to open the school day

Where is the emphasis on academics? Conspicuously absent. As one national columnist queried: “Since the National Education Association describes itself as ‘America’s largest organization committed to advancing the cause of public education,’ is it not fair to ask why it spends so much of its energy on political issues having little to do with education?” That point was not lost on all NEA delegates (some teachers do oppose the current direction of the NEA, but they are in a clear minority); in fact, one such delegate – after seeing the resolutions passed at the convention – lamented: “We’re the National Education Association, not the National Everything Association.”

Results of this Philosophy

The academic weaknesses of this new educational worldview are statistically measurable in a number of curricular areas.

Civics & Citizenship

According to current studies, after twelve years of school, only a meager 26 percent of students have enough preparation in civics to make informed choices at the polls. Imagine! American education currently is producing only one in four students capable of informed voting!

Furthermore, only 9 percent can name two ways that society benefits from the active participation of its citizens. And while 80 percent of students can name the winner of “American Idol,” only half know the political affiliation of their own state governor; and less than 10 percent can name both of their US Senators. Our educational system simply no longer produces civically prepared, well-informed citizens.

Geography

Thirty-four percent of students know that the island on the “Survivor” television program was in the South Pacific, but only 30 percent can find New Jersey on a United States map; 50 percent of students cannot find New York and 30 percent cannot locate the Pacific Ocean. And although Americans have been involved in a lengthy war in Iraq, only 13 percent of students can find Iraq on a map.

Reading & Math

By the fourth grade, only 30 percent of students are competent in reading and math; the number is much lower by the eighth-grade level; and by the end of high school, less than one fourth of college-bound students have the basic academic knowledge necessary to succeed in college (one can imagine how much worse it is for non-college-bound students).

History

Only one in ten high school seniors is proficient in American history. Why? Because the new educational worldview emphasizes behavior rather than knowledge. Consequently, the recent history standards proposed by the State of New Jersey excluded the Pilgrims and the Mayflower, and George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson. This trend has been growing for a decade, and a number of states now teach what is called “The Twentieth Century Model” under which high school students are taught only 20th century history. According to one astute educational observer, in American schools “history is not dumbed down, but erased.”

Consequently, 70 percent of fourth-graders thought that Illinois, Texas, and California were part of the original 13 colonies; and 60 percent had no idea why the Pilgrims came to America. And when students were asked to identify “Memorial Day,” the most common answer was, “The day when the pools open.” Recent testimony before a congressional hearing correctly concluded: “We are raising a generation of people who are historically illiterate.”

Ignoring the Obvious

The above academic results have been revealed primarily through independent surveys of students rather than through academic testing conducted by educators. Why? Recall the position of the teachers’ unions? “The [NEA] opposes the use of standardized tests when . . . results are used to compare students, teachers, programs, schools, communities, and states.”

Professional educators oppose testing and argue that it is not an accurate measure of what students really know. Of course, they offer no other proposal for measuring student knowledge; they just don’t like testing that exposes academic weaknesses, and thus could lead to teacher accountability.

Despite the opposition of educators to testing, legislators are beginning to demand it – but they are not liking what they find. For example, in Virginia, students were required to pass a state exam, but when 93 percent of students failed the test, the requirement was dropped.

In other states where legislators require testing, educators find ways to evade the purpose of the tests by simply lowering the bar. For example, in Florida, 13,000 high school seniors failed to pass the state exit test. (Originally many more had failed, but the passing grade was lowered to only 40 percent to reduce the number of failures to just 13,000!) Similarly, so many students were having difficulty passing the state’s required history test that the passing score was lowered to a mere 23 out of 100 – that is, students can get three out of four history answers wrong and still pass the test!

So what do educators propose as a solution for these high failure rates? According to national columnist Thomas Sowell: “The National Education Association – the biggest teachers’ union in the country – is urging that an extra year be added to high school for those students who fail to meet the standards for graduation. In other words, when educators fail to educate for 12 years, the 13th year will be the charm.” Too many students now spend their educational career in what one commentator described as “legally enforced incarceration in government buildings that are euphemistically called schools.”

Many of the good public school educators have come to recognize that public schools are no place to educate their own children. In fact, public school teachers are twice as likely as other parents to place their own children in private schools – including 44 percent of public school teachers in Philadelphia, 41 percent in Cincinnati, 39 percent in Chicago, etc. Why do so many public school teachers place their own children in private schools? A common answer given by these educators is: “Private and religious schools impose greater discipline, achieve higher academic achievement, and offer overall a better atmosphere.”

A Call for Results – and an Unexpected Response

Educators unreasonably assert that the current problems in education can be fixed only through more money and higher teacher salaries. Most citizens see a different problem; as Star Parker of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education pointedly notes: “Businesses that face competition deliver more and more for less and less. Monopolies deliver less and less for more and more. What else can we expect from the NEA and government school monopoly than claims that spending is the alleged answer for everything?”

The public is starting to deafen to the incessant and unceasing clamor for more money and is instead beginning to demand more bang for the buck. As a result, laws are now being crafted at the state and federal levels that attach school funding to academic performance but because teachers’ jobs may now depend on how well they teach as measured by objective testing scores, some schools and teachers are taking unorthodox steps to ensure that scores remain high: they have resorted to cheating.

For example, on the accountability test in Texas, organized teacher-led cheating was uncovered. What initially alerted investigators to the cheating? An elementary school in Dallas in which students had previously ranked in the bottom 4th percentile in one year, suddenly finished as the second best school in the state the next year. Similar teacher-led cheating has been exposed in Nevada, Mississippi, Massachusetts, Ohio, New York, Michigan, Connecticut, Kentucky, South Carolina, Arizona, and elsewhere. In the classic “end justifies the means” mentality, teachers from the new educational worldview are simply cheating to help bolster testing scores and preserve their jobs.

One testing expert correctly notes: “When you have a system where test scores have real impact on teacher’s lives, you’re more likely to see teachers willing to cheat.” And because the problem of teacher-led cheating is growing rather than shrinking, a whole new industry has sprung up to provide monitoring of
teachers as they administer tests. Perhaps a reporter from the Indianapolis Star best summarized this new trend when he said: “I hope people are aware of the irony of the situation that America now faces. We are talking about how to keep teachers from cheating.”

Teacher Competency

Because the current rash of testing has revealed deep academic weaknesses in students, attention properly has been focused on teachers: why can’t teachers produce students with a grasp of academic basics? There may be many answers, but statistics irrefutably document that one of the causes is a widespread epidemic of academically incompetent teachers.

The federal government’s own National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports that college education majors have the lowest Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores of any undergraduate major. And the results of the standardized entry exam for students seeking post-graduate degrees reveals that education majors have the second-lowest scores of all majors. And if an education major decides to enter law, the LSAT (the Law School Admission Test) shows that education majors rank at the bottom – 26th out of 29 majors. This is not to suggest that all teachers lack basic academic knowledge; but the fact is undeniable that their profession ranks as one of the lowest in academic competency.

Sadly, once these low-performing education majors become teachers, states demand even less from them. For example, of the 29 states that test teachers, only one requires math teachers to attain the national average in math to be able to teach math; and no state currently requires a teacher to reach the national average in reading in order to teach reading. In many states, a teacher can score in the bottom quarter in math and reading and still be rated competent to teach those subjects. In the current system, it is relatively easy for underperforming teachers to be certified.

Once certified, many states require teachers to participate in some form of continuing education to stay certified. The concept is reasonable on paper, yet teachers in Illinois get professional development credits for taking Tai Chi classes, learning to give massages, and for gambling at racetracks. For gambling at racetracks? Reporters who investigated that class reported: “The afternoon of gambling was part of a two day, 15-credit hour class called ‘Probabilities in Gaming.’ The teachers learned how to read the racing guide and calculate the payout. Before placing their bets, they discussed betting odds and how to pick a winner, such as considering the age of the horse and the days since his last race. . . . The professor who taught this course claimed that a day at the race track gets teachers excited about math.”

Regrettably, when groups clamor for “certified” teachers, today the phrase has become relatively meaningless. In fact, home-schooled students average 30 to 37 academic points higher than their counterparts in public schools on the same academic tests, even though less than 14 percent of homeschool “teachers” (i.e., moms) are certified. Similar results are seen in private schools, where the majority of teachers are not certified yet produce academic results well above their counterparts in public schools. Public school certification is no longer any assurance of quality.

Teachers Oppose Accountability

Not only are teachers’ scores collectively among the lowest of all groups in the nation, but teachers’ groups stridently resist efforts to raise the bar. For example, in Massachusetts, suit has been filed against the testing of math teachers, claiming that such testing is “unfair, illegal and discriminatory.” As national commentator Thomas Sowell points out, teachers appear to be saying, “We know our algebra and geometry so well that we don’t want anybody testing us to find out. . . . What makes this huffy response especially ironic is that over half the applicants for teaching jobs in Massachusetts a couple of years ago failed a very simple test. Here is a chance for Massachusetts educators to vindicate themselves and prove their critics wrong. Yet somehow they are passing up this golden opportunity.”

Similarly, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports that in Philadelphia, “half of the district’s 690 middle school teachers who took exams in math, English, social studies and science in September and November failed.” Notice: half of the currently-certified teachers failed the relatively easy state teaching test but are still teaching in the classroom! Why have so few heard about this? Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell explains, “releasing the data could subject teachers to humiliation.” Great! – permanently impair students rather than embarrass incompetent teachers!

This “circle the wagons” mentality to defend failure is predictable, though illogical. Chester Finn of the Fordham Foundation seemed to express the thoughts of most rational Americans when he stated: “Pressure to perform is not a bad thing. Educators have been spared it for so long that they’ve forgotten that it’s part of life in almost every other line of work. I mean, bus drivers are under pressure not to crash their buses. Prison guards are under pressure not to let their prisoners escape. Doctors are under pressure not to let their patients die. Lawyers are under pressure to win their lawsuits. Everybody is under pressure
in their job. Educators have had this curious sort of charmed life in which results don’t matter. This is just nuts.”

Dismissing Incompetent Teachers

So why not just get rid of incompetent teachers? Because under the current tenure rules, getting rid of just one teacher can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses and years of time. For example, it took three years to get rid of a teacher who engaged in brawls with students, was unable to control her classrooms, and who changed her name to “God”; it took four years to get rid of a teacher who refused to follow a lesson plan and who swore at her students; it took five years to get rid of a teacher who showed first-graders a R-rated movie; and it took eight years and $300,000 to get rid of a teacher who refused to answer students’ questions in class.

In Los Angeles, it is so difficult to get rid of incompetent teachers that in that district of 35,000 teachers, over the span of a decade the district was able to get rid of only one incompetent teacher. And of the 300,000 teachers in California, only 227 were dismissed over that same decade – only one-tenth of one percent were dismissed as incompetent, despite the fact that national studies find as high as 18 percent of current teachers are incompetent. One school official lamented, “It takes longer to fire a teacher than to convict a murderer.” A state legislator agreed: “Unless you’re molesting children or robbing banks, you can’t be fired.”

The story is the same in state after state – all because of tenure. (Currently, all states provide, and about 80 percent of teachers have been awarded, tenure.) A Florida group properly notes that tenure “creates an environment where there is simply no incentive to be a good teacher. . . . Serving time is what is rewarded, not teaching excellence.” A California school board member agrees: “Good teachers do not need tenure. Poor or incompetent teachers use it to protect their jobs.”

So why do educational unions fight so hard for teacher tenure, and then fight so hard to keep incompetent teachers from being dismissed? As one Kansas legislator explained: “Unions fight for poor-performing teachers because then the schools hire more remedial teachers. More teachers equals more money for the union. . . . They want as many teachers as possible making as much money as possible. . . . It means more teachers, more pay, more money for the union.”

Summary

The successful philosophy of education that characterized America for centuries clearly has undergone a radical revolution in recent years. Many are unaware of the changes, and others are simply complacent about them. Yet, every citizen should be concerned and informed about the condition of education. As educator Noah Webster long ago warned:

The education of youth should be watched with the most scrupulous attention. . . . [I]t is much easier to introduce and establish an effectual system . . . than to correct by penal statutes the ill effects of a bad system. . . . The education of youth . . . lays the foundations on which both law and gospel rest for success.

It is our responsibility as citizens not only to protect the proven educational philosophy that made and has kept America great but also to do everything that we can to transmit a successful educational philosophy to future generations, just as our forebears did throughout the first four centuries of American education.

A Solution

What is the solution for many of the education problems that America now faces? Much of the answer may be found in a new DVD we have just introduced on the national market: Four Centuries of American Education. (This new work was entered into national competitions with works from groups such as CBS, HBO, Paramount, Fox, etc., and won the top award in its class!)

Four Centuries of American Education examines education both past and present. It presents not only many of America’s greatest textbooks but also its greatest educators from Benjamin Rush and William McGuffey to Emma Willard and Booker T. Washington. It documents what long made America a world leader in education, what caused the change, and what can be done to re-attain genuine educational achievement.

Four Centuries of American Education is an excellent tool for educating others about our educational system and is appropriate for use at home or school, or in churches or civic clubs. The remarkable information in this work will both challenge and inspire you.

Draftsman of the Declaration

Independence Day is the annual anniversary of the Continental Congress approving the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776. That fateful day not only sealed the future for those brave men who approved that document but that paper also established the principles by which America became the most successful nation of the past three centuries.

Of the fifty-six men who signed this document, the final to pass away was Charles Carroll, who died at the age of 95. Before his passing, New York City asked him to inscribe his final thoughts on a copy of the Declaration. On it he wrote that he was “Grateful to Almighty God for the blessings which, through Jesus Christ Our Lord, He has conferred on my beloved country in her emancipation.” 1 Significantly, this Founding Father, in looking back over what had occurred as a result of the Declaration, wanted to specifically thank Jesus for what had happened with America.

The two signers of the Declaration to precede Charles Carroll in death were John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Both had been on the committee to draft the Declaration, and both died on the 50th anniversary of that document – on July 4, 1826. 2

Of the two, Thomas Jefferson is considered the penman of the Declaration, and many today do not know much about his beliefs or actions. Significantly, he was not only a strong advocate for political and national freedom but also for spiritual freedom.

In fact, throughout his life, he freely gave numerous financial contributions to Gospel ministers and missionaries and supported their work and office. 3 Perhaps this is not surprising, for as Governor of Virginia and a member of the Board of the College of William and Mary, he stipulated that the professors “appoint from time to time a missionary of approved veracity to the several tribes of Indians.” 4 When he became President of the United States, he signed a treaty that included a provision of $300 to “assist the said Kaskaskia tribe in the erection of a church” and to provide “annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a [Catholic] priest.” 5

draftsman-of-the-declaration-2

He also signed three federal acts setting aside government lands for the sole use of religious groups so that Moravian missionaries might be assisted in “promoting Christianity.” 6 In 1804, he prepared a volume of the key teachings of Jesus to be distributed among the Indians. 7 Today’s secularist critics (and the uninformed) claim that Jefferson excluded the supernatural from this work, but that was definitely not the case, for it contained Jesus healing the sick, raising the dead, and casting out demons, as well as Jesus’ teachings about heaven, hell, and the resurrection. 8

There is much to celebrate about our Declaration and those who produced it. As we honor the birthday of our nation, let’s remember President Jefferson’s wise declaration that:

No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion – nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example. 9

Articles from WallBuilders:
Thomas Jefferson and Religion at the University of Virginia
The Founders And Public Religious Expressions
4th of July Article

1  Charles Carroll, The Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1898), II:title page, “Copy of Declaration of Independence, New York City Library,” August 2, 1826. See also, Lewis A. Leonard, Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York: Moffit, Yard and Co., 1918), 256-257.
2 “Declaration of Independence,” National Archives. See also, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1850), I:222; Daniel Webster, Adams and Jefferson, ed. Albert F. Blaisdell (New York: Clark & Maynard Publishers, c. 1885), 8-9.
3 See for example, David Barton, The Jefferson Lies (Aledo, TX: WallBuilder Press, 2020), 193-200.
4 Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul Leicester Ford (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904), II:434-435, “A Bill for Amending the Constitution of the College of William and Mary.”
5 The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, ed. Richard Peters (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1846), VII:79, Article III, “A Treaty Between the United States and the Kaskaskia Tribe of Indians,” December 23, 1803. See also Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, at 103 (1985), Rehnquist, J. (dissenting).
6 For additional information, see David Barton, The Jefferson Lies (Aledo, TX: WallBuilder Press, 2020), xx-xxviii.
7 For additional information, see David Barton, The Jefferson Lies (Aledo, TX: WallBuilder Press, 2020), xxxviii-xl, 103-110.
8 See for example, Jefferson’s “Bible”  The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, ed. Judd Patton (Grove City: American Book Distributors, 1996), xiv, summarizing the 1983 Dickinson W. Adams, Jefferson’s Extracts from the Gospels, which was a reconstruction of Jefferson’s Philosophy of Jesus; Charles B. Sanford, The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1984);  Mark Beliles, Thomas Jefferson’s Abridgement of the Words of Jesus of Nazareth (Charlottesville: Mark Beliles, 1993).
9 James Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic (Washington: Library of Congress, 1998), 96, quoting from a handwritten history in possession of the Library of Congress, “Washington Parish, Washington City,” by Rev. Ethan Allen.