Your cell phone and any device you might have with you. Lees join me in giving our speakers around of applause. They have done an outstanding job. [applause] today has been an interesting look at how the bible influenced people and events in our nations founding. Im going to thank those who have submitted questions and randomly go to these for our speakers. We will start with dr. Kidd. Quoted, god helps those who helps themselves. Can you put that in the context of your remarks . Thats an example of franklin, that Poor Richards proverbs andull of , think that type of philosophy that god helps those who help themselves, is an excellent example of this type of emphasis of virtue and morality and industry and frugality that were the hallmarks of franklins religion andout morality. That statement in particular i think the centers god decen way his calvinist forbearers would not want him to do. You dont just need god to help you, you need god to change her life, and what needs to happen inverted by godss grace transforming power, and then we are unable to live in a godly world. I think that type of philosophy of god helps those who help themselves is more of god is a supplement, that if you follow gods principles i do work hard and you are honest to that will go well for you. Its a classic kind of american somewhat it may sit uncomfortably with the council of scripture. Would you say that was a deist statement . Yes, it has a kind of deist flavor to it in the sense of god may be being active but also, you need to take responsibility for yourself. The gods work, gods power is not the first thing you need. The first thing you need in the kind of formula is your own so i think god is ntered a little bit, knowing what i know about franklin, a sense that god is secondary or distant. Another question from our audience, i understand our inernment is a republic are so many people in america say it is a democracy. Can it be both, or is it both . Explicitlytitution makes reference to a republican form of government but i certainly dont think these are inconsistent in some ways which they manifest themselves. If we take the words and look at ,t in its purest definition there might be some restrictions. But let me just remind you of the core of what republicanism would have meant to most 18thcentury americans, which thegovernment by consent of governed as exercised by representatives. And that second aspect could come into tension with democracy in its purest form, but i think as these words might have been used at this time in history, they would not have seen such a sharp clash between the two and they certainly did not view that some expressions or manifestations of the peoples voice is being intentioned with republicanism as they understood it. I like to jump in there. You know, when i explain this to my students, the founders view theydemocracy, which wouldve thought was a really bad idea, is as if every single question at any level of government deals with, than the people have to vote on, say a popular referendum on every question you do they have the expertise to make these sorts of decisions . Its an issueif about some complex foreignpolicy issue or a financial issue, banking issue or Something Like that. So the ideal, the ideal is that you elect people who do have sufficient expertise in these kinds of areas, and the founders would have hoped that these people would also be virtuous, knowledgeable, independent who then on behalf of the people can make informed decisions on these various policy issues. So that is why i think, we definitely have become more 1776, 1787,ince because number one we have a lot more kinds of people voting. Lets just start with women. Minorities now participate when they couldnt have at the time of the founding. But it think its fundamentally democratic republic that we have, as opposed to a pure democracy that the founders would have considered to be ill considered and chaotic. Republicanism is another way of putting a check on the exercise of power. Again, that comes back to this biblical anthropology that we are fallen creatures and we need as many checks and restraints as we can possibly manage in the way we frame our government. Thank you. Dr. Byrd, this one is for you. More onu please expound Thomas Jeffersons religious views . Thomas jeffersons religious views . Yes. Well, i didnt mention Thomas Jefferson. [laughter] i might jump in. Jump in. Y be able to my basic understanding of Thomas Jefferson is that he was a little more purely deistic in what he had to say. He famously trimmed the bible of certain texts that were miraculous because he mainly wanted to concentrate on the morals of jesus and see jesus as this example of morality, which was a key thing for him. I dont knowat, much else about jeffersons religious views. I sometimes use the term, he was an adherent to the natural religion where he saw human reason is the final arbiter at the end of the day, when which gave him pause when he encountered the transcendent claims, the miraculous claims he encountered in the bible. If he couldnt explain it or understand it with reason than he had to question, or had reason to doubt it. Having said that, he thought jesus of nazareth was the greatest moral teacher there ever was and there was great value in studying that. The kind of religion he would have warmed to would have been nondogmatic. It wouldve been nonhierarchical. I think is very distrustful of churches in which the government or very hierarchical, oriented or red bishops, for example. So i think he had a certain affinity, even though he might not have embraced the specifics, of more congregational type of religions, the baptists in their church governance, he like the kind of governance apart from the belief system. But i think were talking about a very nondogmatic, a religion that could be explained in rational terms. Famously, he got a well thats got along well with baptists because they shared religious views. They agreed on the separation of church and state. He had a fascinating relationship with baptists. John welland, one of the major baptist figures of the era, who and new southern england, he moved around and preach, he loved Thomas Jefferson. He actually talked about Thomas Jefferson. And he was a very fervent, biblebelieving baptist but he left jefferson. He but jefferson was a gift of god. And he knew about jefferson to an extent, but jeffersons theology, that he disagreed with , but he thought jefferson was just such a gift to the nation because of jeffersons politics. And he knew about jefferson to. And he spoke about him like he was a biblical figure or something, so he had religious meaning and value even for baptists who disagreed with him. And he valued the baptists take on politics because they read so well with what he thought of, as you were saying describing his view of religion as basically about morality and freedom for individuals. His accountok in books, he was very generous in giving money to ministers. He maintained friendships with many ministers, including ministers that he would not have agreed with on theological matters. Was of some importance to him. When you look at jeffersons views, especially some of the anticlerical statements that he makes, and he makes some very harsh ones. I think its always useful to look at the context in which he makes them. For example, some of the harsh, anticlerical statements he makes are right in the midst of the war, where he sees so many, especially anglican ministers, leaving. They are siding with the loyalists. But at the same time hes expression great admiration with other anglican ministers who have sided with the patriot cause. The same comes up in the election of 1800. Hes harshly attacked by the congregationalist ministers in again, i think he is deeply and personally wounded by some of the things he say some of the things they say about him. I think you need to look at the context in which he makes some of the harsh statements around harsh statements about clergymen around the election of 1800. And he runs into conflicts with clergymen in Central Virginia over who are going to be professors at his new university in virginia. And there were presbyterian ministers in his own community that were not keen on some of the people he wanted to hire. And again, he kind of lashes out in some very harsh, anticlerical statements. So i think its always useful to look at the political context in which he makes some of these statements, to understand where hes coming from with that kind of expression from jefferson. Thank you. This next question is for dr. Kidd. Franklins knowledgeable but not doctrinal phase make him a better Bridge Builder between religious groups . And did a similar thing work for lincoln . Think it did. He was a very friendly terms with lots of different kinds of churches and ministers. When he was in philadelphia, the most commonly would attend the cities Anglican Church, or the church of england the citys Anglican Church, or the church of england. His wife was more devout. And she was an anglican and he would go with her to church and he gave money for the Anglican Church to be expanded. It was becaused he wanted a steeple for his electrical for his electoral experiment, what i think he got the church was a good thing. Money to help build a synagogue in philadelphia. So it wasnt just charity and benevolence extended to different types of christian denominations, but even to jews, too. So i thinks that i think to franklinside nondogmatic approach. And he definitely thought, in a way that jefferson didnt, i think, he thought institutional religion even is a good thing, so he was keen to help a lot of different kinds of churches. And if your member from my talk this morning, your member john adams sang every Christian Group thought he was probably part of them, and the reason for that is because he was so friendly to a lot of groups in a very harsh time of interdenominational conflicts, especially between catholics and protestants. But when franklin had the opportunity to visit the he was very europe, complimentary towards catholics and catholic churches. He never quite got over some of bread anticatholic pbred, anticatholic sentiments that he grew up with. But he was definitely a bridge and that reflected the fact that he basically had a positive view of religion and churchgoing and that sort of thing, just as long as you didnt use it to beat people over the head with doctrine. Thing works similar for lincoln . I dont know as much about lincoln. Maybe professor bird can Say Something about this. I think that lincoln definitely, especially as a leader, washington was like this too, of making sure to reach out to different, to leaders of different denominations to say, we need your support and you are valued here, this sort of thing. Washington and lincolns case, that you see the kind of principled outreach to different kinds of denominations. I think thats true and would lincoln, there is so much consistency in that comparison. And thats why i think it is helpful. The only distinction that we might make would lincoln is that he had as strong a sense of. Rovidential is him as anyone he clearly believed in providence. However, he had a very pessimistic kind of providence and part of this was his time, part of it was probably the war, and you can see this even in his famous speeches, where he talked about, we need to be on gods side, he talks about, maybe god is not really favor really in favor of what we are doing. Maybe we are going down the wrong road in various ways. So he had a strong sense of gods judgment on the nation, and that i think may have been. Omething somewhat unique and again, its easy to think of these figures as just kind of hyper intellectual world hyper intellects who were reflecting out of body. Instances withic jefferson you have to think about the context, and the same is true of lincoln. His entire presidency, and hes the only president you could say this, his entire presidency was bounded by war. From the time he took office, it was a conflict, and that is what he dealt with. I noticed when i read david mccullochs biography of john adams, that john adams, wherever he was, Different Church services, different to nominations, and i found that to be unusual compared to how we intend church today. It seems like we go to our denomination. You feel like visiting various mentioned, that was bridge building with our earlier founders. Is that something that could help us with that today . Right, in that youre the 1700s there is such intense conflict between, especially catholic and protestant but also baptists and congregationalists, arguing about the difference between presbyterian and andregationalists policy, thats like an issue that you shed blood over. And it speaks to a time when were number one come on let more theologically conversant than we are today. But they also take these things so seriously. And i think in retrospect he think, especially in our day and time, when you cant take christian commitment for granted in the culture, it doesnt seem like you want to be fighting about those kinds of issues anymore, but i think one of the real breakthroughs came with the new evangelical movement of the 1730s and 1740s. To the museums bygone america exhibit, you have seen George Whitfield and the great awakening theater they have here. And one of the things that was a so distinctive about whitfield, who was the greatest evangelist of that era, was that even though he was an anglican minister, a church of england minister, especially in america, he cooperated very avidly with nonanglicans, anybody who was supportive of his message of the new birth of salvation, being born again, this is the experience that all people need to have. He was quite willing to preach in their churches and to preach alongside them, and he was upbraided by anglican authorities who said, why are you cooperating so much with the dissenters, the baptists, the presbyterians, the congregationalists, the quakers . He said, because i see bornagain people among all denominations. Orne,ats a unity thats b to me, out of a specific kind of religious principle, which is a belief in the need for conversion and being born again. So there is a way in which i think these two trends toward religious unity are happening at the same time. One is the evangelical unity around the new birth of salvation. One is the enlightenment kind of trend, saying, we need to stop fighting about differences in theology. We need to stop having wars and murdering people over small, apparently differences in the elegy. But these of a surging at the same time so you end up getting people like jefferson and john leland, as you mentioned before, who have very different personal views about theology, who have identical views about the role of religion in American Public life, which is that we need to have full religious liberty, that the government sudden the government shouldnt persecute people because of their religious leaders, that you should let people meet in their own churches in freedom, that they shouldnt pay religious taxes to support a church they dont attend mo which is what most people in the colonial era had to do. So i think this is why that tradition of religious liberty is so important. Mean, we dont have time to attend everybodys churches zendaya stand that, but we should least follow their example and say, religious liberty is for everybody. I think there is a couple of interesting things going on when you look at some of the communication that the founders and in particular, early president s had with religious society. Washington, especially around the time of his inauguration, communicated with two or three dozen religious societies across the spectrum. These were main religious groups but also religious groups from sort of the minority communities. Is several there things going on here. What is he was to reassure them that they are part of this american experiment. He wants to bring them into the they areensure that full participants in the american experience. Using this aso is an opportunity to communicate to the American Public at large. Lets her member, this is a time when there are limited ways in which a political figure can speak to the American Public at large. And writing letters to religious societies and groups was one of those ways to communicate to a broad audience. And all of our early president s used letter writing to religious societies as a way to communicate some pretty important ideas. Washington is talking very systematically about conceptions of religious liberty. Let us not forget, Thomas Jefferson used a letter to a Baptist Association to express that famous metaphor of a wall of separation of church and state. A few years later at the closing days of his presidency, he raised to a Methodist Society in which he says, he says the dearest part of our constitution is that part that protects liberty of conscience. So they are using these communications to really express, i think, some heartfelt issues, some important issues, but i also think it is important to focus on these communications because these societies are o. Andicating with them to they are communicating what their concerns, what their fears are. There are concerns about their liberty and whether matters of liberty and religious freedom are going to be respected. A liberty that would include them. Thank you. This next question is a long one. Take notes. You reference david as a model for war, m f are gods own heart and yet a man of war. But god said today that because he was a man of war and shed much blood on the europe, david would not be the one to build god ehouse, a rather his son solomon, a man of peace. So god showed his displeasure. Please reconcile these two as you can. . Ok. I think its fascinating that opponents of war did not use that text, that reference. And i think part of the reason could be that there were other texts that were less of your, more sort of to the moment in terms of Something Like sermon on the mount. Obviously, someone who is a patriot who tried to argue for people to go to war isnt going to mention that. It is a valid point in many ways. It doesnt, though, undercut the point, the larger point that god wasome ways when david going to war, when he was selling goliath, scripture ,hen he was slaying goliath scripture tells us that he was doing gods work when he was doing that. So its a complicated question but i didnt see it, at least in the research i did come i didnt see any