Faith and the Founding Fathers part 2

If you have not read part one of Faith and the Founding Fathers, scroll down to read that before reading this one.

Part 2….

Ultimately, true Christianity is not about Christian structure and government, it’s not about prayer in schools or monuments of the 10 commandments in court houses, and it’s not even about morality or church attendance. True Christianity is about abiding in Christ and centering him as the substance of all that a person does. Forcing kids to pray in school or forcing biblical morality on someone isn’t going to save their soul, and in many cases it will only serve to push them away.

The founders may have used the Bible to write the laws of our country, and it’s even true that there were founders who were Christians and that even the non-Christian founders admitted to having a deeply rooted respect for the Word of God; but as was stated in part 1, most of the key players didn’t know God at all. For them, the Bible presented a guideline for laws that seemed to work, and that’s the extent many of the founders went in their interaction with Christ. In fact, the standard for life and relationship set by the founders was anything but Christian. Rather than basing their relationships on love and grace, they based their relationships on status. They weren’t concerned with monetary status or hereditary nobility like the British; the founders were, however, deeply concerned with talent, education, and charisma. Even among the elite there was an elite, there were the leaders and then there were the firsts among equals. There were leaders and then there were what the founders called “gentlemen”.

In the late 18th century being a gentleman wasn’t what it is today. When we think of a gentleman, we think of a nice guy, maybe someone who stands when a lady walks in the room or opens doors for people. For the founders, being a gentleman was what separated you from everyone else, and the qualifications needed for earning such a title in the social structure of that day were extensive. “Gentility”, as they called it, included politeness but certainly wasn’t limited to it. Being a gentleman was a holistic approach to being the best kind of man—the model founder, so to speak—and they lived by this with all the zeal that they could muster. Gentility included things like education, virtue, tolerance, reasonableness, wit, and the ability to be frank, candid, outspoken, opinionated, and sincere without ever crossing the line of being obnoxious. Gentility also included honesty and integrity which was the standard for what made you socially trustworthy and acceptable. Meekness was not admirable, rather than seeing such a thing as humble as many do today, they saw this as a weakness rooted in pride, the sort of pride that would cause a person to hold back from social engagement out of fear rather than better motives.

The standards for gentility in the late 18th century were so strict and elusive that many historians believe that no more than 5% of the colonies’ population at that time was considered to be gentlemanly. Many had the virtue and personality, but not the education, an obstacle only a man as great as the very uneducated George Washington was able to overcome. Men like Aaron Burr had the education but lacked the character. In most cases, the entire package was required. Gentility for the founders was a discipline that they spent their entire lives trying to perfect. They wasted no days; each knew morning brought an opportunity for them to perfect the craft of being better than everyone else.

Surprisingly, the key virtue of gentility in the late 18th century was none of the things listed above; it was actually a characteristic that few today would even recognize because it has been relatively flushed out of our society. The characteristic most cherished by the founders was something that they called “disinterest”. Let’s not confuse disinterest with uninterest. To be uninterested in something is to essentially have no interest, which the founders would frown upon. They believed that all men should be educated and interested in all areas. Disinterest is different; it is the ability to be incredibly interested in all things, but to set aside your own interests for the good of all others. Essentially, disinterest was the founder’s discipline of removing bias for the good of the new nation that they were seeking to create, despite ones feelings and passions, and despite the pain it might cause a gentleman to do so. This played itself out mostly in politics. For a politician in the founder’s day to be successful, he must first retire from all private vocations and pursuits so as not to be biased towards business in his politics. Decisions needed to be made for the good of the people as a whole, not for the good of the voting politicians private inquiries.

You might be sitting there, reading all of this and wondering, “What’s the point?” “Why pose all of these questions?” “What does all of this have to do with me besides trying to convince me that we aren’t a Christian country?” “What about the questions he posed at the end of part one to this post that haven’t been answered?” I’m sorry to do this to you, but wait a couple of days for part three and all of your dreams will come true and your questions will be answered.