The Modern Debate Over Founders
Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI
Biblical Authority Ministries, December 9, 2025 (Donate)
For those who know, there is a debate over the beliefs of
the Founding Fathers. This includes secular beliefs as well as varying
understandings by David Barton and Gregg Fazer.
Barton Et Al
The debate surrounding David Barton et al centers on
how to understand and represent the religious beliefs of the Founding
Fathers of the United States. Barton and others in his camp argue that
America was explicitly founded as a Christian nation, out of a Christian nation
(Britain), and that most founders were sincere, orthodox Christians. He argues
that their political philosophy flowed directly from the Bible.
Barton points out extensive religious language in colonial
charters, state constitutions, early laws, sermons, and the personal writings
of a number of founders. They also point to public proclamations of prayer,
thanksgiving, and fasting, as well as general references to Providence, the
Creator and using the Bible in schools and recommended by Congress, as well as
biblical morality.
I would lean in Barton’s direction (which was also Charlie
Kirk’s position), but I understand that sometimes certain claims can be
overstepped. But that doesn’t neglect the case. I would urge caution on this of
course—I would rather be accurate and look at original documents in context and
based on the cultural situations at hand.
Critics, naturally playing on this, counter that Barton often
overstates some claims by relying on selective quotations, or blur distinctions
between personal belief, public rhetoric, and original documents’ purpose. However,
going back and reading these documents and seeing the various Christian protestant
churches represented where most of these men attended leans strongly for a
Christian heritage.
Secular Objections
Secular humanistic historians who critique Barton argue that
many founders were not orthodox Christians but held a spectrum of beliefs including
Protestant Christianity, various degrees of deism, unitarianism, rational
theism, and Enlightenment moral philosophy. But with a little research most founders
were members of triune Protestant churches—with minor exceptions and remember
that exceptions aren’t the rule.
Secular humanists recognize that the founders lived in a
predominantly Christian culture and frequently used religious language, attended
Christian churches, and argued for Christian morality. But they want to argue
that the nation’s founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Northwest
Ordinance, Articles of Confederation, State Constitutions, etc.),
especially the Constitution, intentionally avoided establishing a
specific religion[1]
and protected broad religious liberty. The founding documents all refer to God,
the Lord, Creator, or Providence somewhere—even the Constitution.
Supporters of Barton point out that modern secular historians
often underplay the influence of Christianity because of contemporary secular biases—which should be obvious.
They argue that the founders were deeply shaped by Scripture, the Protestant Reformation, and English
common law which are based on biblical concepts.
They also note that all aspects of early American culture
and education permeated with Christian beliefs, and that many founders did
speak of Christian doctrines, not doctrines of other religions, and were active members in churches, and spoke
favorably of the Bible’s authority. Critics need to be careful of creating an
artificial divide between private faith and public philosophy which were
intertwined in those days.
This controversy remains lively because of modern discussions on roles of church and state, religious liberty, and national
identity. Consider for a moment that the government is trying to govern by
leaving God and His Word out of it—yet God and His Word are the basis for
morality, education, and even for law! In other words, law is a
Christian concept.
Education is a Christian concept—to leave the Bible
out of it, is to say that law and education don’t really exist (in their own professed worldviews if they were consistent). If
one looks at our culture we see a breakdown of laws and education and morality—these
are the natural consequences of trying to have those things without God and His
Word being the authority over them.
Theistic Rationalists
Trying to find middle ground, Gregg Frazer, in The
Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders, argues that many key founders were
neither orthodox Christians nor deists but belonged to a distinct category he invented
and called theistic rationalists (e.g., unitarian, moralistic).
According to Frazer, theistic rationalists believed in a rational,
benevolent Creator who governed the world and expected moral behavior, but they
reduced God's perfect, infallible Word to the fallible whims of imperfect human reason.
Certain founders agreed with Christian moral teachings yet rejected
essential doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, substitutionary
atonement, and biblical inerrancy. For Frazer, theistic rationalism blended
elements of Christianity, deism, and Enlightenment rationalism into a unique categorized belief system.
Frazer applies this framework to influential founders such
as Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and others. He argues that their
writings show a consistent pattern: they praised Jesus primarily as a moral
teacher, but then elevated reason above Scripture, denied key doctrines, and saw
religion’s chief value in promoting public virtue rather than saving faith.
Thus, Frazer concludes that America’s founding political philosophy was shaped
more by theistic rationalism than by orthodox Christianity.
However, this may only be true for certain few founders—Jefferson
and Franklin for example—but many others were not in their category—but openly Christian.
Many founders would disagree with one another like Adams who was a blatant
unitarian for instance. Recall, most were active church members who would have opted
to rather be known by their local denominational name or simply Christian than the category of theistic rationalist.
Frazer opposes both secularists and Christian-influenced position.
He contends that secularists ignore the founders’ belief in a personal God, use
of the Bible, and moral order, while those who argue for more Christian influence inaccurately
portray the founders as orthodox Christians. Of course, not all were, but most
were via their local denominational standing.
Frazer’s category of theistic rationalism tries to lump
Christians, unitarians, and rationalists together into a single category as a
precise historical description of the founders’ actual beliefs. When taken a
little deeper, this would label most denominations of the day as being in
opposition to orthodox Protestant beliefs which may be a stretch.
Conclusion
So further balance must be taken and we need to be careful
lumping people, particularly Christians who were members of local churches, as
something they themselves would have been opposed to be labelled as. The purpose
of this short article is not to hash out all the positions and debate points
but give a brief overview of basic talking points.
So please don’t get me wrong, there are aspect of Frazer’s position
that I like and respect, but there are also aspects of Barton’s position where
I think he nailed it. What I want you to know is that there is a debate over
this and I want to encourage you learn these positions better.
Bodie Hodge, Ken
Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various
churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers
in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding
news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight
Council.
Bodie
launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal
website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken
on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and
universities. He is married with four children.
[1]
They were more than happy for Christianity
and the Bible, but not one denominational view should be imposed like they did
in Britian with Anglicanism.
