[COMMENTARY] The 2008 election may well be remembered as the year of the pastor problem. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has been hounded by controversial statements by his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, forcing him to denounce and resign from the church he has belonged to for 20 years. Republican presidential candidate John McCain has likewise been stung by numerous statements and positions taken by two pastors who have prominently endorsed his campaign, John Hagee and Rod Parsley, prompting him to reject their endorsements after many weeks of controversy.

Religious controversy is nothing new in American politics. The Founding Fathers wrestled with defining the proper relationship between religion and politics, and they came to no single conclusion on it. There is a fascinating divide between the first two American presidents, Washington and Adams, and the second two, Jefferson and Madison, on this subject. Washington and Adams were accommodationists, while Jefferson and Madison were strict separationists. In part two of this commentary, I will examine the Washington/Adams position; this essay will focus on Jefferson and Madison.

As far back as the election of 1800, supporters of incumbent John Adams erroneously condemned challenger Thomas Jefferson as an infidel and an atheist, and conservative pastors around the nation railed that if Jefferson were elected, it would provoke nothing less than the wrath of God. But Jefferson’s problem was not with God; it was with those who claimed to speak on his behalf. You’re probably familiar with this famous quote from Jefferson, which is found on his monument in Washington, D.C.:

Continued – 

I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

But it will probably surprise you to know at whom that comment was aimed: the clergy, who were actively campaigning against him. He wrote those words in a letter to his good friend Dr. Benjamin Rush during the election of 1800. Here is the quote in fuller context:

The successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro’ the U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion. …

James Madison, Jefferson’s younger protege and staunch ally from the state of Virginia, held similar views. Unlike their predecessors, both men believed that religion and politics should be kept entirely separate. Jefferson famously refused to issue even non-binding declarations of prayer and thanksgiving, something his predecessors did regularly. Madison issued one or two such declarations as president during the War of 1812, under great political pressure, but later wrote that he regretted it greatly and considered such proclamations to be a violation of the First Amendment.

During his time in the Virginia Legislature, Madison pushed through a law written by Jefferson, the Act for Establishing Religious Freedom. He wrote a defense of that bill for his fellow legislators, the Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, in which he said:

Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. …

What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient allies.

Like Jefferson, Madison was particularly opposed to the Episcopalian and Congregationalist clergy, who sought the support of the state for their privilege and advancement. There were also many clergyman, particularly among the Baptists, who were staunch allies in the fight against religious establishments. But both Jefferson and Madison believed strongly that the less influence the clergy had on politics, the better. Madison expressed this many times in many ways, arguing that “religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together” and that the civil government functions best “by the total separation of the Church from the State.”

Indeed, Madison so vehemently opposed the influence of the clergy upon the state that he even argued against the hiring of chaplains for Congress and the military. The establishment of such chaplaincies, Madison wrote, “is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds and consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority.” This, he argued, violated the establishment clause:

The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

Jefferson and Madison would no doubt look at the last few months and the political battles over the views and influence of these controversial clergymen, from left and right, and see it as further confirmation of the position they expressed two centuries ago. In short, that position is that the politicians are to serve the needs of the people, not the whims of those who claim to speak for God.

In part two, we’ll look at the views of Washington and Adams and show why, even though they believed government should provide rhetorical support for religion, both would have rejected the undue influence of pastors that we see in politics today.