[Looking at why our area has its unique political and religious attitudes.]

Why were Presidents Jefferson and Washington, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, with other early political architects called Deist?

We saw earlier that all the founding colonies had requirements and oaths definitively affirming traditional Protestant beliefs and the colonies expelled those not advocating the prescribed practices. The three gentlemen took the oaths. They were either truthful Christians or to be deists they were prevaricators.

Okay, what is a deist? At the risk of oversimplification, the current perception is deists believe God created the universe and its laws, then took a hands-off approach, letting it run according to the laws of nature.

Translation: there is no active, personal God or person of Jesus the Christ who is involved in the affairs of humans. However, we have already identified the colonies required such an affirmation. So, what is the deal?

“For history is written by the victors and framed according to the prejudices and bias existing on their side.” Missouri Sen. George Graham Vest stated the thought in 1891 referring to the consequences of the War between the States.

The question becomes, how did they get the label? Consider the elder statesman, Dr. Benjamin Franklin. His story clarifies the issue.

An important anachronism of history aids in our understanding. At the time, the only communications method was letters. Franklin had not identified electricity which means no phones, no computers, no emails, no texts. Because of the time it took for a letter and a reply, their ideas were thought out, not a reaction. Those of us old enough to remember personal mailed letters recall people saved the correspondence. How many of you who are over 60 still have letters or notes between you and your eventual spouse? There you go. The letters provide records of thought processes.

Young Ben Franklin grew up in a staunchly Presbyterian home.

In his autobiography, Dr. Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), affirmed he tried deism in his youth about the age of 15, but decided it “was not very useful.” By age 17, he “doubted whether some error had not insinuated itself unperceived into my argument.” His journey took a while. He ascertained “the kind hand of Providence” protected him in his “dangerous time of youth.”

The intellectual Franklin wrote often about his progress in understanding. By age 26, he observed “that the Deity sometimes interferes by his particular Providence, and sets aside the Events which would otherwise have been produced in the Course of Nature, or by the Free Agency of Men.”

This is a turning-point observation. First, Providence operates above and outside of nature. That simple statement totally rejects Deism.

Second, he affirms the free-will of humans. This argument is a philosophical, science, and theological discussion that continues. One of my scholarly academic journals recently ran an entire issue about free will. The discussion is more than the Reformation and determined the Cherokee directions by 1850s.

Within a couple of years of Franklin’s conversion back to the Presbyterian Church, the Rev. Samuel Hemphill became an associate pastor. Ben’s autobiography affirms, “I became one of his constant hearers.”

As was a common vehicle, Franklin used a pseudonym to write a pamphlet, “Dialogue between Two Presbyterians,” in which he quoted numerous scriptures.

A small group of Presbyterians jealous of Hemphill’s success, charged him with teaching freedom of thought contrary to the Reformed teaching. Hemphill was reflecting more of the Separatist/Dissenter view of the Methodists and Baptists.

In a pamphlet “A Defense of Mr. Hemphill’s Observations,” 29-year-old Franklin declared “Christ by his Death and Sufferings has purchased for us those easy Terms and Conditions of our Acceptance with God, proposed in the Gospel, to wit, Faith and Repentance.” That is a deist?

After the synod court by a small group completed the personal assassination of the young Rev. Hemphill, Franklin quit the congregation, never joining it after.

He wrote later his mother was upset that he had rejected the reformed church and embraced Arminian (free-will), which was a Methodist tenant. He was close friend and a generous supporter of George Whitfield, a founder of Methodists.

So, was Franklin a deist? The Presbyterian placed the moniker on teachings of the “radical reformed” and excluded from their meetings “Baptists, English Nonconformists, New England Congregationalist, and the like besides Presbyterians.”

So, was Franklin a deist? Although, like the youthful Ben, deists did exist, the term became a pejorative to describe those of the “radical reform” persuasion who acknowledged a free will to worship Almighty.

Both Jefferson and Franklin were decidedly acknowledged followers of Christian teaching, but wanted to allow people to follow their own religious tradition without submission to the state or federal government. Their design was freedom of religious practice from government control not freedom from religion. In 1776, this was a radical idea.

Think about how Ben Franklin’s journey compares to yours. Have you made the progression?

Do you know your religious tradition well-enough to understand its relationship to government and freedom?

Excerpts from our books:

Separatists, Spinoza, & Scientists, The Mavericks of Intellectual Freedom, ISBN: 9781797744827