Gettysburg Hero: The Study of Christianity in Public School Is Not Unreasonable
On June 30, 1881, a Norway, Maine newspaper called The New Religion published an address given before the Maine Congregational Conference by the president of Bowdoin College, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. He was well-known as a Civil War hero in his home state of Maine where he would serve four terms as the Republican governor. At Gettysburg, Chamberlain led his men in the defense of Little Round Top, saving the Union Army’s left flank. In his address, Chamberlain was at liberty to speak on a subject of his choosing. He chose to speak on an issue “which every public teacher and every good citizen and well-wisher ought to feel in a church…” — namely, church and school.
The issue of teaching the Bible in public school is one that has recently received much attention. On June 19, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry (R) signed HB 71 into law which requires all publicly funded schools and colleges in the state to display the Ten Commandments. The Left was apoplectic in response. On the same day the bill was signed by Landry, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced that they, alongside other groups, would file a lawsuit. Just earlier this week, a federal judge blocked the bill from being enforced until November.
But is it so unreasonable to display the Ten Commandments in public schools? Is it an outrage to teach American youth about Christianity? Chamberlain thought not.
He began by arguing that the church has made America much of what it is, “the land of liberty and law — a country, which seeks, at least, through all its toils and struggles, to establish righteousness among men — which is the end of law as it is of liberty, the end of government as it is of religion.” Chamberlain saw clearly the Christian church’s important influence on the establishment and formation of the American republic. “The church has a work for society as well as for the individual.”
But in what way does the church have a work for society? Chamberlain specifically had in mind the education of America’s youth. “The church’s care for education — this, it seems to me, is one of the saving influences in our country.” He continued, “If the national character is to be founded and built upon the Christian virtues, then the Christian church must be the guardian, or at any rate, the watchful friend and guide of education. The influence of the Christian church in this way is essential to the prosperity and even to the existence of a free Christian people.”
Chamberlain then pointed to a few examples of how the church’s role in public education was playing out at the time in other countries within Christendom. He first mentions France, where the Roman Catholic nation had moved to take the schools out from the control of the church. He found it curious that this decision in freeing French schools “from religious trammels of any sort” still planned to instill “common virtues of social civil life — virtues that we are accustomed to call Christian virtues…” He observed, “It is sad, rather, to see this depth of sincerity in the isolated standpoint of the individual soul, this restless groping of the mind seeking in itself the standard of highest right and highest good. God grant them the better revelation!” And in Protestant Holland, a similar movement was happening to make education secular and religious teaching neutral.
Yet, across the channel in England, just the opposite was happening. The educational act of 1870 made it clear that the English wanted more religion in their schools. Quoting the London school board, he noted they urged teachers to “use every opportunity earnestly and sympathetically to bring these religious principles home to the minds of children.” But he would point out that England had an established church. The United States did not. If America is a nation made up of so many different races and religions and our Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion by Congress, then how could American education teach Christianity?
Chamberlain would declare, “[W]e are a Christian country. More than any people known to history, we are founded and built upon the principles of Christianity. … We have no religious tests for our citizenship or its offices, but that is not saying that we are a people without a religion, or that all beliefs and all religions and no religion stand in utter indifference in our eyes. It is only necessary to look at our statute laws, to see that it is not regarded as a hardship to be compelled to recognize and respect Christian practices and Christian virtues.”
Yet, it is this very suggestion by Chamberlain that is most dreadful in the eyes of the ACLU and like-minded groups. To them, America has no religion and never has. They see no direct correlation between Christianity and the laws and ideals of America. They think it completely unreasonable to display any portion of the Bible in American schools. Chamberlain would disagree:
“[I]t would seem not unreasonable to let the instruction in these doctrines and principles have place in our system of common education. How otherwise can we keep our foundation firm? How otherwise shall our youth become and continue upright and efficient members of a great Christian nation? How otherwise shall we go on or even hold together as a Christian nation? It seems to me it is folly and suicide to stand by idly and see our institutions undermined.
“The country was built upon strong foundations. …If people want to enjoy the immunities and advantages of this Christian land, let them at least not be allowed to undermine its foundations. If people do not want to come to a land Christianity has made so prosperous and conform to its Christian spirit, then we can do without them.”
While Chamberlain expressed that he was not arguing for a state-church or an established national religion, he was advocating for the “study of the broad truths of Christianity,” saying it “would not be unreasonable nor oppressive for the youth of a Christian country.”
So what about the church’s work for society in light of all this? Chamberlain elaborated, “The very fact that as a Christian people we cannot, as they do in England, secure such instruction by law, makes it all the more important that we secure it by influence. We do not want the church to govern the state, as organizations. But we do want society persuaded by Christian principles and the Christian spirit. This must be done then by personal and organized Christian effort. …For the church is not merely to look to its own salvation. It is the great guardian and minister of glad tidings and good among men — to the littles ones also.”
If America is to remain true to its foundations, its people must be familiar with its Christian origins. Of these origins, the church was historically independent of the state and remains so to this day. But that does not mean public schools are to be void of all mentions of our Christian roots, far from it. Movements like we see in Louisiana to incorporate teaching on our nation’s Christian foundation is a step in the right direction. America’s second president, John Adams, remarked “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People.”
The integrity of the republic depends on, as Chamberlain would say, the church “by all the influences and forces at its command to keep the foundations of our education pure, and the foundations of character and of liberty sound and sure.”
