Dylan Pahman and John C. Pinheiro on Christian Roots of American Liberty

Added: 2026-05-08

[00:00:02]Hello, this is Mark Tulie, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy here in downtown Washington DC with the pleasure today of talking to the authors of an important new book, The Christian Roots of American Liberty by Dylan Pomman and John Panero. And I'm probably mispronouncing both of your names. So, you're welcome to correct me, but John and Dylan, thank you so much for your availability and for doing this timely book. Uh, please tell us first of all, although I guess the question almost answers itself. Why did you write this book?

[00:00:41]>> That's a great question. So, first of all, I think you got our names right.

[00:00:44]Uh, at least you got mine right. You did. So, so good job on that. Um so this book actually comes out of uh a conference u panel that act organized a few years ago. I think it was maybe 2022 at this point um for the intercolgiate studies institute conference and uh the idea of the panel was uh liberty before liberalism. And so uh we were going to have one person I was going to do uh the ancient period then we're going to have uh someone else do medieval and someone else do modern. Um and then last minute the other two people canled. we did get one replacement to kind of do the modern founding era. Um but I was on the hook for ancient and medieval. So I wrote a paper um trying to show because already then um and really since about 2016 there's been this kind of rise of Christian perspectives on liberalism and on the American founding uh that are very different than the traditional kind of fusionist conservative understanding of things and basically the idea that one way or another they have different views and different reasons. one way or another, either the American founding was liberal and bad or it was Christian and therefore not liberal. Um, and you know, liberal, I'm using this of course in the classical liberal sense. Um, and really anyone who's familiar with the sources knows that it's actually kind of both. And so we we wanted to really help people improve their familiarity by not only publishing this paper as introductions to our our five sections.

[00:02:11]Um but also in these sections it's it's a reader. So every single section has ancient medieval and modern sources included in it. um all the way up to the American founding so that people can see that you know the ideas of religious liberty, private property, natural law, uh limited government, all of these have the this long Christian pedigree. Um and so we really think with with books like you know Patrick Denin's why liberalism failed or Adrien File's um you know common good constitutionalism or uh Yorum Hzone's um you know u virtue of nationalism. Uh we we needed a counterpoint to it that wasn't just a here's why we don't like these guys. We do like them. They're you know as far as I know nice people. Um but we we do think they're very mistaken in in the historical narrative. Um, and that understanding that really shows that there's uh more of an option than simply are you Christian or are you liberal?

[00:03:13]Are you, you know, pro the American founding or are you, you know, uh, you know, some kind of progressive or something like that. Um, then it it's a bit it's a bit more complicated. Um, and so we wanted to show that in one book.

[00:03:26]>> John, anything to add? uh only that Dylan is a theologian and I'm an historian and that's that's also the way we approach this. There's a great historical case to be made for the very long pedigree of the ideas that that I would still argue came together in a distinct way in the founding. And if somebody wanted to argue that was providential, I wouldn't necessarily argue against them or that it was uh even exceptional. I might not argue against that. But uh one of the things the discipline of history does is help us learn to deal with complexity. And the truth is usually more complex than we think it is. There might be scientific laws that the simple answer is always the best answer, but when we're trying to make sense of the big stew pot of the American founding, there's some complexities there that are worth teasing out as as Dylan commented.

[00:04:18]Now Dylan referenced this obviously but uh there are post-lberal Christians especially Catholic intergalists who would say the founding of America was poisoned from the start because it was quote unquote liberal and then we have uh their Protestant equivalent sometimes calling themselves Christian nationalists who embrace America's founding but insisting it was not liberal and that the founders actually hoped that the state uh established churches would continue etc etc. ETA how do you address these different perspectives and um they're both wrong but in different ways how >> yeah so that's I I guess I could start with the Catholic integralists uh perhaps uh so the purpose of this book as Dylan said was to let the sources argue for themselves although we have introductions for every section to kind of guide the reader and we also have a large introduction but when it when it comes to the integralist They look at the American founding and say it was rotten from the start, hopelessly liberal because it was birthed of secular enlightenment ideas. And so the way to make a counterpoint to that, there's two ways really. We could look at post-liberal regimes as they have actually existed in the world and not just in theory. And Actton Institute will be publishing a book on that this summer. But the other way would be to to trace these ideas back to not just pre-enlightenment sources, not just pre-reformation sources, but we go all the way back to the to the early church fathers. And if we wanted to, we could start digging into uh the Old Testament.

[00:05:54]We could dig into the Hebrew scriptures to look for protection of private property, for instance. But there's a lot of early church fathers in this book, a lot of medieval texts, things that belong to to all Christians, uh, you know, prior to, uh, the the reformation. And so with the integral, we want to show that the ideas that they argue are liberal and to be condemned.

[00:06:18]In fact, not only are not, but there's this long stream of this kind of thinking in the Catholic tradition. And what we don't say is that look this has been the major way that Catholics have thought about religious liberty say or private property for centuries and centuries. But there's a clear tradition there and we see it in Thomas Aquinas.

[00:06:38]We see it in medieval cannons of the church that we cite in here. We see it in medieval councils of the church that determined how elections would take place. We have a very interesting I thought it was a very interesting source. Um, I'm the one who found this and was excited about it, but it it was the Dominican constitutions from the 1300s and 1200s, some of the earliest constitutions of how they would elect their leaders and just how the representation would work. It's very interesting and it's 800 years old and none of those guys would have thought they were liberals in the way that term is caricatured, say, by the neointegralists.

[00:07:16]>> And the I'm sorry, go ahead, Joel.

[00:07:19]>> Sorry. Go. I was just going to try to address the other question of uh the kind of the Christian nationalist perspective. Um so the the way we we address that is partly you know I've read I didn't we didn't deal with Steven Wolf's book uh in the introductions but I have read it and I do know he appeals a lot to kind of the magisterial reformation and so um you know we it's a short reader. We didn't want to be a massive tome that nobody's really going to read. Um so we only have we have just a few but we have four sources from that period. Um Sebastian Castellio and um Matthew Hail um and some others uh Meankton for example and and uh um Hemingson another Lutheran um to show that like these actually have these ideas natural law religious liberty these have roots that go back private property as well. Matthew Hail has the exact same argument for private property as does say John Lockach for example that by combining your labor with the commons something becomes yours. um and to show that like this there's this Christian heritage uh even a Protestant Christian heritage uh for these ideas and um yes you do have a varying degree in uh colonial America of religious tolerance and we include we included uh some examples of that uh the Pennsylvania um uh constitution or ordinance I can't remember the the official title of it um as well as uh the the Maryland uh toleration act um and you know John actually just had an essay published today in the reading wheel review talking about the wide variety of reasons why people wanted disestablishment. It wasn't always that they loved religious liberty. Sometimes it was they didn't want the national church so they could have their own established state church. And so, you know, the the Christian nationalists, they kind of grasp on to that and they try to say, well, see, we should be able to impose, you know, our specific pro Protestant denominational view on everyone. Um and the reality is that even the Protestants tended to be at least tolerant of each other. U but also by I'd say about 1820 basically every state has disestablished. Um they haven't stopped being Christians but they've they've realized that hey there's there's some great wisdom in this um that uh when you have this this kind of freedom of competition in religion then it's just about being the better church right um and and showing that your church is uh more beneficial uh to the common good. So, uh, we we kind of we document that, you know, again going all the way up until, um, uh, the First Amendment, um, to to really kind of give a counterpoint that again that, uh, you know, it seems like, you know, they're they're bringing forward this this tradition, but it's really kind of this cherrypicked sort of thing. And, um, and I will say just one last comment, our our point is not to say, of course, that the only Christian view is a view that's pro- liberty. We think it's the best, truest, most faithful Christian view. But of course, in Christian history, there's been all sorts of varying degrees of tolerance of other religions, of other Christians.

[00:10:25]Um, different degrees of, you know, state encroachment of power or, you know, checks on state power, that sort of thing. Um, but the point is that this idea of liberty, um, does have Christian roots, and that's what's missing. uh people have been talking about, you know, those those real kind of illiberal sources at the exclusion of a another just as Christian tradition of liberty.

[00:10:49]Um and that's what we wanted to give a voice to.

[00:10:53]>> And I suppose the national conservatism perspective on this uh it tries to acclaim the constitution uh but minimize the declaration of independence is more liberal and enlightenment influence. So how do you deal with that perspective?

[00:11:12]>> Yeah. So Hzone really interestingly because he's actually an Orthodox Jew um he argues that Christian or that uh that that America is kind of foundationally Protestant. Uh and so he actually even though he's not a Christian nationalist, he he tends to make some kind of similar arguments. Uh I think a little bit more sophisticated than than Wolf, but uh some similar sort of things. You know, he reaches back, he has his kind of own tradition of conservatism. Uh he mentions people like John Fordiscu and Matthew Hail. We have both of them in our book. They say the opposite of what Hzone says they say. Um and it's the sort of thing that I I I think a lot of readers uh reading books, you know, by Denine or Hzone or Vule. Um you know, they're non-speists. Most people in the world uh are not paid to be researchers like us. Um and so they're kind of just taking their word for it. And we wanted people to be able to really know really know those sources because uh when he says things like you know the the basis of uh uh consent as a basis for a just society that's a enlightenment liberal idea um well it's not it's a it's a it's an idea endorsed by John Forsiscu. In fact he distinguishes between you know a royal society and a royal and political society. the latter, all the laws are subject to the consent of the people, and that's what he thinks is the most just. Um, so it's literally the the opposite opinion um that he attributes to him, but he's still kind of marshalling these names in his favor.

[00:12:44]And I think you see that in a lot of these different perspectives. They don't all agree with each other, obviously.

[00:12:50]You know, Catholic integralists and Protestants don't really get along. Um, but they they do agree in this weird sort of telling of history, whether it's, you know, favoring their tradition of the opposition of others. Um, and we really just wanted to put the lie to that just to to show that look, let's read the sources ourselves. And the sources aren't always saying exactly the same thing, but that's, you know, hopefully, uh, how a good reader works.

[00:13:14]Uh, that you get exposed to these sources and now you can kind of decide, oh, you know, I like Lactantius a little better than John Lock when it comes to religious liberty. But you still see that both of them are making a similar sort of case.

[00:13:26]Yeah, I I would add to what Dylan has just said that we have a one whole section in here, unlimited government.

[00:13:32]And so when it comes to folks like the Christian nationalists and the uh excuse me the national conservatives I meant uh when it comes to the the national conservatives for instance you could we're not talking about conservatives who think the idea of li of limited government is something to conserve that it is one of the core principles of the founding but rather we have those who are flirting with state capitalism for nationalist reasons. And so this this is not a reader all about religious liberty. Uh it's about the several of those core principles of liberty. But one important one of those of course is limited government because that has that grows out of the sin the sinfulness of the human person. Whatever any particular Christian thinks about the degree to which we are sinful. There's one thing we know especially if we look inward that we're not perfect. We tend to abuse power. And so we have in here uh the Magna Carta for for instance and a number of sources over the years that show a development in thinking of why government needs to be limited what the church does that the state can't do and vice versa what the individual's role is in that what society's role is and as Dylan said you we you see it in the sources you see a development of thinking Tortullian's talking about religious liberty it looks a lot like what Thomas Jefferson is saying about religious liberty. We know Jefferson certainly was not an orthodox Christian and yet there's this great similarity there. But that doesn't mean Jefferson woke up one day and read Tertullian.

[00:15:07]This is this is the fruit of centuries of intellectual and moral development.

[00:15:13]And neither of you is an evangelical, I believe, but both of you are familiar with a subculture within evangelicalism that's produced a lot of literature about America's Christian founding that often exaggerates the amount of piety in early America and uh tries to insist the founding fathers were listening very closely to their pastors, etc., etc. How does your book interact with that perspective, if at all?

[00:15:43]Oh, we definitely we do address that.

[00:15:45]So, um yeah, there's been there was a book by Mark David Hall kind of recently that makes that case. And um I think he's very well intended. I think it's he makes a much better case than, you know, kind of the Christian nationalist perspective. That's not his view. Um but there's a few issues. I think he he misunderstands uh deism. Uh so in the 18th century, to be a deist pushed the first domino and then crossed his arms and the the cosmos is just going on. his own. Uh what it meant is that you denied that God ever works supernaturally. So deists denied miracles. They denied uh revelation like the scriptures, right? Um but they believed in providence and you see that in Thomas Jefferson who actually was a deist and you know not really as is Johnson not in any way an orthodox Christian. Um but at the same time um so that that that I think his his accounting of how many of the founders were really Christians I think he's he's kind of misunderstanding because he says well this guy affirmed providence therefore he must be not a deist. Um that doesn't actually tell you anything.

[00:16:48]Um but the the other side of that is uh you know Tutulian or sorry Jefferson didn't just wake up one day and read Tatulian but we do know that in this case he actually did read Tutulian because I can't remember who it is I keep forgetting that. Is it Wilin his book? Um, >> yeah. Robert Lewis Wilkins.

[00:17:05]>> Yeah. He has a great appendex on on Jefferson Tutulian. He looked at Jefferson's library. Jefferson did own Tutulian's apology in his letter to Scapula. Both of which there's selections of in our uh reader. Um, and the argument that Tuttillian makes for religious liberty uh, you know, matches Jefferson. in this case uh not in every case but in this case it is the exact same sort of argument that you see uh in the Virginia statute of religious liberty um and religious freedom um and uh and so you know there's other cases where it's more we think it's kind of genealological right so like the edict of Milan um maybe they read it maybe they didn't u but it is something that is the fruit of Christian reflection in those first centuries when Christians are being persecuted again and again and again they're not arguing for Okay, the emperor should become a Christian and force Christianity on everyone. They're just saying, "Stop killing us. Tolerate us. Treat us like everyone else."

[00:18:02]There's there's this weird irony in ancient Rome that it was actually a fairly religiously tolerant society if you could demonstrate the antiquity of your religion. But they looked at Christianity as a new cult and so Christians were persecuted. And so uh you have this this effort Christian lawyers and rhetoricians and philosophers for centuries uh trying to prove that Christianity is in continuity with with ancient you know Hebrew texts and and religion um but also then arguing u for just the good of religious liberty. And in fact Jefferson may have even coined the term um that was pointed out in a review of our book that came out today uh religious liberty. So um it's something that you know the church has a very fraught history with but it has this tradition um and it's something that uh you see the fruit of it I think in the American founding and in the first amendment um in in really just the American constitution not in the purely written sense but in the the kind of spiritual sense of what makes for the health of our nation. This has been one of the bedrocks from the very beginning.

[00:19:04]Um and it's something that grew out of Christian soil.

[00:19:08]I think Jefferson even in his book about Tertullan even underlined the language that used.

[00:19:15]>> Yeah. Yeah.

[00:19:16]>> Go. So pretty direct line there.

[00:19:19]>> The uh John Lockach who is often demonized as the founding demon of uh liberalism and therefore must be dismissed from the founding or used to disdain the founding. How do you deal with John Lock?

[00:19:36]Uh, I can I can start again.

[00:19:38]>> I know you did all the work on lock Dylan, so I'll let you keep going.

[00:19:42]>> Uh, so I mean, John Lock again is one of these guys that he he is a enlightenment philosopher. Um, he doesn't always care about having a perfectly orthodox theology. Um, but he's not a deist in this case. He believes in miracles. He believes in scripture, you know, revelation. Um, so that's important uh to start off. Uh but what we really do is we put him in context with you know he's often just read people read his two treatises maybe even just excerpts from it um as if he were just some guy sitting around in an ivory tower saying I've got an idea what if everybody has a social contract uh when in reality the his two treatises are a response to another work uh Robert Filmer's patriarcha and we actually gave the first few pages of patriarcha because it's pretty clear when you read those pages what John Lock is trying to Um, Robert Filmer wrote this book about the divine right of kings. Uh, and he begins by prefacing it and saying, uh, you know, this is there's this really crazy bad idea going around that all people are by nature equal and that the only just laws are those that they ascent to.

[00:20:49]Uh, the the papists, so the Roman Catholics, they bought into this. Uh, the reformed, right, the Calvinists, many people in the Church of England at the time would have been reformed. Uh, they've bought into this. and the common people and he goes all the way back to the schoolmen like the scholastics but then he says but you won't find it in the Bible or the church fathers or according to natural law. Uh and then you read Lock's two treatises and he is constantly quoting the Bible and appealing to natural law. He doesn't really do a great job appealing to the church fathers but we kind of do that for him uh with some of our readings.

[00:21:23]But everything else you see that oh this is a guy who actually is standing in continuity with a tradition of Christian political philosophy. Uh again, his theology not so traditional, his epistemology, you know, metaphysics, we could get into all that. But when it comes to his political philosophy, especially when you do look at some of those sources, those those medieval or early modern sources like Richard Hooker um and we we include not Hooker, maybe we should have, but we include some other uh similar sort of sources like Matthew Hail. you see that oh like these things that are often attributed to lock the social contract the origin of property um as some idea that he came up with and then the American founders you know ended up running with it. Um these were not new ideas. This is like the least original part of his thought and and again you can actually see that by reading the sources for yourself uh in our book.

[00:22:18]>> John, what do you hope the average reader takes away from your book? I hope the average reader, be they an evangelical Protestant, part of the reformed tradition, Catholic, Orthodox, the average reader should take a look at this and realize that the uh the United States might have been a it was a Christian country, if by that you mean a country of Christians, of churchgoers, uh depending on who you're talking about, with a very long pedigree in Western civilization.

[00:22:54]um uh of their ideas and as those coalesed we don't want to mistake their ideas particularly of religious liberty for something that was a purely secular idea and just based on fear of say religious warfare or the idea that we can't know the truth so just make everything legal. Uh the this is a recognition of the fact as as that Virginia's statute says that God created our minds free and you can't coersse belief etc. And so they they realize that and I think especially for evangelical readers to even return to your previous question mark when we look at the history of the United States as evangelical denominations really took off in the 1820s and 30s, right? And so the time period we're talking about um is the time period that Michael Novak talks about in his book Washington's God where he's he's saying this is Washington's God and it's clearly the God of the Bible. But why doesn't he talk about it all the time? Well, because not only is he not a 19th century evangelical, he's not a 20th or 21st century evangelical either. That's just not how these these folks talk. Now, Jefferson and Adams are very different in their correspondence.

[00:24:10]it gets kind of uh weird and theoretical and and highly philosophical about about religion. But an interesting thing you can see in this book is that uh when Washington wrote to the Jewish synagogue and we have that letter actually on the cover of the book, he's saying that this this this is a our liberal policy he calls it is worthy of imitation by all. In other words, this is not just an American thing. It's not just an Anglo-Saxon thing. It's worthy of imitation because it's a liberal policy that recognizes the freedom of the human person. And he's telling this to uh a particular synagogue. And so I I think if you take anything away from this book, it's that if there's any exceptionalism here, it's an exceptionalism deeply rooted in history that maybe providentially came together. But that's not the same as saying America was founded as a Christian nation or that it was founded as a horribly secular nation. Again, it's complex. Our minds are created to seek and know the truth. And that's what we want folks to do is apply their mind to this. And I think those questions at the end of every chapter that we provide can help that. Read the sources for yourself.

[00:25:27]>> Don or Dylan? Do either either of you have a copy of the book within reach that you can hold up? Yes, >> I I do. Yeah, we both do. Look at that.

[00:25:35]>> Excellent.

[00:25:36]>> And And I want to point out, not only do we have like the the letter of Washington in the background, but because it's his letter, every single book is signed by George Washington, the first president of the United States.

[00:25:48]So, how about that?

[00:25:49]>> And King Charles said, "Americans should read the Magna Carta." So, we feel like that's an endorsement of our book as well since it's in there.

[00:25:56]>> By extension. Absolutely.

[00:25:58]The Christian Roots of American Liberty by Dylan Palman and John Panero. Thank you very much for a very informative conversation.

[00:26:06]>> Thank you for having us.