Several factors have promoted this false perception: Obama’s family background, some of his public statements, his lack of church attendance, belief that his philosophy of life is more secular than Christian, and deliberate attempts to discredit the president. Pundits on the right including Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh, and Chuck Norris have vociferously questioned Obama’s claim to be a Christian.

Clearly, the Muslim influences upon Obama as he grew up make his religious background unique among American presidents. The only church to which he has belonged is Trinity United Church in Church, which he left during the 2008 campaign because of the inflammatory statements made by its pastor Jeremiah Wright. This, coupled with his infrequent church attendance as president, has contributed to considerable confusion about his faith and skepticism about his public professions to be a Christian.

However, Obama has repeatedly declared that he is a Christian, and in some cases he has made very straightforward affirmations of his faith. Obama’s profession to be a Christian is actually much clearer than that of George Washington. Some authors argue, and many Americans believe, that Washington was an orthodox Christian, but the evidence for this claim is not strong. Washington did attend church almost every Sunday while president, continually asked “an all-powerful Providence” to protect and guide him and his army and nation, professed belief in the power of prayer, and remained an Anglican/Episcopalian all his life.

However, Washington referred to Christ only a handful of times in his public statements or extant private letters and never once declared that Jesus was divine or his personal savior.

Obama, on the other hand, has explicitly stated that Christ is his savior. In an interview in “Christianity Today” in 2008, Obama declared, “I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” “Accepting Jesus Christ in my life,” he added, “has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.” Obama also stressed that he had been a member of the same congregation for almost twenty years and asserted “I have never practiced Islam.”

At a breakfast for pastors and parachurch leaders held two days after Easter this year, the president stated that he wanted to “continue the Easter celebration of our risen Savior” and “to reflect on the work to which His promise calls all of us.” He discussed the lesson he derived “from Christ’s sacrifice” and the inspiration the story of the resurrection supplied. Obama celebrated the discovery that forever changed the world—the empty tomb and Christ’s resurrection.

Obama expressed gratitude for Christ’s “sacrifice … for the sins of humanity.” “As Christians,” he proclaimed, “we believe that … faith in Jesus Christ” leads to our redemption and brings “eternal hope.” He insisted that like “our Lord and Savior” all Christians should commit themselves to God and “act justly and to love mercy and walk humbly with the Lord.”

Again, compare this with Washington. The first president never directly discussed Christ’s empty tomb, bodily resurrection, or atonement for sin. Nor did he clearly and consistently affirm belief in an afterlife.

Obviously theologically conservative Christians disagree with many of Obama’s views, especially on abortion and homosexuality. Many of us also think that Obama wants to use the government to solve problems that can be best (or in some cases only) dealt with by individuals or private organizations. This is not, however, a valid reason for believing that he is not a Christian.

The actions of some other presidents, perhaps most notably Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, have led Americans to question their profession of Christian faith. But few presidents have had their faith so closely scrutinized or so completely misunderstood as Obama.

In making this argument, I do not mean to suggest that Obama is comparable to Washington. The nation’s first president deservedly occupies a unique place in American history and played an indispensible role in the creation and development of our nation. Moreover, I recognize that times and norms have changed greatly from the late 18th century to today. I am pointing out that Washington and Obama are being judged by very different standards. Looking at the evidence objectively leads to the conclusion that Obama’s profession of Christian faith is much clearer than that of Washington’s.

If Obama wants Americans to believe he is a Christian, he and his publicists could stop stressing that he reads a devotional that a staffer sends him on his BlackBerry every morning and instead disseminate his explicit declarations about the nature of his faith. The president might also be more careful and guarded in the statements he makes about Islam. And he could attend church more frequently. Doing these things would help put this controversy to rest except among those unwilling to take his statements and actions at their face value.

It is extremely unlikely an avowed atheist could be elected president of the United States. Substantial percentages of Americans say they would not vote for such a candidate. In a 2007 Newsweek poll, 62 percent of respondents said they would not vote for a candidate who admitted being an atheist. This position was taken by 78 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of Democrats, and 45 percent of independents.

Moreover, in a 2003 Pew Research Center poll, 52 percent of Americans expressed a “mostly unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” view of atheists. A 2006 Fox poll reported that Americans were more likely to vote for a Mormon or a Muslim for president than an atheist.

If these polls are accurate, an overt atheist could not be elected president. This question, of course, is asked in the abstract. Would Americans actually refuse to vote for an atheist candidate if they liked his or her policies and personality? I suspect that in 1980, if Americans had been asked the generic question—would you vote for a divorced, former Hollywood actor for president—sizable numbers would have said no, but that year Ronald Reagan decisively defeated Jimmy Carter.

However, in the United States today, being known as an atheist is such a political liability that an individual espousing this position could not gain a major party nomination for president or probably even the Senate. Only five members of Congress refuse to indicate their religious affiliation, and none have no affiliation.

While declaring oneself an atheist would be a huge political liability in this country, it did not prevent Gillard from defeating a devout Catholic—Tony Abbott—to become Australia’s prime minister in August. How was she able to win?

First, a little background: Gillard, who is 48, moved with her family from Wales to Australia in 1966. She was elected to Parliament in 1998, appointed Minister for Health in 2003, and became deputy to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in 2007. When Rudd’s popularity waned, Gillard challenged his leadership, ousted him as party leader in June, and then prevailed in a general election in August.

So, why was an overt atheist able to win in Australia, but presumably could not in the United States? Here are some indicators:

A smaller percentage of Australians (64) than Americans (about 80) identify themselves as Christians. A substantially higher percentage of Australians say they have “no religion” or declined to identify their religious affiliation (31 versus 16). More significantly, about 7.5 percent of Australians attend church each week, compared with 40 percent of Americans. In many ways, Australia is more secular than America.

Moreover, while affirming that she is an atheist, Gillard frequently declared that she greatly respected the work of religious groups and is “a big supporter” of various church efforts.

Rather than unanimously opposing Gillard, the religious community in Australia was divided. Some religious leaders professed respect for Gillard’s candor about her worldview, liked her personally, and supported her policies. Many Christians as well as the Australian Christian Lobby were more alarmed about the policies of the Green Party, especially its support of euthanasia and gay marriage, than Gillard’s atheism.

Christian leaders in Australia expressed different opinions about Gillard’s atheism. A Catholic archbishop claimed it would cost her votes, declaring: “Many Christians are concerned that someone who does not believe in God may not endorse the Christian traditions of respect for human life, for the sanctity of marriage and the independence of churches, church schools and church social welfare agencies.” Anglican Archbishop Roger Herft countered that any statements which portray the Christian faith as being “the sole arbiter on matters of moral integrity and just policy-making are unhelpful and untrue.”

Pastor Danny Nalliah of Catch the Fire Ministries urged Australians not to vote for Gillard because “she is an atheist, and she refused to take an oath on the Bible.” However, fellow Pentecostal leader Mark Conner, pastor of Melbourne’s biggest church, CityLife, professed to be unconcerned about Gillard’s atheism.

Finally, Gillard’s Labor Party won only 38 percent of the vote in a multi-party election and had to form a coalition to govern. In the United States, presidential candidates typically need at least 51 percent of the popular vote to gain enough electoral votes to be elected.

Despite what happened “down under,” do not expect an overt atheist to become president of the United States any time soon. While the new atheists, led by Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, have become more outspoken in the United States, it appears that too many Americans would refuse to vote for such a candidate.

To understand Kennedy’s speech, the historical context must be examined. The only previous Catholic presidential nominee of a major party—Governor Al Smith of New York—lost to Herbert Hoover in 1928, partly because of antipathy toward his religious faith. In 1960 numerous evangelical and fundamentalist leaders strongly opposed Kennedy’s candidacy because they believed that a Catholic president could not be independent from the pope. Despite Kennedy’s many assurances, they questioned whether he truly could resist pressure from church leaders.

For example, the editor of Eternity magazine argued that although Kennedy pledged to abide by the separation of church and state, the Catholic Church would not allow him. It was “unmistakably clear” that he must be a Catholic first and president second in matters involving their church.

An article in Christianity Today, widely distributed as a pamphlet by the organization Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State, predicted that if Catholics became a numerical majority and gained political control, they would make Catholicism the nation’s official religion, restrict Protestant worship, prohibit evangelistic services, and forbid criticism of the Catholic Church in print or on the air. The National Association of Evangelicals, the Church of God, and the Southern Baptist Convention expressed similar fears.

Even liberal Protestants such as Charles Clayton Morrison, the long-time editor of Christian Century, insisted that contemporary democratic societies faced “two powerful monarchical” competitors—“the Communist Dictatorship and the Infallible Papacy”—and argued that Kennedy’s allegiance to the Constitution “would be qualified by his prior and equally sacred allegiance to another State.”

A group of 150 Protestant ministers espousing varied theological perspectives, including Norman Vincent Peale, well-known author of “The Power of Positive Thinking,” and Daniel Poling, editor of Christian Herald, issued a public statement on September 7 questioning whether a Catholic president could successfully resist pressures from the Catholic hierarchy.

Although many Protestants denounced this statement, it prompted Kennedy to address the religious issue directly, in a speech on September 12, before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. Hoping he could satisfy the qualms of Protestants while not antagonizing Catholics, Kennedy sought to refute religious objections to his candidacy and convince Americans that he would respect church-state separation.

Kennedy insisted that no Catholic prelate should tell a Catholic president how to act and that no Protestant minister should tell his parishioners for whom to vote. The United States, he argued, was not officially Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish. No public official should request or accept “instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source.” Religious bodies must not try to impose their “will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials.” He asked prospective voters to “judge me on the basis of my 14 years in the Congress—on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican [and] against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools.”

Kennedy protested the widespread dissemination of printed materials that used quotations from Catholic leaders, usually from other countries and centuries, often out of context, to argue that the Catholic Church opposed the separation of church and state. These publications also ignored the 1948 statement by the American bishops endorsing the concept, which reflected the views of almost all American Catholics. “I do not speak for my church on public matters,” he assured the audience, and “the church does not speak for me.” If elected, he would decide issues “in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates.”

Kennedy kept his word. In fact, he avoided taking stances that favored Catholics. He had far fewer Catholics on his staff than Richard Nixon later did and did not appoint a significant number of coreligionists to major administrative posts. The bill the president sent to Congress in 1961, requesting $2.3 billion over the next three years to construct, operate, and maintain public schools and pay teachers’ salaries, excluded sectarian schools. The federal government increased its support of birth control by expanding research grants, cooperating with United Nations efforts, and furnishing information to nations requesting it. Unlike Harry Truman, Kennedy did not send an ambassador to the Vatican. Numerous Catholic leaders complained that Kennedy was less supportive of the Catholic political agenda than any Protestant president would have been.

Kennedy’s election was a milestone in American political history. Although numerous Americans voted against him primarily because he was Catholic, his victory opened the door for other Catholic (and Jewish) candidates to run for the nation’s highest offices. While 40 percent of Americans today say they would not vote for an atheist to be president, whether a candidate is Protestant or Catholic seems to make little difference to most Americans.

As a Boston selectman, the president of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, a delegate to the Continental Congress, Massachusetts’ first governor who served 11 years, and one of the richest merchants in the colonies, Hancock had tremendous influence. Hancock’s support of the Revolution cost him much of his fortune and put his life at risk, but the patriot victory gave him great political power, international acclaim, the gratitude of many Americans, and the deep affection of most residents of Massachusetts.

Today, a Boston-based company uses his name and occupies the most prominent building in the city, and a World War II aircraft carrier and dozens of streets bear his name, but at best, most Americans know that his signature is by far the largest on the Declaration of Independence. Hancock had no connections to the company named for him—John Hancock Financial Services, Inc. The enterprise chose his name because he was a famous founder, Massachusetts’ first governor, and a very generous philanthropist who assisted many whose houses and businesses were destroyed by Boston’s numerous fires and helped rebuild the city after the devastation of the Revolutionary War.

Moreover, Hancock has usually remained on the sidelines in the often heated debate over how to classify the religious beliefs of the founders. He has not been identified as either a devout Christian (as have John Jay, Patrick Henry, John Witherspoon, Elias Boudinot, Roger Sherman, Samuel Adams, and Charles Carroll) or as a deist (as have Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Gouverneur Morris).

Neither scholars nor popularizers have paid much attention to Hancock’s faith even though it strongly shaped his view of the world and his actions. A life-long member of the Brattle Street (Congregationalist) Church in Boston, Hancock frequently used biblical arguments to justify America’s revolt against England and providentialist language to describe its battle to obtain independence. In addition, while serving as Massachusetts’ governor, he repeatedly thanked God for blessing its residents, exhorted them to repent of their sins, and strove to base state policies on his understanding of the biblical norms of justice and fairness. Convinced that moral conduct depended on Christian commitment, he supported the establishment of Congregationalism in Massachusetts and the strict observance of the Sabbath.

In numerous statements as president of the Congress and governor of Massachusetts, Hancock asserted that God was sovereign over earthly affairs and reassured Americans of His blessings. Writing to the leaders of the Continental Army in March 1776, Hancock proclaimed that the same God who had baffled the British attempt to conquer Massachusetts would defeat their “deep-laid scheme” against other colonies. In an appeal to all the states in September 1776, he declared that members of Congress relied firmly “on Heaven for the justice of our cause.” “I am persuaded,” he added, that “under the gracious smiles of Providence, assisted by our own most strenuous endeavors, we shall finally succeed.” In his inaugural address as governor in 1780, Hancock praised God for “the peaceable and auspicious” adoption of a state constitution. In 1782 Hancock assured members of the Massachusetts legislature that “the favor of heaven” would eventually establish America’s righteous claims. Hancock’s Thanksgiving proclamation the next year exhorted citizens to express their gratitude for God’s numerous blessings and to recognize their “entire Dependence” on “His Goodness and Bounty.”

Hancock’s contributions to American independence and to the political foundation and success of the new nation were monumental. As the president of the Continental Congress for two-and-a-half grueling years, he effectively mediated between various factions and helped convince them to work together. When competing interests threatened to tear the fledgling country apart, Hancock supplied a symbol of stability, moderation, and compromise that enabled Americans to elevate their mutual goals above their selfish desires. His effective leadership helped preserve the unity essential to winning the war against Britain. He guided delegates through numerous crises, including resolving their 15-month debate over the Articles of Confederation. As governor, Hancock helped persuade the Massachusetts constitutional convention to support the Bill of Rights, contributing to its passage.

While Hancock did not possess Washington’s character, John Adams’ intellect, or Jefferson’s eloquence, he played the principal role in Massachusetts politics for almost a quarter of a century and did much to attain and preserve American independence. Although Hancock’s vanity, lavish lifestyle, and some of his business practices conflicted with Christian principles, his faith appeared to be genuine and helped motivate his sacrifices for his nation and his concern for the poor and needy and informed his political philosophy and service. Many of his letters, speeches, relationships, and actions clearly testify to his religious commitment.

So as we celebrate our nation’s independence, let us give Hancock the acclaim he so richly deserves.

Some assert that almost all the founders were evangelical Christians, while others insist that virtually all of them were deists. Some contend that the founders wanted to establish a distinctively Christian nation, and others counter that they strove to create a secular republic. Opponents especially debate the founders’ views on church-state separation.

Sadly, much misinformation is being presented. Consider one example:

A letter in response to the Times article makes misleading claims about both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who powerfully influenced the new nation’s position on the relationship of church and state and religious liberty. Madison, the respondent asserts, complained that for almost 15 centuries, Christianity’s fruits had been “pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution,” suggesting that “the Father of the Constitution” was hostile to Christianity.

What Madison actually said in his famous “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments” (1785) was that “the legal establishment of Christianity” had produced these results. Rather than criticizing Christianity, Madison was calling for its disestablishment because the “duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” Madison, like many other founders, believed that Christianity was much more likely to thrive when it was voluntary. The Virginian argued in his Memorial that Christianity “flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence.” Moreover, in the 1820s Madison rejoiced that ministers of every denomination were zealously providing religious instruction in Virginia and winning people to Christian faith by “the purity of their lives.”

Garrett Sheldon, author of “The Political Philosophy of James Madison,” contends that Madison’s education, writings, and actions all reveal his Christian worldview. Sheldon, in an essay on Madison in an edited work titled “Religion and the American Presidency” (Columbia University Press, 2009), maintains that Madison’s intellectual life and long public service to his nation were directed by his “firm Christian faith and principles.” These included belief in God’s sovereignty, humanity’s innate sinfulness, pride, and selfishness (which required a government of checks and balances to prevent oppression), and the need for redemption through Christ.

Examining Madison’s education under three Scottish Calvinists—one at a boarding school, a second as a tutor, and the third, John Witherspoon, the president of the College of New Jersey (later Princeton)—and his various writings, especially presidential proclamations and addresses, validates Sheldon’s claims. Madison repeatedly thanked God for protecting Americans in the midst of difficulties and trials (most notably the War of 1812) and supplying them with religious and civil “privileges and advantages.”

Second, the respondent to the Times maintains that “Thomas Jefferson compared the story of the virgin birth of Jesus to a Roman fable and prohibited the teaching of religion to undergraduates at the University of Virginia.” It is true that Jefferson repudiated the Christian contention that Jesus was God’s unique Son. On the other hand, he wrote to Benjamin Rush that “I am a Christian in the only sense which I believe Jesus wished any one to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others.” Moreover, Jefferson strove to follow Christ’s ethical teachings in his personal conduct and work as a statesman. Like George Washington, John Adams, and virtually all his successors as president, Jefferson asserted that because religion fostered morality, stability, and social cohesion, it was indispensable to the new nation.

Jefferson’s proposed curriculum for the University of Virginia did exclude biblical and theological studies. Jefferson refused to appoint a professor of divinity at the University of Virginia, but he wanted the professor of ethics to discuss the proofs for God’s existence as the “supreme ruler of the universe [and] the author of all the relations of morality.” He also wanted the institution to provide instruction in “religious opinions” and “duties” because people’s relationship with their Maker and responsibilities were extremely “interesting and important.” Moreover, he hoped that different denominations would establish divinity schools on the perimeter of UVA to enable students to participate in the religious exercises of their faith communities. These provisions would help students espouse Christ’s principal ethical teachings and be virtuous citizens of the new republic.

Unfortunately, incorrect and misleading information about our nation’s founders is plentiful. We must carefully consider the context of the founders’ writings and look carefully at their entire lives to ensure that we properly interpret the intentions and meanings of their statements and actions. This is crucial to accurately assessing their religious beliefs and evaluating to what extent Christianity helped shape the new United States.

While praising his military and political record, many scholars contend that Washington’s genius lies principally in his character. The only other American president who has been so highly extolled for his character is Abraham Lincoln. Since Washington, all presidents have been ultimately measured not by the size of their electoral victories or the success of their legislative programs, but by their moral character. His character helped sustain his troops throughout the travails of the Revolutionary War, convince delegates to the Constitutional Convention to assign significant powers to the presidency, secure the ratification of the Constitution, and enable the new republic to survive in a hostile world.

Although scholars criticize Washington’s personal ethics, sexual behavior, vanity, and ownership of slaves, his moral character, especially his refusal to yield to temptation, set him apart from most others in the late 18th century. He took the standards of his age very seriously and diligently strove to be virtuous. To many, the crowning achievement of Washington’s character was his simultaneous resignation in 1783 as the commander in chief of the American army and his retirement from the world of politics. Throughout the Western world, his unprecedented relinquishing of power (which he did a second time when he declined a third term as president) was widely heralded. Unlike other victorious generals, he did not expect a political or financial reward for his military exploits. Washington’s character, Jefferson argued, probably prevented the American Revolution from subverting the liberty it sought to establish. The Virginian had a sterling reputation for integrity and honor, dedication to duty and his country, and remaining above the political fray.

Eulogists and early biographers imputed many virtues to Washington. They praised his wisdom, judgment, astounding courage on the battlefield, and dignity. Congress elected him the first chief executive, principally because its members trusted his moral character. Assessments of Washington applauded his military zeal and political passion on the one hand and his self-restraint and civil moderation on the other. Blending Stoic and Christian traditions, eulogists extolled Washington’s perseverance in the midst of setbacks.

Many admirers considered Washington’s self-control the key facet of his character. He could master events because he had mastered himself. Despite being surrounded by fear, despair, indecisiveness, treason, and the threat of mutiny, he remained confident and steadfast. Eulogists also heralded his self-sacrifice, devotion to the common good, compassion, generosity, and benevolence.

As president, Washington strove to establish public confidence in the new government and to demonstrate that political leaders could act virtuously. He believed his character was much more important to the success of the republic than his policies, and he spent much of his adult life creating and preserving a reputation for integrity and uprightness. In 1788, the planter wrote to his trusted confidant Alexander Hamilton, “I hope I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain (what I consider the most enviable of all titles) the character of an honest man.” His character helped hold the other founders together in the midst of tremendous trials and reassured them that they could construct a workable republic. His example of self-sacrifice, discipline, and moral goodness helped elevate the status of the presidency.

Both as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army and president, Washington worked to form an American character. Throughout the War for Independence, he expected both his officers and soldiers to act morally and “display the character of republicans” appropriate to “Christian Soldier[s]” who were defending their country’s “dearest Rights and Liberties.” Speaking to the nation’s governors in 1783, Washington argued that Americans could “establish or ruin their national Character forever.” As John Winthrop had done in his 1630 sermon “A Model of Christian Charity,” Washington reminded his countrymen that “the eyes of the whole World” were “turned upon them.” Guided by the complementary principles of revelation and reason, Americans must fulfill their civic duties because they were “actors on a most conspicuous Theatre … peculiarly designated by Providence for the display of human greatness and felicity.”

As we commemorate Washington’s birthday this year, we should celebrate his exemplary character and emulate his commitment to public service and the common good.

This issue is so heated that it was the subject of an extensive article in the most recent New York Times Magazine, titled, “How Christian Were the Founders?”

Conservative Christian authors such as David Barton, Peter Marshall Jr., and Tim LaHaye contend that most of the founders were devout Christians who sought to establish a Christian nation. Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore in “The Godless Constitution” and Brooke Allen in “Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers” counter that very few founders were orthodox Christians. They and others often generalize from famous founders, such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Thomas Paine, to argue that most founders were deists who wanted strict separation of church and state.

The truth lies between these two positions. Almost every major founder belonged to a Christian congregation, although a sizable number of them were not committed Christians whose faith strongly influenced their political philosophy and actions. Two recent books edited by Daniel Dreisbach, Jeffry Morrison, and Mark David Hall—“The Founders on God and Government” and “The Forgotten Founders on Religion and Public Life”—carefully explained the religious backgrounds, convictions, and contributions of numerous founders. They show that many who played leading roles in the nation’s Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress, and the devising and ratification of the Constitution were devout Christians, as evident in their church attendance, commitment to prayer and Bible reading, belief in God’s direction of earthly affairs, and conduct. Among others, these books discuss John Witherspoon, James Wilson, Samuel Adams, George Mason, Oliver Ellsworth, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Benjamin Rush, and Roger Sherman. A third book, which is currently being written, will explain how the faith of Congregationalist John Hancock, Quaker John Dickinson, Presbyterian Elias Boudinot, and Episcopalian Charles Pinckney, and others helped shape their political views, policies, and practice. Abigail Adams and Catholics Charles Carroll, Daniel Carroll, and John Carroll also were dedicated Christians. Moreover, Jay, Boudinot, Pinckney, and numerous other founders served as officers of the American Bible Society.

Even many of those often labeled as deists—Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Alexander Hamilton—do not fit the standard definition of deism, which asserts that after creating the world, God has had no more involvement with it. Deism views God as a transcendent first cause who is not immanent, triune, fully personal, or sovereign over human affairs. All of these founders, however, repeatedly discussed God’s providence and frequently affirmed the value of prayer. Their conviction that God intervened in human affairs and directed history has led some scholars to call these founders “warm” or “enlightened” deists, but these terms seem like oxymorons. A better label for their position is theistic rationalism. As Professor Gregg Frazer explains, this hybrid belief system combines elements of “natural religion, Protestant Christianity, and rationalism—with rationalism as the controlling element.” Those espousing this perspective believed in a powerful, benevolent Creator who established the laws by which the universe operates. They also believed that God answered prayer, that people best served Him by living a moral life, and that individuals would be rewarded or punished in the afterlife based on their earthly deeds. Only a few founders, most notably Thomas Paine and Ethan Allan, can properly be called deists.

Despite their theological differences, virtually all the founders maintained that morality depended on religion (which for them meant Christianity). They were convinced that their new republic could succeed only if its citizens were virtuous. For both ideological and pragmatic reasons, the founders opposed establishing one denomination as a national church. However, they provided public support of Christianity through various means, including establishing Christian denominations at the state level, passing state laws restricting public office holding to Christians and punishing blasphemy, issuing proclamations of thanksgiving to God and calls for fasting, using federal money to finance missions to Indians, and permitting Christian congregations to use governmental facilities, both at the state and federal level, for their worship services.

While we must be careful not to overstate the role of religion in the founding of our nation and the Christian convictions of the founders in textbooks or public discourse, the tendency in many scholarly circles has been to ignore or discount these matters. The battle over how Christian the founders were is likely to continue in Texas and across the country. Fortunately, meticulous scholarship is providing a much more accurate picture of the founders’ religious commitments.

Remember all the analysis immediately after your election this past November regarding where you and your family would attend church? Newspapers and websites were filled with stories about where you would go, and numerous congregations in Washington invited you, your wife, and children to attend their Sunday morning services. Although Americans have usually displayed substantial interest in where their presidents attended church while in office, never before had there been such fascination with this issue before a president was inaugurated. At present, this focus seems ironic because you and your family have attended church in Washington only once—on Easter Sunday—since you took office (although you have attended a few services at Camp David).

Americans acknowledge that you are a very busy man with incredibly important responsibilities. We also recognize the typical reasons some of your predecessors have given for not attending church regularly and you have sometimes used: they did not want to divert other worshippers’ attention from God to themselves, they did not want to subject other congregants to metal detectors and security concerns, they found it difficult to worship when others appeared to being watching them, or they wanted to use Sunday morning for other activities such as golf or stamp collecting. However, these reasons have not deterred several of your recent predecessors, and the benefits of attending more than compensate for the problems they involve.

As you know, attending Sunday morning worship enables you to worship God, which for Christians is both a responsibility and privilege. These services help supply you with moral inspiration and spiritual strength, which are vital to your work as president. Attending habitually will also enable your wife and children to receive biblical instruction and Christian nurture. You have repeatedly claimed that your faith is important to you and helps guide your political priorities, policies, and work. You have frequently used religious rhetoric and scriptural principles and passages to support legislation you are promoting. You have also sought to enlist clergy, committed lay Christians, and religious organizations to work to achieve causes in which you believe strongly. Moreover, attending church faithfully would testify to your professed values and help you gain greater credibility with religious Americans.

Equally important, your regular attendance would set a good example for our nation. In other ways your actions have been exemplary. Through White House initiatives, commercials, and magazine interviews you have exhorted men to be good fathers and spend time with their children. Addressing the NAACP this summer, you challenged African Americans not to accept the sense of limitation that discrimination has tried to force upon them and to stop expecting “so little from the world and from themselves.” You instructed parents to take responsibility for their children, help them learn, and encourage them to aspire to be scientists, engineers, doctors, and teachers rather than athletes and rappers. Your recent speech to schoolchildren urged them to develop their “talents, skills and intellect,” set high goals, work hard, and persevere when they fail. You pushed them to do all their homework, pay attention in class, and read a book every day.

As our nation’s first African-American president, you obviously care about being a positive role model. You often use your own experiences, struggles, and accomplishments to prod and inspire others. You invite others to look at your life as an example. Thus, it is especially important to support your profession of Christian faith by fellowshipping and worshipping with other believers.

Before your inauguration, a reporter asked me if you might choose not to attend church. I responded that this was very unlikely because you frequently claimed that your faith is genuine and that you derived insight and direction from worship and prayer. Moreover, you appeared to want to provide a church home and experience for your family. I added that your desire to set a good example and maintain positive relations with religious conservatives, many of whom criticize your positions on various moral and political issues, also made your regular church attendance likely. So far, Mr. President, I have been wrong.

Many of your predecessors attended church faithfully, including several (most notably George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower) who went only sporadically before taking office. They did so in large part to help them deal more effectively with the burdens of their role, gain spiritual strength, and supply a positive example.

In an ABC interview in January, you said, “I’ve got a wonderful community of people who are praying for me every day … but it’s not the same as going to church” and hearing a choral anthem and “a good sermon.” One excellent way to demonstrate your Christian commitment, which some Americans question, and provide spiritual nurture for yourself and for your family, is to attend church consistently.

Sincerely,

Gary Scott Smith

Pittsburgh teams have also enjoyed much success in years since. The Steelers triumphed in the Super Bowl in 2006 and 2009, making them the only team to win it six times. After winning the Stanley Cup in 1991 and 1992, the Penguins were victorious again in 2009. Both the Steelers and Penguins have very talented teams and seem poised to continue their high-caliber performance. The University of Pittsburgh has had several outstanding basketball teams in the new millennium. Moreover, when playing for championships, Pittsburgh professional teams have done amazing well: the Steelers are 6-1, the Penguins are 3-1, and the Pirates are 5-2 (having won their last three) for a combined record of 14-4.

So what do Pittsburgh fans have to complain about? Sadly, the recent ineptitude of the Pirates.

This week the Pirates set the record for the most consecutive losing seasons—17—of any franchise in the nation’s four major sports: baseball, football, basketball, and hockey. The Pirates’ championship drought is not nearly as long as that of the Cubs, the Red Sox before they won the World Series in 2004, or the White Sox before they won in 2005. Moreover, some of baseball’s best played for the Pirates, including Honus Wagner, Pie Traynor, Arky Vaughan, Paul and Lloyd Waner, and Ralph Kiner. However, since 1992 their record has been miserable as they have won less than 44 percent of their games. During this time, as a result of questionable decisions—poor drafting, unwise trades, and risky signings of free agents—they have performed very poorly. Adding imprudent management and lackluster play to substandard talent is the perfect recipe for failure.

This especially grates upon one who first became cognizant of baseball as ten year-old in 1960 when the Pirates beat the mighty Yankees four games to three on Bill Mazeroski’s memorable walk-off homerun in the bottom of the ninth. Despite being outscored 55-27 in the series, the Pirates triumphed in David versus Goliath fashion. During the 1970s, the Pirates won more games than any other National League team, and in the early 1990s, led by the killer B’s—Bobby Bonilla, Barry Bonds, and others—the Pirates made the playoffs three consecutive years. However, all of that now seems like a distant memory with no relief from losing in sight.

Despite the success of some very well managed small-market teams, most notably the Marlins, Athletics, and Twins, teams with the largest payrolls have generally won the World Series. While high salaries and winning are not directly connected (despite their huge payrolls the Yankees have not won the World Series since 2000), they are significantly correlated. Without a salary cap like that of professional football and basketball, it seems very unlikely that small-market teams like the Pirates or Royals will ever be able to compete effectively.

So what can frustrated fans do? We can pretend baseball does not exist. We can transfer our loyalties and root for another team. We can focus on teams in other sports in our home area that are doing well. We can hope for a miracle, perhaps to have “Angels in the Outfield,” as the Pirates did in a 1951 movie when they were mired in a similar slump.

Or we can try to discover the benefits that come from defeat. Losing can help us be more gracious, forgiving, and empathetic with fans in other cities such as San Diego, Seattle, Buffalo, and Cleveland whose professional sports teams have never won a championship or not won one in decades. Coping with losing is very difficult in a society that glorifies success, especially in the sports world. However, neither the Bible nor modern psychology endorses the single-minded pursuit of success for its own sake, which our society pushes us to pursue. Dealing with the Pirates’ failure can perhaps help us cope more effectively with disappointments in other areas of life. It can also teach us the perennially useful traits of patience and perseverance.

Many have portrayed Lincoln as a paragon of piety, a champion of freedom, a demigod, and the national redeemer. Despite his unorthodox views, many laud Lincoln as the nation’s most exemplary Christian chief executive. No American, Theodore Roosevelt insisted, more fully applied what the churches taught than Lincoln. The 16^th president “stands at the spiritual center of American history,” historian Sidney Mead argued. To theologian William Wolf, Lincoln was “‘a biblical prophet’ who saw himself as ‘an instrument of God’ and his country as God’s ‘almost chosen people’ called to world responsibility.” No other president, Robert Michaelsen maintained in Christian Century, so fully expressed “in word and deed the Christian virtues of charity and compassion under trying conditions.” Few have surpassed the rhetoric of Josiah Holland, who lauded Lincoln in an 1866 biography as a “statesman … savior of the republic, emancipator of a race, [and] true Christian.”

Since his assassination, many others have extolled Lincoln as a man of exemplary character, a near saint. They have assigned him their “most noble traits — honesty … tolerance, hard work, a capacity to forgive … a clear-sighted vision of right and wrong, a dedication to God and country, and an abiding concern for all.” Historian Stephen Oates contends that “Lincoln was as honest in real life as in the legend.” The Republican was able to take strong moral positions without appearing smug or self-righteous. Numerous observers have praised Lincoln’s self-control, calm demeanor, unending patience, and even temperament. 

Many have stressed Lincoln’s willingness to pardon his political opponents and military enemies. He declared that he was “always willing to forgive on the Christian terms of repentance.” Dealing graciously and generously with the South, Lincoln proposed mild terms for Southerners’ readmission to the Union. As historian William Lee Miller puts it, he showed “magnanimity to rivals and critics, mercy to the accused, patience with insolent generals, eloquent sympathy to the bereaved, generosity to associates and subordinates, [and] nonvindictiveness to enemies.”

Some have even compared Lincoln with Christ. Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy called him a “Christ in miniature” and “a saint of humanity,” and John Hay labeled him “the greatest character since Christ.” Admirers claim that, like Jesus, he was able to share other people’s suffering-especially their feelings of pain, loss, and guilt. He was more ready “to pardon than to punish.” 

Lincoln’s faith is very hard to categorize. Like Job, before his death, Lincoln appeared to trust God without needing to know His reasons for everything. In the final analysis, the assessment of his friend Joseph Gillespie rings true: “Lincoln cared but little for tenets or sects but had strong & pervading ideas of the infinite power & goodness of Deity and of mans [sic] obligation to his Maker and to his fellow beings.” So does the conclusion of his private secretary John Nicolay: “Benevolence and forgiveness were the very basis of his character. His nature was deeply religious … he had faith in the eternal justice and boundless mercy of Providence, and made the Golden Rule of Christ his practical creed.”

Despite his almost legendary status, Lincoln had many critics while he was president, and he has some today. Writing in the New York Times in 1865, a journalist alleged that Lincoln had experienced more “hate and obloquy” than “any other great leader in modern history.” Contemporary critics contend that Lincoln’s use of total war violated just-war standards and helped hasten the appalling assaults on human rights unleashed in 20^th century warfare. Some claim that Lincoln violated the Constitution by greatly expanding presidential powers and violating people’s civil liberties in his quest to save the Union. Other scholars fault him for not transcending his racist culture and more forcefully condemning slavery.

Most scholars and other Americans, though, portray Lincoln much more positively. As we see it, during the most trying time in American history, Lincoln testified to God’s sovereignty, held together a coalition of free and border slave states, kept his fragmented party from falling apart, defeated the rebel states militarily, liberated four million slaves, and preserved the Union. Henry P. Tappan, the president of the University of Michigan, wrote Lincoln in 1862 that he hoped the history of the country would someday read: “Then the United States redeemed and regenerated commenced a new career of prosperity and glory; and Abraham Lincoln was hailed by his countrymen & by Mankind as the Second father of his country, and the hero of Liberty.” Tappan’s wish has largely been granted.