No Establishment of Religion: America's Original Contribution to Religious Liberty. Edited by T. Jeremy Gunn and John Witte Oxford University Press, 2012. 415 pp. $35.00 paper.

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)No Establishment of Religion: America's Original Contribution to Religious Liberty . Edited by T. Jeremy Gunn and John Witte Jr. Oxford University Press , 2012. 415 pp. $35.00 paper.Book Reviews and NotesAt the center of American religious freedom is the claim that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," which appears in the Constitution's First Amendment. It is, of course, a deceptively simple phrase. Where did such an idea come from? What has it meant to Americans throughout their history? T. Jeremy Gunn and John Witte have compiled a fine collection of thirteen essays that explore the rich and complicated history behind that clause, including essays by historians Ralph Ketchum and Daniel Dreisbach, theologian Martin Marty, law professors Steven K. Green and Thomas C. Berg, and federal judge Michael McConnell, among many others.Americans are familiar enough with non-establishment, but we rarely ask why there was ever an establishment of religion in the first place. Michael McConnell points out that there were important reasons for state-supported religion, both in Europe and in early America, and that "we cannot understand the depth of argument for disestablishment without understanding why reasonable men and women have though that establishment was necessary to republican government" (46). Establishment took a variety of forms: some states dictated the content of Christian doctrine, required religious tests for office, had compulsory church attendance, and Sunday closing laws. Others simply offered public support for favored congregations. Sometimes the reasons for establishment were theological, but McConnell explains that it was more often political. Both state governments and state communities felt a sense of duty to preserve certain doctrinal truths, and "to serve the interests of society by inculcating ideas that promote the public interest" (62). False doctrines were considered public health risks. Americans, after all, were free and self-governing--which did not diminish but increase the public's solemn duty to protect Christian truth.Non-establishment prevailed, of course, primarily because of the chief architects of American religious liberty, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Both presented the public with a thorough philosophy of church-state relations as well as some brilliantly designed legal documents--Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1779), and Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance (1785)--both of which served as precursors to the First Amendment. They shared the same goal of disestablishment, but as Ralph Ketchum argues, the two were hardly in agreement about its purpose. Jefferson's religious liberty came from his Enlightenment-style emphasis on reason over revelation, and his hope that the philosophic meaning of Christianity would finally free itself from all forms of religiosity. Madison, however, (who had studied for the ministry in his youth) "emphasized the good influence and public utility of the religious faith" (167). For him, non-establishment allowed for a purely voluntary choice in faith, which itself ensured a more sincere pursuit of God. From the state's point of view, though, that alone was the surest way to maintain a culture of virtuous, upright citizens--the only sort of people fit for self-government.The same went for public officials, who were protected from "religious tests" under the Constitution's Article VI. Daniel Dreisbach points out how state governments were always concerned with the faith of those in office, aware of the "important task of selecting rulers committed to protecting and nurturing religion and morality." Those holding public power were more trustworthy if they viewed their office as ordained by God (per Romans 13), aware that He was the final judge of their actions. The prohibition against religious tests, though, was seen as useful to the moral foundations of the republic: it led to spiritual flourishing among officials and citizens alike, and "provided an indispensable support for civic virtue, social order, and political prosperity" (271). …