I knew for years that Gregorian chants had a great spiritual effect on me, but I always suspected that some of that effect was also physiological and psychological. So, I decided to conduct some research on the subject.
The basic conclusion of my research is that Gregorian chants can lower your blood pressure, reduce your heart rate and ease anxiety. Research by neuroscientists from the Imperial College of London concluded that the slow structured breathing during chanting lowers your blood pressure and heart rate to daily minimums during performance. The prolonged exhalations and uniform melodic lines stimulate the vagus nerve and activate the parasympathetic nervous system, which helps decrease your stress hormone levels like cortisol. The repetitive auditory frequencies and latin vowel resonance encourage synchronization between the left and right hemispheres of the brain, fostering improved neural communication and cognitive clarity. Chanting can relieve your stress and anxiety. The steady unaccompanied monophonic structure acts as a stabilizing auditory anchor that calms racing thoughts and relieves symptoms of mild depression. Complimentary medicine practitioners have noted that rhythmic sacred music helps patients settle into deeper states of relaxation, which aids in easing chronic tension and mental exhaustion. One hospital in Minnesota found that chanting eased the chronic pain of its patients. In a related matter, I am a great fan of Aaron Neville whose music is popular in nursing homes and music therapy programs to calm and comfort patients, especially those dealing with dementia or Alzheimer's disease. His music is popular because it is embedded in the long term memory of the residents, especially his famous “Tell It Like it Is.” Neville himself views his singing as “survival” and “medicine” meant to heal the afflicted. I have another related topic—“The Mozart effect" that I used to manage juvenile delinquents, but I am going to save it for next week.
0 Comments
As noted in our newsletter the last Evening and Morning Prayer services were held this week. In a later blog I will outline why I ended this part of my ministry. I have also ended my service as a Eucharistic minister because of my recent falls, which I don’t want to happen carrying the altar book. However, I will still coordinate the scheduling of Eucharistic ministers and serve when needed at a weekday service. I will continue to coordinate the schedule of the highly popular Sunday breakfast service. You probably don’t know this, but I bring pastoral services to two nursing homes in Hammond (Phoenix) and Amite (Lodge). I will continue to serve our educational programs. This Sunday Mother Liz and I will start presenting “Signs & Grace: An Introduction to the Sacraments.” Today, however, I will discuss the significance of “Gregorian chants.” Although Gregorian chants originated with the early Roman Catholic Church, it is actually practiced by both the Anglican and Episcopal Churches. Hymnal 1982 contains numerous service music settings and hymns rooted directly in Gregorian chant. This includes traditional plainsong melodies for the Kyrie, Sanctus, and Angus Dei, as famous chant hymns like Pange Lingua and Creator of the Stars Night. Within the Episcopal Church, parishes that lean to “High Church” or “Anglo-Catholic” place a profound emphasis on traditional liturgy. In these parishes, it is common to hear entire services chanted. Some even feature dedicated choirs that sing the traditional Gregorian Propers (the specific scriptural texts designated for a given day) in either English or the original Latin. While the Episcopal Church uses Gregorian chants, it also heavily utilizes its own close relative known as Anglican Chant. Developed after the Reformation, Anglican chant applies harmonized chords to the natural speech rhythms of the Psalms, serving as a primary musical tradition alongside traditional monastic Gregorian tones. The use of Gregorian chants is very popular for Episcopalians, and the broader public during Compline (night prayers). Many Episcopal cathedrals and parishes host weekly candlelit Compline services where a choir sings plainchant in a darkened church, which creates a highly sought-after meditative and contemplative environment. I have never experienced Compline in this environment. However, all Compline services I have attended instantly put me to sleep after the service. I have learned to shower before this service so that I can instantly fall asleep when my head hits the pillow. I’m going to do more research and a blog on the medicinal value of Gregorian chants in falling asleep. However, for right now I am going to tell you I have a channel on my iPhone, and when, having difficulty falling asleep, I play them and instantly fall asleep. If you want to get the jump on this fascinating subject check out the most famous and historically massive selling (6 million copies) Gregorian chant album of all time: Chant by the Benedictine Monks of Santo Domingo de Silos. This is my favorite. However, chants by nuns are also remarkable.
As the class has progressed, we have found that different translations of Brother Lawrence's letters will change the order of the letters and offer different interpretations. Therefore, we strongly encourage all who wish to participate in this study to purchase Ron Van Huss's edition of Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection: The Practice of the Presence of God, which you can purchase here. Please contact Mtr. Liz if you need assistance obtaining a copy of the book. Below, you will find an outline of the revamped class. Please see John's letter for more information. We hope you will continue to offer thoughts, insights, and questions in the blog comments section in addition to participating in the in-person class. A Note from John: Class Outline Focus: Turning ordinary daily tasks into continuous, loving conversations with God rather than relying only on formal, scheduled prayers like the Lord’s Prayer.
Objective: study all 16 letters of Brother Lawrence in a five week period. August 6: Read letters 1-3 (we will be playing “catch up” in this week.) August 13: Read letters 4-6 August 20: Read letters 7-9 August 27: Read letters 10-13 Sept. 3: Read letters 14-16 Class Format 1. Select one or more of Brother Lawrence’s reflections from each letter that you wish to share with the class and why. 2. With which chores this week did you practice your presence with God.
What was your reaction to the following email sent to you last Tuesday, July 28, 2026: The following Moving Forward suggestion appeared in yesterday’s daily advice: “Find one ordinary moment this week—stirring a pot, folding laundry, sitting in traffic—and let it become a hum of prayer.” Let’s do this just once a day, and we will be true followers of Brother Lawrence!! Is it a practical suggestion? Can this be a standard practice in our daily life? Questions about Brother Lawrence's EducationHe had no formal education and at best he had at-home schooling. He supposedly had no attraction to formal theology and books. So, what were the two books he was receiving from a nun? One of them explained “the presence of God.” I find the vastness in education between the nuns and Brother Lawrence fascinating. In general, the educational level of nuns was higher than most women in the post-medieval period. Since Brother Lawrence was corresponding with the nuns in the Paris region, I am assuming they were the most educated in France. They could not only read French but also Latin and were well-versed in church liturgy. Nuns had to be able to read the Psalter and chant the Divine Office in Latin. I am guessing that Brother Lawrence was in communication with nuns from the elite convents in the Paris region who were known to be able to write books, compose church music, and studied advanced philosophy. I was impressed when I realized that these highly educated nuns were corresponding with an uneducated brother. Surely, they must have known his station at his monastery was that of a kitchen cook who was charged with repairing sandals for the monks and priests. No matter what his station in life was, the nuns apparently recognized his intelligence and spirituality, and they were willing to receive books from him on the “presence of God.” QUESTION ONE: What are your thoughts on Brother Lawrence’s intellect and his spiritual relationship with the nuns? Brother Lawrence preached that our heart must empty all things so that God can possess it alone. He believed we must be in a continual conversation with God. He argued that we should do it “through a principle of love and because God wants it.” At the end of this letter, he was “preaching” to this nun “the practice of the presence of God” and directing “all the world” to do the same. In the last sentence of this letter, Brother Lawrence urges this nun to “make now a holy and firm resolution . . . . to live the rest of your days in this holy presence.” Finally, he boldly offers the nun his meager prayers to practice the presence of God. QUESTION TWO: Is Brother Lawrence espousing a naïve and unrealistic idea from the 17th century, or do you believe it is an important challenge for our present day life in the 21st century? QUESTION THREE: Is it possible to have a depth or love for God and live a life in obedience, humility and concern for others? TODAY’S EXERCISE: Find 5 minutes of total stillness. Sit comfortably and visualize yourself as a block of stone. Don’t try to pray, don’t try to “achieve” a feeling, and don’t try to be holy. Simply “present” yourself to God and say: Lord I am the stone. You are the Carver. Do with me what you please today.” Let the pressure to “do” fall away; and simply “be.”
Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection, born Nicolas Herman (c. 1614 - February 12,1691), was a French Catholic religious brother who served at a discalced (barefoot) Carmelite monastery now known is Saint-Joseph-des-Carmes in Paris. He is best remembered for a posthumous compilation of his writings, The Practice of the Presence of God, a classic Christian text that I read many years ago. For the life of me, I cannot remember who or what caused me to read his writings. However, I have read it more than once, and daily I randomly read some underline passages. It is profoundly a spiritual classic. If you wish to know more about Brother Lawrence, you can read my previous blog here and your book (click here to get your own copy). If there are certain aspects of his life that you wish to explore, please let me know, and I will prepare more material on his life. Although the book also contains four conversations, we will only be studying his letters because these are considered to be the heart and soul of his thoughts. All of these letters were written in the last ten years of his life. Many of them were written to long-time friends, a Carmelite sister and a sister at a nearby convent. One or both of these friends were from his native village, perhaps even relatives. The conversations are edited transcripts of four interviews between Brother Lawrence and his associate Joseph de Beaufort in 1666. We are only sure of his thoughts and philosophy found in his letters. If you wish to study his conversations, please feel free to do so. This first letter was probably written to the prioress of one of the nearby convents on June 1, 1682. The theme of this letter is that he was confused by the diverse and complex methods found in spiritual books at the monastery. So, he decided to live “My God, here I am, all Yours: Lord make me according to Your heart.” DISCUSSION ONE: Do you think that Brother Lawrence has surrendered himself to God with this statement? The Thirty Years’ War was fought primarily in Central Europe between 1618 and 1648. Its causes were derived from religious conflicts between the Catholics and Protestants and resulted in 4.5 to 8 million casualties. Before becoming a monk, he served in the war as a French soldier because he was starving from poverty. He was captured by the German army and threatened with hanging on suspicion of being a spy. Having suffered a serious leg injury, he would have a life-long impairment that caused him chronic pain and limited his mobility for the rest of his life. DISCUSSION TWO: Which events of the war might have played a role in his decision to enter the monastery and later begin his “practice of the presence of God”? Was the war the direct catalyst for his spiritual awakening at the age of 18? Brother Lawrence stated that “God has infinite treasures to give us and still we are satisfied with a brief passing moment of piety…. But when He finds a soul imbued with a living faith, He pours into it His graces in abundance.” DISCUSSION THREE: Is Brother Lawrence admitting that he is “a soul imbued with a living faith” and God has poured into him His graces in an overwhelming flood? DISCUSSION FOUR: Does Brother Lawrence believe he has reached a point in his life where “Death is close behind us” and he must make way for God’s grace? DISCUSSION FIVE: On which Gospels passage is he calling on here: “We must persevere since in the spiritual life not to advance is to retreat, but those who have been breathed on by the Holy Spirt move forward even while sleeping; if the vessel of our soul is still battered by winds or by storm, let us call on our Lord who rests therein. He will soon calm the sea.” FINAL DISCUSSION: Do you think Brother Lawrence’s mystical experience in his union with God happen over time, bit by bit through a journey aided by spiritual discipline and prayer? Today’s Exercise: Every time you notice your mind wandering toward a worry, a distraction, or a trivial thought, do not get angry with yourself. Simply and gently whisper, “Lord, I am back,” and return to a sense of God’s presence. Do this as many times as necessary in a day, even in the “height of your work.” All are encouraged to use the comments section below to share your answers to the discussion questions, a reflection on the daily exercise, and any thoughts or questions you may have. Additionally, you may join an in-person discussion in the parish hall on Thursdays at 3PM beginning on Thursday, July 30 and ending on Thursday, August 27.
Prayer was a fundamentally important part of Jesus’ life and ministry, and he encouraged his followers to pray. Early Christians took the words of Jesus, Paul for example, and his followers to heart and continued the Jewish practice of regular prayer at certain hours of the day and night. This led to the tradition of the Divine Office or Liturgy of the Hours; a set of seven liturgies spaced throughout the day so that prayers were offered day and night. By the 5th century, monks and nuns were dedicating their lives to praying the Divine Office. This tradition of prayer continues today at religious communities offering nearly constant prayer. Thomas Cranmer, the author of the first Book of Common Prayer, did not believe that continual or even daily prayer was the purview of the “professionally religious.” So, he simplified the monks’ prayer cycle into two Daily Offices, morning prayer and evening prayer. The Episcopal Church later added Noonday Prayer and Compline. The Divine Office of the 5th century, prayers every three hours throughout the day, now has four services of prayer: Morning Prayer, Noonday Prayer, Evening Prayer, and Compline. The liturgy of the Daily Offices can be offered daily for private and public prayer. We can gather for Daily Office at Grace Memorial or in our homes as part of our personal prayer discipline. The Daily Office is set apart from rites like Holy Baptism and the Holy eucharist because they are used on a daily basis. I don’t know if you remember, but we suspended Evening Prayer at Grace during the Covid Pandemic. The Church published by email each week the readings for Tuesday and Thursday Evening Prayer. At the appointed hour of 4:30 pm, I would conduct Evening Prayer at home with the hope that members of Grace were doing the same during this time of crisis. I have no idea how many parishioners conducting Evening Prayer in this manner. However, I did recall one parishioner and her husband telling me they were conducting Evening Prayer in this fashion. You will find in the Book of Common Prayer two versions: Rite I and Rite II. The versions are the same except that Rite I is more traditional with the use of “thee” and “thy.” Rite II is more contemporary and is the most common usage in Episcopal churches. You may chose either rite according to your preference. All of the offices have a similar structure. Each has prayers and features suited for the time of day. Each office includes; opening sentences, psalms, readings from the Bible, and canticles, and prayers which include the Lord’s Prayer and series of additional prayers. The office closes with a dismissal, and there is usually a concluding sentence of scripture. The Book of Common Prayer uses two different lectionaries to determine which scripture passages are read. One is the lectionary for Sundays which is arranged in a three-year cycle. The Daily Office lectionary is arranged in a two-year cycle which allows us to go deeper in our study of the Bible. The lessons are divided up among the day, so that we have readings for every office. We usually read the Old Testament and epistle readings during Morning Prayer and save the gospel for Evening Prayer. Evensong is not found in the Book of Common Prayer, but it is another name for Evening Prayer. It differs in that all or most of the prayers are sung either by a choir or by the congregation. This is a long standing Anglican tradition. I have experienced Evensong only once at Christ Church Cathedral and at an Episcopal Church during one of my many travels. The services were extraordinary, and I would urge you to experience Evensong. You may pray the Daily Office at Forward Movement’s website (prayer.forwardmovement.org) or the Forward Day by Day app which includes the Daily Office with the prayers automatically filled in for the day and time you are praying. You may also use the Daily Office Book: Two Volume Set published by Church Publishing, which includes the liturgies of the Daily Office and the full readings for each day in a portable set. The Daily Office is not the only way to pray using the Book of Common Prayer. The Book offers numerous prayers for daily devotion for individuals and families, grace at meals, prayers and thanksgivings, and prayers for the sick. Every two weeks when I bring communion to the Phoenix Nursing Home, I pray with a resident for his departed daughter using a prayer from the Book of Common Prayer. Prayer is not a once-a-week action that we do only in church on Sundays. It is meant to be a daily discipline to be done frequently and regularly. Daily prayer is more meaningful when done with others. Don’t forget Evening Prayer is available at Grace at 4:30 pm on Tuesday and Thursday, and Morning Prayer at 7:30 am on Wednesday. It can be offered more often and at different hours and days. You need only ask.
 William White, (1748 - 1836-07-17), Bishop, Episcopal Church, USA, Oil Painting at the bequest of William White. Public Domain. Source: https://anglicanhistory.org/usa/wwhite/ Changes in the social and cultural circumstances of post-revolutionary America required religious groups that had been closely linked to Great Britain to become denominations capable of self-government in a new nation. Anglicans were especially involved in a process of institutional reorganization. The American Revolution had brought their denominations to near total collapse. Thousands had fled to Canada and England, and patriots who were ashamed of the loyalist taint left the church. The remaining church leaders were forced to preserve their distinctive theological and liturgical Anglican features and still shed those features that closely tied them to the Church of England. William White, the rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia, who had worked with many of the “founding fathers” like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin emulated their political skills within the councils of the church. He published in 1782 The Case of the Episcopal Churches in the United States which set forth ideas on how the Anglican Church might reconstitute itself. He proposed a three-tiered system of church government. Conventions would be composed of clergy and laity making decisions at each level: local, regional, and national. All three levels would operate their powers in a democratic fashion. He proposed retaining the historic orders of bishop, priest, and deacon. In 1783, Anglican conventions in Maryland and Pennsylvania accepted White’s principles and the concept of the “Protestant Episcopal Church” which was to conform as closely as possible to the Church of England. Delegates in New York and New Jersey passed similar resolutions. The delegates then agreed to the calling of the church’s “general convention” in Philadelphia in September 1785. The establishment of a bishop was still controversial because of its association with the monarchy. Two former colonists went to London for ordination, but they could not be ordained because of their inability to swear allegiance to the crown. White proposed having three priests laying hands upon American ordinands because earliest Christian communities recognized this procedure as valid.  Samuel Seabury by Ralph Earl 1785 - Public Domain. Source: https://npg.si.edu It was a high church Anglican like Samuel Seabury, a former missionary for the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (SPG) in New York, to argue strongly that the episcopate was to be the foundation of the Episcopal Church in the United States. He strongly stressed that bishops were successors of the apostles and represented one of the fundamental links to the first-century church. As a result, a small group of Connecticut priests met secretly in Woodbury, Connecticut in March 1783 to reorganize the church in Connecticut. In addition, they chose two priests as candidates for the episcopate: Jeremiah Leaming and Samuel Seabury. When Leaming refused his selection, Seabury quickly accepted it and set sail for London in search of three bishops—the minimum required by canon law to consecrate him as a bishop for America.
Since Seabury could not take an oath of allegiance, he could not be consecrated as a bishop. After a year of unproductive negotiations with the Church of England, Seabury, determined to be consecrated as a bishop, traveled northward to meet with bishops of the Episcopal Church of Scotland. Since Presbyterianism, not Anglicanism, was the legally established faith in Scotland, the bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church agreed to consecrate Seabury. He had to sign an agreement to make every effort to have the liturgical practices and beliefs of the Episcopal Church of Scotland adopted by the American Episcopal Church. Seabury’s consecration took place in Aberdeen, Scotland on November 14, 1784. He returned to the United States in the spring of 1785 and immediately summoned a convocation of the clergy in Connecticut and ordained four deacons. Many prospective ordinands sought ordination from Seabury, but the Episcopal Church of America was divided between followers of Seabury and his high church practices and White and his low church members who wanted more lay participation in the governance of the church. Church matters were complicated by the fact that the Church of England disapproved of Seabury’s consecration by schismatic bishops in Scotland. In late September and early October of 1785, the lay clerical representatives from Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia met at Christ Church in Philadelphia for the first General Convention of the Episcopal Church. The churches in North Carolina and Georgia were too small to attend. No one attended from Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island because Bishop Seabury was not allowed to preside. In a 10-day meeting the convention under the leadership of William White and William Smith accomplished the following:
The General Convention met again in two sessions in 1786. The consecration of Seabury continued to divide the Episcopalians. His episcopal orders were recognized, but he was prevented from exercising ecclesiastical authority outside of Connecticut. Finally, Parliament passed legislation that allowed the archbishops of Canterbury and York to consecrate candidates for the episcopate who were not British citizens. The convention then sent Samuel Provoost, the rector of Trinity Church in New York and White to travel to London to be consecrated by four English bishops on February 4, 1787. To avoid Episcopalians from splitting into two denominations, White and Seabury reached a compromise. At the next General Convention in 1789 in Philadelphia the convention recognized the legitimacy of Seabury’s Scottish consecration. Another compromise at the 1789 convention was the creation of a separate “House of Bishops,” which would have a partial veto over the House of Deputies which included the clerical and lay delegates at a convention. This move gave the bishops powers similar to those of Anglican prelates and had the support of followers of White and Seabury. According to historians, this process was similar to the drafting of the United States Constitution because it was designed to reflect republican political ideas and balanced the competing interests of various political ideas. In September 1789, the second session of the convention made further concessions to Seabury and his followers. It increased the bishops’ veto power over the House of Deputies, and it gave the bishops the right to originate and to reject legislation. Delegates from all the states formally approved both the church’s constitution and canons. It also adopted a final version of the American Book of Common Prayer and made its use obligatory. When the General Convention adjourned in October 1789, the various state churches finally achieved a measure of organizational unity. Was the United States founded as a Christian Nation or under the Principles of Religious Freedom?6/24/2026
If you remember my two recent blogs, you will recall there were 10 Christian denominations, Anglicans, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, Methodists, Dutch, German Lutherans, Reformed, and Catholics, and a Jewish synagogue operating in the colonies at the time of the Revolution. So, if we were created as a Christian nation under which of the ten denominations would it be? I have never seen any historical evidence that the issue was ever discussed. Why? I am sure the Revolutionists knew it was impossible to create a new nation whereby the colonists would agree to fight as a Christian nation against the British monarchy. However, under blogs one and two it was noted that the principles of Christian theology were some of the driving forces if not the main driving force. If you recall, Calvinism and the Great Awakening argued that the colonists had “religious freedom” to oppose the British monarchy under Romans 13 and the Book of Galatians. Church leaders argued that the Bible gave the colonists the power and religious freedom to oppose the British. It was the principle of religious freedom that drove the War for Independence because the colonists were too busy fighting against the British to be contemplating founding a new Christian nation. The colonists desired freedom from the British and based their arguments on Christian principles. This is not to say America was therefore created as an official Christian nation. This was not on the agenda of the Revolutionists. Before examining various declarations, constitutions, or acts of Congress, one needs to examine the general religious philosophy of leaders of the American Revolution. The Founding Fathers came from general Protestant backgrounds. Some held orthodox Christian beliefs, but many were Deists or Theistic Rationalists who supported reason and morality over the traditional religious dogma and miracles. The religious beliefs of the Founders fell into four categories:
This mixture of orthodox Christianity, Deism, and Theistic rationalism among the powers of the Founding Fathers discouraged the creation of a Christian nation. The first collective action of the Founding Fathers was the creation of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Historians generally agree that the Declaration of Independence was strongly influenced by Deism and the Enlightenment-era rationalism. The document appeals to the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” It further stated that men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The “Creator” mentioned in the document was not the Christian God of the Bible as understood by the colonists. The final paragraph of the document mentions the “protection of Divine Providence,” which was a Deist-friendly term favored by major Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Divine Providence was not a Biblical God that was involved in the daily human affairs of the colonists. The rights declared by a secular government were justified by reason and nature and not by divine right or religious Christian doctrines espoused by the colonists. The creation of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 was also influenced by Deism and Enlightenment rationalism. It is not a Christian document because it is most clearly seen that it is secular in nature and deliberately separates the church and state. A key deistic influence can be seen in Article VI that explicitly prohibits any religious requirement for holding public office. The First Amendment establishes religious freedom and bars the government from establishing a state religion. Key architects and prominent thinkers of the Constitution like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin relied on deism to craft a system of government where freedom of religion was protected but separate from civil authorities. As a result, there is no mention of a Biblical God in the Constitution. After the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Alexander Hamilton was asked why God had not been mentioned in the Constitution. His reply was “We forgot.” The drafters of the Constitution were being driven mainly by the principles of Christian Deism, Deism, and Theistic rationalism. That is why God is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Although there were many differences in the ideas of orthodox Christians, Christian Deism, Deism, and Theistic Rationalism during the formation of the United States, secular pluralism was a common philosophy of all entities that advocated for the strict separation of church and state thereby guaranteeing the government does not favor any specific religion or non-religion. Secular pluralism also promotes the concepts of religious equality and inclusivity. It advocates for keeping faith and partisan politics separate, and that is why a Christian nation was never in the plans of the Founding Fathers. PERSONAL NOTE: These last three blogs have been about the coming of the American Revolution and the creation of our nation. As I have stated earlier, I have used AI, some books from my library, and old graduate school notes. However, these last three blogs are based especially on my expertise in American colonial history that I gained in graduate school. I must admit that I failed my oral exam for my doctorate at Mississippi State University on the portion for colonial history. I don’t know what happened that night in answering the questions on colonial history, only to say I crashed and burned. It meant I had to take and pass a written examination on colonial history in order to move on and write my dissertation.
I was told by my colonial professor that I had to read and master the findings on all books on his reading list—150 books!!! I thought he was joking. He was not. He said I was too young to be getting a PhD. To fast forward this story let me say I went back home with a method given to me by my major professor on how to read and master 150 books. I buried myself in a cubicle at SLU and prepared for an upcoming written exam back at MSU. It consisted of five essay questions, and I was allowed to go into the library on my honor. From 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM I filled a legal pad, the long one, to the last page. Turned it in and drove to my friend’s where I was staying. When I got there, Jimmy had a beer waiting for me with a napkin on which he had printed “ABD” which meant I had passed the exam and could start writing my dissertation. There is no way Dr. Lowery read my response to his exam questions. My anger quickly dissipated when I kept looking at the ABD napkin. I went home and wrote my dissertation and graduated in August 1972 at the age of 26. If you are wondering, yes I used some of those books to write these last blogs on colonial history.
Article 37 of the Thirty-Nine Article of Religion of the Church of England stated in 1571 the king or queen has “the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions.” The Article further stated that the monarchs have the “prerogative . . . that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical of Temporal.” The article of faith made the British monarchy not just a preferred form of government but one that was divinely ordained. Canons of the Church of England were carried over into the Anglican colonies and required ministers to at least four times a year to deliver sermons preaching that the king was the highest power under God. An American minister who supported the Patriot cause would thereby be in violation of his sacred oath. Consequently, during the Revolution, half of the Anglican ministers resigned their pulpits either out of conviction and support of the Revolution or fear of Patriot parishioners. Support of the Crown was strongest in places like New York where ministers could be protected by British troops. The Book of Common Prayer became an issue because prescribed prayers asked God to defend the king and give him victory over all his enemies. After the Declaration of Independence some Anglican Churches modified their prayer books with more patriotic words.
This Calvinistic principle found itself repeated in sermons using the Book of Galatians which called for the colonists to break free from the yoke of bondage. Patriotic ministers drove home this Calvinistic message with their interpretation of Romans 13 and making it a patriotic cry. Revolutionaries continued to call on the writings of Calvin by arguing that lesser magistrates (counsellors, legislators, judges and the nobility) had the duty to protect the people when higher magistrates, including the king, became abusive and tyrannical. The lesser magistrates had the obligation to organize and lead the resistance. The First Great Awakening (1730s-1740s) drove Americans toward resisting authority. One of the principal themes of the Great Awakening was that revivalist preachers undermined the authority of the educated clergy and to authorities in general. Since Anglican preachers were highly educated, the First Great Awakening weakened their influence and thus built hostility to the British authority in the colonies. There were denominational differences in clerical support toward the American Revolution. An exhaustive study of the views of every Anglican minister in the colonies found that only 27 percent supported the Revolution, and most of the supporters were in Virginia. Of the 55 Anglican clergy north of Pennsylvania, only three supported the Revolution. Nearly all important pamphlets published in support of the Loyalist position came from the authorship of an Anglican priest. On the other hand, the Reformed Protestant clergy supported the Revolution almost unanimously. As a result, the Reformed Protestant ministers were credited or blamed for the Revolution. Presbyterian and Congregationalists ministers were being blamed for the Revolution. Calvinist ministers, often referred to as “the Black Regiment” because of the austere black robes they wore, were also blamed for the Revolution. Even the British monarchy blamed the Protestants for the Revolution. King George supposedly referred to the Revolution as a “Presbyterian Revolution”. Allegiance to the Revolution was harder to assess in the pews. Anglicans were loyalists except in Virginia and New York. Probably most Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Baptists followed their clergy in supporting the Revolution. Though small in numbers, Catholics and Jews supported the Revolution overwhelmingly. So did the Quakers and Methodists but not as vigorously. The Dutch, German Lutherans, and Reformed were divided. By not supporting the Revolution, the status of churches was affected. The Church of England (Anglican) held the status of an established church throughout the South and in parts of New York, but support of the monarchy caused their established status to be stripped. Establishment never returned to those colonies. However, the Congregational Church gained prestige because of supporting the Revolution. Being Anglican did not harm the reputation of colonists. For example, George Washington, our first American President, was a devoted member of the Church of England and later an Episcopalian. He was a member of the vestry at Truro Parish and senior warden. Being Anglican after the American Revolution did not hurt the political aspirations of Americans because three of the first five American Presidents were Anglicans. NOTE: This blog, like all others, is the result of AI research and my personal library, in addition to my ancient graduate school notes on my courses on American colonial history.
According to British statesman Edmund Burke, in his “Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies,” religion was the most powerful of four socio-cultural characteristics of the American people that made us especially jealous for liberty and resistant to British rule.
Burke argued it was the American style of religion that was the main desire for a free spirit. According to Burke, this style of religion was most common in the northern colonies. They were Protestants who were “the most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion.” Alex de Tocqueville added to the argument by stating that: “Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must be regarded as the first of their political institutions; for it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of free institutions.” In the decades during the founding of the colonies, churches were the principal institutions for the creation and dissemination of ideas. The leaders for the loyalist side were almost all Anglican (Episcopalian). Leaders supporting the revolution were Presbyterian, Congregationalist and Baptist ministers. Colonial newspapers were supporting the revolution, but the majority of the colonists were not subscribers. However, the newspapers disseminated their ideas through their published pamphlets. Most of the content in newspapers and pamphlets were reprints or reports of sermons. While most European nations had a single established church and suppressed most forms of dissent, colonial America was one of the most religiously diverse places in the world. Since the southern colonies were strongly supported by the Crown for economic ventures, the colonists were supporting the Crown during the coming of the American revolution. New England was generally a place of refuge for Puritans and Pilgrims and religious freedom to worship but not for Baptists, Quakers or Catholics. Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island were generally established as havens for religious minorities. The First Great Awakening (1730s-1740s) swelled the ranks of the Baptists and Methodists in the colonies. Fiery preachers filled the pews with their reality of hell and salvation. The importance of the Great Awakening is that it fostered radically democratic and more disruptive churches and more dissent in the colonies. It emphasized that ordinary people could connect directly with God rather than through institutional churches. Although the Anglican Church (Episcopalian) was formally established as the state church in every colony south of Pennsylvania, and semi-established in Metropolitan New York, it was never the dominant or the largest religious group. It tended to be concentrated in coastal and tidewater regions and very little on the frontier. By the time of the American Revolution, the largest denominations were Congregationalists (Puritans), Presbyterians, and Baptists. With the exceptions of the Anglicans the Protestant colonists had an ample history to be wary of governments. The Dutch Protestants had suffered violence at the hands of the Spanish in Holland. Tens of thousands of French Huguenots were killed in a state-sponsored pogrom in 1572. Hundreds of English Protestants were burned at the stake under “Bloody” Queen Mary. In addition, the Puritans were jailed and exiled under the Stuarts. Scottish Presbyterians were persecuted in the 1680s under James II. These Protestants were convinced that their religion was ordained by God, and the action by the king and Parliament was in opposition to God’s will, thereby making rebellion legitimate. Another factor driving the coming of the American Revolution was “ecclesiology” (church organization). With the possible exception of the Anglicans, Protestant churches in the colonies believed that their form of church organization was determined by scripture. Anglican ecclesiology is hierarchical and top-down like Catholicism in many respects. If there was no bishop to exercise discipline, Anglican ministers were virtually under control of the parish vestry, an elected office typically held by members of the local gentry. For example, George Washington was a vestryman in his Anglican church near Mount Vernon. The Puritan, or Congregational, church was governed at the local level by the congregation, similar to a New England town meeting. A Congregational minister was usually a Puritan of “learned ministry”, meaning a graduate of Harvard or Yale. His role was solely to preach and lead worship, but the governance of the church was in the hands of elected elders. Each colonial congregation governed itself with no higher colonial, state or national authority. Presbyterians resembled Congregationalists, and the Dutch Reformed Church was virtually identical in structure to the Presbyterians The Baptists on the other hand were more individualistic, more libertarian and more anarchic. If a Baptist did not approve of his church, he would leave and join another or create another. Baptists were the most anti-authoritarian movement in the colonies. Baptists were a driving force for popular democracy more than for cautious republicanism. Next week in Part II we will cover how political theology affected the coming of the American Revolution. |
Archives
September 2026
Categories |
RSS Feed
