Modern evangelical Christians generally do not seem to recognize something crucial to their beliefs is intentionally lacking from American political theory, and they would be shocked to learn the conceptual foundation laid by the founders more directly favors secular humanism. Now, stay with me, because this screed is not going to end as you might think.

The conceptual framework upon which the U.S. Constitution was built was promulgated by “The Federalist Papers,” variously written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay and in 1788 published as The Federalist. Now, please carefully follow the trace back to the seeds of their philosophy often called “common sense republicanism.” It uses some biblical doctrines and expresses itself in evangelical language, but the final product is neither biblical nor evangelical.

James Madison (1751-1836) spoke and wrote of what he called “political science,” because he sought to rescue popular American thinking from the subjective art of politics. Samuel Stanhope Smith (1751-1813) joined with “moral philosophy,” seeking to free morality from religious dogma and make it more rational as philosophy.

Smith graduated from the College of New Jersey at Princeton as Madison began his studies. Both studied and were equally influenced by Princeton’s president, John Whitherspoon (1723-1794), a Presbyterian clergyman. He advanced in America the Scottish thinking of Francis Hutchinson (1696-1746), John Simson (1668-1740), and David Hume (1711-1776).

All taught humans have the intuitive ability to recognize what is morally right and that, with sufficient encouragement, they would choose to do what is right. Hutchinson and Simson, at least, believed this moral sensitivity was God-given and that God had left it to individuals to reason and choose.

From this, Whittherspoon taught Smith and Madison the best possible government is to challenge people with the responsibility of making rational moral choices. Madison, especially, influenced such as Alexander Hamilton that citizens innately possess the ability to govern themselves and would do so without fail if given the chance.

These and most of this nation’s founding fathers called themselves Christian and considered themselves religious. The Bible, in the King James Version, was their most frequently read book and they knew it well. Their political speeches and writings are laced with biblical allusions, examples, and even doctrine. One does not need to read far into the primary sources to recognize this. In a word, they politicized in evangelical language. Herein, however, lies the confusion.

Reading them, one would think if they lived in our day, they would sit on the platform at Billy Graham evangelistic crusades and speak at presidential prayer breakfasts. Actually, more than a few would have, but not the most influential and powerful among them. Not James Madison or Alexander Hamilton and certainly not Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin. Of course they spoke in evangelical language — all public figures did in their days. It was part of the British-American culture and rhetoric.

Many were Christian only in the broadest sense of being religious but not Jewish (or even Roman Catholic). They never referred to themselves as “born-again” or made any such profession. Most were, in fact, Unitarian (not accepting the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) deists (believing God created the world perfect and let humans run it without his supervision or intervention). God created humans, then, as morally self-sufficient with no further need for God’s help.

In this rationalistic philosophy, there was nothing of the traditional (and biblical) doctrines of original sin, evil, or depravity. This is to say whatever their Christianity may have been, it was not evangelical, conservative, or orthodox. If evangelical is just one thing it is the gospel (good news) of salvation from the depravity of sin by redemption in Jesus Christ. Evangelicals have always understood the Bible to teach humans possess limited moral capability and can become morally sufficient only as the result of conversion.

While the political rhetoric of most founding fathers was evangelical, their beliefs were not. Evangelicals cannot now logically claim they intended this nation to be evangelical Christian in the sense they wish it were.