History and Education: A Complex Relationship

Is history merely indoctrination? Or is there more to it?

How many people realize that the Founding Fathers referenced scripture more than they did thinkers like Locke, Montesquieu, or Blackstone combined? Students might learn that James Madison is known as the father of the Constitution, but do they grasp that he might not have succeeded without promising a bill of rights to Pastor John Leland?

My frustration with the educational system has reached a breaking point, particularly following the tragic event involving Charlie Kirk.

Do young people today understand that the Pilgrims were essentially representatives of the Church and that the Mayflower Compact was inspired by the Church’s covenant?

It’s more common for them to think that America’s foundation was primarily secular, with just a nod to a higher power. They often interpret the principle of separation of church and state as a directive from Jefferson to eliminate religion from public life. Many are surprised to discover that this doctrine originated with Roger Williams, a pastor who became politically active but was expelled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony due to his religious views. He faced deportation and threats of imprisonment before he eventually found refuge in what is now Rhode Island, where he founded Providence. Williams drew his ideas from Isaiah 5, making comparisons between vines and churches, wild grapes and worldly influences, and hedges as barriers.

As a chaplain in the Ohio State House, I’m often confronted by those who, unaware of historical contexts, criticize my political involvement—unaware that the Bill of Rights’ principal signer was also a chaplain who later became the first Speaker of the House.

After meeting Charlie Kirk at a conference for Christian legislators last December, where he recognized my advocacy on issues like the SAFE Act, it became clear how vital engagement among pastors is. He truly understood the role of faith in American heritage.

My colleagues likened him to a blend of Rush Limbaugh and Billy Graham, but in a society increasingly detached from its roots, his assertive declarations prompted backlash and hostility from those who are uninformed.

This is what happens with the ongoing process of American deconstruction and poststructuralism. As one generation stops teaching history, the next rewrites it, and it shouldn’t be a surprise when young people feel lost and disconnected.

The Charlie Kirk American Heritage Act is my way of advocating for the idea that future generations deserve to understand the sources of freedom that the Founding Fathers spoke of.

Educators who recognize these realities are aware that groups like the Religious Freedom Foundation lurk, potentially threatening them with lawsuits aimed at silencing their voices. I once spoke with a school superintendent who believed teaching religion’s influence in America contravened the First Amendment. Of course, that’s not true, but convincing him otherwise was a challenge.

During the first committee hearing on the Charlie Kirk American Heritage Act, critics questioned why the bill focused solely on Christianity. The response is straightforward: while all faiths are free, not all faiths have contributed equally to the freedoms we enjoy.

A Democrat responded by saying the Founding Fathers used common terms for God to allow individual interpretations. He took offense when I pointed out that without Christianity, American history essentially wouldn’t exist.

I suggested he consult the Founding Fathers directly instead of solely relying on my assertions.

John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, wrote on June 28, 1813, that “the general principles on which the Fathers of the Church achieved their independence are the only principles that can unite them.” He emphasized that these general principles are rooted in Christianity and uniting a diverse set of denominations.

The Charlie Kirk American Heritage Act simply states that recognizing Christianity’s positive influence on American history is consistent with the First Amendment and not a violation of church and state separation.

Teachers should have the freedom to share these truths. I hope that Charlie sees this bill as a tribute to his lasting impact on future generations.