Why Founder John Jay’s Christian Statesmanship is Desperately Needed by America

One could call Founder John Jay a forgotten patriot. Yet, Jay led an extremely eventful and influential life, and the US Constitution might not have been drafted without his insistence on a stronger federal government. Further, he advocated relentlessly against slavery. Jay helped frame the argument for war against England, was President of the Continental Congress, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and held several important foreign ministry posts, and of course, helped compose the immortal Federalist Papers.

After the War of Independence Jay became the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, then resigned this to become second Governor of New York. He then became President of the American Bible Society. Jay also held what would be today called an extremely non-politically correct theory of what kind of foreign policy would be effective for America. He believed only Christianity was capable of fostering the necessary spirit needed for world peace, writing:

Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war. Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

It is contingent upon Americans, in the midst of world conflict and chaos, in the mouth of obtuse and even illiterate national leadership, that we look outside the immediate paradigm for direction. And what better place to seek guidance than our own splendid Founders--anyone of whom would easily outstrip any current politicians in terms of education, wisdom, statesmanship and vision.

---

The Founders were chary of joining any foreign wars, or entangling ourselves in the machinations of foreign states. So how do we find ourselves on the verge of another Muslim-involved war in Syria? How does a nation with a strongly and almost uniquely Christian heritage end up fighting to prop up Muslim kingdoms? Certainly John Jay would demure and insist we build up our own Republic instead of playing some ill-advised role as the world's policeman.

I. John Jay: Founder, Patriot, Christian Statesman

In an age of remarkable men. John Jay stood out from the highly intelligent, educated and idealistic colonial patriot crowd, according to Walter Stahr in John Jay, Founding Father (Stahr's John Jay presentation). Scion of a well-established New York City businessman, when Gotham numbered only 11,000, Jay was perhaps the most conservative and religious of all the Founders. Jay was known for his defense of private property and basic Christian orientation. A remarkably gifted lad, he was home-schooled till 8, then spent three years under Anglican pastor Pierre Stoupe, returning home to finish schooling. At 14 years of age he was accepted into New York's King's College (today renamed Columbia University), graduating summa cum laude, with highest honors, at 18. He trained in the law after that and passed into New York State Bar at age 23. Called as a delegate to the Continental Congress, he was one of the youngest representatives at 28. In his various duties, Jay was appointed foreign minister to Spain. He then relocated to Paris where he lodged with Benjamin Franklin in the Passy section of Paris, France. There, he and Franklin helped negotiate the Treaty of Paris which helped end the Revolutionary War.

II. John Jay's Biblical View of Government & War

John Jay did accept a strong central government with police and military powers, but also the right to wage war--even against government if they acted tyrannically--as England had done. We know that the other Founders highly esteemed John Jay's abilities in diplomacy and dealing with other nations because George Washington asked him to become America's first Secretary of State. Jay had a view of mankind, history and conflict based upon a keen understanding and belief in the Bible. Here are some of his statements upon the subject, culled from a few letters Jay wrote on the subject of war. The first letter excerpts:

Whether war of every description is prohibited by the gospel, is one of those questions on which the excitement of any of the passions can produce no light. An answer to it can result only from careful investigation and fair reasoning. It certainly is very desirable that a pacific disposition should prevail among all nations. The most effectual way of producing it is by extending the prevalence and influence of the gospel. Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war. Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and who are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

So Jay explains that the Christian religion is the very best foundation for global peace. And the best way to achieve this is to elect Christian leaders. The second letter excerpts continue his thoughts on the topic:

It is true that one of the positive ordinances of Moses, to which you allude, did ordain retaliation, or, in other words, a tooth for a tooth. But we are to recollect that it was ordained, not as a rule to regulate the conduct of private individuals towards each other, but as a legal penalty or punishment for certain offenses. As, therefore, Divine ordinances did authorize just war, as those ordinances were necessarily consistent with the moral law, and as the moral law is incorporated in the Christian dispensation, I think it follows that the right to wage just and necessary war is admitted, and not abolished, by the gospel. The law of all the nations prescribed the conduct which they were to observe towards each other, and allowed war to be waged by an innocent against an offending nation, when rendered just and necessary by unprovoked, atrocious, and unredressed injuries. Thus two kinds of justifiable warfare arose: one against domestic malefactors; the other against foreign aggressors. The first being regulated by the law of the land; the second by the law of nations; and both consistently with the moral law.

Thus, Jay offers a fairly nuanced view of war. First, the God of the Bible allows warfare and even occasionally commands this, both in the Old and New Testaments. Second, since the world is a sinful place, governments must be established to protect people and keep order, including waging wars. Third, there are just and unjust wars. Just wars are waged against both domestic and foreign evildoers, or "...one against domestic malefactors; the other against foreign aggressors." So since war with Syria would not involve internal malefactors, we must ask if it would be engaged with "foreign aggressors"? In fact, according to Jay's theory of war--which is waged in a Christian sense against those menacing America by their aggressions, we have to conclude that the Syria struggle is a civil war that is not an aggressive act against the US, whatsoever. Therefore, how does one make an argument that the Founders in general, with Washington's admonition against meddling in foreign wars, or John Jay's Christian Just War theory, would be satisfied by Syria's civil war? In fact, one might easily point out that Jesus, when asked to judge an inter-family dispute, had this response:

Someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me." But he said to him, "Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?" (Luke 12:13-14)

III. Would the US Attacking Syria be a "Just War"?

Would an American attack against Syria for their purported use of poison gas against their own people be considered a Just War? First, we must decide if a country merely using Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's) alone justifies any other country attacking them? For, even if Syria's government used gas in war, why would America be obligated to attack? After all, isn't that the entire purpose of the United Nations to enforce international law, such as the Geneva Convention and punish the law breakers? Therefore, America unilaterally attacking Syria undercuts the UN's mission and takes away its authority. Second, if, as Obama claims--we know our bombing "shot across the bow" will not fundamentally change the war's dynamic--why do such an action? Third, what if our meddling in the Middle East brings even more instability, as already seen in Libya--which is now descended into chaos; and Egypt--which barely avoided a Muslim law tyranny after 2 revolutions in a year? What if it causes regional war or a world war? Fourth, why does America need to back Muslim rebels fighting against an Islamic government when either side is bound to bristle at a "pagan" American presence? Fifth, if the US is now establishing a foundation and doctrine for fighting humanitarian wars, are we not then committed to cross the globe with armies looking for humanitarian violations? Sixth, does it matter if Syria is truly menacing the US, or whether our involvement actually hurts are global interests?

Conclusion

If John Jay was right, and the Christian religion sets the only true foundation for world peace then--What are we doing intervening in wars to help establish new Muslim kingdoms? And if George W. Bush was wildly off base using essentially the same arguments to invade Iraq, according to the Left--then how does the Syria intervention get any credence? Should America even be involved in foreign policy any longer if we no longer have the goal of acting in a manner which clearly benefits ourselves first and foremost? Without such a strategic vision, we will surely soon perish. According to Jay, since only the Bible and Jesus can bring global peace, we ought not involve ourselves in a situation where either side winning supports Islam and therefore our involvement cannot benefit America. Because, he believed only Christianity is the religion of peace, Jay would argue that all Christians ought to agree on such a basic concept. Therefore, if you espouse a Christian worldview--we must not invade or bomb Syria.