final storm," "to the last man" plus 11 more novels which recount the history of america from the revolution to the korean war. during the program, we will take your phone calls, tweets and facebook messages. our special series with author jeff shaara, march 4th from noon to 3:00 p.m. eastern on book tv on c-span 2. >> next, baylor university history professor thomas kidd on benjamin franklin's faith. he argued that franklin's exposure to skeptical writings undermined his confidence in christianity but did not erase his puritanical core. the talk was part of a symposium hosted by the museum of the bible in washington. it is 45 minutes. good morning, everyone. welcome to museum of the bible. i am kay penniger. i am the director of museum education. we are delighted you have joined us today for our february

speaker series program titled the bible and america's founders. our program consists of three sessions which will be followed by a roundtable discussion later on this afternoon. following the roundtable discussion, we'll have a book signing with our speakers. at museum of the bible, our mission is to engage people with the bible. the bible has made a powerful impact on world history and cultures. it has influenced nations, laws, and political structures. it has guided debates and shaped pivotal events and inspired views of prominent individuals, both past and present. the bible is hidden in plain sight in everyday life from common expressions we all use to the music, the arts and literature. today, we will explore a theme that expands on how the american colonies as they moved toward revolution and the founding of our nation, our founders turned to the bible as a source of

inspiration and justification for their political actions. we have three prominent scholars with us today, dr. thomas kidd, dr. daniel dreisbach and dr. james byrd who will talk with us about how the bible influenced the founding generation. our first session is the enigma of ben franklin's faith with thomas kidd. benjamin franklin tells us that he became a deist as a young man. yet at the constitutional convention in 1787, franklin proposed that delegates open sessions with prayer. in this session, thomas kidd will explore the enigma of franklin's faith and the tension between franklin's well-known skepticism and the enduring influence of his puritan upbringing on his familiarity are the bible. thomas kidd is a distinguished professor of history at baylor university and associate director of baylor's institute for studies of religion. he is the author of "benjamin

franklin: the religious life of a founding father." please join me in welcoming dr. kidd. [ applause ] >> thank you to kay and thank you to the museum of the bible for hosting this wonderful event. it's a pleasure to be here at the museum. i hope to consult with some of the section on bible in america and it is just a wonderful thing to actually be here and see this lovely facility. so thank you for having us and thank you to those of you that are joining us online or on tv. it is great to be here. i do want to talk to you today about the enigma of ben franklin's faith and to open with a story of something that happened at the constitutional convention. in 1787 at the constitutional convention, time dragged as delegates bickered about representation in congress.

james madison insisted that states with more people should possess more power. the small states knew that under the articles of confederation, america's existing national government, all states had equal authority regardless of population. so why should the small states give up that power under a new constitution? the convention might have failed at this point. it really could have. if it had, the country would have continued to struggle under the inefficient and some said feckless articles government or the new american nation might have disintegrated. at this critical moment, the octogenarian, ben franklin, took the floor, calling for unity. he asked delegates to open sessions with prayer. as they were quote, groping

as it were in the dark to find political truth, he queried. how has it happened that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the father of lights to illuminate our understandings. if they continued to ignore god, he said, our projects will be confounded. we, ourselves, shall become a reproach and a bye word down to future ages. this man, who called himself a deist, now insisted that delegates should ask god for wisdom. this was strange. classic deists did not believe that god intervened in human affairs. even more strange, he was one of the few delegates who thought that opening with prayer was a good idea. his motion was tabled. so what kind of deist was this elderly man calling on america's greatest political minds to humble themselves before god.

franklin's work at the constitutional convention was the culmination of his spectacular career. he and george washington, who was 26 years his junior, were not the architects of the constitution. that role fell to james madison and alexander hamilton and others. but franklin and washington were the two most famous americans in 1787 and delegates looked on franklin with respect and awe. there seemed little doubt that washington, the imposing virginia general, would become president of the convention. if there was any competitor for chair it was the venerable franklin. the very heavens obey him, one georgia delegate noted. but franklin had planned to nominate him for chair himself

if a storm hadn't kept him home for the opening day of the meeting. a son of boston puritans, he'd come a long way to get to that philadelphia meeting hall. in late spring of 1787, he exchanged letters with his beloved sister, jane mecom, who was an evangelical christian. the sibling who maintained the longest correspondence with and the deepest influence on franklin. they reminisced about their humble beginnings as the children of a candlemaker. mecom had remained a person of humble means and relative anonymity while her brother's fame skyrocketed. ben told her that the course of his life filled him with wonder and fills me with humble thankfulness to that divine being who has graciously conducted my steps and prospered me in this strange land to a degree that i could not have rationally expected and by no means conceive myself to have

merited. i beg the continuance of his favor. chronic sickness made it difficult for franklin to stand and speak at the convention. he did offer occasional comments, seeking to steer the delegates towards a successful conclusion. early on, he also made a substantive speech arguing against paying a salary to the president or to other members of the executive branch. he based this argument on his dim view of human nature and a politician's temptations to personal aggrandizement. quote, there are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men, he declared. these are ambition and avarice. the love of power and the love of money. placed before the eyes of such men a post of honor that shall at the same time be a place of

profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it. such corruption had ruined british politics and he wished to uncouple america's government from the profit motive. citing exodus 18:21, franklin reminded delegates that the best rulers were men hating covetousness. if you turn politics into an avenue for personal gain, he said, only the most bold and violent men would want to enter. less delegates dismiss his pay proposal as utopian. he cited examples of offices in which people served for little or no money. the arbiters of quaker meetings heard disputes that would have otherwise gone to secular courts. these duties were tedious, yet quaker leaders performed them for no compensation. he pointed to the virtuous washington who took no salary as the general of the continental army.

though, to be fair, he did submit expenses. the convention declined to adopt franklin's proposal but franklin was participating in a bigger conversation that ran all through the constitutional debates. what kind of government could best account for the dangers in human nature? although americans disagreed on the answer, they did not dispute the premise. men were not angels as madison had written in federalist 51. they could not be trusted with unchecked power. franklin joined a more controversial debate at the convention with his proposal for prayer on june 28th, 1787. he had lived a long time he reminded delegates. he had become evermore certain that god oversaw human affairs. franklin was convinced that providence had shepherded americans through the revolutionary crisis.

it was foolish not to call on god again. he reminded them of the early days of the war when the patriots prayed. often in that same room for god's help. at its best, faith inculcated public spiritedness and suffocated selfishness. god had led them to the point where they could now frame the best possible government. have we now forgotten that powerful friend, he asked? citing psalm 127, franklin said that, quote, except the lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. furthermore, he declared, i firmly believe this. i also believe that without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of

babel. prideful strife would confound their work, he said, and turn their proceedings into a farce. this was the most remarkable religious episode of ben franklin's life. it was stunning. not just because of the stage on which he was proposing prayer. franklin, as i suggested before, was nearly alone among the delegates in wishing to bring prayer into the convention's proceedings. connecticut's roger sherman one of the most devout christians in attendance, seconded franklin's motion. virginia's edmond randolph proposed that they hire a pastor to preach on independence day less than a week later. that minister could then open subsequent meetings with prayer. beyond these three men, delegates seemed uninterested in arranging for prayers. someone pointed out they had not

budgeted funds for a chaplain. alexander hamilton worried that calling in a pastor might signal that the convention was becoming desperate. he also reportedly questioned the propriety of calling in foreign aid. the motion fizzled and franklin was exasperated. jotting a note at the bottom of his prayer speech, the convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary. franklin and the convention moved on. perhaps his prayer speech did remind delegates of the need for compromise even if it prompted no formal recourse to god. in an address two days after proposing prayer, franklin explained the root of the tension between the large and small states. if representation was proportioned according to population, quote, the small states contend their liberties will be in danger.

if an equality of votes is to be put in its place, the large states say their money is in danger. both sides were going to have to give up some demands to ensure a successful outcome. drawing on earlier discussions regarding a two-house legislature, franklin suggested that the convention create a house of representatives with proportional representation and a senate with equal representation between the states. this became the great compromise, arguably the key settlement of the whole convention. in his final speech before the convention, franklin warned against dogmatism which might derail the competition. he saw this moralistic perfectionism both in religion and in politics.

most men, indeed, as well as most sects and religion, think themselves in possession of all truth. and that wherever others differ from them, it is so far error. delegates should be willing to support the constitution, he said, even if they did not regard it as perfect. no better frame of government would emerge from additional meetings. franklin was quote, not sure that it was not the best that they could do as it currently stood. the framers' enemies were [ inaudible ] had been confounded like those of the builders of babel. the constitution went out for ratification. multiple forms of government could work well when administered by virtuous people anyway. according to an oft-repeated story, when someone asked

franklin after the convention whether they had created a monarchy or a republic, he replied a republic, if you can keep it. so to return to our central question of franklin and faith, who was this franklin of philadelphia and what did he believe. in our mind's eye, the man seems ingenious, mischievous and enigmatic. his journalistic, scientific and political achievements are clear. but what of ben franklin's religion? was he defined by his youthful embrace of deism? his long-time friendship with george whitfield, who was the most influential evangelist of the 18th century, his work with thomas jefferson on the declaration of independence and its invocations of the creator

and of nature and nature's god, or his solitary insistence on prayer at the convention. when you add his propensity for joking about serious matters, he becomes even more difficult to pin down. regarding his chameleon-like religion, john adams once remarked, the catholics thought him almost a catholic. the church of england claimed him as one of them. the presbyterians saw him as half a presbyterian and the friends believed him a wet quaker which basically means a quaker who is not so well-behaved. the key to understanding franklin's ambivalent faith is the contrast between the skepticism of his adult life and the indelible imprint of his

childhood puritannism. the intense piety and faith of his parents acted as a tether. restraining franklin's skepticism. as a teenager, it's true he abandoned his parents' puritan beliefs but that same faith kept him from getting too far away. he would stretch his moral and doctrinal tether to the breaking point. by the end of a youthful sojourn he made to london, when he returned to philadelphia in 1726, he resolved to conform more closely to his parents' ethical code. he steered away from extreme deism. could he craft a christianity centered on virtue rather than traditional doctrine and avoid alienating his parents at the

same time. more importantly, could he convince the evangelical figures in his life, most importantly, his sister, jane mecom, and the revivalist, george witfield, that all was well with his soul. he would have more success convincing his sister than convincing george witfield. when he ran away from boston as a teenager, from boston to philadelphia, he also ran away from boston's calvinism. many factors, his puritan tether, the pressure of relationships with christian friends and family, disappointments with his own integrity, repeated illnesses and the growing weight of political responsibility, all kept him from going too deep into the dark woods of radical skepticism.

franklin explored a number of religious opinions. even at the end of his life, as we will see, he remained noncommital about all but a few points of belief. this elusiveness has made franklin susceptible to many religious interpretations. some devout christians beginning with the celebrated 19th century biographer parson mason weems have found ways to mold franklin into a faithful believer. weems opined that, quote, franklin's extraordinary benevolence and useful life were imbibed even unconsciously from the gospel. there's something to this notion of christianity's unconscious effect on franklin, but weems had to employ indirection here because of franklin's repeated insistence that he doubted key points of christian doctrine.

other christian writers could not overlook those skeptical statements. the english baptist minister john foster wrote in 1818 that love of the useful was the cornerstone of franklin's thought and that franklin, quote, substantially rejected christianity. one of the most influential interpretations of franklin's religion appeared in max vaber's classic study the protestant ethic and spirit of capitalism, 1905. for vaber, franklin was a near-perfect example of how protestantism, drained of its doctrinal particularity, fostered modern capitalism. franklin's "the way to wealth, 1758," which distilled his best thoughts on frugality and industry, illustrated the spirit of capitalism in near classical

purity and simultaneously offers the advantage of being detached from all direct connection to religious belief. for vaber, franklin's virtues were no longer a matter of just obeying god. virtue was also useful and profitable. franklin admonished by his, quote, strict calvinist father about diligence in one's calling, presented money making and success as products of competence and proficiency in a vocation. he grew up in an intense calvinist setting but redirected that zeal towards virtuous labor in a profession, namely, printing. there's a lot to recommend in vaber's portrait. as an adult, franklin touted ethical responsibility, industriousness, and benevolence, even as he

jettisoned christian orthodoxy. many recent scholars have taken franklin at his word by describing him as a deist. he calls himself a deist in his autobiography. that's a decent place to start. others have called him everything from a stone-cold atheist, which is ridiculous, to a man who believed in the, quote, active god of the israelites, the prophets, and the apostles. that's what another scholar says. so deism stands between atheism and christian devotion. other than indicating skepticism about traditional christian doctrine, deism could mean many things in 18th century europe and america. it can mean many things. the beliefs of different deists didn't always sync up. some said they believed in the

bible as originally written. other deists doubted the bible's reliability. some believed that god remained involved in life on earth. others saw god, yes, as the cosmic watch maker, winding up the world and then letting it run on its own and going off somewhere else. deism meant different things to franklin over the course of his long life, too, and he didn't always explain those variant meanings. so i'm not opposed to calling franklin a deist. i do so in my book. but deist doesn't quite capture the texture or trajectory of franklin's beliefs. i gratefully draw from aspects of vaber's analysis and those of many other commentators on franklin's religion in my analysis of him, but adding to the themes of franklin's skepticism and ambivalence, my

book shows how much franklin's personal experiences shaped his religious beliefs, his personal experiences shaped his religious beliefs. like abraham lincoln -- i think. like abraham lincoln, i think's an important comparison to be made here to lincoln. from franklin's early exposure to skeptical writings undermine his confidence in christianity. but books alone could not vase franklin's childhood immersion in puritan piety. his ongoing relationships with evangelical christians made it difficult for him to jettison vocabulary and precepts of traditional faith all together. although his view of providence vacillated, the weight of the american revolution foster add new renewed belief that history had a divine purpose.

franklin and lincoln, both self-educated sons of calvinist parents. both of whom had much of the bible committed to memory. they gravitated toward a vitalized sense of god's role over history as war and constitutional crises wracked america in the 1770s for franklin and the 1860s for lincoln. neither man's beliefs could escape the influence of their daily relationships and stressful experiences. it is difficult to overstate just how deep an imprint is bible itself made on franklin's or on lincoln's mind. or on his ways of speaking and

writing. you all know that even more devout christians today are basically unfamiliar with large sections of the bible, especially in the old testament, and don't know much about current theological debates. franklin knew the bible backward and forward. it framed the way that he spoke and he thought. biblical phrases that he had learned going to church over and ov over, long two-hour sermons sometimes sometimes in puritan churches, biblical phrases are everywhere in his vast body of writings. so even as he embraced religious doubts, the king james bible colored his ideas about morali y morality, human nature and the purpose of life. it served a his most common

source of similes and anecdotes. it's everywhere. he even enjoyed preying on friends' ignorance of scripture in order to play jokes on them. he would show them a passage and say "don't you remember this from the book of genesis?" and they'd say oh, yeah, right. because he'd laugh at them because he knew it wasn't in the book of genesis. he got upset when one of these things got published because then everybody knew about the joke, he couldn't play this joke anymore. franklin once explained the bible saturated environment in which he grew up to the letter of reverend samuel cooper in boston. franklin needed to annotate cooper's sermon with deliberately cal references. this is what he said. rm "it w "it was not necessary in new england where everybody reads the bible and is acquainted with scripture phrases that you

should note the text from which you took them" he told cooper. "but i have observed in england as well as in france that verses and expressions taken from the sacred writings and not known to be such -- in other words you don't give the chapter and verse -- appear very strange and awkward to some readers and i shall take the liberty of marking the quoted text in the margin." now franklin did not need cooper to insert the bible references because franklin knew them by heart. and as a child of the pure tiit franklin immediately recognized bible phrases when he read them, even from obscure sections of the text so the shadow of scripture loomed over his long life. franklin then was a pioneer of a

distinct kind of american religion i'm at the present timed to call an early form of what robert bella called sheilaism. that was the individual religion described in bela's book "habits of the heart" in 1985. and bella's sheilaism, the individual conscience is the stan guard for religious truth, not external authority. but i think franklin's protege tom payne might be a better choice as a founder of sheilaism with payne's declaration in his book "the age of reason" 1794 that "my own mind is my own church." so i think franklin was too tethered to external christian ethics and institutions to be a forerunner of what bella called sheilaism. instead franklin was a pioneer of a related kind of faith and that is what i call doctrineless moralized christianity.

doctrineless moralized christianity. some may debate whether this is actually christianity at all but you all can think about this for yourself. franklin was an experimenter at heart and he tankered with a nov novel form of christianity, one where virtually all beliefs became non-essential. so the pure tins on his childhood focused too much on doctrine, he thought, and he wearied of philadelphians zeal in the mandates of love and charity. for franklin, christianity remained a preeminent resource for virtue but he had no exclusive attachment to christianity as a religious system or as a source of salvation. in franklin's estimation we

cannot know for certain whether doctrines such as god's trinitarian nature are true, but we do know, franklin said, that christians and the devout of all faiths are called to benevolence and selfless service. doctrinal strife he said is not only futile but it undermines the mandate of virtue but we know that god calls us all to do good. now if you haven't noticed, dock trainless christianity and doctrineless religion is pervasive in america today. we see it in major media figures of self-help, spirituality and success, such as oprah winfrey. houston megachurch pastor joel osteen and the late steven covey, author of "seven habits of highly effective people" in 1999. although they differ on

specifics and some are more christian, some are less christian, the common message of these authors and their countless followers -- and i do mean countless followers -- is that a life of love, service and significance is the best life of all. god will help you live that kind of life, but your faith should be empowering and tolerant rather than fractious and nitpicking. that's what they say. sociology christian smith at notre dame says this characteristically american beliefs is moralistic therapeutic deism. many of its most prominent exponents, such as joel osteen, live out their faith in particular congregations and traditions. even oprah winfrey has testified that "i am a christian, that is my faith. however" she says "i'm not

asking you to be a christian. if you want to be one i can show you how but it is not required. "doctrineless christians agree people may need to believe in doctrines and our personal understanding of god can help us. we may need particular believes to enable our best life now in joel osteen's phrase but ultimately the focus of doctrineless christianity is a life of good works, resiliency and generosity now. faith helps us to embody discipline benevolent success in this life. that's what god wants for us. well, today it's kind of easy to dismiss this sort of pop faith because it's so often peddled by wealthy media superstars but it is, i think, america's most common code of spirituality and for franklin when you go back to

the 18th century, doctrineless moralized christianity was serious intellectual business. it was very serious. born out of contemporary religious debates and dissatisfaction with his family's pure tinnisitanism, li skeptics, franklin was weary of 300 years of fighting over the legacy of the protestant reformation. much of that fighting concerned church authority and particular doctrines. franklin grew up in a world of intractable conflict between catholics and protestants but also between protestant denominations themselves. what good was christianity, he wondered, if it precipitated pettiness, persecution and violence? unlike some self-help celebrities today franklin and his cohort of european and american deists reckoned that in

promoting a doctrineless ethics focused christianity tlrn redeeming christianity itself. how successful that redemptive effort was, you are going to have to decide for yourself. could you really have a non-exclusive doctrinally minimal morality-centered christianity? or did the effort fatally compromise christianity itself? franklin, to. mass jefferson and many of their friends in america, britain and france wanted to give it a try. 13 years after franklin's death jefferson wrote he considers himself "a christian" in the only sense jesus wished anyone to be. he admired jesus' moral doctrines as more pure and perfect than any other philosophers, jefferson said.

but to jefferson yjesus' excellent was only human. he never claimed to be anything else. christians including authors of the new testament books imposed the claims of divinity on jesus after he had gone to his grave and not risen again, jefferson concluded. well, franklin didn't go as far as jefferson. franklin preferred not to dogmatize on one way or the other. in a classic tension that still marks american religion right now, franklin's devout parents, his sister jane and the reverend george whitfield all found doctrineless christianity to be dangerous. yes they agreed morality was essential and yes it was better not to fight over minor theological issues but true belief in jesus was necessary

for salvation. to the puritans and evangelicals jesus was fully god and fully man. doubting that truth put your soul in jeopardy. jesus had made the way for sinners to be saved through his atoning death and miraculous resurrection. it wasn't enough to just emulate jesus' life, as important as that was. moral than a moral teacher, y jesus was lord and savior so honoring christ required belief in doctrinal truth. franklin wasn't sure about that. perhaps the puritans and presbyterians of his youth had gotten it wrong. perhaps he was the one getting back to jesus' original teachings. but he was sure that doing good was the grant point. for most of his life, franklin

had traditional christian inquirers, especially family and friends who asked him about the state of his beliefs. and the state of his soul. as i've said among the most consistent of those inquirers were his sister jane and george whitfield. in the last few weeks of franklin's life, however, one more inquirer came on the stage. franklin had known yale college president ezra styles ever since yale granted franklin an honorary masters degree in 1753. styles, a congregationalist minister and a broad-minded calvinist realized that franklin was near death. "you have merited and received all the honors of the republic of letters and are going to a world where all sublynn their glories will be lost in the

glories of immortality" styles wrote to him. but styles paused. would it be impertinent of him to ask about franklin's belief in christ? "as much as i know of dr. franklin," styles confessed "i have not an idea of his religious sentiments. i wish to know the opinion of my venerable friend concerning jesus of nazareth." styles adored franklin but he still wished franklin would have clear title to "that happy immortality which i believe jesus alone has purchased for the virtuous and truly good of every religious denomination." franklin respected styles and so five weeks before his death, five weeks before his death he penned a response. it's absolutely precious that we have this. and he asked styles to keep it

confidential. apparently he didn't since we're talking about it here. "you desire to know something of my religion. it is the first time i have been questioned upon it" franklin wrote. which is just simply not true. i don't know why he said that, because his parents, his sister, george whitfield and others have been asked it about him all his life. he said "i do not take your curiosity amiss and shall endeavor in a few words to gratify it" he wrote. "here is my creed. i believe in one god, creator of the universe, that he governs it by his providence, that he ought to be worshiped, that the most acceptable service we can render to him is doing good to his other children. that the soul of man is immortal and will be treated with justice

in another life respecting its conduct in this." so at the end of his life franklin was a providentialist, a believer in the duties of worship and benevolence, and he expected god would rule in a final judgment. so pretty good. then he continued. "as to jesus of nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, i think the system of morals and his religion as he left them to us the best the world ever saw or is likely to see." franklin wrote. but he still had doubts. "i apprehend christ's teachings have received various corrupting changes." in other words, he's not sure that he can trust what the new testament says about jesus' life

and teachings. corrupting changes. "and i have some doubts as to his divinity. though it is a question i do not dogmatize upon." there's that word again, "having never studied it." franklin never doubted how admiral christ's moral teachings were, he just didn't know if he could accept the new testament's doctrinal claims about jesus. franklin thought "it needless to busy myself with it now when i expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble." there he goes joking again, right? he knows he's going to be dead soon and he's going to go and he's going to find out whether he was right or not. so in this life he just wasn't sure whether he could know the

truth about christ, the bible, salvation. but he was going to find out soon. in spite of his qualms about traditional christianity, he saw "no harm, however, in it being believed if that belief has the good consequence, as its probably has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed." so you can believe if you want but for franklin, the point was never just belief but virtuous action. oralized christianity. "i shall only add respecting myself" he concluded his letter to styles "that having experienced the goodness of that being in conducting me prosperously through a long life i have no doubt of its c continuance in the next, though without the smallest conceit of

meriting such goodness." god has always been good to him, franklin said, and he saw no reason to think that god's kindness would stop when he died. and die he did. on april 17, 1790. and he left when he died, he left the enigma of his faith unresolved. but in his coat of doctrineless moralized christianity, franklin became the founding father of perhaps the most pervasive kind of spirituality in the western world today. thank you very much. [ applause ] joining us tonight when

american history tv is in prime time. our focus will be the museum of the bible in washington, d.c. which held a symposium on the bible and the founding of america. we'll also hear from baylor university professor thomas kidd on benjamin franklin's faith. american history tv is in prime time beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span 3. tonight, book tv is in prime time with a look at military biographies. retired lieutenant general daniel bulger interviews former defense secretary chuck hagel and his brother tom who are the focus of his book "our year of war." then it's retired u.s. army captain flo groberg on his book "eight seconds of courage." then jerry yellen recalls his bombing missions over japan in his book "the last fighter pilot." then later author max boot is interviewed about his book "the road not taken."

book tv all this week in prime time on c-span 2. and join us tonight for remarks from vice president mike pence. he spoke at the conservative political action committee's annual gathering here in the washington area. you can watch his full speech tonight, 8:00 p.m. eastern on hour companion network c-span. sunday on c-span's q&a, duke divinity school assistant professor and prosperity gospel scholar kate bowler talks about her memoir "everything happens for a reason" reflecting on being diagnosed with stage four colon cancer at the age of 35. >> i felt the presence of god. i felt the love of other people, just people pouring in, the intense -- all the intense prayers. i mean, the second i got sick, my whole little community got together in a chapel and just prayed like marathon runners for me, like handing off throughout my whole surgery. part of it was them reflecting

back to me love and also was just the sense that, like, my hope is that as you're preparing to die like i was having to make preparations that someone or something meets you there and i certainly felt that way. >> q&a, sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. monday on c-span's "land mark cases," we'll look at the supreme court case mccullough v. maryland, a case that solidify's the federal government's ability to take action not written in the constitution. explore this case and the high court's ruling with university of virginia associate law professor farah peterson and mark kilnbeck and author of "mcculloch v. maryland" on c-span, cspan.org, or listen with the free c-span radio app.

and for background on each case, order a copy of the "landmark cases" companion book. it's available for $8.95 at copley square sp c-span.org/landmarkcases. for nearly 20 years, in-depth of book tv has featured the nation's best-known non-fiction writers for live conversations about their books. this year as a special project we're featuring best-selling fiction writers for our monthly program in-depth fiction edition. join us live, sunday, march 4 at noon eastern with jeff shaara whose novel "gods and generals" was made into a motion picture. his other books include "the final storm" "to the last man" and 11 more novels that recount the military history of america from the american revolution to the korean war.

we'll take your phone calls, tweets and facebook messages. our special series in-depth fiction edition with author jeff shaara, live noon on march 4. vanderbilt university divinity professor james byrd talked a test ban trea ed ed ab the founding fathers. he argued the bible was influential on the founders' decision for war, regardless of whether they believe it was the word of god. this talk was part of the symposium hosted by the museum of the bible in washington, d.c. it's 45 minutes. our third session today is the bible and the american revolution with james byrd. in this presentation based on his latest book, james byrd shows that the bible was a key text of the american revolution when were came to the colonies, preachers and patriots alike turned the