make you free. there are other similar texts. they love to quote this. in my readings, these are more about christian liberty or spiritual liberty than political liberty. it is interesting this debate over if the use of this text was appropriate in the 18th century. there are those that say not so fast, that is not about clinical liberty. disking from loyalist ministers who called out these patriots for their misuse or misappropriation of the language of liberty. there would have been a back- and-forth, is it appropriate to use this language of liberty which is more about spiritual matters than about political matters in these political pamphlets. the response to hear from patriots is i think god's understanding of liberty is that it will incorporate

political liberty even though we might appreciate it more about the spiritual. this is an ongoing debate even at that time. i think a more consequential debate is the one dr. byrd mentioned. how do we deal with romance 28 -- romans. they favor independence. each will call the other side out. you are misinterpreting this text. you think it will help your political cause. there was a lively debate between loyalists and patriots over what exactly does romans 13, what does that mean? you can understand why that is a lively debate because it goes to the legitimacy of those

suggesting we should repel against england -- rebel against england. it is a heated conversation we find. it is over the proper interpretation of scripture. we could be misappropriating to advance a political objective of the moment. >> thank you. what either of you care to elaborate on that?>> i perk up, we're talking about the sounding period here, when someone loses something because of their commitment to follow what the bible says. you have someone in your hands committed to the scripture. my favorite example is a presbyterian pastor in savannah, called john struble who was a delegate to the first continental congress from

georgia. he was is bothered is anybody about the taxes in terms about his authority in the colonies. in 1775 and 76, when he saw the trend was heading towards independence and revolution, rather than just resistance, he said we can't do that as christians. we cannot rise up against the government because of these reasons. i do not think that argument is a lock. i do not know what my position would have been, if i would have been a patriot or a loyalist. he resigned from the continental congress and became a loyalist. he opposed violent revolution and lost everything he had. he had to live in a swamp in south carolina for a while. he lost his church and property and everything. why?

because he was acting in accordance with his conscience and what he saw going on in 1 peter and romans. he is right about that interpretation. that is a good time. you see instances like that where people act according to their conscience, even to the point of great personal loss. i find those examples inspiring. it's like today, a lot of times, at the time of the founding, you have people using the scripture as window dressing. they are not being insincere but they are not paying a price of conscience to fight the bible for this or that purpose. what that tells us is the bible is the coin of the realm. it is the language everybody knew how to speak.>> part of

what is fascinating about this to me, the history of interpretation of scripture, if you think about it, various people across time in various places and positions, over time , read this text so people who do not have much in common meet together across time over romans 13 or some other text. it is fascinating to see how people read it. how they interpret it on their context and situation. in part, it is easy for us to say, of course the loyalists will interpret romans 13 to enforce their position because they are being selfish because they are trying to find ammunition to support the position. perhaps, we all read from our position in a certain situation. they look at scripture for guidance and they meditate on

scripture, not everyone, but a lot of people did. they looked to find where they were in the story. i think it was natural in some cases for people to see their side. it's easy for us to condemn that reading. i think we have to do it as we do any other situation in history, we have to look at it from their point of view and think about it. it is fascinating to see the other side of the same text and how others can read the same text. sometimes both arguments seem pretty good. i think this is where the bible's history and the history of the interpretation of the bible gives so much to us. in part, it gives us insight into the people we are studying. i don't know how many times i would be reading, i knew a little bit about the bible, i would read a primary or secondary source, a historian's

take on something, there were biblically -- biblical references that historians did not recognize. this is an interesting insight. maybe it was genesis. i think it gives us insight into the people we are studying because it was important and a part of their lives. it gives us insight into just the scripture and how deep the text can be and how multifaceted . >> very interesting. this question is addressed to all speakers. please reflect on religion and masonry and of the founders including franklin, george washington, and other founders. >> i get asked this a lot. ben franklin was a freemason. many of the major founders were freemasons. that has remained a controversial subject through present day.

i think for franklin, his membership in the masons was significant. he does not talk about it a lot. some people would say it is because it was a secret society and you are not supposed to talk about it. i don't get the sense that for most of his life, it was not a central issue for him. i don't think that masons in the mid-1700s were quite as controversial. it became later on in american history. they were minimal. it fits along with franklin's overall support. they were minimally doctrinal and focused on service and benevolence. it is the epitome of the religion of the enlightenment. it's men fellow shipping over

issues of how to do the most good in society. it was also a social plug for them. this is the great era of the social clubs. and coffeehouses and taverns and sociability. when franklin went to france, he connected with masons there. for a short time, he and voltaire were the same members of the lodge. they had the same connections. i see it as being representative of a time of fairly elite and social clubs that had religious overtones. they don't argue about doctrine. >> i think that is well stated. i don't have anything to add. >> dr. kidd, this question is

for you, can you give examples of how the bible influenced franklin's writing? >> i mainly cited episodes where it would show up, filters the bible. you were talking about the bible showing up and not even knowing. i have to admit that happened to me a few times with franklin. it was omnipresent, i would either not notice even though i tried to read the bible every day as a believer. there were things going over my head. one of my favorite examples is a passage that franklin cited in his pamphlet, plain truth which is one of the very first political pamphlets in american history. i think it was 1750s.

it's about the pennsylvania militia and the quakers. it's not important to get into the details, he is pushing for raising a pennsylvania militia. one of the arguments he makes is based on, the expedition of the daanites in judges 15. >> i had to remind myself of this. without going into the details, it was the basic point of not being prepared and being deceived. some of these themes. he thought it was like thomas paine -- payne and common sense. franklin was thinking the people in philadelphia will instantly see the relevance of judges 18 because they know it

and understand the point he is trying to make. i thought this is a lost world of biblical literacy that i don't even have. even as someone who tries to go to church and stay up with the bible and so forth. they are so biblically literate, it goes over your head sometimes. that only tells you again how literate franklin is in the stricture -- scripture. it also shows more importantly, how literate the culture is. it is true in philadelphia and boston and parts of the south.>> we have a few seconds left, would anyone like to make a closing remark or comment about today? >> i will add to what was just said. let's not forget this was a literate culture quite apart from biblical literacy. one of the reasons why it was

such a literate culture was because they read the bible. it was an ideal tool for teaching literacy. it was profoundly useful in literacy education. this would be a generation raised learning how to read with a bible in front of them. that's why they would have known so much about these stories from scripture.>> thank you very much. please join me in thanking dr. kidd , dr. kidd, and dr. dreisbach. outstanding job. thank you. we have a few remarks. we will release our speakers to go sit at their table for book signings. thank you, gentlemen. we have there books for sale at the back of the room if you would like to purchase them. right now i woul

c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. coming up on c-span3's "american history tv." we continue our look at the bible and the founding of america. up next, baylor university professor thomas kidd talks about benjamin franklin's faith and the role it played in his life. c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you.

coming up friday morning, the goldwater institutes starly coleman discusses right to try medications that would allow terminally ill patients to receive medications not approved by the fda. heartland president and ceo talks about cpac tax reform, climate and energy policy and drug availability. and vice president of the national education association becky pringle on the recent school shooting and president trump's proposal to arm teachers and school staff to prevent shooting. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" live friday morning at 7:00 eastern. join the discussion. next, a conversation about benjamin franklin's faith. baylor university history professor thomas kidd argued franklin's skepticism to writings undermined his

confidence in christian. this event was part of a symposium hosted by the museum of the bible in washington, d.c. >> good morning, everyone, and welcome to museum of the bible. i'm kay penniger and i'm the director of museum education. we're delighted you join us today for our february program speakers. our program consists of three sessions 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's guided debates, shaped political -- 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 that we all use to the music, the arts and literature. and today we'll 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 dreisbeck and dr. james byrd who will talk with us about how the bible influenced the generation. the aenigma of benjamin franklin's faith with thomas kidd. benjamin franklin tells us in his autobiography he became a diest as a young man. 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 his well-known skepticism and the enduring influence of his puritan upbringing on his familiarity with the boibl. thomas kidd is a distinguished professor of history at baylor university. he's the author of "benjamin franklin: the religious life of a founding father" please join me in welcoming dr. kidd. [ applause ] >> well, 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. it's 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 who are joining us online or on tv.

it's great to be here. i do want to talk to you today about the enigma of benjamin 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. virginia's 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, 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 hither to once thought of humbly applying to the father of lights to illuminate our understandings? if they continue to ignore god, he said, our projects will be confounded and we ourselves shall become a reproach down to future ages. this man who called himself a diest now insisted that delegates should ask good for wisdom. this was strange. because classic diests did not

believe that god interfered 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 diest was this man calling on americans 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 washington as chair himself if a storm had not kept him home for the opening day of the meeting. the son of boston puritans had come a long way to get to that philadelphia meeting hall. in late spring of 1787, he exchanged letters with his beloved sister jane who was an evangelical christian and the sibling who maintained the longest correspondence with and the deepened influence on franklin. they reminisced about their humble beginnings as the children of a candle maker. she 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 deviivine 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 can 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, but he did offer occasional comments, seeking to steer the delegates toward a successful conclusion. but 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 of politicians' 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 ave list, the love of power and the love of money. placed before the eyes of such men, a post of honors that at the same time shall 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 1821, franklin reminded delegates that the best rulers were men hating c -- own 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 also 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 inherent 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, and he had become ever more certain that god oversaw human affairs. franklin was convinced that providence has shepparded americans through crisis. it was foolishness not to call on god again. he reminded them of the early days of the war when the patriots prayed, off in that same room, for god's help. at its best, faith inculcated public spiritedness and it suffocated selfishness. good had led them to the point where they could now frame the best possible government. and have we now forgotten that powerful friend, he asked.

citing psalm 127, they labor in vain that build it. furthermore, he declared, i firmly believe this. i believe without he his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of babble. 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. and 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 and virginia's edwin

randolph proposed 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, though, delegates seemed uninterested in arranging for prayers. some someone pointed out that 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, reportedly questioned the propriety of calling in foreign aid. so the motion fizzled. and franklin was exasperated. jotting a note at the bottom of his prayer speech that, quote, the convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary. well, 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 the small states. if representation was proportioned according to population, quote, the small states contend their liberties will be in danger. if inequality 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. so draw 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. and 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 constitution. he saw this species of 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 longing to they're that their councils had been confounded, quote, like those to the

builders of babble. he returns repeated to the story of the building of babble from genesis. the convention needed to present a unified front as the constitution went out for ratification. multiple forms of government could work well when administered by virtuous people anyway. according to an often 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 ingenuous, mischievous -- he's journalistic, scientific and

political achievements are clear but what of ben franklin's religion? was franklin defined by his youthful embrace of deism? his longtime friendship with george whitfield. his work with thomas jefferson on the declaration of independence. of its creator and nature's god. or his insistence on prayer at the convention. when you add franklin's propensity for joking about serious matters, he becomes even more difficult to pin down. regarding franklin's chameleon-like religion, john adams once remarked, quote, the catholics thought him almost a catholic. the church of england claimed him as one of them. the presbyterians thought him half a presbyterian and the

friends believed him a wet quaker, which basically means a quake who are is not so well-behaved. the key i think to understanding franklin's ambivalent faith is the create between the skepticism of his adult life and the indelible imprint of his childhood puritanism. 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 traditional faith kept him from getting too far away. he would stretch his moral indoctrinal tether to the breaking point. by the end of a trip he made to london. when he returned to philadelphia in 1776, he resolved to kmorm

closely to his parents' ethical cold and steered away from extreme diesm. could he create a christianity centered on virtue rather than tradition 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 and the revivalist george whitfield that all was well with his soul? he would have more success in time convincing his sister than convincing george whitfield. when he ran away from boston as a teenager, when he ran away -- from boston to philadelphia, he also ran away from boston's calvinism. but 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 noncommittal 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 weims have found ways to mold franklin into a faithful believer. weims opined that, quote, franklin's extraordinary be

nerve lens in useful life were imbibed even unconsciously from the gospel. there is something to this notion of christianity's unconscious effect on franklin, but weims 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 the classic study the prodistant ethic. he was a near perfect example of

ho of-fostered modern capitalism. franklin's "the way to wealth" which distilled his best thoughts on frugality and industry. 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 useful and profitable. franklin admonished by his strict calvinist father about diligence in one's calling presented money make and success as products of competence and proficiency in a vocation. vaber's franklin grew up in an

intense calvinist setting but redirected that zeal towards a virtuous labor, printing. franklin touted ethical responsibility as an adult, industriousness and benevolence even as he rejected christian orthodoxy. many have taken franklin at his word for describing him as a deist. he calls himself a deist in his auto biography. that's a good place to start. others have called him things from a, quote, stone-cold atheist, which is ridiculous, he's not an atheist. believed in the active god of the israelites, the prophets and the apostles.

between atheism and christian devotion. but 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 police chiefs of different deists didn't always sync up. some said that they believed in the bible as originally written. other deists doubted the bible's reliability. sompt deists believed that good remained in life on earth. others saw god, yes, as the cosmic watch maker, winding up the world and letting it go 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. i'm not opposed to calling

franklin a deist and i do so in my book, but deist doesn't quite capture the trajectory of franklin's beliefs. a gratefully draw from aspects of vaber's analysis 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 there is an important comparison to be made here to lincoln. franklin's early exposure to skeptical writings undermined his confidence in christianity. but books alone could not erase franklin's childhood immersing in puritan piety. his ongoing relationships with evangelical christians made it

difficult for him to jettison the vocabulary and precepts of traditional faith altogether. although his view of providence vacillated, the weight of the american revolution fostered a 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, gravitated toward a revitalized sense of god's role over history as war and constitutional crises racked america in the 1770s for franklin, in 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 the bible itself made on franklin's or on lincoln's mind or on his ways of speaking and writing. you all know that even many 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 over long two-hour sermons sometimes and puritan churches,

multiple times a week. so 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 morality, human nature and the purpose of life. it served as his most common source of simplies 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, oh, don't you remember this from the book of genesis. oh, right. he would laugh at them because he knew it wasn't in the book of genesis. he got really upset when one of these things got published because then people knew about the joke. he couldn't play the joke anymore. franklin once explained the bible-saturated environment in a letter to the reverend samuel cooper of boston. franklin was arranging for the

publication of one of cooper's sermons in europe but franklin needed to an tate the sermon with biblical references. this is what he said. quote, 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 therefore in my addition take the liberty of marking the quoted texts 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 puritans, franklin immediately recognized

bible phrases when he read them. even from obscurer sections of the text. so the shadow of scripture loomed over his long life. franklin then was a pioneer i think of a distinctly kind of american -- distinct kind of american religion. i'm tempted to call it an early form of what robert bella called sheilaism, which was the individualist religion described in the book "habits of the heart: 1985s. if you haven't heard of this, the individual conscience is the standard for religious truth, not any external authority. but i think that 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, quote, 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 kind of related faith, and that is what i call 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 tinkered with a novel form of christianity, one where virtually all beliefs became nonessential. nonessential. so the puritans of his childhood focused too much on doctrine, he thought, and he we'ried of philadelphia presbyterians' zeal and the presbyterians' lack of

interest as he perceived it in the mandates of love and charity. for franklin, christianity remained a preeminent resource for virtual out but -- virtue but he had attachment to christian 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 franklin said christians and the -- called to be nerve lens in service. it's not only few tile but it undermines the mandate of virtue, but we know that god calls us all to do good. now, if you hadn't noticed, doctrineless christianity and religion is utterly pervasive in america today. we see it most commonly in major

media foilings of self-help, spirituality and success. such as oprah winfrey. in a different vein, houston megachurch pastor joel osteen. although they differ on specifics and some more 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. sociologist at notre dame says these characteristically american beliefs amounts to what he calls 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, quote, 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 believe that people may need to believe in doctrines or personal understanding of god can help us. we may need particular beliefs to enable our best life now, 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