A new edition of former U.S. president Thomas Jefferson’s Bible has been introduced in the literary world. The American Humanist Association has published their own, highly edited version of The Jefferson Bible, called A Jefferson Bible for the 21st Century, to reflect a humanist perspective, and distributed electronic and paperback copies of it to all incoming members of the U.S. Congress, as well as the president himself. For ordained pastors in the Universal Life Church, the AHA’s gesture poses some difficult questions about separation of church and state.

To be sure, the new edition of the book, which was funded with a grant from the Steifel Freethought Foundation, marks a significant departure from traditional religious texts. The original edition was handcrafted with a razor blade and paste pot by Jefferson, who omitted accounts of miracles, which he viewed as supernatural myth, leaving the moral teachings of Jesus intact. In the AHA’s edition, however, included the best and worst passages from various religions, from Christianity to Islam and Buddhism. Teachings which promoted peace and love were praised, while those which promoted violence and prejudice were criticized, while the Humanist Manifesto was included as an addendum. Naturally, most people who become an ordained minister in the ULC can appreciate the organization’s attempt at interfaith dialogue.

Nevertheless, this modern-day humanist edition of Jefferson’s Bible, which was already humanist in its own time, has had a mixed reception. Sam Rohrer, president of the evangelical Pennsylvania Pastors Network, has denounced the book as “just another way that a small minority of atheists is attempting to re-write American history, deny the existence of God and build a society based solely on the humanist religion”, but these sorts of exaggerated claims deserve the scrutiny of those who get ordained online in churches which embrace secular perspectives. How is a humanist analysis of religious texts “re-writing” American history? With the exception of the Book of Mormon, none of the texts examined have anything to do with the United States. Moreover, how does it constitute a denial of the existence of God? And how does it promote “a society based solely on the humanist religion”? Rohrer offers no evidence to support his claims–only empty appeals to emotion.

Despite this criticism from religious leaders, the AHA expects Congress and the President to reflect on their humanist interpretation of the text. But should the organization be peddling religious texts to politicians in the first place? On one hand, it could be criticized for trying to insinuate religion into government, which stands in direct conflict with both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as well as the principles of online churches like the ULC, yet on the other hand, it is forcing Congress members to critically examine a variety of religious texts from a fair and rational standpoint, which would seem to fall in line with the church’s interfaith mission. For Universal Life Church ministers, it is a delicate balancing act.

The American Humanist Association’s expanded version of Jefferson’s classic Bible is a much needed critical analysis of religious texts in a world characterized by blind religious fanaticism. It could be argued that the organization’s attempts to “spread the word” among U.S. politicians borders on proselytizing, but it could also be argued the group presents a neutral, balanced, impartial critique of various world religions from a rationalist viewpoint, without promoting one religion over another. Give us your thoughts as a Universal Life Church minister. Is the AHA’s Jefferson Bible campaign a good idea?