Historian examines the connections between evangelicals and constitutional originalism

Stanford Ph.D. candidate and former trial attorney Austin Lee Steelman delivered a lecture titled “American Scripture: The Long Evangelical Struggle for a Literal Bible and an Originalist Constitution” on May 3 in the Pruyne Lecture Hall.

The lecture was sponsored by the religion department and explored the long-standing connection between evangelical Christianity and constitutional originalism – the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted in the context of the time in which it was adopted. Steelman explained how Donald Trump’s decisions to sell a “God Bless the USA Bible” and appoint Supreme Court justices who advocate originalism were intended to appeal to right-wing Christians.

Steelman’s academic focus is on the intertwining of political and religious conservatism in 20th century America. His dissertation, which will soon be published in book form, examines the close ties between evangelicals and originalism. It also explores originalism’s historical ties to the Christian doctrine of biblical inerrancy, a belief that the Bible is free from error, scientifically and historically. Steelman also has experience as a lawyer; he returned to academia shortly after Trump’s election in 2016.

The lecture began with a month-old clip of former President Trump selling a Bible with the original words of the Constitution. “Religion and Christianity are the biggest things missing in this country,” Trump said. “I think this is one of the biggest problems we have. That is why our country is in disarray.”

For Steelman, the video encapsulated the need to trace the connection between the Bible and the Constitution in the minds of many religious conservatives.

The history behind this political move began in the summer of 1985, when Attorney General Edward Meese gave a speech to the American Bar Association in which he advocated a return to the original intentions of the Constitution’s framers, the interpretive style that would become known become as originalism. Meese’s approach gave hope to the evangelical community, which has been losing court cases for decades over issues such as segregation, interracial marriage and abortion.

For evangelicals, constitutional originalism could be used to defend their practices against “sins” such as racial integration and to argue that “the separation of church and state has once again gone too far and beyond what the Founders intended,” Steelman said.

In 2019, Trump honored Meese with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. This was a clear indication that the former president’s political strategy was to use constitutional debates to attract religious voters, Steelman explained.

Steelman emphasized that although originalism has never been widely accepted among legal scholars, it has achieved great political success.

“An important fact about originalism… is that it never wins in America’s elite law schools,” Steelman said. “What matters about making originalism influential in American law is not how many law students and legal scholars believe in it, but how many American voters vote for candidates who promise to appoint originalists.”

Thus, for many scholars in academia, the composition of the Supreme Court is strangely unrepresentative of the legal community. Rather, it leans clearly towards legal theories related to religious fundamentalism. Steelman explained that this originalist tendency is due to the fact that American evangelicals are so important to the Republican Party – and that the Supreme Court is so important to them.

Audience members said the lecture contributed to their understanding of evangelical thinking and their influence on politics.

“The evangelical worldview offers you an ideological meeting space. That worldview is built on Biblical inerrancy, which is really interesting,” says Eva Shimkus ’27.