The Jon Rowe Archives

2012-02-29T18:12:00.000-05:00

George Marsden and David Barton Recently Worked on a Book Together:

Marsden is one of the co-authors of "The Search For Christian America." The book with Barton is a debate book on Christian America. The book was published in 2011. I'll have to get and read it hopefully soon.

2012-02-28T16:09:00.007-05:00

The Search For Christian America:

I finally got the book. I'm well aware of the arguments as many of the scholars whose works I read and value -- Gregg Frazer, John Fea, Jon Meacham, Steven Waldman, among others -- reference that book and its arguments. Gregg Frazer's PhD thesis especially.

I haven't finished the book yet; but from what I've read, I strongly recommend it. But not without qualification. The book's claims deserve to be scrutinized just as the authors scrutinize "Christian America" claims.

The book's thesis as the authors write on page 17:

We feel that a careful study of the facts of history shows that early America does not deserve to be considered uniquely, distinctly or even predominately Christian, if we mean by the word "Christian" a state of society reflecting the ideals presented in Scripture. There is no lost golden age to which American Christians may return. ...

Their understanding of "Christian" is tightly wound in a theological sense. But the book's chief target is evangelicals who define "Christianity" as something more meaningful than "weak generic" Christendom. As the authors note, "[a]lmost everything in Western culture from the late Roman Empire until about 1800 was 'Christian' in this sense." (p. 30.)

Years ago when I was discussing on my blogs whether the political theology of the American Founding -- although it often presented itself as "rational Christianity" -- deserved the label "Christian," a clever commenter asked whether America was founded on a "Christian heresy."

Although the authors of the book do not believe America's Founding political theology merits the label "Christian," their thesis fits with the "Christian heresy" understanding.

Their thoughts on Winthrop's Massachusetts remind me of the The Simpsons' Founding of the town of Springfield episode that joked the town was founded when "a fiercely determined band of pioneers leaves Maryland after misinterpreting a passage in the bible. Their destination, New Sodom." The Puritians thought Massachusetts was an exhalted "New Israel." But the authors claim this a clear case of "mistaken identity" as they put it. (p. 36.) The authors assert Roger Williams' Rhode Island represented the more authentically Christian understanding of government.

But here is where the authors use their authoritative discretion to choose what counts as authentic ideal Christianity, what counts as error. Though, many of the things the authors count as "un-Christian" and consequently put in the "bad" box were arguably part of historic normative Christianity. Religious persecution, chattel slavery, and the deplorable treatment of American Indians are used to solidify the case for an "un-Christian" America. Yet these things were done by Christians in the name of Christianity. Roger Williams who comes out of history smelling better than John Winthrop arguably held more novel and eccentric positions than Winthrop. I'm trying not to "judge," but it seems to me that Winthrop's illiberality was more normatively Christian for the time and context than Williams' liberality that ultimately prevailed in liberal democratic America (and in Western Christendom as a whole).

The authors have been tarred as "liberals" intent on "revising" the record. While I can't say for sure, I don't believe they are either political OR theological liberals. And, in the book, they promote, in addition to Williams, Jonathan Edwards and Samuel Hopkins as model biblical thinkers. They were hardly liberals. And even though Williams' politics were radically liberal for his time, his theology that informed his politics was, ironically, fanatically fundamentalist. Indeed it was America's Founders -- from Washington to Jefferson to Hamilton -- who tended to be theological liberals and consequently not authentically Christian enough. Rather they were the humanists of their day. Albeit theistic/religious humanists.

John Witherspoon was an evangelical Christian. But in his personal theology. When it came to politics -- his Lectures on Moral Philosophy -- he was a naturalist and a (Scottish) Enlightenment rationalist, hardly a "model for Christian political thought." (p. 93.)

On the American Revolution, it violated Romans 13 and otherwise "was not a 'just war' as traditionally defined by the Church, and hence ... was not worthy of unqualified Christian support. ... [Further], the patriots were so hypocritical that they forfeited whatever Christian approval their theoretical justifications might otherwise merit." (p. 95.)

The charged "hypocrisy," you could guess, relates to the patriots' practice of slavery and treatment of the Indians.

I know this is contentious stuff! But it's well worth serious consideration.

2012-02-27T15:06:00.000-05:00

The Humanist on the Jefferson Bible:

Check it out here.

A taste:

Jefferson wrote, “I am a real Christian, that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” He called Christ’s teachings “the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.” He urged “getting back to the plain and unsophisticated precepts of Christ.” He suggested that the defeat of Napoleon “proves that we have a god in heaven.” In his first inaugural address, he invoked the blessings of “that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe.” In his second inaugural address, he sought the blessings “of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life.”

Want to prove that Jefferson was a militant secularist? That’s easy, too.

Jefferson wrote that “Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God.” He called the writers of the New Testament “ignorant, unlettered men” who produced “superstitions, fanaticisms, and fabrications.” He called the Apostle Paul the “first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.” He dismissed the concept of the Trinity as “mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” He believed that the clergy used religion as a “mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves” and that “in every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.” And he wrote in a letter to John Adams that “the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

2012-02-25T17:07:00.001-05:00

Ups And Downs For John Fea This Week:

Congratulations to John Fea for being selected as a finalist for the George Washington Book prize. You can read about it here, here, and here.

The down: The Glenn Beck crowd went nuts reacting to this article that (accurately) notes Barack Obama, judged by his words as Presidents, may be one of the most explicitly "Christian" American Presidents. BHO is certainly far more rhetorically Christian than the early Founding American Presidents (certainly more than either Presidents Washington and Madison).

And this crowd especially should be wary of casting the "who is a 'real Christian'?" stone given Beck's Mormonism.

2012-02-21T10:19:00.000-05:00

Thomas S. Kidd on the Faiths of Lincoln and Washington:

Here. One word: enigmatic.

2012-02-21T09:48:00.002-05:00

Another Story on the Jefferson Bible:

Here.

2012-02-19T11:24:00.000-05:00

How Should We Understand Violence In The Good Book?

Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan. "Patrick Allitt reviews Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can’t Ignore the Bible’s Violent Verses by Philip Jenkins:"

Early figures in Christian history approached the genocidal passages in different ways. Marcion, leader of a highly influential Christian movement of the second century AD, argued that the God of the Old Testament, capricious, brutal, and violent, was the antithesis of the God of Jesus in the New Testament. His own proposed version of the Bible omitted the Old Testament completely. So, a century later, did that of Mani, founder of the Manicheans, who thought of divine history as a great battle between light and darkness and denied that the New Testament fulfilled prophecies made in the Old.

Arguing against the Marcionites and the Manicheans, some of the Church Fathers, including Origen and Augustine, denied that the genocidal passages should be taken literally. In Origen’s view they should be read metaphorically or spiritually so that the Canaanites or Amalekites were not actual groups of people, deserving of death, but the tendency to sin in every human heart, against which we should make perpetual war.

2012-02-18T16:51:00.002-05:00

Isaac Newton's Bible Codes:

Isaac Newton was one of those British unitarian Enlightenment Christians who greatly influenced America's Founders. Interestingly, he believed in Bible codes as this story explains. Also interestingly, he saw the existence of such as part of his "scientific" enterprise.

2012-02-18T11:53:00.000-05:00

Benjamin Franklin and the American Enlightenment:

By Dr. Richard Beeman, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Professor of American History, University of Pennsylvania

I found this neat article here.

A taste:

In turning Franklin into a caricature, we obscure the substance of his contributions to what historians have termed “the Age of Enlightenment,” which was, in reality, not so much an “age” as an “impulse,” fuelled by a heightened sense of optimism about the ability of men and women to use their rational powers not only to understand the laws of the universe, but also to devise means by which to use those laws for the betterment of mankind.

Franklin’s contributions to enlightenment thought far transcended the boundaries of his own country: his reputation as a scientist and as a philosopher was, deservedly, an international one. Yet we must not, in our urge to free Franklin from the baggage associated with his image as “typical American,” divorce him entirely from his American upbringing and experience. Despite the fact that he spent nearly 27 years of his life outside the boundaries of North America, his temperament and habit of mind were shaped in countless ways by the natural landscape and social structure of America. The extraordinary novelty and variety in that landscape would give to Franklin, in common with many other American enlightenment figures a sharpened sense of empirical observation and induction: the more open-ended social structure of eighteenth century America encouraged in Franklin an optimism about humanly-created institutions - be they legislatures or fire companies or colleges – that citizens of European societies, more heavily encumbered by tradition, would have found difficult to share. Perhaps more important, Franklin’s own life experiences and accomplishments would serve as models – as he wished them to do – for countless Americans both in his age and in subsequent generations.

2012-02-18T10:53:00.001-05:00

Tea with Simon Critchley: The Separation of Church and State Is Impossible:

Here is the article. Here is the book.

The way I understand the book's thesis, it has to do with political-theology -- the old saying politics is theology applied. You don't need any kind of traditional or orthodox understanding of the faith. Rather, Rousseau's civil religion or ceremonial deism will do. But the "system" has to have some kind of divine trump.

A taste:

The religious conservatives are right: there is a theology behind the American political system—only it isn’t Christianity. It’s deism, the faith most closely associated with the Enlightenment, which professes, as Critchley puts it, that “there’s a God, but a God that doesn’t do party tricks.” Even if no one calls himself a deist anymore, it lives on it the political systems that the Enlightenment inspired—especially our own. Liberal democracy, Critchley argues, is simply the political form of deism. Natural law and natural rights, so central to the American creed, are fundamentally theological concepts. Thomas Jefferson may have been a freethinking, Bible-revising iconoclast, but he wasn’t just being figurative when he wrote, in the Declaration of Independence, that such rights are endowed by a Creator; that’s what deists believe. And even without prayer in schools, the deist creed is coded into every national ritual we have, from the courtroom to the ballpark.

Is there any way to participate in politics without getting religious? “I don’t think it should even be an aspiration,” Critchley told me. “If you look at a counterexample, the problem with the European Union is that it doesn’t have those rituals. It tried to bind a polity together through a constitution, but it was so weak. There’s been a total failure to craft something like a European identity—the problem hasn’t even been recognized. So we’re left with a unity which is simply monetary. And that seems to be screwed.”

I'm not sure if I would call it "deism" as opposed to "generic monotheism." As I have come to learn the civil religion or political theology of the American Founding is an uber-eccumenical generic monotheism where among others, Jews, Christians, Muslims and un-converted Great Spirit believing Native Americans all worship the same monotheistic God. AND further, much of what has been termed "deism" from this era is actually Providential, heterodox (non-Trinitarian) "Christianity." (I put "Christianity" in quotes because, to some, non-Trinitarianism and "Christianity" are mutually exclusive concepts.)

2012-02-15T18:29:00.000-05:00

James R. Rogers On Mitt Romney’s Constitutional Theology:

Very interesting article that details how Mormonism (unlike orthodox Christianity) believes as a matter of official doctrine that America's Founding documents and their promotion of republicanism and political liberty are divinely inspired.

2012-02-12T16:45:00.000-05:00

Petition of the Philadelphia Synagogue to Council of Censors of Pennsylvania:

I've been meaning to post this for some time. We've seen that PA's original 1776 state constitution contains a clause requiring certain public officials to swear belief in the divine inspiration of the Old and New Testament. Christian nationalists often cite that clause as a smoking gun. But then we learn in 1790, under the direction of acting governor Ben Franklin (who noted he himself couldn't pass the test because he didn't believe the entire Old Testament was divinely inspired!), PA removed and replaced the offending clause with one that required belief in "the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments,..."

Guess who else had a problem with PA's original religious test? Jewish people who didn't believe in the divine inspiration of the New Testament. You can read their complaints here.

A taste:

That by the tenth section of the Frame of Government of this Commonwealth, it is ordered that each member of the general assembly of representatives of the freemen of Pennsylvania, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe a declaration, which ends in these words, "I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the old and new Testament to be given by divine inspiration," to which is added an assurance, that "no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this state."

Your memorialists beg leave to observe, that this clause seems to limit the civil rights of your citizens to one very special article of the creed; whereas by the second paragraph of the declaration of the rights of the inhabitants, it is asserted without any other limitation than the professing the existence of God, in plain words, "that no man who acknowledges the being of a God can be justly deprived or abridged of any civil rights as a citizen on account of his religious sentiments." But certainly this religious test deprives the Jews of the most eminent rights of freemen, solemnly ascertained to all men who are not professed Atheists.

2012-02-11T13:31:00.004-05:00

General v. Particular:

In philosophical parlance they often say "universal v. particular." It seems to me this presents not only a problem with interpreting texts but renders one "correct" interpretation impossible. This isn't to say that anything goes. It would be a non-sequitur to so conclude. As it were, rules of philosophy/logic (like that of the non-sequitur!) must be adhered to and facts, respected. But among smart folks who argue well (that is, those who make the fewest errors in fact or logic) competing narratives that contradict one another nonetheless emerge.

What got me thinking on this was Ray Soller's comment that seeks to limit Mark 12:17 to a very limited specific context. Now, Ray may be right on how this text ought to be so understood; but that hasn't stopped folks from interpreting it in a more general sense. Potential examples from the Bible -- and many other notable texts -- abound endlessly. The texts themselves often help point to proper contexts. But also often, certainly, with the Bible, the texts don't teach "one" proper interpretation. Were that true, there wouldn't be so many Protestant sects.

We've spent a lot of time arguing whether Romans 13 is absolute (if it is, then the American revolution was un-biblical and sinful). The text of the Bible clearly supports this reading (insofar as Romans 13 refers to submission to government as opposed to mere obedience; other competing texts of the Bible make a rule that teaches absolute obedience to government not plausible as the Bible teaches sometimes you have to obey God not man). But other readings are plausible.

Do biblical prohibitions against homicide apply to matters of abortion, capital punishment, self defense, or foreign wars? Everyone agrees exceptions exist to "don't kill." Smart folks debate whether the Bible absolutely prohibits lying or permits righteous deception. (In addition to biblical texts, there is the reductio ad absurdum, "what would you do if you lived in Nazi Germany and the Nazi's asked you whether you were hiding Jewish people in your attic?" and you in fact were.)

What about the texts of the Bible that seemingly approve of genocide and slavery? No sane person today defends genocide or slavery; so if one wants to defend the Bible but not the texts that seem to teach God was okay with or demanded these, then limit the offending texts in the strictest way possible. On the other hand, seeking a "good" interpretation of the Bible, we'll take principles that were enunciated in specific context and "extend" them in a more general sense. The Golden Rule is certainly a great principle, and a "good" interpretation of the Bible will render it as broad as possible. Imago Dei, very broadly understood, certainly works wonders for human rights.

Yet, certain texts of the Bible seemingly suggest certain (perhaps many, perhaps the vast majority of) humans, whether they were made in the image of God are children of the devil, irresistibly damned and that God hates them. (No the Westboro Baptist Church didn't just make that stuff up; Calvinism is mainly to blame for this.) These would support the pro-slavery, pro-genocide interpretations of the Bible, which are plausible textual interpretations.

Richard Dawkins' God of the Bible is Fred Phelps' God.

2012-02-10T16:33:00.001-05:00

Sandefur on Due Process at Cato:

Since I've linked to this topic before, this series may be quite interesting. As usual, keep a sharp eye for arguments from the American Founding and philosophies that influenced it.

2012-02-10T10:42:00.001-05:00

David Barton Gets Kirk Cameron:

It looks like I'm going to be busy for quite some time. David Barton isn't backing down but ~~hiring~~ getting Kirk Cameron to spread Christian nationalism. Cameron notes he wants it to be a "movement." If you've seen his "Way of the Master" videos, you'll note Cameron has a very strict view on what it means to be a "Christian." Accordingly a great deal of the "Founding Fathers," though they weren't strict deists and did think of themselves as "Christians" in some sense were not "Christians" according to Cameron's strict spiritual standards.

Likewise a lot of Cameron's "Christians" from the colonial era -- the Puritans, for instance -- did indefensible things like executing Quakers, banning Roger Williams and having laws on the books that demanded the death penalty for among other things worshipping false gods.

2012-02-09T19:21:00.000-05:00

More Obama The Christian:

Read his remarks here. He was far more explicitly Christian in his remarks than the Founding era Presidents. Indeed, as this Reason article notes, Obama is as explicitly Christian in Presidential remarks as his predecessor George W. Bush.

2012-02-09T19:03:00.001-05:00

John Barry's Roger Williams the State of the American Soul:

Hat tip John Fea. Roger Williams is timely once again (I think he'll always be timely). This is the Amazon link to Barry's book. And here is Barry's LA Times article on the matter.

2012-02-07T10:20:00.003-05:00

The Bible Usury and Debt:

Since this blog deals with how Christian morality impacts American law I'll touch on this story. There is debate as to who -- the Christian Left or the Christian Right (or even Christian libertarians) -- best represents the Bible's politics. These aren't easy questions and I'm not convinced any of the sides are "right." I'm certainly not convinced that Jesus' admonishment to feed the poor demands socialized medicine or redistributionist economics.

There are a couple modest positions I've concluded are so clear that they are beyond debate. One is the Bible is anti-usury and arguably teaches, like Islam, the charging of ANY interest (even a "good" rate for borrowers) is a sin. Therefore, if it's a good idea to write biblical teachings into the law or otherwise have the law reflect and not seem inconsistent with biblical morality, high interest loans are immoral and ought to be illegal. Arguably there should be no interest charged on loans. That represents a huge tension between free market capitalism and what the Bible teaches.

The second non-debatable point is that the Bible is radically pro-debtor. David Skeel, law professor at Penn and whom I had at Temple, seems one of the few notable right of center Christian academics who consistently trumpets a pro-debtor tune (to the chagrin of bondholders everywhere).

The anti-usury, pro-debtor stance of the Bible, it seems to me, are two areas where the Christian Left is more biblical than the Christian Right.

Though, I have concluded that the Bible/Christian religion is, at its heart, a-political and compatible with virtually any political system. It's not just Romans 13 (which we've discussed at great length), but also -- and more importantly -- Mark 12:17. When Jesus said "Render Unto Caesar" he didn't refer to the noble Stoic Roman republicans, but rather to the ignoble imperial Roman tyrants.

2012-02-05T16:32:00.000-05:00

Mormonism & America's Civil Religion:

In this passage J K.A. Smith highlights a tension between orthodox Christianity and America's Civil Religion:

Some of us Christians have a hard time reconciling the Almighty, all-powerful, law-giving God of liberty with the crucified suffering servant born in a barn and executed at the hands of the elite. Some of us are trying to figure out what it means to be a people who follow one who relinquished his rights rather than asserted them, who considered submission a higher value than freedom. We serve a God-man who wasn’t concerned with “preserving leadership” and the hegemony of the empire’s gospel of freedom, but rather was crushed by its machinations for proclaiming and embodying another gospel.

As I've noted many times before it's precisely because of Mormonism's unorthodox nature (and because of when and where it was founded) that such better "fits" with America's Founding political theology than does orthodox Christianity.

2012-02-04T14:08:00.000-05:00

David Rosman's Christian Nation Book:

Here are two links on a new, perhaps notable Christian Nation controversy book.

2012-02-02T22:25:00.002-05:00

Slavery: America's Original Sin?

From Thomas Kidd here.

2012-01-30T22:07:00.001-05:00

Gregg Frazer's Book:

As John Fea noted, Dr. Gregg Frazer has a new book coming out, published by University Press of Kansas. It is based on his much discussed PhD thesis. I plan to much discuss the book when it comes out. And, cross your fingers, I may be involved in a very cool public event on this book in late spring/early summer.

2012-01-26T20:08:00.003-05:00

Gary Cass Contradicts Himself:

Ed Brayton makes a point I/we have been hammering for years. If you want to claim Mormons aren't Christians because they deny the Trinity/gospel of grace as Cass does, fine. Just don't then claim America's Founders as "Christians." Certainly NOT the Declaration of Independence whose three principle authors were theological unitarians.

2012-01-22T09:56:00.000-05:00

James Wilson & the Scottish Enlightenment:

Keeping with our James Wilson theme, I just found this what looks to be very cool article from U. Penn. on James Wilson. I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

2012-01-20T20:58:00.002-05:00

Craig Fehrman Refutes David Barton on Jefferson:

In the LA Times here.

2012-01-20T20:32:00.000-05:00

Three New Posts from Throckmorton Debunking Barton:

The first is Did Thomas Jefferson give the Jefferson Bible to missionaries?; the second is Did Thomas Jefferson found the Virginia Bible Society?; and the third is Is the Jefferson Bible just the words of Jesus?

2012-01-18T21:11:00.000-05:00

Church and State: A Humanist View by Vern L. Bullough:

Here. A taste:

There have been two conflicting traditions in the United States about the relationship between church and state. The first is exemplified by the holiday of Thanksgiving, which emphasizes the religious foundation of the United States. The Pilgrim fathers set out in the New World not only to worship as they wanted but to establish God's kingdom. They had the truth and all others were wrong; church and state were one. The second tradition comes from the time of the writing of the American Constitution, when our deistic, freethinking Founding Fathers (no mothers) embodied in the Constitution the principle of separation of church and state.

The conflict between the two traditions should be obvious, and it was neatly finessed by our Constitution makers by more or less ignoring what states did. Although technically the last established religion was eliminated in 1833 in Massachusetts, the lack of an established religion did not mean real separation of church and state. States later admitted to the union had to adopt statutes about religious freedom, but, since most Americans nominally came from a European Christian background, religious observances played an important role in American history. One current example is the delivering of a prayer that opens up Congress, a practice that Free Inquiry's editor, Paul Kurtz, attempted to stop by a lawsuit, which he lost.

I was never more struck by the contradictions in our concepts of separation of church and state than when I lived in so-called emancipated New York State. I appeared several times in court in New York as an expert witness, and each time I was required to swear an oath on the Bible to tell the truth so help me God. I objected to the attorneys for whom I was testifying but they asked me not to call attention to the issue since it could negatively affect their client. I complied. In the university at which I taught in New York, the commencement ceremonies were opened and closed with prayers, although there was a real effort by the clergy doing the invocation and benediction to keep their remarks general and platitudinous. Most secular schools in the United States have Christmas and Easter breaks, although the Easter break is somewhat less common than it was a few years ago. The most secular school I attended was the University of Chicago, at one time a Baptist school, which ignored religious holidays of all kinds but did have its quarter session usually end about December 22.

2012-01-18T09:37:00.000-05:00

Mormonism Obsessed with Christ:

From Stephen H. Webb at First Things.

A taste:

After all, what gives Christianity its identity is its commitment to the divinity of Jesus Christ. And on that ground Mormons are more Christian than many mainstream Christians who do not take seriously the astounding claim that Jesus is the Son of God.

Mormonism is obsessed with Christ, and everything that it teaches is meant to awaken, encourage, and expand faith in him. It adds to the plural but coherent portrait of Jesus that emerges from the four gospels in a way, I am convinced, that does not significantly damage or deface that portrait.

2012-01-16T17:12:00.000-05:00

MLK, Aquinas, & James Wilson:

William Allen of Michigan State University ties them together here.

A taste:

We define civil rights in the context of the founding of the United States Constitution, and in many respects they are best understood in that light. The first place in which to find that context is the Declaration of Independence, which declares the meaning of civil rights.[1] Secondly, we have the best indigenous articulation of civil rights from that founding father who also best explained the relation between civil rights and natural law: James Wilson. Thirdly, reviewing illustrative Supreme Court defenses of civil rights can quickly reveal how far the decisions of the justices were regulated so as to tie advances in civil rights to an advance in understanding natural law (even for persons who would disavow reliance upon natural law). Finally, the seminal statement of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” clearly expresses the fundamental ground of equality identified by James Wilson (and the Declaration of Independence) as essential to civil rights; it also invokes the entire sweep of Western reflection on the meaning of justice in such a way as to show the pursuit of civil rights as nothing less than perfecting civil relations in light of natural law.

2012-01-13T11:23:00.001-05:00

Sandefur on Substantive Due Process and Milton:

Timothy Sandefur has a new article out in Harvard-JLPP arguing the case FOR substantive due process on philosophical and originalist grounds. It is not, he argues, something judges just made up.

He has a fascinating passage on John Milton. Milton was a notable Whig thinker who greatly influenced America's Founders and whose influences has been much neglected.

From JOHN MILTON, The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates in THE STUDENT’S MILTON
758 (Frank Allen Patterson ed., rev. ed. 1936) (1650):

[T]o say kings are accountable to none but God, is the overturning of all law and government. For if they may refuse to give account, then all covenants made with them at coronation, all oaths are in vain, and mere mockeries; all laws which they swear to keep, made to no purpose: for if the king fear not God (as how many of them do not,) we hold then our lives and estates by the tenure of his mere grace and mercy, as from a god, not a mortal magistrate; a position that none but court parasites or men besotted would maintain! Aristotle, therefore, whom we commonly allow for one of the best interpreters of nature and morality, writes in the fourth of his Politics, chap. x. that “monarchy unaccountable is the worst sort of tyranny; and least of all to be endured by free‐born men.”

And surely no Christian prince . . . would arrogate so unreasonably above human condition, or derogate so basely from a whole nation of men, his brethren, as if for him only subsisting, and to serve his glory, valuing them in comparison of his own brute will and pleasure no more than so many beasts, or vermin under his feet, not to be reasoned with, but to be trod on . . . .

2012-01-10T19:01:00.006-05:00

New-Old Article By Me:

Some time back (2004 or 05 I think), I submitted this article to Liberty Magazine, no not THAT Liberty Magazine which also published me, but the one affiliated with the Adventists.

Well they finally published it. My name is "Jon" not "John" and I no longer teach at Philadelphia University. But I can't complain because they did publish it and I did get paid. And they gave me complimentary copies. For these things I will forever be grateful.

On the subject of the article, you are just going to have to read it. What's interesting is to see how my views have changed in years since. I agree with the thrust of what I wrote. However, I no longer think the God of the Declaration was as strictly deistic as Walter Berns (whom I cite) asserts. I still believe the DOI's God is not necessarily the God of the Bible. It could be. But the DOI's God is more Providential or theistic than Berns intimates. The DOI's God, I have come to believe, is the God of generic monotheism, the one that, as much as possible, is all things to all people. It could be the Triniarian God, a non-Trinitarian biblical God (if that's not a contradiction in terms) the Jehovah of the Jewish people who inspired the Old but not the New Testament, a Providential Deist God, Allah, the Mormon God, the Native Americans' Great Spirit, etc.

On the other hand this is what I cited from Walter Berns:

"The God invoked there is 'nature's God,' not, or arguably not, the God of the Bible, not the God whom, today, 43 percent of Americans . . . claim regularly to worship on the Sabbath. Nature's God issues no commands. No one can fall from his grace, and, therefore, no one has reason to pray to him asking for his forgiveness. He makes no promises. On the contrary, he endowed us with 'certain inalienable rights,' then left us alone, and with the knowledge, or at least the confidence, that he will never interfere in our affairs. Moreover, he is not a jealous God; he allows us—in fact, he endows us with the right—to worship other gods or even no god at all."

I think the DOI's God could be Berns' God. His description does have the barest degree of Providentialism to it. However, it's not necessarily or arguably this God.

2012-01-10T11:33:00.000-05:00

John Quincy Adams on Protestantism & the French Revolution:

I caught this while reading JQA's letter to his mother dated January 9, 1816 (I added paragraph breaks for clarity):

.... Dr. Price was duped by the goodness and simplicity of his heart, by the enthusiasm of his love for liberty, and by his ignorance of the world in which he lived. His ardent zeal in favor of the French Revolution has shed a sort of ridicule upon his reputation, and his opinions upon that and some other subjects have been so completely falsified by events which have happened since his death, that his very name is sinking into oblivion.

Indeed the Dissenters in this country have fallen much into contempt since his time. Their political and religious doctrines have a tide equally strong running against them; and their conduct, which at one time swelled into seditious insolence, and at another sunk into fawning servility, has thrown them into such discredit, that the church may now, if they please, persecute them with impunity. They attempted here a few weeks since to make a stir about the real persecution under which the Protestants are suffering in the south of France. They held meetings, and passed high sounding resolutions, and opened subscriptions, and sent deputations to his Majesty's ministers, and buzzed about their importance, as busily and intrusively as so many horse-flies in dog-days.

His Majesty's ministers put off their deputation with general, insignificant civilities, which they met again, and resolved to give highly satisfactory assurances of support and interference in behalf of French Protestants. His Majesty's ministers then set their daily newspapers to circulate the report that Protestants in France were all Jacobins, and that if they were massacred, and had their churches burnt, their houses pulled down over their heads, it was not for their religion but for their politics.

From that moment Master Bull has had neither compassion nor compunction for the French Protestants. The Dissenters by a rare notion of stupidity and Jesuitism (for there are Jesuits of all denominations) have denied the fact, and vainly attempted to suppress the evidence that proved it; of stupidity for not perceiving that this must ultimately be proved against them, and of Jesuitism for contesting the fact against their better knowledge, because they could produce Protestant invectives against Bonaparte after his fall, and Protestant adulation to Louis 18 after his restoration.

The French Protestants, like the English Dissenters, have been throughout the course of the French Revolution generally time-servers. Like the mongrel brood of Babylonians and Samaritans after the Assyrian captivity, their political worship has been after "the manner of the God of the land." They have feared the Lord and served their graven images. They hated Bonaparte, no doubt, in proportion as they found themselves galled by his yoke, and they had no gratitude for the protection and security which his authority gave them for the free exercise of their religion and the quiet enjoyment of their property.

But the Protestants had unquestionably been from the first ardent supporters and exaggerated friends of the revolution. It was indeed natural enough that they should be, for the revolution had redeemed them from a worse than Egyptian thraldom. My father well remembers from personal knowledge what was the condition of the Protestants in France before the revolution, and in what sort of sentiments concerning them and their religion all the Bourbons were educated.

The revolution gave them equal religious and political rights with those of the rest of their countrymen. They had been twenty years freely and eagerly purchasing the national property, and among the rest, it appears, had purchased two of the old convents at Nismes, and used them for churches. Yet they joined in the hue and cry against Napoleon after he was down. Yet they fawned upon the Bourbons, when from the shoulders of the enemies of France they were turned off upon them, and licked the dust at the feet of Louis le Desire. As if tythes, and monks, and barefoot processions, and legends, and relics, and religious bigotry, had not been the darling and only consolations of Louis and his Bourbons in their exile, and would not inevitably bring back religious intolerance with them.

Now, this is the foundation upon which the Dissenters here have relied, to deny that the present persecution of the French Protestants has been for politics. But now comes a letter from the Duke of Wellington, formally announcing that it was for politics, and henceforth, instead of whining, and resolving, and subscribing for the French Protestants, the churchmen here, if the coal of the Angouleme fires were extinguished, would lend him a fagot to kindle them again. The Duke of Wellington says, too, that he is convinced the French government have done all in their power to protect the Protestants. This is not so certain. But whether they have or not, is held to be perfectly immaterial. The French Protestants were Jacobins or Bonapartists—nothing more just and proper than that they should be hunted down as wild beasts. At the same time, the ministerial prints are teeming with reproaches upon two of the king's sons for having lately attended at a charity sermon preached in a Methodist chapel, and giving broad hints that the church must be strengthened against the Dissenters.

I'm not sure if I would categorize the FR as a "Protestant" event, but Protestantism certainly fueled its flames.

2012-01-06T15:26:00.002-05:00

John Quincy Adams Defends small o orthodox small c catholic Christianity to his father:

I've posted numerous times the quotation of the elder John Adams to JQA defending unitarianism. For context, I'll post it again below:

We Unitarians, one of whom I have had the Honour to be, for more than sixty Years, do not indulge our Malignity in profane Cursing and Swearing, against you Calvinists; one of whom I know not how long you have been. You and I, once saw Calvin and Arius, on the Plafond of the Cathedral of St. John the Second in Spain roasting in the Flames of Hell. We Unitarians do not delight in thinking that Plato and Cicero, Tacitus Quintilian Plyny and even Diderot, are sweltering under the scalding drops of divine Vengeance, for all Eternity.

-- John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816.

The quotation indicates that, apparently, John Quincy Adams had embraced a Calvinistic form of orthodox Christianity. I'm less well read in JQA's religion; I've seen that he vacillated between unitarianism and orthodoxy for much of his adult life. I'm not sure where he ended up at death. In 1816, he seemed to be in the orthodox camp.

With that, let us observe JQA defending, to HIS father, orthodox Trinitarianism. We also see JQA defending the small c catholicism of the Christian Church. This is important. Catholicism simply means "universal." The Bible talks about Christ's "Church." As it were, the notion of a "catholic Church" is entirely biblical, and for that reason accepted by the vast majority of evangelicals/reformed Christians. They just don't believe that the Church whose Bishop of Rome is the Pope heads said Church.

All of the orthodox creeds, the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasian invoke the "catholic" church, though some translation might not use that term, but rather opt for "universal" or simply "Christian" before "church."

But do keep this (small c catholic = universal church = orthodox Trinitarian) not only reading JQA's sentiments to his father, but for the sake of context in these matters in general.

Dated, January 5, 1816:

My Dear Sir:

I plainly perceive that you are not to be converted, even by the eloquence of Massillon, to the Athanasian creed. But when you recommend to me Carlostad, and Scheffmacher, and Priestley, and Waterland, and Clerk, and Beausobre—Mercy! mercy! what can a blind man do to be saved by unitarianism, if he must read all this to understand his Bible? I went last Christmas day to Ealing Church, and heard the Reverend Colston Carr, the vicar, declare and pronounce, among other things, that whosoever doth not keep the catholic faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is This: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, etc.—in short the creed of Saint Athanasius; which, as you know, the eighth article of the English Church says, may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture. Now I have had many doubts about the Athanasian Creed; but if I read much more controversy about it, I shall finish by faithfully believing it. Mr. Channing says he does not believe, because he cannot comprehend it. Does he comprehend how the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinite, eternal spirit, can be the father of a mortal man, conceived and born of a Virgin? Does he comprehend his own meaning when he speaks of God as the Father, and Christ as the Son? Does he comprehend the possibility according to human reason, of one page in the Bible from the first verse in Genesis to the last verse of the Apocalypse? If he does, I give him joy of his discovery, and wish he would impart it to his fellow Christians. If the Bible is a moral tale, there is no believing in the Trinity. But if it is the rule of faith—

I hope you will not think me in danger of perishing everlastingly, for believing too much, and when you know all, with your aversion to thinking of the Jesuits, you may think I have made a lucky escape, if I do not believe in transubstantiation. During almost the whole period of my late residence in Russia, I had the pleasure of a social and very friendly acquaintance with the Right Reverend Father in God, Thaddeus Brozowsky, then and now Father General of the Jesuits, one of the most respectable, amiable, and venerable men that I have ever known. As I was the medium of communication between him and his correspondents in the United States, he used frequently to call upon me, and I had often occasion to return his visits. We used to converse upon all sorts of topics, and among the rest upon religion. He occasionally manifested a compassionate wish for my conversion to the true Catholic faith, and one day undertook to give me a demonstration of the real presence in the Eucharist. He said it was ingeniously proved in a copperplate print which he had seen, representing Jesus Christ sitting between Luther and Calvin, each of them bearing the wafer of the communion. Each of them had also a label issuing from his lips, and, pointing with the finger to the bread, Christ was saying, "This is my body," while Luther said, "This represents my body," and Calvin, "This signifies my body." At the bottom of the whole was the question, "Which of them speaks the truth?" It was not the worthy Father's fault if I did not consider this demonstration as conclusive as he did. Another day—and it will give you an idea of the simplicity of this good man's heart—we were discussing together the celibacy of the clergy, which he deemed indispensable, that they might be altogether devoted to the service of their Lord and master, and not liable to the avocations of this world's concerns. I did not think it would be generous to remind him of the manner in which the experience of the world had shown that the vows of religious chastity usually resulted, but rather resorted to authority with regard to the principle. I observed to him that not only all the Protestant communities, but the Greek Church also, allowed the clergy to marry. Upon which, after a moment of reflection, he said, "Oui, c'est vrai. II n'y a que l'eglise romaine qui soit encore vierge!" Indeed, you must give me some credit for firmness of character, for withstanding the persuasion of such a patriarch as this.

....

2012-01-05T18:49:00.003-05:00

Enlightenment Deism:

Dr. Joseph Waligore has published online some of his what I see as very important research clarifying what the "Enlightenment Deists" believed in.

A taste:

While almost all scholars continually assert that the God of the Enlightenment deists was a remote, uninvolved, watchmaker God that generated no love or warmth in people, none of these assertions are true. A majority of the deists thought God or the angels performed miracles; many of them prayed fervently to a God they adored; some even went into raptures of ecstasy at God’s wonderful benevolence. Some of them believed God or the angels protected people from danger by putting thoughts into people’s minds warning them of danger. Many believed the devil might perform miracles, and so any possible revelation backed by miracles had to be examined to be sure it was not done by the devil. A significant number of them viewed themselves as sincere Christians who spent their lives explaining where and why orthodox Christianity had strayed from Jesus’ simple message. A few were more interesting or featherbrained (depending on your perspective): one believed an angel had given him the key to interpreting prophecy, another said he received a sign from God to publish his first book, and another believed in reincarnation. Enlightenment deism was not modern secularism, or even a halfway house to it; the deists were preaching a religious alternative to orthodox Christianity that they hoped the world would embrace. Their piety and theology has been neglected, but it is due to our misunderstanding of it and not their theology’s lack of interest or influence on our culture’s intellectual history.

The entire article is worth a careful read. I’m not sure if I am comfortable calling this “Deism”: but Waligore’s point is that many of the folks we think of as “Enlightenment Deists" actually believed THIS. If it's proper to term this Deism, it's certainly a form of "Christian-Deism" as David L. Holmes termed it.

2012-01-02T13:36:00.000-05:00

Trenchard & Gordon on Religion: All Government proved to be instituted by Men, and only to intend the general Good of Men. (Trenchard) (NO. 60. SATURDAY, JANUARY 6, 1722):

America's Founders were Lockeans. But they didn't get their Locke unfiltered. T & G were crucial filters.

See an exerpt here:

Every man's religion is his own; nor can the religion of any man, of what nature or figure soever, be the religion of another man, unless he also chooses it; which action utterly excludes all force, power, or government. Religion can never come without conviction, nor can conviction come from civil authority; religion, which is the fear of God, cannot be subject to power, which is the fear of man. It is a relation between God and our own souls only, and consists in a disposition of mind to obey the will of our great Creator, in the manner which we think most acceptable to him. It is independent upon all human directions, and superior to them; and consequently uncontrollable by external force, which cannot reach the free faculties of the mind, or inform the understanding, much less convince it. Religion therefore, which can never be subject to the jurisdiction of another, can never be alienated to another, or put in his power.

2011-12-30T16:18:00.000-05:00

Hylden on Hart on Christian Nationalism:

Jordan Hylden reviews, for First Things, D. G. Hart's "From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin: Evangelicals and the Betrayal of American Conservatism."

The passage that the title to this blog post describes:

And as Hart shows, their tendency to replace the Church with America led many evangelicals, like best-selling writer Peter Marshall Jr., to embark on a quixotic historical quest for America’s origins as a “Christian nation.” Evangelicals began to churn out an endless stream of books purporting to set forth “God’s plan for America” and a blueprint for “biblical” politics, with precious little attention to the finer points of the American experience or to political theory in general. Their historic optimism and impatience led them to embrace various ill-considered political ventures, like the Moral Majority, that tended to function better as target practice for liberals than as viable political movements.

2011-12-28T17:27:00.001-05:00

Smithsonian Video on the Jefferson Bible:

Below I've embedded an outstanding video from the Smithsonian on the Jefferson Bible:

2011-12-28T17:16:00.002-05:00

David Barton adds to history and the Bible at the same time:

From Warren Throckmorton here.

2011-12-28T14:19:00.002-05:00

God, Government and Roger Williams' Big Idea:

Not just religious liberty, but separation of church and state. Check it this latest article on Williams here.

2011-12-26T15:17:00.000-05:00

GW, Not Whig Enough For Murray Rothbard:

I agree more with the tenor of Brian's post than Murray's. However, it does help to have both sides to put things into critical perspective. By the way, during the Founding era, the criticism against Washington was primarily directed by the Tories. For Murray Rothbard, on the other hand, Washington seemed to be not Whig enough.

2011-12-25T09:28:00.000-05:00

Merry Unitarian Christmas:

The last few Christmas holidays I posted Merry Unitarian Christmas to some raised eyebrows. Well, here is one today from a Unitarian-Universalist minister.

2011-12-23T10:53:00.002-05:00

Do The Three Abrahamic Faiths Worship The Same God?

Interesting article here.

2011-12-23T10:09:00.001-05:00

Was Christmas in Revolutionary America a Drunken Bash?

Fun article from Thomas Kidd here.

2011-12-22T19:46:00.000-05:00

The Economist on the Christian Nation Controversy:

Here. Hat Tip Ben Abbott. A taste:

IN THE year of our Lord 1816 two grand old men of the American Revolution corresponded eagerly about the work they had recently done, in their rural retirement, on the Bible. Ex-President Thomas Jefferson thanked his old friend Charles Thomson, a co-sponsor of the Declaration of Independence, for sending a copy of his newly completed synopsis of the Gospels.

At a time when many modern Americans are arguing feverishly over the real significance of the nation’s religious and political beginnings, such letters can be dynamite. So let the contents of this exchange be noted carefully. Thomson, like most members of the first American Congress, which he had served as secretary, was a committed member of a church—in his case Presbyterian—but he still felt that there might be things in the Bible that organised Christianity hadn’t grasped. So he spent years re-translating the scriptures; the ex-president approved.

2011-12-20T10:30:00.001-05:00

Monotheism & Slavery:

As I prepare to make a deadline for submitting the grades of 18 credits worth of classes (and beginning a new online Winter Session class that started Dec. 19), I don't have time to blog about or discuss this very interesting post from Volokh on how the monotheistic traditions deal with slavery. Check out the comments too.

2011-12-18T14:18:00.000-05:00

Christopher Hitchens RIP:

I wrote a post at American Creation on him and posted a bunch of videos at Facebook.

See also this post at the Volokh Conspiracy where I involved myself in the comment section.

2011-12-13T18:13:00.002-05:00

Is This a Modified Form of Universalism?:

I've heard it claimed by some folks who critizes this theory that it is; but Rod Dreher balks. [Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan.]

I believe Orthodox Christianity is the fullest expression of the true path to salvation, liberation or paradise. But I don’t agree that only Orthodox Christians will find their way to salvation. My view is that God may save anyone, but that if anyone is saved, it is through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and through the mercy of God the Father, who, in his infinite wisdom and compassion, may choose to extend it to those who confessed Christ imperfectly, or who didn’t confess him at all. That, by the way, is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. It’s not the same thing as universalism, which holds that everyone will be saved, no matter what.

Dreher is a convert from Roman Catholicism to capital O Orthodox Christianity. It always helps to clarify terms. Note also that there are Trinitarian Universalists (like Benjamin Rush) who believed, indeed, everyone will be saved (eventually) no matter what, but it will be through Christ's universal (as opposed to limited) atonement.

Finally, Dreher's link interestingly shows a strong majority of folks in America and internationally disagree with the idea that salvation is found ONLY in their religion.

....“My faith or religion is the only true path to salvation, liberation or paradise.” Of people in all the countries polled, the only people who poll over 50 percent agreement are Saudis and Indonesians — and in Saudi Arabia, a stunning 25 percent disagree. In the US, only 32 percent agree with this statement.

2011-12-11T08:55:00.002-05:00

The New England Milton:

I haven't yet read this book but it seems worthwhile. The Founders were influenced by a great many minds and Milton was certainly one. John Locke, Isaac Newton, Samuel Clarke, John Milton -- those are, in my opinion, the "rational Christians" of the early British Whig era who most influenced the Founders. All were also, likely, not religiously correct on matters of orthodoxy or Trinity. But were also closeted about that, giving more orthodox figures, like Timothy Dwight, grounds for "claiming" them. That's one thing I got from gleaning this book -- Milton was one of those figures both sides wanted to claim.

2011-12-07T17:36:00.001-05:00

Paul Gottfried's New Book on Leo Strauss:

Paul Gottfried has long been a cantankerous critic of Leo Strauss'. He has a new book coming out, published by Cambridge, on Strauss and his disciples. Though a bit crankish in his opinions, Dr. Gottfried has solid academic bona fides, and, in my opinion, always something interesting to say.

You can read him write about his new book here.

2011-12-07T17:02:00.000-05:00

Kersch on “Goldilocks” Originalism:

From Ken Kersch at Balkinization here:

One of the most influential of these is what I will call “Goldilocks Originalism.” Conservative “Goldilocks” originalists do not orient themselves (in the first instance) in opposition to “living constitutionalists,” but rather in opposition to secularist, positivist, relativist, liberals and progressives. To these movement originalists, the fatal flaw of their antagonists is not that their constitutional theory leaves judges, in ruling in cases, unrestrained in imposing their politics rather than following the law (though Goldilocks originalists certainly believe that to be the case, and often say so), but rather that that the constitutional theory of their opponents severs the tie between our perpetually besieged nation and the only anchor that will truly hold -- the belief in (a Christian, or Judeo-Christian) God. In this, as they see it, the Founders, and the Founders’ Constitution, are squarely on their side.

The axis of opposition constructed by the conservative movement between those who revere the Founder’s (God-anchored) Constitution, and the secular, relativist, progressives is omnipresent on the contemporary political Right -- at the grassroots, to be sure, but also in a scholarly literature, not written, for the most part, by law professors, but rather by theologians and political theorists. There are three wellsprings of this vein of conservative originalist scholarship: 1) Evangelical Christianity; 2) Catholic Natural Law; and 3) Straussianism. Indeed, a highly ideological originalism that girds itself for battle against Godless secularism and relativism is what holds these three groups – which, historically, had long often been at each other’s throats – together, as compatriots in an effective political coalition.

The orientating axis I have described is evident everywhere in the constitutional thought of influential evangelical conservatives – but I will focus here mainly on the other two wellsprings. Straussian political philosophers – students of the émigré University of Chicago philosopher Leo Strauss (1899-1973) (and students of students, and, now students of students of students) are often taken to be atheists – it is hard to tell, in many cases, for, even if you ask them, given their beliefs about esotericism in philosophy (the threat posed by true philosophers the extant political order), you can’t trust their answers. For our purposes, I will note that one of their animating tropes is the indispensability of reconciling “Athens and Jerusalem” (or, put otherwise, “Reason and Revelation”) in the construction of a just and good political order. In Straussian Harry Jaffa’s highly influential account in Crisis of the House Divided (1959), Abraham Lincoln’s world-historical accomplishment was in doing just that, by incorporating the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence into the U.S. Constitution – thereby redeeming the American Founding, which was all but fatally compromised by its acceptance of chattel slavery. ...

I think Kersch needs to keep in mind that most "Straussians" are not Jaffaite "West Coast Straussians" but rather "East Coast Straussians." They have their own way of articulating "Goldilocks' originalism," but without the Declaration of Independence and its God; they view the DOI's God as certainly not the Christian God or even the Judeo-Christian God, God of the Bible, or what have you. Strauss himself didn't think Athens and Jerusalem could be reconciled. That throws a bit of a monkey wrench into Kersch's narrative.

2011-12-03T11:43:00.003-05:00

Did President Obama Redeem Himself?

With his explicitly Christian Christmas message. I note this after his more secular, godless recent Thanksgiving message that ticked some folks off.

President Obama, as I see it, operates in the political theological tradition of the religious left, Christian-Left ala Cornel West (though as an elected politician, Obama is far more conservative in his policy decisions than they want him to be). They are arguably the heirs to Martin Luther King's political theology. (I won't go there with Bonhoeffer; at least not yet.) In addition to being generously ecumenical, the Christian-Left types, like Obama, seem to flirt with unitarian and universalistic theologies making them like the Jonathan Mayhews of the Founding era.

Is Obama a Christian? Was Jonathan Mayhew a Christian? Are Mormon's Christian? These are all related questions.

2011-12-03T10:07:00.002-05:00

Catherine the Great Rumor:

I heard this growing up and just saw the actress who used to be Blossom repeat it on "The Big Bang Theory." It's not true.

2011-12-03T09:53:00.000-05:00

A Christian Gives Thanks That America Is Not A Christian Nation

From Parker J. Palmer here.

A taste:

These foundation stones of American democracy were laid a century too late to save Mary Dyer's life. Dyer, a middle-aged mother of six, was hanged in 1660 for defying a Puritan law that banned Quakers from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The Christians who cruelly deprived this woman of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness were dead certain (so to speak) that they were on a mission from God, protecting their "divinely ordained" civic order against Mary Dyer's seditious belief in the Inner Light.

As a spiritual descendant of Mary Dyer, I'm profoundly grateful that America is not a Christian nation. If it were, my Quaker convictions might get me into very deep oatmeal. And as a Christian who does his best to take reason as seriously as I take faith, I find it impossible to understand America as a "Christian nation" -- and I believe that there are vibrant possibilities in the fact that it is not.

2011-12-02T14:38:00.000-05:00

Theology is Freaky:

And arguing about it is freakier.

Sometimes I think I'm a freak when I delve into the deep theological waters and try to wrap my mind around these concepts. But when I read the works of great theologians I see they were even freakier. Jonathan Mayhew, the great unitarian heretic who so monumentally influenced America's Founding, for instance.

This is a LONG excerpt of his where he tries to explain his views on the atonement.

If I ever engage in a formal controversy with any person, it shall be with one who appears to me to have both a better head and honester heart than you have discovered in this specimen of your abilities, and your zeal for what you call orthodoxy. Yet I do not think it proper to be entirely silent. Though my sermons need no elaborate, argumentative defence against your impertinent criticisms, yet so much rudeness and insolence, so much misrepresentation and slander, falsehood and forgery, as your libel contains, should not, methinks, be passed over without some animadversions; especially, as it is probable many will read your essay, who never perused my sermons: and it is chiefly for this reason, that I give you and myself the present trouble: my principal aim being not to dispute with, but to chastize and admonish you, for your good, and to make you an example and warning to others. If, in doing this, I shall transiently touch upon the merits of the case, theologically considered, you are not to flatter yourself that I mean to controvert such points with you, whom I consider unworthy to be reasoned with about them, any farther than is requisite to show your dishonesty and wickedness with regard to them.

'If I had really published any materials in point of doctrine, let me tell you, Mr. Cleaveland, that you are a most unsuitable person to undertake a confutation of them, or to set yourself up for an author: though you say you have an undoubted right to do so. I am sensible that British subjects have an undoubted legal right to expose themselves in print, on politics, divinity, or any other subject; and if this is what you insist upon as a privilege, I would not, by any means, have your liberty or that of the press restrained. You speak of divines of indisputable ability, for such an undertaking as that of vindicating the truth against me. Can you, then, possibly think it became you, an obscure .person, lately from another province, and one so unlettered as you are; an outcast from a college to which you were a disgrace; for some time a rambling itinerant, and promoter of disorders and confusion among us, so raw and unstudied in divinity; and one hardly ever heard of among us, but in the frequent reports of your follies, and extravagances; can you possibly think it became you to turn author on this occasion, and take this necessary work out of the hands of able divines, of defending the most important principles of the protestant religion against me? What an unaccountable vanity and infatuation was this! And you have passed an implicit censure on those divines, also, by saying, 'I marvel that some of our divines of great ability, have not attempted to vindicate the truth against him.' Is not this proof that none of our able divines thought there was any occasion for opposition to me?

'If it were my intention to write to you as a scholar, logician, or divine, I would take some notice of the confusion and want of method, so apparent throughout your libel. But it is as much beneath me to play the critic on such a performance, as it would be particularly to expose the vanity of your criticisms on my sermons. Let me here just observe, that if I agree with you in so many things, as you say I do, this is better presumptive evidence that I am under some mistakes, than any which you have produced. For I can hardly suppose it possible for any one to be of your opinion in many points of doctrine, without being in the wrong as to some.

'But I will proceed to the main business of this letter, which is to set your falsehoods and evil surmises respecting my sermons, in some order before your eyes; and to administer the reproof and correction which you deserve; or rather a part of it; for it is only they who hold the sword of public justice can punish wickedness to the extent of its demerits. Your wickedness, in this affair, appears written, as one may say, on your forehead—I mean in your title-page; in which you represent me to the world, as an enemy to ' the most important principles of the protestant religion;' particularly the doctrine of Christ's atonement; and on which you say I cast 'injurious aspersions.' After the word atonement, you indeed insert these clauses, viz., 'as being absolutely necessary to the pardon of sin, consistently with God's infinite rectitude,' that you might have an hole to creep out at But this will not serve your turn. You know in your conscience that I did not deny any necessity of atonement, arising from wisdom, fitness, the ends of government, or the moral character of God; but rather said what implies it, as will appear to your confusion, unless you are past all shame. How then could you have the confidence, because my expressions concerning atonement do not exactly agree with yours, to represent me to the world as casting injurious aspersions on it ?—by which you doubtles intended something beyond a simple denial of it. Indeed, nothing is more manifest, than that it was your intention to asperse me, as an enemy to some of the most important doctrines of the gospel; which you, accordingly, attempt to defend against the supposed 'injurious aspersions' cast on them in my sermons. You must be sensible that this is a high charge to be brought against one, who is, by his station and profession at least, a minister of the gospel. But I have the less reason to be uneasy at your dislike of my sermons, because I think it pretty evident you do not well like the text itself, in its plain and obvious sense; or, in other words, that you do not really believe, 'The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies over all his works.' Had you believed this to be strictly true, I do not think you would have made such an outcry against those sermons.

'You are pleased to say, that my design evidently was to represent the divine goodness in such a light as to show there was no absolute necessity for the sacrifice of Christ, to make atonement, or to satisfy divine justice, in order to God's forgiving the sins of men consistently with his moral goodness.* ["* The scriptures make use of no such language as Christ's satisfying divine justice. But I am not disposed to dispute about words. If they who use the phrase, mean no more by the satisfaction of Christ, than is implied in his sacrifice or atonement, I make no objection to it: but I have asserted the doctrine in my sermons, which have been so outrageously attacked.']

'I might remark, on this charge, that if I had asserted the non-necessity of atonement, or satisfaction, in order to the forgiveness of sins, this would have been no more than some eminent divines have done; even calvinistic divines, whom I suppose you account the most reformed of any. I will refer to only one, the famous Dr. Twisse, who was prolocutor of the assembly of divines at Westminster. And his opinion ought, perhaps, to have almost as much weight as that of Mr. Cleaveland, of Ipswich. In his defence of the doctrines of grace, he says, that 'God can forgive sins by his absolute power, even without satisfaction.' And again, 'That God can forgive sins, without satisfaction, by his absolute power, appears so manifest to me, that I should think it a point beyond all controversy.' And still further, 'If God cannot forgive sin without satisfaction, it is either because he cannot as it respects his power, or as respects justice; but neither of these can be affirmed.'

'It is here manifest, that this eminent calvinistic divine ,was full and positive in his opinion that sin might have been forgiven without any satisfaction; and particularly that the justice of God did not indispensably require it. If I had asserted the same thing, did it become you, I say you, Mr. Cleaveland, to inveigh against me for it, and to load me with so much obloquy? Could you not differ from me in opinion, and yet observe some sort of decency and modesty in your opposition? But let me remind you, that I did not assert the possibility of forgiveness without atonement. So far from it, that the manner in which I expressed myself on the subject, rather implied a moral necessity thereof in order to forgiveness. And surely you will not assert any other kind of necessity; or a natural one, as contradistinguished from moral. At least, I am persuaded that no man who understands what he says, supposes any other. That I denied not such a necessity, but rather supposed it, will fully appear, together with your wilful falsehood and iniquity with reference to it.

'I must notice the method you take to prove that I had the design which you charge on me. You infer this from what I said of divine justice, as a branch of goodness: which opinion you suppose, but without reason, to be inconsistent with the doctrine of atonement. But what an iniquitous method of proceeding is this! On supposition I was mistaken about divine justice, (which I believe no one can show,) is this a sufficient ground to charge me with such a design as you speak of? This is the same kind of dishonesty that it would be in any one to accuse you of atheism, because he supposed some of your principles, pursued to their just consequences, would terminate in it; which probably may be the case. Yet I should think it injurious to charge you with a design to propagate atheism, while you profess the contrary, even though you have shown so little regard to truth and integrity, as you have done in many parts of your libel. One instance of this I must refer to.

'You insinuate that I hold every act of punitive justice in God to be intended for the good of the individual, on whom it terminates. Now would not any one, who never read my sermons, (on the divine goodness,) and took you for an honest man, conclude that I supposed it would be unjust for God to punish a sinner more than would be for his own good? Indeed, you say expressly, that, according to my principles, 'God would not be perfectly good, but cruel, if he should punish sinners any farther than could be for their good, or happiness.'

'Now, are you not ashamed, Mr. Cleaveland, of such prevarication as this? I did, indeed, compare God's acts of punitive justice to those of a wise and good earthly parent, or sovereign, who has always some good or benevolent design in punishing. But I expressly guarded, as you well know, against the supposition that all acts of punitive justice, whether in God or man, are acts of kindness to the suffering individuals. I said, in my sermons, (when speaking of the motive from which a wise and good parent punishes his children,) 'Is it not to reform and do them good; or, at least, with a view to the benefit of his other children, or those of his household, that they may be under due subjection? &c.—So that, in a good parent, there is no such quality as justice, really distinct from goodness; not even in punishing; for it is goodness which gives the blow.' This last clause you dishonestly introduce, as if I had not only used it expressly concerning God, but had thereby intended to assert that he never punishes a sinner but for his own good, in distinction from the public or common. And is not this a wicked, wilful perversion of my evident meaning?

'Speaking, just after, of a wise and good earthly sovereign, I said, 'he does not inflict punishments, but such as he considers needful for the support of his government; if not for the particular good of those who suffer, as in capital cases, yet for the good of his people in general, by way of example and terror, that good order may be preserved. So that, even in this case of capital punishment, the justice of the sovereign is not a quality distinct from goodness. It is goodness, or a regard to the common good, that takes off the head of the traitor,' &c.

2011-12-01T16:38:00.001-05:00

Unitarians and Atonement:

Even in the 19th Century, Unitarians believed in the "Atonement." Again, it's not unlike with Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnessism; in a broad sense they believe in many of the same things as the "orthodox." But when specifically defining terms, they mean irreconcilably different things. The Unitarians did NOT believe Christ as 2nd Person in the Trinity made an infinite Atonement as necessary satisfaction for the infinite penalty cosmic justice demands because man sinned against an infinite God. Rather something else:

ATONEMENT AND RECONCILIATION.

§ 40. Unitarians believe that atonement and reconciliation are the same thing. Both mean a state of union and peace between man and God; the harmony between the Divine justice and Divine mercy; and the substitution of trust toward God and dependence on him, for fear and the dread of his displeasure.

§ 41. Unitarians do not believe that Christ came to reconcile God to man, but to reconcile man to God; not to make God love us, but to reveal his love; not to harmonize his justice and mercy, but to show that they are always in harmony. Christ's death was not a sacrifice made to appease the Divine anger, but it was an expression of the Divine love. Paul says (Rom. viii. 32), "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?"

Hopefully one can now understand how Arians like Jonathan Mayhew, Samuel West and many others from the Founding era could disbelieve in Original Sin, Trinity, and Incarnation but hold to an unorthodox view of the Atonement. Likewise they believed in the Resurrection and even Christ's "divine" nature. Christ was "divine" but created and subordinate to the Father. Lower than God but higher than the highest arch-angel. (So quotations that refer to Christ as "divine" are NOT smoking gun proofs of orthodoxy; rather one must prove the speaker believed Christ God the Son, 2nd Person in the Trinity.)

Update: I probably should have included a Founding era as opposed to a late 19th Century era quotation on unitarians and the atonement. My reasoning was this: Unitarianism seemed to (?) become even more "liberal" as time passed. Therefore IF during the mid-late 19th Cen. they still believed in something they called atonement, it's no stretch to say that many unitarians in the 18th Cen. believed it. Indeed, Jonathan Mayhew, the militant Arian he, went on at great length explaining how he believed in what he understood as the "atonement." You can read him arguing with an orthodox figure who accuses him of denying the atonement. As I understand it, 1. Mayhew clearly says he believes in (and preached) the "atonement," 2. but when explaining just how he understands the doctrine, intimates an "unorthodox" understanding of the "atonement."

I chose the 19th Cen. quotation because it reads clearer than Mayhew's.

2011-12-01T15:51:00.001-05:00

Samuel West Arminian Unitarian:

Key patriotic preacher Samuel West was, according to those who knew him best, an Arminian-Unitarian. As this source notes:

With reference to Dr. West's position on the doctrine of the Trinity, his granddaughter, Mary C. West, of Tiverton, (recently deceased,) wrote in a communication printed in the Evening Standard of this city in March, 1883, as follows: "If his children were competent witnesses (my father and aunt) I can say that they have often told me that their father was an Arminian Unitarian. * * * I have heard my aunt many times tell this story. When she was a little girl her teacher set her to learning a catechism, — I think it was the Westminster, but at any rate it had the Trinitarian formula in it: 'The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.' She was at home studying her lesson in a loud voice, and her father heard her repeating the above formula and called her to him and held up three of his fingers (as she always did when she told the story), and asked her how three could be one, took the book from her and put it in his pocket, and told her to tell her teacher that he would get her another catechism, which he did. I think the one he got her was called 'The Franklin Catechism,' or 'The Franklin Primer."

I've heard it noted that because Rev. West believed Christ as redeemer who made an atonement, that means he was orthodox. Wrong. That's a logical error called a "non-sequitur" -- a conclusion that does not follow from the facts presented. Some unitarians did believe in the resurrected Christ who made an atonement for man. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses believe this. They just hold an unconventional view of these doctrines. This fits perfectly with West's Arianism.

As the same above linked to source notes:

In theology, Dr. West was progressive and liberal. His sympathies with humanity were too quick to make him a good Calvinist. Judged by to-day's standards, much of his writing would seem antiquated. His sermons were largely of the old Biblical and textual type. But judged by his own time he was an Arminian, which was the transition passage to Unitarianism. That is, he asserted free will for man in opposition to Calvin's doctrine of fore-ordination and irreparable election, and man's ability of moral choice in opposition to the doctrine of "total depravity." With regard to Christ his views were more Arian than Athanasian....

2011-12-01T11:28:00.000-05:00

William Livingston's Ecumenical Letter:

Livingston's letter, Sept. 22, 1744, to Rev. Mr. James Sprout, anticipates Thomas Jefferson's 1819 "Apriarians" remark AND Benjamin Rush's 1808 remark on how his faith is "a compound of the orthodoxy and heterodoxy of most of our Christian churches."

Finally, the letter anticipates the notion found in all of the "key Founders'" theological meanderings (Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Franklin) that the test of "true religion" is good works (not necessarily faith in doctrine).

"My dear Sir,

# # # # #'# # #

"I am sorry to hear you are so divided among yourselves with respect to religion, which is plain and simple, and to the meanest capacity intelligible. Every man has a right to think for himself, as he shall answer for himself, and it is unreasonable for me to be angry with any one for being of different principles, as he has the same pretence to quarrel with me. And when we consider that truth is comprised in a small compass, but that error is infinite, we shall not be so positive and dogmatical, to set up for infallibility, and anathematize those of a contrary opinion. There is no sect that come under the denomination of Christians but what pretend to ground their principles on the Holy Scriptures, and consequently all have an equal right to think themselves the best; and if they are heretical in some tenets, in others they are confessedly orthodox. Let us then resemble the bee, that collects the purest nectar out of a diversity of flowers, that we may not quake, but exult, at the second sound of the trumpet, when we shall not be asked of what sect we have been, but be judged according to our works.

I am, &c.

"Wm. Livingston."

2011-11-27T13:56:00.000-05:00

Christianity and Liberty:

By George H. Smith:

A taste:

An atheist is rarely asked to write an essay on “religion’s positive role in society,” but it is fitting that this request came from the Acton Institute. Lord Acton (1834-1902) was a Catholic, a classical liberal, and a great historian who devoted his life to the history of liberty.

Acton always stressed this important truth: No one group or movement, religious or secular, deserves exclusive credit for the theory and evolution of free institutions. All historians should avoid the unpardonable sin of “making history into the proof of their theories.” Instead, the historian should try “to do the best he can for the other side, and to avoid pertinacity or emphasis on his own.”

.... Ironically, Acton’s Catholicism and my atheism give us something in common. In Protestant countries, Catholics and atheists were often lumped together and branded as subversive minorities whose doctrines, if permitted to circulate freely, would jeopardize the core values of a free society.

This “dark myth” was especially popular in seventeenth-century England, where it found adherents even among some of liberalism’s most distinguished founding fathers. John Locke, for example, argued that religious liberty is a “natural right” that should be enjoyed by everyone–except Catholics and atheists. The doctrines of these minorities, Locke believed, are incompatible with the moral foundations of a free society (though for different reasons), so they should be legally suppressed.

Acton attacked this dark myth in two ways. First, he identified minority rights as a defining characteristic of a free society: “The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.” Second, according to Acton, the history of liberty is inextricably linked to the history of minorities:

Read the rest here.

2011-11-27T11:49:00.000-05:00

Religious Toleration Versus Religious Freedom:

A fascinating article by George H. Smith which features topics that interest me and my fellow travelers. A taste:

During the mid-1550s, after Catholicism had been reestablished in England and while Queen Mary—or “Bloody Mary,” as she came to be known—was in the process of burning nearly 300 Protestants in three years, John Philpot, Archdeacon of Winchester, was accused of heresy and thrown in prison. There he had a chance to discuss the fine points of theology with other unfortunate Protestants, one of whom defended the old heresy known as “Arianism”—a general label for any Christian who repudiated the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Philpot was so disgusted by this encounter with a real heretic that he finished off the conversation by spitting on his adversary.

Before Philpot was burned at the stake in 1555, he was able to vindicate his decision to spit on a fellow Protestant martyr. He wrote a tract with a long and lively title: An Apology of John Philpot; written for spitting upon an Arian: with an invective against Arians, the very natural children of Antichrist: with an admonition to all that be faithful in Christ, to beware of them, and of other late sprung heresies, as of the most enemies of the gospel.

Read the rest here.

2011-11-23T12:22:00.001-05:00

History of Christian Deism:

I found the information on this page to be very useful. When we hear "the FFs were all deists" or something along those lines, understand it's simply not true that they 1. were strict deists who believed in an impersonal God, 2. rejected the self identified "Christian" label, and 3. categorically disbelieved in the possibility of a revealing God. Yet the "Christian-Deists" did have issues with things like original sin, Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, eternal damnation, infallibility of the biblical canon (and which books properly included!) and greatly emphasized philosophical reasoning as a means for Truth discovery.

2011-11-22T21:00:00.000-05:00

Contradictions in the Bible Poster:

At the very least this proves the Bible does not "interpret itself" as some claim. You need a super sophisticated hermeneutic to sort all this out. HT: Timothy Sandefur.

2011-11-20T13:33:00.004-05:00

And Bless The People of France!

My post on the enlightenment heterodox Christian apocalyptic case for Dr. Francis Fukuyama's "End of History" thesis brought to mind this post where I mentioned the Arminian-Unitarian Rev. Enos Hitchcock's classic sermon that connected the American and French Revolutions.

As he said:

.... As Americans, we must either renounce that which is our boast and glory, or warmly wish success to the great principles of the French revolution—principles founded on the equal liberty of all men, and the empire of the laws. As rational beings, and as Christians, we should recollect, that from partial evil, it is the glory of the Supreme Ruler to bring forth general good; and that, as inspiration expresseth it, “He makes the wrath of man to praise him; but the remainder of wrath will he restrain.”

The present war in Europe has a further object than the subjugation of France. It is a war of kings and despots, against the dearest rights and the most invaluable privileges of mankind. Should the combined powers succeed against France, and the re-establishment of monarchy there exist among possible events, what security have we, that the same attempt will not be made to restore monarchy in this country? Has not united America led the way? And may she not boast, with an honest pride, of the influence of her example in exciting the attention of many nations to their natural and civil rights? With what freedom of thought—with what enlightened and ardent philanthropy, has she inspired many of the nations of Europe! What would be her condition, if subjugated by the confederates against freedom, we may learn from the state of Poland, lately made free by a voluntary compact with its king; but now subdued by the ferocious power of the north, divided among her jealous neighbours, and the people sold with the soil, like the animals that graze upon it. Let the generous feelings of human nature rise indignant at the abhorrent idea of part of itself being thus degraded. Whatever may be the fate of France in the present contest, the great principles of the revolution will eventually find advocates in every part of the world, even among those who are now most inveterate against the conduct of the French. The doctrines of hereditary powers—of the divine right of kings—of their inviolability, and incapacity to do wrong, are fast declining, and will soon be exploded. They are solecisms of the same nature with their divine right to do wrong; and will, in future, more enlightened and liberal days, be read of with astonishment.

How often doth a hand unobserved shift the scene of the world! The calmest and stillest hour precedes the whirlwind; and it hath thundered in the serenest sky. The monarch hath drawn the chariot of state, in which he had been wont to ride in triumph; or been dragged to a scaffold, by the misguided zeal of his late admirers; and the greatest who ever awed the world, have moralized at the turn of the wheel. Such, O Louis, has been thy untimely fate! At thy urn, let pitying nature drop a sympathetic tear! Cease, thou sanguinary demon, any longer to support thy bloody standard! May the milder genius of true liberty, and more enlightened policy, speedily pervade the councils, and bless the people of France!

2011-11-20T12:56:00.000-05:00

Ed Brayton's Bryan Fischer Award:

From this post:

.... David Barton got the nomination for criticizing someone else for passing on a fake quote from the Founding Fathers when no one in the history of the nation has been responsible for passing on more such fake quotes than David Barton.

See, here’s the difference between David Barton and an intellectually honest person. I criticize him for passing along false quotes. I also criticized the atheist group in California for doing so. And I’ve criticized Christopher Hitchens for claiming that Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were atheists, an absolutely ridiculous position given their voluminous writings on the subject.

And I’ve criticized other atheists and secularists (those aren’t necessarily the same thing, by the way — and I figure I’d better tell you that because you always seem to think that anyone you disagree with must all be wrong in precisely the same way and must be in league with one another) for taking John Adams’ famous “this would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it” line out of context (he was actually saying the exact opposite of that when read in context). That’s what an intellectually honest person does. It is not, of course, what people like you and David Barton do.

2011-11-18T09:39:00.001-05:00

Fukuyama's "The End of History" As Religious Dogma:

Check out John Gray's harsh review in The New Republic.

However it is glossed, the end of history can only be understood as a version of Christian apocalyptic myth. Kojève’s doctoral dissertation was a study of the Russian religious writer Vladimir Solovyov, who in 1899 wrote a book called War, Progress, and the End of History, an apocalyptic vision of the coming century. Whether Fukuyama was aware of Kojève’s debt to Solovyov is unclear, but by appropriating Kojève’s account of global capitalism as a kind of end-time he was reproducing ideas that were shaped as much by Russian religious thought as they were by Hegel’s oracular philosophy.

I have traced the idea of the End of History as a religious theory, or more particularly liberal democracy ENDING history as a religious theory to the Francophile Anglo-American Whig preachers who believed Jesus would return at the triumph of the French Revolution to usher in a millennial republic of liberty, equality and fraternity. The Rev. Joseph Priestley -- admired by Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin -- was probably the quintessential figure who pushed this but there were many others and he wasn't the first. [The earliest figure of whom I am aware is Joseph Dyer, who, according to John Adams pushed something similar in 1750s New England.]

Fukuyama is and was probably aware of these figures. He studied with the Straussians and they in turn are pretty meticulously read in the literature of America's Founding era. The problem is with their controversial understanding of the literature. Liberal democracy, to them, rests on Hobbes' and Locke's atheistic premises. So, to the Straussians, those apocalyptic preachers, with the fanatical zeal of Robespierre, pushed political principles that at their heart were atheistic and materialistic. This in turn, gives Fukuyama and the Straussians an excuse to hand wave away any serious connection between "Christianity" and a universal liberal democracy; hence the need for some kind of complex Hegelian explanation for the phenomenon.

2011-11-17T19:11:00.002-05:00

Now THAT'S A Book I've Got to Read:

I've been reading "A catalogue of the Washington collection in the Boston Athenæum," which describes what books President Washington read, and if he made any comments or wrote any letters about them.

[AMORY, Thomas. Eccentric English writer, 1691 (?)-1788.]

The Life of John Buncle, Esq; containing Various Observations and Reflections, made in several Parts of the World, and many extraordinary Relations. London: printed for J. Johnson and B. Davenport. M.dcc.lxvi. Vol. I. iv, (iii)-ix, (7), 511 pp. Vol. II. (16), 532 pp. 8°.

"The book is a literary curiosity, containing an extraordinary medley of religious and sentimental rhapsodies, descriptions of scenery, and occasional fragments of apparently genuine autobiography. 'The soul of Rabelais,' says Hazlitt, ' passed into John (Thomas) Amory.' The phrase is suggested by Amory's rollicking love adventures. He marries seven wives in the two volumes of Buncle, generally after a day's acquaintance, and buries them as rapidly. They are all of superlative beauty, virtue, and genius, and, in particular, sound Unitarians. A great part of the work is devoted to theological disquisition, showing considerable reading in defence of 'Christian deism.' Much of his love-making and religious discussion takes place in the north of England, and there is some interest in his references to the beauty of the lake scenery. His impassable crags, fathomless lakes, and secluded valleys, containing imaginary convents of Unitarian monks and nuns, suggest the light-headed ramblings of delirium." — Leslie Stephen.

Washington undoubtedly read this book, as he takes care to note the interruption of the continuity of the narrative caused by the transposition of the parts in binding. The volumes bear no marks of frequent reading or use; on the contrary, they have a very fresh and clean appearance.

Update: Before someone beats me to it in the comments, the book, apparently, can be read here.

2011-11-16T12:15:00.000-05:00

The Jefferson Lies:

Or if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

David Barton seems to be taking a page from his arch-nemesis Chris Rodda, at least in rhetorical tone. Hat Tip Warren Throckmorton.

2011-11-15T10:38:00.000-05:00

The John Quincy Adams Quotation:

I think I've covered this before but I'll direct you to Rational Rant's website for the 411 here and here. We often see this quotation cited by Christian Nationalists.

2011-11-12T11:29:00.002-05:00

Did an Atheist create the Jefferson Bible?

What the Washington Times asks here.

No Jefferson was not an atheist. He was a theist who possessed some very interesting outside the box views on Christianity.

2011-11-12T10:24:00.001-05:00

Generous Ecumenicism:

I think most folks got the point of my last post which asked whether there was any political theological relevance to the term the "Great Spirit"? I think the answer is clearly yes, and it depends on how broad or narrow the claim. The broad claim -- and those are always harder to argue and easier for critics to find a potential loophole -- is this indicates the political theology of the American Founding is "heterodox," "not Christianity," "syncretism," "unitarian-universalism," "theistic rationalism," or what have you. I'm not here to argue that today. The narrower, more modest claim -- and those are easier to argue and harder to strike down -- is the political theology of the American Founding was generously ecumenical. You can still be an orthodox Christian -- like George W. Bush -- and generously ecumenical. Generous ecumenicism means you don't claim Mormons are not Christians or that Muslims don't worship the same God as Jews and Christians. Even if those two claims are ultimately true, it's not what the political theology of the American Founding is all about.

2011-11-11T19:48:00.001-05:00

Any Political Theological Relevance to the term the "Great Spirit"?:

I got two important questions comments, first from reader Jim51 and second by Jim Goswick, aka Our Founding Truth. I think we all recognize the utility, when speaking to unconverted Natives, in terming God "The Great Spirit" as it speaks their language. Likewise those same Founding era Americans referred to George Washington as "The Great Chief" when talking to the Natives.

The QUESTION is whether the "Great Spirit" worshipping Natives really DO worship the same God as Christians. Under a very ecumenical (perhaps heterodox, perhaps not) understanding all monotheists (Jews, Christians, Muslims, Unitarians, Deists, at least the ones who believe in Providence) worship the same ONE God -- the God of the Bible.

But not everyone interprets the Bible this way. Conservative evangelical Jim Goswick writes:

His point is most likely to link Putnam with the other infidel framers: George Washington, and James Madison, who used the same term referring to the Indian "Great Spirit." I call them infidels because that is what they would be if they considered the Indian god--or any god--the same as the Biblical God. The Bible says at least one thousand times, He is the Only God, the God of the Israel.

Not only is Rowe's implication far-fetched, it would make George Washington a very ignorant man, given a Christian high schooler understands the difference. That Putnam and Washington are placating diplomatically to the Indians by referring to God in their terms is obvious--however Putnam was an Evangelical. The only reason an Evangelical would link the Indian Great Spirit with the God of the Bible is to be diplomatic and accomodating [sic].

I'm not sure if I quite get his point. Yes, I think we all understand the diplomacy and accommodation. And if all monotheists -- including Muslims and unconverted Native Americans -- worship the same God then we have an easy diplomatic and accommodating Truth. Goswick seems to suggest that unconverted Natives really DIDN'T worship the God of the Bible with men like Washington and Putnam in knowledge of this. What would that make them then? Manipulative hypocrites when dealing with Natives. Suggesting unconverted Natives worship the same God Christians do, while not believing it, reeks of the same charge of hypocrisy that some secular nationalist scholars make when they claim the early Presidents were cold deists (or atheists) who may have publicly spoken as though they believed in Providence or something closer to Christianity to placate the masses over whom they ruled.

Finally, about Rufus Putnam's personal religion. I know David Barton quotes Putnam's Will that has orthodox Christian like language. I haven't yet independently verified the quotation in reliable sources. But if true, it tells us precisely nothing of Putnam's religion when he did his "Great Spirit" talk with the Natives.

2011-11-11T16:54:00.001-05:00

John Adams' Biography on Freethinking in 1750s New England:

If I am not mistaken, this part was written in 1802.

About three Weeks after commencement in 1755, when I was not yet twenty Years of Age, a horse was sent me from Worcester and a Man to attend me. We made the Journey about Sixty miles in one day and I entered on my Office. For three months I boarded with one Green at the Expence of the Town and by the Arrangement of the Select Men. Here I found Morgans Moral Phylosopher,1 which I was informed had circulated, with some freedom, in that Town and that the Principles of Deism had made a considerable progress among several Persons, in that and other Towns in the County. ... I made a Visit to Mr. Putnam, and offered myself to him: He received me with politeness and even Kindness, took a few days to consider of it, and then informed me that Mrs. Putnam had consented that I should board in his House, that I should pay no more, than the Town allowed for my Lodgings, and that I should pay him an hundred dollars, when I should find it convenient. I agreed to his proposals without hesitation and immediately took Possession of his Office. His Library at that time was not large: but he had all the most essential Law Books: immediately after I entered with him however he sent to England for a handsome Addition of Law Books and for Lord Bacons Works. I carried with me to Worcester, Lord Bolingbrokes Study and Use of History, and his Patriot King. These I had lent him, and he was so well pleased with them that he Added Bolingbrokes Works to his List, which gave me an Opportunity of reading the Posthumous Works of that Writer in five Volumes. Mr. Burke once asked, who ever read him through? I can answer that I read him through, before the Year 1758 and that I have read him through at least twice since that time: But I confess without much good or harm. His Ideas of the English Constitution are correct and his Political Writings are worth something: but in a great part of them there is more of Faction than of Truth: His Religion is a pompous Folly: and his Abuse of the Christian Religion is as superficial as it is impious. His Style is original and inimitable: it resembles more the oratory of the Ancients, than any Writings or Speeches I ever read in English.

In this Situation I remained, for about two Years Reading Law in the night and keeping School in the day. At Breakfast, Dinner, and Tea, Mr. Putnam was commonly disputing with me upon some question of Religion: He had been intimate with one Peasley Collins, the Son of a Quaker in Boston, who had been to Europe and came back, a Disbeliever of Every Thing: fully satisfied that all Religion was a cheat, a cunning invention of Priests and Politicians: That there would be no future State, any more than there is at present any moral Government. Putnam could not go these whole Lengths with him. Although he would argue to the extent of his Learning and Ingenuity, to destroy or invalidate the Evidences of a future State, and the Principles of natural and revealed Religion, Yet I could plainly perceive that he could not convince himself, that Death was an endless Sleep. Indeed he has sometimes said to me, that he fully believed in a future Existence, and that good Conduct in this Life, would fare better in the next World than its contrary. My Arguments in favor of natural and revealed Religion, and a future State of Rewards and Punishments, were nothing more than the common Arguments and his against them may all be found in Lucretius, together with many more.

There were two other Persons in the Neighbourhood, Doolittle and Baldwin, who were great Readers of Deistical Books, and very great Talkers.2 These were very fond of conversing with me. They were great Sticklers for Equality as well as Deism: and all the Nonsense of these last twenty Years, were as familiar to them as they were to Condorcet or Brissot. They were never rude however or insolent to those who differed from them. Another excentric Character was Joseph Dyer, who had removed from Boston and lived on a Farm of Mr. Thomas Hand-cock, Uncle of the late Governor, and kept a Shop.3 He had Wit and learning of some Sorts, but being very sarcastic, and very bitter against almost every body, but especially the Clergy, he was extreamly unpopular. An Arian by profession, he was far more odious among the People than the Deists. He had written many Manuscripts especially upon the Athanasian Doctrine of the Trinity, which he lent me: but though I read them all, having previously read Dr. Clark and Emlin as well as Dr. Waterland, I found nothing new. He was also a very profound Student in the Prophecies, and had a System of his own. According to him Antichrist signified all Tyranny and Injustice through the World. He carried his Doctrine of Equality, to a greater Extremity, or at least as great as any of the wild Men of the French Revolution. A perfect Equality of Suffrage was essential to Liberty. I stated to him the Cases of Women, of Children, of Ideots, of Madmen, of Criminals, of Prisoners for Debt or for Crimes. He could not give me any sensible Answer to these Objections: but still every limitation of the right of Suffrage, every qualification of freehold or any other property, was Antichrist. An entire Levell of Power, Property, Consideration were essential to Liberty and would be introduced and established in the Millenium. ...

2011-11-11T12:02:00.001-05:00

Rufus Putnam to the Natives:

Recently I've come across a great deal of evidence (too much for me to document) of Founding era figures speaking to unconverted Natives, addressing God as "The Great Spirit." I'm not sure how much or what to make of it.

Here is my latest find from Rufus Putnam. Speaking to the Natives in 1792:

Brothers,

I thank the great Spirit who has inclined our Hearts to do good; and to establish a Peace between You and the United States — Brothers

Let us endeavour to restore Peace and happiness to all as far as lies in our Power; and for this purpose I request that You will send a Speech to Your Neighbours the Miamis, Dellawares, Shawanos and other Tribes, who have hitherto stopped their Ears, and refused to Speak with the United States about Peace; altho many Speeches have been sent to them for that purpose — Brothers,

I propose to send one Speech more requesting them to open a Road to some place or other, where we may meet and Speak to one another; And I trust with Your assistance, that the great Spirit will cause this good Work to succeed —

2011-11-06T08:55:00.002-05:00

Rational Rant Dissects the Larry Klayman Article:

Excellent analysis of the primary sources and how Klayman either misquotes or garbles them.

2011-11-05T08:27:00.002-04:00

David Barton's Phony Quotations Live On:

This time with Larry Klayman at WorldNetDaily.

2011-11-04T11:21:00.000-04:00

John Fea at the David Library:

Well I finally got to meet John Fea in person as he notes here. (American Creation's Tom Van Dyke has engaged Dr. Fea quite a bit recently, so I was surprised that John didn't know of Tom's distinguished past.)

His lecture at the David Library was outstanding. He focused less on what the key Founders personally believed on religion (something his book does detail) and more on the contrast between the Godless (or God minimal) US Constitution and the then state constitutions which were quite explicitly Christian. Under the original federalist scheme, religion was left to the states. That changed with the 14th Amendment.

Even though I've followed Dr. Fea's work closely, something did slip by me that I learned last night: Christian Nationalists, trying to find "God" in the Constitution, invariably turn to the "In the Year of Our Lord" customary way of stating the date (why I concede the Constitution as God nominal, if not Godless). What I learned: That may have been, apparently, something the Framers didn't even write, but was tacked on by a clerk who recorded the document.

Anyway, this year I've seen Akhil Amar, David Post, and John Fea speak at the David Library and all three gave outstanding lectures. Though -- and I'm not not saying this -- judging by the Q & A and book sales, the crowd seemed to enjoy Dr. Fea's the most. All of his books sold last night. From what I remember (I could be wrong) that didn't happen with Post and Amar.

Finally, I also got to meet a blog reader -- Jim51 -- who learned about the David Library from me. He recognized me based on my online photos and introduced himself to me. That was very nice.

2011-11-04T10:55:00.000-04:00

Joe Carter Contra the Civil Religion:

Carter argues against it again (as he oft-does every few years) here.

Quote:

I think most Christians would agree that there is a vast and unbridgeable chasm between a deistic civil religion and orthodox Christianity. But the civil religion that our fellow citizens embrace is not the type Rousseau had in mind. It is very much a view that is rooted in the concept that America is a Christian nation (or at least a Judeo-Christian nation). For them, the “In God We Trust” on our coins might as well say “In Jesus We Trust.” The State is not only subordinate to the one true Sovereign (and don’t let the capitalized noun fool you—we’re still talking about Jesus here) but is expected to conform to his standards. Although this view can lead people to use Christianity to promote Americanism, more often it simply leads to criticism of the nation’s flaws. The fact that the country continually falls short of God’s standards is a constant annoyance for those who believe that the founding documents were wholly derived—at least in principle—from the Holy Scriptures. (Think I’m exaggerating? Talk to some of these folks and see if you don’t get the impression that they think the Constitution was inspired more by the Gospel of John than by John Locke.)

Those of us who champion a role for religion in the public square, however, cannot fully embrace this Christianized concept of civil religion. If we claim, as our friends and neighbors believe, that “under God” refers only to the Christian conception of God then we are either being unduly intolerant or, more likely, simply kidding ourselves. Do we truly think that our fellow Hindu, Wiccan, or Buddhist patriots are claiming to be under the same deity as we are? We can’t claim, as the Apostle Paul did on Mars Hill, that the “unknown god” they are worshiping is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Pledge is, after all, a secular document and the “under god” is referring to the Divinity of our country’s civil religion. Just as the pagan religion of the Roman Empire was able to incorporate other gods and give them familiar names, the civil religion provides an umbrella for all beliefs to submit under one nondescript, fill-in-the-blank term.

2011-11-02T16:26:00.001-04:00

General Anthony Wayne's Response...:

To the Natives' Providential Claim. Here:

It appears to me, that, if the Great Spirit, as you say, charged your forefathers to preserve their lands entire for their posterity,' they have paid very little regard to the sacred injunction: for I-see they have parted with those lands to your fathers the French, and the English are now, or have been, in possession of them all: therefore, I think the charge urged against the Ottawas, Chippewas, and the other Indians, comes with a bad grace indeed, from the very people who perhaps set them the example. The English and French both wore hats; and yet your forefathers sold'them, at various times, portions of your lands; however, as I have already observed, you shall now receive from the United States further valuable compensation, for the lands you have ceded to them by former treaties.

2011-10-30T13:48:00.002-04:00

The American Indians' Providential View of History:

I think we know how the sad story turned out.

So I've been putting some of the text from the papers of the War Dept. into search engines and I found this, The speech of the Cornplanter and New Arrow to Major General Wayne, Chinuchshungutho, 8th December, 1792.

A taste:

We thank the Great Spirit, that we with the rest of our chiefs, who were at council, have again arrived safe at our towns. According to the promise of our chiefs, made last winter in Philadelphia, we have been to council with the hostile Indians, to endeavor to bring them to a peace. After we arrived at their towns, and had acquainted them that it was the wish of General Washington to be at peace with the whole of the Indians, even those from the rising to the setting of the sun: after they had considered, they all, as one, agreed to make a peace: but as General Washington did not let us know the terms on which he would make peace, it was referred to a council the ensuing spring, where they wish he should be present.. They wish it to be considered that they were the first people the Great Spirit seated on this island, for which reason we look on the Americans as children, to call them our younger brethren.

2011-10-28T12:01:00.002-04:00

Timothy Pickering and "The Great Spirit":

I've noted many times before how George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, when speaking to unconverted Native Americans referred to God as "The Great Spirit" exactly as the Natives did, which suggests a very generous almost universalistic ecumenicism.

I'm not sure how compatible this is with "orthodoxy." There is a school of hard orthodoxy which suggests non-Christians believe in false gods, and consequently, the "Great Spirit" is a false god, or even a devil. On the other hand, there is Acts 17-23.

I'm interested in more of the comprehensive uses of the term the "Great Spirit" when the Founders spoke to unconverted Natives, and how such squares with orthodox or heterodox theology.

I found this nifty link, which unfortunately I can't access completely without membership. But it does point to a comprehensive list of those primary sources. (Though I just registered; I think -- ? -- once approved I can access without paying a fee.)

One of those documents is "Colonel Pickering address to the Senekas and their Chief mourning the death of Farmer's Brother's Son."

Timothy Pickering, we know, was a unitarian; he was heterodox. I have a hypothesis -- one I'd like to falsify -- that you'll see more "Great Spirit" talk by the heterodox as opposed to orthodox figures.

But anyway, putting those relevant terms into a search engine I did find this page which quotes Col. Pickering's Great Spirit talk to the Natives.

Here is a big taste of the article:

On the day after the informal meeting at Col. Pickering’s quarters, where thirty or forty chiefs were present, the first regular conference took place, which was opened by Col. Pickering in the following speech:

"Brothers, sachems, chiefs, and warriors of the Six Nations, I bid you a hearty welcome to this council fire, and thank the Great Spirit who has brought us together in safety, though I sincerely lament the cause of our meeting. I mean the murder of our two brothers of your nation at Pine creek."

He then informed them that the thirteen fires had become one fire, and that General Washington was the great chief of all the fires, and had appointed him, Col. Pickering, to represent him at the treaty. He then caused his commission to be read, and handed it around that the chiefs might examine it. This being done, he excused any want of formality which might be observed, on the ground of his ignorance of their customs, that being the first treaty he had ever attended, and continued:

"Brothers, you now see my commission, which has been read and interpreted, that according to my letter to you, I was appointed to wash off the blood of our murdered brothers, and wipe away the tears from the eyes of their friends, and that this occasion was to be improved to brighten the chain of friendship between you and the United States.

"Brothers, you said the hatchet was yet sticking in your head. I now pull it out. I have now met you to wash off the blood of the slain, and wipe away the tears from the eyes of their friends; and, as a token of friendship and peace, and of the perfect security with which we may confer together, I now present you these strings."

I then, says Col. Pickering, delivered to the principal chief, usually called Farmer’s Brother, strings of wampum. After some consultation with the chiefs near him, he rose, and addressed me to the following effect:

"Brother, we thank the Great Spirit, who has appointed this day in which we sit side by side, and look with earnestness on each other. We know you have been long waiting for us, and suppose you have often stretched up your neck to see if we were coming.

"Brother, we sent your letter to the Grand river by the Fish Carrier, and we have been waiting for its return, but it has not yet come to hand, and therefore we cannot yet properly enter upon the business. We must wait two days for the arrival of the Fish Carrier, or to hear from him. But, in the mean time, as the letter has not come back, we desire you to accept this belt as a pledge."

He then delivered the belt. After a pause, the chief called Red Jacket rose, and spoke to this effect:

"Brother, we are happy to see you here, for which we thank the Great Spirit.

"Brother, you say you are not acquainted with our customs.

"Brother, we are young, but we will describe the ancient practices of our fathers. The roads we now travel were cleared by them. When they used to meet our brothers of Pennsylvania at Philadelphia, our brothers not only pulled the hatchet out of their heads, but buried it. You say you have pulled the hatchet out of our heads, but you have only cast it behind you. You may take it up again.

"Brother, while the hatchet lies unburied we cannot sit easy on our seats.

"Brother, from the time we made peace with the United States, we have experienced troubles more than before. The United States have also had their troubles.

"Brother, we now hear General Washington, the great chief of the United States, speaking to us by you, and hope our troubles will now have an end. But our eyes are not yet washed that we may see, nor our throats cleared that we may speak."

As soon as Red Jacket sat down, I rose, and spoke to the following effect:

"Brothers, you say I have only pulled the hatchet out of your heads, and have not buried it, and while it is unburied you cannot sit easy on your seats.

"Brothers, in declaring that I pulled the hatchet out of your heads, I meant to comply with your own demand to the president and council of Pennsylvania,* which was that he should come and pull the hatchet out of your heads. However, to give you entire satisfaction on this point, as the hatchet is already pulled out of your heads, I now bury it, and pray God that it may remain buried, and that its sharp edge may never more be seen.

"Brothers, the United States has no wish but to live with you as brothers in perpetual peace.

"Brothers, I now wash off the blood of your murdered brothers, and the tears from the eyes of their friends."

I then drank to their health. After they had been served round with a glass of rum, Farmer’s Brother rose, and spoke to the following effect:

"Brother, you have now taken us by the hand, and washed our eyes; our women expect that you will show them equal attention. They are here, waiting your invitation, to receive the same tokens of your friendship which the last evening you gave us. Perhaps in taking them by the hand you may see one who will please you."

A general laugh arose at the speaker’s humor. I arose, and addressed the women:

"Sisters, I am very glad to meet you here. I have seen a great many excellent women of various complexions, and doubt not such may be found among you.

I invite you to my quarters, where we may eat and drink together in friendship.

I now take you by the hand as my sisters."

I then went round, and shook hands with every woman present.

The specific object of Col. Pickering’s mission was to assuage the resentment to which the Six Nations had been wrought by the murder of the two Senecas. ...

2011-10-28T09:02:00.000-04:00

The History of American Secularism - Charles Taylor:

At American Creation we haven't paid much attention to Charles Taylor and his book on secularism, about which I will have more to say later.

2011-10-27T19:21:00.003-04:00

More From Timothy Pickering, Unitarian:

Timothy Pickering was an important, but non-key Founder. I pointed out his unitarianism here. Unitarianism didn't seem a partisan political theology. Federalists and Democratic-Republicans were both unitarian and orthodox. Though unitarians tended to be more drawn from the elite leadership.

Pickering was a Federalist ally of J. Adams, serving in his cabinet after serving in Washington's. Then apparently, had a falling out with Adams (see the Wiki). As a Federalist, he may have had some issues with Jefferson. Long story short, years later, he rekindled his correspondence with Jefferson and used his "unitarianism" as a bridge. He sent Jefferson a copy of William Channing's sermon, that Jefferson apparently had already read.

You can read Jefferson's response to Pickering here where Jefferson proudly identifies as a unitarian, favorably cites Channing along with Joseph Priestley and Richard Price, and of course, slams the Trinity.

Less well known is Pickering's initial letter to Jefferson which you may access here and which I below reproduce in its entirety.

"Sir,

"You will recollect that Gibbon, in his history of the 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,' treats of the Christian Religion, and that he assigns five secondary causes of its prevalence, and final victory over the established religions of the earth. Among these, one was 'the miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive church.' It seems plain that Gibbon considered the miracles, ascribed to Jesus and bis Apostles, alike destitute of reality as those which are found in the legends of the Church of Rome. In relation to the latter, Bishop Watson, in his letters to the historian, puts 'to his heart' this question, 'Whether her absurd pretensions to that very kind of miraculous powers you have here displayed as operating to the increase of Christianity have not converted half her members to Protestantism, and the other half to infidelity?'

"But absurdities in relation to Christianity are not confined within the pale of the Church of Rome. There are some doctrines taught in Protestant churches, in Europe and America, so repugnant to the ideas I entertain of the perfect wisdom, justice, and benevolence of the Deity, as to authorize the opinion that they could not be the subjects of a divine revelation. I have not found them in the books said to contain such a revelation, and I long ago renounced them. They constituted parts of parental and school instruction from my earliest remembrance; but I never taught them to any of my children. I believed them implicitly till I was of age to think and inquire for myself; and one other doctrine to a later period, that of the Trinity, for I had not heard it called in question in any pulpit, and books on the subject had not fallen in my way. Few, indeed, who can read and understand theological controversies allow themselves time to investigate the merits of the questions involved in them. Official and professional duties occupy the attention of most, and, of numbers of the remaining few of educated men, science, and the general pursuits of literature, engross the leisure hours. Some of these to whom doctrines are presented for religious truths which shock their reason, taking them without further inquiry to be the Christian system, they reject this as an imposture."

[...]

"I take the liberty, Sir, to send you Mr. Channing's sermon. Whatever you may think of his views of Christianity.

"I am sure that the firm and energetic avowal of his opinions, his candor, his ingenuity, and the elegance of his composition, will fully compensate you for the time you shall spend in its perusal.

"You cannot be uninformed of a prevalent opinion among your fellow-citizens, that you are one of the learned unbelievers in revelation. Your 'Notes on Virginia' contain expressions which, if they did not originate, have served to strengthen, that opinion. You know the influence of a distinguished name over the minds of its warm, and especially of its youthful, admirers; and should you become, if you are not now, a believer, you will deeply regret the effects of that influence. You can entertain no doubt that, eighteen hundred years ago, there appeared in Judea an extraordinary person, called Jesus Christ, the founder of a sect which, after him, were called Christians; for Tacitus, Suetonius, and the younger Pliny speak of him, and of his sect. You also strongly appreciate the moral precepts purporting to have been delivered orally or in writing by Jesus, and by some of his followers who professed to be ear and eye witnesses of his words and the wonderful works ascribed to him. You have called the religion described in the records of those witnesses our 'benign religion;' and could you banish from your mind the recollection of the strange tenets which have been grafted upon that religion, and examine its history and unsophisticated doctrines with the same unbiassed disposition in which you read the histories and other writings of celebrated Romans, you might not think them unworthy to be believed by the most enlightened minds. Certainly, no one can think himself justly exposed to the charge of credulity for entertaining that religious'faith of which Boyle and Locke and Newton were sincere professors.

"A letter from me, unless on business and the common occurrences of life, you would not expect; for to literature I have no pretensions, and in politics we did not agree; but I can disapprove of the principles and oppose the measures of men in public stations with an entire exemption from unkind feelings towards them as individuals. By some I have been injured; but I am not conscious of entertaining a particle of resentment or ill-will towards any human being. In all his imitable perfections, Christians believe it to be their duty to imitate God, ' who' (St. Paul saith) 'will have all men to be Saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.' In this spirit, and in the simple style of antiquity, I bid you, Farewell.

"Timothy Pickering.

It seems Pickering was concerned Jefferson wasn't a "Christian" and, were he not, was trying to persuade him to convert to pious unitarianism. He basically said, "hey I think the Trinity is an imposture too, but that doesn't stop me from being a devout Christian." Don't throw the baby out out with the bathwater.

But is the Trinity the baby?

2011-10-27T18:03:00.002-04:00

Do We Call This a Reverse David Barton:

Here.

2011-10-27T14:28:00.001-04:00

More on Whether Mormons are Christian:

From the Economist. Another from Jeffrey Goldberg. Sullivan again. And from Daniel Larison.

2011-10-27T11:28:00.000-04:00

Mark Silk and William Saletan on the Jeffress/Romney Controversy:

Here and here.

2011-10-26T21:16:00.000-04:00

Real Historian Eviscerates Barton Book:

Ed Brayton has the details here.

A taste (quoting Prof. Steven Green of Willamette University):

The presentation also fails to explore the other influences in the Founders’ lives that affected their worldviews and personal character. The members of the founding generation were widely read and drew their ideas for republican government from many sources: the common law, Whig political theories, classical republicanism, and Calvinism. Without question, however, the most influential ideological source was Enlightenment rationalism. The Founders were most influenced by the Enlightenment political writers of the previous two generations: John Locke, Baron Montesquieu, Hugo Grotius, Henry St. John, Lord Bolingbroke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, among others. Most of these writers were religious nonconformists or skeptics. Also influential were those writers of the so-called Scottish Enlightenment – Frances Hutcheson, David Hume, and Thomas Reid – whose “common sense” rationalism influenced many of the Founders including James Madison, John Adams, and James Wilson. Secular theories were more influential in forming the Founders’ ideas about natural law and civic virtue than was religion…

Second, the curriculum engages in “proof-texting,” a practice refuted by professional historians. The writers extract selected religious quotations of the various figures without explaining the larger context of the statements (and usually without providing a citation to authority). The curriculum then uses the statement as “proof” of the speaker’s sentiments, disregarding or omitting other likely influences. It fails to account for the sincerity of the speaker’s statement (such as whether the speaker was using irony or pandering to his audience) or whether the speaker likely intended that particular statement on the subject to represent his views, as opposed to other possible statements on the subject…

The additional problem with religious proof-texting is that it fails to explain the role of religious discourse during the founding period and early nineteenth century. As stated, religious rhetoric and imagery were ubiquitous in speeches and other writings because the Bible was one of the few generally available books. The narratives and allegories of the Bible were the stories that were most familiar to people. Unlike today, a person’s use of religious rhetoric during the eighteenth century tells little about his or her own religious devotion. That religiously heterodox figures such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine employed religious language should warn against drawing conclusions about a Founder’s personal piety from his statements.

2011-10-26T20:54:00.002-04:00

Public High School Principal: WallBuilders Speaker Not Appropriate For School Assembly:

From Chris Rodda here.

2011-10-26T20:31:00.001-04:00

Romney Isn’t Christian, and That’s All Right: Jeffrey Goldberg

Here. Andrew Sullivan reacts here and here.

2011-10-21T11:21:00.000-04:00

William L. Anderson on Christian Nationalism:

Very interesting outside the box thinking from an anti-statist evangelical.

A taste:

We also hear that the USA was founded "as a Christian country," and I remember hearing a talk from someone who believed that had the authors of the U.S. Constitution made it clear that this country was "Christian," that somehow things would be different today. That really is nonsense; for that matter, a number of European countries at one time officially were "Christian" nations, and today none of those things matter, as no place in the world is as secular as Europe today.

However, the connection between historical Christianity and the effect it should have upon the actions of those that govern us was changed permanently in the United States during the 19th Century, first with Unitarianism and then with Progressivism. The political actions of both liberal and conservative "evangelicals" today are reflective of the secular, state-embracing political philosophies that rose during the 1800s and early 1900s, not the Christianity that was practiced by the Early Church, and certainly not of the Bible.

I cannot emphasize that point enough. When American evangelicals launch campaigns to deal with attempts to outlaw the "under God" portion of the Pledge of Allegiance, they are not preserving religious freedom, nor are not paying homage to the ideals of liberty that inspired many of the founders of this nation. Instead, they are endorsing a pledge created by a socialist who despised the founders of this country and who hated the views that the framers of the U.S. Constitution had on law and the state. Indeed, the Pledge of Allegiance is the antithesis of all of those ideals upon which conservative evangelicals claim to be supporting and it is collectivist and Progressivist to the core. Yet, because it has the phrase "under God," Christians are willing to engage in what only can be idolatry and pledge their troth to another god.

Having grown up in the conservative evangelical subculture and still being part of it, I have picked up some insights as to why people who believe in God and who hold to the inerrancy of the Bible have sold out to the State. The answers are more complicated and nuanced than one might expect to read in a publication like the New York Times, which treats evangelicals as though they were alien invaders who have no right even to exist in our society.

Because I am dealing with the modern evangelicals, I will not cover the influence of the Unitarians of the 19th Century, except to say that they were part of nearly every major advancement of State power, including the public school movement in Massachusetts, and the Civil War. Certainly, by the end of the 1800s, the Unitarian influence began to wane, as theological liberalism took hold in the major Protestant denominations.

2011-10-20T19:14:00.000-04:00

Ben Franklin's Proto-Mormonism:

I was thinking of writing this post only to see that I had already written it in 2009.

I find it fascinating how (in 1728) Franklin, were he serious, thought a cold deistic all powerful God created the universe but that the warm theistic deity he would worship was the God of our solar system, created by the ultimate unknowable God.

So maybe God the Father is actually a created being. That answers the "what caused Him?" question.

2011-10-19T12:07:00.001-04:00

Mormonism Isn't Orthodox, But The Founding Presidents Weren't Orthodox Either

[Note: I originally intended for this to be published at a notable right of center blog where I have an opportunity; but their vibe is currently too pro-Perry, anti-Romney for this. Rather than worry about getting it placed somewhere else, I'm just running it here.]

Conservative evangelicals Bryan Fischer and the Reverend Robert Jeffress recently controversially suggested that Mormonism is not Christianity, but rather a false cult, and that "Christians" should factor that in when deciding for whom to vote for public office.

Fischer and Jeffress stress Article 6, Clause 3 of the Constitution restricts government only from imposing formal religious tests. The point is true enough. Voters can vote for whomever they want, for whatever reasons, even very bad ones.

However, in a nation founded on ecumenical and non-sectarian religious principles, imposing a strictly orthodox private religious test seems a bad idea. But both Fischer and Jeffress appeal to the American Founding for their stance.

Their appeal is inapt. Attempting to justify his position, Jeffress referenced John Jay who wrote in 1816:

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.

Hmm... Mitt Romney, as a Mormon, claims to be a "Christian" and accepts Jesus as the divine, resurrected Savior of mankind. So what is the problem? Space forbids me to detail all of the problems evangelicals have with Mormonism. But, at base, Mormonism denies historic orthodoxy as found in doctrines like the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds; to disbelieve in orthodox Trinitarianism, as it were, is to disbelieve in "Mere Christianity" as CS Lewis termed it. After the late Walter Martin, conservative evangelicals often term non-Trinitarian religionists, like the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others, as "cults."

Though the term "cults" was not used during the American Founding era to describe non-Trinitarians, the "orthodox" then (especially clergy) did regard these "heretics" as not "Christian."

But whatever John Jay meant in the aforementioned quotation, America was not founded so that orthodox evangelical voters could put Presidential candidates through their strict private religious tests. (Ironically, Jay himself may not have passed the orthodox Trinitarian test for "mere Christianity" as evidence shows he doubted the content contained in his own church's Trinitarian creeds.)

Or, if it were, the experiment failed from the start; the early American Presidents were not "orthodox."

Most know that Thomas Jefferson, who served two terms as third President, was not an orthodox Trinitarian Christian. He did, interestingly, think of himself as a "Christian" while denying every single tenet of historic orthodoxy.

Fewer know that John Adams too, failed, and to quote history professor John Fea's masterful new book on the Christian Nation controversy, "fail[ed] miserably" the test for Christian orthodoxy. Adams, who identified as a "unitarian" his entire adult life, bitterly mocked the doctrines of the Trinity, which he termed a "sacerdotal imposture[]," and the Incarnation, which he said "stupified the Christian World."

And it's not as though George Washington and James Madison, respectively, the first and fourth American Presidents, the "father of America" and the "architect of the Constitution," were paragons of Christian orthodoxy. While not as overtly unitarian as the second and third American Presidents, Washington and Madison, from their own words, offer little to demonstrate their belief in Christian orthodoxy.

Indeed, Washington's own orthodox minister, the Reverend James Abercrombie, claimed Washington's systematic avoidance of communion meant he was not a "real Christian" because his actions "disregard[ed] an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a channel of divine grace."

And well respected orthodox Episcopalian, William Meade, third Bishop of Virginia, well acquainted with Madison, claimed the fourth President's "political associations with those of infidel principles, of whom there were many in his day, if they did not actually change" his youthful, conventionally religious spirit, "subjected him to the general suspicion of it." (One prominent unitarian contemporary of James Madison, George Ticknor, founder of the Boston Public Library, claims Madison personally professed unitarianism to him during a dinner conversation.)

In all likelihood, the first American President who might pass Fischer and Jeffress's orthodox test for Christianity was seventh President Andrew Jackson!

The early American Presidents were not perfect, but they well led the newly formed nation. Their example shows little connection between belief in orthodox Trinitarian doctrine and Presidential leadership acumen.

Please keep that in mind when considering how Mitt Romney's Mormonism might impact his qualifications for the American Presidency.

2011-10-13T13:27:00.003-04:00

John Jay's Archive, Richard Gardiner & Creedal Christianity:

John Jay's correspondence is available at Liberty Fund. There is a lot of great stuff there.

Jay is a Founder, generally conceded as orthodox Christian. And he does offer some quotations that sound "Christian Nation" like. Certainly, Christian Nationalists have used (abused?) those quotations from Jay. Rev. Robert Jeffress recently used Jay's quotation to justify why he would vote for the "Christian" Rick Perry over the "non-Christian" Mormon Mitt Romney.

John Jay was a lifelong Anglican, a church warden, and was involved in the reformation of Anglicanism to Episcopalianism.

While investigating the exact religious beliefs of as many American Founders I could, I began to think very hard about the concept of creedalism, and that various Founders, in some way affiliated with churches connected to doctrinally orthodox creeds, could disbelieve at least some of what their churches officially endorsed.

In this debate over who exactly believed what, we look for smoking guns to "settle" the issue. Some use, in the absence of smoking gun quotations, formal affiliation to churches and their official doctrines, as shorthand for what exactly a Founder believed. Indeed, if one held an official position in said churches -- church warden, vestryman, godfather, etc. -- then one probably DID swear an oath to said church's official doctrines.

Enter the concept of an "Anglican Whig." According to Anglicanism's official doctrines, the King of England was both head of church AND state. And when Anglican church MEMBERS swore oaths they swore to remain loyal to the Crown. There was a term for the oath and doctrinal fundamentalists in the Anglican Church in late 18th Century America: Tories.

In order to claim America's Founders as orthodox Christians via their church affiliation, Christian Nationalists have to turn them into oath fundamentalists and argue something like if you are not an oath fundamentalist, you are a liar or a hypocrite. See for instance, Christian Nationalist Richard Gardiner making this argument.

Accordingly, because they violated their high church Tory oaths when they rebelled against the Crown, Anglican Whigs such as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Jay and others were "liars when they swore to God to adopt the confessions of their churches when they became members of these churches" to use Dr. Gardiner's exact words. (Again, I don't make that judgment; Christian Nationalists like Dr. Gardiner do.)

John Jay, unlike Washington and Madison, and like Jefferson was fairly explicit in detailing what he believed, religiously, in his private letters. (Jefferson, the good Anglican he [not!], rejected every single tenet of orthodox Christianity.)

As I've written before, John Jay, though more apparently "biblical" and "Christian" than other Founders, was no "oath fundamentalist" regarding his Anglicanism-Episcopalianism. Christian Nationalists may enjoy Jay's letter to Samuel Miller, Feb. 18, 1822, when he wrote:

"In forming and settling my belief relative to the doctrines of Christianity, I adopted no articles from creeds, but such only as, on careful examination, I found to be confirmed by the Bible."

"No creed but the Bible" may make Jay sound like a good late 18th Century Quaker, but it does not represent what orthodox Anglicanism or Episcopalianism stood for at that time. Anglicanism, and then Episcopalianism, in its official doctrines endorsed not just "the Bible" as revelation, but also the Athanasian Creed and 39 Articles.

And indeed, when the Bible is unmoored from orthodox Trinitarian creeds, heresy in the form of biblical non-Trinitarianism inevitably results as it did in Jay's case. In his private letters, Jay's endorsement of "the Bible" but no "creeds" led him to seem not only utterly unconcerned with Anglican doctrine, but also to doubt the Trinity, or at least the understanding of the Trinity as represented by the Athanasian Creed (what his church, what he took official oaths to, endorsed). From the same letter to Samuel Miller, Feb. 18, 1822:

It appeared to me that the Trinity was a Fact fully revealed and substantiated, but that the quo modo was incomprehensible by human Ingenuity. According to sundry Creeds, the divine Being whom we denominate the second Person in the Trinity had before all worlds been so generated or begotten by the first Person in the Trinity, as to be his coeval, coequal and coeternal Son. For proof of this I searched the Scriptures diligently -- but without Success. I therefore consider the Position of being at least of questionable Orthodoxy.

2011-10-12T10:17:00.001-04:00

Frank Kameny RIP:

I hope he is pleasantly surprised that a universalist God does exist and is on the road to Heaven.

Though I met him, very briefly, only once, in person, I had the pleasure to know him via email and an online network.

He seemed to greatly enjoy how the Internet kept him "tuned in" and his mind sharp.

One thing about him though -- he was the most fervent atheist I have ever met. In conversations, he insisted on getting the last word in that God(s) did not exist, that once you are dead, you are done.

Some highlights of our correspondence over the years. From this post.

Since about 1940 I have characterized myself as "a good pious atheist". By this I mean that there is not a shred -- not the smallest shred -- of valid, credible, persuasive evidence for the existence of anything supernatural or other than material. That is all that atheism is, in my view. So there is no possible connection between atheism and homosexuality, or anything else.

Within the framework of the common Christianity in this country, this means that there are no supernatural beings: God(s), angels, demons, devils, satans, souls; that there are no supernatural events: miracles, resurrections, afterlife; that there are no supernatural places: heaven, hell; AND that when you die you''re dead and it's over for you permanently.

There is no objective morality. Matters of morality and immorality are ones of personal opinion and individual religious belief, upon which each person may make up his or her own mind and conduct him or herself accordingly in his or her own life, but that alone, but not impose his or her opinion upon disagreeing others (granted, that rises to the level of a moral precept, itself).

As for my saying that "Gay is Godly", that is part of a rhetorical response to the religious "them" out there who are trying to impose their views upon all of us and may not know of my atheism, as they tell us that gay is bad, ungodly, and immoral and sinful and I respond by saying that Gay is good, godly, moral and virtuous, and American, while they are evil, ungodly, sinful and immoral, irrational to the point of utter lunacy and beyond, and unAmerican and anti-American and that they don't have a clue as to what America and Americanism are all about (It is always helpful to wrap oneself in the flag) ------- all usually presented in a less cumbersome manner than here.

I also take the position, with them, that our homosexuality is a divinely-inspired gift and blessing, given to us by our true god to be enjoyed to its uttermost, exultantly, exuberantly, and joyously.

That leads, inexorably to the assertion that the god of Leviticus is a false god who is an irrational homophobic bigot and an abomination.

As for "natural law", whatever that really means -- perhaps more about that anon. Most people don't realize how profoundly and utterly totally unnatural we are from the moment of birth until after death, in absolutely EVERYthing we do. And that acting naturally is certainly not a desideratum. Life would be a misery if we did.

Written somewhat hastily. Maybe more later.

Frank Kameny

This one:

2. All religion is irrational without demonstrable evidentiary basis in fact. They engage endlessly in what I call "philosophical dithering". "This must be so because we dither it to be so"; no proof or evidence. The claim that there MUST be a "First Cause" is just that. There is no proof or evidence. The universe itself is obviously its own first cause. It is infinite in time; the "big bang" was a catastrophic change of state but not a beginning. Postulating a supernatural first cause merely defers the explanation by one step and renders it beyond rational description, like the "Intelligent Designer"which does the same. The claim that there is something outside the material is some more "dithering", devoid of any valid, credible, persuasive evidence or proof.

And finally, this one:

Without commenting at length, I meely point out that Cornthians was written around 54AD, some 24 years after the crucificion, in an eram without recorders, reporters, or other than word- of-mouth heasay. Similarly, the four gospels themselves were written (Mark) around 65-70 AD; Matthwe and Luke in the 70s,and John around 95. There were no tape recorders, or other means of recording. They are largely worthless as historical records. The whole thing, and the Christianity derived from it is a fraud, concocted for political purposes. resurrections don't happen. Period. Either the dead body was removed from the tomb, or he didn't actually die on the cross and revived later. There is no supernatural.

RIP Frank. You will be missed.

2011-10-11T15:06:00.000-04:00

Jeffress:

The good Reverend is entitled to his opinion; but his religion is NOT the political theology of the American Founding and does not well mix with American politics, certainly NOT the American Presidency.

2011-10-08T20:15:00.000-04:00

David Kopel on William Howard Taft's Unitarianism:

Here.

2011-10-08T10:53:00.001-04:00

Defendant in Barton Lawsuit Ready For Fight:

Chris Rodda details here.

2011-10-06T17:21:00.001-04:00

North & McCloskey on Western Technological Advances:

A fascinating passage:

THE BOURGEOIS ERA

There have been lots of reasons offered by economic historians for this transformation, but these have all been called into question by economic historian Dierdre McCloskey, who began working on this issue as Donald McCloskey three decades ago. In a proposed six-volume set, The Bourgeois Era, McCloskey is exploring this question in detail. Two volumes are available. They have presented the problem. In volume 2, Bourgeois Dignity. McCloskey refutes the prevailing explanations one by one.

Then what did it? McCloskey's theory, not yet proven: a change in attitude toward the legitimacy of wealth. This began in the 17th century in the Netherlands. (McCloskey speaks Dutch.) This spread to Scotland and England.

I am partial to the thesis. I have believed it for at least 25 years. But there is a problem. What motivated people to change their views after – basically – the history of mankind? These were Calvinist societies in the 17th century. What changed in Calvinist theology in the century after Calvin? The 17th-century creeds did not change the theology. The Synod of Dort (1619) and the Westminster Assembly (1643-47) did not alter the old Calvinism. So, what was the crucial factor?

I have a suggestion: their concept of the nature of God's kingdom on earth. The shift was to what is today called postmillennialism: the belief that the final judgment only comes after Christ's kingdom has filled the earth. This transformation involves compound blessings (Deut. 28:1-15) including economics. This was not held by Lutherans and 16th-century Calvinists.

In both the Netherlands and Scotland, there were postmillennial theologians. But McCloskey's research challenge will be to see if the supposed shift in attitude toward business wealth was associated with this shift in eschatology. If there was no connection, then what was the source?

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776) favored economic wealth. He was a Scot. He was a liberal Presbyterian. But McCloskey thinks the change in attitude preceded Smith by 150 years.

Proof is scheduled for Volume 3. I await it with great anticipation.

McCloskey became co-editor of the American academic journal, The Journal of Economic History, in the spring of 1982. Beginning 15 years earlier, the editor had been my professor, Hugh Aitken. I recall the evening in a graduate seminar, probably in 1966, when Aitken had posed the #1 question. How did the transformation happen? He said the scholars did not know.

As far as I can see, they still do not know.

THE GREAT DIVERGENCE

Harvard historian Niall Ferguson has called the great transformation of the West the great divergence. Asian nations had about the same wealth per capita as Western nations in 1800. By 1900, the two societies diverged greatly. This continued until 1970, he argues.

In a TED video, Ferguson attributes this to six factors:

Competition (both political and economic)
The scientific revolution
Property rights (not democracy)
Modern medicine
The consumer society
The West's work ethic

I don't believe any of this. That is because I have read McCloskey's two volumes (twice). McCloskey refutes them all, plus a dozen more.

2011-10-06T09:11:00.003-04:00

Imposing Limits on Creators:

I just noticed something from friend of the blog Reese on the sad decline of Frank Miller.

I think it speaks a great deal about, art, ego and limits to human creativity. Neil Young's adage it's better to burn out than to fade away. Most human geniuses have limited genius work in them. The Beatles broke up before writing a bad song. John Lennon was murdered (and limited his outcome during his post-Beatles years) before he was able to write bad material. The rest of them have produced their share of mediocre or bad material over the years.

Likewise Led Zeppelin broke up before producing bad material; but that didn't stop Page or Plant from producing a good deal of mediocre work post-LZ.

Likewise examples abound of artists working well in a band only to produce crappy solo work.

This speaks to both synergy and the non-egotistical recognition of your limits. I'm conflicted a bit here. I recognize record companies, producers, publishing companies and editors often destroy creativity and outside the box thinking. But other times their input, wisdom and constraints add necessary value.

Most people just can't do it all. That's the problem. In order to produce a great album, comic book, movie, etc. you need to do tons of (including little) things well, but usually about 5-8 core things very well. Most people can do one or two (if they are really talented maybe three). Group efforts where editors/producers/outside songwriters play a core role can better guarantee covering all needed bases.

In Frank Miller's case, the guy has obvious talent; but unless he has, as was pointed out, a brain disorder, this is an obvious case of an egotistical talent badly phoning in his artwork, and pushing crackpot bad writing ideas.

He's Frank Miller, so no stinkin' editor is going to tell him what to do. But the sad part is, if someone he respected were willing to throw water on his crap, he probably could have been doing some cool work over the past decade. The guy can draw well; so if he, for instance, collaborated with Neal Adams, Bill Sienkiewicz, Alex Ross (or even just have Klaus Janson inking/finishing his work like in the original) he wouldn't have been so crappy with his artwork because he would be disrespecting their contribution. Etc. Etc.

2011-10-02T08:37:00.001-04:00

More From Throckmorton on Barton & Unitarianism:

Here are two great posts (note I'm cited in both) from Warren Throckmorton on David Barton's claim that the unitarians of the Founding era were "evangelicals."

There is a lot of great primary source material cited. Unitarians of that era believed in something that evangelicals of today could only regard as a cult like heresy. But they were far more biblical and theistic than the UUs of today.

From Jared Sparks' Unitarian miscellany and Christian monitor, circa 1821:

Unitarians believe, that Jesus Christ was a messenger commissioned from heaven to make a revelation, and communicate the will of God to men. They all agree, that he was not God; that he was a distinct being from the Father, and subordinate to him; and that he received from the Father all his power, wisdom, and knowledge. (p. 13)

Although unitarians do not believe Christ to be God, because they think such a doctrine at variance with reason and scripture, yet they believe him to have been authorized and empowered to make a divine revelation to the world. We believe in the divinity of his mission, but not of his person. We consider all he has taught as coming from God; we receive his commands, and rely on his promises, as the commands and promises of God. In his miracles we see the power of God; in his doctrines and precepts we behold the wisdom of God; and in his life and character we see a bright display of every divine virtue. ...

2011-09-30T16:51:00.000-04:00

One Reason Why Scholars Think Washington Was a Deist:

I think what I write next needs to be stressed in the study of George Washington's personal religious beliefs.

After reading virtually everything George Washington said and wrote on religion, I conclude GW believed in an active personal Providence.

However, Washington was also imbibed in Greco-Romanism, particularly Stoicism. I'm still trying to get a handle on what the Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers -- the ones who didn't believe in mythology (Zeus, Hercules, etc.) -- believed religiously. As far as I can tell, they believed in some kind of impersonal deistic-Providence.

Again, Washington (of all the Founders, especially) drank deeply from that well. So we see quotations where GW refers to Providence in an impersonal sense, calling Providence "It" and "She" at times, sounding like a deist. (You'll have to trust me he did this; I'll provide the quotations elsewhere if requested.) I think he was being sincere when talking about Providence this way. He was just sounding like the neo-Stoic he was.

However, elsewhere (over and over again) he refers to Providence as an active personal God, and seemed to believe in a warm universal theism.

If one focused only on those letters where GW invoked the neo-Stoic impersonal Providence I understand why one would (inaptly in my opinion) conclude him a "deist." (You still have to put his impersonal Providence talk together with his warm theism talk.)

2011-09-25T07:59:00.001-04:00

Forster and Gregg on Locke:

I try to stay up on when Locke experts debate what he was really getting at. Here, at The Public Discourse, Samuel Gregg argues Locke breaks with the classical-Christian understanding of the natural law.

A taste:

Locke himself supported King James II’s overthrow in the 1688 Glorious Revolution and the subsequent passing of the Bill of Rights in 1689. There were many reasons for James II’s removal from the throne, but we should not pretend that his eviction was based on some type of contract violation. It proceeded from the refusal by significant segments of Britain’s political elites to accept his political authority any longer.

Which brings me to another point that I think demonstrates the problems of social contract theory: political authority in itself does not require a contract or some form of transmission process for its legitimacy.

Contra Locke, the rational foundation for civil government is not, in fact, consent. As Aquinas wrote, “it is natural for man, more than any other animal, to be a social and political animal, to live in a group” [emphasis added].

[...]

Another reason for the prevalence of social contract theories is that they often allow us to rationalize philosophically and legally the emergence of new sets of political arrangements. A number of authors, for example, have speculated that Locke’s social compact arguments, with their particular emphasis on consent, flow from his desire to legitimize the particular political order instituted in Britain by and after the Glorious Revolution.

One weakness of such interpretations is that Locke appears to have worked out the basic principles of his political theory some years before 1688. Hence Locke’s treatises deserve to be treated, as Copleston writes, as more than just another Whig pamphlet. Nevertheless, it’s not clear that Locke’s political theory—either before or after 1688—can be entirely separated from his opposition to the Stuart dynasty, his disputation of the divine right of kings (which obviously opposes any notion of consent from the governed), and his personal beliefs as a longtime Whig.

Of course, nobody can completely escape the influence of context when developing his or her ideas, but this does not mean Locke could not have formulated a more robust account of political order to explain why James II needed to be removed from power. Pre-existing classical natural law arguments about the legitimacy of removing rulers who become tyrants would have been perfectly adequate.

[...]

... In Locke’s view, we do not obey our rulers because a concern for human flourishing, justice, and the common good tells us that it is reasonable to do so. Instead, we obey because our rulers have a superior will. “Law’s formal definition,” Locke wrote, “is the declaration of a superior will.” How different this is from Aquinas’s understanding of law as “an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by him who has the care of the community.”

In the end, this difference may well reflect varying conceptions of God. The notion of divine wisdom (logos) is integral to the classical natural law understanding of why the commands of God create concrete responsibilities in conscience for human beings.

By contrast, Locke joins some of his contemporaries, such as Grotius and Pufendorf, in explaining this obligation in terms of a God who exercises raw, perhaps even willful, power. “For who will deny,” Locke writes, “that clay is subject to the potter’s will and that the pot can be destroyed by the same hand that shaped it.”

Here is Greg Forster's response defending Locke's authenticity in the classical-Christian tradition.