Some Problems with the Concept of the “Judeo-Christian Worldview”
Jonathan Rowe on Oct 1st 2006 07:43 pm |
Other problems I’d like to point out in Gordon Mullings’s assertions. A commenter on the Evangelical Outpost thread mentioned that constant references to the amorphous concept of a “Christian” or “Judeo-Christian worldview” is problematic absent further clarification of what this really means. Mullings so clarified:
As to the idea that the biblical, Judaeo-Christian worldview is ill-defined or hard to outline, that is laughable. Yes there are disputes or debates over relatively narrow points of doctrine [we are here speaking of worldviews not theologies and schools of thought within a worldview], or because of ignorance and twisting of the scriptures, but the core of that worldview is long since on public record as bith NT documents and subsequent easily accessible creedal statements, regularly publicly recited, e.g. the Nicene creed – which aptly summarises the faith once for all delivered unto the saints.
Mullings’s reply, it seems to me, is laughable. Note Jews, presumably the “Judeo” part of the “Judeo-Christian” worldview, explicitly reject the Nicene Creed as they reject that Jesus is Messiah. Further, as I constantly point out, our key Founders (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and some others) were theological unitarians who rejected the Nicene Creed and rationalists who elevated man’s reason over Biblical revelation.
Here is Mullings’s response — a common one among the “Christian Nation” crowd — to the notion that our key Founders weren’t orthodox Christians:
Mr Eidsmoe, as onlookers can easily verify, showed that the overwhelming majority of the founding circle were Christian in their public worldview commitments and engagements. In remarking on that, I noted: of the 55 signers of the US DOI, all but a few were traceably Christian theists in their worldviews and social engagements — not necessarily the same as being born again, committed Christians — of one stripe or another. Even Jefferson wrote as an attorney for a client, the Congress and People of the nascent USA, who were overwhelmingly Christian in their worldviews.
But if the Nicene Creed is central to the “Christian worldview” as Mullings argues, what are we to make of the fact that these key Founders rejected the Nicene creed, some of them like Jefferson and Adams bitterly so? John Adams, in a private letter to Jefferson, goes so far as to say that “the laws of Nature” reveal Nature’s God to be unitarian, not trinitarian in His attributes! There, Adams also elevates man’s reason so far over Biblical revelation that he tells Jefferson had God Himself revealed the doctrine of the Trinity to him on Mt. Sinai, Adams still would not have believed it because one was not three period. So much for the “Nicene Creed” being part of the “Christian Worldview” central to our founding principles!
Further, let me note the converse of the notion that “even our non-Christian Founders like Jefferson were influenced by the Christian worldview.” And that is, when it came to their articulation of founding principles, even the orthodox Christians like Patrick Henry, John Witherspoon, and John Jay were influenced by Enlightenment rationalism because the Bible and traditional Christianity were not sufficient to give us the ideas upon which our Declaration and Constitution are based. That’s why the Bible isn’t quoted in either of those two documents or the Federalist papers which explicate the ideas behind our Founding in detail.
Regarding Christianity’s influence, I’ve never denied it. Rather, I assert that the Bible and Christianity had a qualified influence on our Founding. Our key Founding Fathers sought to take from Christianity what was rational and useful and thought they could discard the rest. It was the Bible put through the lens of man’s reason, with all of the “unreasonable” parts fit to be cut out. This following quotation of John Adams’s, often cited by the Christian Nation crowd as proof of their contention, when understood in context, actually perfectly illustrates the Founding’s Enlightenment rationalistic reading of the Bible.
“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were…the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.”
That’s usually where the “Christian Nation” crowd ends the quotation. But there’s more:
Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.
Finding Christianity in the works of atheist Hume or French philosophes, Rousseau and Voltaire? And keep in mind that Adams’s Christianity was theologically unitarian and universalist. One could arguably assert that the Founders’ Enlightenment rationalistic reading of Christianity sacrificed so many of its orthodox tenets that it ceased to be “Christian.”
Filed in Uncategorized
It really is problematic that we always hear of the “Judeo-Christian” worldview when the subject of the sentence or entire conversation is just Christianity. I had 2 Jewish teachers, and it’s something that came up one day: Only Christians or people fixated on Christianity who say this word. Jews don’t do it.
It’s fascinating to me that the fact is: It is Christians who are fixated on Jews. Think about it. Most Americans you know are able to regail the stories of Moses, Abraham, Genesis, things about Sodom and Gomorrah, but the only Christian (new testament) stories they’re likely to know are the birth, resurrection, and crucifixion of Jesus. These are all Jewish stories that Christians really base their arbitrary fundamentalism on. They’re about Jews being paid attention to by God, Jews conquering nations, Jews being rewarded, Jews, Jews, Jews!Is it really any surprise that it’s only Christians who refer to the “Judeo-Christian” worldview? Or that Christianity and its child Islam are so inherently anti-semetic in practice?
Obviously, Christianity is built on Judaism; Jesus was a Jewish reformer. Thus, the Judeo is redundant. However, the truth of the matter is that we’re a Greco-Roman culture. A comprehensive attribution analysis will show that it is our Roman and Hellenic heritage that is responsible for our greatness.
For example, as we all know the natural rights tradition goes back at least to Cicero’s Republic which was quoted repeatedly by Christian philosophers over the last 2000 years. We see the influence of Cicero on John of Salisbury and Thomas Aquinas. We can continue the narrative via Hugo Grotius, Locke, and Jefferson. Let’s also remember that our founding fathers were assiduous students of history (see Forrest McDonald and Bernard Bailyn, for example) including Ancient history.
Of course, most of our Greco-Roman heritage was re-expressed in Christian terms. Christianity deserves credit for being so flexible that many can find it in harmony with rational natural approaches. We might say that our society is a Greco-Roman civilization at times packaged in a Judeo-Christian wrapper. Let’s take the wrapping off and enjoy the present.
I liked Jason’s comments quite a bit.
“Obviously, Christianity is built on Judaism; Jesus was a Jewish reformer. Thus, the Judeo is redundant.”
In my opinion, the Judeo in Judeo-Christianity is ultimately a sign of respect by Christians for their heritage. The term is meant for popular consumption, so it is necessarily crude, but it means to serve as a handy way for historically referencing many of the moral foundations of our culture.
“Christianity deserves credit for being so flexible that many can find it in harmony with rational natural approaches.”
In such a way this is a Christian nation, for it is out of this flexibility that such an environment was created that the Constitution could both be crafted and revered. Jacques Maritain explains wonderfully what I’m trying to get at — I would be very interested if Mr. Rowe had the time to review and comment on the essay I’ve linked to.
“We might say that our society is a Greco-Roman civilization at times packaged in a Judeo-Christian wrapper.”
To me the school of thought which has the West as a synthesis of Athens & Jerusalem seems to be the best fit for popular consumption…
…and by popular consumption, I don’t mean to present distorted history just cuz its easy to digest, but rather an attempt to give the gist to the general themes and principles at the heart of our founding and our culture.
It’s not just that the Judeo-part is redundant. It’s when we apply “Judeo-Christian” to some social aspect or philosophy that Judaism either condemns or has nothing to do with that we find the appending of “Judeo” is, in fact, false.
If the word combination “Judeo-Christian” is a sign of respect for Christianity’s heritage, then we’d expect fundies to be discriminating against everybody but Christians and Jews. Yet we so no more tolerance for Jews among Christians than any other non-Christian group. There was that recent thing in the northeast where a Jewish family was harassed, threatened, discriminated against in school, and driven out of town because they didn’t go along with the Christian-only dogma.
“Judeo-Christian” is not really a sign of respect for heritiage but an acknowledgement that Christians get alot more out of the asshole god of the old testament than the gospels of the new testament. These people are not so much Christians (whereby a Christian person who is knowledgable of the gospels and practices the ‘Golden Rule’), but Christianists, who get their kicks out of old-testament genocidal acts of god and want everybody to accept Jesus as part for the course. but then again, the God of the new testament isn’t any kinder, is he?
Scof,
That was a powerful and beautifully written piece. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
Rich
[...] Jefferson and Adams, because they called themselves Christian, are particularly easy to quote out of context. I’ve noted a number of times how the Christian Nation crowd offers the following quotation from Adams, which, when plucked from context, does seem on point for their side: “The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general principles of Christianity.” However, when one reads the rest of Adams’s letter to Jefferson from which the quotation is taken, a different meaning emerges: Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame. [...]