Madison’s Notes Discuss Christianity v. Theistic Rationalism
Jonathan Rowe on Jun 7th 2007 10:38 pm |
Check out page 88 of this book collecting James Madison’s writings. These notes he took on Patrick Henry’s VA Bill which sought to provide financial aid to “teachers of the Christian Religion.” In the Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison famously argued against the content of this bill which was subsequently defeated.
In Roman numeral V of his notes, Madison ponders the question “What is Xnty?” This is relevant because only “Christianity” and not other religions were eligible for aid in Henry’s bill. In V6 he discusses that some view the entire Bible as divinely inspired, some view only “essential parts” as divinely inspired; in V7 he notes some believe if a creed rejects certain key doctrines it is not Christian even if it calls itself Christian; in V8 he notes Trinitarianism, Arianism, Socinianism, (the latter two are forms of theological unitarianism) asking which of them would qualify as “Christian” under the bill; and in II6 he notes the case of “primitive Christianity,” “Reformation” and “Dissenters formerly.” He concludes that unless Christianity is specifically defined in the bill, judges might have to answer what is heterodoxy v. what is orthodoxy. And that in turn will “dishonor Christianity.”
How this relates to theistic rationalism? As my readers know, I have found that the key Founders (certainly Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and I would argue Washington and Madison himself) believed in what they sometimes referred to as “primitive Christianity,” that was unitarian (either Arian or Socinian), which viewed the Bible as only “partially inspired,” and elevated man’s reason over revelation as the penultimate tool for determining which parts of the Bible were “essential” or valid. Sometimes scholars refer to this creed as a form of “Deism” (though it is not strict deism ala Thomas Paine). Dr. Gregg Frazer has dubbed it “theistic rationalism” and Madison’s notes here seem to anticipate almost all of its elements.
Madison does not, unfortunately, explicitly endorse here, what form of Christianity he might believe in (though looking at his life as a whole I have concluded he was a theistic rationalist). But he did note that he did not want judges deciding whether what we call theistic rationalism is real Christianity.
If judges decided theistic rationalism, because of its heterodoxy, was not “Christianity,” then it would ineligible for aid. Madison makes clear in the Remonstrance, that whatever his personal creed, he thought government aid ought to be available to all religions on a non-discriminatory basis.
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
4. Because the Bill violates that equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If “all men are by nature equally free and independent,” [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 1] all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an “equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience.” [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16] Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions.
Yet, if judges declared theistic rationalism was “Christian” and hence eligible for tax aid, it would have, by force of law, established “heresy” as Christianity. This is exactly what occurred in Massachusetts where Protestant churches received government aid under a mild state establishment. A great deal of those Protestant Congregational Churches (arguably a majority of them in Boston) receiving such aid preached unitarianism/theistic rationalism, not orthodox Trinitarian Christianity.
I’d imagine that orthodox Christians viewed this is a tremendous dignitary harm. Reader Eric Alan Isaacson, Esq., a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church, informed me that conservative Calvinists congregants actively disfellowed themselves from the unitarianian congregants.
To draw a slight parallel to a present controversial issue, also most apt in Massachusetts — same sex marriage: Religious conservatives are asked “how is it that granting same sex couples the status of marriage harms you?” One common reply is calling something “marriage” that isn’t marriage, cheapens the institution. Similarly, calling something “Christianity” (theistic rationalism/theological unitarianism) that isn’t Christianity likewise cheapens the institution.
Madison’s solution? Not protect Christianity by giving legal privileges to “real Christianity” only — orthodox Christianity. But separate church and state. Perhaps then, we should separate marriage and state?
Filed in Uncategorized
A great deal of those Protestant Congregational Churches (arguably a majority of them in Boston) receiving such aid preached unitarianism/theistic rationalism, not orthodox Trinitarian Christianity.>>
You’re trying to make a mountain out of a mole. It’s obvious there were a lot of unitarians around, but the main point you won’t concede is, it’s the God of the bible. It’s an interpretation problem that you try to make a different God. The unitarians’ problem is not the correct God, it’s the access to that God. A unitarian cannot get access to the bible God, because they reject a fundamental of that God.
A part of me wants to agree with Madison, and maybe I do, so it is what it is. The evidence also points out that if Henry wouldn’t have left, Madison would have lost.
It’s not unitarianism/theistic rationalist, it’s Christian unitarian. Try not to leave out the Christian.
I’ll concede that some unitarians were quite Biblical (indeed they believed the Bible as an infallible final source of authority vetted theological unitarianism), did believe they worshipped the one and only the God of the Bible and thought non-Christian religions were false.
The problem is, I have evidence that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin didn’t believe this, even if some of the unitarian preachers who influenced them might have.
They weren’t just “unitarians,” which is why Dr. Gregg Frazer terms their creed “theistic rationalism.” Unitarianism is incomplete, as it is only one element in theistic rationalism out of many. They were also “universalists” in the sense that they believed all would eventually be saved, the bad punished only temporarily.
[Benjamin Rush, btw, was a Trinitarian, and probably did believe the Bible was infallible and Jehovah the one true God. But he was also a universalist in the sense that he denied eternal damnation.]
And — the part you don’t accept — they were also universalists (or syncretic) in the sense that they thought almost all of the world religions about which they were aware, many of them non-Biblical, worshipped the same God. This is a tenet of Freemasonry and Washington and Franklin were both Freemasons. Though Adams, Jefferson, and Madison (I do believe) weren’t; they were still influenced by it.
As I have shown you numerous times, Washingtons, Madison, and Jefferson referred to God as “The Great Spirit” when talking to Native Americans. This is not a generic title for God. Google those words. It’s the specific name Native Americans call their God. Though I haven’t found Adams’ quotations yet, he probably did the same. After all, he wrote the following to Jefferson:
– Adams to Jefferson, Oct. 4, 1813
http://positiveliberty.com/2005/10/john-adams-unitarian-universalist-seeker-of-the-truth.html
http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/cleanthe.htm
The problem is, I have evidence that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin didn’t believe this>>
You have Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin, which are only three guys. If there were one hundred of them that believed that, you would have some basis. Based on the contrary evidence, you shouldn’t use Madison. He changed his position many times, and you have one quote that supports your position, as well as later in life his family say he believed Christianity was the best religion. Since you have no evidence that Madison denied the essentials of Christianity, you shouldn’t label him.
Where is your quote on Washington?
Besides Washington, your position doesn’t have much weight as they are only three guys out of all the key framers. Sherman, Hamilton, Gerry, Morris, Hancock, Marshall, Jay, Ames,Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Noah Webster, Boudinot, James Wilson, Edmund Randolph, George Mason, etc. didn’t believe as Jefferson did.
Granted this isn’t perfect, but look at the top ten. There is a lot more involved in a key founder than what you say. I don’t think they should have Madison first because he was President after the country was established.
http://candst.tripod.com/founder1.htm
What this shows is the ignorance of Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin, showing that they denied the first commandment of God. God says He is not the god of every religion.
It’s nice to hear Mr. Goswick speak of “Christian Unitarians.” Many on the Christian Right insist that you’re not a Christian unless you accept the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus. That, of course, would mean that three of the nation’s first six presidents were not Christians: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and John Quincy Adams.
I’m happy to call all three Christians – - provided we understand that their Christianity was one that placed reason and humanity far above theological dogma.
Eric Alan Isaacson
Thanks for checking in Eric. I always appreciate it.
[...] Two points in response. First, it’s not clear that when Madison uses the word “Christianity,” he means exclusively orthodox Trinitarian Christianity. Indeed even though most scholars are likely call theistic rationalism a type of “deism,” the theistic rationalists were more likely to refer to themselves as Christians not deists. Indeed, I’ve blogged about a memo that Madison wrote preparing for the Remonstrance where he asks “what is Christianity?” and answers Christianity could be how the orthodox Churches have traditionally defined it, or a unitarian system (he mentions Arianism and Socinianism by name) that views the Bible as only partially inspired. In other words, theistic rationalism. Madison doesn’t let us know which version of “Christianity” he endorsed. Though, most orthodox Christians of that era, like Meade for instance, were quick to label that system heresy or infidelity. He does make clear that he didn’t want courts or any part of government for that matter deciding, which they might have to do if government aid were to go to teachers of “the Christian religion” only. [...]
[...] As noted these unitarians believed their religion to be a form of liberal rational Christianity. If, as Marshall and Story believed, Christianity had some type of organic connection to government and if their creed which denied original sin, the Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement, and Jefferson’s and Adams’ “Christianity” which denied the infallibility of the Bible and thought reason could edit the irrational parts of scripture all qualified as “Christianity” with which government had some kind of special relationship, we should easily be able to see how this could unleash undesirable theological disputes (i.e., “no, government should promote only true Christianity, not your heresy!”). This is exactly what Madison had in mind when he remonstrated against Patrick Henry’s Bill to support teachers of the Christian religion; he didn’t want the law to have to decide what is Christianity. [...]
[...] So when an air of mystery surrounds other key Founders, a strong reticence to explicate their religious specifics at a time when the institutional Churches expected public figures to profess orthodoxy, but many of them secretly believed in heterodoxy, I feel justified in asserting this means they probably believed as Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin did. James Madison was one such Founder. And in his notes preparing for the Memorial and Remonstrance he mentioned there are different kinds of Christianities, including Trinitarian and Unitarian, and that which believes the entire Bible is inspired, and that which believes only certain “essential parts” are divinely inspired. [...]
[...] I would submit, it is simply not possible to give “Christianity” only rights under the religion clauses, because that would require the law to determine what is Christianity, which the doctrine of the unalienable rights of conscience forbids. According to Madison, judges or law makers would now be in the business of deciding what is orthodoxy, and what is heterodoxy, which is unacceptable. As Walter Berns put it in Making Patriots: How could the states promote religious belief if, as Madison anticipated and as in fact was increasingly the case as the nineteenth century proceeded, they had to deal with a plurality of sects, and not all of them Christian? To be specific, how could Charles Turner expect his state of Massachusetts to provide religious instruction in its schools if its residents disagreed on the tenets of religion? [...]