More on Proper Label for Key Founders’ Beliefs
Jonathan Rowe on Sep 16th 2007 12:42 pm |
Tom Van Dyke leaves a thoughtful comment regarding what label best describes the creed of the key founders — Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al. — “Christian-Deism,” or “Theistic Rationalism,” or, others may add, perhaps something else (theological, small u unitarianism, as compared to the “Unitarianism” of the 19th Century Congregational Churches). I think all three labels, arguably could suffice for this system that is neither strict deism, nor orthodox Christianity, but somewhere in between with rationalism as the trumping element.
On “Christian-Deism” in particular, I have noted before that broadly defined the key Founders’ creed can qualify as both “Christianity” and “Deism.” Indeed, the biggest critique I have of Paul Boller’s book on Washington’s faith is that he defines Christianity narrowly, Deism broadly, and hence proceeds to place Washington in the “Deist,” box. Likewise Michael and Jana Novak define Deism narrowly, Christianity broadly, and proceed to place Washington in the “Christian” box. Peter A. Lillback likewise defines Deism narrowly but attempts to prove Washington was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian, but fails to do so. David L. Holmes’ terming Washington a “Christian-Deist” is at least fairer than than defining one box broadly, the other narrowly and proceeding to place the founder in whichever box conveniently fits the scholar’s secular leftist or religious rightist bias.
The problem with defining “Christianity” or “Deism” broadly is such runs the risk of such a broad understanding that the terms lose their meanings. Indeed, Van Dyke notes that I once noted Jefferson once defined Deism as “the belief of one only God” when referring to the “Deism” of the Jews. That’s not a very meaningful definition of Deism. As such Christianity, Judaism, Islam, all qualify as “Deist” religions. What Jefferson defined as Deism in his letter to Benjamin Rush we would better understand as generic theism.
Van Dyke also noted that Jefferson called himself a “Christian.” And again, Jefferson could be termed such if we define Christianity broadly. However, Jefferson — “the Christian” — rejected the following doctrines:
The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of Hierarchy, &c.
In defining Christianity so broadly, where do we draw the line? Jefferson rejected just about every doctrine of orthodox Christianity. If that doesn’t separate him from the label “Christian,” what does? Indeed, in their writings, Jefferson and Adams likewise seemed to define “Christianity” as “generic theism” as well. As Adams put it to Jefferson Oct. 4, 1813, finding “Christianity” in Zeus worship and all of the world’s pagan religions:
θÎμίς was the Goddess of honesty, Justice, Decency, and right; the Wife of Jove, another name for Juno. She presided over all oracles, deliberations and Counsells. She commanded all Mortals to pray to Jupiter, for all lawful Benefits and Blessings.
Now, is not this, (so far forth) the Essence of Christian devotion? Is not this Christian Piety? Is it not an Acknonowledgement [sic] of the existence of a Supream Being? of his universal Providence? of a righteous Administration of the Government of the Universe? And what can Jews, Christians, or Mahometans do more?
[...]
Moses says, Genesis. I. 27. ["]God created man in his own image.” What then is the difference between Cleanthes and Moses? Are not the Being and Attributes of the Supream Being: The Resemblance, the Image the Shadow of God in the Intelligence, and the moral qualities of Man, and the Lawfulness and duty of Prayer, as clear[l]y asserted by Cleanthes as by Moses? And did not the Chaldeans, the Egyptians the Persians the Indians, the Chinese, believe all this, as well as the Jews and Greeks?…I believe Cleanthes to be as good a Christian as Priestley.
Certainly concepts like Deism, Unitarianism, and Universalism derived from the “Christian” tradition. Broadly speaking, therefore, “Christianity” could include these concepts. But then we are left with Christianity, Deism, Unitarianism, Universalism, etc. etc. all meaning the same thing — “generic theism.” And, ironically, that’s exactly how Jefferson, Adams, and the other key founders (the “theistic rationalists”) would define things.
For instance, in one of Adams’ most notable quotations the “Christian Nation” crowd misuses, he writes to Thomas Jefferson on June 28,1813:
“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.”
Adams then more specifically defines those “general principles of Christianity”:
Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and “Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"].” Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.
This is not a statement of orthodox Trinitarian Christianity, but of theistic rationalism. As Dr. Frazer put it:
This was clearly not the Christianity of the orthodox, who did not believe that deists, atheists, and those who believe nothing were united with true Christians on any principles of Christianity!
Filed in Uncategorized
Jonathan – -
You suggest that the Founders’ beliefs might appropriately be characterized as a “theological, small u unitarianism, as compared to the ‘Unitarianism’ of the 19th Century Congregational Churches.”
Yet John Adams clearly qualifies as a capital-U Unitarian. As a matter of fact, his remains are interred at the First Parish Church (Unitarian) in Quincy Massachusetts, along with those of his wife Abigail Adams, their son John Quincy Adams, and daughter-in-law Louisa Catherine Adams. “Originally founded by Puritan Congregationalists, and Unitarian since 1750, First Parish continues to serve the community as a leader in liberal religion.”
Charles Francis Adams’s biographical sketch of his grandfather observed that John Adams had “devoted himself to a very elaborate examination of the religion of all ages and nations,” ultimately confirming “theological opinions very much in the mould adopted by the Unitarians of New England.” Charles Adams, Life of John Adams, in 1 Works of John Adams 621 (Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1856).
What about Jefferson? The correspondence between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson indicates that they shared a common theology. And when Jefferson expressed hope that Unitarianism would come to be the nation’s “general religion,” he likely had the New England model in mind – - even if there was no Unitarian church in the vicinity for him to join.
If you wish to apply a Trinitarian creedal test, you may of course deny that Jefferson and Adams were Christians, since they could not embrace the doctrine of the Trinity or worship Jesus as God. But they certainly thought they were Christians in the truest and purest sense – - even as they rejected creedal tests central to the “orthodoxy” imposed following Constantine’s union of church and state in the Fourth Century.
Peace & Love,
Eric Alan Isaacson
Eric,
I think many of these labels are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For instance, we could call the Pope a “Catholic” or a “Thomist” and not contradict ourselves.
Similarly Adams certainly was a Unitarian and a unitarian. Jefferson was a unitarian, but never actually joined the Unitarian Church. What I’ve concluded is that Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and Washington all pretty much believed the same thing. I believe they were all theological unitarians (and theological universalists, syncretists, rationalists, and theists). We are thus looking for a label that could be used to describe all 5. Small u unitarian certainly works; however, if you call, for instance, Washington a unitarian, the first thing a critical observer may point out is that he never joined a Unitarian Church (I don’t expect most folks to get the distinction).
I also agree these founders thought of themselves as “Christians” and thus could be described as “Christians” in a broad sense. Besides the reasons I described in my post for not using the “Christian” label to describe them, another would be — the other side — the “Christian America” folks like Barton and the late Kennedy — when they use the label “Christian” to describe the founders, mean the very opposite of the “big-tent,” broader, understanding of Christianity which allows the key founders, Mormons, JWs, theologically liberal/”cafeteria” Christians to qualify under such label.
So, in some sense I’m speaking on the terms of the folks against whom I’m arguing and pointing out, as you define the term “Christian,” America’s key founders weren’t “Christian.” I allow their strict definition to stand in part because there is a notable tradition among evangelicals and Catholics for for defining “Christianity” according to its historic creedal orthodoxy.
But, I guess, it really all depends on from what perspective you look at it. Dr. Frazer’s argument makes sense from an evangelical perspective because he is an evangelical. He accepts one must be a Trinitarian (and one must accept other key tenets as well) in order to be a Christian. Therefore, the key Founders, as non-Trinitarians, were not Christians, but something else.
This has been my trouble with the whole deal, as it’s a bit “inside baseball,” having meaning only in a Christian milieu, and not in small part in opposition to the Christian Nation crowd, who seem to get to define the terms. (Jonathan Edwards wasn’t very happy with us Papists either; perhaps we should just ignore the state of Maryland.)
As part of an academic theological exercise it’s OK I guess, but Trinitarianism wasn’t a factor in the Founding in the least, and by the time Adams gets finished blurring any and all meaningful lines about Christian principles, there’s no difference between a Catholic and an atheist. There’s quite a bit to be accounted for in between, and “Christian” is an essentially descriptive term, albeit a contentious one in this here culture war.
I don’t know about heaping Washington and Madison in, neither whether Jefferson and Adams are representative of much more than Jefferson and Adams.
It is not essential to accept the “Christian Nation” crowd’s definitions to define Jefferson out of Christianity. Although Jefferson considered himself Christian, his definition was so broad that it had no real meaning.
Historical Christianity is distinguished by a belief that Jesus is (in some sense) divine and by a belief in Jesus as the Living Christ (typically that he is risen from the dead). Those beliefs have been shared by both sides of most of the great defining disputes within Christianity. It is not too much of a concession to define Christianity in a way that requires one or both of its central tenets.
True, Daniel. Jefferson is not a Christian by any reasonable standard—other than his own. (Hehe.)
But Adams’ comparative theology is an embarrassment. He has no idea how Christian he is, and his inquiry was all about finding vague baselines in other religions to prove himself a unitarian instead.
Neither Islam nor Buddhism nor paganism has any concept of individuality that comports with his We Are (I Am) the World thesis that was the (philosophically) Christian ethos of the American Founding. Both he and Jefferson directly encountered the Muslim world in 1786 and blithely walked away learning nothing.
I repeat my contention that the divinity of Jesus Christ had nothing to do with the Founding. Among the loaves and fishes, this is a red herring.
TVD: “I repeat my contention that the divinity of Jesus Christ had nothing to do with the Founding.”
I don’t know. Maybe the United States of America is a Christian heresy.
Tom,
One advantage for Catholics in defining Christianity according to its historic creedal orthodoxy is that Catholics also qualify as “Christians.” It’s pretty much doctrinaire Catholics, evangelicals and traditional members of the Orthodox Church who clearly qualify as “Christian” under this understanding. Liberal (“cafeteria”) Christians, likewise, may qualify under such label if they accept the historic creeds.
Other than in the context of perhaps trying to claim as many of America’s founders as “Christians” (i.e., following Michael Novak), it seems to me that Roman Catholics have no problem with defining Christianity according to its historic standards of orthodoxy.
From what I’ve been reading on First Things of late, they have no problem, with, for instance, asserting Mormons aren’t Christians. Likewise, under such a narrow reading of Christianity, America’s key Founders weren’t Christians either.
Yes, it depends on who does the reading, and for what purpose, which is my problem here. If JC’s divinity, etc. were not factors in the Founding, then the question becomes either academic or one for the culture wars (and due to the efforts of you and others, the Christian Nation crowd is losing—a worthy effort in service of truth).
The Mormons are interesting—philosophically and politically speaking, are they close enough for rock’n'roll? The Romney question.
Washington and Madison were, mostly due to their judicious silence. Jefferson barely squeaked through in 1800, and by no means indulged himself in the squawking for cosmic truth that brought Tom Paine’s downfall.
I do not think Samuel (Joe Sixpack) Adams’ retort to Paine should be forgotten here:
“Do you think your pen, or the pen of any other man, can unchristianize the mass of our citizens, or have you hopes of converting a few of them to assist you in so bad a cause?”
John Adams seems to have picked up his inquiry after his presidency, and I repeat my objection to his sloppiness—there is an underlying philosophy, a worldview and a view of man that accompanies the world’s religions. One does not pick that up leafing through their scriptures alone.
I think that’s what Michael Novak is really after, and I imagine so am I. Individuality, essential equality, and rights the that flow therefrom as we know them in the West—these things may be universal somewhere in the heart of man, but they are not universal in his philosophies, theologies and cultures, as we are learning to our woe in, say, Iraq.
[...] Dr. Gregg Frazer emails the following response to Tom Van Dyke, who is commenting on this post where we continue to discuss the proper terminology for the key founders’ religious beliefs and the political theology of America’s founding. Kudos to Mr. Van Dyke for being open to the evidence. That is an all-too-rare quality today. Allow me to present more evidence in response to some of Mr. Van Dyke’s comments. Again, I do not have the time or the inclination to retype my dissertation, so my comments will be brief (as possible) and, consequently, not comprehensive. [...]
[...] I discussed the following quotation from John Adams [letter to Thomas Jefferson June 28, 1813] and noted it was one that the “Christian Nation” crowd most often misuses or misunderstands: “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.” [...]