Can One Be A Good Christian and A Good American:
Jonathan Rowe on Mar 13th 2008 10:44 am |
Arguably No. At least according to Walter Berns. Or Thomas West’s understanding of Walter Berns. Berns does argue that Rousseau did have more of a profound effect on America’s Founding that most people are aware (indeed, Rousseau’s notion of the “civil religion” is almost identical to the generic theism that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin et al. posited when they connected religious and political principles).
Here Thomas West notes what Rousseau’s social contract teaches when war breaks out [quoting Rousseau]:
The citizens march readily to combat; . . . they do their duty, but without passion for victory. They know how to die rather than to win. . . . Christianity preaches nothing but servitude and dependence. Its spirit is so favorable to tyranny that tyranny always profits from it. True Christians are made to be slaves” (Masters trans. 129-30).
Then West notes Walter Berns’ take on the matter:
Rousseau’s nasty remarks are supported, surprisingly, by respectable conservative scholars such as Walter Berns, who maintains, “The very idea of natural rights is incompatible with Christian doctrine.” According to Berns, if you don’t put your neighbor’s good ahead of your own, you are a bad Christian. But the natural rights doctrine of the founding says that you may put your own preservation first if it conflicts with another’s.
If Berns and other scholars like him are correct, you cannot be a good Christian and a good American. George Washington’s 1789 letter to the Quakers tactfully but firmly criticizes their refusal to serve in the armed forces. Good citizenship, Washington implies, requires that you be willing to kill the enemies of your country.
As I noted in my last post, Berns goes farther than I do in asserting the incompatibility between Americanism and Christianity. I would simply note that Americanism and Christianity are not the same thing; Christianity is compatible with American style republican government because Christianity is compatible with almost any form of government, even and especially tyrannical government that is hostile to Christians (indeed, the very government in which Christianity was born!).
Berns, after Leo Strauss, correctly notes that whenever you read about the notion of “state of nature” and contracts and rights, be it Hobbes’, Locke’s or Rousseau’s version of the concept, you are reading an account of the origin of man that is “wholly alien to the Bible.”
Filed in Uncategorized
West does a very good job of demolishing Rousseau and Nietzsche, who argues in the same vein, that Christianity elevates weakness to a virtue at the expense of magnanimity and manliness.
Christians love a good scrap—that’s why they’re the crusaders. And as Dave Allen noted about the Irish, we have trouble deciding who God is, but one we do, we’re willing to fight for Him.
And I chafe at Strauss’ oversimplification of Hobbes and Locke—the latter of whom he pretty much reduces into a hedonist—and the reduction of “Christianity” to only the Bible and specifically the Sermon on the Mount. West does a fine job of citing Augustine and Aquinas through the Protestants at the Founding to find the clear Judeo-Christian congeniality to acting as the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword.
You know, I find myself growing increasingly impatient with the emphasis on Rousseau by folks of the Walter Berns/Russell Kirk/Forrest McDonald camp. I don’t know that Jefferson ever had any real truck with Rousseau, and Madison consciously avoided any association with him (taking care, for example, to say “social compact” instead of “social contract”). What do you think, Rowe? What evidence is there, really, of a strong influence by Rousseau himself on the founders? (I don’t mean by second-hand Rousseauian notions, which doubtless Jefferson imbibed in France; how could he not?) His name comes up three times in the entire Adams-Jefferson correspondence (only once by Jefferson), and never in all of the Jefferson-Madison correspondence. Am I just missing something? Or is this just another attempt by the conservatives to smear Jefferson by associating him with an unattractive character?
I don’t mean by second-hand Rousseauian notions….
That’s exactly how I think Rousseau influenced America’s Founding. Direct influence? I think you are right, not much at all.
Then why do these guys spend so much time talking about him? To read them, you would think whenever Jefferson got writer’s block in the summer of 76, he would wander over to the bookshelf and pull down Heloise.
I think because they think Rousseau’s philosophy was so powerful America absorbed much of it by osmosis.
As you know, I rarely weigh in on these sorts of discussions. However, as much as Jefferson was fond of France and, for that matter, was perfectly willing to lift ideas from anywhere he found them, I’d say a good bit of the contemporary focus on Rousseau is largely the result of a still prevalent attitude inside the academy that the Continental Enlightenment and French Revolution is where all the action really is and the British (mostly Scottish) Enlightenment gets comparatively short shrift as the poor country cousin. Of course, I’ve been on the sidelines as far as the academy goes for most of my adult life, so take that observation for what it’s worth; namely, not much. Just my two cents.
Boy do I find this Rousseau/Berns bit hard to swallow. To wit (we start with Rousseau)…
{NOTE: Modern American Evangelicaldom is favorable to tyranny — but not in the way Rousseau meant. In fact, the late Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Richard Land are very much Rousseauian in this context. That is, they support the tyranny of an administration that lied us into an illegal, unnecessary war, and they have supported all the tyrannical innovations this administration has mustered since 9/11.}
I wish I could see the entire Rousseau quote in context. I couldn’t find it online. And I’m not ashamed to say I own no Rousseau in my personal library. But if I understand it correctly, it’s just wrong.
Even with a Straussian reduction of “Christianity” to only the New Testament, and specifically the Sermon on the Mount, we find people like Leo Tolstoy, who advanced a “Quaker-like” theology of non-violent disobedience, modeled by Jesus Christ. Ghandi, though himself a Hindu (with the valid complaint that he hadn’t met any Christians who seemed to be followers of Christ in deed), adopted the Tolstoy model — even gave Jesus Christ credit for it. “The meek shall inherit the Earth.” And what do you know, he drove out a powerful empire. Martin Luther King Jr took his cues from Ghandi. Today, a black man is the front runner for the Democratic nomination.
Unfortunately for Rousseau (and Berns), there is abundant, recent historical evidence that the meek really do inherit the Earth.
But regarding people marching off to war, agreeing to die for country, often for ill-conceived reasons, for the benefit of wealthy others and self-aggrandizing politicians, under stupid generals who serve them up to meat grinders, the bigger and better questions, asked recently by Bill Bonner in his book, “Mobs, Messiahs, and Markets,” is why they don’t refuse to serve or question the wars they’re sent to fight — and if found serving, why don’t they shoot the generals?
Who is agreeing to be a slave here? ..to forgo their individuality?
Now we go to Berns…
Please, quote me chapter and verse on that one. That’s so wrong, it sounds like the subtle serpent in Genesis 3 (“God did not say…”). Let’s get this right!
* The Bible says my immediate neighbor is my brother in Christ, and I should be willing to share, in common, with him, when he is in distress and need, provided the cause of his need is not sloth or sin.
* In the New Testament one finds that Christians are to a) love our enemies (hope for their salvation) and, when facing persecution, we are to b) pray for them, and c) turn the other cheek.
* Jesus specifically tells us to, Love our neighbors AS WE LOVE OURSELVES.
Berns says Christians can’t be good citizens because they’re not willing to die for their country. Oh, that this was more often true, for the members of the Christian right are probably the biggest supporters of this ghastly War in Iraq…
Well, if that’s what “St. George” Washington thought, he was wrong too. How is it that, just because someone has been declared, BY POLITICIANS, to be our nation’s enemy, that they are necessarily mind? How “communal” (anti-individual) is that?
Muhammad Ali, a Muslim, was much closer to the right spirit (than Rousseau, Berns, or Washington), when refusing to accept a cushy draft enlistment in Vietnam he said, “No Viet Kong ever called me ‘nigger.’”
And in a similar vein, it’s not the Christian’s job — in fact, it’s NOT ANYONE’S JOB — to sacrifice their individuality, their right to religious thoughts and convictions, to serve an enemy created by the knaves on the Potomac. After all, God created each of us in His image.
Jim,
You might want to feature this in a post.
One thing I’ve discovered about Strauss and his East Coast followers is they find Rousseau and Nietzsche to be the two profoundest philosophers ever.
Do also keep in mind that I quoted Thomas West summarizing Walter Berns and Berns might object to West’s characterization. Here is Berns’ position in more context.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/044378.html
Two notes to Mr. Babka—one, that the Tolstoy-Gandhi-Quaker model of non-violent Christianity appears to be the historical exception, not the rule. The Sermon on the Mount does not say that if a bad guy breaks into your house and starts raping your daughter, you should offer him your son as well, although Gandhi would, I suppose.
Two, per your last bit on the primacy of the individual conscience, the original debate over the Second Amendment devoted a significant chunk of time on whether folks like the Quakers should be compelled to bear arms in the militia.
The final answer was no. Primacy of the individual conscience is a Founding principle, and indeed is missing from most other political systems.
I just finished a lengthy, much more thought-out response to Mr. Babka, but unfortunately forgot to save it before I sent, and the server appears to have eaten it… isn’t the first time, and I can only hope it will be the last time I forget to save beforehand.
I don’t have the time to replace it now, but I wanted to send out the link to the full Rousseau quote, because I am not ashamed to admit owning the entire catalog, short of Jefferson’s favorite, or so I hear, La Nouvelle Heloise. I’d suggest reading the entire section found here. It isn’t very long, and really does provide a lot of context that is completely omitted in West’s treatment. Also let me submit the full quote that you pulled out, from my version, a Maurice Cranston translation, which I think better states the point:
“Christianity preaches only servitude and submission. Its spirit is too favourable to tyranny for tyranny not to take advantage of it. True Christians are made to be slaves; they know it and they hardly care; this short life has too little value in their eyes.” (Note the important caveat at the end, which was omitted by West.)
I’ll have some comments on the Washington discussion, and I’ll try to flesh out Rousseau a bit more precisely once I get a chance.
[...] Jim Babka leaves an excellent comment criticizing Walter Berns’ position that traditional Christianity is incompatible with the natural rights philosophy of the American Founding. In particular Babka writes: First, Locke pretty much starts with a man named Adam, living in a garden — THE BIBLICAL NARRATIVE. And whether or not Rousseau had influence on our Founders, particularly Jefferson, no one doubts Locke had anything short of tremendous influence. [...]
[...] Jonathan Rowe at Positive Liberty wonders “Can One Be a Good Christian and a Good American?”. I think this is a better question than his discussion of the topic envisions. I think his quoted notation, that “I would simply note that Americanism and Christianity are not the same thing; Christianity is compatible with American style republican government because Christianity is compatible with almost any form of government, even and especially tyrannical government that is hostile to Christians (indeed, the very government in which Christianity was born!).” I think this misses the point, from a Christian standpoint. With respect to tyranny, Christianity may allow one to submit more to incursions on one’s “rights” (whatever they might be), but it never allows one to participate. I think the early Church notion, following Rowan Williams description, that a Christian must be a “resident alien” in his land held in tension with “render unto Caesar” and what that entails in a Republic is the essential tension … not ideas of tyranny and submission. [...]
[...] Jonathan Rowe at Positive Liberty wonders “Can One Be a Good Christian and a Good American?”. I think this is a better question than his discussion of the topic envisions. I think his quoted notation, that “I would simply note that Americanism and Christianity are not the same thing; Christianity is compatible with American style republican government because Christianity is compatible with almost any form of government, even and especially tyrannical government that is hostile to Christians (indeed, the very government in which Christianity was born!).” I think this misses the point, from a Christian standpoint. With respect to tyranny, Christianity may allow one to submit more to incursions on one’s “rights” (whatever they might be), but it never allows one to participate. I think the early Church notion, following Rowan Williams description, that a Christian must be a “resident alien” in his land held in tension with “render unto Caesar” and what that entails in a Republic is the essential tension … not ideas of tyranny and submission. [...]