Positive Liberty

One of the talking points of the wingnuts is America is a republic not a democracy. Although a few folks I respect have said such (notably Walter Williams), most folks who parrot this line don’t know what they are talking about. America is and was founded to be a democracy, a liberal democracy in fact. “Democracy” simply means “voting” — if there are legitimate elections, then there is “democracy.” (If the elections are a sham, then it’s a “banana republic” so to speak.) America’s Constitution provides for elections, ergo America is a democracy. The term small l “liberal” simply means there are individual rights that majorities cannot abridge. So that’s liberal democracy in a nutshell. Elections by the majority with individual rights that the majority cannot abridge. Continue Reading »

Google has digitized the entire volume of Bird Wilson’s “Memoir of the Life of the Right Reverend William White.” White was an Episcopal Bishop and presided over the church in Philadelphia George Washington attended as President. He gives key eyewitness testimony that Washington systematically avoided communion in his church. He also testifies that Washington didn’t kneel when praying and kept his mouth shut on his religious specifics. His assessment is fair and balanced; he doesn’t as did the minister in that church, Dr. James Abercrombie, claim this meant Washington was a Deist or not a “real Christian.” But he doesn’t make excuses for Washington either. Pages 188-200 reveal a number of his letters on the matter.

Dr. Benjamin Rush was one of the earliest notable American opponents of the Death Penalty. As will be seen, his anti-capital punishment position was derived from his understanding of the Bible. Regarding his theology, Rush described it as “a compound of the orthodoxy and heterodoxy of most of our Christian churches.” Basically, formerly a Calvinist, he converted to Arminianism, remained orthodox on matters of original sin, the trinity, incarnation, and atonement, but believed in universal salvation through Christ’s universal atonement. In short, he was a liberal Trinitarian Christian Universalist.

You can read the primary source on googlebooks, indeed a book so old that the “s’s” still look like “f’s.” He notes the case of the woman about to be stoned to death for adultery — a capital crime in Old Testament times — where Jesus forbade her execution. Though Rush doesn’t explicate it, the literal meaning of Jesus’ words “Let he who is WITHOUT sin,” suggests that only God (or if Jesus were not God, a uniquely sinless human like him) is qualified to implement capital punishment. WITHOUT Sin. Not “you may have problems of your own, you hypocrite,” but WITHOUT Sin.

Here is a short passage from Rush’s writings. By all means, read the entire context.

[W]hile I am able to place a finger, upon this text of scripture, I will not believe an angel from heaven, should he declare that the punishment of death, for any crime, was inculcated, or permitted by the spirit of the gospel.

It’s the same theologically liberal hermeneutic of, instead of appealing to specific “proof texts,” abstracting general principles from the “spirit” of scripture to reach specific conclusions not mentioned therein, that also made the Christian case against slavery. The Bible nowhere specifically abolishes slavery; to the contrary many specific texts recognize its validity. It’s only by taking the principle that because all men are created in God’s image, they are equal, and then applying that to slavery, that the “spirit” of the Bible likewise can be said to be anti-slavery as it is anti-death penalty.

The death penalty and slavery are good examples of social issues where the Bible gives no clear cut answer and texts can be offered on both sides. (On slavery, I’m inclined to argue the Bible is a pro-slavery book, or at least one utterly unconcerned with its abolition.) History, not hermeneutics, answers the question. History has answered the question with slavery; it’s still out on the death penalty.

Commenter Elliot left the following reply to this post, to which I thought I’d devote a top-level entry. His words are blockquoted, my replies are not…

Continue Reading »

Alexander Hamilton’s “The Farmer Refuted” is a classic piece of American literature justifying rebellion against Great Britain. Less well known is the fact that Hamilton was replying to Tory loyalist, the Reverend Samuel Seabury, the first American Episcopal bishop. This page collects the pieces of literature to which Hamilton was responding. I’m fairly certain it was the third one down, this one, to which Hamilton specifically responded.

Regarding the theological implications of the letters, I’ve already conceded traditional Christianity to be compatible with both sides. When Hamilton wrote “The Farmer Refuted” in 1775 he didn’t have any kind of established record as an orthodox Christian, while Seabury, as an Anglican minister, certainly did.

The content of “The Farmer Refuted” certainly has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity but rather relies on theistic naturalism and rationalism to advance its claims. In short, it is an Enlightenment, not a Christian document. Here are some highlights: Continue Reading »

Rev. John MacArthur is sort of a poster boy for traditional, Calvinistic, fundamentalist Christian theology. He also commands the highest respected within those circles. When notable evangelicals and Catholics signed a statement forming a socially conservative political alliance, he was one of the first to caution against the potential blurring of their profound theological differences. And he has chastised Billy Graham (and the Pope) for intimating that non-Christians perhaps will be saved. He also teaches literal 6-day creation. In short, he is the antithesis of a theological liberal. And this theology is not my cup of tea, at all.

As I’ve noted before, one thing I admire about MacArthur is the way he keeps his faith pure from political whoring, the consequences be damned. His understanding of Romans 13 demands concluding that the American Revolution was conceived in sin, that the Declaration of Independence is an anti-biblical document. I will charitably conceded alternate literal interpretations of Romans 13; I just want the other side to understand the strong biblical grounds for MacArthur’s view and the longstanding tradition it has in orthodox hermeneutics. Continue Reading »

I’m sure the timing had to do with the (hopefully soon-forgotten) movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” An email, targeted at Christians, arrived in my Inbox that read, “In the Beginning… What Really Happened?” But it was the next sentence that jumped out at me.

“Science insists that life and the universe are nothing more than cosmic accidents.”

A link labeled “where does the evidence really lead?” led to a promotional video — starring the Intelligent Design movement’s Who’s-Who.

But that sentence about science is really troubling.

First, science never “insists.” That’s a straw man. Physical science involves constant questioning and never quite arriving. Each mystery solved unlocks several new questions to be resolved. Only a scientIST can insIST.

It is impossible for science to “say” anything. Science is not a person, nor is it a democracy. Science is practiced by a sometimes incorrigible, generally competitive bunch of people, often hell-bent on proving each other wrong and getting famous with some new discovery. Now, there is, generally, a scientific consensus, but science is always provisional. In most instances you are well-advised to place your bets carefully on the consensus, because it’s been known to change — even quite abruptly. But evolution, which is extensively researched, well-cataloged, and supremely-tried, is one of the safest scientific bets.

Second, statements about the purpose of life and the meaning of the universe are NOT scientific. They are philosophical speculations, outside the purview of science — beyond falsification. Science is mechanistic — obsessed with measuring material, unable to locate ethereal meaning. Science is a tool and, as we’ll see, it can easily be misused.

Third, can you see, hear, touch, smell, or taste a cosmic accident (no double entendre intended)? How would you quantify and define a cosmic accident? How would you test it and, most importantly, falsify that? Science, properly practiced, doesn’t involve metaphysical properties. Theologians and philosophers can interpret and speculate and, in my humble opinion, even have some degree of success. But there’s no materialist method for measuring what is and what is not a cosmic accident.

The great boogeyman of the Intelligent Design movement is Richard Dawkins — or as a hilarious, viral, spoof video portrays him, Dick to the Dawk.

But the supreme irony is that there’s another boogeyman on the field — Phillip Johnson, the intellectual godfather and chief strategist of the Intelligent Design movement. Johnson fundamentally agrees with Dawkins! Both shape the battle as evolution wins, God loses. As theologian John Haught put it, “…all in their own ways, carelessly tolerate a simplistic conflation of science with ideological assumptions, whether these skeptics be religious or materialistic.” (Haught, God After Darwin, p 31).

And let’s be candid here: Richard Dawkins’ movement, New Atheism, and Phillip Johnson’s movement, Intelligent Design, need each other. They are thesis and antithesis. They are the Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote, or Tom and Jerry.

Now the aforementioned email advertisement might have been accurate if it had read, “Richard Dawkins insists that life and the universe are nothing more than cosmic accidents.” But that probably wouldn’t have provoked a sufficient number of Christians to click the link, so they too could learn how to burn straw men.

But Richard Dawkins did indeed say something almost exactly like that. Here’s the quote: Continue Reading »

Today is the National Day of Prayer. Here is the groups website, complete with the mythical picture of George Washington, on his knees praying at Valley Forge (Washington was a man of prayer, but didn’t pray on his knees; the reason why I say it’s mythical is because scholars have debunked that the incident ever occurred). I don’t know much about this group. To the extent that it is a private organization I don’t care about what it does or how it prays. However to the extent that this group is endorsed by government, it should be praying in generic monotheistic prayers only because that, not Christian theology, is what America is founded on.

The first four Presidents, Ben Franklin and Abe Lincoln never publicly prayed in Jesus’ name (neither do we have records in their private writings doing so). Further, they believed in natural religion, which holds all good men of all religions (regardless of whether they are “Judeo-Christian”) worship the same God. It was this natural religion that gave “all good men” access to the Deity that was key to forming America’s public theology.

In his column Roy Moore recognizes that generic prayers are not consistent with orthodox Christian theology.

Sadly, too many judges today like to call prayer and other civil acknowledgments of God mere “ceremonial deism,” a historic relic that has no “religious” significance. In fact, in cases involving public prayer in courts and legislative bodies, only those traditions that have decades or more of history behind them tend to survive legal challenge. Unfortunately, that means that only empty, generic references to God are allowed.

Jesus called such lip service “hypocrisy” when the Pharisees exalted their man-made traditions above the true worship of God.

“Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias (Isaiah) prophesy of you, saying, ‘This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.’ (Matt. 15:7-9)”

Accordingly, Moore is in a state of denial or ignorance about America’s Founders’ actual political theology. “The founders prayed because they believed in a real God who could actually meet their needs.” Moore cites George Washington, Ben Franklin and Abe Lincoln as figures to support his thesis. Presumably he believes they invoked the “real God.” As mentioned none of them publicly (or do the records show privately) prayed in Jesus name. All systematically used generic philosophical titles for God. Moore is confused by the fact that they could also use biblical allusion when speaking to Christian audiences. As Moore recounted:

Benjamin Franklin, remembering these daily prayers, reminded the Constitutional Convention 13 years later of the need for “imploring the assistance of heaven” lest their proceedings fare “no better than the Builders of Babel.”

The problem is Moore and the Christian America crowd interpret the use of biblical allusion such as Franklin’s to mean they believed in the one true Biblical God, whose way is exclusive. Wrong. Franklin was, like the other key Founders, a theological unitarian who believed all good men worshipped the same God. As such they could speak in biblical allusion one minute and then turn around and speak as if Muslims and unconverted Native Americans worshipped the same God they did. This may not be “ceremonial deism” as the secularists articulate it. But it arguably nonetheless qualifies as the kind of generic religion that the Bible criticizes. And it is what America’s public institutions are founded on, like it or not.

Tom Van Dyke leaves a thoughtful comment on whether the God of the American Founding is the God of Abraham:

I’m not aware of any other monotheistic, providential Creator God that can be remotely construed to endow man with certain unalienable rights.

All this talk of syncretism must acknowledge that the syncresis took place within a very narrow milieu of a Judeo-Christian European culture with, admittedly, the acknowledged philosophical influence of the Enlightenment and the Greeks [with a dash of the Romans thrown in].

But there is no new God of the Enlightenment except perhaps for man himself, and the gods of the Romans and Greeks are nowhere to be found here except on the edges, and only rhetorically.

The God of the Founding is not a new one, fabricated from whole cloth. He may not be Abraham’s, strictly speaking, but He is none other, either.

I see his point — that though America’s Founders pretended the Native Americans with their “Great Spirit,” the Hindus, the pagan-Greco-Romans, and other non-Judeo-Christian faiths worshipped a common “Providence,” carefully examining the attributes of these non-Judeo-Christian deities belies such a notion. Michael Novak makes a similar point that an active, personal, intervening monotheistic God is uniquely characteristic of Judaism and Christianity (he doesn’t add Islam, but I will). Continue Reading »

Here is the first chapter from John Dilulio’s “Godly Republic.”

I agree that his centrist-civil religion approach is consistent with America’s Founding (that America’s public institution’s presuppose a Supreme Being, and therefore supplications to such ought to be constitutional). However, I think the scholarly case made by such figures as Steven Waldman and Jon Meacham is more accurate. Here is Dilulio’s thesis:

The truth, however, is that present-day America is blessed to be in religious terms pretty much what Madison and most of the other framers intended it to be. It is a godly republic with governmental institutions that (as Justice Douglas phrased it) “presuppose” monotheistic belief in the “Supreme Being” known to Jews, Christians, and Muslims as the God of Abraham. It is a godly republic that affords a special civic status to nondenominational and interfaith (God-centered) religious expression. It is a godly republic that respects, promotes, and protects religious pluralism: Methodists, Muslims, Mormons, and all other faiths are welcome. It is a godly republic in which both the Constitution and federal laws prohibit government from discriminating against citizens who profess no faith at all (atheists have the same constitutional standing as Anglicans) or who are actively, but peacefully, hostile to all religion or to all church-state collaboration (Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is no more or less entitled to tax-exempt nonprofit status than the National Association of Evangelicals).

Continue Reading »

Can something qualify as “Protestant” but not “Christian”? Arguably yes. I see America’s Founding as a “Protestant” event, but not necessarily a “Christian” one, if Christianity defines according to its Trinitarian orthodoxy as evangelicals and Catholics believe. If Christianity defines in a broader, more theologically liberal sense, then I can see America as founded on Protestant Christian theology. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were, in my opinion, more likely to identify as or understand themselves “Protestant Christians,” not Deists. To Jefferson such “Protestant Christianity” rejected the following:

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.

The million dollar question is can such a system that rejects “[t]he immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension…the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration…,” aptly be termed “Christian.” Continue Reading »

I just found online an important sermon given in 1775 by Samuel Langdon, former President of Harvard University, entitled The Co-Incidence of Natural With Revealed Religion. It’s important because it sheds light on the natural religion that forms the basis of American political theology. The Declaration of Independence invokes “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and various folks argue over and misunderstand what this phrase means. One reading holds that the Founders were almost all Deists and this is a stock Deist phrase. And the other holds that the phrase in question is shorthand for the God of the Bible and revelation. Both readings are wrong. Continue Reading »

Peter Marshall is a notable promoter of the “Christian America” myth. He, along with co-author David Manuel, wrote a classic in that idiom entitled The Light and the Glory. Here is how evangelical scholar Dr. Gregg Frazer of The Master’s College describes it in his PhD thesis from Claremont Graduate University:

It became the classic text of that camp. Its historiography is abominable; it is a collection of speculations, suppositions, personal musings, and “insights” with little or no proof or documentation for extraordinary claims. p. 38.

And in this post Marshall informs us:

I have been spending the entire winter working on a major revision and updated version of our first book, The Light and the Glory. The publisher has wanted a second edition of the book for some time, and it now looks as if that will become a reality by the spring of 2009.

Continue Reading »

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The political sermons of the American Founding collected by Ellis Sandoz are fascinating and enlightening to read, and many of them contain great ideas. Many of them support the notion of political liberty. I likewise support political liberty. Yet, let’s not get too caught up in nostalgia. They also reveal that pastors back then have done exactly what the religious right AND religious left do today: whore the Christian religion for political purposes. Continue Reading »

This post by a Christian blogger well summarizes the thesis of The Search For Christian America, a remarkable book by Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and George Marsden, three of the world’s most important scholars of religion, who also happen to be traditional Christians. The post reproduces this excerpt from the book:

1) 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. In addition, a careful study of history will also show that evangelicals themselves were often partly to blame for the spread of secularism in contemporary American life. . . . (Mark A. Noll, Nathan O. Hatch, George M. Marsden, “The Search For Christian America,” 17)

The post also notes what I’ve long noted (after of course, those three distinguished authors) about non-authentically Christian ideas riding along side Christian theology:

[T]hey will continue to argue that America does indeed have rich “Christian heritage;” but unfortunately what passed as uniquely Christian, was in fact, Christianity baptized in “Natural Theology,” and rationalist Enlightenment principles. Here is an example of what I am talking about, found in the Declaration of Independence….

The theology of the Declaration of Independence is no more authentically “Christian” than the theological tenets found in for instance, The Book of Mormons. This is something I want evangelicals and Catholics to appreciate. And also as I’ve noted (again after Noll et al.), John Witherspoon was one of those evangelicals who contributed to the spread of secularism in American life. His Lectures on Moral Philosophy, what he primarily taught his Princeton students like James Madison, did not teach Christian or Calvinist principles, but rather Scottish Enlightenment principles.

Finally you may want to check out this post, another Christian source that thoughtfully explores the Christian Nation idea, where they note something very interesting from one John Eidsmoe, one of the key promoters of the “Christian America” idea:

As John Eidsmoe, one of the more responsible conservative Christian writers on this issue observes: The term ‘Christian’ can be used in two contexts. First, it can describe someone who is “born again,” or “saved,” or “regenerate,” a dedicated follower of Jesus Christ and His teachings… The term ‘Christian’ is also loosely used to denote a person whose beliefs about God, the world, and man are generally in accord with those of the Christian religion but who may not be a dedicated follower of Christ. In this second context, a person’s beliefs, actions, and/or demeanor may be “Christian” (decent, generous, moral) but he or she might not be regenerate. (Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, 78-79) Eidsmoe recognizes that it is only in a looser sense of the word that the majority of the founders and the origins of the constitution may be considered ‘Christian.’

It seems to me that Eidsmoe lets the cat out of the bag in that passage. Yes America is a “Christian Nation,”…in a nominal, heretical, theologically liberal sense of the term. This is not what the traditional Christians who want to believe in the Christian America myth want to hear.