Novak reacts to some early reviews. He stresses the same points which I reacted to in an earlier post on the matter:
The reviewer in the Sun gave several reasons why Washington was probably not a Christian, but so did we -- in fact, we gave the very same ones the reviewer offered as his own, and several more to boot. We never supposed we could prove that Washington was a Christian -- not from what he wrote, at least. But we did conclude that, taken altogether, the evidence from his life favored the claim that he was. So we laid out all the evidence we could find, pro and con, and argued for our conclusion.
What we did prove, and quite conclusively, is that Washington cannot be called a Deist -- at least, not in a sense that excludes his being Christian.
It's the same Christian v. Deist box. As I've noted before, in all likelihood, Washington believed in the same natural theology in which Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and Adams believed. Simply pointing out repeatedly that Washington invoked a warm intervening Providence does not come close to establishing Washington's orthodoxy given that each of the above mentioned Founders, including Franklin who never referred to himself as anything other than a Deist, likewise invoked an interventionist God.
As to whether, given the tenets of the natural theology, its adherents (our key Founders) may be properly deemed "Christian," all depends on how we define that term. Certainly, Jefferson and Adams referred to themselves as Christian, while advancing this heterodox Enlightenment-influenced creed.
What are the tenets of such a creed?
1) Belief in an all powerful, warm intervening Providence;
2) Disbelief in the Trinity, belief that Jesus was not God, but a great moral teacher;
3) Disbelief in Eternal Damnation, belief that upon death, the good experience eternal happiness, and the bad are temporarily punished, but the eventual redemption of all men;
4) Disbelief in the inerrancy of Revelation; and
5) Belief in Man's Reason, as opposed to Biblical Revelation, as the ultimate discerner of Truth.
Note, this system doesn't categorically reject the Truth in all Revelation, but rather Man's Reason is the filter for determining what Revelation is legitimate, and what should be regarded as corrupted.
Now, whether this theology qualifies as "Christian" -- and indeed many its adherents were members of professing Christian churches, and Adams and Jefferson, whose writings confirm each and every one of the above tenets, called themselves "Christian" -- is a matter of debate. But it looks to me that this creed is much closer to modern so-called "cafeteria Christianity" than the type of traditional orthodox Christianity posited by those who wish to claim the Founders as "Christians."
Finally, if any publication wants to send me an advance copy of Novak's book (I'll buy it when it comes out) for review, let me know.
2 comments:
-- "Disbelief in the inerrancy of Revelation" -- huh? I not sure with negative is last. --
Perhaps I should have put "belief the Bible was errant." But if I say it that way, it makes it seem as though they thought the entire book was one big error; they didn't. They revered some of the Bible, but thought parts of it had been corrupted. Hence Jefferson statement about using Man's Reason to find the "diamonds" of Truth among the "dunghill" of dogma and error contained in Scripture. (And his subsequent taking a razor to the pages and cutting out entire parts.)
-- From my readings of Washington, Jefferson (esp.), et alia, Washington was definitely a member of the Church of England (Anglican/Episcopalian); if the others were Church members, it was at best nominally. Whether they were Bible Believers is clearly not the case for Jefferson, Paine, etc. --
Jefferson, like Washington was not only an Anglican/Episcopalian, but also, like Washington was a vestryman in the Church.
Paine's religious beliefs are the one's I've probably studied in least detail. I know he called himself a "Deist," belonged to no Church and at times publicly savaged the Christian religion.
Jefferson and Adams, on the other hand, publicly didn't really attack the Christian religion, although Jefferson alluded to his heterodoxy in his book "Notes on the State of Virginia."
It was from his book and some other public writings, that were much tamer than his later private thoughts, that some orthodox Christian ministers savaged Jefferson.
Both Jefferson and Adams, at times, could be almost as harsh on orthodox Christianity as Paine. However, most of this comes from their private correspondence. Indeed, had those letters been made public, it probably would have publicly ruined both men, as Paine's rep. was ruined.
But anyway, Paine may be the outlier in the sense of "fitting" the today's definition of a "Deist," that is one who categorically rejects Revelation and believes in a non-Interventionist God.
Neither Jefferson, nor Franklin (who never referred to himself as anything other than a "Deist") fit the defintion of a strict Deist in that sense.
One surprising thing my research has found is that on the basics (see those five points in my post) Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Washington, and Madison, appear to be entirely agreed.
-- But the trinitarian formula does appear in the Constitution as the three branches of government. Tangental, obviously, but maybe an influence. --
I doubt the three branches of government had anything to do with the Trinity.
I once wrote on this blog a few years ago, something I was told in law school that our Founders were influenced by Scottish verbiage and they often wrote in threes. For instance, "life, liberty, property," or "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Locke's original phrase was "Life, Liberty, and Property." There was a question as to why Jefferson didn't simply write "life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness." I was told that things just sounded better in threes. Sandefur later disagreed with this.
Post a Comment