Dr. Gregg Frazer has sent a long, detailed final comment defending his review of Dr. Mark David Hall's book against the charge of "inaccuracy."
---------------------------------------------------------
To be clear: I only mentioned Lutz and his brand of evidence
BECAUSE MARK RELIES ON LUTZ’S STUDY in order to diminish Locke’s
influence. I was not suggesting that
Lutz’s view is the only – or even the best – scholarly effort or appropriate
methodology. As I said, I have problems with basing much on mere countings of
citations. I was responding to the evidence Mark offers and, apparently, finds
compelling. Mark cites Lutz – but partially and conveniently; that was my
point. The source he cites does not
really say what he reports it saying. I
am not accusing Mark of doing this intentionally; he may well have gotten
caught up in making a point.
Another source that Mark cites (John Dunn) to diminish
Locke’s significance is all about the GENERAL PUBLIC’S lack of access to Locke
and the situation of “the American population at large” [my italics] –
but the section in Mark’s book is “To Whom Did the Founders Turn?” – not
the common people [my bold]. There was a
huge difference between the highly educated founders and the common people.
It’s also important to note the Dunn wrote before Bernard
Bailyn’s work with the pamphlet literature of the day was available. Bailyn says that Locke was cited “(i)n
pamphlet after pamphlet” and that “(t)he pervasiveness of such citations is at
times astonishing” and that Locke’s influence approached being “dominant” and
“wholly determinative.”
So, the common man
was more familiar with the Bible – that’s a major reason why the Founders frequently
referenced it; but the Founders were more influenced by Locke. Mark mentions that the Bible was often quoted
and applied without citation – so was Locke.
Continuing his argument that the Bible was “the most
important source of authority for America’s founders,” Mark continues to equate
reference to a biblical “phrase” or “expression” with influence. He cites, of all people, Ben Franklin in
support of this notion. Franklin is
perhaps the best example of the flaw in this line of thinking. Franklin uses illustrations, stories, and
familiar phrases from the Bible to embellish his arguments because people were
familiar with it; but as far as I know, there is no example of Franklin
actually drawing a principle from the Bible.
I asked a prominent scholar regularly cited in Mark’s book
for his top three examples from the Constitutional Convention of delegates
basing a constitutional principle on a biblical principle. That was about 10 years ago and I’m still
waiting for the first example.
Even in his famous call for prayer, Franklin makes it clear
that his conclusion that “God governs in the affairs of men” is based on
history and his own observations, not on belief because the Bible says so. He makes two references to the Bible to
ILLUSTRATE that idea (sparrows and Babel), but it is clear that he did not get
the idea from the Bible. [And that’s not
a constitutional principle, anyway]
Anyone who doesn’t list Franklin as a theistic rationalist,
lists him as a deist. Clearly, the Bible
did not have much influence on him.
In this section, Mark does not offer even a single example
of a founder saying that he was influenced by the Bible – only that they
used it for various purposes.
Again, Satan did the same thing (Luke 4:10-11) and, like a number of the
founders, used it for his own purposes out of context.
In a stunning paragraph on page 30, Mark first says: “The
Holy Scriptures were the most important source of authority for America’s
founders, but they are not a handbook for politics.” Then, in the next
sentence, he says: “So when the founders debated the
War of Independence, the creation of a new state and national constitutions, …
they turned to thinkers such as Locke and Montesquieu for guidance.”
The Revolution and the creation of the Constitution constitute THE
FOUNDING. So, Mark here admits that
Locke and Montesquieu were more important sources for the founding than
the Bible. So, did America have a
Christian founding? No; by Mark’s
admission, it was a Lockean and Montesquieuan founding.
Then he tries to dig his way out of the hole with another
sentence: “They saw these authors as articulating ideas that were compatible
with their Christian convictions.”
Really? 1) Who ever said
that? Where’s the evidence? He says “they saw” this, but how does
he know – who said it? 2) What ARE
“Christian convictions” – we still have no definition of “Christian” and,
consequently, cannot know what Christian convictions are. 3) Was the founding based on “Christian
ideas” (whatever that means – he doesn’t ever say) or on ideas that were simply
“compatible with” Christian convictions? Can it legitimately be called
distinctly/particularly “Christian”? On
what grounds/basis do we pick that one of several contributing elements?
Does any of this look familiar from, say, The Federalist
Papers or other explanations from that time of the ideas in the
Constitution and the source for them?
What about the notes of the Constitutional Convention?
Mark’s next claim is: “When America’s founders spoke about
‘religion,’ virtually all of them – even those most influenced by the
Enlightenment – meant Christianity.”
That’s a VERY BROAD and SWEEPING claim, so one would expect broad and
extensive evidence to be presented to confirm it – right? The ONLY evidence offered for this astounding claim is a
statement by John Marshall that in America “Christianity and religion are
identified.” But Mark omits the
beginning of the sentence: “The American people are entirely Christian ….” Was that true? The latter half of the sentence is no more
true than the first half. That’s why
this is the only evidence Mark can present for this amazing claim. As I noted before, Marshall is a problematic
witness.
Mark then says that a statement by Benjamin Rush is the
“exception that proves the rule.” But
you have to prove the rule first! Rush
is hardly the sole “exception,” John Adams and Thomas Jefferson regularly
discussed other religions. Mark reprints
much of Washington’s letter to a Jewish congregation! There is NO reason
to believe that others meant “Christianity” when they simply used the word
“religion.” Mark objects to
being lumped with less-than-stellar authors, but this is simply a David Barton
talking point with, as far as I know, absolutely no evidence to support it –
other than Marshall’s obviously suspect statement. It would seem that such a HUGE claim would
have – and REQUIRE – more evidence supporting it than that.
To illustrate: on pg. 33, Mark prints a quote from Charles
Carroll. In that quote, Carroll refers
to “the Christian religion.” a) why does
Carroll specifically identify the religion as “Christian” – why didn’t he just
say “religion?” b) If Mark’s claim is
correct, then Carroll’s statement is a reference to “the Christian
Christianity!” That is nonsensical. Or is Carroll distinguishing to which
“religion” he is referring and thereby recognizing that the term is broader
than simply Christianity?
Later, on pg. 89, Mark repeats the claim. In that section – in the quotes that Mark
includes – we have Abraham Baldwin recognizing “a different religious
profession.” Mark suggests that he’s
trying to protect Jews. But how can that
be? If “religion” IS Christianity
in the founders’ usage, then his statement must be understood as “a
different Christian profession” – mustn’t it?
He also recounts South Carolina’s statute referring to the “Protestant
Christian religion” – but that would be nonsensical; it would mean the
“Protestant Christian Christianity!” And
Georgia’s law would require all officers of the university to be “of the
Christian Christianity.” There are
several references to “the Christian religion” in statutes and statements in
this section of Mark’s book. They would all be nonsensical if his claim is
correct. They would be repeated
references to “the Christian Christianity.”
Why the need for these people and statutes to specify the Christian
religion if “religion” was synonymous with Christianity to them? Why didn’t they just say “religion?”
Mark follows with a number of founders referring to the
importance of – and need for – “religion and morality.” These are important statements about
“religion” – but not necessarily Christianity.
He says they must be interpreted as references to Christianity – even
when they come from non-Christians and from people such as Adams and Washington
who recognized other religions (remember Washington’s letter to the Hebrew
Congregation that Mark highlighted earlier?).
Why must we accept that as true without better or more evidence than
Marshall’s questionable statement?
*This all comes back to Mark’s false dichotomy that there
are only two options – so any reference to “religion” by guys who were not
deists must be a reference to Christianity.*
In a section ironically entitled “Context Matters,” Mark
criticizes John Fea’s comments concerning Washington’s 1783 “Circular Letter to
the States.” While Mark is correct that
Washington clearly refers to Jesus (of course without mentioning Him by name –
Washington never did), he, like others, makes far too much of the reference to
“the Divine Author of our blessed religion.”
First: Washington does
not call for accepting the gospel or adopting Christianity or anything specific/unique
to Christianity. He merely calls for imitation of Jesus’ virtuous “characteristics”:
charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind.
One could do the same with Gandhi, for example. This is consistent with
his call for “religion and morality” and these are emphases of theistic
rationalism and Hinduism and several other belief systems as well as
Christianity. This was consistent with
the theistic rationslist view that Jesus was a good moral teacher and
example.
Second, much is made
of the use of the word “Divine” to describe Jesus here; the assumption is that
Washington here is doing what he did not do anywhere else: express belief in
the deity of Jesus. But (speaking of context) one must understand 18th-century
usage of words when discussing 18th-century writing. According to the definitive multi-volume
Oxford English Dictionary (which traces usage by time period), one definition
of “divine” is: “of more than human or ordinary excellence; pre-eminently
gifted; in the highest degree excellent.” It cites a 1680 reference to
“Divine Shakespeare” and a 1711 reference to “divine Socrates” as examples.
Even today, we might refer to a “divine” symphony or dessert; Bette Midler is
called “the Divine Miss M.” It was
common in that day to refer to phenomenal, outstanding, talented people as
“divine.” It does not necessitate an
indication of deity and, given the record of Washington’s writings – he never
referred to Jesus by name and never affirmed His deity in any other place – the
least problematic interpretation GIVEN THE overall CONTEXT is that he simply
meant to say that Jesus was extraordinarily special.
Third, another meaning
at the time was: “one who has officially to do with divine things; an
ecclesiastic, clergyman, priest, or theologian.” At that time, people regularly referred to
clergymen as “divines.” [A chapter in The Religious Beliefs of America’s
Founders is entitled “’Divine’ Sources of Theistic Rationalism. It is a reference to clergymen – not to
God.] Washington may simply have been
describing Jesus as a prominent religious person.
There is no reason to assume that – in this one isolated
instance – Washington was saying the Jesus was God.
Fourth, Mark says that
applying “Fea’s logic” to the Lord’s Prayer, which begins “Our Father who art
in heaven” could lead someone to conclude it was not “uniquely Christian.” Someone who did not look at the WHOLE context
could conclude that, but not someone who read it in its overall context (the
rest of Matthew or even just the rest of the Sermon on the Mount). What would someone conclude from reading the
rest of Washington’s writings?
I wholeheartedly agree with Mark’s conclusions at the end of
this section because they refer simply to “religion” and “religious”
things. If one does not read
“Christianity” and “Christian” into these comments, they are valid and correct
conclusions.
On pages 37-39, Mark implies/suggests that the Calvinist
view of human nature was the driving force behind the Constitution (what this
chapter is about). He begins with the
claim that the founders believed in Romans 3:23 – but there’s no evidence, no
quotes, to confirm this assumption.
He then notes that “most Americans in the founding era” were
Calvinists and talks about Calvinist influence on children. Even if those claims are true, they are
irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is not most Americans,
but those who wrote the Constitution. As noted above, most of the delegates to the
Constitutional Convention were NOT Calvinists and none of them cited Calvin or
other Christian thinkers. They cited
people such as Montesquieu and Locke and they cited experience and history.
He also mentions a couple of Calvinist teachers of Madison
and many other founders, particularly John Witherspoon. He does NOT mention that Witherspoon began
his famous Lectures on Moral Philosophy [the course taken by the future
founders] by describing moral philosphy as “an inquiry into the nature and
grounds of moral obligation by reason, as distinct from revelation”
(emphasis mine). He said that “there are
but two ways in which we come to the knowledge of things, viz. 1st,
Sensation, 2nd, Reflection” – not revelation. He regularly appealed to “reason” and “common
utility” as the ground of argument – not revelation. Witherspoon was a Christian and a Calvinist,
but he didn’t always – or necessarily at all – teach his students his
Calvinism.
And, at that, not all of my students learn or agree with all
that I teach them – and I suspect that is true of Mark’s students as well. The proof would be in the pudding – the
extent to which Calvinist ideas came out in their writings. Mark and I disagree profoundly on that.
As I explain in the review, Mark “argues that Calvinism’s
teaching concerning total depravity and sin caused the founders to embrace
separation of powers, checks and balances, limited government, and
federalism.” But, I explain: “the founders
actually saw man as an alloy of virtue and vice. Madison said that the
good/virtuous qualities in man are present ‘in a higher degree’ than man’s bad
qualities and that self-government cannot work unless that is true (Federalist
#55).”
Regarding use of the word “sin”: I point out in the review
that the founders did not use the Christian or Calvinist word “sin.” They used less judgmental words such as
“weakness” and “venality.”
The idea that man
has a wicked side is hardly unique to Christianity – who said their efforts for
separation of powers were driven by Calvinism or Christianity or even religious
beliefs? As opposed to experience/history? What Madison and others said between
the Articles and the Constitution and after was that their experience with the
Articles and legislative dominance (“drawing all power into its impetuous vortex”)
convinced them.
Mark speaks of “foundational
[my emphasis] Christian principles, such as the reality that … power tends to
corrupt.” Where does the Bible teach that? In which creed, catechism, or confession of
Christianity is that listed? Which
churches have that in their doctrinal statement? This is not a “Christian principle,” it is an
observed principle of human nature that is not inconsistent with what Christianity
teaches – except that there will be no corruption in the Millennial Kingdom.
No political
philosopher believed more in the depravity of man than Machiavelli – he didn’t
get the idea from Christianity! History
shows human nature.
Mark notes that the founders regularly cited Montesquieu,
but that “the founders were drawn to him because he addressed a dilemma that
all Christian statesmen must face.”
Which founder ever said this?
Mark refers to a “broad
and sweeping consensus among America’s founders that humans are sinful” – but
the founders didn’t say that. Where’s a
supporting quote?
When trying to
counter the influence of the Enlightenment, Mark refers only to a French
Enlightenment figure and to the French Revolution; but the English
Enlightenment was very different and less radical – and that’s what
influenced Americans!
Mark (again
ironically) quotes Louis Hartz when he appears to agree with a point Mark is
making – but Hartz is the biggest Lockean influence supporter of all! Hartz’s whole thesis is that America has
worked because it’s based on a Lockean consensus! So Mark’s
arguments against the influence of Locke discredit his own witness. Hartz claims that our only
philosophical tradition from Europe is Lockeanism.
Regarding the section on natural law and natural rights (p.
42ff): natural law is not a distinctly Christian notion – it
began with the pagan Cicero.
Mark again assumes without demonstrating that the concept of
“natural rights” is a Christian concept. It may be promoted by Christians, but that
does not make it a Christian concept. If it did, the “Christian” view of a lot
of issues would be schizophrenic. Where
does the Bible teach natural rights?
Which confessions, creeds, and catechisms include natural rights? What makes it a Christian concept?
Mark refers to “the Christian – especially Protestant –
conviction that tyrants may be actively resisted.” This is not a “Christian” conviction (the
Bible doesn’t teach it and it’s not in any creeds/etc.). It is
a view held by some Protestants, just as some Protestants are Yankee
fans and some are Dodger fans, but neither is a “Christian” position because
neither Jesus nor the Apostles taught it.
I invite a listing of Scriptural passages that promote or even allow
“active resistance” to tyrants. Speaking
of Calvin, even he could not find any.
Mark presents a caricature of the opposing viewpoint (rather
than dealing with the actual argument) by saying that a direct reading of
Romans 13 “seems on the surface to require Christians to obey even evil
rulers.” But it doesn’t require
Christians to “obey” evil rulers, but to be “subject” to them (like the
numerous examples in Scripture such as Shadrach & his friends, Daniel, and
even the Apostles). They did not “obey” the rulers’ commands to disobey God,
but they did remain “subject” to them. Like
so many, Mark changes the word in the passage to make his argument. They are different Greek words with different
meanings.
Mark concludes this section on natural law and natural
rights with: “it is clear that the founders valued them, at least in part, for
theological reasons.” Why is that
clear? No proof has been presented –
just claims. And no proof has been
given that the “theological reasons” were Christian rather than theistic
rationalist.
He says: “It is true that some judicial or procedural
rights, such as the right to trial by jury, were drawn from other sources.” This
is an admission that the system is a “mixed” one. On what grounds, then, do we pronounce it
distinctively “Christian?”
Turning to the right to life, Mark contradicts the entire
previous section’s claim of the supposed influence of Calvinism when he opens
this section by saying that the founders had a “high view” of human
nature! Which is it? Did they believe in Calvinism’s total
depravity or did they have a high view of human nature? You can’t have it both ways. If he means that they had a high view of
human life, that’s a defensible and non-contradictory notion. But that’s not the claim here.
As I (accurately) report in the review: “Hall claims that
America’s founders ‘were committed to the core Christian idea that all humans
are created in the imago Dei (image of God).’ This is the only one of his ‘Christian ideas’ that is distinctly or
uniquely Christian; but no evidence to
support this claim is given from a
founder other than James Wilson quoting Psalm 139, which does not mention the
image of God.” I first asked Mark about
five years ago for a single quote from a founder expressing belief in this
Christian idea. None has been
forthcoming and there is none in his book – just a claim (again).
The Wilson quote expresses belief that God created man, but
nothing about the image of God.
Virtually everyone before Darwin believed that God or god or gods
created man; that much is hardly a uniquely Christian idea. The one Christian idea is presented without
supporting evidence.
On page 49, Mark claims that they “regularly appealed to
Scripture to support their arguments for liberty,” but the passages quoted are
about spiritual liberty (as all “liberty” passages in the Bible
are) – not political liberty. Although
they’re out of context and not what the Bible teaches, Hall claims that “it is
clear that America’s founders understood civic liberty in a thoroughly
Christian context.” Really? Misapplying
the Scripture to make God say what He does not say is a “thoroughly
Christian” approach? I make this point
in the review – inaccurate?
Mark notes: “The founders distinguished between liberty and
licentiousness” – but so did Plato and most political philosophers throughout
history. This is no indication of
Christian influence without some founder making that connection.
Although Mark broadly and categorically calls my review
“inaccurate” – which implies that the part in which I praise his treatment of
religious liberty must also be inaccurate.
I stand by my evaluation here, as well.
I agree with his commentary regarding Roe v. Wade and freedom of speech
– but they do not uniquely/specifically reflect Christianity or require belief
in Christianity. I agree with his take on the First Amendment and overuse of
Jefferson and the so-called wall of separation; Mark is excellent in this area
and provides real evidence. I agree that they supported promoting
“religion” and morality – with the caveat that “religion” simply meant
“religion” to them and not necessarily Christianity.
Mark concludes this section by claiming that “there are
excellent reasons to believe that they were influenced by the Bible and
Christian political ideas.” I wish he
had given some of those excellent reasons; I don’t see any.
He further concludes with this: “The constitutional order
they designed, one characterized by federalism, separation of powers, and
checks and balances, reflects their Christian commitments. Their understanding
of rights and liberty is best comprehended by taking into account their
Christian worldview.” If that’s true, why
did they have to manipulate and misapply Scripture out of context in order to
support their supposedly Christian views?
As I state in my review: “Misusing and misapplying the Bible
for one’s own purposes to advance an idea not actually taught in the Bible is
not the act of a Christian and does not indicate Christian influence.” Christians seek to understand what the Bible
really says/means because it is the Word of God and they desire to obey it –
not to skirt God’s commands or merely to give cover for sin that they desire to
commit.
Christians regularly see non-Christians employ
out-of-context “quotes” or information from the Bible to try to discredit it or
to promote some preferred cause for partisan purposes. That is not an indication of Christian
“influence.” Regarding the use of the
Bible: EVERYTHING
depends on HOW it is used – not just that fact that it is used or
the number of times.
Using a hammer multiple times to bash in a skull does not
make one a carpenter.
Mark mentions Jasper Adams’s 1833 sermon; he does not
mention that Madison refused (when asked) to confirm Adams’s thesis that
Christianity was the foundation of America’s political institutions. This would have been a golden opportunity for
a key founder to endorse the Christian America claim – but Madison did not
(though prompted to). Mark does mention
that Marshall of course affirmed it.
That is the letter in which Marshall dubiously claims that “the American
population is entirely Christian.”
On page 89, he again claims that “the vast majority” of the
founders “meant Christianity” when they used the word “religion” – again
without any supporting evidence.
Ironically, the best evidence in the book for Christian
belief or influence in America’s founding is the 1775 call for thanksgiving by
the Continental Congress. It actually mentions “Jesus Christ” and not a generic
God-word. I say “ironically” because the
nation was not yet “founded” – it was still part of Great Britain because the
War for Independence had not yet been won.
So, it’s not precisely evidence concerning the “founding.”
Another MAJOR problem here is the fact that this particular
call for thanksgiving (along with others) was also a ploy/tactic designed to
“smoke out” as-yet undiscovered Loyalists.
“Patriot” agents were sent to churches to report on which
pastors/ministers participated appropriately and enthusiastically and which did
not. AT LEAST SIX CLERGYMEN DIED AS A
RESULT. One can read about this on pg.
26-27 of God Against the Revolution.
In his discussion of these calls, Mark stipulates that they
certainly referred to a “Deity that most certainly intervenes in the affairs of
men and nations” – but that would also be true of theistic rationalists (not
exclusively/necessarily Christianity).
Mark emphasizes GW’s reference to “true religion and virtue”
(italicizing true) – but that simply begs the question of what GW
thought “true” religion to be.
Washington links it even here with “virtue” as he almost always did
because he saw true religion to be good works. There is nothing
specifically/uniquely Christian in the 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation.
Four pages (116) after including two official public
documents that serve Mark’s purpose in which John Adams advocates for political
reasons beliefs that he vehemently opposed, Mark addresses the Treaty of
Tripoli that Adams submitted to the Senate and signed. But here he argues that it doesn’t really
espouse what it says! He says the
language was merely for political purposes. Further: he gives as evidence that
it didn’t really reflect public or senatorial opinion the fact that no
one objected to it! In the footnote, he
mentions that CC delegate James McHenry complained about it four years later – but
he doesn’t mention that three CC delegates voted for it as senators and key
founder Adams negotiated and signed it.
So Mark recognizes that public documents are political
devices – but not when they support his argument; then we’re supposed to accept
them as heartfelt and indicative of the founder’s or nation’s will. I contend that it is very problematic to make
much of public documents because they are usually designed for political
purposes. As a rule, I only employ them
to counter claims made from other public (aka political) documents.
Mark’s arguments and evidence beginning on pg. 125 simply
demonstrate that it is not possible to have a Christian nation. God certainly does not – ever – allow false
religion in the Bible.
William Penn and others may think that punishing unbelievers
breeds hypocrites and false conversions, but God instructs His people to expel
(at least) unbelievers from the only nation to be rightfully identified with
God (Mosaic Commonwealth) and from the other biblical community of God’s people
– the church.
No one in this section makes a biblical argument; it’s
logic, pragmatism, and a better idea than God as to what causes Christianity to
flourish. God says remove unbelievers and
keep the assembly pure.
Where is the evidence that this is God’s will and not
just man’s? What makes these “Christian premises”? [pg. 131]
Mark (ironically again) relies heavily upon Elisha
Williams’s 1744 sermon to support a supposed Christian right of
conscience. Mark correctly reports that
Williams makes “Protestant arguments” – not biblical arguments. Williams cites “reason” or “rational” 15
times in the section that Mark employs and refers to Locke 4 times in addition
to a detailed explanation of a Lockean theory.
Williams cites 1 verse of Scripture (Psa. 115:16) in support of a
rational argument (not derived from it).
I again say “ironically” because Williams bases the sermon on the guy
that Mark discounts as an influence (Locke) and during a time when Mark says
Locke had little influence.
An argument is not “Christian” simply because it is made by
a Christian (if, indeed, Williams was a Christian). And someone declaring
freedom of conscience a “sacred right” does not make it so unless God makes the
declaration – which He did not do.
In the review, I also point out that the notion that people
have a right to decide whether and how to worship God “as their consciences
dictate” is not a Christian principle.
If this is inaccurate, ssomeone would need to point out where the Bible
teaches that – as opposed to the teaching throughout the Old and New Testaments
that those who do not worship the true God and worship Him the way He
demands will go to hell. And Paul’s
teaching that anyone who teaches any other gospel than the true one is “to be
accursed” (Gal. 1:8-9).
The founders clearly embraced religious liberty – as do I –
but not from Christian principles.
Again on page 151, Mark lays out the same false dichotomy –
Christianity or deism.
In footnote 50 on pg. 172, Mark says that the number of
theistic rationalists was a “handful.”
How does he know that? For how
many of the 55 CC delegates has he done the research? He holds an expansive view of who counts as a
founder – has he researched hundreds of them to allow such a
generalization? This is yet another
broad claim without any supporting evidence.
He himself says that we don’t have information for most –
why is “Christian” the default identification?
Does the Bible say that most people are Christians or that the way is
narrow? What makes one a Christian? Mark never says.
What did Jesus say?
Matt. 7:16-20; 21-23
Calling something “Christian” because it was influenced by
“Christian ideas” first begs the question of what those ideas were. Second, what makes them “Christian?” Third, whether they are distinctively
Christian ideas or simply ideas not in conflict with Christianity. Fourth,
whether those ideas were determinative, and fifth, whether those ideas were
specifically chosen to bolster a conscious attempt to make the thing
“Christian.”
FINALLY: Mark employs a clever strategy:
1) never define Christianity or what it means to be a
Christian
2) show that someone is not a deist
3) give a brief disclaimer that that doesn’t mean that they
are Christians
4) provide no evidence that they actually believe in the
doctrines of Christianity
5) then repeatedly refer to their actions as being motivated
by the Christianity that you’ve merely asserted, but haven’t demonstrated
Also: if someone that doesn’t fit your thesis is cited by
founders, it’s because they were not really influential; really influential
people didn’t have to be cited because everyone knew.
No comments:
Post a Comment