tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post3180432385660257221..comments2024-01-15T05:32:24.873-05:00Comments on The Jon Rowe Archives: Jonathan Rowehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1987568154460970882007-08-10T17:14:00.000-04:002007-08-10T17:14:00.000-04:00Jim,See my latest post where I reproduced my comme...Jim,<BR/><BR/>See my latest post where I reproduced my comment but cleaned up the language a little.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-79754721081964254772007-08-10T16:21:00.000-04:002007-08-10T16:21:00.000-04:00Jim:I want to respond this in more detail, but let...Jim:<BR/><BR/>I want to respond this in more detail, but let me off the bat make two quick points.<BR/><BR/>First, re: Frazer, Locke, and Eden, this isn't, I don't believe anything personal on his part. In reading his Ph.D., and in knowing about Claremont Graduate College where Straussian thought is popular, he relies on the interpretation of a number of Straussian scholars to reach his conclusion. He's also read the originals (Locke and the Bible) and agrees with various Straussian scholars like Walter Berns, Michael Zuckert, Thomas Pangle, and Leo Strauss himself on Locke's a-biblical understanding of the state of nature.<BR/><BR/>I do too. Though, I try to be cautious in my argumentation. They have a tendency to <I>read</I> in things that aren't there. And they are justified in doing this to some extent. Locke et al. were not free to speak their minds. Challenging orthodox opinions could get you criminally punished at best, executed at worst. <BR/><BR/>Still, in a debate like this where there is much controversy about what the Founders and the philosophers they followed <I>really</I> believed, I think it's best to take people at their word.<BR/><BR/>And when I take Locke at his word, I see his vision of the state of nature as "a-biblical" -- a modified version of Hobbes' (whose state of nature, ironically, as I noted, is probably closer to the Bible's, or at least closer to Calvin's view of human nature -- I know you aren't a Calvinist and don't think his theology necessarily represents the proper understanding of the Bible).<BR/><BR/>Let me carefully explain what I mean by "a-biblical." I don't necessarily mean contrary to or inconsistent with the Bible. If I did I would have used the words "anti-biblical." Indeed, some of those Straussians like Berns and especially Pangle do indeed believe Locke's state of nature and his book "The Reasonableness of Christianity" were "anti-biblical." <BR/><BR/>One day I should feature some of Pangle's more provocative quotations on Locke which make assertions that go much farther than I ever would.<BR/><BR/>"A-biblical" means not derived from the bible, but not necessarily inconsisent with the Bible. A good Christian can believe in something that is "a-biblical"; he just shouldn't try to credit the Bible or his faith with the concept. Similarly, I'm willing to categorize the right to revolt, a la Romans 13 as "a-biblical," not necessarily "anti-biblical" (though I think the Christian Tories' understanding of Romans 13 which viewed America's Revolution as a biblical unjustified act -- hence "anti-biblical" -- to be reasonable as well).<BR/><BR/>Think of republican government as our Founders envisioned it like an automobile. The car is not an "inherently" Christian idea. It was not made for Christians, by Christians, for the purpose of getting to church easier. It's an "a-biblical" invention. But, it's legitimate for Christians to use automobiles precisely for that purpose. Perhaps it's also legitimate for conservative evangelicals and Catholics to use republican government for to promote their values as well. One could argue that the original meaning of the Constitution never was intended to prevent, as the ACLU sometimes argues, government and religion in connecting in that sense. That's I think, ultimately how Berns, Pangle, Kraynak and the other conservative Straussians who argue "The Spirit of Modern Republicanism" (a title to one of Pangle's books) is a-biblical or anti-biblical believe we should interpret the Constitution.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-46334958127985676142007-08-10T15:22:00.000-04:002007-08-10T15:22:00.000-04:00Jon, Part II - on Hobbesian pessimism... Locke's t...Jon, Part II - on Hobbesian pessimism... <BR/><BR/>Locke's tabula rasa was, in large part, a response to the doctrine of original sin and resulting human depravity. Hobbes put man at war with one another. Hobbes, writing in exile during the time of Cromwell, used the depravity of man to justify strong monarchs. <BR/><BR/>Clearly you are right that Hobbes' pessimistic view is very consistent with much of Christianity as we have known it, including conservatives of the Fundamentalist, Calvinist, and Catholic varieties. But Locke, and his favored source, Hooker, are Anglicans. And Anglicans/Episcopalians, both conservative and liberal, don't believe in the doctrine of original sin. <BR/><BR/>Washington and Jefferson were Anglican vestrymen. I believe Wilson and Madison were Anglicans as well. Regardless of these men's views on other theological issues -- even if you assumed they were devout, orthodox Christians (and I tend to agree with your take on their personal beliefs) -- it would be hard to imagine they had a Fundamentalist, Catholic, or Calvinist view on the matter of original sin. <BR/><BR/>The points to be made here are two. <BR/><BR/>1. Neither Fundamentalism, nor Calvinism, nor the Catholic Church speaks for all Christianity. More importantly, they do not, by virtue of claim or existence, define what is or what is not, Biblical. No Anglican I know would defend original sin. I'm not Anglican, and I don't think I could either. <BR/>2. If you fail to understand that the Locke was just as much theological as political, you miss much of his argument. Generally, one's theology tends to precede and inform one's ideology. But in Locke's treatise, it seems obvious that this pattern applies.Jim Babkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04365067294013538651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-45905692010103621712007-08-10T15:12:00.000-04:002007-08-10T15:12:00.000-04:00Jon, Part I It is not necessary to make Locke's ap...Jon, Part I <BR/><BR/>It is not necessary to make Locke's approach a-Biblical or anti-Biblical to make the point that the State of Nature should be a libertarian state. <BR/><BR/>In fact, Locke wasn't a libertarian, at least in the modern sense. Going one step further, this notion of liberty as not "license" is sophistry. We've since learned Locke was wrong about that, though many continue his error. <BR/><BR/>Liberty encourages personal responsibility. <BR/><BR/>Liberty is also permission to fail without government sanction for so doing. <BR/><BR/>One can do drugs, engage in promiscuous sex, or advocate gluttony by example. And if one does so, only nature has the right to impose a penalty -- not the State. <B>That's a necessary part of liberty.</B> <BR/><BR/>Locke built his formulation, starting with Adam in the Garden. In this "brief" piece, that was the part you chose to cut from the quote. I would go so far as to suggest that Adam was essential, from Locke's perspective and time, to his case. <BR/><BR/>But the Biblical allusions remained in those parts you did quote and they are repetitive to the point that one must want to miss them. And as if that's not enough, his favorite source to quote is Hooker -- an Anglican theologian. <BR/><BR/>Locke, like his friend Newton, was, apparently, a "fundamentalist Unitarian" -- something entirely different than the Unitarians of today. Further, Locke insisted that atheists were not fit to serve in government and couldn't be trusted. Reason was not his god. Reason, for a natural theologian, was a special tool God had given humans. And it had been given to all men, not just kings. This made man "equal."<BR/><BR/>This was revolutionary and very much countered Hobbes. <BR/><BR/>But it's Frazer's words, as quoted in your piece, that bother me most. His account of Eden must be a personal axe to grind. I read the same Bible yet don't see what he sees. I see the first humans left with Free Will. And unless I take a hyper-literalist view of the story of The Fall, then I see precisely what Locke saw -- natural consequences in the face of disobedience to natural law. <BR/><BR/>But even if I do take a literalist view, could an all-powerful, omniscient God have been caught off-guard? When I ask Evangelicals, was God caught by surprise when Adam and Eve took a bite of the apple? Can you imagine God saying, "Oops, I didn't see that coming?" Not one Evangelical I've spoken with has answered differently. <BR/><BR/>Since God didn't prevent this action in advance, He must've been willing to accord humanity Free Will. <BR/><BR/>And so, the question becomes, if it was good enough for God, why not for you? ...and for your government? This is, in discussion with a Christian, a persuasive argument for individual liberty as the created state of man. <BR/><BR/>Similarly, Romans 13 is a favored hobby horse for you to prove that there's no way the Founders were <I>real</I> Christians because the Bible opposes liberty. And you raise this specter, again, in this piece. <BR/><BR/>I may not agree with every point of this entire series I'm about to recommend, but I think blogger Steve Scott's <A HREF="http://fromthepew.blogspot.com/2006/05/re-thinking-romans-13-entire-series.html " REL="nofollow">commentary on Romans 13</A> is more accurate than the view you, and apparently Frazer, have of that passage. I encourage you to check it out. <BR/> <BR/>But my most important point -- the reason I write -- is that it is correct to label the Founders as outside of orthodox Christianity -- the very place Barton, et al, place him. But it is not correct to make them a-Biblical. Theistic rationalism is accurate, as far as it goes. But very clearly, Locke was quite Biblical. And equally clear, Locke was influential on the Founders. <BR/><BR/>No one is wrong on purpose. Each is convinced of the rightness of his position, and thus advocates it. Locke, his contemporary Newton, and the Arians/Socians/Unitarians that followed, were, in their own minds, advocates of "true Christianity." David Barton and his ilk certainly haven't cornered the market in what it means to be a Christian. <BR/><BR/>It is perfectly consistent for a Christian to favor classic liberalism. A Christian who does so is not contradicting scripture in so doing. Rather, they are, IMHO, honoring the Creator's intent in "loving their neighbor," by embracing this high view of man.Jim Babkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04365067294013538651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-43886704895756685892007-08-09T20:56:00.000-04:002007-08-09T20:56:00.000-04:00Jon wrote: "The only thing, it seems to me, a fund...Jon wrote: "The only thing, it seems to me, a fundamentalist Christian ought to be truly concerned with, as a political matter, is that the state leaves him alone to be a good Christian and practice his religion according to the dictates of conscience."<BR/><BR/>I agree. <BR/><BR/>With regards to the story of Jesus' life (liberal/conservative), he lived in a different time. I don't think he'd have reacted the same today as he did 2k years ago.<BR/><BR/>What is clear (to me) is that he'd have led the most constructive life possible ... as a man who serves others, as opposed to one who claims authority over others. In my mind, that is why he avoided any associated with government.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-25870284321765153632007-08-06T11:19:00.000-04:002007-08-06T11:19:00.000-04:00My pleasure. As a libertarian, I really don't lik...My pleasure. <BR/><BR/>As a libertarian, I really don't like it anymore when the leftist churches argue the Bible for socialism and redistribution of wealth. Though, they have a point Jesus was interesting in feeding the poor. And the right wingers have a point: Jesus didn't want people to commit sexual sins. But Jesus also left the secular pagan system of government -- one that permitted abortions, worship of false gods, and had no welfare state -- entirely in place.<BR/><BR/>Understanding this, a conservative evangelical could, as a matter of political preference, personally endorse liberalism, libertarianism, conservatism, or just be, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, politically disengaged, because his religion ultimately demands he take a position on none of these <I>temporal</I> issues.<BR/><BR/>The only thing, it seems to me, a fundamentalist Christian ought to be truly concerned with, as a political matter, is that the state leaves him alone to be a good Christian and practice his religion according to the dictates of conscience.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-80342894729410397612007-08-05T13:12:00.000-04:002007-08-05T13:12:00.000-04:00"Jesus didn't overturn one social institution" ......"<I>Jesus didn't overturn one social institution</I>" ... I like that quote ... even if it comes from an individual whose manner of occupation I find revolting.<BR/><BR/>However, for me, it is refreshing to come across a fundamentalist who acknowledges that Jesus didn't make any effort to incorporate his religion in government ... even when faced with crucifixion, Jesus didn't resist the will of government. Keeping in mind (as the <I>story</I> goes) that he was man-god who was capable of miraculous feats, he could easily have struck down the tyrants (of the government and the church) but instead chose the path of a pacifist.<BR/><BR/><I>My impression</I> was that Jesus found participation in government to be at odds with his spiritual pursuit. He didn't wish to influence behavior by authority, but by example.<BR/><BR/>Regarding contractions of the founder's view regarding "the state of nature," and Christian doctrine, I might point out that there is much of the NT that is contradictory to the OT. Since few acknowledge the latter, I'm not going to hold my breath that they will acknowledge for former either :-(<BR/><BR/>In any event, thanks for a the illuminating post. I often tire with those who proclaim the founders faith necessitates that they believe as [insert-name-of-political-group-here] ... while all the time implying that s [insert-name-of-political-group-here] and the founders are/were agents for god :-(<BR/><BR/>I <I>personally</I> find such claims to be directly at odds with story of how Jesus lead his life, and to be the proper context of "using the lord's name in vain." ... i.e. claiming the lord's sanction for path which is incongruent with the example of Jesus. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps I'll use some of your word to counter such implications/claims in the future :-)bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.com