tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post5043961509247254389..comments2024-01-15T05:32:24.873-05:00Comments on The Jon Rowe Archives: Jonathan Rowehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-13097565955680221902008-11-30T23:01:00.000-05:002008-11-30T23:01:00.000-05:00"[H]e intends orthodoxy to be polyvalent: eac..."[H]e intends orthodoxy to be polyvalent: each denomination defines its own orthodoxy."<BR/><BR/>???<BR/><BR/>This is neither what I nor just about everyone else I've ever seen who has read Barton or Bradford takes "orthodoxy" to mean. They equate "orthodoxy" with creedal confessions that happen to all be based on the Nicene Creed/Trinitarian. Nearly every established Church in late 18th Century America held to an orthodox Trinitarian Creed except the Quakers.<BR/><BR/>So Barton appeals to Bradford's authority (a logical error as you noted) for the proposition that with 3 to 5 exceptions all of the other Founders were orthodox Trinitarian Christians. <BR/><BR/>I've studied the Bradford claim in detail and all he demonstrates is that the overwhelming majority of Founding Fathers were in some way formally connected to a church that held to an orthodox Trintiarian confession. Some people mistakenly believe that they were all church members who took oaths. But that isn't true. For instance, Hamilton who Bradford categorizes as an Episcopalian/Presbyterians became a born again Christian towards the end of his life and never "joined" either Church. Rather as he lay dying he asked for the Eucharist from both churches (he was refused from one and then given the other).<BR/><BR/>Virtually all of the key Founders were in some way formally/nominally connected to a Christian church that held to an orthodox Trinitarian confession or creed. This includes Jefferson, Madison, Washington, G. Morris (Anglicans/Episcopalians -- and we know that Jefferson rejected every single orthodox tenet that his church believed in and M&W were utterly mum on whether they were true or not; Roger Sherman whose orthodoxy is not in doubt termed G. Morris an "irreligious and profane man") J. Adams (a Congregationalist and a self proclaimed unitarian since 1750 whose own Congregational Church preached unitarianism as of 1750). Even Franklin was associated with the Presbyterian and Episcopalian Churches in his lifetime. Unitarian preachers Joseph Priestley and Richard Price were ministers in the Presbyterian Church. The New England Congregational Churches (which held to a Trinitarian confession) had more theologically unitarian ministers that I can name. A phenomenon that Barton/Bradford et al. ignore is Church members'/attenders' rampant disbelief in the orthodox doctrines to which their churches formally adhered. The deistic and unitarian minded "Christians" were the ones for instance that left before taking communion because they didn't believe in what the act stood for: Christ's Atonement.<BR/><BR/>In short, Bradford was just wrong to claim that formal/nominal association with a church that adheres to a Trinitarian creed equals those Founders being orthodox Trinitarian. And make no doubt, that is what Bradford claimed.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-47600079215941974512008-11-30T22:32:00.000-05:002008-11-30T22:32:00.000-05:00Jon,First, let me do something you never do: I'll ...Jon,<BR/><BR/>First, let me do something you never do: I'll quote Barton.<BR/><BR/>In chapter 2 of MoS, Barton is building his case for the "orthodoxy" of the founders, and he does so mainly by borrowing from Bradford's "A Worthy Company". Whatever we think of Bradford's work, here is what Barton wants out of it: "With no more than five exceptions (and perhaps no more than three), they were orthodox members of one of the established Christian communions... [including] one open Deist - Dr. Franklin..."<BR/><BR/>As Barton wields the term in the relevant chapter of MoS, he intends orthodoxy to be polyvalent: each denomination defines its own orthodoxy. So, denominations either are or are not Christian, and members are or are not orthodox. In this way, even Franklin counts, because Franklin was an orthodox Deist (Tom disagrees, but I'm just presenting Barton) and Deism (of the sort Franklin participated in) counted as Christian.<BR/><BR/>Say what you want about how little I know about Barton, but this is not the caricature you would have us believe is the real Barton. This is a nuanced position (I would say too much so), subject to easy criticism, but it is not the position that you claim Barton to hold.<BR/><BR/>As for the rest of your "target audience" slander, look, Barton writes clearly. He is trying to explain his position, and it is out there for anyone to read. If his "target audience" doesn't get the message, then he's in the same boat as, say, the Pope on most matters.<BR/><BR/>On historians and Christianity vs. Orthodoxy, I just put up a post on AC.<BR/><BR/>As for why dissertation committees pass dissertations, really. Don't go there. We both know that the argument from authority is a non-starter to begin with, and using it with a mere dissertation committee as the authority is a double nonstarter.Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.com