Charles Page Smith, James Wilson: Founding Father, 1742-1798:

I was at the David Library today leafing through various books. The iPhone "works" as a photocopy machine. These are four pages of the above mentioned book that I thought relevant to Wilson's political theology.

Heretics:

The first question Andrew Sullivan asks Ross Douthat (who has a new book out on the matter) is if you vote for Mitt Romney will you be voting for a "Christian"?

In the process of the conversation RD analogizes Mormonism to Arianism. He covers a lot of stuff in this interview that we've touched on at American Creation. His thesis is America's current theology though strongly Christian in some sense is also strongly heretical. Arguably it was in the 18th Century, just in a uniquely 18th Century sense. Just substitute Swedenborgianism for Mormonism and Joseph Priestley for Jeremiah Wright. We are the nation we were founded to be: Quite religious, but quite heretical.

Working Books: Did I just invent a concept:

I've done a lot of research on America's Founders and Religion, so much so that folks ask me and I often ask myself whether I will write a book on the subject.

First, I'm a community college professor who teaches overloads every semester. Publishing is NOT part of our job requirements (though it is icing on the cake). We teach 15 credits per semester as our full time load. We do not get release time for publishing. I'm not part of any "mentoring network" connected to peer reviewed journals.

As such, though I have published these past 7 or 8 years, I have not published in those "peer reviewed" journals that tenure track university professors need to in order to get tenure. But, besides vast amounts of self publishing on blogs, I have published in "respectable" places (First Things, both Liberty Magazines, the Cato Institute's Encyclopedia of Libertarianism among other places).

As I progress, I think about what I want to do with all this research. I think about publishing in those journals and doing a book for a respectable publisher. Perhaps I will try.

What about self publishing? Well a blog is self publishing. And I feel I've flourished using the blog format. Why should I care about publishing in the "print" industry that's dying when I'm part of the community that's killing it?

Indeed, see this article by Clay Shirky on the future of "publishing" where he writes:

Publishing is not evolving. Publishing is going away. Because the word “publishing” means a cadre of professionals who are taking on the incredible difficulty and complexity and expense of making something public. That’s not a job anymore. That’s a button. There’s a button that says “publish,” and when you press it, it’s done.

In ye olden times of 1997, it was difficult and expensive to make things public, and it was easy and cheap to keep things private. Privacy was the default setting. We had a class of people called publishers because it took special professional skill to make words and images visible to the public. Now it doesn’t take professional skills. It doesn’t take any skills. It takes a Wordpress install.

He mentions publishers are needed to, among other things, edit and fact check. Curiously he doesn't mention sorting, signaling, branding, etc. Publishers and colleges both serve this function: A Harvard degree signals something just like getting your book published by Harvard University Press does. It's just as easy to go to my home blog page as it is the Huffington Post or New York Times home page. But if they publish one of my pieces it means my work meets a certain standard. Any idiot can start a blog. Potential readers need a way to sort through the morass.

Links from certain "respected" places also "signal." And if you write enough on a topic, you'll probably come up in search engines.

But I don't want to write "another" self published online book. I'd like to do something novel. And something useful. And non-obvious. Law professors Eugene Volokh and Stephen Carter both have noted good academic writing borrows standards from the patent law (which requires claims be novel, useful, and non-obvious). A book project, it seems to me, could follow this model.

How is this for novelty? The concept of a "working book." It's hard to come up with something new under the sun. I googled those words and found nothing that was apt. Like a "working paper," but a book. A working paper is a work in progress and it's a common model. The concept of a working book is not common. In fact, I may have just invented it. You'll see my "working book" as it's being built. I'll have a website, probably from Wordpress, that will house the book. I don't think I'll open comments there. But I will blog on my progress and have comments at American Creation (and perhaps other places).

I believe American Creation's writers and commenters, as a group, are as good as any academic peer review. (And actual academic peer review people do read, link and comment on our posts.) They certainly are with "fact" checking; and "logic" checking. I will incorporate constructive feedback into the project.

This is a working book, though, perhaps intended never to be finished. Eventually, it'll get to a point where it's a "book" ready for a "real publisher" if they are interested. If not, fine. This project intends to evolve indefinitely. This is not dissimilar to how educational texts constantly revise with new editions.

The book will be informative in a comprehensive way. Even though I plan to research further on this subject matter, I've already uncovered quite a bit. Sometimes, I find something and wonder whether I've found it before and blogged about it. And that's a problem. Blogs serve very useful functions. But they often lack organization. I know mine do. They lack the organization of a book.

And that will be the main useful function of this project: To organize what I've researched all these years into something well organized like a book. An online book. A working book.

Ben Franklin: Unitarians are "Honest":

Last post I presented evidence of Ben Franklin calling Unitarian minister Theophilus Lindsey "honest." Franklin also described Joseph Priestley that way.

As Franklin wrote to to Benjamin Vaughn in 1788:

"Remember me affectionately...to the honest heretic Dr. Priestley. I do not call him honest by way of distinction, for I think all the heretics I have known have been virtuous men. They have the virtue of Fortitude, or they would not venture to own their heresy; and they cannot afford to be deficient in any of the other virtues, as that would give advantage to their many enemies...Do not however mistake me. It is not to my good friend's heresy that I impute his honesty. On the contrary 'tis his honesty that has brought upon him the character of heretic."

Here are primary sources where you can view the quotation in context.

Let's Not Get Lazy on Franklin's Creed:

Franklin is one that both the secular left and religious right likely concede as "Deist." Though some on the religious right accurately note Franklin's speech at the Constitutional Convention where he professes theism.

Still, the religious right tends towards the narrative that Franklin and Jefferson were somewhat "Deists," the rest Christian. Franklin actually gives fewer smoking gun quotations of a belief in militant unitarianism than does John Adams. If "right" = Christian and "left" = Deism, Adams was arguably (at least in his personal theology) to the left of Franklin.

Franklin never for instance bitterly and militantly mocked the Trinity and Incarnation as Adams did. Franklin did "doubt" Jesus' divinity in his letter to Ezra Stiles which could be read as a polite way of denying Jesus' divinity to an orthodox gentlemen.

This is the passage in context:

[B]ut I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity.

What I put in bold arguably supports the not just "doubt" but "deny" thesis. Those "dissenters" in England were self described unitarians who denied Jesus' divinity. And "corrupting changes" no doubt refers to Unitarian Joseph Priestley's "Corruptions of Christianity" text which denies Original Sin, Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, and plenary inspiration of the Bible as false "corruptions" of Christianity.

I'm looking for evidence of Franklin calling himself a unitarian. In this letter to unitarian of the Arian bent Richard Price, Franklin intimates that they both believe in the same "rational Christianity."

And I found this interesting link, Sermon: “Dear Mr. Isaacson, Ben Franklin was Unitarian,” A Sermon by Charles Blustein Ortman, September 19, 2003.

Much of what it reproduces I already know and have blogged about. The sermon tries to connect Franklin to the unitarian label. This is new information about which I hadn't known:

These associations [with unitarian friends] are hardly coincidental. Still they don’t meet the test of placing Benjamin Franklin within a Unitarian congregation. That information can be found though, in the records of Essex Street Chapel in London. Earl Morse Wilbur, renowned Unitarian historian, reports that not only was Franklin in attendance at the first Unitarian service held in England on April 17, 1774, but that he had a long standing friendship with the minister there, Theopholis Lindsey, and that, “he continued to worship here as long as he remained in England.” (Wilbur)

Update: Let's not forget Franklin's classic letter to John Calder where he asserts "the[re are] several Things in the old Testament impossible to be given by divine Inspiration,..."

There he also writes: "By the way how goes on the Unitarian Church in Essex Street? and the honest Minister of it, is he comfortably supported?" I think it's safe to conclude Franklin was self consciously "unitarian."

Update II: The "honest minister" is none other than the Rev. Lindsey.

Freethought Blogs on Today's Birthdays:

Here is Chris Rodda for Thomas Jefferson. And Dan Fincke for Christopher Hitchens.

Evan Haefeli on the History of Toleration:

Hat tip John Fea. Read the post here.

[We've discussed how Founding era British and French thought impacted and related to America's Founding. We arguably haven't spent enough time on the Dutch.]

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: America a Christian Nation?:

Via Warren Throckmorton.

By Ruth Ann Dailey. Read it here.

David Barton Adds Another Lie to His Aitken Bible Story:

From Chris Rodda here.

William Livingston to John Mason: The Bible is NOT the "Higher Law" of America:

I did a double take on the date and the letter when I first read this. Livingston is NOT talking about the US Constitution but the Articles of Confederation. They were written in 1777 but went into effect in 1781. They do mention God but (see the letter below) do NOT reference the Bible as the source of "higher law" in America. John Mason was one of the "religiously correct" of the Founding era who was sorely upset that America's Constitution was "Godless." AND he complained about it.

I don't have the original letter that Mason wrote to Livingston; but the context seems he approves of God being invoked in the Articles, but disapproves that the Bible is not referenced as a source of "Supreme Law" for the United States.

And, as we know, the US Constitution didn't even mention God; Mason (and other members of the "religiously correct") flipped out. And 200 years later gave the authors of "The Godless Constitution" fodder for their book.

Livingston's original letter, reproduced below, may be found here.

"TO THE REV. MR. JOHN MASON.

"Princeton, 29th May, 1778.

"Dear Sir,

"I am much obliged to you for your kind letter of the 27th instant, and the favourable sentiments you are pleased to entertain concerning the designs of Providence, in raising me to my present station. May it please God to enable me to answer the honourable expectations of the genuine friends of liberty, and especially the pious hopes of the real friends of Zion.

"To have prefaced the confederation with a decent acknowledgment of the superintending Providence of God, and his conspicuous interposition in our behalf, had doubtless been highly becoming a people so peculiarly favoured by Heaven as the Americans have hitherto been. But any article in the confederacy respecting religion was, I suppose, never in contemplation. The States being severally independent as to legislation and government, tho' connected by the federal league for mutual benefit, were presumed to have formed a political constitution to their own liking, and to have made such provision for religion as was most agreeable to the sentiments of their respective citizens ; and to have made the 'law of the eternal God, as contained in the sacred Scriptures, of the Old and New Testament, the supreme law of the United States,' would, I conceive, have laid the foundation of endless altercation and dispute, as the very first question that would have arisen upon that article would be, whether we were bound by the ceremonial as well as the moral law, delivered by Moses to the people of Israel. Should we confine ourselves to the law of God, as contained in the Scriptures of the New Testament (which is undoubtedly obligatory upon all Christians), there would still have been endless disputes about the construction of the of these laws. Shall the meaning be ascertained by every individual for himself, or by public authority? If the first, all human laws respecting the subject are merely nugatory; if the latter, government must assume the detestable power of Henry the Eighth, and enforce their own interpretations with pains and penalties.

"For your second article, I think there could be no occasion in the confederacy, provision having been made to prevent all such claim by the particular constitution of each State, and the Congress, as such, having no right to interfere with the internal police of any branch of the league, farther than is stipulated by the confederation.

"To the effect of part of your third article, that of promoting purity of manners, all legislators and magistrates are bound by a superior obligation to that of any vote or compact of their own; and the inseparable connexion between the morals of the people and the good of society will compel them to pay due attention to external regularity and decorum; but true piety again has never been agreed upon by mankind, and I should not be willing that any human tribunal should settle its definition for me.

"I am, &c.

"WiL. Livingston."

Rev. Robert A. Sirico on Who is a "Christian":

Rev. Robert A. Sirico, president and co-founder of the Acton Institute (and brother of Paulie Walnuts) defines the term "Christian" here:

Quote:

Christianity is and always has been a religion that “receives” its faith rather than one that “invents” it. Hence, a basic definition of “Who are the Christians?” begins with an adherence, doctrinally, to the ancient Creeds of the Church, beginning with the Apostles Creed (believed to have been of apostolic origin, the Apostles having in turn received their mandate from Christ Himself) and continuing on to the faith articulated at the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, Orange, Hippo and Quicunque Vult (aka, The Athanasian Creed), all of which were formative for the belief of Christians. The traditions that would agree with this ecumenical Trinitarian confession (most Catholics, Evangelicals, Eastern Orthodox, et al.) have historically recognized that whatever other doctrinal differences may separate them, this is the meaning they share when they use the term “Christian.”

Frazer on the Jefferson Bible and Easter:

This note from Gregg Frazer was circa Easter 2009. One of the biggest problems with the self proclaimed "Christian" Thomas Jefferson is he disbelieved the resurrection. Many of the unitarians who, like Jefferson, understood themselves "Christians" did believe in the resurrection (just not of an Incarnate God). Indeed, even Joseph Priestley, Jefferson's guru, believed in the resurrection of Jesus.

A taste:

[A]ny account of the Gospels which cuts out the resurrection guts the core of Christianity. It's not just "another" passage or story which can be left out. Paul put it about as plainly as it could be put: "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and IF CHRIST HAS NOT BEEN RAISED, THEN OUR PREACHING IS IN VAIN, YOUR FAITH ALSO IS VAIN. ... IF CHRIST HAS NOT BEEN RAISED, YOUR FAITH IS WORTHLESS; YOU ARE STILL IN YOUR SINS. ... IF WE HAVE HOPED IN CHRIST IN THIS LIFE ONLY, WE ARE OF ALL MEN MOST TO BE PITIED." [I Corinthians 15:13-19]

Jefferson some kind of Christian and "Life and Morals" an honest, soul-searching attempt to find the real Jesus and to understand Christianity? I don't think so.

As a Christian, I understand that my faith stands or falls on the validity of Christ's literal, bodily resurrection. Although I exult in it always, I will celebrate that reality with a special focus this weekend

Jefferson's "Syllabus", "Philosophy" and "Life & Morals":

Since the topic is timely, let me redirect readers to Dr. Jared Farley's classic post he did at American Creation on the matter(s).

A taste:

Jefferson, in part, created his "Syllabus" as an outline to assist Dr. Priestley's writing of a book Jefferson suggested he undertake.
A second purpose of Jefferson's "Syllabus" and Priestley's book was to help the cause of primitive Christianity in the United States (Remember what is happening in New England at this point between the theologically liberal Unitarians and more orthodox Congregationalists.)
A third purpose of Jefferson's "Syllabus" was to provide some family and friends in his inner circle a better understanding of his version of Christianity.
In similar fashion, Jefferson created his "Philosophy" as a draft to be utilized by Dr. Priestley in his upcoming book comparing the moral philosophy of Jesus with those of the ancient philosophers and Jews. It is unknown if Jefferson found out about Rev. Priestley's death prior to composing his "Philosophy" and if that had any impact concerning the composition of that work, which was finished before and professionally bounded on March 10, 1804.
Jefferson was planning on utilizing Dr. Priestley's "Harmonies" in composing his "Philosophy", so it may not have entirely been Jefferson's original work or a direct statement of his theology. (Again, we don't know if Jefferson's plans changed, or if the text of "Philosophy" changed once Jefferson found out about Priestley's death.)
If Jefferson stuck to his original plans concerning "Philosophy", then that work is a mixture of Jefferson and Priestley's views and not simply Jefferson's. Plus, it was intended to serve as an introduction for Priestley's upcoming book, so it had to be acceptable to the general American reading audience.
If Jefferson stuck to his original plans concerning "Philosophy", then his "Life and Morals" might be a better indicator of his theological views since: 1) He had more time to work on it; 2) He was not writing in conjunction with someone else; 3) He never intended "Life and Morals" to be published under his name or anyone else's, and therefore, could be more honest.

Throckmorton on Barton on the Jefferson Bible:

Here.

A taste:

In TJLs, Barton claims that Jefferson did not remove all of the supernatural and miraculous aspects of the Gospels. He claims this was not Jefferson’s intent. Despite the fact that Jefferson said on several occasions that such an extraction was his intent, Barton makes this claim based on passages he says Jefferson included. Most of the passages Barton offers as proof are verses about the afterlife. Truly, Jefferson did believe in an afterlife with rewards and punishments as appropriate. Jefferson did not believe in the atonement of Jesus but rather that good works in this life were necessary for a happy afterlife. In that sense, there is a supernatural element in Jefferson’s extraction. However, Barton includes as evidence of miracles, three miracles from Matthew 9 which are not in either the 1804 or 1820 version. ...

Sullivan, Jefferson & Cafeteria Christianity:

Andrew Sullivan writes on what Jesus and Christianity mean to him at Newsweek.

A taste:

If you go to the second floor of the National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C., you’ll find a small room containing an 18th-century Bible whose pages are full of holes. They are carefully razor-cut empty spaces, so this was not an act of vandalism. It was, rather, a project begun by Thomas Jefferson when he was a mere 27 years old. Painstakingly removing those passages he thought reflected the actual teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, Jefferson literally cut and pasted them into a slimmer, different New Testament, and left behind the remnants (all on display until July 15). What did he edit out? He told us: “We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus.” He removed what he felt were the “misconceptions” of Jesus’ followers, “expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves.” And it wasn’t hard for him. He described the difference between the real Jesus and the evangelists’ embellishments as “diamonds” in a “dunghill,” glittering as “the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.” Yes, he was calling vast parts of the Bible religious manure.

When we think of Jefferson as the great architect of the separation of church and state, this, perhaps, was what he meant by “church”: the purest, simplest, apolitical Christianity, purged of the agendas of those who had sought to use Jesus to advance their own power decades and centuries after Jesus’ death. If Jefferson’s greatest political legacy was the Declaration of Independence, this pure, precious moral teaching was his religious legacy. “I am a real Christian,” Jefferson insisted against the fundamentalists and clerics of his time. “That is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”

What were those doctrines? Not the supernatural claims that, fused with politics and power, gave successive generations wars, inquisitions, pogroms, reformations, and counterreformations. Jesus’ doctrines were the practical commandments, the truly radical ideas that immediately leap out in the simple stories he told and which he exemplified in everything he did. Not simply love one another, but love your enemy and forgive those who harm you; give up all material wealth; love the ineffable Being behind all things, and know that this Being is actually your truest Father, in whose image you were made. Above all: give up power over others, because power, if it is to be effective, ultimately requires the threat of violence, and violence is incompatible with the total acceptance and love of all other human beings that is at the sacred heart of Jesus’ teaching. That’s why, in his final apolitical act, Jesus never defended his innocence at trial, never resisted his crucifixion, and even turned to those nailing his hands to the wood on the cross and forgave them, and loved them.

Politicized Faith

Whether or not you believe, as I do, in Jesus’ divinity and resurrection—and in the importance of celebrating both on Easter Sunday—Jefferson’s point is crucially important. Because it was Jesus’ point. What does it matter how strictly you proclaim your belief in various doctrines if you do not live as these doctrines demand? What is politics if not a dangerous temptation toward controlling others rather than reforming oneself? If we return to what Jesus actually asked us to do and to be—rather than the unknowable intricacies of what we believe he was—he actually emerges more powerfully and more purely.

Sullivan, in a sense, is more Christian than Jefferson. Sullivan believes in Jesus' divinity and resurrection and Jefferson didn't.

The essay is valuable, I think, in that it shows how Jefferson has inspired modern cafeteria Christianity. That's what TJ did -- picked and chose by cutting and pasting from the Bible what he found "rational" and discarded what he didn't like about the faith.

Very big headed of him. Just who did he think he was?

Hmmm. Now I sound like Andrew Sullivan's critics.

Starting to Debunk David Barton’s New Book “The Jefferson Lies”:

From Chris Rodda here.

Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims About Our Third President:

One more from Prof. Throckmorton for now. He has co-authored a soon to be released eBook that will fact check David Barton's claims about Jefferson.

Kirk Cameron’s Monumental Revision of Thomas Jefferson:

From Warren Throckmorton here.

A taste:

Jefferson extracted the diamonds from the Gospels and left in the dunghill. For Jefferson, diamonds included the Golden Rule, and the Sermon on the Mount, and dunghill included the virgin birth, John 3:16 and the resurrection. Viewers of Monumental might find that surprising. Sounds like Cameron might find that surprising. Cameron’s answer to Thompson dodges the central problem with what I have seen of Monumental:

Yeah, it sure does. I’m not running around waving the Thomas Jefferson flag. Even if Jefferson is a complete infidel—and I’m not saying that he is—he certainly promoted the basic principles of Christianity and funded major Christian efforts to get the principles of Christianity deep into the hearts and minds of people. He understood that it was only those principles that could provide the basis and foundation for a free and just society.

What are the basic principles of Christianity? This is a pretty important question since he said Jefferson promoted these principles. Jefferson believes you get to heaven by doing good works, and sure did many of them. He believed in treating others the way you want to be treated. He also believed that one’s life of virtue is proof enough that one’s religion is personally valuable, no matter what that religion was. Are those the basic principles of Christianity?

"Monumental" Lies - Kirk Cameron Visits David Barton, Huffpo:

I've already featured this video of Chris Rodda's. However it's now on the widely read Huffington Post.

Throckmorton on Monumental:

Its title is Shouldn't a Documentary About History Be Historically Accurate?

A taste:

In one of the clips, Cameron interviews David Barton while looking at some of Barton’s truly impressive collection of old Bibles. Cameron asked Barton about a two-volume, folio-sized Bible, which Barton says was printed in 1798. Barton tells Cameron that “This Bible was funded by about a dozen signers of the Constitution and signers of the Declaration as well as by President John Adams and Vice-President Thomas Jefferson. They’re the guys that put up the financial backing to do this Bible.” Barton also refers to this Bible in his new book, The Jefferson Lies, where he says, “[Thomas] Jefferson personally helped finance the printing of one of America’s groundbreaking editions of the Bible.” There he repeats the same claim about the signers financing the 1798 Thompson Hot Press Bible.

It is not true that a dozen Founders went together to put up the “financial backing” for the Thompson Bible. John Thompson and Abraham Small announced in the Gazette of the United States on April 25, 1796, the completion of the first section of their Bible which they described as “the most beautiful production of its nature hitherto seen.” They offered their Bible to the public with a plan to print the Bible in 40 sections to be delivered “every two weeks.” Subscribers paid 50 cents a section, totaling $20 for the completed Bible. After the subscribers received their printed pages, they still needed to get them bound at additional cost.

Barton told Cameron that the Bible was the product of the Founders who “wanted the Word of God out to every family.” In truth, over 1270 people subscribed, including about a dozen Founders (but not including Adams on any of the three subscribers’ lists that I have seen) to purchase a Bible for their own use. Jefferson did buy one but he didn’t finish paying for it until 1799, months after the Bible was completed; hardly a great way to help finance a printing effort.

Barton then shows Cameron a copy of the very rare Aitken Bible, the first Bible printed in English in the United States. Barton says that Congress printed the Bible, which is simply not true. Robert Aitken printed the Bible at his own expense and when he was nearly finished, wanted Congress to sanction it. The extent of Congressional committee action was to ask the Chaplains to verify the accuracy of Aitken’s work which they did. Barton told Cameron that Congress said the Bible was “a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use in schools.” However, Congress did not say that. ...

Terms:

Here at my home blog, this post on Alexander Hamilton's religion, for some reason, is generating a lot of views.

It summarizes the scholarly consensus on Hamilton's religion. While he may have had a conventionally religious youth (as did virtually all of the Founders) and died a Christian death, in between he was not identifiably a "Christian" as defined by orthodox standards. But he was something. What was it? Most scholars would use the term "deism." Dr. Gregg Frazer says no, "theistic rationalism" is better. Dr. Frazer has a book coming out soon that I hope we all get. If things go according to plan I am going to be involved in an "event" this summer with Gregg on the book.

Some interlocutors at American Creation object to the term "theistic rationalism." I didn't use it in my above linked piece on Hamilton. As a courtesy to them when discussing what a particular Founder believed, I try not to load the writing with terms to which they would object, but rather find a denominator.

So this is the term I used, in context:

... I'm not so sure how seriously to take Hamilton's crack on "purgatory." That's certainly part of Roman Catholicism, an orthodox faith; but most reformed/evangelical Protestant creeds of the Founding era, like those today, reject purgatory. The more "enlightened" Protestant Christian unitarian-universalists, however, did believe in Protestant Purgatory, where good people went to Heaven, bad people were temporarily punished there.

"Enlightened" Protestant Christian-unitarian-universalism. Both with small "u's" on purpose (so as not to confuse with official denominations). I think it's without question an accurate description of what Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin clearly believed. AND what Hamilton probably believed during the time in which he did his work "Founding" America, until his son died. Though that term is too cumbersome. It is important to note, this creed DID usually present itself as a form of "Christianity" -- "rational Christianity."

It Begins:

Chris Rodda Begins to Deconstruct "Monumental":



I think Rodda identifies a new logical fallacy. I too have witnessed an argument Barton's followers make: Because Barton OWNS these documents, as a collector, that somehow means he can't lie or make an erroneous report about them. You don't OWN these documents like Barton does, therefore you are wrong and he is right!

Father Neuhaus on Mormonism as Christianity:

A little old but recently recycled by First Things.

His summary:

“If Christian doctrine is summarized in, for instance, the Apostles’ Creed as understood by historic Christianity, official LDS teaching adds to the creed, deviates from it, or starkly opposes it almost article by article.”

Norway Finally Disestablishes:

Get the news here.

One More From Rev. Terry:

I can't resist. Here is an article from the Daily Beast.

To a cheering crowd, Terry shouted that ours is a “Christian nation,” that “we don't worship Buddha, we don't worship Mohammad, we don't worship Allah,” and that anyone who doesn’t like “the way we do things” should “get out.”

[...]

... But he went further when he said that we–“Americans,” presumably–are Christians who worship “one God, and his name is Jesus Christ.” ...

I won't touch the Rev.'s personal theology. It certainly is a central tenet of Christianity that there is one God and that Jesus is God. But it's precisely NOT what the American Founding was all about. The key Founders believed all monotheists, including Muslims, worshipped the same God.

And here is John Adams on the notion that Jesus is God:

"An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity."

-- John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816.

Monumental Question: Did Signers of the Declaration and Constitution Finance a Bible for Every American Family?

From Warren Throckmorton here.

David Barton on Glenn Beck's Mormon Christianity:

Since I've blogged about this issue, I thought I'd let Barton testify for himself as to why Glenn Beck can be both a Christian and a Mormon at the same time.



Let me note I don't have a dog in this fight. On a personal matter an ecumenical universalistic theology appeals to me more than orthodox evangelical Christianity. Though the latter faith, as I often observe it, is quite narrow and exclusive in its truth claim.

And here is Beck, Barton and some other guy on the Christian Nation question.

Rick Santorum Disagrees With Christian Nation Idiot:

The story is here.

A taste:

“I don’t care what the naysayers say. This nation was founded as a Christian nation. The god of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. There is only one God. There is only one God, and his name is Jesus. I’m tired of people telling me that I can’t say those words. I’m tired of people telling us as Christians that we can’t voice our beliefs or we can’t no longer pray in public. Listen to me. If you don’t love America, and you don’t like the way we do things, I’ve got one thing to say, get out!” Terry proclaimed loudly at the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church Sunday evening. “We don’t worship Buddha, we don’t worship Mohammed, we don’t worship Allah. We worship God. We worship God’s son Jesus Christ.”

After an event in Moline Monday evening, Santorum was asked repeatedly by reporters if he agreed with the pastor’s words.

“If the question is, do I agree with his statement that America shouldn’t do that? No, if he was speaking for himself he’s obviously allowed to believe what he wants to believe but, obviously I believe in freedom of religion and all religions are welcome and should be. I think I’ve made that pretty clear throughout my campaign that I believe very much in freedom of religion, and folks should be able to worship whoever they want to worship and bring their thoughts in the public square and have at it and give them the opportunity to make their faith claims, and make their claims to reason and any other claims. That’s what America’s all about. As far as I’m concerned they should be here and make their arguments the best they can,” said Santorum.

Video clips here.

Sexual Orientation, Race and the Continuum:

An Analogy Between Them Not Often Observed.

We very often see analogies made between sexual orientation and race. To make an analogy, by its nature, compares different things. The relevant question is how meaningful the difference between the compared things in the context presented. Is the distinction meaningful? Or is it a distinction without a difference? When debating the legitimacy of this particular analogy, the issue of "choice" emerges as a potential meaningful difference and contentious topic of debate.

The anti-gay side often asserts while race is completely unchosen, sexuality (which they reduce to sexual behavior) is completely chosen. That assertion rings self evidently false to gay folks and their friends and loved ones who know their sexual orientation is not, in any sense, chosen. They know they are attracted to the same sex as much as a typical heterosexual knows they are attracted to the opposite sex.

And then someone like Cynthia Nixon comes along and claims to have chosen her gayness.

What's going on here?

Best I can tell: Sexual orientation exists on a diverse continuum. Interestingly, race does as well. And this is one similarly between them I rarely if ever see noted.

Through no fault or no choice of their own, there are some folks who are really white, some who are really black and folks of every shade in between. Likewise, through no fault and no choice of their own some folks are perfectly homosexual, some are perfectly heterosexual and there are bisexuals all over the continuum.

And, in BOTH circumstances (sexual orientation AND race) it's the folks in the middle who have more of a meaningful choice as to how to define and understand their identity. The mixed race person can "pass" as white while the really black person cannot. Yet, the mixed race person also can choose to identify as black and not white or mixed race.

As it were, Ellen Degeneres, perfectly and purely homosexual, has less of a "choice" on the matter than Cynthia Nixon. Nixon, not uncommon for a female in a lesbian relationship, is somewhere on the bisexual continuum; but, like the mixed race person who chooses a "black" and not a "mixed race" identity, chooses a "gay" and not a "bi" identity.

Barack Obama, Man Of Faith:

Andrew Sullivan picks up on the recent battle over President Obama's Christianity involving David Barton. He links to an article of Paul Harvey's that references John Fea's recent "experience" discussing Obama's Christianity.

From Harvey's:

Given Obama’s frequent Christian testimony—explicit enough to make most founding fathers uncomfortable with its public expression of private matters—how can this view be so widely held?

Is it because, like Thomas Jefferson, Obama has been sitting in his office, snipping away with his scissors and cutting out the relatively few passages of the Bible that he has deemed worthy of inclusion in his own expurgated text of trustworthy Gospel sayings? Is it because, like Andrew Jackson, he has opened the White House doors to the huddled masses, yearning to sip some “cider” with the POTUS and his crew? Is it because, like Abraham Lincoln, he avoids any explicit mention of Jesus, and confesses that the ways of the Almighty are unknowable to humans?

No, of course not. Rather, it boils down to this: because Chuck Norris, Franklin Graham, and the American Family Association ... say so. And because David Barton has 47 footnotes that say so.

Obama is a "Christian" in the sense that he professes to be one and has also professed his belief in certain "minimums" like putting his faith in a divine resurrected Jesus. Granted, the liberation theology thing makes his faith a bit "unconventional"; and I'm not sure whether he'd pass CS Lewis' "mere Christian" test that, at a minimum Christians believe Jesus 2nd Person in the Trinity (he might).

But I do know that President Obama's professed faith is closer to "mere Christianity" than either Jefferson's, John Adams' or that of the Mormons.

But, according to Barton, Glenn Beck gets to be a Christian (and a Mormon at the same time) because his politics better match up with Barton's?

I'm not sure if that's a fair charge; but it's how Barton comes off "smelling" to me.

Catholics, contraceptives and John Locke:

By Michael Gerson, here.

A taste:

One tradition of religious liberty contends that freedom of conscience is protected and advanced by the autonomy of religious groups. In this view, government should honor an institutional pluralism — the ability of people to associate, live and act in accordance with their religious beliefs, limited only by the clear requirements of public order. So Roger Williams welcomed Catholics and Quakers to the Rhode Island colony, arguing that a “Church or company of worshippers (whether true or false) . . . may dissent, divide, breake into Schismes and Factions, sue and implead each other at the Law, yea wholly breake up and dissolve into pieces and nothing, and yet the peace of the Citie not be in the least measure impaired or disturbed.”

There is another form of modern liberalism that defines freedom of conscience in purely personal terms. Only the individual and the state are real, at least when it comes to the law. And the state must often intervene to protect the individual from the oppression of illiberal social institutions, particularly religious ones.

This is the guiding philosophy of the American Civil Liberties Union. But as Yuval Levin, editor of National Affairs, pointed out to me, this approach has roots in the Anglo American tradition of political philosophy. John Locke’s “Letter Concerning Toleration” urges legal respect for individual conscience because “everyone is orthodox to himself.” But Locke offered no tolerance for the institution of the Catholic Church: “That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is constituted upon such a bottom that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince.” In Locke’s view, Catholics can worship as they wish as individuals, but their institution is a danger to the liberal order.

In American history, the treatment of the Catholic Church has often been the measure of institutional religious tolerance. It is amazing how Lockean (unconsciously, one assumes) recent actions by the Obama administration have been. Catholics individuals are free to worship. Catholic institutions must be forced to reflect liberal ideals and values.

American Civil Religion, Religious Liberty, Interposition, and the Mormons:

By Lee Trepanier and Lynita K. Newswander here.

A taste:

At the time of Tocqueville’s visit, the Mormon religion was just one year old. Membership was small, and those who practiced Mormonism were a notable exception to the general feeling of religious pluralism which Tocqueville had experienced. Yet, the religion itself – its doctrines, structures, culture, and social practices – had much in common with the more mainstream values of the era in which it was founded. In this sense, the story of Mormonism is, in many respects, a story of America itself. In recent years, scholars have called Mormonism “the American religion”; and some have even argue that the Mormon faith is more American than other more commonly practiced faiths in the US, with its particular combination of spiritualism and patriotism that makes Mormons “American nationalists of a peculiar sort.”6 Others have said that Mormonism was “the first American religion” because the religion “was brand new, with a new identity,” like America itself.7

An American Faith

In many ways, Mormon theology reveres America in a way no other religion does. First, according to LDS doctrine, America was the original home of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden.8 Later, it became a promised land for God’s chosen people – a branch of Israel who was warned by God to leave Jerusalem around 600 B.C. before its destruction.9 Like the God in the Old Testament, the God in The Book of Mormon warns people if they forgot Him, they will be removed from the promised land of America. This message is interpreted by current members of the LDS Church as a personal warning to themselves as well as a more general admonition regarding the Lord’s expectations for the United States.

Mormons also believe that the founders of this nation were inspired to create a government based on principles of freedom and agency. The Constitution is a “heavenly banner” and a divinely inspired document which created a social, religious, and political environment which allowed Joseph Smith to bring forth his teaching.10 During the early years of the church, members sought to establish Zion in various locations as they travelled west, ultimately choosing the Salt Lake Valley as their own portion of the Promised Land and the modern-day headquarters of the Church. Mormons also believe that at the end of time, Christ will return to earth to rule his people from the New Jerusalem, which will be built in what is now known as Jackson County, Missouri.

Christian Nation Nonsense in Oklahoma Legislature:

Ed Brayton has the story here. I know I/we have for years beat the dead horse; but the fake quotations, most infamously spread by David Barton live on.

Patrick Henry didn't say it. And history is more complicated. I know Henry wasn't always such a militant anti-Federalist, but even the most pro-Federalist types didn't speak of the United States as ONE "great nation." They tended to speak of the United States in a plural sense (as in the United States "are" as opposed to "is"). That notion smacks of post Lincolnian centralization.

But this is how Henry really felt when he opposed the ratification of the United States Constitution:

And here I would make this enquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late Federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated Government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated Government is demonstrably clear, and the danger of such a Government, is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest veneration of those Gentlemen,--but, Sir, give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, We, the People. My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask who authorised them to speak the language of, We, the People, instead of We, the States? States are the characteristics, and the soul of a confederation. If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated National Government of the people of all the States.

Jonathan Israel Enlightenment:

The other day at Princeton I picked up Jonathan Israel's A Revolution of the Mind published by Princeton University Press. Israel is at the Institute for Advanced Study located in Princeton. It is not, as some believe, and I first thought when learning about it, part of Princeton University. But if you read up on the history of the Institute, it has some very notable figures cut from the same cloth (for instance, among others Albert Einstein and Alan Turing).

The book's thesis is that there were two wings of the Enlightenment, the radical wing and the moderate wing. The radical wing more dominated France's revolution. And although the radical wing was well represented in the American Revolution (by among others Jefferson and Paine) the moderate wing more dominated.

Israel, as a British writer, focuses on Enlightenment as it relates to Western Civilization in general; as it were, the American Enlightenment is just a particular focus in a general movement. He has to deal with grasping a great many figures and Israel sometimes overstates his case or otherwise contentiously analyses historical facts; but on balance he grasps them well.

Regarding Enlightenment and religion, I was happy to see Israel notice (as I have) the special place "providential Deism" and "Christian Unitarianism" had among the Enlightenment thinkers. The book stresses Richard Price and Joseph Priestley to represent radical Enlightenment in England. And also for equal gender representation (an Enlightenment idea!) Mary Wollstonecraft and Catherine Macaulay.

Here is how he deals with Benjamin Rush, that American Enlightenment "Christian":

[H]e had been a fervent Evangelical as a young man. Yet his radical libertarianism stemmed not from this religious background (which he soon abandoned for a highly unconventional kind of Christianity), but from Enlightenment ideas that he avidly absorbed as a student in Edinburgh and in London and Paris in the years 1766-1769, when he met Hume, Ferguson, Diderot, ... Macaulay, and other Enlightenment figures. He switched to radical ideas because skepticism, having destroyed his confidence in conventional political notions, led him to suspect, as he put it, "error in everything" he had previously been taught in America.

... Rush became an advocate of liberty, equality, and fraternity in which all men would share. ... After returning to his homeland, Rush became a famous medical and political reformer, and in religion, from 1780, for some years an advocate of "Universalism" -- that is, the doctrine of universal salvation of souls irrespective of belief or behavior, the only theology that renders all souls equal and considers union between all the Christian denominations a necessity if "corrupted" Christianity is to be eradicated and mankind's interest promoted. Like the Unitarians, to whom he was close, Rush stressed one's obligations to the entire human race, opposing all theology dividing Christians into separate denominations. Aspiring to unify reason with religion, he proposed stripping away practically all traditional theology. (pp. 42-43.)

My biggest disappointment with the book is its, at times, abstruse prose. This is a problem from which many academic book suffer. Parts of the book could use a rewrite.

Throckmorton on Monumental:

Read it here.

Apparently Herb Titus is in the movie. Herb and I have a mutual friend in Jim Babka. I once debated/discussed this issue with Herb on radio with Jim Babka moderating. He seemed like a nice enough guy. I think Providence was on Herb's side that day because my mic wasn't always clearly coming through. I don't think the show is online any more. But from what I remember, Herb knew that Jim and I, whatever differences between us, were pretty live and let live on what we valued about America's Founding political theology and he stressed those points of agreement: Roger Williams, and then the evangelical Baptists like Isaac Backus and John Leland who supported Jefferson and Madison's religious liberty/separation of church and state/government non-cognizance of religion "Virginia" project, etc. I wonder whether that shows through in his appearance on "Monumental."

America as an Almost Chosen People:

To counter the Mark Noll et al. narrative. Tom Van Dyke sends this over. The article was written by Paul Johnson.

JMS on "The Search For Christian America":

At American Creation commenter JMS noted the following:

I thought the Search for Christian America was a great book. As Dr. Rowe noted and as the book's authors explain in the Afterword, "this book was originally prepared early in the Reagan era when for many evangelicals, hopes were high for restoring America's Christian heritage." (p. 156)

But those hopes (or delusions)were not realized, and the author's noted that, "starting with Christian principles is no guarantee of achieving Christian political results. Or, to put it in terms that theistic founders of this nation understood well, 'power corrupts'."

Historians like Mark Noll or John Fea are such faithful historians in the sense that, as stated by Noll et. al. in reference to the "Christian nation" thesis they were rebutting, "we hope to correct the mistaken assumption that the American past offers an adequate Christian blueprint for our lives today. We must agree with Roger Williams that no nation since the coming of Christ has been uniquely God's chosen people" (pp. 24-25)

Update: I have JD, MBA, and LL.M. degrees (all from Temple University). Technically the "JD" is a doctorate; though there is great debate whether it's appropriate for JDs to be termed "Dr." I generally don't go by "Dr.," but folks are free to call me that if they'd like. I do thank JMS for the respect though!

Niall Ferguson, Christianity and Civilization:

He sees a connection.

"But what are the foundational texts of Western civilization, that can bolster our belief in the almost boundless power of the free individual human being?" His own answer to this question begins: "I would suggest the King James Bible …."

Princeton & iPhone:

I've been Princeton many times. But yesterday was the first time with the iPhone. This turned out to be a pretty good pic I took.

Brannon Howse on Kirk Cameron's Monumental:

Here is Brannon Howse with the less eccumenical evangelical-fundamentalist perspective on Kirk Cameron's Christian America project. A taste:

Let me first begin by saying that I want to be gracious with people on this topic because for many years I was committed to the fallacy of moralizing, Americanism, Christian activism and the need to "reclaim America". I even pulled one of my own books which was published in 2005. I have pulled several Worldview Weekend DVDs that promoted the reconstructionism or "reclaiming America" message. I have asked my radio and television audience to forgive me if my example caused them to take their focus off our ultimate calling which is the proclamation of the gospel.

I called my friend Kirk Cameron and left him a voice mail in the early summer of 2011 to warn him of the Americanism trap that had ensnared me for a time and I wanted him to learn from my mistakes. If Kirk had returned my call I would have shared some of the information contained in this article concerning America's founding. This article and movie grieves me because Kirk has been a friend for several years and has stayed in my home and traveled and spoken for many Worldview Weekends. In addition to asking him to privately examine this evidence with me, I also invited him to be a guest on my radio program for February 27, 2012 to discuss his film and his appearance on the TV program of Mormon Glenn Beck to discuss his Christian film; but that did not take place.

Therefore, even at the risk up upsetting friends, I must now turn my attention to warning the church of the trap of uniting the things of God with the ungodly things of this world and believing that God will bless our nation when such actions will only hasten God's judgment on our land.

[...]

In addition, the trailer of the film reveals an interview with Dr. Os Guinness one of the signers of Evangelicals and Catholics together. Reports are that David Barton was also interviewed for this film. This is troubling as David Barton has declared that Mormon Glenn Beck can wear the title Mormon and be a Christian.

Conclusion:

Christians seeking to "reclaim America" or "get back to the founding fathers" will not invite God's blessing by holding up men, institutions, traditions, and symbols that are not honorable to God. Christians will not invite God's favor but God's judgment when they disobey His Word and mix pagan beliefs, a pagan statue, and worldly symbolism with our worship and service to Him. Such activities regardless of how well intentioned is a monumental mistake.

Kirk Cameron's Personal Journey:

As John Fea titles it. I've "discovered" a lot about history too. And, like Cameron I've noticed a lot of "rewriting" -- a lot of it from HIS side. I'll be watching his documentary very carefully and reporting on it. Now, we should understand that poisoning the well is a logical fallacy (the genetic fallacy). So if a fervent non-Christian secular leftist like Chris Rodda or PZ Meyers accurately points out an error from David Barton or Kirk Cameron, they accurately point out the error. Though orthodox Christians may have serious issues with the ultimate worldview of the "sources," facts are facts and logic is logic.

But even if evangelical orthodox Christians look for "trustworthy" sources (that is humoring the genetic fallacy that dismisses anything secular leftists say), smart, indeed brilliant, scholarly sources of the orthodox Christian bent whose "biblical" and "fundamentalist" bona fides are beyond reproach dispute Cameron's "Christian America" narrative. Indeed, according to an orthodox biblical perspective, arguably "Christian Americanism" is a heresy not unlike Mormonism. "Christian Americanism" adds a third sacred holy book -- Americanism -- to the Old and New Testament. A "Holy Book" -- like the Book of Mormon -- that purports to perfectly comply with what is written in the OT and NT, but arguably contradicts or inappropriately adds to them.

Numerous valuable scholarly sources written from the perspective of orthodox Christianity exist to keep "Christian Americanism" is check; but I'll name three that I think we should use when "testing" Cameron's argument. In order dated earliest published: First, "The Search For Christian America," by Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch and George Marsden; second, "Was America Founded As a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction," by John Fea; and third, "The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders: Reason, Revelation, Revolution," by Gregg Frazer.

George Marsden and David Barton Recently Worked on a Book Together:

Marsden is one of the co-authors of "The Search For Christian America." The book with Barton is a debate book on Christian America. The book was published in 2011. I'll have to get and read it hopefully soon.

The Search For Christian America:

I finally got the book. I'm well aware of the arguments as many of the scholars whose works I read and value -- Gregg Frazer, John Fea, Jon Meacham, Steven Waldman, among others -- reference that book and its arguments. Gregg Frazer's PhD thesis especially.

I haven't finished the book yet; but from what I've read, I strongly recommend it. But not without qualification. The book's claims deserve to be scrutinized just as the authors scrutinize "Christian America" claims.

The book's thesis as the authors write on page 17:

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. ...

Their understanding of "Christian" is tightly wound in a theological sense. But the book's chief target is evangelicals who define "Christianity" as something more meaningful than "weak generic" Christendom. As the authors note, "[a]lmost everything in Western culture from the late Roman Empire until about 1800 was 'Christian' in this sense." (p. 30.)

Years ago when I was discussing on my blogs whether the political theology of the American Founding -- although it often presented itself as "rational Christianity" -- deserved the label "Christian," a clever commenter asked whether America was founded on a "Christian heresy."

Although the authors of the book do not believe America's Founding political theology merits the label "Christian," their thesis fits with the "Christian heresy" understanding.

Their thoughts on Winthrop's Massachusetts remind me of the The Simpsons' Founding of the town of Springfield episode that joked the town was founded when "a fiercely determined band of pioneers leaves Maryland after misinterpreting a passage in the bible. Their destination, New Sodom." The Puritians thought Massachusetts was an exalted "New Israel." But the authors claim this a clear case of "mistaken identity" as they put it. (p. 36.) The authors assert Roger Williams' Rhode Island represented the more authentically Christian understanding of government.

But here is where the authors use their authoritative discretion to choose what counts as authentic ideal Christianity, what counts as error. Though, many of the things the authors count as "un-Christian" and consequently put in the "bad" box were arguably part of historic normative Christianity. Religious persecution, chattel slavery, and the deplorable treatment of American Indians are used to solidify the case for an "un-Christian" America. Yet these things were done by Christians in the name of Christianity. Roger Williams who comes out of history smelling better than John Winthrop arguably held more novel and eccentric positions than Winthrop. I'm trying not to "judge," but it seems to me that Winthrop's illiberality was more normatively Christian for the time and context than Williams' liberality that ultimately prevailed in liberal democratic America (and in Western Christendom as a whole).

The authors have been tarred as "liberals" intent on "revising" the record. While I can't say for sure, I don't believe they are either political OR theological liberals. And, in the book, they promote, in addition to Williams, Jonathan Edwards and Samuel Hopkins as model biblical thinkers. They were hardly liberals. And even though Williams' politics were radically liberal for his time, his theology that informed his politics was, ironically, fanatically fundamentalist. Indeed it was America's Founders -- from Washington to Jefferson to Hamilton -- who tended to be theological liberals and consequently not authentically Christian enough. Rather they were the humanists of their day. Albeit theistic/religious humanists.

John Witherspoon was an evangelical Christian. But in his personal theology. When it came to politics -- his Lectures on Moral Philosophy -- he was a naturalist and a (Scottish) Enlightenment rationalist, hardly a "model for Christian political thought." (p. 93.)

On the American Revolution, it violated Romans 13 and otherwise "was not a 'just war' as traditionally defined by the Church, and hence ... was not worthy of unqualified Christian support. ... [Further], the patriots were so hypocritical that they forfeited whatever Christian approval their theoretical justifications might otherwise merit." (p. 95.)

The charged "hypocrisy," you could guess, relates to the patriots' practice of slavery and treatment of the Indians.

I know this is contentious stuff! But it's well worth serious consideration.

The Humanist on the Jefferson Bible:

Check it out here.

A taste:

Jefferson wrote, “I am a real Christian, that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” He called Christ’s teachings “the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.” He urged “getting back to the plain and unsophisticated precepts of Christ.” He suggested that the defeat of Napoleon “proves that we have a god in heaven.” In his first inaugural address, he invoked the blessings of “that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe.” In his second inaugural address, he sought the blessings “of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life.”

Want to prove that Jefferson was a militant secularist? That’s easy, too.

Jefferson wrote that “Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God.” He called the writers of the New Testament “ignorant, unlettered men” who produced “superstitions, fanaticisms, and fabrications.” He called the Apostle Paul the “first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.” He dismissed the concept of the Trinity as “mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” He believed that the clergy used religion as a “mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves” and that “in every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.” And he wrote in a letter to John Adams that “the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

Ups And Downs For John Fea This Week:

Congratulations to John Fea for being selected as a finalist for the George Washington Book prize. You can read about it here, here, and here.

The down: The Glenn Beck crowd went nuts reacting to this article that (accurately) notes Barack Obama, judged by his words as Presidents, may be one of the most explicitly "Christian" American Presidents. BHO is certainly far more rhetorically Christian than the early Founding American Presidents (certainly more than either Presidents Washington and Madison).

And this crowd especially should be wary of casting the "who is a 'real Christian'?" stone given Beck's Mormonism.

Thomas S. Kidd on the Faiths of Lincoln and Washington:

Here. One word: enigmatic.

Another Story on the Jefferson Bible:

Here.

How Should We Understand Violence In The Good Book?

Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan. "Patrick Allitt reviews Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can’t Ignore the Bible’s Violent Verses by Philip Jenkins:"

Early figures in Christian history approached the genocidal passages in different ways. Marcion, leader of a highly influential Christian movement of the second century AD, argued that the God of the Old Testament, capricious, brutal, and violent, was the antithesis of the God of Jesus in the New Testament. His own proposed version of the Bible omitted the Old Testament completely. So, a century later, did that of Mani, founder of the Manicheans, who thought of divine history as a great battle between light and darkness and denied that the New Testament fulfilled prophecies made in the Old.

Arguing against the Marcionites and the Manicheans, some of the Church Fathers, including Origen and Augustine, denied that the genocidal passages should be taken literally. In Origen’s view they should be read metaphorically or spiritually so that the Canaanites or Amalekites were not actual groups of people, deserving of death, but the tendency to sin in every human heart, against which we should make perpetual war.

Isaac Newton's Bible Codes:

Isaac Newton was one of those British unitarian Enlightenment Christians who greatly influenced America's Founders. Interestingly, he believed in Bible codes as this story explains. Also interestingly, he saw the existence of such as part of his "scientific" enterprise.

Benjamin Franklin and the American Enlightenment:

By Dr. Richard Beeman, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Professor of American History, University of Pennsylvania

I found this neat article here.

A taste:

In turning Franklin into a caricature, we obscure the substance of his contributions to what historians have termed “the Age of Enlightenment,” which was, in reality, not so much an “age” as an “impulse,” fuelled by a heightened sense of optimism about the ability of men and women to use their rational powers not only to understand the laws of the universe, but also to devise means by which to use those laws for the betterment of mankind.

Franklin’s contributions to enlightenment thought far transcended the boundaries of his own country: his reputation as a scientist and as a philosopher was, deservedly, an international one. Yet we must not, in our urge to free Franklin from the baggage associated with his image as “typical American,” divorce him entirely from his American upbringing and experience. Despite the fact that he spent nearly 27 years of his life outside the boundaries of North America, his temperament and habit of mind were shaped in countless ways by the natural landscape and social structure of America. The extraordinary novelty and variety in that landscape would give to Franklin, in common with many other American enlightenment figures a sharpened sense of empirical observation and induction: the more open-ended social structure of eighteenth century America encouraged in Franklin an optimism about humanly-created institutions - be they legislatures or fire companies or colleges – that citizens of European societies, more heavily encumbered by tradition, would have found difficult to share. Perhaps more important, Franklin’s own life experiences and accomplishments would serve as models – as he wished them to do – for countless Americans both in his age and in subsequent generations.

Tea with Simon Critchley: The Separation of Church and State Is Impossible:

Here is the article. Here is the book.

The way I understand the book's thesis, it has to do with political-theology -- the old saying politics is theology applied. You don't need any kind of traditional or orthodox understanding of the faith. Rather, Rousseau's civil religion or ceremonial deism will do. But the "system" has to have some kind of divine trump.

A taste:

The religious conservatives are right: there is a theology behind the American political system—only it isn’t Christianity. It’s deism, the faith most closely associated with the Enlightenment, which professes, as Critchley puts it, that “there’s a God, but a God that doesn’t do party tricks.” Even if no one calls himself a deist anymore, it lives on it the political systems that the Enlightenment inspired—especially our own. Liberal democracy, Critchley argues, is simply the political form of deism. Natural law and natural rights, so central to the American creed, are fundamentally theological concepts. Thomas Jefferson may have been a freethinking, Bible-revising iconoclast, but he wasn’t just being figurative when he wrote, in the Declaration of Independence, that such rights are endowed by a Creator; that’s what deists believe. And even without prayer in schools, the deist creed is coded into every national ritual we have, from the courtroom to the ballpark.

Is there any way to participate in politics without getting religious? “I don’t think it should even be an aspiration,” Critchley told me. “If you look at a counterexample, the problem with the European Union is that it doesn’t have those rituals. It tried to bind a polity together through a constitution, but it was so weak. There’s been a total failure to craft something like a European identity—the problem hasn’t even been recognized. So we’re left with a unity which is simply monetary. And that seems to be screwed.”

I'm not sure if I would call it "deism" as opposed to "generic monotheism." As I have come to learn the civil religion or political theology of the American Founding is an uber-eccumenical generic monotheism where among others, Jews, Christians, Muslims and un-converted Great Spirit believing Native Americans all worship the same monotheistic God. AND further, much of what has been termed "deism" from this era is actually Providential, heterodox (non-Trinitarian) "Christianity." (I put "Christianity" in quotes because, to some, non-Trinitarianism and "Christianity" are mutually exclusive concepts.)

James R. Rogers On Mitt Romney’s Constitutional Theology:

Very interesting article that details how Mormonism (unlike orthodox Christianity) believes as a matter of official doctrine that America's Founding documents and their promotion of republicanism and political liberty are divinely inspired.

Petition of the Philadelphia Synagogue to Council of Censors of Pennsylvania:

I've been meaning to post this for some time. We've seen that PA's original 1776 state constitution contains a clause requiring certain public officials to swear belief in the divine inspiration of the Old and New Testament. Christian nationalists often cite that clause as a smoking gun. But then we learn in 1790, under the direction of acting governor Ben Franklin (who noted he himself couldn't pass the test because he didn't believe the entire Old Testament was divinely inspired!), PA removed and replaced the offending clause with one that required belief in "the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments,..."

Guess who else had a problem with PA's original religious test? Jewish people who didn't believe in the divine inspiration of the New Testament. You can read their complaints here.

A taste:

That by the tenth section of the Frame of Government of this Commonwealth, it is ordered that each member of the general assembly of representatives of the freemen of Pennsylvania, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe a declaration, which ends in these words, "I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the old and new Testament to be given by divine inspiration," to which is added an assurance, that "no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this state."

Your memorialists beg leave to observe, that this clause seems to limit the civil rights of your citizens to one very special article of the creed; whereas by the second paragraph of the declaration of the rights of the inhabitants, it is asserted without any other limitation than the professing the existence of God, in plain words, "that no man who acknowledges the being of a God can be justly deprived or abridged of any civil rights as a citizen on account of his religious sentiments." But certainly this religious test deprives the Jews of the most eminent rights of freemen, solemnly ascertained to all men who are not professed Atheists.

General v. Particular:

In philosophical parlance they often say "universal v. particular." It seems to me this presents not only a problem with interpreting texts but renders one "correct" interpretation impossible. This isn't to say that anything goes. It would be a non-sequitur to so conclude. As it were, rules of philosophy/logic (like that of the non-sequitur!) must be adhered to and facts, respected. But among smart folks who argue well (that is, those who make the fewest errors in fact or logic) competing narratives that contradict one another nonetheless emerge.

What got me thinking on this was Ray Soller's comment that seeks to limit Mark 12:17 to a very limited specific context. Now, Ray may be right on how this text ought to be so understood; but that hasn't stopped folks from interpreting it in a more general sense. Potential examples from the Bible -- and many other notable texts -- abound endlessly. The texts themselves often help point to proper contexts. But also often, certainly, with the Bible, the texts don't teach "one" proper interpretation. Were that true, there wouldn't be so many Protestant sects.

We've spent a lot of time arguing whether Romans 13 is absolute (if it is, then the American revolution was un-biblical and sinful). The text of the Bible clearly supports this reading (insofar as Romans 13 refers to submission to government as opposed to mere obedience; other competing texts of the Bible make a rule that teaches absolute obedience to government not plausible as the Bible teaches sometimes you have to obey God not man). But other readings are plausible.

Do biblical prohibitions against homicide apply to matters of abortion, capital punishment, self defense, or foreign wars? Everyone agrees exceptions exist to "don't kill." Smart folks debate whether the Bible absolutely prohibits lying or permits righteous deception. (In addition to biblical texts, there is the reductio ad absurdum, "what would you do if you lived in Nazi Germany and the Nazi's asked you whether you were hiding Jewish people in your attic?" and you in fact were.)

What about the texts of the Bible that seemingly approve of genocide and slavery? No sane person today defends genocide or slavery; so if one wants to defend the Bible but not the texts that seem to teach God was okay with or demanded these, then limit the offending texts in the strictest way possible. On the other hand, seeking a "good" interpretation of the Bible, we'll take principles that were enunciated in specific context and "extend" them in a more general sense. The Golden Rule is certainly a great principle, and a "good" interpretation of the Bible will render it as broad as possible. Imago Dei, very broadly understood, certainly works wonders for human rights.

Yet, certain texts of the Bible seemingly suggest certain (perhaps many, perhaps the vast majority of) humans, whether they were made in the image of God are children of the devil, irresistibly damned and that God hates them. (No the Westboro Baptist Church didn't just make that stuff up; Calvinism is mainly to blame for this.) These would support the pro-slavery, pro-genocide interpretations of the Bible, which are plausible textual interpretations.

Richard Dawkins' God of the Bible is Fred Phelps' God.

Sandefur on Due Process at Cato:

Since I've linked to this topic before, this series may be quite interesting. As usual, keep a sharp eye for arguments from the American Founding and philosophies that influenced it.

David Barton Gets Kirk Cameron:

It looks like I'm going to be busy for quite some time. David Barton isn't backing down but hiring getting Kirk Cameron to spread Christian nationalism. Cameron notes he wants it to be a "movement." If you've seen his "Way of the Master" videos, you'll note Cameron has a very strict view on what it means to be a "Christian." Accordingly a great deal of the "Founding Fathers," though they weren't strict deists and did think of themselves as "Christians" in some sense were not "Christians" according to Cameron's strict spiritual standards.

Likewise a lot of Cameron's "Christians" from the colonial era -- the Puritans, for instance -- did indefensible things like executing Quakers, banning Roger Williams and having laws on the books that demanded the death penalty for among other things worshipping false gods.

More Obama The Christian:

Read his remarks here. He was far more explicitly Christian in his remarks than the Founding era Presidents. Indeed, as this Reason article notes, Obama is as explicitly Christian in Presidential remarks as his predecessor George W. Bush.

John Barry's Roger Williams the State of the American Soul:

Hat tip John Fea. Roger Williams is timely once again (I think he'll always be timely). This is the Amazon link to Barry's book. And here is Barry's LA Times article on the matter.

The Bible Usury and Debt:

Since this blog deals with how Christian morality impacts American law I'll touch on this story. There is debate as to who -- the Christian Left or the Christian Right (or even Christian libertarians) -- best represents the Bible's politics. These aren't easy questions and I'm not convinced any of the sides are "right." I'm certainly not convinced that Jesus' admonishment to feed the poor demands socialized medicine or redistributionist economics.

There are a couple modest positions I've concluded are so clear that they are beyond debate. One is the Bible is anti-usury and arguably teaches, like Islam, the charging of ANY interest (even a "good" rate for borrowers) is a sin. Therefore, if it's a good idea to write biblical teachings into the law or otherwise have the law reflect and not seem inconsistent with biblical morality, high interest loans are immoral and ought to be illegal. Arguably there should be no interest charged on loans. That represents a huge tension between free market capitalism and what the Bible teaches.

The second non-debatable point is that the Bible is radically pro-debtor. David Skeel, law professor at Penn and whom I had at Temple, seems one of the few notable right of center Christian academics who consistently trumpets a pro-debtor tune (to the chagrin of bondholders everywhere).

The anti-usury, pro-debtor stance of the Bible, it seems to me, are two areas where the Christian Left is more biblical than the Christian Right.

Though, I have concluded that the Bible/Christian religion is, at its heart, a-political and compatible with virtually any political system. It's not just Romans 13 (which we've discussed at great length), but also -- and more importantly -- Mark 12:17. When Jesus said "Render Unto Caesar" he didn't refer to the noble Stoic Roman republicans, but rather to the ignoble imperial Roman tyrants.

Mormonism & America's Civil Religion:

In this passage J K.A. Smith highlights a tension between orthodox Christianity and America's Civil Religion:

Some of us Christians have a hard time reconciling the Almighty, all-powerful, law-giving God of liberty with the crucified suffering servant born in a barn and executed at the hands of the elite. Some of us are trying to figure out what it means to be a people who follow one who relinquished his rights rather than asserted them, who considered submission a higher value than freedom. We serve a God-man who wasn’t concerned with “preserving leadership” and the hegemony of the empire’s gospel of freedom, but rather was crushed by its machinations for proclaiming and embodying another gospel.

As I've noted many times before it's precisely because of Mormonism's unorthodox nature (and because of when and where it was founded) that such better "fits" with America's Founding political theology than does orthodox Christianity.

David Rosman's Christian Nation Book:

Here are two links on a new, perhaps notable Christian Nation controversy book.

Slavery: America's Original Sin?

From Thomas Kidd here.