Michael Novak Replies to Me
Jonathan Rowe on Apr 27th 2007
I want to thank Michael Novak for devoting an entire post to my comments at the Encyclopedia Britannica Blog. To make sure that I am not misunderstood, I need to clarify some of my assertions. Novak begins:
In his intelligent replies to Ms. Allen and me, Mr. Jonathan Rowe raises many good points. But his vision of Christianity matches up neither with the Anglican nor the evangelical tradition. Rowe holds that “the primary ‘end’ of religion is morality itself,” and that the three distinctive tenets “which distinguish Christianity from all the other world religions” are “things like the Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement.”
But the Evangelical tradition rejects the understanding of Christianity as mere morality. More important are repentance, and a personal relationship with Jesus as Lord. Meanwhile, most of the American Founding Fathers would have recited the Nicene Creed with some regularity at Anglican services. The tenets of that creed include many more items than Mr. Rowe’s three. Such abstract terms as “Trinity” and “Atonement” do not appear in it.
First, I argued that the key Founders (not me personally) believed “the primary ‘end’ of religion is morality itself,…” Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams, in no uncertain terms, made it clear they believed this. And while there are ambiguities in exactly what Washington and Madison believed (requiring some detective work, putting the pieces of the puzzle together), I believe Madison and Washington were likewise agreed. So when Mr. Novak writes, “the Evangelical tradition rejects the understanding of Christianity as mere morality,” indeed, I am trying to show how the key Founders’ creed differed from Christianity as historically defined by its orthodoxy. Likewise though the Nicene Creed includes more tenets than just the Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement, it is nonetheless *the* quintessential statement of Christianity’s Trinitarian orthodoxy. And, I would argue, many of those Anglican Founding Fathers did not believe in the tenets that their Church preached.
Let us not forget Jefferson was, like Washington, a lifelong Anglican/Episcopalian and a vestryman in the Church as well. Jefferson clearly rejected the creeds of orthodoxy which his Church preached. And though Madison — another Virginia Anglican/Episcopalian — revealed far less in his writings about what he really believed, the available evidence I’ve been able to uncover strongly points towards his belief in the same unitarian doctrines in which Jefferson believed. David L. Holmes’ fine book on the religion of the Founding Fathers reproduces the evidence on Madison’s heterodoxy as does this paper available online by James H. Hutson.
Washington, even more reticent to give the specific details of his creed than Madison, often praised the Christian religion by name. But he invariably did so in the context of equating (or seeming to equate) Christianity with virtue itself and never with Christianity’s historic tenets of orthodoxy (e.g., the Nicene Creed). It was Ben Franklin who once said, “Morality or Virtue is the End, Faith only a Means to obtain that End: And if the End be obtained, it is no matter by what Means.” If Washington equated Christianity with virtue, by following Franklin’s logic, other religions which produce virtue would be valid like Christianity. In his famous Farewell Address, Washington noted the most important aspect about “religion” is the morality it produces (as opposed to the souls it saves). And Washington specifically chose to use the term “religion” absent the qualifier “Christian” there, which again hints towards a belief that all world religions, so long as they produce morality, are sound and can support republican governments.
As I noted in my original comment, if Christianity had any advantage over the other world religions, to our Founders, it was because Jesus of Nazareth, as a man, was arguably the greatest moral teacher the world had seen. Indeed, what Mr. Novak reproduces from Jefferson perfectly confirms my contention:
“I have made a wee little book…which I call the philosophy of Jesus…a more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” He saw in his selection, “the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.”
Yet, according to Jefferson et al., the other world religions, because they taught the same morality as Christianity were also “sound.” As Jefferson wrote in his 1809 letter to James Fishback:
Every religion consists of moral precepts, and of dogmas. In the first they all agree. All forbid us to murder, steal, plunder, bear false witness &ca. and these are the articles necessary for the preservation of order, justice, and happiness in society. In their particular dogmas all differ; no two professing the same. These respect vestments, ceremonies, physical opinions, and metaphysical speculations, totally unconnected with morality, and unimportant to the legitimate objects of society….It is then a matter of principle with me to avoid disturbing the tranquility of others by the expression of any opinion on the [unimportant points] innocent questions on which we schismatize, and think it enough to hold fast to those moral precepts which are of the essence of Christianity, and of all other religions.
So, because they all taught the same basic moral principles, all world religions, in Jefferson’s eyes, were valid, with Christianity having a slight plus, only because of the superiority of Jesus’ moral teachings, not Jesus’ claims of Godhood, Atonement, and the only way to salvation, things which Jefferson did not personally believe (indeed, Jefferson didn’t believe that Jesus claimed such either, but rather that His words were corrupted by His followers).
I strongly disagree with Mr. Novak’s assertion that the Founders believed “the characteristics of Christianity and Judaism…make them distinctively fit for free republics.” Nothing in my meticulous study of the key Founding Fathers shows they believed Judaism and Christianity were exclusively “fit” for free republics. Indeed, they’ve said much to the opposite. Consider, John Adams in a published book he wrote to defend the US Constitution said:
ZALEUCUS was of Locris in Italy, not far distant from Sybaris. He was a disciple of Pythagoras, of noble birth, and admirable morals. Having acquired the esteem and confidence of his fellow-citizens, they chose him for their legislator….In this preamble he declares, that all those who shall inhabit the city, ought, above all things, to be persuaded that there is a God; and if they elevate their eyes and thoughts towards the heavens, they will be convinced, that the disposition of the heavenly bodies, and the order which reigns in all nature, are not the work of men, nor of chance; that therefore they ought to adore the gods, as the authors of all which life presents us of good and beautiful; that they should hold their souls pure from every vice, because the gods accept neither the prayers, offerings, or sacrifices of the wicked, and are pleased only with the just and beneficent actions of virtuous men….This preamble, instead of addressing itself to the ignorance, prejudices, and superstitious fears of savages, for the purpose of binding them to an absurd system of hunger and glory for a family purpose, like the laws of Lycurgus, places religion, morals, and government, upon a basis of philosophy, which is rational, intelligible, and eternal, for the real happiness of man in society, and throughout his duration.
Zaleucus’ laws were supposedly revealed by Athena 600, BC! Lycurgus, whose laws Adams also praised, similarly had pagan origins. Indeed, Adams and the other key Founders drew such an equivalence between Christianity and the other world religions, that they often referred to such pagan systems as “Christian.” In his Dec. 25, 1813 letter to Jefferson, Adams wrote, “The Preamble to the Laws of Zaleucus…is as orthodox Christian Theology as Priestlys.” Joseph Priestly was Adams’ and Jefferson’s spiritual mentor and pioneered the “Christianity” (if it’s fair to term it such) in which Jefferson and Adams personally believed. Thus when Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813 –
The general principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved [sic] Independence, were…the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty…Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.
– he was not making an exclusivist claim about traditional Christianity. Indeed, what Mr. Novak failed to reproduced from that same letter reveals just how unorthodox Adams’ sentiments were. Adams further explained those “general principles of Christianity”:
I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.
Finding “general principles of Christianity” in the teachings of Enlightenment philosophers, like Locke, Newton? Perhaps. But also in the works of French philosophes, Rousseau, and Voltaire? And the atheist Hume?
I agree with Mr. Novak that the Founders, including Jefferson and Franklin, supported the people’s commitment to their Christian religion. But only because Christianity was “the people’s” religion. As I wrote in my original post, if the people were so disposed, Jefferson, Adams, and the other early Presidents could just have easily marched their horses to a Mosque or a Greco-Roman temple of pagan worship.
Consider, Franklin, that supposed “Deist,” actively supported Christian Churches. Yet, his support for Christianity in particular stemmed from his support for “religion” in general. And that support, in principle, extended to Islam, if the citizens were so inclined. In his autobiography he wrote:
Both house and ground were vested in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.
Finally, regarding Mr. Novak’s claim that (perhaps regardless of what the Founders themselves believed) Judaism and Christianity are special over other world religions because they emphasize “the free conscience of the free person in the free community,” and that “[f]or Christians and Jews, freedom is at the heart of the matter,” this is a particular understanding of Christianity that didn’t begin to emerge until around the 17th Century. For a thousand and some hundred years, Christian (both Catholic and Protestant) theologians who knew the Bible as well as anyone did not interpret the good book in this manner. Augustine…Aquinas…Luther…Calvin? None of these men believed in “the free conscience of the free person in the free community,…” Indeed, Samuel Rutherford, Calvinist author of “Lex Rex,” which supposedly influenced our Revolution, said the following about the execution of Michael Servetus:
“It was justice, not cruelty, yea mercy to the Church of God, to take away the life of Servetus, who used such spirituall and diabolick cruelty to many thousand soules, whom he did pervert, and by his Booke, does yet lead into perdition.”
– Samuel Rutherfurd, A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience. (1649).
Michael Servetus was, if readers aren’t aware, a theological unitarian whom John Calvin saw put to death for publicly denying the Trinity.
The Christian religion indeed marvelously transformed to recognize “the free conscience of the free person in the free community,” with both Protestant dissidents and Enlightenment rationalists contributing to this great epistemological effort. Each of the key Founders over whom we argue believed Christianity must conform to the teachings of Enlightenment. To them, enlightened Christianity truly was a religion of “the free conscience of the free person in the free community,…” Given that they saw validity in the world’s other religious systems, they probably would have had no problem with the flourishing of exotic non-Judeo-Christian religions in America provided those religions likewise conformed to the tenets of enlightened liberality.
Filed in The Belfry, The Bookshelf, The Bureau
An excellent post, Mr. Rowe. The idea that freedom emanates from any doctrine of the four salvific religions is merely post-Enlightenment triumphalism. An extensive and rigorous study of Comparative Religions notes that Muhammad was much more of a pragmatic example of human freedom than any of the founders of the other three salvific religions, despite what Muslims in organizing their religion have unfortunately done to ignore his numerous personal examples (sunnah) about freedom since his death.
The fount of freedom is not in any religion; nor is it found in the long-revered institutions of ‘family’ or ‘government,’ or in the ‘rationality’ of the Enlightenment. The many Euopean Enlightenments are themselves the effects of a related but entirely separate phenonemon, not the causes of sudden freedom. That the Americans Founders missed what actually is the fount of human freedom is not too surprising; they lived the fount every day of their lives (Tocqueville), and like standing so close to a tree that one misses seeing the forest, we and our view-obscured Founders place the fount of freedom in whatever institution we love best.
Christian lovers of freedom can happily credit Christianity with the exponential growth of freedom over the past five hundred years (Weber), even if such a view is particularistic and triumphalist. But if Islam in its present agony over the next two centuries comes to rediscover its traditions of freedom actually lived by their Prophet, then watch a new, ‘freewill’ Islam again sweep across the planet, beginning with voluntary mass conversions by northern European Christians.
Against a ‘freewill’ Islam armed with the Prophet’s actual many personal examples about human freedom, Christianity without any such practical founding examples may well wither.
Excellent comment. I’ve yet to begin my study of the details of the Koran; but I hope that the text of that book has passages which could be used in a much needed reform and enlightenment there.
It may be salient to your observations to cite Immanuel Kant, who in the Critiques, requires a Transcendental Deity (although he admits none can be proved) in order for there to be a foundation for Morality. It was commonly believed that Religion, if it had any salutation, was in it’s keeping a good moral order. Nothing more. That is certainly true for Kant’s sense of Aufklarung [Enlightenment]. Kant defines two essential conditions under which humanity can escape its immature past and servitude to Authority: One spiritual, one institutional. But the spiritual is moral. The institutional is political. Not Religion per se, certainly not Christianity, but a Transcendental Deity to safeguard his Categorical Imperative. (See, Foucault: “What is Enlightenment?”)
To Mr. Rowe,
The initial read of the Qur’an by anyone brought up in the tradition and message of Christianity is gong to be at least shocked, if not repulsed, by their first exposure to the revelations in the Qur’an. Much of the shock has to do with the way the Qur’an is arranged: the surahs (chapters) are not in chronological order, as the Hebrew Bible is, in order to facilitate memorizing the entire text. As a result, some of the revelations given to the Prophet which are hateful in the extreme are found in early parts of the book. The shock experienced by a Christian in reading the Qur’an for the first time is much like the shock in reading the litany of slaughters and ‘holocausts’ of the Bible, after the Hebrews entered the promised land.
A key event occurred late during Muhammad’s ministry years, which altered the ‘flavor’ of some of the subsequent divine revelations. If the surahs were arranged in chronological order, and then the individual revelations were matched with the chronological order of events in the Prophet’s life, it becomes apparent where and why the revelations from Gabriel to Muhammad have become so hateful and brutal.
That said, there is plenty within the Qur’an to ‘reform’ Islam and inspire their own Enlightenment. The holy book would not have survived 1,400 years if it did not include numerous inspirations and positive teachings. But just as the evils perpetrated in the name of Christ have plagued Christianity, the evils perpetrated in the name of the Compassionate and Merciful Allah plague Islam.
A constant theme of the Qur’an, and hence of Islam itself, is “reform.” The multi-millennia connection between religion and morality is grounded in the pro-active desire for ‘reform.’ At all times, when considering the religions, including especially the two salvific religions which are proselytizing–Christianity and Islam–remember the operative grounding for their faith is the pro-active psychology of a reformist.
Muslims will ‘reform’ Islam; it is an integral part of their faith. Until then, the world is in for some long years of dealing with brutal and savage Muslim puritans who have an entirely different concept of what ‘reform’ is supposed to be. We Christians burned devout Christians at the stake for two hundred years; hopefully, it will not take Muslims so long as it took Christians to ‘reform’ their reformist faith.
The supreme difficulty facing Islam in its present agony heading toward reform is: the Muslim puritans are going to be nuclear armed. The least qualified person to have possession of nuclear arms is a puritan, whether the puritan is secular (Hitler) or devout (Khomeini) or atheist (Pol Pot), irrespective of the theology or ideology. The Protestant Reformation was a bloodbath which ignited more than a century of horrific bloodletting; and that was without any nuclear weapons. Islam’s agony as it works toward ‘reform’ may become even bloodier than Christianity’s.
Jonathan wrote: “Excellent comment. I’ve yet to begin my study of the details of the Koran; but I hope that the text of that book has passages which could be used in a much needed reform and enlightenment there.”
The mid 1st century Koran was written by superstitious tribal people whose notions of justice were parochial and in many ways undeveloped compared to our secular 21st century notions of justice and legal equality. So, wishful hopes notwithstanding, to accomplish your goal you would probably need to adopt a dishonestly selective reading. The ideas of the leading politicians behind the late 18th century founding of the United States probably provides a better foundation than any book falsely claiming divine authorship, for promoting pluralistic, democratic societies.
At some point we need to speak the truth about the applicability, integrity, and merit of the religious faith and myth based standards of the past thusly: Insisting that ideas written down in the ancient past must also set the standards for the present and all of the future is both impractical and counterproductive. The honest path to a better future lies more in the direction of abandoning the addiction and worship of all of the untenably parochial, outdated, authoritarian, and false, faith based religious superstitions of the thousand years old past.
To Explicit Atheist:
You’ve put a smile on my face; how wonderful it is to read an atheistic reformer! But then, Marx is the world’s most famous atheistic reformer, and I hope we all share the realization from the history of the 20C that neither atheism nor religion–ideology nor theology–guarantees rational human behavior.
Hoffer wrote brilliantly about this more than fifty years ago; his work in the sociology of mass movements is still–and perhaps always will be–full of the scariest insights imaginable for both the devout and the atheist. His work, “True Believer,” was brought back into print on the first anniversary of 9/11. Late in Hoffer’s life, Mr. Reagan awarded him the Medal of Freedom. Hoffer’s works are eye-openers for libertarians…whether they are devout or not, whether they are Left or Right. Almost certainly, neither our socialist Left nor our religious Right has read Hoffer; he shatters the grounds for their beloved ideo/theologies.
‘Be free,’ EA.
They wanted our nation to be religious, and probably preferred the Christian religion dominate, but would have had no problem with the flourishing of exotic non-Judeo-Christian religions
I assume you are using “they” to refer to the “key founders”. If so this may be correct, but I doubt the validity of the “key founders” formulation. The Revoultion was fought and the Article’s and Constitution ratified by a much broader base of people than four or five people whom you select as key founders.
The State Constitutions adapted by many States explicitly singled out Christianity for protection, and made it a requirement for office in some cases.
Maryland Constitution; “That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty,”
Delaware: “Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit: ” I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”
Pennsylvania: “And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: “I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration. ”
I’ll stop there rather than fill this comment section. You can certainly pick out certain individuals from the era who felt differently, but it seems pretty clear that the mass of Americans at the time were quite religious, and that they were religious in an explicitly Christian sense, not in considering Christianity one good religion among many.
John:
I agree that there was a difference between what the “key Founders” thought and the masses. However, I dispute your thoughts on the “validity” of the key Founder formulation. Indeed, I try to stress this as a particular nuance of our Founding — that the ideas upon which we were founded, at the outer level were consistent with what the orthodox Christians in the masses believed — but at the inner specific level, they were very heterodox and controversial beliefs, not at all in line with traditional orthodox Christianity. This can lead to a criticism that the masses at the time were the victims of a “bait and switch,” that the Founders got the orthodox Christian masses to sign on to a “project” without fully understanding its implications. Indeed, that’s exactly what Michael Zuckert of Notre Dame argues (so does Gary North, and North argues such in the context of calling for an overthrow of the US Constitution and a return to the “theocracies” of the colonial order; yet, North is viewed as a crank, so he doesn’t have much academic authority; Zuckert on the other hand, has a well deserved academic reputation).
These key Founders included, at the very least, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin. Those five happen to be the first four Presidents, the majority of the drafting board of the Declaration, the author of the Declaration and the prime architech of the Constitution. Dr. Gregg Frazer also puts in his Ph.D. thesis G. Morris, Hamilton, and Wilson. Morris, Wilson, and Hamilton also played leading roles, along with Madison and Washington, at the Constitutional Convention. And Hamilton and Madison wrote almost all of the Federalist Papers (with John Jay contributing only a handful). As Brooke Allen points out, these men also happen to be the Founders on our currency. There is nothing “cherry picking” about focusing in on these 5-8 Founders; they were the “key Founders.”
As far as what the state constitutions held; yes, I am well aware of them and know that many of our key Founders could not pass many of those religious tests. THAT should tell you something about the difference between our liberal Founding ideals as expressed by Whig thought and the compromises with those ideals. I blogged about Ben Franklin’s problem with PA’s religious test here. Among other things, he noted he had a problem with it because he couldn’t pass it! Then, he became effective governor of PA and helped to get rid of it.
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/01/ben-franklin-on-pas-religious-test.html
[...] Commenter John left the following response to my post on Michael Novak’s response to me: [Rowe:] They wanted our nation to be religious, and probably preferred the Christian religion dominate, but would have had no problem with the flourishing of exotic non-Judeo-Christian religions [...]
Duoiston wrote:
“You’ve put a smile on my face; how wonderful it is to read an atheistic reformer! But then, Marx is the world’s most famous atheistic reformer, and I hope we all share the realization from the history of the 20C that neither atheism nor religion–ideology nor theology–guarantees rational human behavior….”
Atheism is just the belief that there is not god, nothing more and nothing less, although it is strongly correlated with philisophical naturalism which is where my atheism resides. I don’t think Marx advocated oligarchy of the sort that claimed to be Marxist in the history of the 20C but in any case his political philosophy, insofar as I understand it (I have not studied it), was seriously flawed and it never warranted being taken so seriously by so many Russians or Chinese or anyone else.
Also, in addition to never being a Marxist, I am not a Libertarian, I am not an advocate of “mass movements” and nothing concerning “the devout” “Left or Right” and “beloved ideologies” applies to atheism anymore than it applies to a non-religious theism, mono or poly. When it comes to government, I stongly favor freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, the right to be wrong, etc. I also support free enterprise and market economy, and government protection of consumers, workers, and the environment.
I favor what works over any over-reaching ideology. You are very wrong to think otherwise and it is silly for you to slap on all these labels based on nothing more than my being an atheist who advocates non-establishment of monotheism and who also defends atheism as being more rational than theism.