Positive Liberty

N.B. — the above is, sadly, not real but the product of someone having a bit of fun with Church Sign Generator. Still, given some of the recent theological disputes around here, I thought it would be amusing to post.

Kristo Miettinen and I still are not seeing eye to eye on the “Christian Nation” issue. He left a particularly prickly comment in response to my last post which I in turn answered in the comments at American Creation. But there are a few things I’d like to answer on the front page. He writes:

First of all, you do realize, don’t you, that for the historical question that we are discussing, it is not the opinion of “orthodox Christian theologians” that matters, but rather the standard appropriate for historians of Christianity….You aspire to be a historian (or at least to write a book on history), so it’s time to stop playing silly games with sectarian definitions and start thinking like a historian. Except that as soon as you do, your position collapses. In order to defend the position you are wedded to, you have to cling to an unhistorical definition of “Christianity”, and furthermore you have to pretend, against contrary evidence, that your opponents (like Barton) cling to that same unhistorical definition, when in fact they don’t (for historical purposes).

Honestly, it seems he doesn’t know David Barton very well; Barton gives history an utter political and theological reading. If there is one historian who does NOT try to separate the political and theological from history, it’s David Barton. Note, I’ll be fair to Barton and also remark that lots of leftist historians who occupy prestigious positions in the academy engage in the same politicized readings of history (the Howard Zinn types). Continue Reading »

Theological unitarians disproportionately influenced the American Founding. Joseph Priestley (co-discoverer of oxygen) was the theological mentor to Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin. Madison appealed to the Arian heretic Samuel Clarke (not John Witherspoon) when asked to put his theological cards on the table. Richard Price was especially influential. And of course John Locke and Isaac Newton, figures revered by America’s Founders were likely secret unitarians. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson never really gave serious philosophical or biblical rebuttals to the doctrine of the Trinity. They tended to bitterly mock it and related orthodox doctrines, seeing it as a self evident falsehood.

Their theological mentor Joseph Priestley however, did get into the philosophical trenches and argue against the Trinity (and Jefferson & J. Adams tended to simply appeal to his authority). Though Priestley, like America’s key Founders, didn’t believe the Bible infallible — indeed he held the “plenary inspiration of the Bible” to be a classic “corruption of Christianity” — he did make a strong biblical case AGAINST Trinitarianism. You may read it here and here.

I was beginning to think it self evident that most orthodox Christian theologians define non-orthodoxy as “non-Christianity,” but apparently this thesis needs a defense. My co-blogger at American Creation, Kristo Miettinen, a theologically and politically conservative orthodox Christian of the Lutheran bent, challenges me on my assertion. He writes:

You talk about “conservative theologically orthodox Christians of the Protestant, Roman Catholic, or capital O Orthodox Christian faith” as though I wasn’t one. If you want to debate the (rabid radical) religious right, I’m right here in front of you. You speak of “conservative Christian audiences which eat up [David Barton's] work”; as for myself, I’ll not go that far, but let’s say I’m a conservative Christian who appreciates his work (such of it as I have read - about half of [Myth of Separation]). BTW thanks for introducing me to Barton. And I mean that sincerely; this is why I want you to cite the right wing nutjobs that you claim to be rebutting, I have a genuine interest in reading them, if they really exist.

Okay. Mr. Miettinen wants to know of theologically-politically conservative Christians who define “Christianity” with orthodox Christian doctrine and define unorthodox groups like the Mormons “outside” of the definition of Christianity. Continue Reading »

At American Creation Brad Hart reproduces George Washington’s first Thanksgiving Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor– and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Continue Reading »

[Enlightenment] provides the structure for the key term of liberal democracy, the most successful and useful political notion of our world: rights. Government exists to protect the product of men’s labor, their property, and therewith life and liberty. The notion that man possesses inalienable natural rights, that they belong to him as an individual prior, both in time and in sanctity, to any civil society, and that civil societies exist for and acquire their legitimacy from ensuring those rights, is an invention of modern philosophy. Rights…are new in modernity, not a part of the common-sense language of politics or of classical political philosophy. Hobbes initiated the notion of rights, and it was given its greatest respectability by Locke. — Allan Bloom, “The Closing of the American Mind,” p. 165.

That was Allan Bloom crediting Hobbsean-Lockean Enlightenment with the notion of unalienable rights. The East Coast Straussians, of which Bloom is the most famous figure, view “rights talk” as a fundamentally modern enterprise and a break with classical or Christian “worldviews.” A number of notable social conservatives agree with this idea — for instance, Robert Bork — and they in turn are likely to endorse a strictly constructed understanding of the US Constitution, with the Declaration of Independence purposefully having no part of constitutional interpretation.

Yet, Allan Bloom’s/the East Coast Straussians’ view of “rights talk” remains highly debated. Continue Reading »

When I saw the Acton Institutes’ “The Birth of Freedom” premiere in Washington, DC, none other than Lou Sheldon — a notable figure from the religious right — was present in the audience and read from George Washington’s Farewell Address during the Q & A session. I’m sure many of my readers know of the famous passage where Washington said:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports….And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Now, this certainly provides ammo for those who wish to “lower” the wall of separation between Church and State; however, I see it oft-cited in order to prove the “Christian Nation” claim or Washington’s orthodox Christianity. And it does neither. Arguably it expresses a heterodox unitarian sentiment. Continue Reading »

Joe Carter is taking heat for a post [with a follow up here] that examines Barack Obama’s theological views and determines they are not “Christian” (even though Obama calls them “Christian”).

If you tell me that you’re a “Christian” I take that to mean that you subscribe to a common set of doctrines outlined in either the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed. Both of these creeds are ecumenical Christian statements of faith accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and almost all branches of Protestantism. They outline what it means to be a “mere” Christian.

Carter then examines why Obama’s views flunk the test (see the rest of his original post). Continue Reading »

When I argue against the idea of a “Christian Nation” it’s usually one particular variant (which happens to be the dominant one in religiously conservative circles) that I tackle (some would say have demolished): It’s the David Barton, D. James Kennedy, Peter Marshall version that holds “just about all of the Founders were Christians like I am” and the Founders turned to an infallible Bible/orthodox Christian theology as the prime ideological source for American Founding documents. John Locke, their chief ideological influence, was really a “Christian” (meaning an orthodox Christian) who appealed to an infallible Bible for his politics. Indeed, it was really God that “founded” America (the FFs were just His instruments) on “biblical principles.” And consequently, as God’s agents, they could do little or no wrong.

What I have described might sound like an exaggeration; but those folks posit such an exaggerated and unreal historical narrative. They use a notoriously revisionist “law office” method and defend their case like the late Johnny Cochran defended OJ Simpson.

The shame of it is that there are other “Christian Nation” or “Judeo-Christian” theses that are intellectual and historically defensible, but don’t have the same popular appeal as the “Christian Nation” narrative as told by Barton et al.

At American Creation, Kristo Miettinen makes such a case in a fascinating post. But in doing so, by intellectual necessity, he does not argue that the key Founders were “orthodox Trinitarian Christians” OR that they (and their philosophical mentor John Locke) simply appealed to orthodox Christianity/sola scriptura in establishing American Founding principles, especially those that relate to freedom of conscience. No, actually history is more complicated than that. Continue Reading »

In American liberal democratic (or constitutionally republican) politics, slavery typifies the inherent problem of individual rights v. democratic majority rule. Harry V. Jaffa termed it the “The Crisis of the House Divided.” The slavery issue is now settled, but whenever a democratic majority denies individual or minority group rights (for instance, Prop. 8 in California) America has the issue of slavery to invoke. There are individual rights that are antecedent to majority rule; the Declaration of Independence teaches this. Yet, the US Constitution makes a compromise with slavery. Eventually we got a democratically vetted constitutional abolishment of slavery (and even then there are problems with just how “democratic” or “consensual” the Southern states’ ratification of the 13th and 14th Amendments were). Continue Reading »

[A]s a public service, we thought it might be useful to provide a brief primer about where the Mormons are coming from.

And keep in mind, we’re not making this stuff up.

There follows what you’d expect: the stuff about the Lost Tribes of Israel, and golden treasure-finding, and multiple marriages. They even left out the material about apotheosis, and it still reads as very, very weird.

To be sure, I do find Mormons’ beliefs exceedingly strange. I think any honest non-Mormon is likely to feel the same. Does this make us all bigots, to use a word that’s been floating around the comments section lately? I don’t think so, and here’s why. Continue Reading »

A few years ago I hosted a debate between Jim Babka and Gregg Frazer on my personal blog and Positive Liberty. I’m “rerunning” that debate over at American Creation for the courtesy of those readers who may have missed it the first time. But newer readers of readers of my personal blog and Positive Liberty might be interested in that debate as well. Check it out.

In the latest post Frazer Replies to Babka II Gregg Frazer hits upon something noteworthy. Frazer is a fundamentalist who believes the Bible is the inerrant infallible Word of God. His honest, literal interpretation of the Bible leads him to conclude a) that the concept of political liberty (whether what today’s libertarians desire or the “unalienable right to liberty” as invoked in the Declaration of Independence) is not found within the Bible’s text, and b) a proper understanding of Romans 13 teaches America’s Founders sinned when they revolted against Great Britain when they should have submitted. As Frazer writes:

That view –- based on what Romans 13 actually says — was the majority view throughout the history of the church up to that point. Jonathan Boucher and Samuel Seabury (for example) were prominent Anglican ministers who argued the traditional literal (and biblical) view of Romans 13 and against revolution.

….Regarding I Samuel 8…the primary point is that Israel rejected God as their king and that any human regime which follows will inherently be inferior. Second, a warning about kings is not equivalent to support for political liberty. Before this time, Israel was ruled by a series of judges and before that by Moses. All of them, like the first two kings to follow, were appointed by God – not expressions of political liberty. The reason rule by the kings would be worse was that they had rejected God – not because they would lose political liberty. They had no less political liberty under the kings than they did under Moses. In fact, they ended up with more “liberty” (in the libertarian sense) under the kings because the kings abandoned the Law of God which regulated every aspect of their lives! As Jonathan Boucher pointed out, God does not express concern about political liberty in the Bible. God is concerned about spiritual liberty – freedom from the bonds of sin.

Frazer’s point that Tory preachers Jonathan Boucher and Samuel Seabury followed what the Bible actually says and the Whig preachers followed, not scripture, but Locke’s Enlightenment teachings has the effect of ripping the rug out from underneath the “Christian Nation” thesis. The Tory preaches posited “Christian principles”; the Whig preachers posited “Enlightenment principles.”

I’ll say this: Romans 13 is one of the passages of the Bible whose interpretation can be reasonably disputed. Theologically orthodox Christians who believe the Bible the inerrant, infallible Word of God, yet who argue the compatibility between the Bible and the Declaration of Independence must at the very least concede the following: That Jonathan Boucher and Samuel Seabury literally interpreted the Bible in good faith and determined the right answer was submit to Great Britain, not rebel. Reasonable people may disagree over how to properly interpret Romans 13. But reasonable people cannot possibly conclude that Boucher and Seabury were not arguing their case for submission to Great Britain/against American rebellion in good conscience from the Bible/Christian principles.

K. Daniel Glover of Culture11 writes,

I’ve been a Christian for about three decades now and have been a party to many chats about persecution. I have broached the subject myself in Bible classes and short talks.

Two themes have been consistent in all such discussions: 1) how blessed we are to live in a nation where the worst religious persecution we are likely to face is verbal ridicule; and 2) how determined we must be to worship and serve Christ and share the gospel if physical persecution comes our way. Those discussions were always theoretical.

But the American homosexual community’s hostile reaction to California’s moral stand for heterosexual-only marriage makes me wonder whether Christians soon may have to put theory into practice.

He goes on to describe a truly awful protest, in which gay activists invaded and vandalized a church in an attempt to get a reaction out of the churchgoers. Instead, the churchgoers bravely stood aside and prayed for their persecutors:

Members of the church admirably kept their composure throughout the protest, and it’s a good thing, too. The protest was designed to spark a reaction on film that could be used to bring reproach on Christ. Instead, after police intervened to stop the ordeal, the congregation prayed for the protesters, just as Jesus would have wanted (Matt. 5:43-48).

The day may come, and soon, when such persecution is commonplace.

People who do this stuff, or approve of it, have no right to call anyone else a bigot. Ever. It’s disgusting and shameful.

This is real intolerance, and it should be described as such. Here, “we” are the bigots — and I use that term as loosely as possible, because I have no desire to be associated with these sorts of protests. These people aren’t me, not any more than Fred Phelps is the face of “real” Christianity.

Think about this: There are pro-gay churches out there. How would you feel if those were vandalized? Oh wait. You already know. How can you do this to someone else?

Spare me your weak arguments about how violence against them is justified. The fight isn’t against “them.” It’s against a vision of the world, one in which everyone is walled off into little, isolated groups, and each is set against the another over trivial differences. That’s what we’re fighting. Don’t even bother trying to explain how desecrating someone’s church will help. It won’t. Do you think you made any friends that day? You made them thankful for the walls that divide us.

Some days, I’m not sure which is more dispiriting: That I have to beg evangelical Christians for equal treatment in a purely legal and in no sense religious matter — or that I must do it standing next to people who are just as intolerant as they are.

In a recent post on Founding Era political sermons I wrote:

Those who want to lower the wall of separation between church and state sometimes cite these sermons as ammo; indeed pulpits of the Founding era were quite politicized! One fascinating dynamic they invariably miss (and I invariably stress) is how many of the “Whig” and “republican” ideas peddled in these sermons are foreign to historic biblical Christianity and how often these preachers distorted the biblical record to justify their Whig-republican politics.

Indeed, I just came across a post [hat tip to the Acton Institute] that perfectly illustrates this misunderstanding common among many otherwise informed religious conservatives. From Andover Newton theologian Mark Burrows who writes: Continue Reading »

Once again I’ll turn your attention to Ellis Sandoz’s excellent collection of sermons from the Founding era. Those who want to lower the wall of separation between church and state sometimes cite these sermons as ammo; indeed pulpits of the Founding era were quite politicized! One fascinating dynamic they invariably miss (and I invariably stress) is how many of the “Whig” and “republican” ideas peddled in these sermons are foreign to historic biblical Christianity and how often these preachers distorted the biblical record to justify their Whig-republican politics. Mark Noll has noted this great “importing” of ideas into the pulpits of the Founding era. And, interestingly, these a-biblical ideas were synthesized with biblical texts and narratives. This made Christianity and the Bible “speak more” to Founding era republicanism. Continue Reading »