Evangelicals: A bunch of Whigs
Caleb Stegall suggests that Evangelicals are more utopian than we think. He reminds us that Evangelicals generally have a “whiggish” view of history: “a tendency to interpret human events as a progressive march through time, to produce a story that ratifies the present and promises an even more glorious future.” This sounds as Utopian as anything proffered by the Left.
Because [Evangelicals'] faith is so dependent on stories of transformation and conversion, it “exists in tension,” as Wilfred McClay put it, “with settled ways, established social hierarchies, customary usages, and entrenched institutional forms.”
This may be true of those more “democratic” denominations with an emphasis on a “conversion experience” – like Southern Baptist churches, Churches of Christ, Churches of God, etc., but certainly not all reformed Evangelical churches, which focus less on “conversion” experiences and far more on covenantal hierarchies.
This whiggish spirit is the deepest Evangelical commitment, one that crosses political and ecclesial lines. This Evangelical praise song is sounded in the key of world immanent salvation with equal enthusiasm by right and left, by George Bush and Hillary Clinton, by Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama. The claims of liberal theologians like Jim Wallis about the welfare state’s ability to alleviate poverty are topped only by the claims of conservative theologians like Michael Novak that capitalism can end global poverty.
Is he right? And is this whiggish view of history not too far from a Hegelian, dialectical, Darwinian, onward-and-upward, better-every-day-in-every-way, Utopian view of history? Stegall contrasts the whiggish view with the Augustinian view of history, which is what he says we should have in its place.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!








Click to Print
Include Comments










back to top59 Comments to “Evangelicals: A bunch of Whigs”
Any form of optimism or anything with hope at the center of it can be called “utopian” by someone. The question for an election is; ‘what is the role of the government for the pursuit of that hope?’
Report comment to moderator
A keen observation. This is one reason why America’s theistic rationalist/unitarian Founding Fathers could get many evangelicals of the day to “sign on” to the Whig project. The Whigs did some rewriting of history to “find” political liberty in sorts of histories that weren’t there. And in turn many evangelicals today rewrite the history of America as a “Providential” i.e. “Christian Nation.”
The dirty little secret is that the Christan Tories’ interpretation of the Bible (which well understood political liberty is a concept alien to the Bible’s text) was the more historically accurate one.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, your lumping of the Founding Fathers into a theological box of your own making called “theistic rationalist/unitarian,” is uninformed and shallowly stereotypical.
It may have applied to some but the Founders were a mixed bag and your box does not fit many of them, including a lot whom you think it fits. You are spinning with a bias and a desire to redefin them in your image. But think what you want, Jon. It’s a free country.
The Bible’s text is fully compatible with America’s notion of liberty. The Bible’s text is not as limited or limiting as you seem to think, Jon.
Report comment to moderator
Like me, JOEL MARK, you can disagree with JON ROWE about things, but he isn’t uninformed or shallow.
Stegall’s concept of “ordering desire” frightens me. His eucastrophe could be someone else’s re-education camp.
Stegall’s republic contains too many people who don’t need that old catastrophe of blood and sepulcher, even if they don’t resent its encroachment.
Report comment to moderator
Hey, Joel, you’re narrow and judgmental. Your welcome!
Report comment to moderator
Augustine had a distinct Greek-influenced interpretation of the Bible. So, it always amazes me when Evangelicals (particularly of the reformed variety) place such a heavy emphasis on his world view.
For example, Augustine’s view of predestination was heavily informed by Greek fatalism. Surprise, surprise that so many reformed are all about interpreting the Bible with a heavy predestination (even fatalist) viewpoint, ignoring all Scripture that shows choice and freewill.
And, that’s just one example. Augustine had a very particular view of God and His sovereignty, which was also heavily influence by Greek philosophy and thought.
I don’t look at Augustine and his world view as definitive for the Christian.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
I wish these concepts were of my making. That gives me too much credit. You are sure to like the following link from Andrew Sullivan.
http://tinyurl.com/6dn3×9
Report comment to moderator
I read Stegall’s piece as being just another prediction of an outcome he desires rather than presenting knowledge of fact about evangelicals revealing understanding of the future. I don’t think he has a clue of what an evangelical actually is, let alone how they think or what they’ll do.
His foundational premise of an ever progressing march of “man’s” accomplishment toward utopia—”to produce a story that ratifies the present and promises an even more glorious future.”—is wholly unBiblical. Without Christ’s return and our transformation we’re destined to continue down—not up—the slope we inhabit. That he thinks “evangelicals”, from his inclusive definition, believe in this utopian progression reveals his meager knowledge of the “group”—if in fact such a refined “group”, as lefties love to create to enable division, actually exists.
Man alone, i.e. without Christ, is innately incapable of achieving such a future, as should be apparent to anyone with even a meager understanding of history. We’ve only made technological progress to enable killing each other more efficient—as we still desire to do from our age-old inability to get along. We haven’t solved or put any relational difficulties behind us that troubled our ancestors thousands of years ago.
The keys to where Stegall is coming from:
“Recently, their frustration with Republican scandal and corruption . . . have combined with a renewed interest in social justice to lead many Evangelicals to re-evaluate their commitment to the Republican party.”
And: “The year 2008, however, will likely be remembered as the year the Evangelical political consensus . . . fell apart.”
Just more hopeful lefty belching from too much kool-aid.
Report comment to moderator
Caleb Stegall: Evangelicals have been robust believers in what historian Herbert Butterfield has called the Whig view of history, the tendency to interpret human events as a progressive march through time, to produce a story that ratifies the present and promises an even more glorious future.
Here Stegall is stereotyping Evangelicals, many of whom don’t “ratify” the present and look to an “even more glorious future.” For me the more authentic Whig view has to do with looking askance at excessive autocratic authority, whether in the past of monarchs and lords, or at present the ways in which modern liberal elites want to ram their policies down our throats through assorted various court usurpations of power and government programs that supposedly will make for a more egalitarian society.
It’s not at all clear from this short piece of Caleb Stegall as to what he means by: Evangelical politics of an Augustinian renewal is simply a turn towards home, a turn towards discovering what Evangelicals hold affectionately and in common with their neighbors. Maybe he will elaborate this in his book.
Most serious evangelical and orthodox Christians understand the meaning of original sin and the dangers of Utopian thinking, including Michael Novak and others of a Whiggish bent.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, I did not say that Jon Rowe is uninformed or shallow but that his your lumping of the Founding Fathers into a theological box of your own making was “uninformed and shallowly stereotypical.”
I don’t think that he himself is uninformed or shallow but that is my opinion of his opinon in this case.
Report comment to moderator
I missed on the pronouns. Let me restate #10:
Scroop, I did not say that Jon Rowe is uninformed or shallow but that his lumping of the Founding Fathers into a theological box of his own making was “uninformed and shallowly stereotypical.” Just my opinion.
I don’t think that Jon himself is uninformed or shallow but that is my opinion of his opinon in this case.
Report comment to moderator
Whiggish views of history are common place. The tendency to see the past as a collection of events that inevitable lay the path to the better today and onto a more glorious future is the centerpiece of the Western narrative. In Britain, the origins of this school, it was first used to describe the inevitability of liberty in the British parliamentary process. However, its fall/redemptive tendencies easily make it adaptable to the evangelical mindset. Instead of viewing history as the unfolding of liberty you can adapt this vision to see history as the unfolding of God’s redemptive plan. Each vision makes the same mistake — that is to view the past in the light of the present and make nods to the future.
Spending time with a Tudor/Stuart historian, I’ve been taught to despise the Whig view of history (btw its a very traditional liberal view in the European sense of the word – see the Economist or Fukuyama) The irony for me was her Marxist perspective isn’t much different.
The Whig-Marx views of history has broken down and the tendency now is to write history as genealogy ie to find the root of an ideology, action, situation or history as the creation of the historian who use the past to produce work to further a position. In actual practice historians still attempt to find the causal links between events but they are far more aware of thier own imprint, self interest of human actors, cultural context – their own and the past, and the purpose of history.
Report comment to moderator
You’re not just quibbling, JOEL, you’re not making sense. When a scholar makes a judgment about a matter of long and intense research and review by other scholars, the opinion might be wrong, but it’s preposterous to call it uninformed and shallow. Your opinion of his opinion is meaningless.
Report comment to moderator
Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote:
1 – “Men Have Forgotten God” – The Templeon Address (http://www.roca.org/OA/36/36h.htm)
You can’t have “entrenched institutional forms” that start with God and still say they’re “entrenched” if they subsequently forget God. Today’s Whigs probably bear no resemblance to the original. They are more likely, WINOs (Whigs In Name Only).
Report comment to moderator
JonRowe: And in turn many evangelicals today rewrite the history of America as a “Providential” i.e. “Christian Nation.”
Even Jefferson, the deist, viewed America as a providential Christian nation. See Avery Cardinal Dulles in the The Deist Minimum
In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death, but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God.
Those in America who have a sense of America being still a providential Christian nation can legitimately cite the founders for support, let alone the early Puritan settlers and the evangelicals before and after the Great Awakening.
Report comment to moderator
In the above the third paragraph was a quote from Dulles.
Report comment to moderator
Where we are going as Evangelical Christians and where we are going as Americans are two very different things. The United States is not working towards the same “goal” — i.e., the return of Christ — if, indeed, it even has a goal. It exists. Show me where we have some long-term goal outlined in our Constitution if you think we have one. I don’t think we do.
Report comment to moderator
Jefferson et al. viewed America as a “Providential” nation but not a “Christian” Nation. It’s the evangelicals of today who have conflated the “Providentialism” of Jefferson et al. with biblical Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
We are finding new answers to who we are, and where we are every day. We manage to get better at preserving our race every day. We seem to be figuring out how to keep our tiny corner of the universe healthy, despite the best efforts of some to despoil it in the pursuit of short-term
goals.
With the notable exception of religious differences, we seem to be more generally committed to finding common ground and peaceably inhabiting nation-states and even united nations together.
More and more people get self-determination rights almost every day.
Obviously, there are exceptions, but we have come a long way from our hunter-gatherer forebears, or even the early agricultural societies.
There are more of us than ever, living longer than ever, and, I think, more happily, or at least with more assurance that they will see another day, than ever.
Yet there are those for whom all of this is meaningless, and for whom the only acceptable outcome would be the conversion, followed by the death, of every human being. Celebration of progress and human history take a back seat to propitiating imaginary beings with vast capricious power. Man’s reward for effort,creativity, generosity and goodwill is, for them, only to be found in death.
Such an attitude leads to a truly silly abdication of responsibility and passive acceptance of predestined powerlessness. It renders history, happiness and life itself meaningless.
Report comment to moderator
#5 and you’re pretty scroopy for a moth.
Report comment to moderator
#13 and you being scroopy for a moth is meaningless too.
Report comment to moderator
Well thanks, Llama. I’m far from the most popular insect on this blog, but my lepidopterist thinks I’m scroopy too.
Report comment to moderator
ARCADIA,
‘With the notable exception of religious differences, we seem to be more generally committed to finding common ground and peaceably inhabiting nation-states and even united nations together.’
Well, I can think of a few more ‘notable differences’ without breaking a sweat or bringing any religion into it at all. I know it is asking a lot but, I am sure that if you were the least bit fair, decent and honest – you could too.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you SM. And let me again note, theistic rationalism is not my construct but rather is a paradigm first coined by one Dr. Gregg Frazer (an evangelical) and notably used by Dr. Gary Scott Smith (another evangelical) in his book published by Oxford on faith and the American Presidency.
The idea is these men who believed in Providence and that religion and morality provided republican self government with indispensable support did not believe Jesus Christ was the second person in a Triune Godhead or the exclusive way to God. Therefore, they were “religious” but not “Christian,” and we need a new term. For other reasons, Deism also is not sufficient.
Report comment to moderator
America’s Founders belief in “Whig” history lead them to “read in” their 18th Century ideas into the past. They did with pagan Greco-Roman antiquity: Washington’s hero was Cato the Younger of pagan classical antiquity who did the very UN-Christian thing of committing suicide rather than submit to political tyranny. This play (by Addison) Washington had played for his troops at Valley Forge and was vital in positing the concept of republican liberty. Yet, as my friends at the Acton Institute remind us the classical world really didn’t have a strong (if any) concept of “political liberty” (or equality).
So if America’s Whig Founders could “read in” and manipulate classical history on behalf of the cuase of Whig liberty, what makes anyone here think they wouldn’t do the same thing with the Bible?
They did. They took all of those passages in the Bible that refer to spiritual liberty and read in “political liberty.” It’s right there on America’s Liberty Bell.
America’s Founders use of biblical imagery on behalf of the American cause was arguably an abuse of scripture, nothing for orthodox Christians to be proud of.
Report comment to moderator
The “Theistic Rationalism,” usually regarded as Deism, that you refer to was a strong influence during the last part of the Eighteenth-Century, though as Dulles remarks in the Deist Minimum Deism faded out rather fast. Basically it was an ephemeral intellectual fashion.
Dulles remarks:
Although deism portrayed itself as a pure product of unaided reason, it was not what it claimed to be. Its basic tenets concerning God, the virtuous life, and rewards beyond the grave were in fact derived from Christianity, the faith in which the deists themselves had been reared. It is doubtful whether anyone who had not been brought up in a biblical religion could embrace the tenets of deism. The children of deists rarely persevered in the faith of their parents.
As to political liberty in the West, it stems from a confluence of biblical, Anglo Saxon, and classical sources, though during the colonial period the religious pillar was predominant. Read Tocqueville passim on this.
Your campaign to diminish the religious foundation of America is mistaken.
Report comment to moderator
Jon
“America’s Founders use of biblical imagery on behalf of the American cause was arguably an abuse of scripture, nothing for orthodox Christians to be proud of.”
You certainly have proven one thing, you will do whatever you can to tear down what the Founding Father’s believed – Even going so far to decide after more than a century or longer what their faith in Christ was, as though you were given the job to judge these men’s hearts. The one strange thread which weaves its way through all your posts is your perseverance in distorting the facts – You aren’t as clever as you think Jon, it gets more transparent every day –
I have researched much of what you propose to be truth regarding your so called ‘quotes’ only to find they don’t exist, or in many places they are taken out of context – The places where they do exist is on blogs or your blog, and then there are the ‘valuable’ books which you have endorsed, on the back cover. Very impressive.
Report comment to moderator
“Your campaign to diminish the religious foundation of America is mistaken.”
Peter,
You misunderstand my position. Reading my comments above you’ll see that I do recognize and argue that American liberty rests on a “religious” foundation: It’s just not orthodox Trinitarian Christianity that serves as America’s political theology but theistic rationalism.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
You have yet to prove that I have ever offered one “unconfirmed” quotation here. Just because you haven’t been able to confirm it in the primary sources doesn’t mean the quotations have not already been “confirmed.”
I never claimed to judge anyone’s hearts. Rather I read the text and context of the Bible and compare what the Founders said and did to historic Christianity to see if it matches up.
If some “Christian” said the Bible demands ministers marry same sex couples, you’d have NO problem “judging” them by such standards and terming their actions an “abuse” of scripture.
Many of the Whigs similarly abused scripture on behalf of the American cause.
Report comment to moderator
Let me also note that the idea that the American Whigs played games with the text of the Bible to support their cause is NOT original to me, but rather comes from conservative Christian academics.
Let me quote from Dr. Gregg Frazer’s PhD thesis, which in turn, quotes from the work of Dr. Robert Kraynak, of Colgate, one of the most prominent conservative Roman Catholic academics:
First, as Kraynak pointed out, “the biblical covenant is undemocratic: God is not bound by the covenant and keeps His promises solely out of His own divine self-limitation.” Second, “(t)he element of voluntary consent is missing from the covenant with Israel….There is nothing voluntary or consensual about the biblical covenant; and the most severe punishments are threatened by God for disobedience.” Third, “insofar as the covenant with Israel sanctions specific forms of government, the main ones are illiberal and undemocratic;” including patriarchy, theocracy, and kingships established by divine right. Fourth, “the Bible shows that God delivers the people from slavery in Egypt and supports national liberation, not for the purpose of enjoying their political and economic rights, but for the purpose of putting on the yoke of the law in the polity of Moses.” Fifth, “the content of the divine law revealed to Moses consists, in the first place, of the Ten Commandments rather than the Ten Bill of Rights, commanding duties to God, family, and neighbors rather than establishing protections for personal freedom.” Finally, the combination of judicial, civil, ceremonial, and dietary laws imposed on the people “regulate all aspects of religious, personal, and social life.” The history of Israel, therefore, had to be radically rewritten to provide support for the demands of political liberty and for republican self-government.
-– Kraynak, 46-49 quoted in Frazer, “The Political Theology of the American Founding,” Ph.D. dissertation, 18-19.
Report comment to moderator
The following, btw, is a link to Dr. Kraynak’s book (the relevant excerpts of which were quoted on pp. 46-49).
http://tinyurl.com/5v68zz
Report comment to moderator
Jon, you continue to ignore the reality that Deism and other attempts at exclusively rational religion proved to be a will of the wisp in the late Eighteenth Century. Note Dulles’s point that “The children of deists rarely persevered in the faith of their parents.”
Also, could you provide some specifics as to how the Whigs “abused” Scripture on behalf of the American cause?
Report comment to moderator
Peter,
30 alludes to it. But if you need me to get more specific, I can.
Also, I will admit that the 19th Century saw a turn towards more traditional religiousity, but it didn’t mean the end of “unitarianism” or “theistic rationalism.” Harvard officially became Unitarian around 1805. And even today this creed lives on, (perhaps is the dominant faith of Americans!) among folks who strongly believe in God on the one hand, but take a cafeteria approach to the Bible and believe all good people get into Heaven on the other.
I know it’s strange to say but Oprah Winfrey seems heir apparent to the “Christianity” of America’s key Founders.
When you see a news story on a deceased celebrity automatically asserting them in Heaven without any kind of examination of whether they were “born again” or “regenerate” (happens all the time, in case you haven’t noticed), or when you hear the all too common mantra “good people get into Heaven, bad go to Hell,” you see the influence of “theistic rationalism” or “unitarianism.”
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 29
YOU WRITE:….”I never claimed to judge anyone’s hearts. Rather I read the text and context of the Bible and compare what the Founders said and did to historic Christianity to see if it matches up.”
No, this is not always what you do, in fact you played it all the way to the end, only to laugh it off in Whirled Views 8.11 –
” Whirled Views 8.11″ —-Jon read post 180 on, its obvious that you were using this letter regarding Adams comment about the Bible, to make it something it wasn’t. And in the end, YOUR POST 194 with this comment;
——”Heh. Yes, my friend Tom Van Dyke, a critic of Adams’ syncretism, loves to focus on that part noting Adams theological sentiments amount to an “incoherent rattle.” —–
Go ahead read that thread – you might recall what transpired.
Report comment to moderator
Yes I’m well aware of the thread and my interpretation of J. Adams’ context is correct. In fact, it’s Dr. Gregg Frazer’s interpretation. I quote his analysis. This is Adams’ out of context quotation from his letter to Jefferson, Dec. 25, 1813:
I have examined all, as well as my narrow Sphere, my streightened means and my busy Life would allow me; and the result is, that the Bible is the best book in the World. It contains more of my little Phylosophy than all the Libraries I have seen: and such Parts of it as I cannot reconcile to my little Phylosophy I postpone for future investigation.
And here is Frazer’s accurate assessment of the context:
Re Adams’s comment about the Bible…: he declares the Bible “the best book in the world,” but that doesn’t change the fact (as he has just asserted) that it does not supersede philosophy. Indeed, he says it is the best BECAUSE it contains more of HIS philosophy than any other — not because it is inspired or infallible — but because it agrees with him! Then, having established that the Bible does not supersede philosophy and having determined that it is the best book BECAUSE it “contains more of my little philosophy” than any other, he says that there are parts which he cannot reconcile to his philosophy — which means they’re wrong! They cannot supersede philosophy and what is best is HIS philosophy.
I did an entire post that examines the context of the entire letter:
http://tinyurl.com/5lcnjm
Re the “incoherent rattle,” you don’t present the context of that term. Adams jokingly refers to his letter as such and my friend Tom Van Dyke who is critical of Adams’ syncretism, blasts Adams by suggesting his syncretic meanderings on religion really are “incoherent.”
Report comment to moderator
Jon
YOU BLEW IT, you have an agenda which screams ‘Take those Founding Fathers and prove they didn’t believe the Bible, or the Trinity’ then add your quotes, mixed double duty and blow them all together in your mixer, and then call it whatever you may. It will still come out very similar to what the JW’S did with the New World Translation. It’s supposed to be right, but it’s all mixed up, something missing, some reworded, some verses/quotes in order but not relevant to the passage.
Check out the NWT from the Watchtower, come back and we can discuss it – its not very different, except for one thing, and I’ll leave that to you to discover.
Report comment to moderator
lllama: Well, I can think of a few more ‘notable differences’ without breaking a sweat or bringing any religion into it at all. I know it is asking a lot but, I am sure that if you were the least bit fair, decent and honest – you could too.
Waaay too much hair in front of your eyes, son.
Report comment to moderator
#33, Jon Rowe wrote; “I will admit that the 19th Century saw a turn towards more traditional religiousity, but it didn’t mean the end of “unitarianism” or “theistic rationalism.”
This is backwards. Unitarianism did not get much traction in America UNTIL the 19th century, and even then, not that much traction. Before that, it was more common in Europe. Was it around in America? In pockets, especially in Boston. But Jon just likes to inflate the role and influence of unitarianism.
Jon Rowe wrote; “I know it’s strange to say but Oprah Winfrey seems heir apparent to the ‘Christianity’ of America’s key Founders.”
Strange? No, this is typical for Jon Rowe and it shows a profound misunderstanding of many of the Founders who had very strong moral convictions rooted in their faith.
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t mean to make those last lines so bold. But no prob.
Oprah would not have said this:
“Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue; and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies.” –John Adams, June 21, 1776.
Or this:
“The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without it there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments”
Dr. Benjamin Rush, Founding Father. “Of the Mode of Education Proper to a Republic (1798).
Or this:
“Our liberties do not come from charters; for these are only the declarations of pre-existing rights. They do not depend on parchment or seals; but come from the King of Kings and the Lord of all the earth.” ~ John Dickinson, Chairman of the Committe for the Declaration of Independence, 1976. see Page 95 in Michael Novak’s extremely well documented book, “On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding.”
Report comment to moderator
Oprah would probably not relate with these comments either:
“The rights of the colonists as Christians . . . may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Lawgiver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.” Samuel Adams.
“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader. . . . If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security.” Samuel Adams.
Report comment to moderator
Well, like John Adams, Oprah considers herself a “Christian” and she has a remarkably similar test for what qualifies as one. I’m quoting John Adams, not Oprah:
“I believe with Justin Martyr, that all good men are Christians, and I believe there have been, and are, good men in all nations, sincere and conscientious.”
– John Adams to Samuel Miller, July 8, 1820.
Report comment to moderator
Re the JWs, America’s key Founders denied the Trinity just like they do.
Report comment to moderator
Donald J. D’Elia, Professor of History at the State University of New York at New Paltz, has an excellent, well documented article, We Hold These Truths and More: Further Catholic Reflections on the American , that argues the considerable depth of orthodox and evangelical Christianity at the time of the founding: He writes:
The Enlightenment, Murray and liberal historiography notwithstanding, was not as important as Christianity in the founding of the American nation. At least three-quarters of the American people at the time of the Revolution came from Puritan families. [53] And, as Christopher Dawson early pointed out, Calvinism, like Catholicism and unlike Lutheranism, asserted that the state must be under the spiritual power. [54] Americans accepted Calvin’s view of church-state relations in 1776 and 1789; consistently following his and traditional teaching that natural law and moral law were one and the same, and that together they constituted the norm revealed by mankind’s reason and conscience. This was the norm to which men and governments must conform. [55] As one New England minister put it, “Christ confirms the law of nature.” [56]
In a true sense, the American Revolution was justified more in terms of public theology than Enlightenment philosophy. Eighteenth century Americans held many truths, not just the few mentioned by name in the Declaration of Independence and the other founding charters. The Declaration itself says this, otherwise many men probably would not have signed it. “We hold these Truths to be self-evident” [“sacred,” Jefferson wrote in the original draft], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness [my italics]. [57]
There’s more to Heaven and America than Jon Rowe’s views.
Report comment to moderator
A lot of the Founders who came from traditional Christian backgrounds shook off much of that influence when they adopted their “enlightenment” worldview. For instance, here is John Adams doubting that the Bible contains the correct version of the Ten Commandments and asserting “errors” and “amendments” exist in the Bible.
“When and where originated our Ten Commandments? The Tables and The Ark were lost. Authentic copies, in few, if any hands; the ten Precepts could not be observed, and were little remembered.
“If the Book of Deuteronomy was compiled, during of after the Babilonian Captivity, from Traditions, the Error or Amendment might come in there.”
– John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 14, 1813.
Report comment to moderator
If every inquiry about the nature of the evangelicalism turns into a dispute about the faith of the Founding Fathers, the movement is in decline.
There’s no doubt that Ben Franklin would stick up for Oprah on this thread, just as he stood up for the dogma-denigrating preacher, Samuel Hemphil, when the Presbyterians tried him for heresy. Franklin declared, “A virtuous heretic shall be saved before a wicked Christian.”
Franklin didn’t stop there, however. He demanded that Presbyterians abandon their orthodoxy. It was as if Oprah started using her show to call JOEL MARK a “zealous partisan” who is filled with “malice and envy,” who displays “bigotry and prejudice” and is a “pious fraud.” The truth is, Ben Franklin would have thought JOEL MARK was one of the “Rev. Asses.”
Franklin’s moral convictions ran in blatant opposition to orthodox faith, which is why he would think you are a “Rev. Ass.”
Report comment to moderator
Re 43. 1) The key Founders hated Calvinism. 2) At best, they thought human nature was “partially depraved” as opposed to “totally depraved.” And 3) their understanding of Romans 13 and submission to civil government was 180 degrees from Calvin.
Report comment to moderator
The Founders I’ve read about were practical thinkers who turned their backs on Puritan theology. They rejected the concept of double predestination because they optimistically thought the individual could discover truth and do good on his own. Famously, they gave more credence to arguments for heresy than to arguments against it.
So what if the Founders boosted and refrained from trashing religion? They understood theology as the handmaid of a good citizen, not his master. Theology was a domestic worker who deserves to be fired for dissing her employer’s pride in good works. When the servant deflates the value of moral behavior, her services are no longer needed.
Report comment to moderator
Jon
You have managed to confuse yourself. And yes the JW’s don’t believe in the Trinity, they’ve managed to confuse themselves as well. They are a very easily led group of people. However you aren’t posting to a group of uneducated people Jon, you aren’t able to sway MOST people to believe bits and pieces of your composition which you have carefully crafted.
There were 204 Founding Fathers, not just the few you mention over and over again. I have never read as you assert that “The key Founders hated Calvinism.” –
On Whirled Views 8-ll, post 202 you make this astounding ’statement’:
Actually you aren’t a scholar – having read many of your posts you are not learned in the Word of God – You fancy yourself in many areas, just as the JW’s leaders did in the past. You have a right to believe whatever you wish, however your constant ‘pedestal’ approach to your abilities such as the Word of God, and precisely what the Founding Fathers, believed isn’t remarkable, but a feeble attempt to discredit the very men who worked tirelessly so long ago.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Glad to see my scholarship is engaging you. Here is how Dr. Gary North, who has a PhD in history from the University of California reacts to Jefferson’s and Adams’ thoughts on Calvinism:
In their old age, Adams and Jefferson renewed their friendship in a long correspondence that lasted for more than a decade. Their letters reveal that they were almost totally agreed on religion. They hated Christianity, especially Calvinism….After surveying their letters, Cushing Strout concludes: “Whatever their political differences, Jefferson and Adams were virtually at one in their religion.” Strout identifies the creed of this religion: unitarianism. pp. 140-41.
http://www.demischools.org/philadelphia.pdf
So sorry Victoria, scholars do draw these conclusions.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
There are scholars and then there are scholars. There are those who would distort whatever it is they want the subject matter to prove, its done all the time.
There are many who have PhD’s, that isn’t impressive as to the TRUTH. Many are very adept in distorting history.
Report comment to moderator
Right.
And I have shown myself scrupulously honest and meticulous in research on these threads. I specialize in “cutting thru” the distortion of history that others are so adept in. Agree?
Report comment to moderator
People need to understand that JonRowe is a self avowed neo-pagan and not a Christian. Anyone who examines his blog learns that he is a libertarian on both economic and social issues with a particular interest in promoting a homosexual and hedonistic agenda. In my view his interest in diminishing the orthodox and evangelical Christian influence of the country’s founders is closely related to his neo-pagan and rather radical libertarian interests.
Rowe fancies himself to be a dispassionate scholar of the religious views of America’s leading founders. Actually, what he does for the most part is to scour the correspondence and other writings of the founders for any sign of religious doubt, which in the brief period of Deism’s influence in the late eighteenth century is like shooting fish in a barrel. He lacks the sort of depth and proportion of, say, a Tocqueville who in the 1830’s took a close look at America, including the secular strain, and concluded that on balance it was a profoundly Christian nation.
If the liberal minded Christian rationalists in the Eighteenth-Century could have known that their views would end up with the cloying sentimentality of Oprah Winfrey and the moral relativism of the Unitarian church that welcomes Wiccans and essentially advocates moral relativism, they would be appalled.
Report comment to moderator
No I don’t agree with you, I have made that ABUNDANTLY CLEAR –
You specialize, no one would argue with you on that, but that doesn’t make what you post correct and accurate -
Report comment to moderator
52:
It’s like a Sabre Tooth Tiger evolving into a wildcat. Or perhaps even, a T. Rex evolving into a chicken. That said, the theistic rationalism of the key Founders has morphed into the Unitarian Universalism and liberal cafeteria Christianity of today. They, not the conservative evangelicals, are the true heirs to America’s Founding political theology.
Everything else that you and Victoria wrote is simple “poisoning the well/genetic fallacy.”
Report comment to moderator
That said, the theistic rationalism of the key Founders has morphed into the Unitarian Universalism and liberal cafeteria Christianity of today. They, not the conservative evangelicals, are the true heirs to America’s Founding political theology.
Actually, the Unitarian and liberal Christian churches have become rather gray-haired and are in serious decline. See Jody Bottum’s piece on this, The Death of Protestant America: A Political Theory of the Protestant Mainline in a recent First Things Article. As to your neo-paganism, it is barely a blip on the radar screen of world views.
Orthodox and evangelical Christians in America as well as Africa, Latin America, and Asia are expanding exponentially and are the future of serious religion. The sexual “revolution” and radical secularism will very likely become historical relics.
It is far from a genetic fallacy to point out the very real connection between your views on the founding and interest in promoting neo-paganism and rather loose moral views.
Report comment to moderator
Let my research rise and fall on its own, Peter. DON’T poison the well with accusations of my personal worldview.
Report comment to moderator
Jon
Whatever your worldview is, it is yours, but for many of us, it is distasteful, and holds no value, or trustworthiness. Furthermore, it is not worthy of much more discussion. If you can’t accept this, so be it.
There have been many who have gone before in centuries past, or decades which have distorted the Founding Fathers intentions. We as American born citizens have come to recognize the signs, the distortion of facts.
We who bear the inheritance of our forebears understand the task of guarding the U.S.A. and its rich heritage as a gift of responsibility of which we don’t waiver, in fact we are humbled by our responsibility. GOD Almighty has blessed our nation, we humbly thank HIM for this gift which we enjoy as descendents of these men who took pen to paper to charge us to care for our country. We defend those who bring accusations against the Founding Founders, as disgraceful -
Report comment to moderator
“We defend those who bring accusations against the Founding Founders, as disgraceful”
It should read:
We defend the Founding Founders, – but those who bring accusations against them to be disgraceful-
Report comment to moderator
Well you’ll be glad to know Victoria that I don’t “bring accusations” against them but rather cite facts about them and let their words speak for themselves.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!