Why is this important? David Barton and the other Christian Nationalists are sympathetic to the notion that the organic law of the United States is "Christianity generally." Well that begs the question, what is Christianity? To most evangelicals, Roman Catholics and capital O Orthodox Christians, Christianity is synonymous with orthodoxy (Christ's divine nature as God the Son, second person in the Trinity, the Atonement, etc.) A theological system that rejects these tenets is "not Christianity" whatever it calls itself.
Well, it would follow then, if Washington intended to establish "Christianity generally" -- which defines as orthodox Trinitarian doctrines under which the different Christian sects were united -- as the "civil religion" of America, his public God talk would often be done in the name of the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," the infallibility of the Bible and would cite verses and chapters of scripture as "trumping" authority.
But Washington's public God talk [for instance the content of Washington's first Thanksgiving Proclamation] does none of this. Now, it could be that Washington was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian, privately, but publicly didn't want that specific form of Christianity to be the "de facto" civil religion and avoided mentioning these doctrines to make America seem more inclusive and welcoming of diverse faiths. Certainly Presidents who have been orthodox in their personal theology like Jimmy Carter or George Bush opt for this message of public inclusive God talk while remaining privately orthodox.
However, if Washington were privately orthodox, we would expect to see his private writings, especially communication with orthodox figures, peppered with orthodox Trinitarian theology, but we don't. Indeed Brad Hart uses Peter Lillback's research against his thesis that Washington was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian. Lillback has two theses, one -- that Washington wasn't a Deist (which he proves) -- and two -- that Washington was orthodox (which he doesn't). Drawing from Lillback's research, Hart reproduces "the actual phrases that Washington used in his 'written prayers' to describe divinity, along with the number of times they were used:"
"Providence" - 26 times
"Heaven" -25 times
"God" - 16 times
"Almighty God" - 8 times
"Lord" - 5 times
"Almighty" - 5 times
"Author of all Blessings" - 3 times
"Author of the Universe" - 3 times
"God of Armies" - 3 times
"Giver of Victory" - 3 times
"Great Ruler of the Universe" - 2 times
"Divine Protector" - 2 times
"Ruler of Nations" - 2 times
"Particular Favor of Heaven" - 2 times
"Divine Author of Life and Felicity" - 2 times
"Author of Nations" - 1 time
"Divine Being" - 1 time
"Allwise Dispenser of Human Blessings" - 1 time
"Supreme giver of all good Gifts" - 1 time
"Sovereign Dispenser of Life and Health" - 1 time
"Source and Benevolent Bestower of all good" - 1 time
"Power which has Sustained American arms" - 1 time
"Allwise Providence" - 1 time
"Infinite Wisdom" - 1 time
"Eye of Omnipotence" - 1 time
"Divine Author of our Blessed Religion" - 1 time
"Omnipotent being" - 1 time
"Great Spirit" - 1 time
"Glorious being" - 1 time
"Supreme being" - 1 time
"Almighty being" - 1 time
"Creator" - 1 time
"Jesus Christ" - 0
"Salvation" - 0
"Messiah" - 0
"Savior" - 0
"Redeemer" - 0
"Jehovah" - 0
Not once is Washington recorded as praying "in Jesus' name." This is why Christian Nationalists are so desperate to use Washington's spurious "Daily Sacrifice" prayerbook, because that contains orthodox theology.
The profound insight that Dr. Gregg Frazer posits in his PhD thesis is that the private theology of the key Founders [Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc.] was indeed the public civil religion which they established in their public God talk and was the ideological theology behind the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution.
36 comments:
I could not agree with you more, Jon.
"Why is this important? David Barton and the other Christian Nationalists are sympathetic to the notion that the organic law of the United States is "Christianity generally."
And this is why anti-Christian nation advocates like myself, Jon Rowe and others have a problem with Barton's -- and others like him -- arguments. It isn't that we want to "ATTACK" their person, intellect, etc. It is simply their ideas, which have very little backing in the historical record.
As for Washington, I think Jon is again right to point out how very little within the historical record points to Washington being an orthodox Christian. Now, of course opponents will point to Washington's declaration to the Delaware Indians as proof, but the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the historical record -- when it comes to Washington's "God talk" -- is neutral in nature. What I fail to understand is how this evidence can be ignored, downplayed or simply discarded by the Christian nation crowd.
I think it is worth noting that I am not a secularist in nature, nor do I endeavor do "destroy" the "Christian heritage" of our nation's founding. I am personally of the persuasion that God was VERY MUCH a part of America's founding. I would LOVE to prove Washington was a Christian. With that said, I cannot ignore the fact that the totality of the historical record suggests that Washington WAS NOT an orthodox Christian.
Now, in Washington's defense, I do believe that he was a man of faith and prayer -- as Lillback proves in his book. There is even a real possibility that Washington favored Christianity in his private devotions. But if that is so, why remain silent on it? After all, doesn't Christianity teach that we are to "proclaim from the rooftops," etc.?
In addition, I think I can also relate in a small way to the faith of Washington and a few of the other founders. As a devout practicing Mormon, I am often accused of not being a TRUE Christian. As Jon has pointed out in the past, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. are often seen as "infidel" forms of Christianity, since we do not believe in the Trinity, infallibility of the Bible, etc. In this respect, I think Washington CAN be called a Christian -- assuming that he privately believed in Jesus Christ. However, I think that the historical record clearly refutes the argument that Washington was an ORTHODOX believer of his day. He simply did not walk, talk, and behave in the way that an 18th century orthodox Christian was expected to live.
But Jefferson kept his theological musings secret! That presents a great if not fatal problem with arguing his or others' private theology was the public religion!
I don't claim Washington for orthodox Christianity either, and in fact lean against, but I do think the evidence is inconclusive either way.
He simply did not walk, talk, and behave in the way that an 18th century orthodox Christian was expected to live.
Since no one in his time was certain whether Washington was or was not an orthodox Christian, that uncertainty implies that he did indeed walk the walk. And Washington too kept his private theology secret.
But this elides the larger question. Doctrinal and mystical questions aside, what Mormonism and this "civil religion" have in common is their uniquely Christian---or Judeo-Christian for lack of a better term---character.
A look through even the most unorthodox of the Founders---yes, Jefferson and John Adams again, even if they are outliers---shows a belief system that was impossible without the prior existence of Christianity. They thought they were onto something new, but theirs was simply a lite version of what was already in place.
When the claim is made that the nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, we must examine what Judeo-Christian principles might be, such as the acknowledgment and understanding of natural law. Kristo Miettinen argues theirs was a Christian---and more specifically Protestant---acknowledgment and understanding of natural law. That would be the true "civil religion" and must be addressed before any claims like Dr. Frazer's or claimed refutations that America was notfounded on Christian principles can be asserted as fact as is done here.
TVD writes:
”But Jefferson kept his theological musings secret! That presents a great if not fatal problem with arguing his or others' private theology was the public religion!”
I have to disagree here. Though Jefferson was certainly a private man, he managed to leave behind a number of documents that prove where he stood on the issue of religion. Washington, on the other hand, did not. Jefferson and the majority of the founding fathers – even if they were private on matters of religion – made it clear where they stood for a number of reasons. After all, most founders wanted to make it clear where they stood on the issue. Washington did not. This is why I believe it is absolutely foolish for either side (Christian Nation or anti-Christian Nation) to stake a claim to Washington’s religious legacy. He simply cannot responsibly be put in either camp. This is why I consider Washington a bit of a religious paradox of sorts. While the preponderance of the evidence points to a non orthodox faith, we still have no way of concluding that Washington believed this way in his private life.
TVD also writes:
”A look through even the most unorthodox of the Founders---yes, Jefferson and John Adams again, even if they are outliers---shows a belief system that was impossible without the prior existence of Christianity. They thought they were onto something new, but theirs was simply a lite version of what was already in place.”
Yeah, I am in 100% agreement here.
There can be little doubt that Christianity was the most influential force on the lives of 18th century Americans. For us to say that the founders – even those who completely refuted Christianity – were completely untouched by the forces of Christianity is like saying that Americans today are completely uninfluenced by television. Religion – Christianity in the Western world – was THE main outlet for most Americans during this era.
I think (or at least hope) that when most people attempt to refute the Christian Nation claim they are refuting the idea of the founders establishing a RELIGIOUS government. The idea of refuting the influence of Christianity entirely is laughable. It simply cannot be done.
Great points, BTW!
Tom,
You bring up an important nuance. To the extent that Jefferson's, Adams' religion was heterodox, they had to keep it quiet. But they STILL did not endorse or pretend to endorse the orthodox doctrines in which they disbelieved (though Adams came close). So instead of the civil religion DISBELIEVING in the orthodox doctrines, it simply ignores them or is agnostic on them. The civil religion is NOT unitarian in the sense that it disbelieves in the Trinity, but rather because it ignores or is agnostic on things such as original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, infallibility of the Bible and eternal damnation.
But only the cranks claim that America was founded on the Christian religion and it's [a perhaps necessary] sideshow to refute them. The rational ones claim it was founded on the principles. One God. Providential. Just, not capricious. Natural law.
And if they rejected original sin theologically, it's quite enshrined in the Madison, et al., structure of the government. That men are corrupt and will compete for power runs all through the Federalist Papers.
Neither would the proposition that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity and died for our sins have much practical effect on the structure of government.
But let us not forget yet again that the states mentioned Jesus all the time. That inconvenient fact keeps getting dropped.
Brad, Jefferson kept the very existence of the "Jefferson Bible" a secret except from his trusted friends. You'll also find him asking his correspondents to keep mum about his theological musings.
As for these "key" Founders disbelieving in this or that piece of doctrine, that they kept mum is significant.
We can argue this question from the top down, Jon, but it becomes academic and sterile. When argued from the bottom up, it takes on a completely different perspective: Surely we can't argue that a public rejection of the Bible as truth would have been taken as anything else but godless immorality and death for a political career!
"Brad, Jefferson kept the very existence of the "Jefferson Bible" a secret except from his trusted friends. You'll also find him asking his correspondents to keep mum about his theological musings.
As for these "key" Founders disbelieving in this or that piece of doctrine, that they kept mum is significant."
Jefferson was not nearly as private on religious matters as you think. Yes, he kept his "Bible" relatively seceret, but the fact is that he TOLD a secet number of his friends about it. Also, his letters to family, friends, etc. (which he knew would be read by posterity and even those of his day) are not silent on the issue of religion.
Washington, however, kept his cards much closer to him. It was virtually impossible to pin him down on any religious issue, and many church figures tried during his life.
Tom: "Jefferson kept his theological musings secret! That presents a great if not fatal problem with arguing his or others' private theology was the public religion!"
There is an important point in his secrecy.
What might have happened to Jefferson had his position on Christianity been widely known?
I'd rebut in greater detail, but I'm having a ball with my family watching the ultimate Christian Nation movie, "Christmas with the Cranks". We just saw the mob scene where the Cristian thugs demanded that the Cranks produce Frosty. Oh, the horrors to come when the Christians get their way!
Jon, could you cite where Barton makes a big deal of Washington being Trinitarian? Brad, before you get a tingle up your leg over Jon's post, could you check this undocumented claim that you have hastily, and to my mind recklessly, endorsed?
Gents, per Brad's comment, I don't accuse you of attacking Barton's person or intellect. I suggest that you ought to, you know, read Barton's books, at least one of them, before you make a big deal of attacking him. Otherwise you run the risk of misleading your readers, e.g. if you attack Barton for saying X, when Barton either never says X, or X isn't central to his larger argument. You wouldn't want to mislead your readers, now, would you?
To the matter at hand, of course Washington wasn't an orthodox Christian. And even if he was, it would not prove anything relevant. America was founded as an unorthodox Christian nation, a nation where the one form of Christianity that had to be practiced in the shadows was orthodoxy. I've made this point before, but I'll make it again for those just tuning in: where were the bishops? Not until the revolution, with its freedom of religion in the public square, did the orthodox feel free to bring bishops to America.
Anyway, if you want to make the case that America was founded as a secular nation, do so. Otherwise, if all you want to do is rebut the arguments of others, pick arguments that matter, from people that matter, and cite them so that we can look them up. Stop attacking thin air.
America was founded as an unorthodox Christian nation, a nation where the one form of Christianity that had to be practiced in the shadows was orthodoxy. I've made this point before, but I'll make it again for those just tuning in: where were the bishops?>
I'm trying to figure out how bishops have anything to do with orthodoxy? Religion is left to the states, correct? The state constitutions proclaim Christianity, correct? The Bible is declared God's Word, and for the most part, mentioned in the State Constitutions?
Sounds orthodox to me.
Ah.
I'm going by Pelikan, specifically his magisterial "The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)", chapter 7, "The Orthodox Consensus". But many of my Catholic and Orthodox friends have other sources that bring them to the same conclusion. Orthodoxy consists in having the "right" (as determined by the emerging consensus forming from Augustine to Chalcedon to Orange to 2nd Constantinople) understandings of four topics of contention in the early church: christology, mystagogy, anthropology, and ecclesiology. Proper ecclesiology, proper understanding of the church, its offices and structure, is part of orthodoxy.
That said, Pelikan goes on to enumerate the Christian groups outside the consensus, while still calling them Christian, just not orthodox: Donatists, Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, etc.
Jon,
My prayers are not published like Washington's were, but I can still give you an approximate sense of how I would score on the Hart/Rowe Christianity test:
"Providence" - never
"Heaven" - never
"God" - often
"Almighty God" - never
"Lord" - routinely
"Almighty" - never
"Author of all Blessings" - never
"Author of the Universe" - never
"God of Armies" - never
"Giver of Victory" - never
"Great Ruler of the Universe" - never
"Divine Protector" - never
"Ruler of Nations" - never
"Particular Favor of Heaven" - never
"Divine Author of Life and Felicity" - never
"Author of Nations" - never
"Divine Being" - never
"Allwise Dispenser of Human Blessings" - never
"Supreme giver of all good Gifts" - never
"Sovereign Dispenser of Life and Health" - never
"Source and Benevolent Bestower of all good" - never
"Power which has Sustained American arms" - never
"Allwise Providence" - never
"Infinite Wisdom" - never
"Eye of Omnipotence" - never
"Divine Author of our Blessed Religion" - never
"Omnipotent being" - never
"Great Spirit" - never
"Glorious being" - never
"Supreme being" - never
"Almighty being" - never
"Creator" - routinely in Finnish, never in English
"Jesus Christ" - never
"Salvation" - never
"Messiah" - never
"Savior" - never
"Redeemer" - never
"Jehovah" - never
What would you call me on this basis? Where do you draw the lines on your test as to who counts as a Trinitrian Christian?
Kristo: You NEVER pray in Jesus' name?
Kristo:
My understanding of orthodoxy relates to the Nicene and Apostles Creed/some of the following doctrines. I wonder how you score on them:
1) Original Sin
2) The Trinity
3) The Incarnation
4) Christ's Atonement
5) Regeneration
6) Imputation of Christ's Righteousness
7) Salvation through grace
8) Infallibility of the Bible
9) Eternal Damnation
Jon,
I never pray to Jesus, nor do I know anyone who does. I do know people who add "in Jesus' name, Amen" to the end of their prayers, but that's not where you address a prayer, that's where you are seeking an endorsement, as it were. Our friends' prayers (and mine) usually begin "Dear Lord" or sometimes "Dear God".
The "in Jesus' name" bit was totally unfamiliar to me until I came to America. I wonder whether you are aware of how much of the ritualistic structure of prayer is cultural? In English, in my experience, we address our prayers to the Lord, but in Finnish, it is always to "Luoja", creator. This has no theological significance, it's just variation in custom in different places.
George Washington's prayer habits say more of the culture of his times than of his theological beliefs. That makes it interesting and relevant for our discussion, but not as a window onto GW's beliefs, but rather as evidence of GW's community habits.
On your extended test:
1) Original Sin - yes.
2) The Trinity - yes.
3) The Incarnation - yes.
4) Christ's Atonement - yes.
5) Regeneration - as sanctification, yes.
6) Imputation of Christ's Righteousness - yes for your purposes, no for mine. You have to be a soteriology wonk to appreciate the distinctions I would draw.
7) Salvation through grace - yes for your purposes, but again, this gets into wonkish territory.
8) Infallibility of the Bible - depends on what we mean. Yes by my definition, but I would argue with others who hold other definitions.
9) Eternal Damnation - yes, but again, lots of room to argue over what that means.
You score par for the course for orthodoxy, as I understand the concept. The qualifications from points 5 onward are those items with which the orthodox Christian community reasonably disputes, sort of like all 5 points Calvinism are disputed among the orthodox, but the Trinity is not.
Hey Jon, a thought:
I lack the resources to test this, but how would Sam Adams, whose faith is not in dispute, score on your test, if applied on the same basis as applied to Washington?
It's pretty clear from S. Adams' writings that he was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian. And David L. Holmes and a number of other notable scholars categorize S. Adams, along with Patrick Henry, John Witherspoon, and John Jay as notable orthodox Christian Founders.
That's my point. So now, does someone have the resources to cull his public prayers for phrases the same way Washington's have been culled? And if we do, what portion of the referencs to divinity are generic in nature?
If even an uncontested trinitarian used generic God-talk in his official capacity, then your experiment doesn't show what you have claimed it shows.
John Jay would be a better example, owing to his visibility on a national stage, where Sam Adams never really played much of a role in national affairs after the revolution.
I don't think you are aware of the entire argument. Yes, some deists, unitarians and trinitarians could speak in that generic God talk; that was the point of speaking philosophically about God, to draw a broad unitive lowest common denominator. We don't rest our entire case of GW's lack of orthodoxy on his generic God talk. Though you might want to pick up a copy of David Holmes' book on the Faiths of the Founding Fathers where he gives his reasons why GW wasn't orthodox but Jay and S. Adams were.
Kristo:
I just wanted to point out one thing here that I believe is important to this discussion. I don't believe that Jon Rowe is necessarily using some kind of religious litmus test to determine where the founders fall on the orthodox/agnostic spectrum. Speaking for myself, I believe that to create such a test would be a mistake, since each founder's life and faith takes on a life of its own. There are just too many variables to consider.
Instead, I believe that Jon and I have suggested on this blog that the TOTALITY of the evidence points to a particular likelihood. In Washington's case, this likelihood is that he was not orthodox in his faith, but was more of a unitarian. His "God talk" as we have mentioned in these past two posts, is simply one of the many pieces of evidence, which, in my opinion, suggest that Washington was not orthodox in his religious beliefs/practices.
If we were exclusively relying on Washington’s “God talk” then yes, I would agree with you that this is anything but conclusive. However, this is not the only evidence available on the issue.
We all have a fair area of agreement that the evidence of George Washington's Christian religious orthodoxy is inconclusive. As previously stated, my own opinion leans against, based on the available clues.
But again, I remake the argument that if Washington himself had a personal lack of faith in "religion," why did he recommend religion as essential for the moral health of the new American republic?
Aw, we already know the answer. That's where the rubber meets the road, where theory meets practice, where the abstract meets reality.
The more we make Washington an unbeliever personally, the stronger we make his argument politically.
Jon, Brad,
By all means, give us the entire argument. And as for the Hart/Rowe test, if it isn't a litmus test (a point that I made before you did, e.g. by showing how it fails when applied to me), then that begs the question: what is it? A red herring?
But note that where you are drifting now is toward channeling David Barton, even while denying him. As Jon put it, "David Barton and the other Christian Nationalists are sympathetic to the notion that the organic law of the United States is 'Christianity generally.' " This is the position that you two are now in, isn't it?
To claim that Washington was a Unitarian Christian is to endorse Barton's position.
Tom's point is well taken, and I agree with it as a hypothetical (i.e. if Washington had weak faith or no faith, then that makes his public position that much more telling regarding religion and the state), but the whole "argument" over whether he was "orthodox" is a distraction. And don't blame Barton for taking the argument there, unless you have a different passage in mind than the one I'm familiar with, namely chapter 2 of MoS.
As far as I can tell, and I have made this point before, so it shouldn't be a surprise (at least not to Jon), this whole argument about who was orthodox is a refusal by anti-CNers to admit that America was (and to some waning degree still is) a Christian nation.
If America was founded as an unorthodox Christian nation, then it immediately follows that America was founded as a Christian nation. QED.
If you want to deny this, then arguing that America was not founded as an orthodox Christian nation fails to achieve your objective even if you win the argument.
Kristo,
I think the mistake you make is you think Barton's "Christian Nation" idea fits perfectly well with yours. It's true that Barton and some others have hedged on issues like the Trinity because they seem aware that many of these key "Christian" figures either disbelieved in or were uncertain on issues like the Trinity, Incarnation and Atonement. However to the conservative Christian audiences which eat up his work, to BE a Christian means to believe that Jesus was God the Son and made an infinite Atonement on the cross.
I submit YOUR position that holds theological unitarianism or Mormonism to be "Christian" (defensible and quite reasonable as it is) is anathema to conservative theologically orthodox Christians of the Protestant, Roman Catholic, or capital O Orthodox Christian faith.
I've heard too many of them state things like "Mormonism is not Christianity" and term theological unitarianism to be soul damning blasphemous heresies to be convinced otherwise.
One other thing. To the extent that America is or is not a "Christian Nation" I stand by the last passage in my original response to your post. (I realize there are still some loose ends, like the reason v. revelation issue that need to be addressed).
Besides believing in 1) the unitarian heresies, America's key Founders also believed 2) that the Bible was only partially inspired; 3) that man’s reason (not the Bible) was the ultimate determiner of truth; 4) that most or all religions (including non-biblical ones) were valid ways to God; AND 5) they disbelieved in eternal damnation. If those 5 points can be incorporated into the political understanding of "Christianity" then yes, America can be said to have had an authentically "Christian" Founding.
I've gone on many discussion threads with conservative Christians and have posed this issue to them. Further I have monitored what many notable orthodox Christian theologians have to say on the issue. And the overwhelming response is that these 5 points are not compatible with "Christianity" that they refer to some *other* theological system. In short, they react to it not unlike they react to Mormonism.
Jon,
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 his 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 MoS). 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.
I'll be the first to agree with you that there are many on the right, whom I debate often in other contexts (usually Catholicism vs. catholicism), who toss out the "Mormons aren't Christians" line, but they don't stick to it when you push back. You see, they have never discussed theology with Mormons as I have (I live near Palmyra), and they are not particularly committed to the "Mormons aren't Christians" position; it's just a misconception that they can suspend without upending their worldview. By the way, let me clarify my own position: I do not hold that Mormonism is clearly Christian, I hold that "Christianity" is a vague concept (i.e. it admits of borderline cases), and that Mormonism is a good example of a plausible borderline case. Arianism, on the other hand, is not a borderline case, it is clearly Christian despite being heretical. Islam, which Luther thought was a Christian heresy, is in my opinion clearly not Christian. Just so my position is a bit clearer.
You, on my understanding, can't abandon the "Barton is committed to trinitarian orthodoxy" position without upending your worldview. It would be bad enough for you to admit that I'm right; as I have pointed out, to accept that America was founded as an unorthodox Christian nation is to accept that it was founded as a Christian nation, and you haven't accepted that regardless of how much you might otherwise appreciate my position. But for you to admit that Barton is right as well, that's just unthinkable. Indeed, I suspect that it is precisely because the line separating my position from Barton's is so narrow that you cannot accept my position, sympathetic though you seem to be.
Let's be clear, though, on a point that I have made before, that you know well but have not adopted in your argumentation: we need to separate the definition of "Christian" that we use in historical analysis from the defintion of "Christian" that we use in sectarian bloodsport. There is no inconsistency in saying that America was founded as a Christian nation, in the historical sense of what that means, while also saying that the founders will all burn in hell as heretics (not that I believe that; I'm just saying that the two claims are not contradictory).
As for your closing passage, could you please show the links from what you say the founders believed personally, to the principles upon which the nation was founded? Note that I have taken up certain principles upon which the nation was founded, e.g. freedom of conscience, and natural law, and tried (perhaps unsuccessfully) to show that they were protestant Christian principles. Could you do the same in the opposite direction (from what the founders believed to their impact on the founding) for your claimed heretical principles?
Take, for instance, the idea that "most or all religions (including non-biblical ones) were valid ways to God". Can you show how belief in this principle was instrumental in forming the nation? You would have to deal, of course, with problems like the Christian sabbath being written into the constitution (where it remains to this day), the denial of religious freedom to polygamists following apparently valid paths to God (e.g. Muslims and Mormons), the enforcement of blasphemy laws where blasphemy was defined in terms of maligning Christianity only; but even if you could overcome these exceptions it is hard to see the affirmative link from radical multifideism to the founding of our nation. Not everything that the founders believed was relevant to the founding.
You are asking for a whole lot. And it's helpful because when I write my book every single you point raise can be answered, and answering them would probably require a book. But for today, I promise I'll answer the Mormon/Trinity question.
Of course I'm asking for alot - I'm trying to bring out the best in you. I don't believe in debate for humiliating an adversary, rather for elevating him, calling him to (or shaming him into; whatever works) play his game on a higher level.
If, along the way, you hit upon a truth that I didn't know, I'll be able to appropriate it to my own understanding!
I do not hold that Mormonism is clearly Christian, I hold that "Christianity" is a vague concept (i.e. it admits of borderline cases), and that Mormonism is a good example of a plausible borderline case.>
Kristo, I am looking at Martin's exposition on mormonism, I assume you are familiar with Walter Martin's work.
To say that Mormonism is anywhere in the solar system, or border, of Christianity is a blind leap. In my, and Martin's opinion mormonism is more blasphemes than any cult.
As Martin points out, mormonism is filled with scientific, and archeological errors; claiming Indians are semitic, when in fact they are mongoloid, blatant plagiarisms, and contradictions upon contradictions.
Smith claimed all Christian sects "wrong" their creeds as "abominations," and all Christians as "corrupt"(Joseph Smith, History 1:19), quoting Martin in Kingdom of the Cults, updated Edition, 1997.
Mormon theology is purely demonic!
1. "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man..."(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345).
I can't even read the rest. Check out Martin's Kingdom of the Cults.
This all coming from a man, Joseph Smith, engaged in the occult, seer-stone divination, using divining rods, talismans, and magic.
Quoting Martin, "Mormon theology is polytheistic, teaching in effect that the universe is inhabited by different gods who procreate spirit children, which are in turn clothed with bodies on different planets, "Elohim" being the god of this planet(Brigham Young's teaching that Adam is our heavenly Father is now officially denied by Mormon authorities, but they hold firm to the belief that their God is a resurrected, glorified man).
Mormonism denies the fundamentals of Christianity. I definitely recommend Martin's work on mormonism.
See my above post which reproduces Martin's work and begins to answer Kristo's objections.
I am also reminded of the debate between Walter Martin and one Roy Masters that I reproduced a little while ago. Masters, like the Mormons and JWs denies the Trinity and is consequently written off as "not Christian" by Martin.
I'm using a lot of examples friendly to religious conservatives because Masters, like the Mormons, the JWs and the Moonies, is arch conservative in his politics and worldview (thought the JWs strenuously avoid politics).
Masters, because he believes the Bible the Word of God, makes the standard "biblical unitarian" arguments that we saw men like Priestley and Price make.
Masters has the potential, in my opinion, to be the next Rev. Moon or Joseph Smith. Already he's got such figures as David Kupelian, Matt Drudge, Michael Savage, and others as followers and owns with his sons Talk Radio Network that syndicates such figures as Savage and Laura Ingraham. Their very interesting debate was a wash in my opinion. Martin had the weight of "historic Christianity" behind him. But, as Masters noted, "historic Christianity" could be wrong.
Masters in many respects is a right wing crank of the John Birch Society vein; but he appeals to the many conservative Christians who enjoy WorldNetDaily. And indeed, his disciple David Kupelian is second in charge over there.
Our Founding Truth writes:
"
To say that Mormonism is anywhere in the solar system, or border, of Christianity is a blind leap. In my, and Martin's opinion Mormonism is more blasphemes than any cult...
...As Martin points out, Mormonism is filled with scientific, and archeological errors; claiming Indians are semitic, when in fact they are mongoloid, blatant plagiarisms, and contradictions upon contradictions."
Since when did this post become devoted "Mormon Bashing?" I would be very careful with your words, OFT. I could just as easily call your religion a contradiction, farce, and full of archeological errors. After all, I am not the one who believes that dinosaurs can be found in the Bible, that snakes talk, and that a flood actually covered the entire face of the earth only a few thousand years ago.
I'm not saying that specific religions shouldn't be discussed here. Mormonism has been brought up on numerous occasions, and has been scrutinized, as all religions should be. However, I find your comments to be both arrogant and condescending.
If you don't like Mormonism then fine. Go to an anti-Mormon site to share your stuff.
TVD: "[...] if Washington himself had a personal lack of faith in "religion," why did he recommend religion as essential for the moral health of the new American republic?"
Perhaps you are using the word "religion" in different contexts.
GW may have thought religion (purpose/morality/dedication/devotion) essential, but lacked confidence that much of what passed as religious in his day was constructive.
"Mormon Bashing?" I would be very careful with your words, OFT. I could just as easily call your religion a contradiction, farce, and full of archeological errors. After all, I am not the one who believes that dinosaurs can be found in the Bible, that snakes talk, and that a flood actually covered the entire face of the earth only a few thousand years ago.>
Brad, my post was in response to Kristo's comment comparing Christianity and Mormonism using Walter Martin's research. I didn't know you were mormon, nor wanted to offend you. As a Christian, I was offended at what I read in Martin's book. And there was at least thirty more pages of the same crazy stuff, all documented, even testimony by Joseph Smith's Mother.
One of the reasons the Bible has stood the test of time is its harmony with history, archeology, geography, and science. Your words may be better answered another time.
OFT, perhaps softer language than calling Mormon theology demonic is appropriate in a public forum.
You can make your point by sticking to the facts and avoiding the pejoratives, nor is your opinion [or any of our opinions] about the worthiness of this or that theology of any importance or relevance on this blog. I don't care about your personal faith or Mr. Abbott's lack of it, frankly. Opinions are like...well, you know the rest.
But if you open up your own religion to truth claims like "the Bible has stood the test of time is its harmony with history, archeology, geography, and science," Mr. Abbott would be quite justified in starting a distracting squabble here. I for one would rather leave such stuff for other blogs. Just the facts, ma'am.
OFT, perhaps softer language than calling Mormon theology demonic is appropriate in a public forum.>
I was thinking about that last night, and then, wham! another thought goes into my mind. It was that passage in Isaiah, I think it's chapter fourteen, where Isaiah talks about Lucifer wanting to be God, and take God's place. Being a god, that's Satan talking.
OFT:
Save it for a blog that gives a care about your take on the validity/invalidity of a particular religion. Here, nobody care what you have to say on the issue.
Well, at least it's a factual point from the Bible and not just an opinion. Still, I believe the discussion was an arm's-length discussion of how Mormonism is regarded by others and not an explicit examination of its truth claims.
Therefore, an arm's-length distance from the actual theology is called for. We're gettin' there, hopefully.
Post a Comment