Another repost here.
Let me note some folks here disagree with the term "theistic rationalism" to describe the theological system Madison was talking about. So let's clarify: Madison's notes on why he wrote the Memorial and Remonstrance which led to the separation of Church & State in VA, refer to the issue of "what is Christianity?" He noted 1) Arianism and Socinianism as presenting themselves as "Christian"; 2) folks dispute what books properly belong in the biblical canon, and 3) folks practice a form of "Christianity" that doesn't hold the biblical canon as "infallible" but rather that only certain "essential" parts of the Bible are divinely inspired.
Madison didn't believe government had a right to take cognizance of which theological systems qualify as "real Christianity." Back then, as today, the "orthodox" didn't believe a system that denied the Trinity and the infallibility of the biblical canon to be actual "Christianity." Rather they argue it is some "other" religion. Dr. Gregg Frazer has termed it "theistic rationalism." Back then the orthodox theologians said it was no better than "Deism." Those who believed in it, however, termed it "rational Christianity" or "liberal unitarian Christianity."
9 comments:
Gregg Frazer:
“You’re right that there’s not a single example of the Bible being thrown out for rationalism — there are NUMEROUS examples! Unfortunately, if I remember correctly, you arbitrarily refuse to admit a number of them into the discussion. We could start with Jefferson and his scissors and Adams claiming that the Genesis account of the Fall of man was “either an allegory, or founded on uncertain tradition … which by no means accounts for the facts.”
Genesis being allegory goes back to Augustine. This is an example of reasoned interpretation trumping literalist interpretation not reason trumping revelation. This was brought up before at AC and Gregg did not answer.
This is important too in discerning whether natural law and rational Christianity was the re-emergence of something that was authetically Christian into Christian thought that was lost when sola scriptura and depravity of man became poplular or whether it was something totally new that came along with the Enlightenment?
I submit that in regards to political theory that the reintroduction of natural law into the discussion resulted in a stream of political thought that in many ways closely resembled that of Aquinas and the schoolmen in many key areas. This is reflected in the dramatically simliar language that both eras used despite the severe anti-Catholic biases found in the founding generation.
When this is uncovered we find only some minor sotierological differences that would have separated the so called Theistic Rationalists from the Christians. If we are discussing how these differences influenced political thought I do not see how they did. The founders certainly did not allow these differences into the political dialogue. If true why are we even discussing it?
In short, I think since an unmistakable connection has been proven in the natrual law based poltical theory of the era of Aquinas and that leading up to the founding, the burden of proof is on the Kraynak and Frazer crowd as to why soteriorology is germane at all to answering the question posed above about whether American political thought was really anything new at its core?
This is huge Jon in that if Fukuyama is correct, and I think he will be proven so over the next 50 or so years, then we have to have a good definition of what “liberal democracy” really means and if today’s version is the same as the founding. If it is not and sold that it is that would be a lie of major proportions that could have lasting damage that far outweighs anything that David Barton could do.
I think you should read the book about Islam that Chris linked in a previous post. The Frazer view of Christianity is remarkably similar to the literalist view of Islam(obviously minus any violence as far as Frazer goes but no so in many that read the Bible the same way he does like Phelps and others like him) of many of the hardline clerics. I would also add that to label of all Islam theocracy as many in the West do is not far from thinking that does the same in certain rationalist circles in this country.
Both religions have a diverse history and many schools of thought that are often ignored. This type of revisionism is the most dangerous of all.
With that said, I understand that you are trying to show that Frazer-like Christianity was not exclusively the kind that one out in the founding era. I assume it is a call for more modern forms to win out in our era. I applaud that but lets not miss the forrest looking at the trees.
To make my point about Islam more clear I might add that many hardline clerics accuse the non-literalists of adding something new to Islam when the author of the book Chris linked for one argues that if anything the hardline interpretations are new.
I find it fascinating that it seems that Islam has a literalist camp, an Aquinas like camp that has no problem incorporating natural law or Greek thought, and a modernists camp that throws everything out and crowns reason as King.
I also find it telling that the Aquinas like camp was in power during the golden age of Islam!
I would seem that the modernists and hardliners also seem to attempt to marginalize the influence of the Aquinas like camp as if it never existed.
Sound familar?
Back then the orthodox theologians said it was no better than "Deism." Those who believed in it, however, termed it "rational Christianity" or "liberal unitarian Christianity."
For political purposes how about Calvinist Scholasticism? Sounds like Madison was trying to take the soteriological crap out of the political discussions too? Quite founding like I would say. Which begs us to wonder why we keep trying to put it back in?
" I would also add that to label of all Islam theocracy as many in the West do is not far from thinking that does the same in certain rationalist circles in this country."
From my first comment should be:
" I would also add that to label of all Islam theocracy as many in the West do is not far from thinking that does the same {to Christianity} in certain rationalist circles in this country"
Here is a link to Protestant Scholasticism:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/scholasp.htm
That is a better term than Calvinist Scholasticism.
Madison didn't believe government had a right to take cognizance of which theological systems qualify as "real Christianity." Back then, as today, the "orthodox" didn't believe a system that denied the Trinity and the infallibility of the biblical canon to be actual "Christianity." Rather they argue it is some "other" religion. Dr. Gregg Frazer has termed it "theistic rationalism."
Which puts Frazer against Madison, and on the side of orthodox theologians.
I prefer Madison's standard as a method of doing history.
Wasn't Deism "the divine order" as understood by the scientific understanding of that day? "Moral ordering" or structuring was according to Christian belief in "the state of nature" as in "original sin", today it is known as "survival of the fittest".
The "fittest" are those deemed worthy of governing, in whatever matter government is formulated. Our Founders formed American government with a balance of power, and separation of powers, as well as divesting the State (government) and the Church of absolute power...our form of government was to be representative of "the people". So, neither Church or State determined the individual's "outcome", goal or purpose of life.
From what I have read, Leo Strauss seems to think that using language to propagate the ruling class's agenda is the only way to maintain order within society. Ceasar is not too far from the truth when our form of government is undermined by abuse of power, which inevitably undermines the middle class...whether through corporate greed, or beauraucratic "necesssities" in taxation.
,i>
From what I have read, Leo Strauss seems to think that using language to propagate the ruling class's agenda is the only way to maintain order within society.
Where did you read that? From Leo Strauss?
This whole blog is about not accepting second-hand information. Think for yourself. This is an adult blog, Angie, master class. All the sophomores have washed out. Or frankly, get pushed out the door. Yeah, I'll cop to that. No time for "wise fools."
Post a Comment