Here. Dr. Hart cites my American Creation co-blogger Brad Hart, but mistakenly calls him a "history professor." If Brad's writing can fool an eminent scholar like DG Hart, he must be doing something right.
George Washington was not an evangelical Christian -- Lillback admits that. Lillback is a leader in and a scholar of reformed Calvinistic theology. Lillback's dilemma is that he wants to claim someone with whom he admittedly has religious differences. So he'll concede only when it's so obvious and otherwise interpret the facts to fit his happy ending.
For instance, in 20,000 pages of recorded words of GW, the words "Jesus Christ" are found once, and one other time JC is mentioned by example, not name. Neither of which are written in GW's hand, but by an aide and both of these are in public addresses. In all of his many private letters, though "Providence" and other generic God words are mentioned very often, the name or person of Jesus is not mentioned ever. You never see "Father, Son, Holy Spirit," from GW's words. And the one time "Redeemer" is mentioned, it's from an address by the Continental Congress that GW had reproduced for his troops.
This dynamic, at the very least, proves GW was not an evangelical. But Lillback spins it as GW was a low church latitudinarian orthodox Trinitarian Anglican and claims it the custom of them not to mention Jesus. Well, they may not have talked about Jesus as much as the evangelicals did, but they didn't systematically avoid talking about Jesus, as though they had no relationship with Him like GW did. GW, from what we can tell, rarely had Jesus on his mind.
53 comments:
I wonder if he knows that Brad is the creator of this blog. He linked to his personal blog.
Again, there's more to Washington than the minimum told here. As the Novaks note:
"One contrast may clarify: Jefferson refused to act as godfather to children, that is, watchful over their religious education, lest that give a false impression. Yet Washington, who was far more careful than Jefferson about such matters, agreed on at least eight occasions to become a godfather to new children of family or friends. He later followed up with gifts of prayer books, and the like."
That involves saying, "Father, Son and Holy Ghost."
and Once in his public remarks, he commended the humble and kindly example of "the Holy Author of our religion."
That would be Jesus, of course.
Now it's so that Washington didn't mention Jesus much. Still, it's clear that the Providence he thanked so often was the God of the Bible [from his letter to the Jews of Savannah]:
"May the same wonder-working Deity, who long since delivered the Hebrews from their Egyptian oppressors, and planted them in the promised land, whose providential agency has lately been conspicuous in establishing these United States as an independent nation, still continue to water them with the dews of Heaven, and to make the inhabitants of every denomination participate in the temporal and spiritual blessings of that people whose God is Jehovah."
The Novaks propose a reason why Washington---whom we know was a very private man and conscious of his great influence:
Still, on many occasions, when asked directly, he avoided saying publicly that he was a Christian, or of which confession — perhaps determined not to let his private life become a political weapon.
For Washington, religion wasn't that kind of party.
Jefferson did, like GW, become a vestryman which involved saying the same oaths.
There is a letter wrote on why he wouldn't become a GodFather and he explicitly told how the Trinity drove him nuts. I don't see GW as "Trinitarian," but he seemed not to care about it like Jefferson did.
On the Jews thing, this is what TJ told not just the Jews, but the whole country:
"I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life...."
And both TJ and GW called God "The Great Spirit" when speaking to the Natives. They held the same be all things to all people approach.
Sounds like what a lot of politicians do today; but we need to keep in mind they DIDN'T do it before the FFs day. The FFs, as American Presidents without an official Church, invented this approach.
Small u unitarian universalist Nation.
Since both Jefferson and Washington explicitly attach the God of the Jews to the God of the Founding, "Judeo-Christian" is not only more clear, but more accurate, since a belief in universalism was by no means universal.
"The Great Spirit" is a foggy argument at best since some native Americans were pantheistic. The God of the Jews is quite specific.
Washington, Jefferson and Madison all three repeatedly termed God "The Great Spirit" enough times together that it can't be brushed away.
And Adams, we know from his private letters that he was as extreme as any of them in that regard finding Providential "Christian principles," in Hindooism and Zeus worship.
The God who led the Israelites out of Egypt is a lot more concrete than these other conjectures.
The problem is when the FFs used the term they could take a concrete God and "find" him elsewhere like in Islam and uncoverted Native Americanism. The "God" that all good people worshipped whatever name they called him.
The readers can decide. I don't think the same weight should be given to John Adams' idiotic post-presidential musings on Hindoos as Washington's letter to the Jews of Savannah.
I was unaware of the Jefferson quote. This is the closest I've ever seen him come to acknowledging any truth in the Bible besides merely philosophical.
"I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life...."
If DG Hart's hassle with Lillback weren't intrasectarian, theological and partisan, I'd say he should give it strong consideration. Clearly, even Jefferson was tempted by the widespread American belief in being an [almost] chosen people.
It's from Jefferson's 2nd inaugural address.
I find the theologico-political posturings much more informative than their private beliefs.
Since this is so out of place with the rest of his extensive canon, I meself wouldn't grab this single quote as "proof" Jefferson believed God led the Israelites out of Egypt. But I would argue that he thought the vast majority of his audience [Congress?] did.
I would lean toward believing Washington believed it when he wrote it to the Jews, however, since it seems harmonious with the rest of his [admittedly less extensive] canon.
One can take speculation and inconclusive evidence only so far: Although I have yet to see him quoted directly, if Lilliback claims Washington for orthodoxy, that's opinion, not fact. The same is true however for claiming Washington the other way, theistic rationalist or whathaveyou.
But again, the most important thing is that Washington took his oath of office on the Bible; whether he believed in it or not is a secondary, indeed academic, discussion.
"I meself wouldn't grab this single quote as "proof" Jefferson believed God led the Israelites out of Egypt."
As I understand Gregg, Robert Kraynak and others, the "Whigs" really did believe in this aspect of the God of Israel, but it was just one component of the synthesis. Ultimately they distorted what the God of Israel was all about.
God led the Israelites out of Egypt not for the purpose of republican like political liberty (what Jefferson, Washington, Samuel Langdon all believed), but rather for the purpose of burdening them with the very politically UNFREE law of Moses that regulated every aspect of their personal and political lives. In this respect spiritual liberty from sin is the antithesis of republican political liberty. It was a radical rewriting of the biblical record that connected Jefferson, Washington et al. with the patriotic preachers.
God led the Israelites out of Egypt not for the purpose of republican like political liberty (what Jefferson, Washington, Samuel Langdon all believed), but rather for the purpose of burdening them with the very politically UNFREE law of Moses that regulated every aspect of their personal and political lives.
You're kidding, right?
Back this up, pls, with anything from the original sources, without Kraynak or Frazer directly, since their theologies are inextricable from their telling of history.
That the Exodus was seen by the Founding era as not a liberation from the Pharaoh's bondage, but as an entry into an even worse theocratic bondage, is news to me. I've never seen a tickle of that view in the Founding-era literature.
Langdon sounds completely like the Religious Right or at least Calvin Coolidge:
http://www.belcherfoundation.org/moral_law.htm
And now, my fellow Citizens, and much honored Fathers of the State, you may be ready to ask --- "To what purpose is this long detail of antiquated history on this public occasion?" --- I answer --- Examples are better than precepts; and history is the best instructor both in polity and morals. --- I have presented you with the portrait of a nation, highly favoured by Heaven with civil and religious institutions, who yet, by not improving their advantages, forfeited their blessings, and brought contempt and destruction on themselves. [Israel, sent into the Babylonian Captivity, if not their destruction by Rome c. 70CE---TVD]
If I am not mistaken, instead of the twelve tribes of Israel, we may substitute the thirteen States of the American union, and see this application plainly offering itself, viz. --- That as God in the course of his kind providence hath given you an excellent constitution of government, founded on the most rational, equitable, and liberal principles, by which all that liberty is secured which a people can reasonably claim, and you are impowered to make righteous laws for promoting public order and good morals; and as he has moreover given you by his Son Jesus Christ, who is far superior to Moses, a complete revelation of his will, and a perfect system of true religion, plainly delivered in the sacred writings; it will be your wisdom in the eyes of the nations, and your true interest and happiness, to conform your practice in the strictest manner to the excellent principles of your government, adhere faithfully to the doctrines and commands of the gospel, and practice every public and private virtue. By this you will increase in numbers, wealth, and power, and obtain reputation and dignity among the nations; whereas, the contrary conduct will make you poor, distressed, and contemptible.
...
Will you hear me patiently a little farther, while I say one thing more of very great importance, which I dare not suppress. I call upon you to preserve the knowledge of God in the land, and attend to the revelation written to us from heaven. If you neglect or renounce that religion taught and commanded us in the holy scriptures, think no more of freedom, peace, and happiness; the judgments of heaven will persue you. Religion is not a vain thing for you because it is your life: it has been the glory and defence of New England from the infancy of the settlements; let it be also our glory and protection. I mean no other religion than what is divinely prescribed, which God himself has delivered to us with equal evidence of his authority, and even superior to that given to Israel, and which he has as strictly commanded us to receive and observe. The holy scriptures are given as the only rule of our faith, worship and obedience, and if we are guided by this perfect rule, we shall keep the way of truth and righteousness, and obtain the heavenly glory."
"That the Exodus was seen by the Founding era as not a liberation from the Pharaoh's bondage, but as an entry into an even worse theocratic bondage, is news to me."
That's the proper "orthodox" pre-Whig understanding of the Exodus narrative is what Frazer/Kraynak argue. The Tory ministers of the time argued something similar.
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.
Jon, can you put this all into words that the Founders believed, or makes sense to anyone outside the Kraynak/Frazer ultra-orthodoxy [and their secularist exploiters]?
I'm familiar with Kraynak. Lord knows we, this blog is and am and are familiar with Dr. Gregg Frazer, PhD. Lord knows this blog is familiar with fundamentalist---Bible only---arguments.
"Christianity" is not just the Bible except to a minority of Christians. "XChristian thought" encompasses not only the Bible, and Augustine, and Aquinas, and Suarez and Grotius and the great minds of Reformed ["Calvinist"] Theology like Beza, Mornay and Ponnet, but Plato and Aristotle and Cicero too. Locke, Algernon Sidney, OK, they're up for grabs. Hobbes too, Whig and Straussian Theory and all that.
Still, can you make your argument without Jefferson and/or Kraynak/Frazer?
I explicitly asked
Back this up, pls, with anything from the original sources, without Kraynak or Frazer directly, since their theologies are inextricable from their telling of history.
If it's a good argument, then it should be all across the Founding literature and easy to prove in one's own words based on the Founding literature. We don't do history by polemic, history by surrogate, history by dueling scholars around here.
We're like the amateur astronomers who still discover comets by looking carefully at the sky through our little binoculars.
Shoemaker-Levy, baby. David Levy, watching the heavens closely, found the comet with binoculars. He just knew what to look for.
http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9/
We catch what the professional academics are too busy and intensely focused to catch. That's our job on our little blog here, our contribution to history. Scholars come to American Creation to see what we citizen-historians, with our tiny binoculars see, because binoculars see more of the whole sky than the greatest telescopes. A comet could wizz by them and they'd never see it because their focus is too small and too tight. The wisest and must truthful among them know this.
______________
America saw the Exodus as God delivering Israel into liberty out of slavery. Whether they believed it literally [and I doubt Jefferson did], this is how they saw themselves in that story/myth/fact.
[Where did Samuel Langdon come from? He argues the Religious Right POV better than Falwell ever did.]
[Grouping
(what Jefferson, Washington, Samuel Langdon all believed)
is something I'd never even attempt. Nothing I've ever seen attempted. In fact, if Barton or Beck tried it, I'd go, dude. Duuuuude. Duuuuuuuuuuude, with about five syllables, du-hooo-hooo-ooo-d. Like the mating call of the theocatic loon.
Du-hooo-hooo-ooo-d.
Y'know, in that Keanu Reeves way when somebody's on a really junky riff. In the very least, Langdon sounds like Calvin Coolidge.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/07/cool-cal-coolidge-on-declaration.html
WOW! I am very flattered! Interesting article. I didn't get time to read much of it but plan to once I get off work.
Jon writes:
Jefferson did, like GW, become a vestryman which involved saying the same oaths.
This is an issue that I have often wondered about. To be honest, I wonder how much of this has to do with social graces (doing what is expected of a gentleman) and how much was an honest belief in that particular creed. Impossible to really know for sure I guess.
Brad---Washington standing as godfather in Christian baptisms and Jefferson declining the "honor" might help to dissipate the fog here.
But you are an "historian," according to DG Hart. Congrats!
Tom wrote, But again, the most important thing is that Washington took his oath of office on the Bible; whether he believed in it or not is a secondary, indeed academic, discussion.
The Bible on which Washington took his oath of office was the 1767 British published KJV of the Bible with a portrait of King George II on the first page. That doesn't imply that George Washington was a British loyalist or that he endorsed the divine right of kings. It does appear, however, that Washington was conforming to the NYS imposed usual and customary mode of taking an oath with one's hand on the Bible and kissing it upon completion. Afterwards, during GW's second inauguration, when New York legislation was not a factor, the bible-oath routine was dropped. So, I really don't see how Washington's taking his first oath of office on a Bible establishes Washington's polymorphic view of Providence as being primarily based upon the biblical god.
Kraynak, Frazer, Zuckert all group GW, Jefferson and Langdon together as peddling the theistic rationalist Whig view of the Bible.
I think Langdon was an orthodox Christian, but the idea that the Ancient Israelites had a "republic" is not authentically biblical, but Enlightenment and in fact exactly what the French Revolutionary "Christians" argued.
The religious right may try to sell the idea. But they are arguably peddling neo-Jacobinism when they argue this.
"Back this up, pls, with anything from the original sources, without Kraynak or Frazer directly, since their theologies are inextricable from their telling of history."
I don't quite understand what you are asking for exactly.
But if you want folks who argue, no the Bible didn't teach a republic and that the concept of political liberty is alien to the Bible, I'd turn to folks like Jonathan Boucher who did note this.
Tom,
We've been thru this before. You've noted the FFs could quote ideas w/o being aware where they are coming from. Arguably the patriotic "republican" sermons come from Rousseau.
Founding Era Republican Enlightenment Clergy & Theology, Part III
This post focuses on the notion oft-repeated in Founding era political pulpits that the Ancient Israelites had a "republic." The Biblical record does not teach this. Such a notion is wholly a product of Enlightenment rationalism, not of historic orthodox biblical Christianity. And that's because the concept of liberal democratic theory-republicanism is chiefly a product of Enlightenment (not the Bible). Liberal democratic theory-republicanism holds universal rights are discovered through reason. It wasn't just the deists, but also unitarians and orthodox Christians who embraced this. As such, if the Bible is true (which many of them believe it was) its truth had to conform to liberal democratic theory-republicanism. Hence a major rewriting of the Bible took place in the political pulpits of the Founding era. In fact, I would argue the embracing of Locke's state of nature theory, combined with excessively using natural law reasoning and arguing the Ancient Israelites had a "republic" were all part of an ideological movement that terminated in the French Revolution. Indeed, as I have shown in pasts posts, many of these ministers and theologians believed the French Revolution would user in a millenial republic of liberty, equality and fraternity that fully vindicated the universal rights of man.
[continued]
And with that, let us turn to Samuel Langdon's "The Republic of the Israelites an Example to the United States." (Langdon was the President of Harvard from 1774-80.) I am going to bold everything that is not biblical in Langdon's revisionist sermon.
As to every thing excellent in their constitution of government, except what was peculiar to them as a nation separated to God from the rest of mankind, the Israelites may be considered as a pattern to the world in all ages; and from them we may learn what will exalt our character, and what will depress and bring us to ruin.
Let us therefore look over their constitution and laws, enquire into their practice, and observe how their prosperity and fame depended on their strict observance of the divine commands both as to their government and religion.
They had both a civil and military establishment under divine direction, and a complete body of judicial laws drawn up and delivered to them by Moses in God’s name. They had also a form of religious worship, by the same authority, minutely prescribed, designed to preserve among them the knowledge of the great Creator of the Universe, and teach them to love and serve him; while idolatry prevailed through the rest of the world: and this religion contained not only a public ritual, but a perfect, though very concise, system of morals, comprehended in ten commands, which require the perfection of godliness, benevolence, and rectitude of conduct.
[...]
But the great thing wanting was a permanent constitution, which might keep the people peaceable and obedient while in the desert, and after they had gained possession of the promised land. Therefore, upon the complaint of Moses that the burden of government was too heavy for him, God commanded him to bring seventy men, chosen from among the elders and officers, and present them at the tabernacle; and there he endued them with the same spirit which was in Moses, that they might bear the burden with him. Thus a senate was evidently constituted, as necessary for the future government of the nation, under a chief commander. And as to the choice of this senate, doubtless the people were consulted, who appear to have had a voice in all public affairs from time to time, the whole congregation being called together on all important occasions: the government therefore was a proper republic.
And beside this general establishment, every tribe had elders and a prince according to the patriarchal order, with which Moses did not interfere; and these had an acknowledged right to meet and consult together, and with the consent of the congregation do whatever was necessary to preserve good order, and promote the common interest of the tribe. So that the government of each tribe was very similar to the general government. There was a president and senate at the head of each, and the people assembled and gave their voice in all great matters: for in those ages the people in all republics were entirely unacquainted with the way of appointing delegates to act for them, which is a very excellent modern improvement in the management of republics.
Moreover, to compleat the establishment of civil government, courts were to be appointed in every walled city, after their settlement in Canaan, and elders most distinguished for wisdom and integrity were to be made judges, ready always to sit and decide the common controversies within their respective jurisdictions. The people had a right likewise to appoint such other officers as they might think necessary for the more effectual execution of justice....
But from these courts an appeal was allowed in weighty causes to higher courts appointed over the whole tribe, and in very great and difficult cases to the supreme authority of the general senate and chief magistrate.
A government, thus settled on republican principles, required laws; without which it must have degenerated immediately into aristocracy, or absolute monarchy. But God did not leave a people, wholly unskilled in legislation, to make laws for themselves: he took this important matter wholly into his own hands, and beside the moral laws if the two tables, which directed their conduct as individuals, gave them by Moses a complete code of judicial laws.
Langdon's injecting words and concepts into the biblical record reminds me of Elizabeth Clare Prophet, a cult leader I used to watch for fun, who mixed all world religions into a New Age synthesis with ultra right wing politics. As someone who believed in the Truth of both Hinduism and Christianity, Ms. Prophet said Jesus said in John 8:7 "Let he who is without KARMA cast the first stone." Langdon does something similar with the Ancient Israelites and republicanism.
As Dr. Gregg Frazer reacts:
The sermons seem to depict God's role as something similar to Rousseau's legislator; He disinterestedly established the foundational law for the benefit of society, but did not live under it. In their version and consistent with democratic theory, God established it all [quoting Langdon's sermon] "for their happiness" rather than to achieve the fulfillment of a sovereignty determined plan. By their account, God submitted the laws to the people for their approval and acceptance (as per Rousseau's legislator).
-- Frazer, PhD thesis, pp. 393-94.
As for the actual politics of the Ancient Israelites, Dr. Frazer notes:
First, as [Robert] 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.
-- Ibid, pp. 18-19, quoting Robert Kraynak, "Christian Faith and Modern Democracy," pp. 46-49.
Jon stated:
"In this respect spiritual liberty from sin is the antithesis of republican political liberty"
This argument is absurd. It starts with sotierlogical assumption and then goes backwards to try to prove it. What needs to happen is to start with the simple concept of imago dei and the value of man being the workmanship of God and then work outward from there.
Many did including Locke and Aquinas.
It is when you take the sola scriptura view and nullify natural law that you have to fish for Israel being a republic. Which is not a totally absurd argument by the way. Moses allowed them to pick their judges remember.
I would take issue with the convenant not being volutary. He most certainly asked them. I would also make the argument that God gave them to chance to deal directly with him at the mountain but they were afraid and chose the law.
As we see later when Jesus tells the woman in adultery to go and sin no more and tells the others to cast the first stone going to God(or his representative or whatever for teh unitarians and socinians) is the best route by because he remembers "mercy in judgement".
It gets back to their theology determining their history. If we open up the years of this study we see that none of this was new and that almost all these ideas were part of the Christian debate.
You minimize that all the time Jon. I think either you or Frazer has to answer my objection to the narrow scope of the years of his study. His whole theis dies when we open up the years. So does a lot of your own arguments based on his and others like him work.
"But if you want folks who argue, no the Bible didn't teach a republic and that the concept of political liberty is alien to the Bible"
You conflate the two needlessly as I think I have proven time and time again. This is my greatest objection to your work. Honestly Jon it does great harm because people like Ed Brayton pick up on it and use it too.
Neither one of you understand the Bible well enough(you much better than he) to know if the arguments these guys make are crap or not. At very least present the other side and stop making it look like it is an open and shut case on the political rights thing.
If you start with Exodus 34:5-7 then work your way to Genesis 1 and imago dei and then read the "spirit" of the law not the "letter" in the Torah and how Jesus applied that same concept in the Sermon on the Mount when correcting the legalists that were more concerned with letter than spirit it refutes them handily.
The Bible never says the word Trinity but you can make a hell of a case for at least some form of it. YOu can make a hell of a case against it too. I think the truth is probably some where in between socinian and trinitarian and they are really not that far apart as most people think.
It is certainly not a cut and dried case as some make it out to be. Not enough to codemn someone to hell over it either way. It is the same with the political rights argument.
Orthodox Samuel Adams certainly disagrees with Frazer and company. Why do they get to claim orthodoxy for themselves?
This post focuses on the notion oft-repeated in Founding era political pulpits that the Ancient Israelites had a "republic."
I was unaware of this history of the pulpit. I've seen this theme (Hebrew republic as a model for ours) at the Wall Builders site and in Dreisbach's report on the Texas standards and thought it was a new ploy.
In Biblical scholarship Deuteronomy is discussed in the context of ancient covenants (Assyrian covenant forms/Hittite vassal treaties):
"If Deuteronomy, whose basic outline or literary structure is famously similar to Assyrian treaty forms (and not just the newly-unearthed one, as Mike points out), really was written sometime during the first eighteen years of King Josiah’s reign—a claim one can defend on purely inner-biblical grounds, without reference to Assyrian treaty forms—then the use of the suzerain-vassal (or overlord-underling) treaty form to express convictions about God’s covenant with Israel may have been a deliberate decision, a rhetorical strategy with significant political and theological ramifications.
From the comments, regarding the product description for Inventing God’s Law by David P. Wright (Oxford, 2009):
"The Covenant Code, too, is an ideological work, which transformed a paradigmatic and prestigious legal text of Israel’s and Judah’s imperial overlords into a statement symbolically countering foreign hegemony."
However, the Judeans/Israelites used these codified laws, it's clear that their "republican" system was more a theocracy/kingdom than a representative democracy. And legal/political and theological powers were vested in rigidly defined priestly/king/judge classes. It's hard to see a mechanism that would allow for a lowly and rebellious carpenter from Nazareth to be elected to office to represent his fellow citizens concerns - a very limited franchise.
Here's an interesting article on Law and Covenant in the ancient Near East [Mendenhall, THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST. Vol. XVII No. 2 (May, 1954) pp. 26-44 and No. 3 (September, 1954), pp. 49-76].
And here's a commentary article on Mendenhall's paper (Lucas 1982, Covenant, Treaty and Prophecy).
Interesting stuff.
I think Langdon was an orthodox Christian, but the idea is not authentically biblical, but Enlightenment and in fact exactly what the French Revolutionary "Christians" argued.
The religious right may try to sell the idea [that the Ancient Israelites had a "republic."]
Yes, I've seen them try, and have argued against them meself.
I apologize for misreading your statement
God led the Israelites out of Egypt not for the purpose of republican like political liberty (what Jefferson, Washington, Samuel Langdon all believed), but rather for the purpose of burdening them with the very politically UNFREE law of Moses that regulated every aspect of their personal and political lives.
You're saying the Founders believed the Exodus represented liberty. Sorry.
However, whatever it is Kraynak and Frazer are arguing, it's theology, and not what the Founders believed, which makes its relevance questionable.
I'm sure some in the Founding era argued for some sort of covenantal theocracy, but as we saw, that idea was melting down since the Puritan days, since it clearly didn't work.
Indeed, I'm waiting for the rest of Mark David Hall's paper, to see how he deals with the fact that this [Putitan?] conception of government was DOA at the Founding.
Jrb stated:
"However, the Judeans/Israelites used these codified laws, it's clear that their "republican" system was more a theocracy/kingdom than a representative democracy. And legal/political and theological powers were vested in rigidly defined priestly/king/judge classes"
There is a huge difference between Moses allowing the people to choose judges/elders and a theocracy. It is very clear that God was not pleased when they chose a king and warned them of what tyranny would occur.
I would also add that the worst thing a King could do was execute a priestly duty. Leprosy, death, dethronement resulted every time. I think this does forshadow, in seed form, the biblical case that God favors a seperation of church and state.(To what degree we can argue on)
I wrote a book, much of which I need to rewrite since I have thrown out about 30 percent of my theology since then, where I went through and talked about the difference between a judge and a king. It was about church government not civil but a lot of it applies as we see in Hooker.
I would like to read more about the Assyrian Covenant thing for sure. Despite what you think of me and our back and forth on "unique" Christian ideas, I fully understand that the Hebrews borrowed many things, and rightly so, from the culture around them.
I am not one to label things "pagan" and "holy" for sure. But there are times to do so as well if it is unique. But we have discussed that at nauseum.
By the way JRB,
While I obviously think you can argue a republic from the Hebrews in theory I think the way that Barton and the Providence Foundation crowd go about it is horrible and unconvincing.
I remember reading the book Liberating the Nations from PF and seeing all the holes in their case even when I was an Evangelical that thought more like them. Bad job and an embarassment in many regards.
I am more interested in Aquinas' view on the various kinds of law and how he dealt with parts of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. I have been waiting to do some posts on him for a while but wanted to start with the right angle.
I think I might start with the "political rights" from the Bible thing rather than republic. I think the latter muddies the waters.
From JRB's link:
"I can well imagine a group of Judean priest-scribes living in the third quarter of the seventh century BCE deliberately choosing to turn a literary instrument of empire against the empire"
Never heard of this but sounds reasonable and likely to me. Good stuff JRB.
The first link to the article did not work and the response is hard to follow without it. Interesting though.
KOI,
I wasn't trying to to use theocracy as a pejorative term but as descriptive. Here's a definition from Wiki that is in line with my use:
"Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state's supreme civil ruler,[1] or in a higher sense, a form of government in which a state is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.[2] In Common Greek, "theocracy" means a rule [kra′tos] by God [the.os′]. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e., a church), replacing or dominating civil government.[3] Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws.
"Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held 'By the Grace of God'.
"A theocracy may be monist in form, where the administrative hierarchy of the government is identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two 'arms,' but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy."
Maybe the actual situation on the ground at the time ranged from more secular rule (kingly) to more religiously devout/inspired rule (judge/priest), I don't know. But in holding up the Hebrew republic idea as a model for our republican form of government, the advocates lean heavily in the God/Yahweh as suzerain - ultimate authority - direction. In the Biblical system wouldn't this give the ultimate worldly authority to those defining what the word of God was - ultimately the priestly class? I'm really asking.
Also, what was the mechanism for election to judge or priest? Could anybody stand for either office? My understanding is the position of priest was limited by genealogy (Aaron, Levi, etc). My understanding is that the judges/elders were appointed. I realize that this varied over time.
Regardless of the question of general Jewish/Christian influence on the founding, I don't see the Hebrew republic model holding up especially given the the dissimilarities as well as contemporaneous, clearly-written lines of evidence for Greco/Roman influence, including separation of powers, from the founding.
There are only so many ways to organize for governance and similarities will exist. But the least tortured path is likely the best.
I think that the Mendenhall paper link might have been off so here it is again.
On a side note, and one that got me thinking about AC discussions, I came across this in Philip Jenkins', Jesus Wars:
"Orthodoxy is my doxy, heterodoxy is another man's doxy" - attributed to English Bishop William Warburton.
"God is not bound by the covenant and keeps His promises solely out of His own divine self-limitation.”
Here we have it: Ultra Calvinsism that is pushed off as "Orthodox". You think Barton is trying to downplay things to sneak his crap in there Frazer is the master at this. This is CALVINISM. Hyper Calvinism at that.
The version that was tempered by reason, natural law, and a more favorable view of man and his capacities(probably learned from the former two) was more in line with the Patriots. It was the Tory's that argued this other crap.
And from a theological point of view it is just that: Crap.
If God asks man to come into a Covenant and he himself has no obligation to be bound by it then he is a hypocrite. Logic tells me this and then I go to the Bible and find support. But then I guess I am using reason to come up with what I "like" and ignoring the Calvinist "revelation".
I would prove it all crap but then I would be charge with making this blog theological. But it already is the thing is it is only Frazer's theology we discuss.
Strict Calvinists are the ones that invented something new, sola scriptura and resurrected something old that should have stayed dead, total depravity of man not the supposed theistic rationalists. They sound a lot more like Hooker and Aquinas with possibly a few new wrinkles.
Opening up the tent with words like "Orthodox" and then craming Calvinism down people's throats is no different then opening up the tent with "Christian" and then craming Republican party evagelicalism down everyone's throats.
Now, in Gregg's defense, the whole Trinitarianism and Atonement riff is built around what all the "orthodox" sects believed, not just Calvinism, which puts unitarianism outside the tent.
The "reason trumps revelation" riff is what troubles me more, since Protestantism opens the door to each man reading the Bible for himself. That Trinitarianism and the Atonement came under scrutiny as leftovers from Roman Catholic doctrine is no surprise. Indeed, Michael Servetus promptly got at it in the 1500s in the first or second generation of Protestantism, which did not surprise Philipp Melanchthon, the Lutheran reformer, who said he was afraid of that [inevitable] complication.
______________
The Puritan period has never been of much interest to me, so I don't have the dates right. But my understanding was that their governments were seen as covenants with God, yet clergy were banned from office. If I haven't screwed this up, this speaks to the very interesting discussion of theocracy King and JRB have stirred up.
Heheh. Going through an old piece,
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/04/thomas-paines-common-sense-as-heard-by.html
an almost line-by-line examination of Paine's Common Sense, this jumped out:
"Near three thousand years passed away, from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king. Till then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of Republic, administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts."
Now, it might be bad Bible, and it might be faulty theology, but the theistic rationalist Paine wrote it, and the colonists bought it.
In the Biblical system wouldn't this give the ultimate worldly authority to those defining what the word of God was - ultimately the priestly class? I'm really asking.
Also, what was the mechanism for election to judge or priest? Could anybody stand for either office? My understanding is the position of priest was limited by genealogy (Aaron, Levi, etc). My understanding is that the judges/elders were appointed. I realize that this varied over time."
The original elders that Moses appointed were elected or chosen. The priestly class had to live off the tithe so as to be accountable to the people so I do not think they were in charge. Moses clearly was over Levi.
With that stated, things did get perverted over time. But I think you can make a valid case that God's original plan had consent in mind. Jon links to a "libertarian Christian" site in his latest post at the new Positive Liberty that goes into a lot of this.
"Now, in Gregg's defense, the whole Trinitarianism and Atonement riff is built around what all the "orthodox" sects believed, not just Calvinism, which puts unitarianism outside the tent."
I guess my issue is more with Jon using almost exclusively Calvinist and labeling it "orthodox". It is misleading. I do not think he does it on purpose though.
I think the thing to really study here is how "orthodox" the political theology was at the time of the founding. That is what is relevant.
I guess my issue is more with Jon using almost exclusively Calvinist and labeling it "orthodox". It is misleading. I do not think he does it on purpose though.
Well, let's disagree then. I think Dr. Gregg Frazer is clean on this point, and I think he's sincere per his theology. In Gregg's view, and Founding-era clergymen, you can't be a Christian without believing Jesus is God and died for our sins. More secular types like Jon and people like Mr. Brayton approve his thesis, but not for the same reasons as Gregg's.
King,
Do you need to see Gregg's LCD chart for late 18th Cen. "Christianity?"
George Marden on J. Gresham Machen vs. Harry Emerson Fosdick in the 1920s.
Once again it's the fundamentalists vs. the liberals. Same ol', same ol'.
The only way we can make the "liberals" into "non-Christians" is to accept the fundamentalist point of view.
This might be "true" theology but it's theology, not history. Socio-historically speaking, to call Fosdick "not Christian" is absurd.
"Do you need to see Gregg's LCD chart for late 18th Cen. "Christianity?"
I would love to look at it. But that is not my point. He puts this out there, or maybe you do it is hard to remember who said what at times, and then argues Calvinism.
The part I quoted was pure Calvinism and many non Calvinists that are evangelical and most certainly orthodox would disagree with him.
You quote his view as the "orthodox" view but it is really the Calvinist view.
I am talking about the part about God not being bound to His own covenant that is.
This is the quote I was referring to:
""God is not bound by the covenant and keeps His promises solely out of His own divine self-limitation.”
Here is your quote about Frazer and Kraymick:
"That's the proper "orthodox" pre-Whig understanding of the Exodus narrative is what Frazer/Kraynak argue. The Tory ministers of the time argued something similar."
If Frazer is doing this then he is breaking his own rules and interjecting Calvinism here. This is also not sotierlogical which opens up the door to a discussion of what political thought is "orthodox". I would say we need to broaden the years of his chart to get to the right answer.
King,
Gregg argues it was more than just Calvinism, but the view that PREVAILED in orthodox Christianity. Quoting Steven Dworetz:
Basing a revolutionary teaching on the scriptural authority of chapter 13 of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans must rank as one of the greatest ironies in the history of political thought. This passage, proclaimed by George Sabine as "the most influential political pronouncement in the New Testament," served as the touchstone for passive obedience and unconditional submission from Augustine and Gregory to Luther and Calvin. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God: The powers that be are ordained of God. Whoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil...For he is the minister of God to thee for good...."
The medieval church fathers as well as the reformers and counter-reformers of the sixteenth century all invoked this doctrine in denouncing disobedience and resistance to civil authorities. To them it seemed absolutely unequivocal. If civil rulers, as such, "are ordained of God," then resistance is in all cases a sin and, indeed, as Luther put it, "a greater sin than murder, unchastity, theft, and dishonesty, and all that these may include." In sum, Romans 13 easily earned its reputation in the history of political thought as the "locus classicus of passive-obedience theory."
I know there are some pre-Enlightenment sources of resistance. And MDH shows that the reformers, contra Calvin, inspired a lot of this. But, at least as far as I understand, the pro-resistance stuff was dissonant, arguably heretical (like Arianism) within Christendom until post-Calvin.
The Calvinist "resisters" were just that -- dissidents. Eventually the dissident view prevailed.
"Gregg argues it was more than just Calvinism, but the view that PREVAILED in orthodox Christianity."
Not in America. Also I guess Aquinas was a dissident by Frazer's logic then.
Jon,
Take a step back for a while and try and think about what I am trying to get you to see about being in the middle of an internal dispute within modern Evangelicalism. One group wants to affect the culture(which I am all for just not the way they want to do it) and the other group thinks it is a distraction from running around telling people they are going to hell.
I used to participate in the latter and no longer will. It is being so heavenly minded that you are not earthly good.
Let the Barton's and Frazer's of the world battle it out themselves and focus more on what Dr. Hall is getting at. The soteriological thing is a red herring.
No we've studied Aquinas' views on the matter and he is at best for both sides inconclusive on the right to resistance.
The best view that PREVAILED (again prevailed doesn't mean find some dissident thinker like Arias who anticipated what came later) for your side was that an unjust law could be disobeyed because it was "not law" but that rulers, no matter how bad, didn't lose their Romans 13 status as rulers.
I think Aquinas would have supported that point of view.
King,
You need to step back and reflect on Dr. Dworetz's passage and think about a history of Christianity that is larger than America.
America was "founded" in the 18th Cen. and Dr. Dworetz focuses on a view that PREVAILED up until around the 16th Cen. and was endorsed by Calvin, Luther and counter reformers.
Something started happening around then that led America to follow a political theological point that was, at best, dissident and heretical for most of the history of Christianity. That's why I see parallels with theological unitarianism and the FFs view on revolt.
Jon stated:
"No we've studied Aquinas' views on the matter and he is at best for both sides inconclusive on the right to resistance."
How can that be when he stated this:
"St. Thomas: “If any society of people have a right of choosing a king, then the king so established can be deposed by them without injustice, or his power can be curbed, when by tyranny he abuses his regal power” (“De Rege et Regno,” Bk. I, c. 6). "
So was Aquinas dissident?
I am all for opening the discussion to a larger discussion of History beyond America. The trouble for you is that Frazer's thesis is dead on arrival if we do.
"Something started happening around then that led America to follow a political theological point that was, at best, dissident and heretical for most of the history of Christianity. That's why I see parallels with theological unitarianism and the FFs view on revolt.'
I am glad you pin your thoughts on unitarism on resistance theory being dissident. It makes it more clear that it is does not float in the face of the quote I produced for Aquinas.
If the Calvinist Resistance preachers were dissident so was Aquinas.
And none were unitarian.
I think the change Jon sees if natural being interjected back into Protestantism. It was nothing new.
I must be tired today. I make no sense. I should have said that the changes in theology Jon is refering to were in an injection of natural law into Protestantism.
Interesting essay that refutes a lot of what Kraynak says here:
http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/CSSR/Archival/Volume%20IX/Kraynak%20symposium--Hunt.pdf
I will probably do a post on it later.
Post a Comment