There is a sense in which D'Souza is right. Yes, Christians from a variety of traditions can agree on much, and often work together in advancing the common good in a variety of causes both inside and outside their respective communities. And he is indeed correct that Christians, as well as other theists, should make a winsome and intelligent case against the philosophical materialism on which the most pernicious affects of secularism rely. D'Souza has made important contributions to advancing such a case, and even has been wisely circumspect in distancing himself, though respectfully, from those Christians who believe that intelligent design should play an integral role in the project of the Christian philosophy of nature. (My own pilgrimage on this matter may be found on the BioLogos website).
But there is a sense in which D'Souza is wrong. Although it is certainly true that the Apostle's Creed and Lewis' Mere Christianity reflect the barest one may believe in order to count as a "Christian," it does not follow that they are the basis by which one may define what counts as a "mere squabble." After all, if, let's say, a Unitarian were to tell D'Souza that he considers himself a Christian but cannot accept either the Creed or Lewis's "mere Christianity," D'Souza would say that the Unitarian is not a Christian based on the Creed/Lewis standard D'Souza embraces. But what if the Unitarian were to respond, "A lot of times, Christians spend a lot of time in intramural type debates and squabbles. Are you a Trinitarian or Unitarian; if you are a Unitarian, what type are: are you a humanist or theist; what position do you take on the resurrection of Christ?" Why is D'Souza's "mere Christianity" not just another position in a different squabble, at least according to the Unitarian?
The "Creed/Lewis" standard is something that evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Anglicans (like Lewis!) and capital O "Orthodox" agree forms a lowest common denominator of "mere Christianity." Anything that falls outside of that LCD (Jehovah's Witnessism, Mormonism, theological unitarianism) is not "Christian." There is a big gulf between that standard and "anything that calls itself Christian is Christian."
The American Founding, in a political theological sense, may be "Christian" according to the later, but not the former. Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin clearly rejected this kind of "mere Christianity" (most folks don't know Adams rejected "mere Christianity" more clearly than Franklin did) and Washington, Madison, G. Morris, and many others are not provably "mere Christians."
I found the President [James Madison] more free and open than I expected, starting subjects of conversation and making remarks that sometimes savored of humor and levity. He sometimes laughed, and I was glad to hear it ; but his face was always grave. He talked of religious sects and parties, and was curious to know how the cause of liberal Christianity stood with us, and if the Athanasian creed was well received by our Episcopalians. He pretty distinctly intimated to me his own regard for the Unitarian doctrines.— TICKNOR, GEORGE, 1815, Letter to his Father, Jan. 21 ; Life, Letters and Journals, vol. I, p. 30.
----------------------------------
That Washington was a professing Christian is evident from his regular attendance in our church; but, Sir, I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a channel of divine grace. This, Sir, is all that I think it proper to state on paper. In a conversation, more latitude being allowed, more light might, perhaps, be thrown upon it. I trust, however, Sir, you will not introduce my name in print.
I am, Sir,
Yrs.
James Abercrombie
15 comments:
but, Sir, I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a channel of divine grace.
Abercrombie is speaking of the Eucharist here of course. Using his standard, Baptists and dozens of other Protestant sects aren't "Christian" either!
That's the problem of letting the theology-minded into historical discussions. You must accept their theology to accept their reading of history.
It's amazing how quickly the "heresy" bit evaporates without the prolific Jefferson. Franklin was agnostic on doctrine, and there's no evidence except in his private post-presidential letters that John Adams was anything but orthodox in the public mind.
"For these reasons I have thought proper to recommend, and I do hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the 25th day of April next, be observed throughout the United States of America as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain as far as may be from their secular occupations, devote the time to the sacred duties of religion in public and in private; that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the Most High God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore His pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to His righteous requisitions in time to come..."---President John Adams' Thxgiving Proclamation, 1799
Most High God, Redeemer, and His Holy Spirit. Nobody could read that as anything but an endorsement of the Trinity, regardless of whatever private reservations JAdams may have had.
Abercrombie wasn't speaking of the "Eucharist" in a Roman Catholic sense, but rather the concept of communion, which (if I am not mistaken) most reformed Protestants of the evangelical bent, including the Baptists, hold to be a vital part of Christian worship. (Though not quite as important as the Roman Catholics view it).
Even if not "transubstantiation" it symbolically represents to almost all orthodox Protestants the atonement because of the verses and chapters of scripture where Jesus and his followers discuss the Lord's Supper.
I disagree that Franklin was merely "Agnostic" on doctrine. His letter to Ezra Stiles was purposefully put in "gentle" terms. He did sneak in Priestley talk in that very letter which indicates more than just agnosticism on original sin, trinity, incarnation, atonement, etc.
The Eucharist bit is strict Anglicanism. I looked it up in the Book of Common Prayer of that era once, that the minister should give a habitual noncommunicant the business. See also "fencing" the Lord's Table.
Abercrombie is coming strictly from the Anglican POV, which is not held by many or most other Protestant sects.
As for Franklin, I take him at his word that he hadn't given Jesus' divinity much study, and would find out soon enough with less trouble. [He died several months later].
Further, Franklin's disengagement with doctrine was well-known: he gave to the construction and support of the churches of all sects, and unlike Jefferson, was a friend to orthodoxy and nonorthodoxy alike. Even Glenn Beck explicitly acknowledges this. It simply wasn't a factor. Like Washington and Madison [and John Adams in his public life], he was a noncombatant in the sectarian culture wars.
As were most Americans outside the clergy.
"Abercrombie is coming strictly from the Anglican POV, which is not held by many or most other Protestant sects."
Even if that's true, what that proves is that GW could be a member of the Anglican Church yet fuzzy on doctrines in which Anglicans hold dear. I know you aren't one of those "GW was an orthodox Christian" types. But for those who are, they tend use Anglican doctrine as a "shortcut" in proving GW's orthodoxy (GW was a member of the Anglican Church; they believe X, therefore GW believed X). The way GW treated Anglican communion casts doubt on that approach.
"The American Founding, in a political theological sense, may be "Christian" according to the later, but not the former.
What does political theology have to do with any of this?
Here are your own words saying has nothing to do with it:
"""The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of Hierarchy, &c.
So whatever belief in unalienable rights depends upon, it does not depend upon believing in those things; it is not by virtue of belief in those things that our notions of unalienable human rights derive."
Could not have said it better myself.
True, but using Abercrombie is actually evidence against your and Frazer's argument: Washington doesn't take communion? Many Christians of other sects would say, so what? The Eucharist isn't a sacrament: that's something the papists made up.
It's not that I disagree with your facts [they are solid], but with the prominence you give them.
In fact---and I guess I'll have to mainpage this at some point---the Unitarian Controversy didn't turn into open theological war until the post-Founding period, say, 1800-1835.
Until then, the custom was for preachers to switch and share pulpits, so that preachers didn't have to write a new sermon every Sunday---they could just take last week's down the road and vice-versa.
In the Founding era, on the local church level, the Trinity was not a battlefield, it was neutral ground. No doubt the Trinitarians would downplay it at certain parishes; the unitarians could get by with Jesus as messiah and the truth of the Bible.
Trinitarians and unitarians shared the same pews and the same pulpits in the Founding era. The war would come later.
"but using Abercrombie is actually evidence against your and Frazer's argument: Washington doesn't take communion? Many Christians of other sects would say, so what? The Eucharist isn't a sacrament: that's something the papists made up."
I disagree that it is evidence against. There are not "many" orthodox Protestants who would say "so what" rather, I've come across only a few. Rather, the overwhelmimg majority of orthodox Protestants hold the act of the Lord's Supper, though not a sacrament, but a vitally important expression of belief in the Trinue God and his atonement.
I know both Gregg and OFT hold this view of the Lord's Supper.
Though I admit this is one of those strange dynamics where orthodox Protestants can disagree and start calling one another heretics and psuedo-Christian when they break ranks.
The Creed/Mere Christianity standard isn't so clear. "Mere Christianity" was a semi-biographical, apologetic, somewhat ideosyncratic work that had not been adopted by any Church that I am aware of. Using it as a standard raises the question "which bits of it are definitive?" Admittedly, it has been 30 years since I last read it.
Even the Apostles Creed is not an unambiguous standard. The Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches see their disagreements on the language of the Creed as crucial. Many Evangelicals have changed language (in the version I am familiar with "Catholic" to "Christian" and "Hell" to "Hades"). The mainline churches generally use the traditional English form but tend not to insist on literal belief in its assertions.
Even in its core beliefs, American Christianity is a great muddle. In that sense, we can claim the great muddle that was the "Founding theology."
The Creed/Mere Christianity standard isn't so clear. "Mere Christianity" was a semi-biographical, apologetic, somewhat ideosyncratic work that had not been adopted by any Church that I am aware of. Using it as a standard raises the question "which bits of it are definitive?" Admittedly, it has been 30 years since I last read it.
Even the Apostles Creed is not an unambiguous standard. The Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches see their disagreements on the language of the Creed as crucial. Many Evangelicals have changed language (in the version I am familiar with "Catholic" to "Christian" and "Hell" to "Hades"). The mainline churches generally use the traditional English form but tend not to insist on literal belief in its assertions.
Even in its core beliefs, American Christianity is a great muddle. In that sense, we can claim the great muddle that was the "Founding theology."
I agree it was a muddle. But what that muddle was is what we're trying to sort out. Surely it was a bit more that than it was that.
Otherwise, we might conclude it was all bullshit. We cannot be satisfied with saying it was all bullshit. It was something unique and exceptional.
This much we do know.
Tom,
I agree. But the Christian Faith, at the time of the founding or today, seems to defy definition. There is something there, a core, an orientation, a power, but it isn't going to be defined by belief except in some lowest common denominator fashion that satisfies no one and misses the essence.
I agree. But the Christian Faith, at the time of the founding or today, seems to defy definition. There is something there, a core, an orientation, a power, but it isn't going to be defined by belief except in some lowest common denominator fashion that satisfies no one and misses the essence.
Find the essence, that is our job. Something happened at the American Founding that was unique. Something in between the Glorious Revolution and the French Revolution, something apart from anything before or since.
This fact makes me believe that there was an American Exceptionalism, based on studying human history itself. No claims that Christianity is true, or that God even exists. That we leave up to Heaven. All we can speak about is man himself, his thoughts, his actions. In this way, I'm a rationalist meself.
It was muddled, but it wasn't a muddle. It was real. All the historian---or the philosopher---can do is try to describe reality accurately.
Tom Van Dyke is correct. Abercrombie's assessment is not persuasive evidence, nor is Washington's refusal to take Communion.
It WOULD be legit to say that George Washington's refusal to take Communion called into question his Anglicanism. It does not call into question his Christian faith.
The biblical standard for salvation is pretty simple and straightforward - John 3:16; Romans 10:9-10.
If someone could find evidence that showed Washington rejected Jesus' deity and/or Jesus' resurrection, THEN you'd be on firm grounds to say Washington was not a true Christian.
Post a Comment