One interesting thing I've discovered in this many year long investigation of the American Founding and religion is the orthodox clergy were likely to make accusations of "Deism" to folks whom they suspected didn't meet their standard of orthodoxy. Usually the charge was false in the sense that the accused was not a "strict Deist" (one who 1. believed in a remote clock-maker God; 2. categorically rejected the possibility of revelation; and 3. self consciously rejected the "Christian" label). However most often the accused, indeed, didn't meet strict "orthodox" standards. To which the orthodox clergy responded "well then, this theological system is no better than Deism" or perhaps as
William Wilberforce noted, a "halfway house to infidelity."
I've noted
Founding Father William Livingston as a less than well known figure who fit this description. And indeed, he was so accused.
As Livingston himself wrote:
It is well known that some have represented me as an Atheist, others as a Deist, and a third sort as a Presbyterian. My creed will show that none have exactly hit it. For all which reasons, I shall cheerfully lay before you the articles of my faith. * * *
Livingston then
humorously details his "creed" which is really an anti-creed, rejecting, among other things, the concept of creedalism itself, orthodoxy, ecclesiastical authority, and (of course) sectarianism. All in the name of the Bible and "Christianity," of course.
13 comments:
I suspect I've beaten this to death already. but in case anyone missed it ... I don't think the view of *strict* deism, we are familiar with, was associated with the deism of the founding period.
My understanding is that early deism implied a lack of most sectarian doctrine. But did support that ...
* There is one Supreme God.
* He ought to be worshipped.
* Virtue and piety are the chief parts of divine worship.
* We ought to be sorry for our sins and repent of them
* Divine goodness doth dispense rewards and punishments both in this life and after it.
,
Of course, Deism.
.
It has to be measured in contrast to the religiosity of those who used the word as an ad hominem to diss others. Which is to say, "What was there about orthodoxy that made it so superior to Deism?**
.
** Could the answers be in these questions:
Do Deists generally HAVE an opinion of what it means to be a Christian? And, does orthodoxy have a competing opinion of what it means to be a Christian? So, does Deism qualify one to be a non-Christian?
.
And, where did I recently read that history must also be understood according to our perspective here in the present as well as the perspectives held in times past?
.
Critical Theory?
.
What 18th century writers claimed Deism? It seems to be an accusation aimed at other far more often than a label adopted by the one using it. Same with atheist.
I have come across references to 1st century (or maybe 2nd century) Christians as atheists. After all, they denied the reality of the gods (with a single, intangible, exception). More important, they refused to sacrifice to the gods.
.
Two points here.
.
1.) More than merely discussing Deist or Deism in the sense of its meaning, it is necessary to discuss how it came to develop its meaning.
.
and
.
2.) More approaches should be made in discussion than just the historical.
.
Thomas Paine claimed Deism. I think E. Palmer and E. Allen did as well. I'm less familiar with their writings.
.
The questions remain, "What did Thomas Paine or any of the others including Charles Chauncey think about Jesus?" And, "How did those ideas come into being?" We all know orthodoxy claimed (continues to claim) some divine authority here by just naming itself the pantheon of Christianity.
.
Deism does have a structure to it. We all tend to throw words around; but, that doesn't take care of the problem.
.
"What did Thomas Paine or any of the others including Charles Chauncey think about Jesus?"
I think this gets to it. Definitely Paine rejected the Bible as divine revelation, and Jesus on any explicitly divine mission. IMO, so did Jefferson, who saw him no more than a great [perhaps the greatest] moral teacher.
But when anyone refers to Jesus as Our Saviour [as the unitarians did], or the Bible as Divine Writ, I think you've crossed a bridge to some variant of Christianity.
.
Paine rejected ... Jesus on any explicitly divine mission. IMO, so did Jefferson..."
To disqualify Jesus as being on a "divine mission" is common to a lot of people that profess to be Christian.
If Jefferson rejected the miracles, why did he think so highly of Jesus? That he taught nice things? I doubt that is what motivated T.J. to edit his own version of Scripture.
.
Perhaps the key is in what it means for Jesus to be considered a Savior?
.
Saves humans from spending eternity in hell's anguish or from condemnation and guilt laid on them from the judgement of the priesthood? Or something like that? There are records of what they wrote, right?
.
Perhaps the key is in what it means for Jesus to be considered a Savior?
I think so. "Savior" or "Messiah" is found in Locke, John Adams, and numerous others suspected of unorthodoxy [heterodoxy]. Jesus is unlike any other man, even if he is not divine.
One should poke through the various uses of the term to see what they meant.
Saves humans from spending eternity in hell's anguish or from condemnation and guilt laid on them from the judgement of the priesthood? Or something like that? There are records of what they wrote, right?
For some, not all. There's a lot of variation, whether Jesus dies for your sins, rose from the dead, or brings God's Word on how to live, or how to get to heaven, etc. Outside of orthodoxy, it's all over the map depending on who you read.
In other words, unorthodoxy isn't very orthodox.
;-)
I think we are back to debating semantics and labels here.
Over the three-year lifespan of American Creation I think that the biggest lesson I have learned is that everyone wants to assign a particular label to a particular founder/founding event. We crave this because it simplifies the issue. The problem, however, is that these words have very different meanings depending on who is using them (as Jon aptly points out with the "Deist" label being assigned recklessly).
Semantics and labels are interesting and they make for entertaining dinner party conversation, but they fall short of anything substantial. Were the founders "Christians?" "Deists?" Or something between? I know these arguments mean a great deal to a lot of people but I don't think they really mattered to the actual participants themselves. As Jon notes, Livingston essentially makes fun of creeds in his personal profession of faith. Jefferson certainly didn't seem to care what people thought. He considered himself to be a "true Christian" and that was good enough for him (though clearly a source of contention for everyone else). Washington never bothered to clarify his personal beliefs much (one can speculate as to why this is the case but the bottom line is he seemed content in his standing with "Providence").
Sure, people levied all kinds of accusations/labels at one another but it really didn't amount to much...sort of like today. I cannot tell you how many times I have been called a "heretic" or not a "true Christian" for being Mormon. And though it bothers me that some won't include me into the "club" that is "Christianity" I don't really care that much. I'm content in my faith, as are most "heathen" Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Deists, Theistic Rationalists, etc.
Bottom line: labels and semantics make us feel better by simplifying things but they don't really give us much clarity. Yes, some will insist upon adherance to a very ancient, rigid and narrow view of what it means to be "Christian" but I believe this is the exception and not the rule. Most "Orthodox" Christians aren't really orthodox at all.
.
Your statement, Bottom line: labels and semantics make us feel better by simplifying things but they don't really give us much clarity. Yes, some will insist upon adherence to a very ancient, rigid and narrow view of what it means to be "Christian" but I believe this is the exception and not the rule. Most "Orthodox" Christians aren't really orthodox at all., probably says it all.
Maybe Deism was an attempt to bring some clarity to the concept that had been been so discombobulated by denominationalism's many dogmas over the centuries?
.
I probably qualify as some kind of Deist.
.
My impression (that carries no weight of evidence) is that founding era Deists came to their religious positon with the intent of avoiding having religious authorities speak for them and/or their God.
I see some parallels with how Free Masonry operated.
.
This is an interesting link:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/deists.aspx
Post a Comment