Whether Locke was a "Christians" depends on how that term defines. If it means Jesus was 2nd Person in the Trinity and the Bible is inerrant or infallible, Locke was not provably Christian (and I doubt he was under this definition).
If it means Jesus was Messiah (regardless of whether he was 2nd Person in the Trinity) and the Bible is, in some sense, God speaking to man, then yes, John Locke was a "Christian."
Locke is important because if modern liberal democracy is to have any kind of Christian political theology, it is of the Lockean understanding. I have some controversial and modest ideas on modern liberal democratic political theology. The more controversial thesis is American political theology is "not Christian." The more modest is the notion that the "rational Christian" political theology of the American Founding is not only non-Trinitarian, but non-creedal. The Bible may be, in some sense, God speaking to man, and Jesus the Messiah, but the stuff of creeds (that Jesus is 2nd Person in the Trinity, the eternally begotten Son of the Father, while being God Himself, that "these" are the exact books of the biblical canon) is fluff.
You may think Jesus is the 2nd Person in the Trinity because the Bible says so. And you are entitled to your "opinion." But "rational Christian" political theology consigns that notion to the realm of "opinion" not "knowledge." And "rational Christian" political theology traces to Locke.
Update. Here is Locke's exact quote where he denies Christ's satisfaction for sin:
If you will have the Truth of it, Sir, there is not any such Word in any one of the Epistles, or other Books of the New Testament, in my Bible, as Satisfying or Satisfaction made by our Saviour, and so I could not put it into my Christianity as delivered in the Scripture. If mine be not a true Bible, I desire you to furnish me with one that is more Orthodox; or if the Translators have bid that main Article of the Christian. Religion, they are the Betrayers of Christianity, and Condemners of the Epistles, who did not put it there; and not I, who did not take a Word from thence, which they did not put there. For truly, I am not a Maker of Creeds; nor dare add either to the Scripture, or to the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion.
19 comments:
.
I have not studied much of Locke; so, I cannot speak authoritatively to what he put out. But, I do know that he and others close to him in time were the early scholars of this "New Age" of modernity in which we find ourselves. Did he use a lot of the models for thinking out of antiquity? Or did he open new windows that had not previously existed in time?
.
I read a good article this morning on "conservatism' and tried to post it on my FB page, but couldn't.
Conservatives don't believe in Revolution, but Reform. These believe that the institutons have a purpose and must remain intact, so their view is for a more slow change, than Revolution that would cause social upheavel.
I wonder what would've been accomplished if the Founding Fathers had gone the way of Burke or the Whigs?
As the men foundng our country were educated, they certanly would be influenced by antiquity! (which leaves The Church, as a pawn of Rome (the State)? or was that Christians as pawns or The State? The Church today in America is what "Judiasm" was then, as to the law! Hopefully, the State is not what Rome was!!!)
Or maybe there is an attempt for the Church to rule over the State! Then, Church IS the State!!!
So, is our country secular or religous?
John Locke said that it was created by social contract. That means that there is no enforcment unless the government is legitimized by consent. The Tea Parties are a resistance movement, these want reform, not revolution! The Left wants Revolution!
Conservatives are not idealists, but critical realsts. They want to deal wth "what is", not "what should be". And "what is" is about human society, human nature and the present needs at hand. Pragmatism guides them, as government guards them.
So, I don't see that Locke was particularly geared toward relgious feeling, or opinion.
.
Every election we give consent to our government to rule according to the established law.
.
And established law s set by precedent...
.
I just ordered this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Justice-John-Rawls/dp/0674000781
.
This site is forcing me to do a lot of reading.
.
But, I like it.
.
I've got that book. His is a liberal view of justice.....from what I remember, maybe I'll pick it back up later...as there are different theories out there, and people love to use them to manipulate other to do what they want them to do, as we all think what we value should be everyone's value...I'd rather get people to think whtat they choose to believe and have reasons to support it...
I thought that Locke doesn't list the Trinity as among the minimal doctrines of what is required to be a Christian. While that doesn't make him a unitarian, it allows him to accept unitarians as genuine Christians.
Locke seems to have gotten into trouble whenever he implied that cherished doctrines and practices specific to each denomination were optional. Obviously, no denomination feels that way. It's truly revolutionary that his ideas of toleration and reasonableness in religion were respected!
Jason,
You probably are attempting to get the response I will give (at least I think so).
John Locke was a Deist. He believed n a moral order, just as the Puritans, and others that were Christians did. These beleved in some Creator, who set up or made an ordered society.
The moral order was "under God" to the Christian, with leadership being at the top. The commonwealth was what the Christian knew the State to be. One honored God by submitting to leadership. This is a Western understanding of structuring the Church.
So, a Deistic God was acceptable. Today, with biological, string quantum theory or systems thinking, there isn't the order of the past, except to understand "emergent properties". The Atheistic scientist or Christian scientist, would find it was useful to label the "emergent church movement"...
Education is another way for the modern/secular/liberal Christian to incorporate scienctific investigation and experimentation. Brains and minds, and the social environment are of interest today to set "the order".
So, what is moral is considered, still by the biblcal Christian to be the organized or institutonalized religious frame.
The person who is spiritual/psychologcally oriented would understand the moral in relational ways. (This an Eastern Church's view)
John Locke wouldn't be accepted in today's science community, as his scientific view is out-dated. But, the question I would ask is; Has man changed, is there true progress, can we hope for Utopisan dreams? If not, isn't our Constitutional government the best for man?
.
John Locke was a Deist .... the "emergent church movement"
.
So, John Locke had one foot in antiquity and the other in modernity?
.
Jason: Exactly.
Phil,
I was attempting to separate out how religion and science have interfaced.
Some believe that religon and scence can be alligned such that modern theories of physics can allign with social movement of Church growth...(the emergent Church)...This is what the Founders did with Newtonian Physics, in cause and effect, which is understood as "law and order".
Some believe that religion and science are complementary, so they would understand the fact/value dichotomy. And see a place for each in society.
And others think that science threatened religion, because science changes religious understanding/doctrines...
The natural sciences don't appreciate the end's of "the human", as does psychology or sociology.
Sorry, Jason, I thought you gave a succnct response. I tried to unpack it, but didn't do too great of a job....
.
Maybe someone will address my question about Locke having one foot in antiquity and the other in modernity.
.
.
Actually, a greater question is begged regarding where Locke had his feet.
.
As so much credit is given to Lockean thought regarding America's creation, it seems appropriate to ask if our Founders had more feet planted in Modernity than they had in Antiquity.
.
And, isn't an answer to that question being presented by Christian Nation people? Are they not trying to prove that America was founded with its feet firmly planted in Antiquity?
.
.
Or is that too risky a question to tackle?
.
Are we going back over Strauss, then? Neo-conservatism, and a two level society? (those based in antiquity and those based in science)...
I think everything boils down to poliitics (one's allegiences) and political philosophy (one's views on how the world works)...and these vary vastly and broadly!
Unfortunately for secular conservatism...as we see the culture wars gearng up between Perry and Romney....I fear that Obama may get re-elected by default, however much the public doesn't want him to be!! Isn't this the tactic of the Left? to divide and conquer....revolution at all costs! Get people to do what is natural and further the Left's purposes....radicalization ...
I would be careful to never cite anything from Our Founding Truth. He makes stupid people look smart.
Post a Comment