Friday, March 13, 2015

What I see as the Political-Theological Contribution of the Enlightenment to the American Founding

There has been a "counter-Enlightenment" push that seeks to downplay its importance to the contributions of the American Founding while looking to credit earlier more traditional sources. With this we see a tendency that prefers one's own with focused importance.

That is, a scholar imbibed in the rich intellectual traditions of Judaism might focus on the Hebraic sources, a Baptist on their contributions, the Calvinists on theirs, and Roman Catholics can find "accidental Thomism" from a Protestant people who were by in large, anti-Roman Catholic.

And there certainly is a strong kernel of truth to each critique. The individual ideas that became en vogue by the Enlightenment religionists tended not to be new. For instance, freed from the constraint of the Magisterium and with each believer a priest entitled to interpret scripture for himself, many notable Protestants became Arians. After all, the Bible never specifically uses the term "the Trinity."

Arianism was the dominant theology of the 18th Century enlightened unitarians. But Arianism is old. Quite old indeed.  Even the more radical forms of unitarianism or "Christian-Deism" that for instance, Thomas Jefferson might endorse were found in the early Church. Jefferson didn't cite Marcion much, but their personal theologies were quite similar.

Speaking of Jefferson below is a quotation of his that typified the "Enlightenment" perspective on Christianity:
Were I to be a founder of a new sect, I would call them Apriarians, and after the example of the bee, advise them to extract honey of every sect.

-- Thomas Jefferson to Thomas B. Parker, May 15, 1819.
Lest you think I cite Jefferson as some kind of "outlier," here's a more mainstream orthodox Trinitarian Christian, albeit a universalist, making a similar point:
It would seem as if one of the designs of Providence in permitting the existence of so many Sects of Christians was that each Sect might be a depository of some great truth of the Gospel, and that it might by that means be better preserved. Thus to the Catholics and Moravians he has committed the Godhead of the Saviour, hence they worship and pray to him; to the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Baptist Church the decrees of God and partial redemption, or the salvation of the first fruits, which they ignorantly suppose to include all who shall be saved. To the Lutherans and Methodists he has committed the doctrine of universal redemption, to the Quakers the Godhead and influences of the Holy Spirit, to the Unitarians, the humanity of our Saviour... Let the different Sects of Christians not only bear with each other, but love each other for this kind display of God's goodness whereby all the truths of their Religion are so protected that none of them can ever become feeble or be lost.
-- Benjamin Rush, "Commonplace Book," August 14, 1811. Corner, Autobiography of Rush, 339-340.
In short, the "enlightened" Protestant Christian used his own "judgment"-- his "reason" or otherwise -- to decide for himself how to interpret the faith, in what doctrines to believe, which parts of the Bible are inspired, which books, in fact, belong in the canon, and what political principles ought be derived from a "proper" understanding of theology.

So how did this impact the relationship among Enlightenment, Christianity, and the American Founding? Everything we "value" about the political-theology of the American Founding (and some things that we don't) probably can be found in bits and pieces during earlier more "traditional" periods. But it didn't all come together until these enlighteners used their reason "to extract honey of every sect" as Jefferson put it, at the exact moment they did. During that period historians term "the Enlightenment."

For instance, the "Calvinist resisters" (though not Calvin himself) might have something to offer like "rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God." Though, they were woefully deficient on religious liberty. Likewise, the Thomists incorporated a theistic grounding for Aristotelian rationalism but likewise were deficient on religious liberty and other matters.

Roger Williams and the Quakers were considered novel and eccentric when they innovated the "Christian" case for religious liberty. (That's where one had to go for this teaching, not the Calvinist resisters or those Protestants who borrowed from the scholastics.) The enlighteners of the 18th Century, using their reason, took from them this principle and combined it with what they saw the best from the other traditions to deliver the liberalism that founded America.

14 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

Roger Williams and the Quakers were considered novel and eccentric when they innovated the "Christian" case for religious liberty. (That's where one had to go for this teaching, not the Calvinist resisters or those Protestants who borrowed from the scholastics.) The enlighteners of the 18th Century, using their reason, took from them this principle and combined it with what they saw the best from the other traditions to deliver the liberalism that founded America.

Actually, you just made the case for a Protestant, not an "Enlightenment" Founding.

I meself have zero problem with that, and it comports with my last post.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Some who believe in and value the term "Protestant" would beg to differ.

Daniel said...

The strain of Thomism (neo-Thomism? Enlightenment Thomism?) coming from Scotland did tend to support religious liberty. And William Penn argued that Roger Williams was not as tolerant as he claimed to be, while Williams made similar arguments against the Quakers.

Interesting summary here. It's a very complicated story and Apiarianism is a nice metaphor for the Enlightenment project. If there were multiple Enlightenments, there were hundreds of them.

Tom Van Dyke said...

IOW, the handy but ultimately unhelpful catchall term for all human progress c. 1600-1800 CE, as though John Locke dropped in from Mars one day, to save the Western World from sin and error [and Christianity] pining

Tom Van Dyke said...

Blogger Jonathan Rowe said...
Some who believe in and value the term "Protestant" would beg to differ.


Protestant Carl Trueman wries:

With regard to the Middle Ages, any thoughtful reader of sixteenth and seventeenth century Protestant texts will notice clear continuities with the immediate past, whether with Aquinas (e.g., Peter Martyr Vermigli, James Arminius, John Owen), Scotus (e.g., John Calvin, Gisbertus Voetius) or Occam (e.g., Martin Luther). The very founding fathers of Protestantism were eclectic in how they related to previous theological tradition but relate to it they did. To deny this or merely to ignore it or to present their theology as arising simply out of them reading the Bible for themselves is to miss the way in which their thinking was itself shaped by, and dependent upon, the past.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/03/history-evangelicals-and-protestantism

Jonathan Rowe said...

I think Trueman's point is you need things like traditions and creeds in order to remain good Protestant "Christians." Otherwise you have the Protestant element down, but the "Christianity" is questionable.

There is a reason why the Baptists, Quakers, Swedenborgs, and Unitarianians among others flourished in America.

I'm not sure if the reformers want to take credit for them (some Baptists, maybe; but their radical decentralization and reluctance to rely on creeds for "understanding" pushes it).

Jonathan Rowe said...

This is why Dr. Frazer said Protestant Christianity is an "element" of "theistic rationalism" (along with Deism and natural religion) but can't call the final creature "Christian."

I have no problem terming it "Christian Deism" or "Christian-Unitarianism" or "Christian-Unitarian-Universalism."

jimmiraybob said...

I guess that since the discussion is about political-theological contributions that commentary regarding internal church history has a relevance. But Trueman is talking about church history from a Reformed perspective in the context of loosing souls to the Catholic church.

Gisbertus Voetius would, however, be a good example of anti-Enlightenment fervor. He was adamantly opposed to Descartes and the new Cartesian philosophy which he saw as corrupting to Christian tradition (Whereas the traditional Scholastic focus on Aristotelianism and neo-Platonism had been reconciled with the faith).

As to the commonality, aside from scripture, they were also all pulling from the same primary source materials including, especially in the political writings, the works of Aristotle, Seneca and Cicero to name a few. As the 16th century yielded to the 17th century and the 17th yielded to the 18th, Epicurean ideas derived from Lucretius' de rerum natura, also played a major role in European philosophy and scientific maturation.

And, starting in the late 17th century, thinkers and writers with less than distinct church affiliations were also entering the mix - primarily emanating from the Dutch Republic - a bastion of relative tolerance (especially the more radical elements represented by Spinoza, the De witts, Van den Enden, to name a few).

A thoughtful and honest reader of the broader sixteenth and seventeenth century histories (outside of church histories) will also have to recognize a third leg of the European Enlightenment project and that would be a more secularizing trend squarely resting on newly developing understandings of human agency and the results of wresting modern science away from the theologically heavy natural sciences.

Jonathan Rowe said...

JRB. Good points. We can't forget the Dutch. I focus on Williams and the Quakers. But I realize that something similar was going on around the same time with the Dutch (isn't that where John Locke fled for tolerance when the heat got turned on him?).

Tom Van Dyke said...

There is a reason why the Baptists, Quakers, Swedenborgs, and Unitarianians among others flourished in America.

I'm not sure if the reformers want to take credit for them (some Baptists, maybe; but their radical decentralization and reluctance to rely on creeds for "understanding" pushes it).

March 14, 2015 at 9:15 AM
Blogger Jonathan Rowe said...
This is why Dr. Frazer said Protestant Christianity is an "element" of "theistic rationalism" (along with Deism and natural religion) but can't call the final creature "Christian."

I have no problem terming it "Christian Deism" or "Christian-Unitarianism" or "Christian-Unitarian-Universalism."


So now the Baptists and Quakers are "Theistic Rationalists™*"

I'll stick with good ol' "Protestant."

As for the growth of religious tolerance, as a practical necessity it had been underway for quite some time, "Enlightenment" or no.

1648: The main tenets of the Peace of Westphalia were:

All parties would recognize the Peace of Augsburg of 1555, in which each prince would have the right to determine the religion of his own state, the options being Catholicism, Lutheranism, and now Calvinism (the principle of cuius regio, eius religio).

Christians living in principalities where their denomination was not the established church were guaranteed the right to practice their faith in public during allotted hours and in private at their will.

General recognition of the exclusive sovereignty of each party over its lands, people, and agents abroad, and responsibility for the warlike acts of any of its citizens or agents. Issuance of unrestricted letters of marque and reprisal to privateers was forbidden.

__________________________

http://myroadtotruth.com/?p=55

*This is a term first used by Dr. Gregg Frazer in his doctorate thesis, The Political Theology of the American Founding (2004). Dr. Frazer defines theistic rationalism as “a hybrid, mixing elements of natural religion, Christianity, and rationalism, with rationalism as the predominant element.” It’s basic tenets, as outlined in Dr. Frazer’s Founding Creed (2005), are as follows:

God is benevolent, active, and unitary, and intervenes in human affairs. Consequently, prayers are heard and effectual.

The key factor in serving God is living a good and moral life, which is central to the value of religion, and indispensable to society.

Jesus is not God, but is a great moral teacher.

There is a personal afterlife where the good experience happiness forever and the wicked are temporarily punished.

God primarily reveals Himself through nature, but some written revelation is legitimate.

Revelation is designed to complement reason (not vice versa).

Reason is the ultimate standard for learning and evaluating truth and for determining legitimate revelation from God.

Jonathan Rowe said...

"So now the Baptists ... are 'Theistic Rationalists'"

Most no. But they more easily could be. Or worse.

"Baptists worldwide have appropriately denounced him. ... Some may wonder if these denunciations are convenient attempts on the part of Baptist denominations to cover their tracks. The reality is that Baptist churches are congregationally autonomous and largely independent from one another, even if they do cooperate together in a fellowship or denominational organization. Such cooperation is voluntary and grants absolutely zero oversight authority to the cooperative body. The chuches remain independent. And this means that anyone can start a church and call it 'Baptist.' Phelps would’ve had a much harder time starting a Catholic, Methodist, or Presbyterian church, because those denominations are structured differently."

http://pastortubbs.com/the-sad-legacy-of-fred-phelps-the-world-says-goodbye-to-anti-gay-preacher-and-head-of-americas-most-hated-family.html

Likewise when Dr. Frazer attempts to argue Baptists actually DO meet the definition of late 18th Cen. Christianity by demonstrating their endorsement of certain creeds that parallel Nicene orthodoxy, Baptist Bill Fortenberry had a hissyfit, stressing how good Baptists never officially endorsed any creeds.

I think Dr. Trueman understands reformed Protestants need history plus creeds to prevent their faith from moving outside of what they (good reformed Protestants) consider "Christianity."

Tom Van Dyke said...

Trueman's right. Lutheran-to-Catholic convert's Neuhaus's Law:

“Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/returntorome/2010/10/neuhaus-law-confirmed-again/

Trueman is quite right that sola scriptura Protestantism must by definition begin anew every Sunday morning when the preacher thumbs open his Bible. St./Sir Thomas More said that 500 years ago.

But Trueman is fighting a losing battle, methinks. Protestantism is a force, a dynamic--and an entropic one at that. "Protestant orthodoxy" is by definition oxymoronic. Semper reformanda!

jimmiraybob said...

Yes, Descartes and a number of European thinkers spent time in and around Amsterdam because of its relative tolerance and diversity. To the best of my knowledge there were Catholic and protestant and Jewish communities and a rather secular governance in late 16th to early 17th century. Tolerance was on everyone's tongues. Spinoza and his intellectual clan called for a universal tolerance and free expression of belief - Spinoza's work championed philosophizing without ecclesiastical and secular constraint as long as it didn't hamper the vitality of the state. His was the more radical position since it truly embraced an general egalitarian and cosmopolitan view not based on theology or ecclesiastical doctrines.

Locke, generally viewed in the more moderate Enlightenment context, famously put restraints on tolerance (Catholics, atheists, Muslims) as did most of the Protestant and Catholic writers, generally excluding other groups based largely upon religious constraints.

Tom Van Dyke said...

And Spinoza himself was expelled for heresy by the Jewish community of Amsterdam in 1665.

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/journal_of_the_history_of_philosophy/v041/41.1dutton.html