Long story short. Back in February an historian from Biola named Susan Lim
wrote a more or less fair and good article on the topic for
"Christianity Today." Like David McCullough, she left out John Adams'
unitarianism from the story, giving the impression he was a "Puritan." A
PhD named Matthew Hunter caught this and contacted her. And he cited both me and co-blogger Tom Van Dyke (you can read Dr. Hunter's post to find out which America Creation posts he cited). John Fea tells us about it.
I
think David McCullough is a fine scholar. Perhaps he wrote on Adams
with a disinterest in the finer theological details of things and
expected his popular audience to share that disinterest. The readers of
"Christianity Today" and scholars at Biola aren't, I don't think,
supposed to share such disinterest. Dr. Lim followed the same path that the
pious pastor named Joel Mark I discussed the issue with years earlier in that linked to AC post
did: Read David McCullough's account of John Adams and assume he was a pious Christian of the Puritan persuasion.
(As for the title to Dr. Lim's article, she noted this about Alexander Hamilton's faith: "Like
most faith journeys, Hamilton’s ebbed and flowed between skepticism and
belief." She could have elaborated further that while he rose to fame
and did his "work" founding the nation he wasn't an orthodox Christian,
but that "other" in between category. He didn't convert until after his
political life came crashing down and his son died.)
13 comments:
This is fascinating. I noticed that Fea didn’t mention your blog, American Creation, in his post about Hunter’s post.
Thanks, Jon, for this. Don’t mind me. I often connect too many dots. I wonder if this early Unitarian influence in American Puritanism is why some Evangelicals are feeling the need to open up for discussion the subject of the Trinity. Maybe Evangelicals have always been a bit wonky on the subject - even while accepting some kind of Trinitarian statement of faith.
When I converted to the Catholic Church, I had to prove that my baptism was trinitarian. Others aren’t able to, even if they have been Evangelicals before. So they have to be re-baptized.
Some Presbyterians brag that if Evangelicals were just of the confessing type, all these confusions - like about the Trinity - would clear up. However, as I think you have been pointing out, some Presbys even at the time of our nation’s founding were not all that committed to their own confessions.
Not sure what’s up with that, or who is right in that discussion you and Tom are having. Not all that schooled in the material, which is why I follow guys like you guys around.
The United Church of Christ is made up of some Disciples of Christ, some Congregationalists, and some Presbyterians. That amalgam kind of makes more sense to me now. It didn’t make sense that the church of Jonathan Edwards could end up where it has.
Anyway, like I said, don’t mind me... American religion has always been quite unique it seems.
Kudos to Jon, Tom and Mark Hall
Of course I disagree with Tom’s emphasis on the public vs. the private views of the founders like Adams (a la Gregg Frazer). Yes, in public, Adams presented a different image of his faith than in private.
Most of what we know about John Adams' private views on religion comes from his letters to Jefferson, and shared many religious attitudes with Jefferson (like Jefferson, Adams did not seem to find the divinity of Jesus to be important). Like Franklin, Adams emphasized good works over faith (rejecting justification by faith alone), and abhorred theological disputes between ministers (one of his stated reasons for not going into the ministry).
Along with many Congregationalists, John and Abigail moved in the mid-18th Century from a trinitarian to a unitarian belief.
Religion was important to John Adams, and Adams biographer James Grant (whose bio is much better than McCullough’s) wrote: "Adams had no patience with the institutionalized structure of religion – synods, councils, convocations, oaths, and confessions – or with the doctrinal controversies that had flared up in the Awakening." (p. 119) But despite these structural critiques. Adams remained a conventional “meeting-going animal” In Braintree’s First Parish church (p. 114)
Of course I disagree with Tom’s emphasis on the public vs. the private views of the founders like Adams
Some argument must be sustained as to why.
For one thing, the Founding era unitarians still held Jesus to be the Savior, and Christianity as divine revelation. Until someone shows why that makes a difference, unitarianism remains no more than a sophistic weapon against Christians and Christianity in the Founding--a difference that makes no difference.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/02/who-were-unitarians.html
that a majority of our brethren believe, that Jesus Christ is more than man, that he existed before the world, that he literally came from heaven to save our race, that he sustains other offices than those of a teacher and witness to the truth, and that he still acts for our benefit, and is our intercessor with the Father.
When I converted to the Catholic Church, I had to prove that my baptism was trinitarian. Others aren’t able to, even if they have been Evangelicals before. So they have to be re-baptized.
Interesting. An erstwhile commenter named Bob Cornwall is a United Church of Christ [a Stone-Campbell movement product I believe] minister, and I recall his statement of faith as Mt 16:16
…15“But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven.…
As you say and as we see, this is not necessarily trinitarian, but I maintain that for a historian or sociologist to argue this is not Christianity is well above his pay grade.
Mrs. W.:
Thanks for this. It wasn't just the Presbyterians that might have been subject to the dynamic of members not believing in official doctrine. In fact, arguably the Anglican Church was probably the most affected by this dynamic.
It's part of the Protestantism meets Enlightenment dynamic that still persists to this day. In Churches there are people who fanatically have to line up their convictions with every word of doctrine their churches are connected to and defend said doctrine; there are those that don't care; and there are those that DO care but dissent. Sometimes they leave the Church and find another one. Sometimes they stay and cause trouble. Sometimes that trouble means they continued to "reform" the Churches into directions they desire.
It's part of the Protestantism meets Enlightenment dynamic
Protestantism predates "The Enlightenment," whatever that is. Michael Servetus was executed for questioning the Trinity as early as 1553. The Enlightenment is dated from the mid-1600s yet is continually credited for stuff it had played no part in.
Why is no mystery: ignorance of theological history, or conscious secular revisionism, or both.
New AP European History framework ignores religion, snubs Churchill, whitewashes communism: REPORT
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27997/
"Protestantism predates 'The Enlightenment,' whatever that is. Michael Servetus was executed for questioning the Trinity as early as 1553. The Enlightenment is dated from the mid-1600s yet is continually credited for stuff it had played no part in."
If you can't even tell what something "is," then how can you conclude it's "credited for stuff it played no part in."
Exactly my point in challenging this statement
It's part of the Protestantism meets Enlightenment dynamic
"Enlightenment" is 'credited' for unitarianism. I disagree. It's an inevitable product of the Reformation's rejection of magisterium.
"The doctrine of the trinity he [Michael Servetus] felt to be a Catholic perversion and himself to be a good New Testament Christian in combating it. According to his conception, a trinity composed of three distinct persons in one God is a rational impossibility" (Man's Religion, John B. Noss, 1968)
The problem for you though is this statement:
"[Unitarianism is] an inevitable product of the Reformation's rejection of magisterium."
is a thesis in itself. Protestants committed to the content of ecumenical Trinitarian creeds, and all of their Solas don't view Protestantism this way.
Unitarianism is nothing new. It goes back to the early church period. And we have already seen that Marcion anticipated the Christian-Deism of a Bolingbroke and a Jefferson.
The men of the Enlightenment picked up these ideas and ran with them.
They also took a bunch of ideas that existed in disparate strands during the pre-Enlightenment period and had them converge during that era. So Roger Sherman who called himself a "liberal" and John Witherspoon may have acted in a valid Calvinist tradition insofar as they "resisted" tyrants through how they understood the notion of "interposition" in good conscience.
But on religious liberty issues they were totally out of line with Calvin, Rutherford and the other Calvinist resisters. The Quakers and Roger Williams innovated in that area. And it was during the period of the Enlightenment that Calvinist Whigs like Sherman and Witherspoon finally signed onto it.
The problem for you though is this statement:
The men of the Enlightenment picked up these ideas and ran with them
Since Servetus predates the "Enlightenment," whatever that is.
TVD:
It's an inevitable product of the Reformation's rejection of magisterium.>>
Yes.
"The problem for you though is this statement:
"The men of the Enlightenment picked up these ideas and ran with them
"Since Servetus predates the 'Enlightenment,' whatever that is."
It's actually not a problem. But you still seem to have a problem defining what it is, but still thinking you know enough about what it is that you can say what it did and did not do.
You define it. Your problem is chronological, not definitional.
Post a Comment