I mentioned in my last post a challenge to use the method of some Christian nationalists that puts documents they wish to authenticate as "Christian" by tying the words to those in the Bible and see if you can authenticate modern secular documents with it. I hypothesized that documents Christian nationalists would be quick to term "modern secular" could be authenticated as "Christian" under such.
On the other hand, there are plenty of
modern figures, like President Obama who explicitly rely on the Bible
in their public utterances and in their attempt to argue for modern
Is this secularism or is it
religious leftism? One response is that they are misusing the
Bible. Funny though, that is a charge often brought against John
In his time Locke was accused of smuggling not
authentically Christian ideas into his writings. And today scholars
like Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin and their students continue to press similar charges.
For instance, I noted some time ago
Leo Strauss termed the notion of a "state of nature" "wholly alien to
the Bible." "State of nature" was the common ground in discourse that
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau shared. Though they profoundly differed on
how such played out.
Is this common ground of "state
of nature" compatible with the Bible? The answer is it's debatable. The
analogy I find useful is to Darwin's theory of evolution. Some argue
this is inconsistent with "Christianity" or "biblical Christianity" or
whatever you want to call it. Others have found ways to, as they
understand, reconcile evolution with Christianity.
A similar point could be made about "state of nature" and Christianity.