John Fea and Warren Throckmorton have good posts on David Barton's use of a "proof quote" from one of John Adams' letters to prove the "Christian America" thesis.
This is from Fea:
In the second and third paragraphs, Adams notes that the group who met in Philadelphia was so religiously diverse that the only ideas holding them together were the “general principles of Christianity.” What does he mean by this phrase? It is hard to tell at first glance. But if there were indeed “deists” and “atheists” in the room, these “general principles” must have been understood by Adams as a system of belief that was far less orthodox than the Christianity of the ancient creeds. An “atheist” might be able to find common ground around a Christian moral code (say, for example, the Sermon on the Mount), but could not affirm the existence of God. A “deist” would have rejected the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and, in some cases, God’s providence in human affairs, but he could certainly unite behind a moral code based on the teachings of Jesus. (I titled my chapter on the highly unorthodox Thomas Jefferson, “Thomas Jefferson: Follower of Jesus”). So let’s return to our original question. What did Adams mean when he said the Continental Congress was held together by “the general principles of Christianity?” If we take the beliefs of the “atheists” and the “deists” (and, I might add, the “universalists, “Socinians,” and “Preistleyans”) seriously, the “general principles of Christianity” was a phrase Adams used to describe a very vague moral code that all of these men–the orthodox and the unorthodox–could affirm.Here is a rule I follow: In general it's not a good idea to quote John Adams or Thomas Jefferson to prove the "Christian Nation" thesis. However, it's a really, really bad idea to quote the correspondence of Adams and Jefferson in the year 1813 to try to do such.
[...]
The fourth paragraph tells us that Adams believes that these “general principles” of Christianity and liberty could be easily affirmed by a host of secular writers, including Hume and Voltaire, two of the Enlightenment’s staunchest critics of organized Christianity. These “general principles of Christianity” must have been pretty watered-down if Hume and Voltaire could affirm them. Again, the reference here is to a vague morality, not the particular teachings of orthodox Christianity.
12 comments:
Barton is correct, and Fea and Throckmorton are both wrong on this one as I explain in great detail here: http://www.increasinglearning.com/general-principles.html
John, get a life
too late for Throckmorton
it's Facebook FFS
And although Dr. Warren Throckmorton [a psychology teacher, mind you, not an historian] is incapable of engaging Mr. Fortenberry's thesis, it's a pity that Dr. Fea, an accredited historian, no longer answers such challenges to his opinions.
Fortenberry has a viable objection. Fea and [of course Throckmorton] prefer to play in the minor leagues. Too bad. the truth is the victim.
Fortenberry writes [well-anticipating my own objection]:
In his letter to Jefferson, Adams added an additional statement about these general or timeless principles. He wrote:
“In favor of these general principles, in philosophy, religion, and government, I could fill sheets of quotations from Frederic of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, as well as Newton and Locke; not to mention thousands of divines and philosophers of inferior fame.”
According to Jonathan Rowe and many other writers, this statement shows that the principles which Adams recognized as the general principles of Christianity can be found in the writings of men like Hume, Rousseau and Voltaire,[14] but that is not what Adams actually said. He did not say that he could provide quotes of these principles from the given list of men. Rather, he said that he could provide quotes “in favor of” those principles. To give a quote from someone in favor of a particular principle does not necessarily mean that the person quoted must himself be in favor of that principle. We could, for example, quote Mark Antony refusing to demonstrate love and forgiveness toward his enemy Augustus and use this quote in favor of the timeless principles of love and forgiveness. In fact, we have a record of Adams doing this very thing. In a letter to his wife, he wrote:
“Our Saviour taught the Immorality of Revenge, and the moral Duty of forgiving Injuries, and even the Duty of loving Enemies. Nothing can shew the amiable, the moral, and divine Excellency of these Christian Doctrines in a stronger Point of Light, than the Characters and Conduct of Marius and Sylla, Caesar, Pompey, Anthony and Augustus, among innumerable others.”[15]
All of the names listed in this letter were examples of men who failed to abide by the principles taught by Christ, and yet Adams lists them as among the best demonstrations of the truth of those principles. He was using their failures to prove the excellency of that principle which they rejected, and it is likely that he was employing this same tactic in his letter to Jefferson. He did not mention the writings of men like Hume, Rousseau and Voltaire as sources of the general principles of Christianity but rather to prove his claim that the principles of Christianity really are eternal and immutable. It is as if he was asking “If the writings of men like Hume, Rousseau and Voltaire can do nothing to refute the general principles of Christianity, then why shouldn’t I say that the young men of Philadelphia will never be able to refute them either?”
Thus, it should be clear that when John Adams said that the founding fathers achieved independence through the general principles of Christianity, he was not referring to principles which are held by men who believe nothing, by Deists and Atheists or by philosophers such as Hume, Rousseau and Voltaire. He was referring to the same timeless principles of the Bible which are “as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God,” but just in case there are those who still hold to the opposite opinion, let’s continue on and give our consideration to the final paragraph of Adams’ letter...
This is genuine scholarship, in what's called "close reading." If Barton doesn't read the Adams letter far enough [he doesn't], neither does Dr. Fea.
Is Barton "accidentally" correct? If so, it wouldn't be the first time. This is the problem when polemicists take on a polemic.
The truth is the last consideration. Proving Barton wrong is the only agenda. Winning. Not school---schoolyard.
Bill's post actually does not "prove" that Barton is right and that Fea or Throckmorton are wrong. Rather all it proves is that there is more to the story than what Fea and Throckmorton are aware of. And unfortunately, once again we see Bill reinforce the pattern of doing research that uncovers valuable tidbits from a close reading and then using the tidbit as a red herring to distract from the larger point.
What was useful and novel in Fortenberry's close reading is that the "young men" in question were not the Continental Congress, but a group of people who Adams ran into around 1798 (not 1776!).
The fact that Adams notes there were American followers of Joseph Priestley in this group would be a red flag to serious Priestley scholars who know that few Americas knew of Priestley in 1776, but that by 1798 he may have had some kind of following in America's diverse religious background.
That said, all of what Tom produced from Bill's post about Hume, et al., ... it's certainly a plausible alternative understanding of Adams' letter, but it is not necessarily the correct one. The other understanding of saying that Hume et al. could be looked as a positive example in support of the "general principles of Christianity" is just as viable from the context of what Adams wrote and not refuted.
And even more important is the point about the lowest common denominator of a creed that could be drawn from Adams' description of those young men whose later religious diversity was somehow supported by the general principles on which America achieved independence. Their group included Arians, Socinians, Priestlyans, Universalists, ....
From the perspective of the "orthodox" this is generic, moralized, watered down "civil religion" Christianity, which is not "real Christianity."
That's basically what Frazer is all about.
Again, you should heed my precautionary rule I wrote at the bottom of my post.
Jon Rowe said...
Bill's post actually does not "prove" that Barton is right and that Fea or Throckmorton are wrong. Rather all it proves is that there is more to the story than what Fea and Throckmorton are aware of.
That is indeed MY point. I'm not sure I agree but I said Mr. Fortenberry has a "viable objection." I expect Dr. Throckmorton to ignore it but I'm disappointed that Dr. Fea has joined Throckmorton as a polemicist instead of an educator and scholar.
There is more to the story than John is aware of, and the tragedy is that ever since he's placed his left-wing politics first above hs scholarship, he just doesn't give a damn.
True, Barton quote-mined. But Fea, uncritically following Throckmorton, read only a little further, just enough to d-bag Barton.
Fortenberry's the only one who read the whole thing, and Adams's related correspondence as well. If Fortenberry's analysis is correct, Barton is substantively correct as well, even if only accidentally.
As usual, my objection is formal. Truth was not sought.
Fortenberry:
He did not mention the writings of men like Hume, Rousseau and Voltaire as sources of the general principles of Christianity but rather to prove his claim that the principles of Christianity really are eternal and immutable.
This is also well-observed. Those whom Adams lumps together
Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire
were notorious infidels. He adds "as well as Newton11 and Locke," who were suspected or known to have been less than orthodox Christians. But "the principles of Christianity," although universal, and although theoretically discoverable by reason alone, were not, according to Locke's own Reasonableness of Christianity:
"...'tis plain in fact, that human reason unassisted, failed men in its great and proper business of morality. It never, from unquestionable principles, by clear deductions, made out an entire body of the law of Nature. And he that shall collect all the moral rules of the philosophers, and compare them with those contained in the new testament, will find them to come short of the morality delivered by Our Saviour, and taught by his apostles; a college made up, for the most part, of ignorant, but inspired fishermen."
You'll see a similar sentiment from Adams when he complains elsewhere to Jefferson that Joseph Priestley does not give enough regard to the Bible. To many of the "unorthodox" Christians of that time like Adams, Christianity still held a primary place in "reasonableness."
Again, this makes Fea's attack completely clueless
In the second and third paragraphs, Adams notes that the group who met in Philadelphia was so religiously diverse that the only ideas holding them together were the “general principles of Christianity.” What does he mean by this phrase? It is hard to tell at first glance.
Well, no, "first glance" is unacceptable. Fea's not even in Fortenberry's "close reading" game. Adams said they also had
I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities Sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.
What I dislike about all this is that Barton and Fortenberry may be wrong, and even Throckmorton may have an agenda [he was once an "anti-gay" psychologist, now he's "pro-gay" and hates the Religious Right], but accredited historian John Fea has no excuse for adding his repuation to Throckmorton's left-wing jihad.
For if you read Adams' letter at its close, he seems to be telling Jefferson he's being unfairly accused of "superstition" [religiosity] when he's really a man of The Enlightenment, a "progressive":
I might have flattered myself that my Sentiments were Sufficiently known to have protected me against Suspicions of narrow thoughts contracted Sentiments, biggotted, enthusiastic or Superstitious Principles civil political philosophical, or ecclesiastical. The first Sentence of the Preface to my Defence of the Constitutions, Vol. 1, printed in 1787 is in these Words “The Arts and Sciences, in general, during the three or four last centuries, have had a regular course of progressive improvement.
Adams is such a bore, a man of no real principle. He praised "Christian principles" when the audience suited it, then disavows his ownself to Jefferson when accused of not being one of the cool dudes.
Adams was never cool after 1775 or so. The Zelig, the George Herbert Bush of his time. He was there, is the best you can say about him.
The more I read this ninny--in his own words--the less I think of him. As for Barton and Fortenberry using John Adams' public praise of "the general principles of Christianity," it's valid if public statements take precedence of private sentiments, which I think they do.
I don't care what the private ninny John Adams said behind closed doors or in private correspondence trying to impress Jefferson. Neither should the republic.
Here is a rule I follow: In general it's not a good idea to quote John Adams or Thomas Jefferson to prove the "Christian Nation" thesis. However, it's a really, really bad idea to quote the correspondence of Adams and Jefferson in the year 1813 to try to do such.
FTR, yah. Somebody ought to tattoo this on Barton's forehead. Be was scraping by before he wrote "Jefferson Lies"--and when I heard he was writing it predicted disaster.
And as it turned out, and even a phony like Warren Throckmorton--who's a psychology teacher, and doesn't know dick about American history--rounded up a fellow lefty on the Grove City College faculty named Coulter to write a "book"--an 'e-book' that has never seen print--to in all fairness, kick Barton to the curb.
So, you're right--but so was I. First. :-)
Throckmorton only shoots at cripples. And Barton's still winning. At least he turns a buck off it. That's the joke of it all. Throckmorton offers no affirmative argument. Is there anyhting lower than biting Barton's ankles?
rounded up a fellow lefty on the Grove City College faculty named Coulter to write a "book"--an 'e-book' that has never seen print--to in all fairness, kick Barton to the curb.
I don't see any indication from his other public writings that Michael Coulter is a 'lefty'. He's the issue of the Institute of Philosophic Studies at the University of Dallas. His career has been unusual - he was hired with an MA and finished his dissertation later - something quite normal in 1963 but not now. Most of his bibliography consists of contributions to reference volumes. I don't think I've ever seen a vita that looked like his. He appears to be a committed Catholic (seven children), which may be more common at Grove City than at other institutions but is somewhat at variance with the institutional ethos. (Wheaton does not hire non-evangelicals for tenure-track positions, for example). He was also elected to the local municipal council as a Republican.
Unlike Throckmorton, Coulter teaches courses of a sort where you just might encounter a Barton reader in the classroom. He's also an intellectual historian whose teaching book includes the Revolutionary and federal period.
Dr. Paul Zummo, whose a Madison scholar not employed in academe, offered a critical review of Barton's book and left it at that. I don't think Coulter has revisited the subject in the last four years.
Michael Coulter is not the only GCC professor Throckmorton has tried to enlist in his various schemes.
I saw Coulter joining Throckmorton against a creationist who came to speak at Grove City. If he's not a leftist--and if he ran as a Republican he ain't--I withdraw the comment.
Just out of curiosity, who was that? There was an astronomer on the faculty of Grove City who is known as an advocate of ID. (He's now at Ball State; he had a stopgap appointment at Grove City). I've been spelunking around a bit to find a campus speaker on the subject and haven't found anyone.
Post a Comment