It was the French anti-religionist Enlightenment philosophe Voltaire, of all people, who realized in his On the Church of England the genius of what we call religious "pluralism," that if differences in dogma are multiple enough, that's a good thing for all practical purposes.
I'll put his last paragraph first because it's the best, and go on from there, because it applies to Founding-era America even more than England in 1733:
If there were only one religion in England, there would be danger of tyranny; if there were two, they would cut each other's throats; but there are thirty, and they live happily together in peace.
And as historian Gordon Wood notes about the Founding:
There were not just Presbyterians, but Old and New School Presbyterians, Cumberland Presbyterians, Springfield Presbyterians, Reformed Presbyterians, and Associated Presbyterians; not just Baptists, but General Baptists, Regular Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Separate Baptists, Dutch River Baptists, Permanent Baptists, and Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Baptists.
Oy. That's a lotta Presbyterians and even more Baptists. And that's just the tip of the pluralist iceberg. Thank God for heresy. Let's yield the floor back to Voltaire with some excerpts on Anglo-America, and read his England of 1733 as America in 1776:
This is the country of sects. An Englishman, as a free man, goes to Heaven by whatever road he pleases.
...
Although the Episcopalian and the Presbyterian are the two main sects in Great Britain, all others are welcome there and live pretty comfortably together, though most of their preachers detest one another almost as cordially as a Jansenist damns a Jesuit.
Go into the Exchange in London, that place more venerable than many a court, and you will see representatives of all the nations assembled there for the profit of mankind. There the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian deal with one another as if they were of the same religion and reserve the name of infidel for those who go bankrupt. There the Presbyterian trusts the Anabaptist, and the Church of England man accepts the promise of the Quaker. On leaving these peaceable and free assemblies, some go to the synagogue, others in search of a drink; this man is on the way to be baptized in a great tub in the name of the Father, by the Son, to the Holy Ghost; that man is having the foreskin of his son cut off, and a Hebraic formula mumbled over the child that he himself can make nothing of; these others are going to their church to await the inspiration of God with their hats on; and all are satisfied.
If there were only one religion in England, there would be danger of tyranny; if there were two, they would cut each other's throats; but there are thirty, and they live happily together in peace.
Well, if you got all that, it's no surprise that America circa 1776 didn't like bishops or even clergymen much. Always stirring up trouble between the sects and ruining everybody else's fun, when they're not drunk and out having fun themselves.
Everybody else, the normal people, were pretty mellow about the whole thing. That was the American Founding too.
17 comments:
"This is the country of sects. An Englishman, as a free man, goes to Heaven by whatever road he pleases."
Interesting. When GW corresponded with his French buddy, Lafayette, he wrote:
"Being no bigot myself to any mode of worship, I am disposed to endulge the professors of Christianity in the church, that road to heaven which to them shall seem the most direct plainest easiest and least liable to exception."
Sounds similar. I haven't seen anything in the record to directly connect GW to Voltaire; but this seems influenced by him. (?)
"This is the country of sects. An Englishman, as a free man, goes to Heaven by whatever road he pleases."
Couldn't be more wrong.
"Being no bigot myself to any mode of worship, I am disposed to endulge the professors of Christianity in the church, that road to heaven which to them shall seem the most direct plainest easiest and least liable to exception."
Had he not taken communion so much, i would clearly doubt his faith. It was mandatory you affirmed your faith in Christ and His redemptive work on the cross to take communion. Otherwise, that statement affirms every pagan cult imaginable, unless I'm missing something. GW refers not only Christianity.
Can u post the entire thing?
"Had he not taken communion so much, i would clearly doubt his faith."
The evidence shows he systematically avoided communion.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-05-02-0270
Avoiding communion was normal for them for reasons well documented. GW didn't commune in Phila. while President because he had issues with that church and it's pastor, which is no excuse, but he communed at trinity church.
No the reason GW didn't commune in Philadelphia is pure speculation on Lillback's part. He also didn't commune in Virginia. Nelly Custis testifies to this.
Bishop White, Rev. Abercrombie and Nelly Custis give testimony to GW's systematic avoidance of communion. The evidence of him ever communing is flimsy.
He turned his back on the Lord's Supper and excommunicated himself from the Anglican-Episcopalian Church.
Blogger Our Founding Truth said...
"This is the country of sects. An Englishman, as a free man, goes to Heaven by whatever road he pleases."
Couldn't be more wrong.
Voltaire was making a sociological observation, not a theological argument.
But as a deist, I would think his position on heaven was, if it exists, religion isn't going to get you in there [although it might keep you out, LOL].
"What can you say to a man who tells you he prefers obeying God rather than men, and that as a result he's certain he'll go to heaven if he cuts your throat?"
_____________________
As for Washington and Holy Communion, there is also testimony he was seen taking it, in addition to the many who saw him decline it.
There can be no definitive conclusions on the subject. People decline Communion for all sorts of reasons, including being in the state of sin.
Since there are no reports of Washington asking for it at the time of his death, my personal leaning is that he became agnostic on the subject, but took it seriously enough that he didn't blithely take Communion either, which I suppose many do in a sort of "what the hell, it couldn't hurt" way.
My other pet theory is that he didn't take Communion because of his sin of slaveholding, but I have not a smidgen of proof of that. But it's of course possible, so that shows why we shall never know the truth of this matter.
"The evidence of him ever communing is flimsy."
The evidence GW communed is about as strong as you can get in a court of law; eyewitness testimony from the acting President of the society of Cincinnati, who would have testified at that moment.
Eyewitness testimony is extremely faulty, especially if it refers to singular events. It's like Elvis at Burger King.
The kind of eyewitness testimony that is key is that which is SYSTEMATIC. And the systematic eyewitness testimony shows GW avoiding communion.
"Eyewitness testimony is extremely faulty, especially if it refers to singular events. It's like Elvis at Burger King.
The kind of eyewitness testimony that is key is that which is SYSTEMATIC. And the systematic eyewitness testimony shows GW avoiding communion."
I would say both these statements are faulty, especially the last part. This has nothing to do with DNA evidence, bias or faulty memory. Those objections would be thrown out as irrelevant and modern inventions started by scientists. The systematic testimony is that he did take communion. Not taking communion was not systematic according to the meaning of the ordinance; it was systematic against pastors of a specific church.
Moreover, Major Popham offered to be cross examined, with witnesses for and agst, to establish his character, along with other Officers who would testify to the event.
Out of curiosity Jim. After all these years of dealing with you, we've never gotten a good pic of you. Is this you?
https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-goswick-48198672?trk=public_profile_samename_profile_profile-result-card_result-card_full-click
1if u could call that a good pic.
By the way, it seems the attack on eyewitness testimony was from leftist social scientists in relation to criminal investigations in the sixties. DNA evidence hadn't been invented yet.
By the way, it seems the attack on eyewitness testimony was from leftist social scientists in relation to criminal investigations in the sixties. DNA evidence hadn't been invented yet.
give more on this, if you'd like
I do believe there's a left-wing revisionism against the religious underpinnings of the American Founding over the past century
[after a conservative hagiography of it in the century before]
"By the way, it seems the attack on eyewitness testimony was from leftist social scientists in relation to criminal investigations in the sixties. DNA evidence hadn't been invented yet."
My understanding is that social science has demonstrated that eyewitness testimony in criminal convictions (and other legal cases) isn't nearly as effective as many presumed.
And that in fact, it's DNA evidence that has demonstrated such.
Personally, I think that the vast majority of people convicted of crimes are factually guilty. But even if "vast majority" equates to say 95%. 5% of 2.3 million people is an astoundingly high number of people.
Though I don't necessarily park the blame on trial convictions procured by erroneous eyewitness testimony. Rather I suspect the plea bargaining system and threats of throwing the book at people unless they plea is more to blame.
Why would someone factually innocent plead guilty? The difference between what they plead guilty to and what they would otherwise have been convicted of had they been tried explains it.
And it was a good pic, Jim. Reminds me a bit of William Zabka.
I thought William Zabka has posted on here.
It's probably true people running the courts could use some humble pie. Two guys walked out of prison last week, wrongly convicted after 50 years. God forbid.
I think you are confusing him with Jim Babka. William Zabka was/is "Johnny" from Karate Kid.
Post a Comment