Dr. Hall has put the founding in philosophical context but not the wider historical context, which is all-important. “Enlightenment ideas indisputably had some positive influence,” he allows, “but a more important reason Americans embraced religious liberty was because of their Christian convictions.” No, no, and no! For there were Christians and Christians—though Dr. Hall writes as though the various sects formed a monolithic bloc. In fact, for more than two-and-a-half centuries—ever since Martin Luther posted his 95 theses—Christians had been torturing and slaughtering each other all over Europe. Bitter warfare in France, culminating in the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre of Protestants by Catholics in 1572, endured until the very end of the century, and recommenced, just as brutally, in 1685. It was still going on during deliberations over the American constitution. The Netherlands suffered 80 years of warfare before the Protestant provinces finally succeeded in detaching themselves from Catholic Spain. Germany and other parts of Central Europe were torn apart by the inconceivably savage Thirty Years’ War (1618-48), in which entire regions were devastated and the population of the area was reduced by 30 percent. Britain, closer to home for most American colonists, had seen Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monasteries, Mary I’s persecution of Protestants, and finally the bloody Civil War (1642-51), in which Puritan parliamentarians took on Anglican royalists, divided the nation, and executed the monarch.
Friday, June 19, 2020
Allen Responds to Hall
Over at Cato Unbound, Brook Allen has written her response to Mark David Hall. You can read it here. A taste:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Van Dyke responded to Allen, who i think missed Hall's point:
Ms. Allen writes, "For there were Christians and Christians—though Dr. Hall writes as though the various sects formed a monolithic bloc."
To clarify Ms. Allen's premise rather than dispute it, Dr. Hall writes of a Christian [Protestant--since America was less than 2% Catholic] consensus best described as "Calvinist Resistance Theory."
What Hall argues is that a coherent political theology evolved prior to and during the American Founding and it is defensibly categorized under "Christian thought"--especially in the American context, over half of the Protestant majority was Calvinist* [more accurately, "Reformed" since they quickly distanced themselves from John Calvin on politics]
Even John Locke was considered at the Founding a "Christian" thinker rather than an Enlightenment one. Indeed, the term "Enlightenment" is a retronym.
To a man--with the exception of Paine, who used Biblical arguments anyway in "Common Sense"--the Founders uniformly considered themselves Christians.
This is the root of Hall's premise. Ms. Allen---Hall does not argue
"For there were Christians and Christians—though Dr. Hall writes as though the various sects formed a monolithic bloc."
He argues that those who started and won the American Revolution were of a common political theology.
John Adams did not believe Jesus was God. His cousin and revolutionary ally Sam Adams did. Clearly the fine points of Protestant theology were ineffectual.
______________
*as opposed to Lutheran or Church of England. The Anglicans/Episcopalians represented much of the Loyalist opposition. Their clergy had sworn loyalty to the Crown as Head of the Church. The Dissenters [Calvinists] had not.
over half of the Protestant majority was Calvinist* [more accurately, "Reformed" since they quickly distanced themselves from John Calvin on politics]""
I doubt it. If they were Calvinists, they wouldn't have allowed the formation of a secular nation, built on enlightenment rationalism. Nature's God is enlightenment rationalism, not Christ.
over half of the Protestant majority was Calvinist* [more accurately, "Reformed" since they quickly distanced themselves from John Calvin on politics]""
I doubt it. If they were Calvinists, they wouldn't have allowed the formation of a secular nation, built on enlightenment rationalism. Nature's God is enlightenment rationalism, not Christ.
Well, they were Calvinists if you accept Mark's references and research, BTW that includes the Baptists, who are maybe only 50-50 now.
Actually, Calvinism had rather grown out of running governments--Calvin's Geneva, Cromwell's England, then Puritan New England. The iron hand necessary to run a religion-based regime got too oppressive and bloody, and such a government is nowhere required by the Bible.
Common-sense theology evolved via trial-and-error that the brutality necessary to run a "Christian" government was plainly contrary to the religious principles taught by Jesus.
Further, once Protestantism split into schism after schism, and theology flew all over the map, enforcing orthodoxy within your own church became impossible, let alone in a whole society. Religious freedom of conscience even became a "natural law" principle.
You really need to study Cromwell's England and why everyone turned against it, even the Calvinists. After he died, they dug him up and put his head on a pike. To this day, nobody knows quite what happened to it, lol.
You also might look into why Puritan New England became decidedly unPuritan.
Regardless, Jim, as historians, we are speaking of "Calvinism" as a political theology, not a religious truth. But I would still argue that a government like Calvin's Geneva proved itself untenable because of its own internal contradictions--Jesus would never have approved of the ruthless exercise of power needed to maintain it.
https://www.stephenhicks.org/2010/11/27/john-calvins-geneva/#:~:text=An%20argument%2Dby%2Dexample%20for,separation%20of%20church%20and%20state.&text=The%20city%2Dstate%20of%20Geneva,the%20dictator%20looming%20over%20all.
Well, they were Calvinists if you accept Mark's references and research, BTW that includes the Baptists, who are maybe only 50-50 now""
Baptists were not Calvinists, then or now.
""Actually, Calvinism had rather grown out of running governments--Calvin's Geneva, Cromwell's England, then Puritan New England. The iron hand necessary to run a religion-based regime got too oppressive and bloody, and such a government is nowhere required by the Bible.""
Your flawed opinion.
""Common-sense theology evolved via trial-and-error that the brutality necessary to run a "Christian" government was plainly contrary to the religious principles taught by Jesus.""
Another flawed argument. Common sense theology is enlightenment rationalism.
""Further, once Protestantism split into schism after schism, and theology flew all over the map, enforcing orthodoxy within your own church became impossible, let alone in a whole society. Religious freedom of conscience even became a "natural law" principle.""
Another invalid argument worse than your previous ones. Freedom of conscience is not reformed Geneva, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Poland or Cromwell's republic. Instead, it is enlightenment rationalism.
""You really need to study Cromwell's England and why everyone turned against it, even the Calvinists. After he died, they dug him up and put his head on a pike. To this day, nobody knows quite what happened to it,""
The English despise liberty, enjoy license and desire subjection by monarchs.
""Calvinism" as a political theology, not a religious truth. But I would still argue that a government like Calvin's Geneva proved itself untenable because of its own internal contradictions--Jesus would never have approved of the ruthless exercise of power needed to maintain it.""
You don't know Calvin's Geneva; the greatest educational center in the world, probably the best missionary outreach of any nation in the face of constant persecution, and the greatest welfare system that saved thousands, not based on govt handouts. There would be no United States without John Calvin, despite the secular charters. Even the northwest ordinance is an antichrist charter and that was the foundation for newly formed States.
Well, they were Calvinists if you accept Mark's references and research, BTW that includes the Baptists, who are maybe only 50-50 now""
Baptists were not Calvinists, then or now.
Wrong again, Jim. You used to be a better scholar before your recent turn to hating on the Founding.
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/calvinism-is-not-new-to-baptists
Article by Thomas S. Kidd
Professor, Baylor University
Calvinists once dominated Baptist church life in America.
In a 1793 survey, early Baptist historian John Asplund estimated that there were 1,032 Baptist churches in America. Out of those, 956 were Calvinist congregations. These were “Particular Baptists,” for they believed in a definite atonement (or “particular redemption”), that Christ had died to save the elect decisively. “General Baptists,” who believed that Christ had died indefinitely for the sins of anyone who would choose him, accounted for a tiny fraction of the whole. Even some of those, Asplund noted, believed in certain Calvinist tenets such as “perseverance in grace.”
How did this preponderance of Baptist Calvinists come about? Both Calvinist and Arminian (General) Baptists had existed in the American colonies since the early 1600s. But the Great Awakening of the 1740s, the most profound religious and cultural upheaval in colonial America, wrecked the General Baptist movement, and birthed a whole new type of Calvinist Baptist — the “Separate Baptists.”
""Further, once Protestantism split into schism after schism, and theology flew all over the map, enforcing orthodoxy within your own church became impossible, let alone in a whole society. Religious freedom of conscience even became a "natural law" principle.""
Another invalid argument worse than your previous ones. Freedom of conscience is not reformed Geneva, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Poland or Cromwell's republic. Instead, it is enlightenment rationalism.
Well that was the point, although you're wrong about Holland, which may have been the birthplace of Protestant religious tolerance, strangely enough a Calvinist [Dutch Reformed] stronghold. Calvin's Geneva and Cromwell's England were my examples of tyrannical Calvinist hellholes that any sane man rejected after they proved their fundamental unChristianity.
Poland of course, was and is Catholic. I have no idea why you dragged it in. If anything, it was a haven for religious tolerance far more than say, Puritan New England.
https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Poland_Church_History
Because Poland is predominantly Catholic, many religious groups were severely persecuted until the Warsaw Confederation in 1573, when toleration laws were passed and the various Christian denominations were assured protection by the state. Thereafter, Poland became a haven for people who were persecuted elsewhere. Many persecuted Protestant groups were offered safe shelter in Poland, including Anabaptists, Bohemian Brethren (aka Moravian Brethren), and others. Mennonites, Baptists, Brethren, Calvinists, and other groups have existed in Poland since the mid-1500s.
Baptists did not believe in all the points of Calvinism. Along with the Presbyterians, they sanctioned witchcraft, devil worship, paganism, superstition, cults, and every false religion supplanting Christ as Lord and Saviour over all. By allowing the rationalists to form such a un Christian nation.
Baptists did not believe in all the points of Calvinism. Along with the Presbyterians, they sanctioned witchcraft, devil worship, paganism, superstition, cults, and every false religion supplanting Christ as Lord and Saviour over all. By allowing the rationalists to form such a un Christian nation.
You don't think you fooled anyone with this smokescreen do you?
You used to at least bring some worthwhile fact and argument, Jim. This is just ranting.
I'm not surprised you say something like that at all. I'm not sure if the information is on this site, but i read somewhere John Witherspoon was for total religious freedom with no exceptions and he wasn't the only one. And at the same time he/they claimed they helped form a Christian nation.
Yes, by the late 18th century "orthodox" Calvinists like John Witherspoon were for religious liberty for all. Calvinist and Roman Catholic sources predate the Enlightenment with theories about right to resistance of tyranny and giving the ordinary joe a say in the matter of the rules that govern (i.e., democratic consent of the governed).
But those two channels were very illiberal on religious liberty. For that you have Roger Williams and the Baptists and Quakers. It all starts to come together where good orthodox Christians -- including Calvinists like Witherspoon -- can believe in the entire package in the 18th Century.
Yes, by the late 18th century "orthodox" Calvinists like John Witherspoon were for religious liberty for all.""
This is what your argument is, but Edwards, Whitefield, Davies the tennents and others did not fall for enlightenment rationalism.
The orthodox Calvinists like Witherspoon who signed onto the Whig project. Not all of them did. I recall a bunch of the old school "covenanters" disagreed with the US Constitution in large part because it didn't have a covenant to the Triune God but instead replaced it with Art. VI's "No Religious Test" clause.
It's Gary North's thesis and he dedicated his ebook to them.
But those two channels were very illiberal on religious liberty. For that you have Roger Williams and the Baptists and Quakers. It all starts to come together where good orthodox Christians -- including Calvinists like Witherspoon -- can believe in the entire package in the 18th Century.
It's all in the English Civil Wars--the Puritan Revolution leading to the execution of Charles I in 1649 and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 that in effect exiled Charles II.
In between was the Puritan tyranny of Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell, but even he accorded religious liberty within his theocratic regime.
http://www.olivercromwell.org/wordpress/?page_id=443#:~:text=Cromwell%20was%20tolerant%20in%20practice,his%20religious%20settlement%20of%201653.&text=However%2C%20Cromwell's%20government%20openly%20tolerated,such%20as%20Baptists%20and%20Quakers.
Cromwell was tolerant in practice as well as in principle. This is shown by his readmission of the Jews to England in 1655 and by his religious settlement of 1653. ... However, Cromwell's government openly tolerated separatist congregations of the more radical Protestants, such as Baptists and Quakers.
Brooke Allen's retort to Mark Hall misses all this too. Her timeline of bloody religious war ends [conveniently?] just at the point where religious pluralism begins.
Jonathan Rowe said...
The orthodox Calvinists like Witherspoon who signed onto the Whig project. Not all of them did. I recall a bunch of the old school "covenanters" disagreed with the US Constitution in large part because it didn't have a covenant to the Triune God but instead replaced it with Art. VI's "No Religious Test" clause
Add to their number Edwards, Whitefield, Davies and the New Lights. It's interesting to think what would have happened had Edwards, Whitefield and Davies lived to 1788. They were the leaders of the Calvinists, with connections in every State, especially Whitefield. What influence would Davies have had on Mason and Henry in VA, nullifying the Jeffersonians? Add the Tennants as well. Gilbert Tennant died right after Mayhew. Once they all passed, Calvinism faded out because all the top leadership died and the bloc to defend Mason's view of the 1A didn't have a chance. Ellsworth obviously needed support in the Senate, but the secularists were too many, including many secularist Democrats.
Had Christ been added to the founding documents, the religious test clause would have been gone too or "Christian" added to it. Most likely the latter.
This is why I initially thought they just spaced it because most of the ffs said we were formed a Christian nation.
Had Christ been added to the founding documents, the religious test clause would have been gone too or "Christian" added to it. Most likely the latter.
This is why I initially thought they just spaced it because most of the ffs said we were formed a Christian nation.
Jim, you do realize that the ban on "religious tests" was only for the national government, and only because it would have been impossible for the 13 states to agree on one definition of "Christian" that would have suited every one?
Jim, you do realize that 12 of the 13 states still kept their prerogatives under the 1st Amendment and kept religious tests for statewide office?
Religion was left to the states. It had ALWAYS BEEN the province of the states. Each state, to make its own choices--Massachusetts and Connecticut with official state churches; Virginia with none; every other state somewhere in between. Ratifying the Constitution did nothing to change that.
You used to be so much better than this with the facts. What happened?
""It would have been impossible for the 13 statesa to agree on one definition of "Christian" that would have suited every one?""
Maybe it was impossible in your world, but not for the majority.
""Jim, you do realize that 12 of the 13 states still kept their prerogatives under the 1st Amendment and kept religious tests for statewide office?""
Means nothing. The social compact, union and foundation was secular.
""Religion was left to the states. It had ALWAYS BEEN the province of the states. Each state, to make its own choices--Massachusetts and Connecticut with official state churches; Virginia with none; every other state somewhere in between. Ratifying the Constitution did nothing to change that.""
Religion left to the states was a marvel of the world. And because that doctrine was new for a sovereign nation, it was enlightenment rationalism. As Dr. Allen says on cato:
""The omission was deliberate, as the writings and correspondence of Madison, Hamilton, and Jefferson clearly indicate. It was also radical: a sovereign nation with no established religion was something new on the face of the earth, a cause for wonder.""
If the Calvinist bloc hadn't lost their leadership, especially Edwards and Whitefield, it would have never happened.
Unresponsive. The formation of a national government and the First Amendment did nothing to the states' prerogatives regarding religion. They never had any unanimity on religion: Calvinists to the north, Anglicans to the south, and a band of Quakers and Catholics in between.
BTW, Whitfield was a Brit, not an American and Jonathan Edwards showed little interest in political theory and even less in politics itself.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3162311
You used to research this stuff instead of just making stuff up, Jim.
You used to research this stuff instead of just making stuff up, Jim""
You lost the argument. Move on.
Our Founding Truth said...
You used to research this stuff instead of just making stuff up, Jim""
You lost the argument. Move on.
You can't win an argument until you make one, Jim. You been rebutted on every point from the Baptist-Calvinist connection to Cromwell's Puritan regime.
Even Calvin's Geneva was disgusted with their brutal execution of Michael Servetus. The cruelty and ruthlessness required to run a Calvinist theocracy such as you imagine is so unChristlike as to turn the stomach.
Post a Comment