Saturday, March 21, 2009

America's Key Founders as "Judeo-Christians," "Apriarians" and "Jews"

"Were I to be a founder of a new sect, I would call them Apriarians, and after the example of the bee, advise them to extract honey of every sect."

-- Thomas Jefferson to Thomas B. Parker, May 15, 1819.

In order to settle the debate over what to call America's principle Founders [Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and others], perhaps we should term them "Apriarians." This system is neither strict Deism, nor orthodox Christianity. Dr. Gregg Frazer has suggested "theistic rationalism," a term I like. But not everyone does. My co-blogger at American Creation, Tom Van Dyke has voiced his disagreement with it (I need not reproduce that here) and instead offers, "Judeo-Christians." TVD would note, after Michael Novak that the "strict Deist" God is a non-interventionist one, but it's the "Judeo-Christian" God who is an active personal God. And all five of those above mentioned Founders believed in an active personal God.

Here are some potential problems with the term "Judeo-Christian." First it's an a-historical term. The term was not used during the Founding and the Founders didn't call themselves "Judeo-Christians." But they didn't call themselves "theistic rationalists" either. Both Van Dyke and Frazer would argue their terms are properly "descriptive" however.

The second problem is it suggests some special relationship between Judaism and Christianity, but that excludes other "non-Judeo-Christian" faiths. And that dynamic didn't quite exist during the Founding era either. You had "Protestant Christianity" as the dominant faith and the "in" group. Jews and Roman Catholics tended to be cast "outside the box" with Muslims, pagans and infidels. There were only a very small number of anti-Christian Deists or atheists who wanted nothing to do with Jesus, the Bible or the Christian label. But there were an huge number of "deistic" or "unitarian" minded folks, most of whom were formally or nominally associated with a Protestant Christian Church. Though they may not have been regular attendees or communicants and they otherwise didn't believe in their Church's orthodox doctrines. Men like Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington could feel like "insiders" in a way that Jews, Muslims, Roman Catholics, non-Christian-Deists and atheists couldn't precisely because they maintained formal and nominal connections to Protestant Christianity.

Another potential problem with "Judeo-Christianity" is that it could mean a lowest common denominator between Judaism and Christianity; but then we'd have to throw out Jesus and the New Testament. And the Founders didn't do that.

But my biggest problems with the term "Judeo-Christianity" is that I see a number of orthodox Christians invoking that term and then seeking to use the "Judeo" part as a "handmaiden" to orthodox Christianity. From their self-serving perspective, it's not surprising they would do this because Judaism does indeed play an extremely special role as an antecedent to orthodox Christianity. But that clearly doesn't describe the "Judeo-Christianity" of America's key Founders.

Maybe this is just the result of an encounter I had with an orthodox Christian named Gordon Mullings, which was the blatantest, grossest example of this dynamic of attempting to use Christianity's Judaic roots to serve as a handmaiden for orthodox doctrine. He wrote:

As to the idea that the biblical, Judaeo-Christian worldview is ill-defined or hard to outline, that is laughable. Yes there are disputes or debates over relatively narrow points of doctrine [we are here speaking of worldviews not theologies and schools of thought within a worldview], or because of ignorance and twisting of the scriptures, but the core of that worldview is long since on public record as bith [sic] NT documents and subsequent easily accessible creedal statements, regularly publicly recited, e.g. the Nicene creed - which aptly summarises the faith once for all delivered unto the saints.


Did you get that? He just equated the "Judeo-Christian" worldview with the Nicene Creed. And Jews, like America's key Founders, reject almost every single word of the Nicene Creed, or at least after the first paragraph. The kind of "Judeo-Christianity" as represented by the "theistic rationalists" (or the "Apriarians") can reject, often bitterly and mockingly, the Nicene Creed.

I remember once explaining to a group of people, via email, "theistic rationalism," how it was neither strict deism nor orthodox Christianity and one commenter noted, "they sound like they were Jews." There may be some truth to that. When I hear Rabbi Shmuley Boteach debate Jesus I hear a lot of Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin. He sees Jesus as a great moral teacher and Rabbi, but rejects Him as Messiah. They may have seen Jesus as a "savior" in some sense but rejected the Trinity or Jesus' divinity. AND Boteach asserts that parts of the New Testament were likely fabricated (Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin would certainly say something similar about the Old Testament). Boteach also discusses the Jewish doctrine of how men are saved by their virtue, which is also what those Founders believed.





So, ultimately if there is a "Judeo-Christian" or even a "Christian" theology that undergirds the American Founding, it's so ecumenical that it includes lots of things (Trinity denial, universal salvation, rejection of the infallibility of the Bible; today it would have to include such things as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnessism, cafeteria Christianity and embrace of the Gnostic Gospels) "historic" Christians don't consider "real Christianity" at all.

8 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

Both Van Dyke and Frazer would argue their terms are properly "descriptive" however.

Actually, I've written that "Judeo-Christian" has its flaws too, which Mr. Rowe aptly illustrates here. Its virtue is that it includes the Bible and Christian thought without insisting on Jesus' divinity.

Since "Judeo-Christian" is already in somewhat common usage and already carries a certain understanding that the Founders weren't Jews, I prefer "theistic rationalism" not be substituted for it, as philosophically and especially theologically, it rejects miracles, which we know John Adams and Ben Franklin---and perhaps even Thomas Jefferson---did not.

As for the principle ["key"] Founders method, there were scores of Founders, not a handful, and even this "rating system" (from a very secular website birddogged by Ben Abbott) shows a completely different set of Founders as the most "influential."

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/quote1.htm

It is best to look at the Founding as a whole, especially since many of the "principal" Founders kept their theologies private and unknown to the general public; we know them only with the hindsight of historical research.

Our Founding Truth said...

Jon: The term was not used during the Founding and the Founders didn't call themselves "Judeo-Christians."

Yes they did; about a million times!

Tom:Its virtue is that it includes the Bible and Christian thought without insisting on Jesus' divinity.

"Judeo-Christian" has an historical context, and will not corrupted by secular liberals, or by the use of three infidel framers.

Tom:Since "Judeo-Christian" is already in somewhat common usage and already carries a certain understanding that the Founders weren't Jews,

Ethnicity has nothing to do with the term.

Tom:it rejects miracles, which we know John Adams and Ben Franklin---and perhaps even Thomas Jefferson---did not.

The opinions of three guys mean nothing; Adams and Franklin were contractions, and did believe in miracles, so why reference them?

bpabbott said...

Tom: "I prefer 'theistic rationalism' not be substituted for it, as philosophically and especially theologically, it rejects miracles"

Tom, theistic rationalism does not reject miracles. Rather it places the individual in judgement of doctrine. The individual might very well accept all the miracles of Jewish and/or Christian doctrine ... or he might deny them all.

I'm rather certain this has been pointed out to you previously, and am surprised the point eluded you ... or did you intend to elude (avoid, bilk, circumvent, confound, ditch, dodge, duck, eschew, evade, flee, shirk, shuck, shun, thwart) the point ;-)

In any event, the point, of theistic rationalism, is that the intelligent application of rational thought is a more reliable determination of truth than is obedience to doctrine.

Further, what I think placed the founders apart from their European and/or historical counter parts was that they accepted, or even embraced, the elevation of rational examination over doctrine.

To be clear, it is not my understanding, or opinion, that the religious sentiments of the vast majority (if not all) of the founders are not encompassed by the intersection of Jewish and Christian theology. I think they are ... well sans the divine authorty of doctrine.

If my understanding of "theistic rationalism" wrong, I welcome Jon to correct me.

bpabbott said...

Jon: The term was not used during the Founding and the Founders didn't call themselves "Judeo-Christians."

Ray: "Yes they did; about a million times!"

Excellent ... then it would be a simple task to provide a single example.

Tom: "I prefer [to substitute Judeo-Christian for "theistic rationalism"], as philosophically and especially theologically, [Judeo-Christian does not reject] miracles, which we know John Adams and Ben Franklin---and perhaps even Thomas Jefferson---did not."
[editing by me]

Ray responds: "The opinions of three guys mean nothing; Adams and Franklin were contractions, and did believe in miracles, so why reference them?"

Ray, you understood Tom's point completely (i.e. you got it backwards). Tom's point was that is it not proper to claim that Jefferson rejected all miracles, and that Franklin and Adams each gave tesitment that they did.

Tom, please correct me if I have misunderstood your position.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Ben,

You get theistic rationalism 100%.

And Ray, a single example please. I'll give you a hint: You can't find one. The term "Judeo-Christian" is of modern invention. It is as much a term of modern invention as is "theistic rationalism."

bpabbott said...

Jon,

In scientific circles, many have become weary of discussion / debate with creationists. The motive is two fold. (1) Science is an objective discipline, and not dominated by popularity, or subjective opinion. I think History is much the same. (2) Creationists are not experts in science, any debate with them implies that they are qualified authorities on the subject.

I have not encountered such precautionary measures on the part of historians.

Would it be fair to assume that the experts are divided on the divine influence of historic events, or is there another explanation?

Tom Van Dyke said...

Rationalism as a theological term rejects miracles.

I suppose "theistic rationalism," as a contrived term, can be defined anywhichway the contriver wants.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Yes, Ben, Mr. Jim "Ray" Goswick misunderstood me, and inexcusably, since I was substantiating a point he frequently makes himself. It seems some people can't take yes for an answer.

And although I agree that the study of history should be objective, my previous point was an attempt to be evenhanded and cautious about claiming "proof" or "debunking"---whether Jasper Adams' contentions were shared by the minority or the majority of people at the time is hard to claim any certainty about.

I mean, in 2009, we have daily polls, but their meaning is still often elusive.

But we should keep trying to make some sense of it all.