Sunday, March 8, 2009

Justice: Rights and Wrongs, Nicholas Wolterstorff

Put that book on my reading list! Nicholas Wolterstorff "is the Noah Porter Professor Emeritus of Philosophical Theology at Yale University and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences," and his new book from Princeton University Press will probably make about as serious an argument you can get for the proposition that human rights must be grounded in "biblical theism." (Note to the "Christian America" crowd: It's from sources like this that you should turn to for serious arguments, not "Wallbuilders" or "Coral Ridge").

The Immanent Frame is doing a lot of blogging on the issue of late. I like James K.A. Smith's critique the best. A taste:

Wolterstorff is out to tell the causal version of this story: the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures teach inherent rights, the church affirmed inherent rights, the Reformation recovered and expanded inherent rights, and modern liberal democracy universalized inherent rights (and stands in danger of losing a ground for them if it persists in its secularizing ways). But with just a smidgen of a hermeneutics of suspicion, this story could be told quite differently—namely, that a late modern Calvinist, who has bought into a liberal model of justice as inherent rights, is now (surprise, surprise!) finding just such a model of justice in a selective, tilted reading of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures—and that insofar at the Reformation plays a role in giving rise to this paradigm, it’s to blame, not praise. (I don’t claim to have sufficiently marshaled the resources to actually pull off such an alternative account. I only want to sketch what it might look like.)


Wolterstorff cannot claim that "rights teachings" are explicit within the Bible's text, because they are not. Rather he claims (out of necessity) that they are "inherent." There is something to his point; the creation story, Imago Dei. However, inherent "rights" teachings is clearly a "selective" reading of the Bible. It is not, by necessity, the only proper "orthodox" reading of the good book. And it certainly was not that of Calvin or the early reformers. Samuel Rutherford, referring to Calvin's complicity in the death of Michael Servetus for simply speaking his unitarian conscience, aptly summarizes Calvin's teachings on the "rights of conscience," (the most unalienable or natural rights):

“It was justice, not cruelty, yea mercy to the Church of God, to take away the life of Servetus, who used such spirituall and diabolick cruelty to many thousand soules, whom he did pervert, and by his Booke, does yet lead into perdition.”

Samuel Rutherfurd, “A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience.” (1649).


Note, I am sympathetic to the notion that human rights, by necessity, best rest on some kind of ultimate "higher power." I blogged about that at Ed Brayton's Dispatches From the Culture Wars, here and here. This leads to my second critique of Wolterstorff's thesis. His book seems to play into the modern culture war dynamic of "religious conservatives" arguing the Bible on the one hand v. the Godless secularists on the other. The actual account of our rights-oriented "Whig history" is more complicated to give the victory of "rights" to one side or the other. America's Founding Fathers grounded their idea of rights in a God -- an active personal God -- which might seem to give the victory to the "biblical" side. But their God was (or to some pretty damn important Founding Fathers was) a rationalistic Enlightenment God as much as He was biblical.

In a piece the Cato Institute reproduced, reacting to Mark Lilla's thesis (the subject of Cato Unbound that month), I noted the following on the rights granting God of the American Founding:

Nature’s God was theologically unitarian, universalist (did not eternally damn anyone) syncretist (most or all world religions worshipped Him), partially inspired the Christian Scriptures, and man’s reason was ultimate device for understanding Him. He was not quite the strict Deist God that some secular scholars have made Him out to be. But neither was He the Biblical God. Rather, somewhere in between.


Now, even if many of the Founding Fathers and the population at large didn't believe in this God, it's clear that Jefferson, Franklin, and J. Adams -- the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence -- did. Many other Founders probably did as well (see for instance my discussion of Madison below). And their benevolent unitarian deity is arguably the more authentic ultimate "rights-grantor." It's not as though they HAD to rely on the strict biblical God for their conception of "rights" because, as noted, the Bible's text does not explicitly speak of "natural rights." The "selective reading" of the Bible that seeks to glean universal human rights from the creation story fits perfectly with the benevolent unitarian deity of Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin described above.

And arguably their God, not the orthodox Calvinist God, is a more useful grantor of rights. There is, let us not forget, another selective reading of the Bible that denies universal human rights. From one of my above linked guest posts at Dispatches From the Culture Wars, I quoted Larry Arnhart who wrote:

The case of slavery and "universalism" illustrates the problem....[M]any religious traditions have allowed slavery, and the Bible never condemns slavery or calls for its abolition. On the contrary, in the American debate over slavery, Christian defenders of slavery were able to cite specific biblical passages in both the Old Testament and the New Testament supporting slavery. Opponents of slavery had to argue that general doctrines such as the creation of human beings in God's image implicitly denied the justice of slavery. But they could never cite any specific passage of the Bible for their position. Here's a clear case of where the moral teaching of the Bible depends on our coming to it with a prior moral understanding that we then read into the Bible.

Moreover, the "universalism" of the Bible is in doubt. I don't see a universal morality in the Old Testament. Moses ordering the slaughter of the innocent Mideanite women and children, for example, manifests a xenophobia that runs through much of the Old Testament.

Now, of course, the New Testament does seem more inclined to a universal humanitarianism. But the Book of Revelation teaches that at the end of history the saints will destroy the Antichrist and the unbelievers in bloody battle. The bloodiness of this vision has been dramatized throughout the history of Christianity. (See, for example, Tim LaHaye's popular LEFT BEHIND novels.)


In my intense study of orthodox biblical theology I often see orthodox theologians argue that only "born again," "saved" or "regenerate" Christians are "children of God." The others are "children of the devil," as it were. And they have biblical textual authority for this proposition. Though they do concede these "children of the devil" were made in God's image. A more liberal reading of the biblical record holds EVERYONE is God's child. And it's precisely that reading -- that we are ALL children of God, regardless of status as "orthodox" or "real" Christians -- upon which the American Founding relied. The more orthodox-Calvinist understanding that casts aside the unregenerate as "children of the devil," it seems to me, is rife for casting away most or all of their inherhent human dignity as well. Look at how Moses dealt with the Mideanite "women and children of the devil."

[See also Ron Paul's debate with John Lofton on homosexuals. Ron Paul's notion that homosexuals are children of God far better resonates with the political theology of the American Founding than Lofton's uber-Calvinist idea that homosexuals are children of the devil.]

And with that I will end with James Madison's liberal unitarian theology that invoked the Native American's "Great Spirit" God as the same one Jews and Christians worshipped and held unconverted Natives in their unconverted state were "Children of God":

“....The Great Spirit has given you, like your white brethren, good heads to contrive, and strong arms, and active bodies. Use them like your white brethren of the eighteen fires, and like them, your little sparks will grow into great fires. You will be well fed, dwell in good houses, and enjoy the happiness for which you, like them, were created. These are the words of your father to his red children. The Great Spirit who is the father of us all, approves them. Let them pass through the ear in to the heart. Carry them home to your people; and as long as you remember this visit to your father of the eighteen fires, remember these are his last and best words to you!” [Bold mine.]


So ultimately if we want more "theology" in public life to provide the necessary support for "human rights," we are just as likely to be left with modern liberal Christian notions of God that suit Barack Obama's ideal vision for society than Pat Robertson's. Is that what Nicholas Wolterstorff is trying to accomplish? Such are the inherent dangers when dealing with "civil religion."

39 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

It is a grave error to read the Bible non-theologically.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/numbers31.html

God didn't capriciously order the slaughter of the Mideanites or anyone else: it was their own wickedness that condemned them. "Xenophobia" is inappropriate here.

As for human rights and the Bible, it's also a grave error to omit 2000 years of Christian thought, thought which gave rise to the modern notion of human rights.

Now, it might be a reasonable argument that the mutation of the God of the Bible into the "God of the Founding" was necessary to arrive at human rights and liberty, but that argument isn't being made here. Regardless, there is no way to construct the narrative of the evolution of the concept of human rights without Christian thought in its mainstream.

That narrative leads to the French Revolution, which is merely the tyranny of egalitarianism and mob rule, the opposite of the innate "dignity of the human person" and the rights of the individual following therefrom.

As for slavery, the chattel slavery of Americas is NOT the understanding of slavery of the Bible or even most of human history, where it was a political arrangement, and not one of inherent inequality. Slavery in America is sui generis, and once again serves only to muddy the waters.

There are many errors in the body of Christian thought that leads to human rights, but to focus on them obscures the greater truth.

For those who enjoy chronicling the sins and massacres of "religion," I ran across this report to the French Revolution's Committee on Public Safety by a General Westermann:

"The Vendee is no more, my republican comrades! With her women and children she died under our sabers. I have just buried them in the swamps and forests. As you ordered, the children were trampled to death by our horses, the women butchered so that they no longer can give birth to little brigands. The streets are littered with corpses which sometimes are stacked in pyramids. Mass shootings are taking place in Savenay because there brigands keep turning up to surrender. We do not take any prisoners because they would have to be fed the bread of freedom, but pity is incompatible with the spirit of revolution."

Hmmm. It's true that "religion" killed a lot of people in medieval history, but once we entered the modern age and the "Enlightenment" got its chance, well, as Leo Strauss says, man's perennial problems are perennial.

Our Founding Truth said...

Samuel Rutherford, referring to Calvin's complicity in the death of Michael Servetus for simply speaking his unitarian conscience,>

Servetus was not executed for speaking unitarianism.

Our Founding Truth said...

Jon: A more liberal reading of the biblical record holds EVERYONE is God's child. And it's precisely that reading -- that we are ALL children of God, regardless of status as "orthodox" or "real" Christians

It would be nice to see those quotes in the Bible. It's unlikely the framers departed from 1800 years of orthodoxy.

Our Founding Truth said...

Jon: Wolterstorff cannot claim that "rights teachings" are explicit within the Bible's text, because they are not. Rather he claims (out of necessity) that they are "inherent." There is something to his point; the creation story, Imago Dei. However, inherent "rights" teachings is clearly a "selective" reading of the Bible.

There are many pastors that point out human rights are explicit in the Bible. The problem with philosophers is they think they know the Bible, which is why they comment on it; they do not know the Bible.

The Church is to blame for the most part for not telling our people about these great truths. The secular left, including you, have done a good job of dragging David Barton in the mud, however, the majority doesn't take the secularist view evidenced by his continued popularity and testimony at Congress.

Brad Hart said...

OFT writes:

"It would be nice to see those quotes in the Bible. It's unlikely the framers departed from 1800 years of orthodoxy."

Uh...are you kidding?

Jonathan Rowe said...

I'm a bit pressed for time, but I do want to respond to TVD.

I certainlY DO think the story of the Mideanites represents a "reasonable" Xenophobic interpretation of the Bible. My thesis is (and I've seen nothing serious to contradict it as of yet) the Xenophobic selective interpretation is every bit a reasonable literal interpretation as is the universalistic interpretation.

The reason why Arnhart stressed the women & children is because they were innocent. I have a hard time believing all of the adult males were guilty enough to be slaughtered (unless you revert the specially plead idea that everyone is guilty because of original sin); but even conceding that, the point cannot be extended to the women & children.

I read TVD's link and the argument goes something like, the Mideanite women weren't raped because that would qualify as forbidden fornication or something along those lines. So you could enslave them and do what you wanted with them as long as your conduct didn't violate the law of Moses which was quite strict on things like sexual matters. But the law of Moses permitted slavery.

And re slavery (we can dig up the proof texts later) again there is this inescapable tension between Xenophobia and universalism that is found within the Bible's text. The slavery that Jews were permitted to practice on one another, indeed was a form of social regulation that was not like later Western chattel slavery. If you focus selectively on that, you support the universalistic reading of the Bible's text.

However, in parts of the OT God says something along the lines of "if they aren't Jews, rules don't apply and they are your human property." And in that sense the biblical slavery is every bit as bad as American chattel slavery. That supports the Xenophobic interpretation of the Bible.

Just look OFT's recent comment: The interpretation of the Bible that does not see ALL human beings as God's children is part of the Xenophobic selective interpretation that tends to cast aside the "inherent human dignity" of those who are not "children of God" and consequently gives them lesser or perhaps no "rights." This Xenophobic interpretation that OFT and John Lofton endorse (that refuses to see non-regenerate humans as "children of God") is especially incompatible with the notion of "unalienable rights."

Jonathan Rowe said...

"It would be nice to see those quotes in the Bible. It's unlikely the framers departed from 1800 years of orthodoxy."

It doesn't matter whether I can prove from the Bible that non-Christians are "children of God." I prove it from James Madison's words (which was my point!). He terms the Native's "Great Spirit" God as the same "God the Father," and tells the Native Americans in their unconverted state that they are children of God, invoking their "Great Spirit" as the "Father"!

Our Founding Truth said...

He terms the Native's "Great Spirit" God as the same "God the Father," and tells the Native Americans in their unconverted state that they are children of God, invoking their "Great Spirit" as the "Father"!>

Like I said many times, one man's opinion means nothing. I don't understand how you don't understand that. The great majority of framers did not believe what you are saying.

Just look OFT's recent comment: The interpretation of the Bible that does not see ALL human beings as God's children is part of the Xenophobic selective interpretation that tends to cast aside the "inherent human dignity" of those who are not "children of God" and consequently gives them lesser or perhaps no "rights." This Xenophobic interpretation that OFT and John Lofton endorse (that refuses to see non-regenerate humans as "children of God") is especially incompatible with the notion of "unalienable rights.">

Not at all. The Bible says a person is a child of God who is Born Again (saved), and the framers understood that.

I have a hard time believing all of the adult males were guilty enough to be slaughtered (unless you revert the specially plead idea that everyone is guilty because of original sin); but even conceding that, the point cannot be extended to the women & children.>

Jon, you should go to seminary, so you understand the Biblical view of things, rather than what "feels"
right to you.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Not at all. The Bible says a person is a child of God who is Born Again (saved), and the framers understood that.

None of the key framers understood this and I'm including many of the orthodox Anglicans/Episcopalians who didn't believe in the doctrine of being "born again." You certainly never see anything like this in the Works of James Wilson.

Re the Mideanites, I can read the text with my own two eyes.

bpabbott said...

Jon: "Re the Mideanites, I can read the text with my own two eyes."

I don't think anyone questions your literacy ... but can you read it [sic] theologically?

;-)

I interpret this sort of posturing to be a back-door argument against the position that reason is necessary to arbitrate what of scripture qualifies as revealed, and what of scripture is unreasonable.

Our Founding Truth said...

None of the key framers understood this and I'm including many of the orthodox Anglicans/Episcopalians who didn't believe in the doctrine of being "born again.">

That would include: Boudinot, Witherspoon, Rush, Baldwin etc.

Do you have any homework

Jonathan Rowe said...

None of them was a key Framer, with the arguable exception of Witherspoon, who did believe in the doctrine of being born-again.

Rush, I doubt, believed in the "born again" doctrine. He thought everyone got into Heaven eventually.

Tom Van Dyke said...


I certainlY DO think the story of the Mideanites represents a "reasonable" Xenophobic interpretation of the Bible. My thesis is (and I've seen nothing serious to contradict it as of yet) the Xenophobic selective interpretation is every bit a reasonable literal interpretation as is the universalistic interpretation.



The account of the Midianites in the Book of Numbers itself contradicts your thesis. You must get to their wickedness.

Their punishment is not xenophobia, it's justice. I'm sure your two eyes are fine, but you have to read the whole story.


However, in parts of the OT God says something along the lines of "if they aren't Jews, rules don't apply and they are your human property."


Really?

Jonathan Rowe said...

Wickedness doesn't justify genocide

Re the "really," I take that as a challenge to cite the verses and chapters.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Leviticus 25:44-46

King James Version

44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

New International Version

44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Exodus 21:2-6 (New Living Translation)

[Notice the Special Rules for Hebrew Slaves that do not apply to non-Hebrew slaves. Non-Hebrew slaves don't get freed in the 7th year.]

2 “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he may serve for no more than six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. 3 If he was single when he became your slave, he shall leave single. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife must be freed with him.

4 “If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave and they had sons or daughters, then only the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. 5 But the slave may declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I don’t want to go free.’ 6 If he does this, his master must present him before God.[a] Then his master must take him to the door or doorpost and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will serve his master for life.

Our Founding Truth said...

None of them was a key Framer,>

Classic Jon Rowe right there. Boudinot was Senior to Madison during the Federal Congress. Baldwin drafted and ratified the Constitution, and the first amendment, he's more of a key founder than Jefferson, Adams, or Franklin!

You should cite the KJV, unless otherwise needed. The NIV is based on flawed manuscripts.

Our Founding Truth said...

Classic Jon Rowe right there. Boudinot was Senior to Madison during the Federal Congress.>

I meant First Federal Congress.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Ah no. Whatever Baldwin did at the Constitutional Convention, he did not play as an important a role that Franklin did.

And where is the evidence that he was an orthodox Christian, let alone a "born again" Christian. For all I know he was a unitarian-theistic rationalist just like Franklin, J. Adams, Jefferson and Madison.

Our Founding Truth said...

Ah no. Whatever Baldwin did at the Constitutional Convention, he did not play as an important a role that Franklin did.>

What!!!! Did you forget the members mocked him for going to sleep all the time???

Our Founding Truth said...

And where is the evidence that he was an orthodox Christian, let alone a "born again" Christian.>

Baldwin was an ordained minister, I believe Episcopalian, not sure though.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Joseph Priestley, Richard Price, Jonathan Mayhew and many others were ordained ministers and unitarian rationalists.

Jonathan Rowe said...

At least Franklin wasn't a no show. Here is what one website says about Baldwin.

That same year, Baldwin attended the Constitutional Convention, from which he was absent for a few weeks. Although usually inconspicuous, he sat on the Committee on Postponed Matters and helped resolve the large-small state representation crisis. At first, he favored representation in the Senate based upon property holdings, but possibly because of his close relationship with the Connecticut delegation he later came to fear alienation of the small states and changed his mind to representation by state.

http://www.americanrevolution.com/AbrahamBaldwin.htm

Our Founding Truth said...

And with that I will end with James Madison's liberal unitarian theology that invoked the Native American's "Great Spirit" God as the same one Jews and Christians worshipped and held unconverted Natives in their unconverted state were "Children of God":>

It's possible you could have the wrong interpretation on this. Madison could be referring to the Christian God only, meaning that He is their Father too, which seems highly probable. Especially if Madison had any dealings with spreading the Gospel to the Indians. The Gospel is not about works at all.

Joseph Priestley, Richard Price, Jonathan Mayhew and many others were ordained ministers and unitarian rationalists.>

Not in the anglican, meth, baptist church they weren't.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Mayhew was a Congregationalist. Priestley and Price I do believe were connected to the Presbyterian Church. I can find you unitarian Anglicans if you'd like. The bottom line is ministers of churches with orthodox creeds disbelieved in the Trinitarian orthodoxy and many worked (not often successfully) to "reform" those creeds to get rid of the Trinity. The unitarians thought of themselves as operating in the tradition of Luther -- further reforming the Protestant churches to get rid of that which they believed was error (the Trinity). To them Trinitarianism and Roman Catholicism were practically inseparable.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Madison could be referring to the Christian God only, meaning that He is their Father too, which seems highly probable.

Even if that's true, if God the Father is the "Father" of Native Americans in their uncoverted state, that supports the contention that all human beings, not just saved ones, are children of God (or maybe that everyone is saved regardless of whether they are born again or even accept Christ before death).

Our Founding Truth said...

Mayhew was a Congregationalist. Priestley and Price I do believe were connected to the Presbyterian Church. I can find you unitarian Anglicans if you'd like.>

They didn't succeed in their quest to change the creed, and who were the unitarian anglicans? They obviously lied when they took their oath.

You can surely come up the evidence that Baldwin was not Christian?

Even if that's true, if God the Father is the "Father" of Native Americans in their uncoverted state>

Maybe it doesn't matter, converted or not. He just meant God the Father was their father too.

Jonathan Rowe said...

You have the burden as well to prove he was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian, and an even higher burden to prove he was a "born again" Christian (the two are not the same as many orthodox Christians like the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans did not believe in the doctrine of "born again" Christianity).

Jonathan Rowe said...

The first Unitarian Church in America was Episcopalian and the Anglican Church in England was littered with Unitarians. Samuel Clarke was probably the most notable official within the Anglican Church at that time who was a Unitarian.

http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/jamesfreeman.html

Jonathan Rowe said...

"They obviously lied when they took their oath."

This is why the Founding Fathers hated sectarian religious oaths, esp. those for public office so much, because it forced them to lie.

This is exactly what Richard Price refers to in this sermon that George Washington enjoyed when Price noted:

Perhaps nothing more shocking to reason and humanity ever made a part of a religious system than the damning clauses in the Athanasian creed and yet the obligation of the clergy to declare assent to this creed, and to read it as a part of the public devotion, remains.

The "Athanasian creed" is shorthand for Trinitarianism. He was a unitarian minister who hated the fact that unitarians were forced to recite Trinitarian creeds when they belonged to or served as ministers for churches with said creeds. This is an important dynamic to understand the theological unitarianism of the Founding era. It often took place in Churches that were formally tied to Trinitarian creeds.

bpabbott said...

Tom: "Their punishment is not xenophobia, it's justice. I'm sure your two eyes are fine, but you have to read the whole story."

The context of justice is with the individual. If an entire race, ethnic, religion, or geographic society is "punished" without consideration for the guilt or innocense of the individual, it is not justice.

bpabbott said...

OFT: "What!!!! Did you forget the members mocked him for going to sleep all the time???"

Irrelevant. What was their comparitive individual contribution?

Tom Van Dyke said...


The context of justice is with the individual. If an entire race, ethnic, religion, or geographic society is "punished" without consideration for the guilt or innocense of the individual, it is not justice.


Again, Ben, you're not reading theologically. The Old Testament in particular has many layers, and we make selective citations of modern translations at the peril of our own ignorance.

Jon, your counterarguments are good, but again, they depend on quote grabbing and translations. What is the Jewish view of property? What of the bibically-commanded slave's right of redress against an unjust master? What of this passage's endorsement of buying the already-enslaved from the neighboring peoples, but elsewhere the Bible forbids "man-stealing?" And of Paul in the epistles urging masters to be kind and just? remember, the topic was chattel slavery.

Yes, we can argue the Bible against itself---and do here---but these days "we" seldom have a proper understanding of the Bible as a whole, and are content just pouncing on quotes, as "we" are reading it unsympathetically.

Somewhat relevant to the 1000th replay of Mr. Rowe and OFT's bone of contention that the Founders were orthodox Christians, let me offer William Ellery Channing's Biblically-based attack on slavery, which shows a great erudition and understanding of the Bible as a whole.

http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/wechanning/slavery6.html

Channing, of course, is a top "unitarian" of the Founding era, and we must remember that these unitarians were Christian unitarians: although they didn't believe Jesus was God, they allowed he was sent by God on a very special mission, a mission unique in human-theological history.

Therefore, the Bible is used as moral authority by such men. Channing's arguments against slavery are biblical and theological, as were those of another Christian unitaraian, Jonathan Mayhew, in his sermon on liberty that according to John Adams triggered the American revolution.

Back to Channing, and I hope those interested in reading the Bible sympathetically---understanding it as it understands itself---and do not disregard 2000 years of Christian thought and theology will read the whole thing.

An excerpt:

""This very course, which the Gospel takes on this subject, seems to have been the only one that could have been taken in order to effect the universal abolition of slavery. The Gospel was designed, not for one race or for one time, but for all races and for all times. It looked, not at the abolition of this form of evil for that age alone, but for its universal abolition. Hence the important object of its author was to gain it a lodgment in every part of the known world; so that, by its universal diffusion among all classes of society, it might quietly and peacefully modify and subdue the evil passions of men; and thus, without violence, work a revolution in the whole mass of mankind. In this manner alone could its object, a universal moral revolution, have been accomplished. For if it had forbidden the EVIL, instead of subverting the PRINCIPLE, if it had proclaimed the unlawfulness of slavery, and taught slaves to RESIST the oppression of their masters, it would instantly have arrayed the two parties in deadly hostility throughout the civilized world; its announcement would have been the signal of servile war; and the very name of the Christian religion would have been forgotten amidst the agitations of universal bloodshed. The fact, under these circumstances, that the Gospel does not forbid slavery, affords no reason to suppose that it does not mean to prohibit it; much less does it afford ground for belief that Jesus Christ intended TO AUTHORIZE IT."

[Capital letters are Channing's.]

Our Founding Truth said...

You have the burden as well to prove he was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian,>

No, I don't. If someone calls themself a Christian, you must take their word for it. This keeps getting re-hashed with your other bogus theories like lonang, and key founders doctrine.

But understanding these concepts you seem to ignore.

Somewhat relevant to the 1000th replay>

Is that all?

The fact, under these circumstances, that the Gospel does not forbid slavery, affords no reason to suppose that it does not mean to prohibit it; much less does it afford ground for belief that Jesus Christ intended TO AUTHORIZE IT.">

Channing got this from the Bible, because it obiously prohibits slavery, James 2:9 comes to mind. If respecting a group of people is sin, what do you think he thought of slavery?

Tom Van Dyke said...

Well, it doesn't obviously prohibit it; it requires bible study, exegesis and dare I say theology like Channing's to tease it out---which is why quote-grabbing from modern translations of the Bible is insufficient for a proper understanding of it.

Jonathan Rowe said...

No, I don't. If someone calls themself a Christian, you must take their word for it.

I must take their word that they called themselves and understood themselves to be "Christians" in some sense and that's it. Plenty of folks throughout history and today call themselves Christians but disbelieved in the Trinity. And most of them did not understand themselves to be "born again" Christians. You (born-again Christians, not necessarily orthodox Christians) are a minority within Christendom, always have been and always will be. Indeed your own religion teaches this (i.e., the "narrow path").

Tom Van Dyke said...

Quite so, Jon. The question of Jesus being God goes back through battles in the church for 2000 years.

I mean, Geez, man.

The one thing the Founders agreed on is that they wouldn't kill each other over the question. Medieval Europe---been there, done that.

The Founders agreed not to even fight about it except for words trying to convince the other fellow of your/THE truth.

It was a good political arrangement.

Also papism---a single religious authority that tended to stick its claws not only into the political, but everyday life. The Presbyterian/Calvinists in England didn't like the Anglican Church of England either for the same reason. They ended up civil warring.

I do hope you liked the Channing v. slavery, JR. You inspired me to hit the books [read: internet] with your excellent counterargument. Those unitarians of the Founding era knew quite a bit about the Bible. Who knew?

In fact, OFT, I was hoping you'd have an argument as elegant as Channing's to fire off as an apologist for the Bible. I'm not the expert on it as you fancy yourself to be. The unitarian Channing defended the Bible better than you did. Get in gear, dude.

Cheers to all.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Tom,

My pleasure. I'm glad I've turned you on to Founding era Unitarian literature. Many of them, Channing for instance, could be quite "biblical" in the arguments they made.

Non-Trintarian religiously conservative "Christians" (Mormons, JWs and others) have just as much a right to claim them as do today's present UUs.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Well, I meant your counterargument about the Bible and slavery. That Channing's was the rebuttal I found was just gravy. But I'm not part of your and OFT's battle over orthodoxy. The Founding-era Christian unitarians are Christian enough for me.