Saturday, March 28, 2009

The Search For that Right Term

Prof. Jared Farley, whose work I discussed here, left a comment on that thread.

Jon-

Hi. This is Jared Farley from the exchange above. I've been reading through some of the stuff here and on Positive Liberty (very interesting) and I was wondering about how you define and differentiate between several terms you use: proto-Unitarian, Unitarian, Christian Deist & Theistic-Rationalist. (I know all of this stuff is confusing, as I have been trying to figure it all out myself, but I would like to learn more about your use of these terms.) Thanks.


This is a very good question. In my answer I am going to note many things that Prof. Farley already knows (I can tell by reading his work that he knows quite a bit about the historical record on the Founding & Religion). I am going to include these facts and arguments for the sake of a more general reading audience.

Those terms about which Prof. Farley asks are all different ways of describing pretty much the same thing -- the religious creed in which many key Founding Fathers (the first four Presidents, Ben Franklin and others) believed (or probably believed) that was neither strict Deism nor orthodox Christianity, but something in between.

All of those terms have their relative strengths and weaknesses and each views this hybrid creed through a different descriptive perspective. AND, importantly, the terms are not mutually exclusive. For instance one can be both a "Roman Catholic" and a "Thomist" without contradiction. Or one can be an "orthodox Christian" and a "Calvinist" without contradiction and so on and so forth. So when we say someone is a "theistic rationalist" and a "unitarian" we do not contradict ourselves.

The only time I used "proto-Unitarian" was after I saw Gordon Wood speak at Princeton where he used it. I think of those above mentioned Founders as small u "unitarians." I feel comfortable labeling Jefferson and J. Adams "unitarians" because they called themselves unitarians and otherwise rejected the Trinity (which in its strictest sense is all "unitarian" means).

However the capital U in Unitarianism connotes being a member of a Unitarian Church which Jefferson never was (he was a lifelong Anglican-Episcopalian). And with J. Adams, even though he claims to have been a theological unitarian since 1750 -- indeed he claims his own ministers in the Congregational Church were unitarians as of 1750 -- his Congregational Church didn't become "Unitarian" until sometime in the early 19th Century.

George Washington is not on record as calling himself either a deist or a unitarian, and rarely called himself a "Christian" either. Peter Lillback's 1200 page book can cite only one letter where Washington identifies as a Christian. The letter was to ROBERT STEWART April 27, 1763, where Washington uses the phrase "upon my honr and the faith of a Christian." There are also a few examples in the record of GW speaking to Christians in a "we" sense, and others where he speaks about "Christians" as though he were not a member of that group. But in any event, all of the other "key Founders" (J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin) thought of themselves as "Christians" in *some* sense.

Washington never affirmed the Trinity or orthodox doctrines in his public and private writings. They reveal him to be a man of "religion," "prayer," and "Providence," not an orthodox Christian. I think the term "theistic rationalist" or "Christian-Deist" aptly describes his faith. I think "unitarian" might also as well. Dr. Farley's writings discuss Washington's systematic avoidance of communion and how that points strongly to Washington disbelieving in what the act symbolically represents: Christ's atonement. (That was the explanation John Marshall's family gave for why he refused communion in the same Episcopal-Anglican system to which GW, TJ, JM and many other "key Founders" belonged.) Though the strongest criticism against terming Washington a "unitarian" is that 1) he didn't call himself one, 2) I haven't found any smoking guns of GW affirming or denying the Trinity with his words, and 3) GW was not a member of the Unitarian Church.

Likewise James Madison rarely referred to himself as a "Christian" and is not on record calling himself a deist or a unitarian. Though, George Ticknor, founder of the Boston Public Library (himself a Unitarian) testified that

[Madison] talked of religious sects and parties and was curious to know how the cause of liberal Christianity stood with us, and if the Athanasian creed was well received by our Episcopalians. He pretty distinctly intimated to me his own regard for the Unitarian doctrines.


Like Washington, Madison was extremely vague in putting his specific religious cards on the table, but instead preferred to speak of "Providence" in naturalistic and rationalistic terms. That's why Dr. Gregg Frazer terms them "theistic rationalists." They were "theists" who believed in an active personal God, not "deists" who believed in an distant watchmaker.

Dr. Frazer also claims that they believed man's reason superseded a partially inspired Bible and in fact determined what parts of the Bible constituted valid revelation. This is his specific definition of the type of "rationalism" in which they believed. And certainly with Jefferson, J. Adams and a few others, one can make such a case. However, a few readers and co-bloggers are skeptical and demand more evidence -- more "smoking guns" -- to show that figures like Washington and Madison believed man's reason superseded a partially inspired, fallible Bible as the ultimate arbiter of truth or determined what was valid revelation.

There is however, a more general way in which they were "rationalists," and that is that they thought very highly of man's reason and believed reason could discover divine truths and consequently oft-spoke of God in naturalistic-rationalistic terms. Indeed, these key Founders invariably spoke of God using naturalistic or philosophical terms rather than using biblical terms. In his letter to TO FREDERICK BEASLEY on Nov. 20, 1825, Madison, when asked to put his theological cards on the table, speaks entirely in naturalistic-rationalistic terms and ingores Christ and the Bible. Also notable is that Madison appeals not to John Witherspoon for theological authority, but to Samuel Clarke another "Christian rationalist" who was a unitarian of the Arian bent and a minister in the Anglican Church. As Madison wrote:

I have duly recd the copy of your little tract on the proofs of the Being & Attributes of God. To do full justice to it, would require not only a more critical attention than I have been able to bestow on it, but a resort to the celebrated work of Dr. Clarke,...

The reasoning that could satisfy such a mind as that of Clarke, ought certainly not to be slighted in the discussion. And the belief in a God All Powerful wise & good, is so essential to the moral order of the World & to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters & capacities to be impressed with it.

But whatever effect may be produced on some minds by the more abstract train of ideas which you so strongly support, it will probably always be found that the course of reasoning from the effect to the cause, “from Nature to Nature’s God,” Will be the more universal & more persuasive application.

The finiteness of the human understanding betrays itself on all subjects, but more especially when it contemplates such as involve infinity. What may safely be said seems to be, that the infinity of time & space forces itself on our conception, a limitation of either being inconceivable; that the mind prefers at once the idea of a self-existing cause to that of an infinite series of cause & effect, which augments, instead of avoiding the difficulty; and that it finds more facility in assenting to the self-existence of an invisible cause possessing infinite power, wisdom & goodness, than to the self-existence of the universe, visibly destitute of those attributes, and which may be the effect of them. In this comparative facility of conception & belief, all philosophical Reasoning on the subject must perhaps terminate. But that I may not get farther beyond my depth, and without the resources which bear you up in fathoming efforts, I hasten to thank you for the favour which has made me your debtor, and to assure you of my esteem.


So regardless of whether Madison believed man's reason supersedes revelation as the ultimate arbiter of truth or believed the Bible inspired at all, he was clearly a "rationalist" in his theological thinking.

The term "theistic rationalist" also had advantages for folks who hold to an "orthodox Christian" point of view. Accordingly, if one rejects the Trinity, one is not a Christian. So look for another term and don't use "Christian" -- which defines specially and particularly -- in that term. This is also why the "orthodox" don't like the term "Christian-Deism" which conflates what they see as two mutually exclusive concepts -- a contradiction in terms. However, "Christian-Deism" is valuable in that it accurately describes how the religion of those key Founding Fathers was not "Christianity" or "Deism" but something in between and a hybrid of the two.

36 comments:

Kristo Miettinen said...

Jon,

After a long post you haven't really given useful guidance. To take a specific example near and dear to your heart, who does and who does not count as a "theistic rationalist"? Does the rational monotheist Socrates count as one? Where is the line?

My complaint with this term has always been underspecificity, like insisting that dogs are mammals, without ever admitting that they are dogs.

As for some minor nits: Calvinists are not orthodox (they reject orthodox ecclesiology), though it is fashionable in America to call them orthodox. But that is just a consequence of the overall unorthodoxy of American Christianity, which has always been part of my unorthodox Christian nation thesis.

The strictest sense of unitarianism involves not one, but two unitarian claims: rejection of the Trinity (unity of God) and rejection of the hypostatic union in Christ (unity of Jesus). I've made both of those points before...

When you say that the key founders are Christian in *some* sense, you distort the point with your emphasis, as though you want to imply that they're really not Christians after all. But the sense in which they were Christians was the general American Christianity of their time (e.g. all Christian ministers in Boston, save one, were theological unitarians in 1800, so being a unitarian in Boston was being a Christian of your place and time). In that sense, they were not Christians in *some* sense, they were just Christians.

As I've also pointed out before, Providence is an explicitly anti-Deist Christian dogma, or to use modern political language, "Providence" is a code word.

Communion has always been a controversial topic in Christianity, and still is today. So there is no surprise in pointing out that some founders didn't take communion, at least of the sort that was offered in their churches. It is not at all obvious that they would decline the sort of "in celebration of Jesus" communion offered in most American churches today.

The one point that "theistic rationalist" misses, to my mind, is the central importance to the founding generation of the Bible. The Bible was the one thing that all Americans, each unorthodox in their own way, could gather around (well, with the possible exceptions of Paine and Palmer). They didn't agree on inspiration, inerrancy, or other doctrines about the Bible, but the Bible itself was an icon to everyone from the Masons to the Puritans. Any term that misses out on that connection fails, it seems to me, to capture the spirit of the times.

I am one who holds the orthodox Christian point of view (more orthodox than Calvin), yet I would never deny that there are non-Trinitarian Christians. Can you name any of our co-bloggers here who holds such a view, or are you misrepresenting us?

Jonathan Rowe said...

Kristo,

Off to the gym. But yes I can name at LEAST one co-blogger who denies non-Trinitarians are Christian Brian Tubbs who is himself a minister.

Jonathan Rowe said...

As for some minor nits: Calvinists are not orthodox (they reject orthodox ecclesiology), though it is fashionable in America to call them orthodox. But that is just a consequence of the overall unorthodoxy of American Christianity, which has always been part of my unorthodox Christian nation thesis.

This is very interesting. It flies in the face of every scholar and theologian I've seen explicate (small o) "orthodoxy." And that is what was settled in the Nicene and the Apostles' Creed. For some reason the Founders that slammed orthodoxy most often criticized the later Athanasian creed. Though they did rail against the Council of Nicea.

And Calvinists most certainly believed in these. Indeed, also central to my-Dr. Frazer's thesis is every single established Church except the Quakers at the time of the Founding was in some way connected to one of these orthodox creeds. Yet, many Founders (and ministers in those churches) rejected those very creeds to which their churches formally adhered. There was a push for further "reformation" of Protestant Christianity -- to get rid of Trinitarian language from those creeds. And it only worked in the Congregational Churches.

This is the workable understanding of "orthodoxy" in American religious scholarly circles and the one we use on this blog.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Jonathan Rowe: So regardless of whether Madison believed man's reason supersedes revelation as the ultimate arbiter of truth or believed the Bible inspired at all, he was clearly a "rationalist" in his theological thinking.

I take the "finiteness of human understanding" to mean the exact opposite, that human understanding is clearly insufficient to the task of being "the ultimate arbiter of truth."

Madison: "The finiteness of the human understanding betrays itself on all subjects, but more especially when it contemplates such as involve infinity. What may safely be said seems to be, that the infinity of time & space forces itself on our conception, a limitation of either being inconceivable; that the mind prefers at once the idea of a self-existing cause to that of an infinite series of cause & effect, which augments, instead of avoiding the difficulty; and that it finds more facility in assenting to the self-existence of an invisible cause possessing infinite power, wisdom & goodness, than to the self-existence of the universe, visibly destitute of those attributes, and which may be the effect of them. In this comparative facility of conception & belief, all philosophical Reasoning on the subject must perhaps terminate."

That "the mind" prefers the idea of God over "the self-existence of the universe" is one of those naturalistic, a posteriori arguments---we cannot know God, but we can observe man and know Him indirectly by observing man's nature. Man tends to believe in God, which argues for His existence. And not just via "belief," but by "conception" as well.

In the face of that, that "all philosophical Reasoning on the subject must perhaps terminate" indicates that rationalism must share the same limitations as "human understanding," and it even seems fair to regard rationalism and human understanding as synonymous here.

As for the term "theistic rationalism," Mr. Miettinen does a better job than I in voicing my customary objections to the inadequacy of the term.

bpabbott said...

Tom: "I take the 'finiteness of human understanding' to mean the exact opposite, that human understanding is clearly insufficient to the task of being 'the ultimate arbiter of truth.' "

Finite understanding might be insufficient for truths that require an infinite intellect or infinite knowledge, but what of those for which a finite intellect and knowledge is sufficient?

For example, 1 + 1 = 2?

My point being, what truths sought out by Madison were beyond his intellect and knoweldge?

Tom: "Man tends to believe in God, which argues for His existence"

Why so?

For me divine belief is predicated on the assumption that there must be an intelligence that understands all phenomena. However, I know of no need, or evidence, for an infinite intelligence.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Re some of the other bloggers' way of understanding "Christianity," I'll do my best to relay how I think they would respond, but they are free to respond themselves.

Mr. Isaacson and Rev. Kowalski as present day Unitarian-Universalists believe that Unitarians and many others can be "Christians," but this is precisely because of UUs "generous" understanding of Christianity.

Brad Hart, a Mormon, considers himself a "Christian," but is keenly aware of the arguments of the "orthodox" that non-Trinitarians are not "Christians." Indeed, one notable reason why many present day orthodox Trinitarian Christians don't consider "Mormonism" to be "Christianity" is because of Mormonism's non-Trinitarian theology.

Ray Soller, another Mormon, would probably see things the same way.

Tom Van Dyke -- I'm not sure exactly how he stands, and I know he will correct me if I am wrong -- but I see him comfortable using "Christian" as an adjective that qualifies non-orthodox theologies, but not as a noun. Thus, he is comfortable with terms like "Christian-Deist" or "Christian-Unitarian." But I'm not sure whether he would term the people "Christians" or the theology to be "Christianity." Thus, the "unitarian" is the noun, the "Christian" is the descriptor. He would NOT, therefore, term them "unitarian Christians" (as they termed themselves) but "Christian-Unitarians." He's never come out and said this so explicitly, but this is how I read him.

The other posters don't write enough about this specific dynamic for me to make a judgment on how they see this specific issue.

Tom Van Dyke said...

I'm not speaking of you, Ben, or of me. Just sticking with Madison's text and my best honest reading of it.

What you think or believe about God is irrelevant. What I think or believe about God is equally irrelevant, which is why I don't write about what I think or believe about God in the public square. Anyone who thinks I do doesn't read me carefully enough.

I'm sorta like Jefferson and Madison in that way. Hell, I ain't no preacher and I'm certainly not a cleric. The only advice I give about the question of God is the same as Jefferson gave to Peter Carr.

bpabbott said...

Tom,

If you'd prefer to drop the discussion, it is ok with me, but you were the one who suggested/assered that finite intellect/knowledge was insufficient to arbitrate truth (finite or otherwise).

My inquiry was directed at your thought process ... not Madison's.

Tom Van Dyke said...

"I see [TVD] comfortable using "Christian" as an adjective that qualifies non-orthodox theologies, but not as a noun."

Killer, Jon. I can live with that. Since the question of and battle over Jesus' divinity goes back to Christ's time, I see no point in getting involved in that intramural battle, nor should historians and of course, least of all, the government.

Especially come our Founding era, where virtually all the evidence points to them largely agreeing to let the question slide, lest they reignite the religious wars of Europe, which they and their forefathers fled in the first place.

In the political-historical arena, I have no other word for people who believe that God spoke directly to mankind and then sent Jesus to speak with Divine Authority other than "Christian." The rest is details.

___________

Yes, Ben, I would like to leave it dropped. This not the time or the place for such things, nor do I expect it ever will be. I was attempting to speak empathetically in Madison's voice based on his quote, not in my own voice, which to my memory, I avoid doing around here.

bpabbott said...

Ok Tom!

Our Founding Truth said...

As for some minor nits: Calvinists Kristo:are not orthodox (they reject orthodox ecclesiology), though it is fashionable in America to call them orthodox. But that is just a consequence of the overall unorthodoxy of American Christianity, which has always been part of my unorthodox Christian nation thesis.

How's it going Kristo? I was going to point this out. Not one of the five points of calvinism is orthodox.

I am one who holds the orthodox Christian point of view (more orthodox than Calvin), yet I would never deny that there are non-Trinitarian Christians. Can you name any of our co-bloggers here who holds such a view, or are you misrepresenting us?.

Yes, I would say the Bible is pretty clear on Jesus' Deity, thereby the Trinity has to be mandatory. The Bible says God is not a bi-une being.

Tom:I take the "finiteness of human understanding" to mean the exact opposite, that human understanding is clearly insufficient to the task of being "the ultimate arbiter of truth."

Nice!

I think "theistic rationalist" is a made-up word, with no foundation. A rationalist seems to me to deny the supernatural, not just revelation in general. Thomas Jefferson, in my opinion, seems to be a rationalist, or deist.

Jonathan Rowe said...

I was going to point this out. Not one of the five points of calvinism is orthodox.

This point is irrelevant. There are pleny of "orthodox Christians" who believe in ADDITIONAL things that are not necesary to qualify as "orthodox." All 5 points of Calvinism are additional points in which "orthodox Christians" need not believe to qualify as "orthodox." That doesn't necessarily mean that Calvinists are not "orthodox," because they are.

Roman Catholics, like Calvinists, are also "orthodox."

Small o "orthodoxy" is that lowest common denominator of Trinitarian theology in which Calvinists, non-Calvinists, Roman Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Episcopalians, etc., etc., all believe. It's source is the Nicene Creed, which gave birth to many later creeds. As long as you believe in THAT, you are an "orthodox Christian." Anything else is just sectarian difference.

The Nicene Creed: As Brad Hamilton said in "Fast Times At Ridgemont High": "Learn it, know it, live it."

http://tinyurl.com/2qyfcx

Jonathan Rowe said...

I think "theistic rationalist" is a made-up word, with no foundation.

All words are "made up." As I noted before, "theistic rationalists" is as much of a "made up" term as "Judeo-Christian." If you look at the Founding record, you NEVER see them using that term.

Jared Farley said...

Jon,
Thanks for the definitions. I like the umbrella term "theistic rationalist" because too often we get bogged down in the definitions of the descriptors we use. Plus, that gets rid of the difficulty between theological unitarians and Unitarian members of actual congregations.
Can anybody think of any theological reason why someone would systematically reject communion at their own congregation, except that they reject the divinity of Jesus?

Kristo Miettinen said...

Jon,

"This is very interesting. It flies in the face of every scholar and theologian I've seen explicate (small o) 'orthodoxy.'"?

C'mon. Who are you trying to fool? It's fine to disagree with me, but don't pretend you're hearing this for the first time. Or the second. Or that you have ever found any authority comparable to, and contradicting, Pelikan. How many times do I have to quote Pelikan to you? How many times must I mention bishops? Do you not read anything I write? This goes back literally to our first encounters on PosLib, and has recurred numerous times since.

Now if you want to insist that the unorthodox American definition of “orthodoxy” is the one that must be used on this blog, fine. But then I suggest that you have pretty much conceded the unorthodox Christian Nation hypothesis at the outset, by conceding that there is something about being here in America that fixes the meaning of “orthodoxy” (something that unifies us, as a nation), and does so in an unorthodox way.

OFT,

“Yes, I would say the Bible is pretty clear on Jesus' Deity, thereby the Trinity has to be mandatory.”

What about children, unable to wrap their metaphysically immature mind around the concept?

Where you seem to be headed, and I would caution you not to go there, is that “the Bible teaches X, so you must believe X to be saved”. This would seem to imply that nothing short of learning the entire Bible, in connotation as well as denotation, is good enough. Yet Christ teaches a fairly simple (though practically difficult) salvation.

The truth that saves is simple, just hard.

Kristo Miettinen said...

Jared,

"Can anybody think of any theological reason why someone would systematically reject communion at their own congregation, except that they reject the divinity of Jesus?"

Yes. Many feel themselves unworthy. Many denominations teach a required purity before partaking, and many congregants take to heart Jesus' admonition that you not approach the altar until you have first set right everything in your relations to others.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Kristo,

I must admit I haven't heard of Pelikan.

But given that we are talking about the "American" Founding, it makes sense to use the "American" understanding of orthodoxy.

David Holmes of William & Mary, one of the leading scholars of America's Founding era religious history, has a whole chapter in his book published by Oxford University Press (Chapter 12) that discusses this.

But you can't beat his pithy summary of the matter on p. 75: "Since the late fourth century, the doctrine of the Trinity has been synonymous with orthodox Christianity."

Jonathan Rowe said...

Yes. Many feel themselves unworthy. Many denominations teach a required purity before partaking, and many congregants take to heart Jesus' admonition that you not approach the altar until you have first set right everything in your relations to others.

This might explain why someone would avoid communion at times in their lives. I don't think this explains why someone would systematically avoid communion.

Jared A. Farley said...

If only one individual was systematically rejecting communion I think Kristo point is stronger, but don't we have reason to believe there were several Founders who systematically rejected communion? Off the top of my head I can remember Washington & John Marshall, but I think there was one or two others. (Sorry, I'm not at my office so I don't have my books to provide the names.) So Kristo's explanation is stronger if we were only dealing with one individual, but when there are several individuals all acting in the same fashion, it become less probable as a valid explanation. It's possible, just not probable.

Jonathan Rowe said...

David Holmes suggests that the systematic avoidance of communion was a way to determine whether one was a "Christian-Deist" as opposed to an "orthodox Christian." (A non-Christian-Deist wouldn't be in Church at all.)

There is evidence on GW and Marshall on avoiding communion. I couldn't IMAGINE that Jefferson took communion in the Anglican-Episcopal Church, but I'm still searching for the primary sources where he discusses not taking communion because it represented that in which he didn't believe (and it's clear that TJ didn't believe in the Trinity which doctrine he absolutely hated).

bpabbott said...

Jared: "If only one individual was systematically rejecting communion I think Kristo point is stronger, but don't we have reason to believe there were several Founders who systematically rejected communion?"

Jared, you had qualified your question so as to restrict it to theological reasons.

I'd suggest there are many non-theological reasons to do so.

Regarding the theological reasons, I think it clear that this particular practice was incompatible with GW's theology.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Kristo,

I did a quick google search and wonder if this is the Pelikan (Jaroslav) to whom you refer.

Based on the First Things obituary of him, I don't see his position on orthodoxy conflicting with the "American" or anything I've put forth.

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5334

The article suggests that he seemed to equate "Christianity" with Trinitarian orthodoxy itself. Here is a taste from their article:

By doctrine Pelikan did not mean just any teaching. He meant the central truths of Christianity: that God is triune, that Christ is fully God and fully man—those teachings that were solemnly declared in the ancient councils and are confessed in the ecumenical creeds. His historical study had convinced him that the most faithful bearer of the apostolic faith was the great tradition of thought and practice as expounded by the orthodox Church Fathers.

In the last generation, it has become fashionable among historians of Christian thought not only to seek to understand the Gnostics or the Arians but also to become their advocates and to suggest, sometimes obliquely, sometimes straightforwardly, that orthodox Christianity made its way not by argument and truth but by power and coercion. The real heroes in Christian history are the dissidents, the heretics, whose insights and thinking were suppressed by the imperious bishops of the great Church.

Pelikan never succumbed to this temptation. In the classroom, in public lectures, and in his many books, he was an advocate of creedal Christianity, of the classical formulations of Christian doctrine. In one of his last books, Credo, he cited such writers as Edward Gibbon, Adolf von Harnack, and Matthew Arnold, who believed that “creeds pass” and “no altar standeth whole.” But he answered them with John Henry Newman, who said that dogma is the principle of religion, and Lionel Trilling, who wrote that “when the dogmatic principle in religion is slighted, religion goes along for a while on generalized emotion and ethical intention . . . and then loses the force of its impulse, even the essence of its being.”

Pelikan knew, and his scholarship demonstrated, what many Christian theologians and Church leaders have forgotten, that over the Church’s long history, the orthodox and catholic form of Christian faith, what the Church “believes, teaches and confesses on the basis of the Word of God,” has been the most biblical, the most coherent, the most enduring, the most adaptable, and yes, the most true.


Perhaps you can shed light on what you think Pelikan's test for orthodoxy was, why the Nicene-orthodox Trinitarian standard is not sufficient, and why Calvinists, who fervently adhere to orthodox Trinitarian doctrine wouldn't qualify as "orthodox."

Kristo Miettinen said...

Hi Jon!

Using the search feature on PosLib I found this example...

http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/11/dont-ever-say.html

Volume 1 of Pelikan's "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine" is the story of orthodoxy in slightly less than 400 pages ["The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)]". Chapter 7, the final chapter of the volume, is called "The Orthodox Consensus", and brings it all together. The four elements of orthodoxy are christology, mystagogy, anthropology, and ecclesiology, each of which is a developed system settled in the first centuries of the church, the first two in the east, the latter two in the west.

Ecclesiology is the key point that I have been making (there are others to be made) on which the founders' entire generation was deeply, vociferously unorthodox. I have pointed out the lack of bishops, even among those who should have them; the rampant anti-clericalism; and even the usurpation of church discipline by civil authority in colonial and revolutionary America.

Kristo Miettinen said...

Another thought occurred to me w/r communion while at service today...

Many founders, like Jefferson, attended the only church available to them, rather than the one they would have wanted (no Unitarian congregation in his neck of Virginia back then; it was a New England fad). In such circumstances a church member would likely consistently not commune (e.g. I would not commune at a Catholic chuch if that was all that was available to me, but I would still attend).

The issue is deep disagreement over what is going on in preparation and presentation of the host.

As for the unworthiness reason, many people feel that as a permanent state of affairs (Luther is a great example of such a tortured soul).

As for the numbers, how many founders did not commune, as a fraction of their population? A handful or less of many dozen, perhaps of a hundred? That's not unreasonable given the number that sit in the pews and do not commune every week at my church...

Jonathan Rowe said...

Thanks for the on Pelikan; I'll look into it in more detail and am working on a post that references the First Things article and that very book. The "American" way of viewing "orthodoxy" focuses on Christology only.

I also think you hit the nail on the head w/Jefferson and the church he attended.

Brad Hart said...

Sorry for jumping in so late on this one folks. Great discussion!

J. Rowe writes:

Mr. Isaacson and Rev. Kowalski as present day Unitarian-Universalists believe that Unitarians and many others can be "Christians," but this is precisely because of UUs "generous" understanding of Christianity.

Brad Hart, a Mormon, considers himself a "Christian," but is keenly aware of the arguments of the "orthodox" that non-Trinitarians are not "Christians." Indeed, one notable reason why many present day orthodox Trinitarian Christians don't consider "Mormonism" to be "Christianity" is because of Mormonism's non-Trinitarian theology.

Ray Soller, another Mormon, would probably see things the same way.

Tom Van Dyke -- I'm not sure exactly how he stands, and I know he will correct me if I am wrong -- but I see him comfortable using "Christian" as an adjective that qualifies non-orthodox theologies, but not as a noun. Thus, he is comfortable with terms like "Christian-Deist" or "Christian-Unitarian."


As Jon points out, a number of us have a diverse understanding of "Christianity," "Orthodoxy," etc. In comments above, Mr. Rowe, Mr. Miettenen, and OFT have debated over the "orthodoxy" of Calvinism.

I wonder if this simple exchange could go a long way in making sense of this discussion. If we have such diversity in our individual understanding of "Christianity," and "Orthodoxy" doesn't it stand to reason that the founders would as well? Couldn't some have (and did) classified themselves in diverse ways? Jefferson called himself a Christian, as did Franklin (who also called himself a deist). I imagine that Samuel Adams, Charles Carroll, John Jay, Patrick Henry and others would strongly disagree with both Jefferson and Franklin’s (along with one another) personal declarations, just as many would disagree with a Mormon (myself) saying that I am a Christian. To put it simple, it's all in the eyes of the beholder, which is why it's impossible, in my opinion, to come up with a blanket term for all founders.

As for the communion issue, I believe that is is/was a fundamental component of orthodoxy (to some at least). For Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc., communion is a fundamental component to one's piety and devotion. For members of these faiths to ignore communion would be damnation (according to those church's doctrine). Now, Kristo is right in pointing out that many people avoid communion for personal reasons. It is at least possible that the founders did the same. But to ignore communion throughout one's life would indicate only one thing: that the individual didn't hold communion in high regard as a necessary component of salvation (which is of course acceptable in many forms of "Christianity.")

In conclusion, "Christianity" is defined about as clearly as words like "love" "independence" "happiness" etc. They are all in the eyes of the beholder.

Tom Van Dyke said...

America was not founded as an orthodox Christian nation.
The concerns of the Christian unitarians were accommodated in the Founding. They did not believe Jesus was the second person of the Holy Trinity.

America was not founded on the proposition that Jesus is the second person of the Holy Trinity. This is sometimes argued by our commenter OFT and I suppose he's free to do so, although he is in the minority here and in America, disputed even by those who reject "theistic rationalist" as too generic a term to adequately describe the religio-political landscape of the Founding.

Our Founding Truth said...

Not one of the five points of calvinism is orthodox.>

I may want to take my comment back. I don't think the Bible teaches any of Calvin's five points, but I guess, if they don't attack the fundamentals of the faith, a person could still believe them a be a Christian. I haven't examined it enough.

Jon:Roman Catholics, like Calvinists, are also "orthodox."

This isn't a factual statement because I've did extensive study on catholicism, and it doesn't come from the bible. So, I would leave Catholicism out of the equation.

Kristo:What about children, unable to wrap their metaphysically immature mind around the concept?

Good point! I found the answer in John Locke. Locke is correct, belief that Jesus is Messiah is sufficient for salvation, as long as someone at the age of accountability doesn't deny the fundamentals. This question is why he denied original sin. He mistakenly thought children could go to hell for not understanding the "mysteries"(trinity) of religion.

Tom:America was not founded as an orthodox Christian nation.

According to the fundamentals of Christianity, I believe America was founded on orthodox Christian nation principles. I think there is ample evidence for that fact.

Brad Hart said...

OFT writes:

This isn't a factual statement because I've did extensive study on catholicism, [sp. Catholicism] and it doesn't come from the bible. So, I would leave Catholicism out of the equation.

Further proving my statement that "Christianity," "orthodoxy," etc. is in the eyes of the beholder. A Catholic would argue against this with as much vigor as you defend your faith.

And please, spare us all your traditional comeback that goes something like this: "It isn't my argument, it's God's. All you have to do is read the Bible. It's all there."

Yeah, we got it, bro. YOUR Christianity...oops...I mean GOD's Christianity is the ONLY Christianity.

Can't we PLEASE put aside our own personal creeds when discussing this?

Tom Van Dyke said...

The Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Mother Church is the only true religion. Wise up, people, or burn in hell for ever and ever and ever.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Well Kristo has posited a new understanding -- the "European" understanding of "orthodox Christianity" that attaches three points beyond "Christology" (the "American" understand which I have been using here). Accordingly, Roman Catholics, capital O Orthodox Christians, and some Protestants are "orthodox" but Calvinists and I think (if I am not mistaken) OFT's version of "born again" Christianity gets cast into the "unorthodox" box with theological unitarianism and Mormonism.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Hehe, good one, Jon. Especially because it's not inaccurate. Let's play "Who's the Heretic?"

Our Founding Truth said...

Further proving my statement that "Christianity," "orthodoxy," etc. is in the eyes of the beholder. A Catholic would argue against this with as much vigor as you defend your faith.>

This is an easy statement to refute; catholics will be the first to tell you the Bible isn't the authority, but the church, and it's interpretation is.

Can't we PLEASE put aside our own personal creeds when discussing this?>

You deny the Bible; that's your business. The Bible is the supreme authority, without it, no one has the basis to call themself a Christian.

The Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Mother Church is the only true religion. Wise up, people, or burn in hell for ever and ever and ever.>

Lol! But that's not true anymore, they seem to change their doctrine at the whim of a hat. Now, any person can be saved.

Well Kristo has posited a new understanding -- the "European" understanding of "orthodox Christianity" that attaches three points beyond "Christology" (the "American" understand which I have been using here). Accordingly, Roman Catholics, capital O Orthodox Christians, and some Protestants are "orthodox" but Calvinists and I think (if I am not mistaken) OFT's version of "born again" Christianity gets cast into the "unorthodox" box with theological unitarianism and Mormonism>

Jon, you're really showing your lack of biblical knowledge. Jesus termed "born again" not me.
It's very simple, Jon. Just post the verse, in context, and see what your belief is in comparison.

God, made it so simple. True Christians don't distort scripture

Jonathan Rowe said...

OFT,

You lack an understanding of the "American" understanding of "orthodoxy" that I use or the "European" understanding that Kristo has invoked.

Being "born again," regardless of what you think of it or of your or your minister's interpretation of the Bible, is not part of the lowest common denominator of "orthodoxy" (of either the definition that I or Kristo invoke). However "born again" Christians, as long as they adhere to Nicene Trinitarianism, "fit" with the American definition of "orthodoxy," just as Roman Catholicism, capital O Orthodox Christianity, Calvinism and many other faiths do. Anything beyond Nicene Trinitarianism (like TULIP or transubstantiation or being "born again") are just additional elements that don't disqualify one from being "orthodox" but are not part of the LCD definition of "orthodoxy."

I may be mistaken but according to Kristo's "European" understanding of orthodoxy (the one that disqualifies Calvinism) YOUR "born again" Christianity isn't "orthodox" either.

See, that's the problem with you OFT, you DON'T understand the concepts of 1/2 of what we are talking about here and we have to waste our time defining them for you.

Our Founding Truth said...

Anything beyond Nicene Trinitarianism (like TULIP or transubstantiation or being "born again") are just additional elements that don't disqualify one from being "orthodox" but are not part of the LCD definition of "orthodoxy.">

You're wrong, because they don't teach that in seminary in this country, or I would bet, in this country in the 17th and 18th centuries, since the head of Princeton spoke of the New Birth.

Again, your biblical knowledge is weak to say the least.

Jonathan Rowe said...

It doesn't matter WHO taught WHAT in seminary or what YOU think my "biblical knowledge" is. The concept of "orthodoxy" supercedes these things.

You've got LOTS of homework to do. Dig in.