This is, my readers know, one reason I see Peter Lillback's case for George Washington's "orthodoxy" seriously flawed. Because Lillback can't prove GW's Trinitarianism from his own words he has to look at GW's church's creeds and confessions, to which GW at times took oaths. Yet, those creeds and confessions were tainted with Toryism which we know GW rejected. The larger reality is many Founders, including many who were more identifiably "orthodox Christians," couldn't care one whit about their church's creeds and confessions.
Now, like some of today's evangelicals, they could be orthodox without a creed on the basis that "the Bible teaches this." I don't need no stinkin' creed to prove the Trinity, etc.; it's in the Bible. That line of thought ignores the centrality that creeds played in establishing and maintaining orthodox Trinitarian doctrine.
And "orthodox without a creed" also permits "Christian Americanists" to glean from particular churches' teachings that which they value -- what they see as "biblical" -- and discard the rest. For instance, evangelicals generally don't value the residual Roman Catholic rituals contained in the creeds of the Anglican Church.
That's fine if you can prove with their own words that such a Founder believed in orthodox doctrine from their reading of Sola Scriptura. Or perhaps a Founder explained exactly what it was about their church's creed(s) that they valued, what they thought should be changed.
But, at this level of scrutiny, we lose the ability to use creeds and official doctrines of churches as "shorthand" for what a Founder believed. Without relying on official Anglican doctrine, there is no case for GW's orthodoxy. George Washington mentioned the words "Jesus Christ" only ONCE in all of his 20,000 pages of officially recorded words. And that was in a public address written by an aid.
Or what about John Jay, who is generally conceded as one of the more traditional Christian Founding Fathers? He too was a lifelong Anglican-Episcopalian.
But on the matter of creeds he wrote:
"In forming and settling my belief relative to the doctrines of Christianity, I adopted no articles from creeds, but such only as, on careful examination, I found to be confirmed by the Bible."
But such Sola Scriptura without creeds led Jay to doubt the Trinity. From the same letter to Samuel Miller, Feb. 18, 1822, Jay writes:
"It appeared to me that the Trinity was a Fact fully revealed and substantiated, but that the quo modo was incomprehensible by human Ingenuity. According to sundry Creeds, the divine Being whom we denominate the second Person in the Trinity had before all worlds been so generated or begotten by the first Person in the Trinity, as to be his coeval, coequal and coeternal Son. For proof of this I searched the Scriptures diligently -- but without Success. I therefore consider the Position of being at least of questionable Orthodoxy."
Bible minus creeds may lead some folks to orthodox Trinitarianism. But, without question, such risks a quasi-Quakerism where one becomes wishy-washy on orthodox Trinitarian doctrine.
(The Quakers distinguished themselves as "Bible believing Christians" who had no creed; they also, during the Founding era, were wishy-washy on the Trinity and did NOT hold it central to their form of Christianity.)
John Jay is exhibit A.
5 comments:
But, at this level of scrutiny, we lose the ability to use creeds and official doctrines of churches as "shorthand" for what a Founder believed.
True. Bad method. Indeed, the private beliefs of any of the Founders is pretty irrelevant; it's their public character and actions that are.
I remember our parish priest once confiding some doubts about the Trinity. Big deal. He was still the parish priest.
Jon:
Doesn't Michael Newdow argue that Washington stuck to oaths as a matter of principle? From his "So Help Me God" song:
"George Washington had honesty and truth within his marrow. When given rules he stuck by them as rigid as an aarow. Remember, please, twas he who when that oath had its invention, presided at that noble Constitutional Convention. To think that after all those 55 men did sign, upon that oath, he'd alter it? is something to deride. That man who was as honest as a person can be, was not the kind to spatchcock words at that ceremony."
Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFw18Yw2zhw&feature=PlayList&p=D445A9F67A03C586&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=68
I agree with you when your write that "those creeds and confessions were tainted with Toryism which we know GW rejected." I think these were seen by GW more as social obligations than sincere covenants with God. But Lillback isn't the only one who is wrong here. Clearly Newdow can't be arguing that Washington stuck by creeds/oaths "as rigid as an aarow."
So help me God!
I agree with you when you write that "those creeds and confessions were tainted with Toryism which we know GW rejected."
Jon wrote that. I do agree with him, in the larger sense of "creeds" defining private theological beliefs being a bogus hermeneutic, ala Lillback's "method" and thesis.
"George Washington had honesty and truth within his marrow. When given rules he stuck by them as rigid as an aarow. Remember, please, twas he who when that oath had its invention, presided at that noble Constitutional Convention. To think that after all those 55 men did sign, upon that oath, he'd alter it? is something to deride. That man who was as honest as a person can be, was not the kind to spatchcock words at that ceremony."
Since Michael Newdow put this in the form of a question, if you actually waded through his bad vocal, clownish costume, [but not-bad guitar], accompanied by visuals with "hoax" and "alien abduction," what, are you asking me to take Michael Newdow seriously, to parse his presentation like a legitimate thinker like John Locke?
As for "So Help Me God," GWash swore on a Bible, which is the same thing, GWash swearing on a Bible is a fact that neither Newdow nor our own beloved Mr. Soller disputes.
Spatchcock indeed. I already agreed with Jon. I still don't know what you want from me, Brad. Fact is fact and the rest is spatchcock.
Uh...
I know Jon wrote that because HE is the person to whom my whole post was directed...hence the "Jon:" header at the top. I don't want anything from you but thanks for asking. Again, I have no idea why in the hell you hijacked my comment. All I was trying to do was point out the silly hypocrisy that exists in Newdow's song lyrics...that's it.
Spatchcock indeed. I already agreed with Jon. I still don't know what you want from me, Brad. Fact is fact and the rest is spatchcock
Looks like you are the one who looks like "Spatchcock" for failing to recognize that I wasn't even talking to you.
Brad,
I think you are right that the lyrics in Newdow's song may be hypocritical. But I never thought about its lyrics that seriously. Perhaps Ray, our expert on the issue, will chime in.
Post a Comment