Friday, January 3, 2020

Frazer Reviews Hall


A taste:
Evidential Errors Abound  
Hall argues that Calvinism’s teaching concerning total depravity and sin caused the founders to embrace separation of powers, checks and balances, limited government, and federalism. But the founders actually saw man as an alloy of virtue and vice. Madison said the good and virtuous qualities in man are present “in a higher degree” than man’s bad qualities and that self-government can’t work unless that is true (Federalist #55).  
Hall regularly uses the words “sin” and “sinful” in relation to the founders’ views in this area, but they didn’t use the Christian or Calvinist word “sin,” preferring less judgmental words such as “weakness” and “venality.” The founders didn’t cite the Bible or Calvin when making these arguments and establishing institutions based on them. When not crediting Montesquieu, they cited “history” and “the least fallible guide”: experience.  
[...]  
In 1744, Elisha Williams based a sermon on the teachings of John Locke, calling him (already by that time) “the celebrated Mr. Lock.” References to Locke are ubiquitous throughout the period. Hall argues Locke wasn’t influential, largely because his work wasn’t printed in America until 1773. But Hall argues the Bible was all-important—despite not being printed in English in America until 1782! It’s not clear why a reference to Locke must come from an edition published in America in order to indicate influence. Hall doesn’t mention that, according to Lutz’s authoritative study, there were more Locke citations than to all Reformed thinkers combined, and that Locke is mentioned in 19 of the 28 pages in Lutz’s chapter on influences.

56 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

"Is making Scripture appear to say something other than God actually said really a “thoroughly Christian” approach?"


What God actually "said" is beyond the purview of the historian. The Bible has been interpreted almost countless ways over the past 2000 years. Nor has the Bible been the sole font of Christian thought: That was Luther's innovation some 1500 years on.

Once again, to accept Gregg Frazer's history, we must accept his Protestant fundamentalist theology.

Our Founding Truth said...

You're right again Gregg and Hall is wrong. The ffs didn't quote Calvin or the bible about total depravity. Like Hall, they didn't understand the biblical meaning of it.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Our Founding Truth said...
You're right again Gregg and Hall is wrong. The ffs didn't quote Calvin or the bible about total depravity. Like Hall, they didn't understand the biblical meaning of it.



Although Gregg may have something of a debating point vs Mark here, unintentionally you tend to reinforce the argument that one must accept Frazer's brand of Protestant fundamentalism to make sense of his history. If Hall overstates the Founders' acknowledgement of human depravity, it need not strictly be "total" depravity to still have been influenced by Calvinist currents.

It is important to acknowledge the below in contradistinction to the modernist belief--starting with the French Revolution--in the perfectibility of governments and indeed the perfectibility of man himself. The American model is still rooted in Christian thought whereas the moderns have a brand-new conception of humanity.

But if your theology rejects anything outside fundamentalist readings of the Bible and anything other than John Calvin's "Institutes" as outside "Christian thought," you are not at the table the other 99% of the world sits at.


https://kaysercommentary.com/Blogs/did-the-founding-fathers-believe-in-total-depravity.md

James Madison said, “depravity in mankind ... requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust”.[1] Whom did they distrust? Well, Madison said that they distrusted anyone from being totally unrestrained. In Federalist 51 he says, “But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."[2]

In other words, total depravity needs to be restrained in both the population and in the civil magistrates or things go very bad very quickly. Madison said that the Constitution they had crafted to meet this goal "presupposed the existence of these qualities [in other words, qualities of human depravity] in a higher degree than any other form [of government]."[3] And even secular scholars admit that this is true.

Jonathan Rowe said...

I don't think the link to kasyercommentary is very strong.

The nuance is that yes, the Founders like Madison believed in "depravity," but not "total depravity." The quote from The Federalist read without the ellipses shows Madison talking about a "degree of depravity."

Other founders like Jefferson did believe in the perfectibility of man. But I won't argue their view prevailed. I think Price and Priestley believed in this too. But they were also biblicists who believed in prophecy in Book of Revelation.

And if you wanted to "connect" the idea of man's perfectibility to a different kind of Protestantism or even conservative Protestant fundamentalism, you could look to the "holiness" doctrine, which teaches you stop sinning once you become saved. "Be therefore perfect" is in the Bible.

Our Founding Truth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Our Founding Truth said...

 Our Founding Truth said...

The bible is clear; the ffs were wrong, and so was Rutherford, Ponet, Beza and even Calvin, if he did change his mind. I think Dr. Frazer would cut the reformers some slack for changing views on obedience considering their friends were getting burned at the stake. However, the ffs have no excuse. It just shows they didn't really trust the Lord the way the scripture says and their faulty formation of the republic proves it.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Blogger Our Founding Truth said...
Our Founding Truth said...

The bible is clear; the ffs were wrong, and so was Rutherford, Ponet, Beza and even Calvin, if he did change his mind. I think Dr. Frazer would cut the reformers some slack for changing views on obedience considering their friends were getting burned at the stake. However, the ffs have no excuse. It just shows they didn't really trust the Lord the way the scripture says and their faulty formation of the republic proves it.




you're really not helping Gregg's case ;-)


and the doctrine of "tolerance" was necessitated by all the killing over doctrine, first by the Catholics against Protestants but eventually Protestants vs Protestants

Tom Van Dyke said...

onathan Rowe said...
I don't think the link to kasyercommentary is very strong.

The nuance is that yes, the Founders like Madison believed in "depravity," but not "total depravity." The quote from The Federalist read without the ellipses shows Madison talking about a "degree of depravity."

Other founders like Jefferson did believe in the perfectibility of man. But I won't argue their view prevailed.




Exactly my point, Jon. Jefferson was with the modernists, the philosophes, the French Revolution. But the American Founding was not, cleaving to a more Christian view of man as flawed and irredeemable without God's grace.

Yes, man has his "better angels," but as Madison notes, if we were indeed angels, government would be unnecessary.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Gregg emails the following response (he's not going to do a back and forth):

For those actually interested in learning something and/or open to evidence:



It is not inserting one’s own theology when a historian reports what others they are studying said about what the Bible says/means and what the church in 18th-century America said the Bible says/means – those things are history. For example, in his famous sermon promoting the rebellion (The Duty of Standing Fast In Our Spiritual and Temporal Liberties), Jacob Duché spent the first 9 pages explaining exactly what Paul meant in Galatians 5:1 – that it was all about spiritual liberty and explicitly stated that it was not about political liberty; then he abruptly employed it in service of political liberty for the rest of the sermon. He used it for a purpose that he himself said was not what God said. That is a historical fact. Likewise, Hall admits that Gal. 5:1 isn’t about political liberty, but spiritual liberty – then he says that it was appropriately a Christian basis for their claims of political liberty. [And this was a review of Hall’s book].



There are plenty of other examples that a historian can easily discern to be not what God said or what the Bible means without interjecting any particular theological bias – such as the notion that Colossians 2:21 referred to a boycott on British tea 1700 years after it was written or that Exodus 1:8 refers to an English king 2700 years after it was written. There are other incidents in which revolutionary preachers acknowledged that a passage meant something and then used it as if it meant something else that was useful for their cause. It is also history because at the time it was a source of criticism of the Patriot preachers; historians report such things.



Re what counts as a “font of Christian thought”: I was reviewing Hall’s book and Hall was making the claim that the specific type of Christian influence on the founders was Reformed thought – and THE REFORMERS BELIEVED THAT THE BIBLE WAS THE SOLE FONT OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT! You might remember a little phrase: “sola Scriptura?”



As for my refutation of what Hall says about the use of “depravity” by Madison, I am refuting Hall’s claims that Madison was influenced by Calvin – I am not saying anything about whether Calvin’s view is right or wrong or the only right view.



My thanks to those (such as you and “Our Founding Truth”) who are willing to actually consider actual evidence and who can grasp the notion of context.



Thanks, also, for making the review available for interested persons.



Gregg

Tom Van Dyke said...


There are plenty of other examples that a historian can easily discern to be not what God said or what the Bible means without interjecting any particular theological bias




This is patently false, Gregg. Unfortunately, your last book only covers the fundamentalist side of Romans 13, but there was not only another side, it was the side that won.

"What God said???" No one can speak for God, Gregg, especially in Protestantism, and especially not historians.

THE REFORMERS BELIEVED THAT THE BIBLE WAS THE SOLE FONT OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT!

"The Reformers" didn't even agree with each other. And although Luther and Calvin largely rejected Aquinas and the Schoolmen, their partners/successors Melanchthon and Beza did not. It's called "Protestant Scholasticism" and you would do well to educate yourself on the topic, as it's a glaring lacuna in your work as a historian.

"Christian thought" includes things like "Calvinist [or 'Reformed'] Resistance theory", which was THE driving force for not only the American Revolution, but the Glorious Revolution that reshaped the face of Britain's politics in 1688. Your brand of Protestant fundamentalism ended up on the ash heap of history until its revival in the late 1800s.


https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/08/08/protestant-scholasticism-primer/

http://davekopel.org/Religion/Calvinism.htm

Many modern libertarians assume that religion and liberty are necessarily in opposition. Many modern people in general assume that religion and revolution are opposed. At times, of course, they are, but the history of the American Revolution indicates that more care is required in making this kind of judgment.

In the American colonies, the hotbed of revolution was New England, where the people were mainly Congregationalists--descendants of the Calvinist English Puritans. The Presbyterians, a Calvinist sect which originated in Scotland, were spread all of the colonies, and the network of Presbyterian ministers provided links among them. The Congregationalist and Presbyterian ministers played an indispensable role in inciting the American Revolution.

To understand why they were so comfortable with revolution, it helps to look at the origins of Calvinist resistance theory, from its tentative beginnings with Calvin himself, to its full development a few decades later.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Again, Gregg Frazer's brand of fundamentalism is painful, and at odds with the history of his own [Protestant] religion. This is the latest by leading Protestant theologian and ecclesiastical historian Carl R. Trueman.

Simply, "the Reformers" is not a definitive term any more than "Protestant" is. It is descriptive at best, and mostly useful in the sense of "not-Catholic."


https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/12/turning-inward


"The most immediate and pressing ecumenical question for Protestants is not their relationship to Rome but their relationship to one another. From the moment Luther refused to accept Zwingli’s memorialist view of the Lord’s Supper at Marburg in 1529, the history of Protestantism has followed the pattern that Roman ­Catholic critics predicted: ever-increasing theological and institutional fragmentation.


Insisting that the unity for which Christ prayed need only be spiritual, and not institutional, Protestants have become as divided from one another as they are from Rome."


TVD: And indeed, they were at the time of the American Revolution, hence my strong dissent from Gregg attempting to speak for "God" or for "the Reformers." It is a scholarly impossibility.

1/2


Tom Van Dyke said...

2/2 [cont'd]

TRUEMAN: "In recent years, however, there has been growing dissatisfaction with this situation. Scholarly work in historical theology has unearthed the deep roots of Reformation Protestantism in the work of earlier theologians and exegetes. And a rising generation of younger Protestants realize that much of conservative Protestantism has paid lip service to historic Christian creedal orthodoxy but has had little idea of what the Creeds really taught and why.

“Scripture alone” was meant to be a means for regulating the church’s tradition; too often it has become the justification for reinventing the faith every Sunday. The debacle that has been the modern evangelical doctrine of God, with its unwitting rejection or catastrophic revision of catholic doctrines such as the Trinity, divine simplicity, and divine impassibility is only the most obvious.

...

A glance at the bibliography revealed, as I suspected, the presence of R. T. Kendall’s Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. It is rare that a book has been subjected to such consistent and devastating critique as this monograph. It relies on a narrow selection of sources, engages in consistent misreading of primary texts, reflects a tendentious theological agenda, and is based upon the historically indefensible idea that Calvin’s thought, expressed in the Institutes, is both a comprehensive account of his theology and normative for future generations."


TVD: Yet this is precisely Gregg Frazer's method, militantly rejecting all that followed, especially "Calvinist Resistance Theory," which shaped not just 1776, but Britain's Glorious Revolution of 1688, which exiled their king and brought in a new [and more pliable] one.

Gregg's method is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, that any "Christian thought" that disagrees with his own Protestant fundamentalism is simply not Christian!

Well, that may be a valid theological argument in his circles, but it's certainly not a historical one out here in the world the rest of us live in.

The Vindiciae was printed in over a dozen editions and was well-circulated all over the Christian world, and in the end, it was a theological argument as much as a philosophical one. It certainly qualifies as--if not defines--prevailing "Christian thought."

http://davekopel.org/Religion/Calvinism.htm


A Huguenot using the pen-name Marcus Junius Brutus (the Roman Senator who assassinated Julius Caesar) went further with the 1579 book "Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos" ("Vindication Against Tyrants"). "Vindiciae" was organized like a Catholic Scholastic treatise. Like the other Geneva writers, Brutus owed a great debt to Catholic thought on the subject of Just Revolution.

Our Founding Truth said...

Thanks for the pub Dr. Frazer. I'm delighted to read and learn from you.

Mark David Hall said...

I don't think anyone can read my book and Frazer's review and conclude that the latter is fair or accurate. For a far more reasonable (but not uncritical review) see: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/evangelical-history/christianity-profoundly-influence-founding-america/. For other reviews or comments on the book, please see: https://www.markdavidhall.org/endorsements

Mark David Hall said...

I should perhaps note that I have no objections to the last two paragraphs of Gregg's review, especially "Hall is brilliant in the last 100 pages. His treatment of religious liberty, the founders’ understanding of what it means in practice, and its implications for today are masterful."

The book has roughly 170 pages of text (not counting front matter and endnotes, so that means he loves 60% of it. One would not necessarily pick this up from the first 90% of his review...

Jonathan Rowe said...

Gregg is having technical difficulties and sent the following along to me to post on his behalf, in response to Mark:

If one goes strictly by percentage of pages, I do like most of Mark's book. If I were writing a simply summary review, I would have spent more words on the last 100 pages.



But I was tasked by the editor who requested the review to write a review that was "Heavy on engagement (light on summary)"; so that's what I did. The Justin Taylor review that Mark recommends is heavy on summary and light on engagement -- and is written by a non-historian who has not researched this area extensively.



Also, my assumption was that the vast majority of people looking at the review would be primarily concerned with the title question -- so that's what I focused upon. In my opinion, the last 100 pages have little to do with that title subject, so they received only brief mention. If the title had been something like "The First Amendment, Religious Liberty, and the Courts," it would have been a different review.

Jonathan Rowe said...

This is Gregg's second comment:

You say that my review is not fair or accurate, Mark – what are some examples of lack of fairness or (since “fairness” is often in the eye of the beholder), especially inaccuracy?

Mark David Hall said...

I'm not going to debate the details of this review. I stand by my observation that anyone who reads it will conclude that it is inaccurate and unfair. If anyone reads the book and finds part of his critique to be fair, please let me know.

But I will give one example. Gregg's review begins "Both sides of the “Christian America” debate employ the same strategy: posit a world in which everyone is either a Christian or a deist..." Gregg clearly thinks I'm in the first camp, and he is lumping me in with popular Christian authors who overstate their cases. Yet in the introduction to my book I make it crystal clear that I am not arguing that America's founders were all pious, orthodox Christians. I explain that we simply don't have the evidence to support this proposition in many cases. Moreover, in my chapter critiquing the assertion that "most" or "many" of America's founders were deists, I clearly state that Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson were not orthodox Christians.

Note that this chapter attacks the proposition that most of America's founders were deists. I think it is fair to say that I demolish these arguments. Yet I never claim the opposite--i.e. that because they are not deists they are orthodox Christians. Similarly, one could critique the claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim without needing to prove that he is an orthodox Christian (he may well be, but it would not be necessary to show this to undermine the case that he is a Muslim).

I'm off to a conference dinner and then a weekend long conference, so I won't be keeping up with this debate should it continue.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Gregg is still having technical difficulties. This is his response to Mark's post:

Mark complains that I "lump" him in with others who make the case for a Christian America and who posit that everyone in the founding era was either a deist or a Christian. In the book, he does say that at least three founders were not "orthodox" Christians or "pious, evangelical" Christians, but then employs them multiple times to demonstrate Christian influence anyway. By constantly adding these strategically-placed qualifiers, he does not actually say that they were not Christians – just that they were not particularly pious or orthodox Christians. I’m not sure, but I don’t think he ever simply says of anyone in the book that they were not a Christian. I welcome a correction if he does.



His evidence for America's Christian founding where the founders is concerned is that the founders were not deists and that they were affiliated with denominations; but no positive evidence is given that they actually embraced the Christian faith in 18th-century Christians’ sense of the term. He offers virtually no evidence that any of them believed in any of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity as listed in the creeds and confessions of the churches.



He states: "When America's founders spoke about 'religion,' virtually all of them -- even those most influenced by the Enlightenment -- meant Christianity.” Aside from that not being true, it again includes people such as the three that he earlier said were not “orthodox” Christians and makes room for them in a sort of broader tent Christianity that has no relation to actual Christianity as described in the creeds and confessions of the 18th-century churches. Several of the founders had their own idiosyncratic notion of what constitutes “Christianity.” John Adams spoke of “Christianity” and identified with it. In his case, for example, “Christian principles” were principles shared by Protestants, Catholics, deists, ATHEISTS, and “Protestants who believe nothing.” He listed notorious atheists David Hume and Voltaire as adherents to those principles (June 28, 1813 letter to Jefferson).



Notice that even in this American Creation entry, Mark always includes the qualifiers “orthodox” and/or “pious” in the denials – never just that they were not Christians.



The review was written for The Gospel Coalition. Whatever you or I or Mark think “Christian” means, that group and its followers have a particular understanding of the word “Christian” – one that they happen to share with that of the 18th-century American churches. Mark’s book offers virtually no evidence that the American founders were Christians in the sense that The Gospel Coalition (the audience for the review) understands the term. He effectively demonstrates that they were not deists and that many of them did not publicly criticize Christianity and that they were religious. Jews and Muslims are not deists, many of them do not publicly criticize Christianity, and they are religious – but that does not make them Christian. Neither does social membership in a denomination.



Mark is quite right that there were a number of Christians among the founders – and he lists several. But even for them, he gives no evidence. He reports that there is “much evidence to indicate” that twenty Reformed founders were “orthodox” Christians – but he provides none of that evidence. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim and in my opinion, he proves only that they were not deists, that most of them were affiliated with a denomination, and that they were religious.



He complains that I lump him with those who see the world in the false dichotomy of deist or some kind of Christian – but as far as I can see, he never recognizes in the book the existence or possibility of another option – even simply unbelief. Perhaps he can point me to a place in which he does.

Mark David Hall said...

I'm not complaining, Gregg. You asked for an example where you are unfair and inaccurate and I gave you one. Let me make it a little more clear.
1. I'm a college professor with a PhD who has written or edited a dozen academic book. Yet you lump "Did America Have a Christian Founding?" in with books written by popular Christian authors. This is manifestly unfair.
2. You accuse me of arguing that all of America's founders were Christians. I clearly say that I am not doing this in the introduction, and I clearly state that some were heretics. Your accusation is simply inaccurate.

I stand by my observation that anyone who reads the book and your review will conclude it is inaccurate and unfair. I am not going to debate this with you further.

Tom Van Dyke said...

The review was written for The Gospel Coalition. Whatever you or I or Mark think “Christian” means, that group and its followers have a particular understanding of the word “Christian” – one that they happen to share with that of the 18th-century American churches. Mark’s book offers virtually no evidence that the American founders were Christians in the sense that The Gospel Coalition (the audience for the review) understands the term.


Gregg Frazer once again concedes my point, and critique of his own work and standing as a historian.

"Gregg's method is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, that any "Christian thought" that disagrees with his own Protestant fundamentalism is simply not Christian!

Well, that may be a valid theological argument in his circles, but it's certainly not a historical one out here in the world the rest of us live in."




The Gospel Coalition may well have its own religious audience and definition of what may permissibly be called "Christian," but they do not make the rules for the academic historical community.

In their world, the unitarians, Quakers, and other non-conformists are not "Christian," but historians can and do validly disagree.

Our Founding Truth said...

Dr. Hall,

It may be your book implies the majority were Christians besides the notorious losers previously mentioned because you aren't clear on who is a Christian.

Mark David Hall said...

Perhaps I am not clear on who is a Christian. But I do stipulate that an orthodox Christian is one who adheres to fundamental Christian doctrines as articulated in the Apostles’ or Nicene Creeds (164). I am not saying that this is the only possible definition, but it is far from idiosyncratic. How would this play out with someone like John Adams? He identified himself as a Christian, but is clearly not an orthodox Christian. Neither is Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Allen, and the approximately 2,000 Jews in America at the time (and this is just a partial list of folks who are not orthodox Christians). These facts would be problematic for me if I was arguing that all of America's founders were orthodox Christians or even just Christians, but I explicitly say in the introduction that this is not my argument.

Gregg is very troubled that I reference John Adams as an Christian"exemplar" on pages 11, 32, 102, 111–13, 131 even though I clearly state he is not an orthodox Christian. But I never claim he is an "exemplar," and every time I reference him it is to support a particular argument. Take the references on pages 111-113 (a section of the book that Gregg calls "brilliant."). On these pages I reference his presidential calls for prayer as one of many pieces of evidence that America's founders did not desire to strictly separate church and state. I never say he issued these because he was an orthodox Christian, or even that he actually thought prayer worked. Instead, these acts (and many others) shine light on the founders's views about how church and state should be related.

Our Founding Truth said...

"I won't answer for Dr. Frazer, but I assume you answer in the affirmative, "Did America Have a Christian Founding?" Having taken the same position as you for several years, I think I can comment on your position from the evangelical, fundamentalist perspective.

Are natural rights and natural law proscribed in the bible? Is Christ religiously diverse? Is federalism in the bible? Is the gospel enshrined in the DOI, Constitution and Bill of Rights? Are not those the foundation of the republic?


I doubt it matters how many heretics were among the ffs, if they were right on the foundation. They weren't right on the foundation.





Tom Van Dyke said...

Gregg is very troubled that I reference John Adams as an Christian"exemplar" on pages 11, 32, 102, 111–13, 131 even though I clearly state he is not an orthodox Christian. But I never claim he is an "exemplar," and every time I reference him it is to support a particular argument. Take the references on pages 111-113 (a section of the book that Gregg calls "brilliant."). On these pages I reference his presidential calls for prayer as one of many pieces of evidence that America's founders did not desire to strictly separate church and state. I never say he issued these because he was an orthodox Christian, or even that he actually thought prayer worked. Instead, these acts (and many others) shine light on the founders's views about how church and state should be related.


And once again the same false premise slips into the debate, that certain Founders' personal theology is even relevant to the larger picture of the religious landscape of America at its founding.

If John Adams did not believe Jesus was divine, his thanksgiving proclamation still used the explicitly Trinitarian formulation of Father, Redeemer and Holy Spirit. On its public face, this is orthodox Christianity. That Adams had his fingers crossed behind his back is of zero political or historical importance.


Jonathan Rowe said...

One more from Gregg, split in two:

As you well know, Mark, I am very impressed with most of your academic work – and I do not simply “lump” this book in with books that both you and I consider to be less than scholarly. My comments about the last 100 pages make that clear. I simply argue that you employ a common strategy in this book. When I refer to a world in which “everyone” is either a Christian or a deist, the “everyone” is not literal, but literary shorthand for everyone who matters – just as you say in your post that you “clearly state that some were heretics.” I did a word search on your text and the word “heretic” is not present.



OK, I get it; you’re using hyperbole to make a point – as I was in the comment to which you object. In reality, though, you do not actually deny that the guys you mention in your post are Christians. You just deny that they are a certain category of Christian.



You do not clearly deny that any of the non-deists were Christians; you constantly and repeatedly qualify your denial. You say they weren’t “pious” Christians or “evangelical” Christians or, more commonly, “orthodox” Christians – as you do again in your post here when you mention the problem guys (every time). That, combined with making salutary references to things those individuals say or do as examples of Christian influence leaves the distinct impression that while they may not have been a certain kind of Christian, they were some kind of Christian.



You say that you stipulate (p. 164) that an “orthodox” Christian is one who adheres to fundamental doctrines as articulated in the Apostles’ or Nicene Creeds – but you don’t do that in the text of your book, but only in the endnotes! Who reads the endnotes except people like you and me – i.e. scholars? The typical reader won’t see that. AND, again, you qualify the term with “orthodox,” so we still have no idea what “Christian” means. Since you feel the need to limit it to a particular type of “Christian,” it doesn’t tell us anything about whether these guys were some other kind of Christian. In each reference to denials in your post here, you precede “Christian” with “orthodox” – that is only a denial that they were that certain kind of Christian. If it does not indicate that there is another type of “Christian” in the category, why do you always use the descriptor when referring to these problematic guys? It’s an indicator that there are other less severe types of Christians and suggests that these guys who don’t quite make the cut at one level might still be in the broader category. If not, why the descriptor?

Jonathan Rowe said...

Part 2


I did not say that you called Adams an “exemplar,” only that you used him as an exemplar. An exemplar is a “model or example”; a “typical or standard specimen.” You say in the post that you used what he did to “shine light on the founders’ views about how church and state should be related.” Do you mean like a “typical or standard” “model or example” of the founders’ views? Isn’t the argument in that section of the book that those views reflected Christianity? If so, my statement in the review [“Adams is still used as an exemplar in other sections of the book to bolster claims of Christian influence”] would seem to be accurate.



You stipulate (in the endnotes, but not in the text) what an “orthodox” Christian is, but not what a Christian is. What makes someone a Christian? What is the standard – besides not being a deist? You never say.



It is a way to deflect from the problem people standing in the way of a claim that America had a Christian founding. What you say is it wasn’t an “orthodox” Christian founding, but it was a Christian founding. Who can disprove your thesis if you never define what “Christian” means? You define a “Christian founding” as one in which there is “Christian influence” – but we don’t know what you mean by “Christian,” so how are we to evaluate your claims of Christian influence? Hence my questions in the review: what counts as a Christian idea? What is the meaning and appropriate usage of the term “Christian” as it relates to individuals and to institutions? Is it whatever is left after you remove deism? How much Christian influence (whatever that is) is necessary in order to attach the label? Why pick “Christian” as the proper descriptor over other influences?



Again: there is no evidence presented that anyone actually believed in the doctrines of Christianity as understood by 18th-century American Christians. We are told that they were not deists (and given evidence for that) and that they were mostly Christians (but not given evidence for that – even for those who clearly were Christians and for whom such evidence is available). Simply claiming they were Christians and showing they were not deists is not enough. You repeatedly demand that critics provide evidence that certain founders “rejected Christianity or embraced deism” – shouldn’t you be bound to the same standard (providing positive evidence) for your claim?

Tom Van Dyke said...

It’s an indicator that there are other less severe types of Christians and suggests that these guys who don’t quite make the cut at one level might still be in the broader category.


Exactly. For historical purposes, the Quakers are Christian. So were the "Unitarian Christians" of the William Ellery Channing stripe. Anyone who believes the Bible is the Word of God and not merely of men is probably a Christian unless he's some sort of pan-religious type that believes the Qur'an is, too.

Locke arguably disbelieved in Jesus's divinity, but he was taken as a Christian thinker by the Founding era. His private beliefs are immaterial. The founder of the Presbyterian Church John Knox was of course a Christian, and he was among the first in Scotland to develop the notion of resistance to the tyrant. As was Rev. John Ponet, as were the myriad authors of "Calvinist Resistance Theory." Even the infidel Tom Paine used biblical arguments in "Common Sense"!!

It is Gregg Frazer who questions their Christian-ness. Non-fundamentalist historians do not. This is getting absurd.


[It's getting difficult to believe that Dr. Frazer has no access to a computer that will let him speak for himself instead of these one-way grenade tosses from behind Jon Rowe's duck blind.]

Our Founding Truth said...

Excellent posts again Dr. Frazer. From your words, it appears Dr. Hall believes there is more than one kind of Christian among the ff's. Just because Thomas Jefferson called himself a Christian, doesn't mean it's true. The standard of conversion must come from the bible text only.

As to Christian influence, I don't see much of it at all. The founding is all O.T. Law by works, to promote virtue within a secular republic, while Christ is absent from the foundational documents and left out as the standard of authority over all.





Tom Van Dyke said...

Just because Thomas Jefferson called himself a Christian, doesn't mean it's true.

Does anyone seriously claim Jefferson as a Christian? Even Rev. Dr. James D, Kennedy, a "Christian Nationist," as it were," said no:

Jefferson was a true friend of the Christian faith. But was he a true Christian? A nominal Christian - as demonstrated by his lifelong practice of attending worship services, reading the Bible, and following the moral principles of Christ - Jefferson was not, in my opinion, a genuine Christian. In 1813, after his public career was over, Jefferson rejected the deity of Christ. Like so many millions of church members today, he was outwardly religious, but never experienced the new birth that Jesus told Nicodemus was necessary to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

Jefferson's own words do not qualify him. For him Christianity is philosophical, not religious:

"I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, & believing he never claimed any other."



The founding is all O.T. Law by works, to promote virtue within a secular republic, while Christ is absent from the foundational documents and left out as the standard of authority over all.

"Judeo-Christian," then, although the term wasn't invented until the 1900s. The God of the Founding was Jehovah. You fundamentalists should remember that Jehovah is God, too, according to your own beliefs and religion.

Jonathan Rowe said...

For the record, Gregg was having technical problems with the comment section here.

Jonathan Rowe said...

"Montesquieu probably was not a Christian. Newton and Locke were not Trinitarians and therefore not Christians according to the commonly received ideas of Christianity."

-- Richard Price, 1785.

My 2 cents. I think I told Gregg this in front of Mark and the distinguished room of scholars at Gordon College.

Gregg does a good job at articulating the Athanasian consensus of late 18th Century America and in Christendom in general. See the Richard Price quote above.

However, there are other competing definitions for what it means to be a "Christian" like Jesus is Messiah, which would make Arians, Socinians, Mormons, JWs etc. "Christian."

What's most important, however, is to clarify what is meant by terms. I'm about to order Mark's book. Since I haven't read it yet, so I can't say. But if the reader understands you can be an Arian, Socinian, etc. etc. and qualify as some kind of "UNORTHODOX" Christian, I don't think such is problematic from a purely historical perspective.

Our Founding Truth said...

You fundamentalists should remember that Jehovah is God, too, according to your own beliefs and religion""

Wrong. Jehovah is not a personal reality with no access whatsoever unless through God the Son, Christ Jesus.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Blogger Our Founding Truth said...
You fundamentalists should remember that Jehovah is God, too, according to your own beliefs and religion""

Wrong. Jehovah is not a personal reality with no access whatsoever unless through God the Son, Christ Jesus.



Your theological weeds are way too tall for the historian or sociologist.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Newton and Locke were not Trinitarians and therefore not Christians according to the commonly received ideas of Christianity."

-- Richard Price, 1785.

My 2 cents. I think I told Gregg this in front of Mark and the distinguished room of scholars at Gordon College.

Gregg does a good job at articulating the Athanasian consensus of late 18th Century America and in Christendom in general. See the Richard Price quote above.



I think Price is being tart here. Albeit a unitarian, Price continued as an ordained Christian minister, and would not concede the authority to decide what a Christian is to the conformists.


"according to the commonly received ideas of Christianity."


However, there are other competing definitions for what it means to be a "Christian" like Jesus is Messiah, which would make Arians, Socinians, Mormons, JWs etc. "Christian."

What's most important, however, is to clarify what is meant by terms. I'm about to order Mark's book. Since I haven't read it yet, so I can't say. But if the reader understands you can be an Arian, Socinian, etc. etc. and qualify as some kind of "UNORTHODOX" Christian, I don't think such is problematic from a purely historical perspective."



Exactly, especially from a socio-historical perspective. We can take no sides in these theological and ecclesiastical battles. We can speak only of what was normative, as Madison wrote, "What is Xianity?" Neither the government nor social science has the standing to judge.

And it is very difficult to establish norms in Protestantism. As Trueman noted, from the very first they disagreed on what Holy Communion even is, and in the Catholic theology they split from, the Eucharist is at the theological center of the Church itself.

"Normative" Protestantism does not exist except subjectively and descriptively.




https://www.firstthings.com/article/2019/12/turning-inward


"The most immediate and pressing ecumenical question for Protestants is not their relationship to Rome but their relationship to one another. From the moment Luther refused to accept Zwingli’s memorialist view of the Lord’s Supper at Marburg in 1529, the history of Protestantism has followed the pattern that Roman ­Catholic critics predicted: ever-increasing theological and institutional fragmentation.


Insisting that the unity for which Christ prayed need only be spiritual, and not institutional, Protestants have become as divided from one another as they are from Rome."

Our Founding Truth said...

"The most immediate and pressing ecumenical question for Protestants is not their relationship to Rome but their relationship to one another. From the moment Luther refused to accept Zwingli’s memorialist view of the Lord’s Supper at Marburg in 1529, the history of Protestantism has followed the pattern that Roman ­Catholic critics predicted: ever-increasing theological and institutional fragmentation.""

This is a false statement.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Blogger Our Founding Truth said...
"The most immediate and pressing ecumenical question for Protestants is not their relationship to Rome but their relationship to one another. From the moment Luther refused to accept Zwingli’s memorialist view of the Lord’s Supper at Marburg in 1529, the history of Protestantism has followed the pattern that Roman ­Catholic critics predicted: ever-increasing theological and institutional fragmentation."

This is a false statement.



And that is not a rebuttal. Your fundamentalism is a minority in your own [Protestant] religion.

Our Founding Truth said...

And that is not a rebuttal. Your fundamentalism is a minority in your own [Protestant] religion""

It is a valid rebuttal because you can't name another contention among fundamentalists about essentials. You're using that as a diversion to suit your own biases.




Our Founding Truth said...

And that is not a rebuttal. Your fundamentalism is a minority in your own [Protestant] religion""

It is a valid rebuttal because you can't name another contention among fundamentalists about essentials. It's only a diversion to suit your own biases.




Tom Van Dyke said...

Blogger Our Founding Truth said...


It is a valid rebuttal because you can't name another contention among fundamentalists about essentials.



You just proved my point again, Jim. You just keep digging Gregg Frazer's hole deeper and deeper. Protestant fundamentalists are but a small fraction of the Christian religion, both then and now.

You and Gregg have no standing to speak for the Christian religion.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Tom to be fair, don't strawman Gregg's position. His Protestant fundamentalism might be a species within the genus. But the genus is 18th Cen. Athanasian consensus, which includes Roman Catholicism and other species.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_n6ahLSqrQAg/SdZQ_JkdeHI/AAAAAAAAAFw/86upXVrqDvc/s1600-h/18th+cen+chr.BMP

Jonathan Rowe said...

Two more from Gregg. One:

Theologically, the Bible is quite clear concerning what Christianity is and Paul warned that anyone who preaches a different gospel is “accursed” (Galatians 1:8-9). Of course, as the term itself indicates, the core of Christianity is Christ. Christianity, then, is all about Who Christ is and what Christ did for man. If one gets either of those things wrong, it isn’t Christianity – no matter what it is called. Jesus said that He is the way and that the road to salvation is narrow, while the road to destruction is broad. He said that many would claim to be His followers at judgment time, but that He would say to them: “I never knew you; depart from Me!” He said that He is the door and anyone who tries some other way is a thief and a robber. He said that the Old Testament Scriptures bear witness of Him as the source of eternal life. He said that anyone who rejects Him will be judged at the last day. That isn’t all that He said and it doesn’t even get into the exclusivity of Christ as presented by the apostles who were inspired by God.



Down through the years, men have done what they are prone by their nature to do – they have rejected God’s word/commands and made up something they’re more comfortable with. That process began in Genesis 3 when Adam & Eve bought Satan’s lies in place of God’s instruction and command to them. Ever since Christ lived and died and rose again, men have replaced what God said with man-made systems they prefer that allow them to do what they want. Since God established Christianity, they rejected it and produced their own versions of what they call “Christianity.”



That leads to various alternative historical and philosophical views of Christianity. When I refer to Christianity in my books, which are books of political thought based on history, I use the definition and understanding of Christianity held by the 18th-century American churches. When I make my arguments and present evidence, it is based on the understanding of Christianity in that historical context (since the books are set in the American Revolutionary and founding period). I do this so that there is a common ground for discussion and understanding between me and rational readers.



My beliefs about Christianity are irrelevant for the purposes of the books and a rational reader need not even know my own beliefs. Unfortunately, some cannot or do not want to understand context or writing with a professional and objective voice. What did American Christians at the time say Christianity was? What did American Christians at the time say about the essence and meaning of Christianity and about who was a Christian and who was not? In the context of my books, those are critical questions and reliance upon the creeds and confessions of those churches provides a historical platform for drawing conclusions.



That said, we can debate the essence of Christianity all we want, but because some of us are Christians and some of us are not – and because some of us consider the Bible to be God’s Word and some of us do not, we will never arrive at an agreement. We are ships passing in the night: a ship of biblical Christianity as taught by Jesus and the apostles and a ship of man-made systems of belief and practice that they call Christianity. That is why I base my work and arguments on the creeds and confessions and catechisms of the 18th-century American churches; that is a way of coming to some conclusions in a historical context, irrespective of personal opinions [at least for those capable of understanding context and of considering ideas apart from their own personal opinions or preferences].

Jonathan Rowe said...

Two:

As far as I can see, Mark does not ever define in the text of his book what he means by “Christianity” or what it means to be a “Christian.” He defines “orthodox” Christianity in the endnotes, but the qualifying descriptor indicates that there is a broader or, at least, different kind of Christianity. There is no explanation or definition of what that is. That would seem to be important in a book purporting to show that America had a “Christian” founding – not just a non-deist founding. He says it’s based on “Christian” ideas – but how do we know what “Christian” ideas are if we don’t have a definition of “Christian?”



It would be fairly easy to prove the one charge Mark made to show that my review is “unfair and inaccurate.” First: he says that he did not posit a world in which everyone is either a deist or a Christian, so all he needs to do is give us a sentence or two – or just a page number – in which he recognizes some spiritual/religious status other than “deist” or “Christian.” Simply saying that a few were not “orthodox” Christians is inadequate, as that simply says they were not one category/kind of Christian, but suggests that they were another category/kind of Christian (or the descriptor would be unnecessary). As far as I can see, he does not deny that anyone was a Christian and does not mention any other possibility than deist or some kind of Christian.



Second, he could provide a sentence or two – or just a page number – in which he provides evidence from any founder that he believed in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity to which 18th-century American churches adhered. As far as I can see, what is presented is evidence that some were not deists, followed by the conclusion that therefore they must have been some kind of Christian (although maybe not “orthodox” or “sincere” or “pious” or “evangelical”). No other option is presented. That is a world in which everyone is either a deist or a Christian – at least as far as a reader can tell.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Jonathan Rowe said...
Tom to be fair, don't strawman Gregg's position. His Protestant fundamentalism might be a species within the genus. But the genus is 18th Cen. Athanasian consensus, which includes Roman Catholicism and other species.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_n6ahLSqrQAg/SdZQ_JkdeHI/AAAAAAAAAFw/86upXVrqDvc/s1600-h/18th+cen+chr.BMP



Gregg insists he knows "what God said" and what the Bible "clearly" means. But the Bible itself can be used to argue for or against the Trinitarian theology.

Are the Quakers Christian? The unitarians? Who gets to say? Not historians.

Is revolution forbidden by Romans 13? Gregg says yes. The Founding era said no. The Glorious Revolution said no. Locke's analysis of the Epistles said no. Does Gregg have more divine authority than Locke?

The historian cannot say.

Gregg [and occasionally you, Jon] uses what Philip Melanchthon called the "rabies theologorum"--the war between the clerics and theologians--against the founding.

It is an apt term, and Frazer leans on it heavily, as though the clerics' theological wars were of any real effect. Accord the theological controversy its actual lack of importance, and his thesis is empty. Nobody cared whether the next fellow in the pew believed Jesus was God until it came to a head in about 1813, and its political effect was nil.

Gregg's thesis is based on the "rabies theologorum." His sources and citations are almost purely from clerics. Trinitarianism and the Atonement, etc., were a non-issue at the Founding everywhere else, even in the pews, where unitarians sat cheek-by-jowl with the Trinitarians all the way up to the Ratification.

Doctrine was simply not part of the equation. Gregg's thesis is built on a faulty premise.

Mark David Hall said...

In case there is any doubt, I think all but the last two paragraphs of Gregg's review are inaccurate and unfair. But I'll stick to the first paragraph simply to make a point. For those who want more, read the book and then the review.

Gregg writes above: "As you well know, Mark, I am very impressed with most of your academic work – and I do not simply “lump” this book in with books that both you and I consider to be less than scholarly."

How can the first paragraph of the review be read other than as lumping me in with popular Christian historians who claim that all of America's founders were Christians? This is a question of reading comprehension, not interpretation:

"Both sides of the “Christian America” debate employ the same strategy: posit a world in which everyone is either a Christian or a deist, show the American founders weren’t in your opponent’s camp, and then claim, as a result, that they must’ve been in yours. If you’re promulgating the Christian America notion, interpret everything they said and did according to the assumption they were Christians, and subsequently anoint the institutions they established as “Christian.” In his new book, Did America Have a Christian Founding? Separating Modern Myth from Historical Truth, Mark Hall—professor of politics at George Fox University in Newberg, Oregon—disappointingly provides yet another example of this methodology."

Our Founding Truth said...

Dr. Hall,

Everything Dr. Frazer wrote in the last two posts is supported by logical explanations. By no means is he lumping you in with, as you say, "Christian historians". I've read some works by these Christians, but they aren't historians. Most of them could care less about proper attribution. They even give the church a bad name. I've seen fake quotes by GW and others, on windows of Christian grade schools.

It seems because of what you somewhat neglected in enumerating specific Christians, the final result of the book is similar to those other works.








Tom Van Dyke said...

It seems because of what you somewhat neglected in enumerating specific Christians, the final result of the book is similar to those other works.


Perhaps YOU should be more specific about which Christians you're comparing Hall's work to, especially since you haven't even read it. Surely you're not accusing him of sloppiness of the David Barton variety.



My own criticism of Gregg Frazer's thesis would be that Samuel Adams was quite orthodox and John Adams was quite heterodox, even to the point of being on the outskirts of being a Christian.

But what political or historical distinction should be made between them?

Our Founding Truth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Our Founding Truth said...

Maybe SA was saved, but like the few that were, he didn't govern like he was and that's what matters most.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Two more from Gregg. One:

Wouldn’t it be supremely rich if someone who had never read either of my books, but claims to know more about them and my inner thoughts and motivations than I do, were to suggest to someone else that their comment is questionable because they haven’t read the book on which they’re commenting?

Jonathan Rowe said...

Two:

I guess saying that Mark used the same strategy as others “lumps” him with them to some extent. I’m sorry he’s offended by that. That was not my intent. My defense is that what I said is true; he employed the same strategy as lesser persons have done. That’s not my fault. And again: I do not consider Mark’s book to be in the same overall category as those others; it is similar in that one way. Mark is a real scholar, unlike the authors of those books. That is why I describe his choice to use their strategy as “disappointing.”



With all due respect to Mark – and I do greatly respect him – his latest post is actually quite similar to his book. He claims here that my review [except for two paragraphs] is a) unfair and b) inaccurate – but he feels no obligation to demonstrate that the claims are true. That is characteristic of too much of the book: claims without supporting evidence.



To make such a demonstration, I suggest that Mark:



a. give a sentence or two – or just page numbers – in the text in which he recognizes some spiritual/religious status other than “deist” or some kind of “Christian” in relation to founders


b. give a sentence or two – or just page numbers – in the text in which he provides evidence from any founder that he believed in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity to which 18th-century American churches adhered (since we’re talking about that time and place and since he doesn’t himself define what he means by “Christianity”).


c. Identify some of the many inaccuracies in the rest of the review so that I have opportunity to defend my review against the charge. Making a charge without specifics and the opportunity to challenge it is problematic at best. [for those who haven’t read my review, I make specific criticisms that readers can evaluate for themselves by looking at the book; I do not simply say that the book is “unfair and inaccurate”]


I know, from exchanges with Mark over the years, that he doesn’t, as he said here, like to debate things on this site or by email. But I would suggest that if that’s the case, he should not make charges of unfairness or, especially, inaccuracy.



There is one other way in which Mark’s book is like the books that he and I both disdain (though this one isn’t his fault): there is a long line of people who are predisposed to agree with his claims and really WANT them to be true. Consequently, I suspect that their evaluative standards and ability to be appropriately skeptical and critical are compromised.



For the record, I really like Mark personally and, as I say in the review, he is one of the best I’ve heard/seen concerning the First Amendment and how the courts have butchered it. If that had been the primary focus of the book, my review of it would have been radically different. I would MUCH prefer to review his work positively. My review of his book on Roger Sherman is quite positive.

Mark David Hall said...

"I guess saying that Mark used the same strategy as others “lumps” him with them to some extent." Thank you for admitting the plain meaning of your words, Gregg.

I put a great deal of time, effort, and energy into writing "Did America Have a Christian Founding?" The book is endorsed by many excellent scholars, including Barry Shain, Kevin Gutzman, Rodney Smith, Hadley Arkes, Daniel Dreisbach, Wilfred McClay, George Nash, Matt Franck, and David Dalin. (I'm not going to discuss their religious affiliations or lack thereof, but several of the endorsers are not Christians by any definition of the term and no one, except perhaps Gregg, would lump them in with popular Christian authors). I think anyone who reads my book and Gregg's review will conclude that it is unfair and inaccurate. I simply don't think it is a profitable use of my time to rebut it line by line and, frankly, I think folks like "Our Founding Truth" would profit more from reading the book than reading others debate it.

Anyone interested in seeing these endorsements, and the reactions of some folks who interviewed me about the book, may find there on this website: https://www.markdavidhall.org/

Tom Van Dyke said...

Two more from Gregg. One:

Wouldn’t it be supremely rich if someone who had never read either of my books, but claims to know more about them and my inner thoughts and motivations than I do, were to suggest to someone else that their comment is questionable because they haven’t read the book on which they’re commenting?


Actually, I read your latest book, Gregg. Jonathan gave it to me. You're lucky I haven't reviewed it yet. I wrote something up for Amazon but decided to have mercy on you. ;-)

Jonathan Rowe said...

More from Gregg, broken up into two posts.

One:


“to some extent” is the key phrase in my “admission.” If I said that someone was a failed artist, I suppose that would be “lumping” them with Hitler to some extent. Unfortunately, this is a common fallacy in today’s world. One cannot make a discrete comparison without people shouting that you are making an exact and entire comparison – that you are equating two things by noting one specific similarity. Mark used the same strategy as others that he and I do not respect. That does not mean that Mark and the others are interchangeable in every way or in any other way. It does not mean that Mark is not a better scholar or that Mark does not produce infinitely better work overall – as my comments regarding 2/3 of his book testify.



For the record: I have great respect for several of those who endorsed Mark’s book (as I do for Mark). I do not lump them with “popular Christian authors” or any other Christians or any other authors. I simply said that they really WANT Mark’s claims to be true and, therefore, may have suspended some of their usual skepticism and been less demanding in their standards. Many do the same for those inferior books. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with being Christians or any other religious affiliation. Truth be told, only Mark is doing any “lumping” beyond my one specific statement.



For example: a very prominent conservative told me personally that he was concerned that my first book would give ammunition to the Left. Consequently, he wanted me to say that theistic rationalism was a form of Christianity. That individual is not a Christian; he’s a conservative. His political preferences were coloring his analysis. Mark’s claim is attractive to many on different levels for different reasons – most prominently, political & cultural reasons – but also professional and personal reasons. People who agree with the overall thesis are unlikely to invite questioning of the cardinal cause by criticizing methodology or evidence. They will welcome affirmation of their view whether effectively demonstrated or not – or because they like Mark.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Two:

Mark says that it isn’t a profitable use of his time to rebut the arguments in my review. It does take a lot of time. If you’re not willing to do so, however, you should not make claims that you’re not willing to at least spend some time backing up. A simple “I disagree with Gregg’s review and suggest that you read the book for yourself to see with whom you agree” would have been appropriate. That makes it a matter of opinion and entails no obligation.



To claim that my review is “inaccurate” and then refuse to specify what is inaccurate in it – to drop that bomb and then walk away – is “unfair” and academic mud-slinging.



A response to my a) and/or b) in the previous post would, of course, not require a line-by-line rebuttal – merely page numbers and/or a few sentences. But it would require an answer – one that as far as I can see cannot be provided. Likewise with the other criticisms I mention in the review. Mark’s latest post required many more words/sentences than I asked for in a) or b). It would also be quicker to simply list page numbers or what’s already been written than to compose a new response. It doesn’t appear that time is really the key factor.



Of course, simply repeating over and over that “it’s unfair, read for yourself” – like: “they weren’t deists; prove that they rejected Christianity” is a lot easier.



Re the reactions of those who interviewed Mark about the book – an impressive list: I have been interviewed about my books by dozens of radio, TV, and podcast hosts. I am only convinced that ONE of them actually read the book.



The job of such hosts is not to analyze or evaluate the evidence to see if it substantiates your claims or even to know what the book says other than what you say on the air. Their job is to fill broadcast time and make you feel good about your product. I had hosts completely agreeing with me, then completely agreeing with David Barton saying the opposite a few weeks later. Is there anyone in the group who is not a conservative and predisposed to agree with Mark’s thesis? Yes, Ben Shapiro is a Jew, but he’s conservative, knows his audience, and doesn’t feel threatened by a Christian founding that is without definition and can be easily described as “Judeo-Christian.”

Tom Van Dyke said...

Is there anyone in the group who is not a conservative and predisposed to agree with Mark’s thesis? Yes, Ben Shapiro is a Jew, but he’s conservative, knows his audience, and doesn’t feel threatened by a Christian founding that is without definition and can be easily described as “Judeo-Christian.”


Mr. Frazer answers his own question. The God of the Founding was unmistakably Jehovah, not some recent "theistic rationalist" invention.

Even functional deists Jefferson and Ethan Allen said so. It was "Judeo-Christian," especially since Protestants had trouble agreeing just who and what Christ was.


For example: a very prominent conservative told me personally that he was concerned that my first book would give ammunition to the Left.

And indeed it doe. Frazer's brand of Protestant fundamentalist history would not be nearly as popular in academic circles unless it were of service to the secular revisionism that was ascendent in decades past [although not now, thanks to the work of scholars like Hall and Dreisbach].