On America's Declaration of Independence and In General.
I noted when discussing the sentiments of Leo Strauss' followers that I didn't think America's Declaration of Independence was a "Christian" document but rather, it's a "theistic" document. My reasons for this is the document doesn't invoke the Trinity, Jesus Christ or even Jehovah, but rather speaks of a God of some sort (in four places) in more generic terms. Further, it doesn't quote verses and chapter of scripture authoritatively. I got pushback from a friend. And I understand the reasons why; some of them apt. I would concede, for instance, that some/many of the important ideas contained in the DOI were earlier posited by serious Christian thinkers.
In my post on the Straussians, I noted that "[t]hey ask the right questions" even if one doesn't always agree with their conclusions, hence they are worth seriously engaging. One obvious point for the "pro-Christian America" side is that America's DOI emerges out "Christendom." Renowned evangelical/reformed scholars Drs. Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and George Marsden in their book "The Search For Christian America" raise the bar beyond watered down, "generic Christendom" in their analysis of the "Christian America/Nation" question. In doing so, they didn't find the American founding to be very "Christian."
But here is an example of the kind of pertinent questions that they, and the Straussians (I don't think the three scholars are Straussians, but their methodology and conclusions are similar and they also at times have cited one another) ask:
"Is the authoritative invocation of Aristotle and Cicero authentically 'Christian'?"
I write this because, on the subject of America's DOI, Thomas Jefferson in his 1825 letter to Richard Henry Lee tells us of its sources:
All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c. …
Aristotle and Cicero were neither Jews nor Christians. Whether authoritatively citing them is "Christian" is debatable. Francis Schaeffer, the very influential reformed philosopher and theologian to whom Noll, Hatch and Marsden were responding in their aforementioned book, did not think that authoritatively citing Aristotle was authentically "Christian." Schaeffer didn't appreciate the theology of Thomas Aquinas that incorporated Aristotle into Christendom. Yet, America's founders authoritatively cited Aristotle, and even more so, the later "Romans" like Cicero.
One problem with Schaeffer is that he tried to claim the American founding on behalf of his kind of reformed theology that looked to the four corners of the Bible and excluded sources like Aristotle et al. that other Christian traditions incorporate. This is a key criticisms that Noll, Hatch and Marsden make against Schaeffer.
There was such a Calvinistic "reformed" influence on the American founding. Schaeffer was partial to Samuel Rutherford of "Lex Rex" fame. This tradition still arguably doesn't "own" the founding, certainly not Schaeffer's understanding of it. For one, as J Daryl Charles has noted, many of these reformers didn't eschew authoritative invocations of Aristotle; they incorporated the natural law and didn't break from Aquinas.
Jefferson had strong disdain for Calvin and probably had some kind of bias against Calvinists (though he was friendly with Calvinists of his day who had similar political beliefs). We might understand why he would be hesitant to credit that tradition for ideas which he supported and successfully implemented. Out of the four sources for America's DOI that he named, Algernon Sidney arguably was the authoritative representative for "reformed resistance."
And then there's John Locke who is the most influential of the four sources that Jefferson named. How "Christian" was he and his ideas? Schaeffer wanted to credit Rutherford et al. for his ideas. But for reasons I need not go into here, that's problematic. Locke did nominally cite the Anglican Thomist Richard Hooker, but then proceeded to articulate ideas that seem unrelated to Hooker but looked more like a modified version of Hobbes, whose name Locke "justly decried."
America's founders also negatively cited Hobbes, but it wasn't because of his "state of nature/social contract and rights" dynamic -- ideas Leo Strauss aptly termed "wholly alien to the Bible." Rather, it was because Hobbes' version of the ideal state was a big beast -- a Leviathan.
There's also the question of whether Hobbes and Locke were themselves "Christians." Both identified as such. Both were suspected back then as of today as of atheism, deism, or otherwise esoterically holding unconventional religious beliefs. At minimum, both held esoteric unconventional religious beliefs in an era where one couldn't legally publicly proclaim such.
Locke authoritatively cited the Bible when making his novel propositions. I don't know enough about Hobbes to comment on whether he did. Rousseau likewise dressed his philosophy up in "Christian" clothes.
This is my understanding. I will let others make of all this as they will. It's more important, as I see it, to ask the right questions and clarify one's understanding of the dynamics and let others do the same and decide for themselves.
5 comments:
Great post. That gives me quite a bit to think about.
John, I think that it is time to engage with the work of Baruch (de) Spinoza (1632 –1677). At least as a bridge between Hobbes and Locke and as the groundwork for modern liberal and secular thought
Spinoza engaged with his contemporary Hobbe’s work and scholars have pointed out the similarities between Spinoza’s and Locke’s later writings (it should be noted that Locke lived in exile in Amsterdam from 1683 to 1690, immediately following Spinoza’s death, and it would have been impossible to have avoided his writings given the circles in which he traveled). It should also be noted that Jefferson owned several works by Spinoza, including a 1670 edition of the Tractatus theologico-politicus, an 1689 English translation titled A Treatise Partly Theological and Partly Political, and a 1677 first edition of the Opera Posthuma, which contains the Ethics.
Spinoza, was a philosopher of Portuguese-Jewish origin, who was born and lived in the Dutch Republic (mostly Amsterdam). His life was complicated as he turned to philosophy. Society in the Dutch Republic was rife with religious turmoil and, out of fear of persecution by the religious-political authorities, his writings were published clandestinely, often in collaboration with friends and often printed outside of the Dutch Republic toward the end of his life (ca. 1670-1677).
In his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, described by Scholar Steven Nadler as "one of the most important books of Western thought", Spinoza questioned the divine origin of the Hebrew Bible and the nature of God while arguing that ecclesiastic authority should have no role in a secular, democratic state in as far as governing.
Nadler, author of “A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza's Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age” (2011), describes Spinoza’s “Tractatus Theologico-Politicus” as "one of the most important books of Western thought," laying the groundwork for modern liberal and secular Enlightenment thought. The “Tracticus” argued for religious tolerance, freedom of thought, and a secular state, and, consequently, was seen as a dangerous threat to faith and social order. This led to accusations of atheism and heresy.
“Although Baruch Spinoza is one of the great thinkers of the European philosophical tradition, he was not a professional scholar – he earned his modest living as a lens grinder. So, unlike many thinkers of his time, he was unconstrained by allegiance to a church, university or royal court.” – Clare Carlisle: Professor of Philosophy at King’s College London.
Unlike Locke, Spinoza was free to be faithful to the pursuit of truth.
I highly recommend Nadler’s “A Book Forged in Hell” as a first dive into the pond.
JRB: I'll look into it. Though "accidental" influences can be quite contentious. I'm planning on doing a post on this. What I mean is people who aren't directly cited, but whose ideas may nonetheless deserve credit. Like Hobbes' Locke. Or others argue Thomism. I've even seen some scholars try to give mideval Roman Catholic canon law credit for all this.
And of course, the Lutz study demonstrates that whatever the Bible's relative influenced, it was NOT cited for the Constitution. Though some people still might argue that the principles originated in the Old Testament. I don't buy that; but it's another "accidental" argument.
A good summary of Spinoza’s political philosophy can be found at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive webpage (Fall 2025 Edition):
Spinoza’s Political Philosophy (First published Mon Apr 21, 2008; substantive revision Mon Sep 30, 2024).
When I first read Nadler’s 2011, "A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza’s Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age," it was just before taking a course on Spinoza’s philosophy where I actual met Nadler who gave a couple of guest lectures. The remarkable similarities between Spinoza’s political philosophy and what I knew of the American political philosophy during the founding period (ca. 1775-1791) was unmistakable. Whereas Locke had to walk a more delicate religio-political tightwire (Protestant Monarchy), Spinoza was free of such restraints and more direct and, as some would say, more radical (See Jonathan Israel’s 2001, “Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, 1650–1750”).
For instance, Locke in his published works carved out Catholics and Atheists as unworthy of tolerance (much less as accepted political equals). Spinoza made no such exemptions. Locke’s position was much more acceptable in heavily Protestant England and the English colonies. Spinoza, on the other hand, was branded an atheist and, like the title of Nadler’s book, his “Theological-Political Treatise” was described by Protestant and Catholic alike as “a book forged in hell.”
At any rate, Spinoza’s influence on developing Enlightenment thought in Europe and ultimately on American Enlightenment thinking is undeniable and I think worthy of consideration relative to the American Creation.
Post a Comment