tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post5748704128587855773..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: Thomas Jefferson, Radical American ChristianBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50573799339227409872009-01-03T21:59:00.000-07:002009-01-03T21:59:00.000-07:00Yeah, sounds good to me! I think I like your 4 po...Yeah, sounds good to me! I think I like your 4 points better than mine!Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-41700880396720517712009-01-03T21:37:00.000-07:002009-01-03T21:37:00.000-07:00Hi Brad!OK, "Christian restorationist" sounds alot...Hi Brad!<BR/><BR/>OK, "Christian restorationist" sounds alot like "Protestant" to me. How about these four restatements of your four theses:<BR/><BR/>(1) Jefferson sought the faith of Jesus but not of any authoritative clerical institution.<BR/><BR/>(2) Jefferson was inspired by scripture but insisted on interpreting it himself.<BR/><BR/>(3) Jefferson believed in reason and conscience (more the latter than the former).<BR/><BR/>(4) Jefferson embraced both the personal and the societal benefits of biblical devotion but detested priesthood.<BR/><BR/>I'll check out Jenkinson. Thanks for the tip!Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-80387869580086674382009-01-03T20:39:00.000-07:002009-01-03T20:39:00.000-07:00Tom: >>The best I've come up with is &qu...Tom: >>The best I've come up with is "Christian-y."<<<BR/><BR/>I find terms <I>personally</I> useful in developing an understanding of people, groups, or societies. However, as more people enter the discussion the use of terms becomes counter productive, as no two will agree upon the precise meaning.<BR/><BR/>As the number of pariticapants of the discussion increases the meaning must become so broad to as encompass all perspectives or it will become so divisive as to extinguish constructive discorse.<BR/><BR/>In the last week we've demonstrated this effect ourselves ... not that I haven't actually found some enjoyment and/or amusement in it ;-)<BR/><BR/>Personally, I find all the discussion of what the religion of the founders may have been irrelevent and divisive to the discussion of what they sought to achive. <BR/><BR/>In my opinion, religion speaks of motive, but not of acts or intentions. When ideological doctrine is combined with religious motivations, less that virtuous acts/deeds may occur.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-2334638547706467912009-01-03T20:27:00.000-07:002009-01-03T20:27:00.000-07:00Tom: "I see Jefferson as a man [...] thinking he k...Tom: "I see Jefferson as a man [...] thinking he knew more about the nature of the universe [and thereby "reality"] than Jesus."<BR/><BR/>This isn't a point where we need rely upon subjective opinion. We can examine/test the assertions/opinions of each man and compare with what we know to be congruent with modern understanding and what we know to be incompatible with it.<BR/><BR/>I'm not in a position to examine such things, but it would be interesting to examine.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-5049372371419952162009-01-03T20:16:00.000-07:002009-01-03T20:16:00.000-07:00Unorthodox Jesus-centered Rational Restorationist....<I>Unorthodox Jesus-centered Rational Restorationist...</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, Brad, that my problem with terms. Either they get too long or when you chop 'em down, they have to come with an instruction book.<BR/><BR/>On the whole, I've decided to try to avoid terms and get at the truth, whatever that may be. It's impossible to formulate definitive terms; the best we can do is descriptive terms. The best I've come up with is "Christian-y."Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-29803551020725015322009-01-03T20:10:00.000-07:002009-01-03T20:10:00.000-07:00Kristo writes:"TJ's "materialism" is less than mod...Kristo writes:<BR/><BR/><EM>"TJ's "materialism" is less than modern materialism; he accuses Calvin of "atheism" for teaching an immaterial God; the implication is that he, Jefferson, believes in a material one. Given his enlightenment thinking, this is plausible: substance cannot be thought of except as material, persistence cannot be thought of except as substance, God persists, so God cannot be thought of except as material.</EM><BR/><BR/>Kristo, I think you would be interested in hearing what Clay Jenkinson mentions about Jefferson's "materialism." It is very similar to what you are saying here. Yes, Jefferson was very much a materialist. In fact, he was so much so that he believed the human spirit was not SEPARATE from man, but was PART OF the individual. This is why metaphysical beliefs/arguments did not sit well with the Sage of Monticello.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-15816693195851519952009-01-03T20:05:00.000-07:002009-01-03T20:05:00.000-07:00I think you may be able to tease out of Jefferson ...<I><BR/>I think you may be able to tease out of Jefferson the idea that Jesus was a savior, though 100% human not God at all, on a "divine mission."</I><BR/><BR/>If you could tease that out, I'd drop my objection. Right now, I see Jefferson as a man of unbearable chutzpah, thinking he knew more about the nature of the universe [and thereby "reality"] than Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Kristo, your thoughts on "normative" theology are interesting: not everything that falls outside the "normative" is heretical, although the normative is designed to head off error that <I>is</I> heretical.<BR/><BR/>So too your observation that Thomas Jefferson "may have wandered into error...but this is precisely the danger of self-informed theology without the safety net of dogma."<BR/><BR/>Jefferson show breadth but no real depth in his consideration of prevailing dogmas and so is ill-equipped to evaluate them. When I was 12 or so, I figured my nonpareil brain---my unassisted reason---would resolve all the muddle of the world's religions, puzzle out The Truth, and straighten out the human race. I outgrew the conceit; Jefferson never did.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-47251379733636377712009-01-03T20:03:00.000-07:002009-01-03T20:03:00.000-07:00Great post, Kristo! I am interested in your "unor...Great post, Kristo! <BR/><BR/>I am interested in your "unorthodox Christian nation" idea. I hope you will explore that even more in the future. <BR/><BR/>As for Jefferson's religion, I personally consider him a CHRISTIAN RESTORATIONIST of sorts, and have argued that on this former post:<BR/><BR/>http://americancreation.blogspot.com/search?q=thomas+jefferson%3A+christian+restorationist<BR/><BR/>With that said, I think we need to be careful when we include the word "Christian" with Jefferson. From the evidence it is apparent that he saw Jesus as the premiere philosopher of humanity, but NOT the all-powerful man who could walk on water, raise the dead, etc. <BR/><BR/>To understand Jefferson's religion, I believe we need to accept the following four factors:<BR/><BR/><B>1.) Jefferson loved Jesus but not Christianity.<BR/><BR/>2.) Jefferson loved scripture but despised its current interpretation.<BR/><BR/>3.) Jefferson believed in reason and not faith.<BR/><BR/>4.) Jefferson embraced the internal benefits of religious devotion but detested the outward demonstrations of Christian zealots.</B><BR/><BR/>And for an interesting look into some of Jefferson's beliefs, I recommend that everyone listens to Clay Jenkinson's portrayal of Jefferson on <EM>The Thomas Jefferson Hour.</EM> Jenkinson, who is an expert of Jefferson, discusses some of the specifics of Jefferson's faith at this link:<BR/><BR/>http://www.jeffersonhour.org/<BR/><BR/>Simply scroll down to the bottom of the left hand column and click on "Listen to the Show." <BR/><BR/>I recommend listening to episode #749 Christmas Past, episode #622 Religion, and #652 Religion and Death. <BR/><BR/>I guess Jefferson is a perfect example of how the terms "deism" and "Christian" are just too broad. Labeling Jefferson as either a deist or a Christian just doesn't account for everything. <BR/>How about <EM>Unorthodox Jesus-centered Rational Restorationist</EM>??? =)Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-36588120866079337632009-01-03T20:00:00.000-07:002009-01-03T20:00:00.000-07:00Hi Tom!Actually, having made this post, of course ...Hi Tom!<BR/><BR/>Actually, having made this post, of course I can admit that I have many problems with TJ as a Christian. My point is only that once you begin to realize what Christianity in America was in his day, the argument that he is Christian is only a stretch, not a farce.<BR/><BR/>TJ's "materialism" is less than modern materialism; he accuses Calvin of "atheism" for teaching an immaterial God; the implication is that he, Jefferson, believes in a material one. Given his enlightenment thinking, this is plausible: substance cannot be thought of except as material, persistence cannot be thought of except as substance, God persists, so God cannot be thought of except as material.<BR/><BR/>Jefferson wrestled with the teachings of Jesus. Even after he cut Jesus "down to size", the spiritualism remained, and from the testimony of Jefferson's servants, he was obsessed with making sense of Jesus' (reduced) teaching. He was a sincere seeker, caught in the trap of intellectualism.<BR/><BR/>Jon,<BR/><BR/>To complete what you correctly identify as one of my points, their power (that of the orthodox) was low at the founding but poised to rise, and the founding played a powerful part in that rise, quite probably by design on the part of many.<BR/><BR/>For instance, the bookend to my point about no bishops prior to the revolution is the veritable race to get them installed afterward. It is not as though we gradually evolved toward orthodoxy, the revolution was a "great leap forward" from the orthodox perspective.Kristo Miettinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915769006991993189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-16867297595340323962009-01-03T19:00:00.000-07:002009-01-03T19:00:00.000-07:00Let me also clarify that during the time of the Fo...Let me also clarify that during the time of the Founding the orthodox DIDN'T have the power that they did in the earlier era. I know one of Kristo's main points is that they have relatively less power and I agree. However, they used to have the power to execute heretics for openly denying the Trinity. Even if they rarely did, those laws were on the books; and they couldn't threaten. It's like Iran having a law on the books that thieves get their hands chopped off, but then noting the microscopically low rate of theft. That was the era from which they were coming out and moving away.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-47135231104950247622009-01-03T18:54:00.000-07:002009-01-03T18:54:00.000-07:00That he insisted his thoughts on Jesus be kept pri...<I>That he insisted his thoughts on Jesus be kept private and confidential certainly indicates he is nowhere near the mainstream of the theologico-political landscape of the Founding.</I><BR/><BR/>It could also illustrate the entrenched social-institutional power of the "orthodox," something to which they were trying to overcome.<BR/><BR/>I agree though that both he AND Adams probably couldn't have been elected were their open views known. However, the mouthpieces for those institutional forces to which I referred in my above paragraph did indeed criticize Jefferson -- smelling him out -- as a closet infidel. <BR/><BR/>Their "esoteric" reading of Notes on the State of Virginia was wrong though. He wasn't a strict Deist or an atheist, but had a unitarian position that didn't meaningfully differ much from Adams'. Though the unitarian Adams was probably more explicit about Jesus' divine mission.<BR/><BR/>I think you may be able to tease out of Jefferson the idea that Jesus was a savior, though 100% human not God at all, on a "divine mission." This is exactly what his mentor Priestley believed. And J. Adams too.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-70911923365997388112009-01-03T18:16:00.000-07:002009-01-03T18:16:00.000-07:00Here's my problem with Jefferson as "Christian:""B...Here's my problem with Jefferson as "Christian:"<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"But while this syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in its true and high light, as no impostor himself, but a great Reformer of the Hebrew code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am with him in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it, etc."</I>---Letter to William Short, April 13, 1820<BR/><BR/>I read this as Jefferson plainly placing his own exalted self alongside Jesus as if Jesus were just another philosopher, and Jefferson every bit his equal and entitled to disagree.<BR/><BR/>This denies any special metaphysical-spiritual role for Jesus in any respects. No difference between Jesus and say, Socrates.<BR/><BR/>Now on the other hand [from an 1803 letter to Benjamin Rush], <BR/><BR/>"I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, <I>in preference to all others</I>..."<BR/><BR/>Italics mine---this definitely puts Jefferson firmly as a <I>philosophical</I> Christian, and I meself am often content for the role of philosophical Christianity in the Founding, and here we see the biggest theological outlier outside of Thomas Paine embracing it.<BR/><BR/>With that said, I continue to object to Jefferson's <I>private</I> theology in any discussion of the Founding except as background and academic curiosity. In the 1803 letter quoted above, Jefferson says to Rush:<BR/><BR/><I>"And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations & calumnies."</I><BR/><BR/>That he insisted his thoughts on Jesus be kept private and confidential certainly indicates he is nowhere near the mainstream of the theologico-political landscape of the Founding. The vast numbers of his and Adams' private letters unjustifiably hog the spotlight, in my view. [Clog the pipes, actually...]<BR/><BR/>And BTW, his differences with Rev. Rush over Jesus' nature led to him cutting off correspondence with Rush for a number of years. Jefferson was quite a hardhead about it, and certainly would never had been elected president if he'd been as open as he was with his friend Benjamin Rush.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com