Conquering Tyrants: A Work of the Devil?

This post is substantially shorter than the book I posted last time. I apologize in that I had no idea how much space what I wrote would take up. Nonetheless, I am going to stay with my theme of attempting to prove that the Declaration of Independence was not rebellion against God, the Bible seems to allow for resistance to tyranny in certain circumstances, and that a proper understanding of Romans 13 played a huge role in the American founding.

I intend to continue to accomplish this task within the framework of answering some questions from Dr. Gregg Frazer. Hopefully, this will lay the ground work for a rebuttal to Jon Rowe's and Ed Brayton's assertion that the subject of political liberty and inalienable rights are foreign to the Bible. Nonetheless, before we get there the idea that the "Divine Right of Kings" is sanctioned by the Bible needs to be exposed for the fraud that it is.

This is second part of my response to the first question that Gregg Frazer asked me in regards to my comments on several posts here at American Creation. The first part went into a more philosophical answer to his question. This part will be based solely on the Bible. Both are part of an overall discussion on the proper interpretation of Romans 13 and its application to the American Revolution.

Dr. Frazer stated:

"The United States and the current governments of Japan and Germany were established as a result of wars--established by those with "bigger guns." The U.S. expanded itself by wiping out Indian tribes and taking over the land on which they lived. Do you question the legitimacy of these governments? If not, why is my position unreasonable in this regard?"

A continuance of my response:

Let me start by stating that since I have already answered that I do, in fact, question the legitimacy of government established through tyranny all that remains is to see if my view is one of a "Theistic Rationalist" who trumps the literal text of the Bible with my use of "reason" or not? Could it actually be possible that the Bible backs up what I am saying?

Perhaps the place to start would be with the favorite story of most self appointed church tyrants to stifle discussion: Saul and David. It does speak of the phrase, "Do not touch my anointed" right? I was wondering if we can we simplify and just refer to it as not touching God's "appointed"? This would seem to align with your interpretation of Romans 13 for sure. Until we look a little deeper into the story that is.

God's "appointed" man for the Israelites was King Saul. Why did God appoint him?:

"So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to

such as all the other nations have."

Why did they want a king?:

Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they

have rejected, but they have rejected me as King.'""And the LORD told him:'

Essentially, the people of Israel were rejecting God just as they had done off and on since they had left Egypt. So to teach them a lesson about watching out for what they ask for God gave them their request. However, it came with a strong warning about what was going to happen:

"This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he

will assign to be commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves."

The end of having a king was that they would become slaves. The worst part is that God told them that when they cried out to Him He would not answer to help them. So, that is how Saul became king of Israel.

So what about David? Well, he was raised up to replace Saul when Saul had offended God to the point where God felt the need to bring judgement upon him. So cutting to the chase, one would need to ask why he does not go and kill Saul and take over since Saul was no longer in God's favor because of his tyranny? The clear answer is that he has an understanding that Saul is God's appointed leader to Israel to bring judgement upon them. When does this judgement end? When God says it does. It seems clear that that is the reason as to why David does not kill him.

One might ask, how is this any different than the example I gave about Othniel in Judges 3? It says that the Spirit of the Lord came upon him... and he went to war against the invading tyrant. From what we know, this occurred because the people had cried out to God, he heard them, sent them a deliverer, and set them free. The question is: Why did God not do the sme for the people who cried out about Saul? I would say it is because He said he was not going to listen when they insisted on having a King! So, Is the story of David proof of some dogmatic order to never revolt? The story of Othniel revolting against the conqueror with the clear aid of God would seem to say no.

The fact is that these were two cases with two different set of circumstances. The people had turned away from God, an oppressor was sent to get their attention, and in one case a deliverer was sent after 8 years and took the tyrant out and in another case it took much longer as the replacement King had to wait until God took the tyrant out. Why? In my opinion, in the case of Saul the people of that generation who asked for a king probably had to die off just the same way that the unfaithful generation in the desert had to. This is debatable but is most certainly possible. Either way, the people were warned that God was not going to listen and they would become slaves. To revolt would be a revolt against the clear will of God.

Another example would be when the people rose up to fight against the Babylonians. God told them not to revolt because he had sent them as judgement. They tried to fight back but nothing  seemed to work. I feel that this was the same reason that Daniel and the Hebrew boys submitted but disobeyed as well.(An argument that you say I did not address but have now numerous times) They knew that God had sent them to live under the oppressors and knew exactly how long it would be. Jeremiah told them ahead of time. At a different time King Hezekiah held out in 2 Kings 18-20 because God told him that the oppressor was going to fall. As I have stated several times: There is a time for everything under the sun according to Solomon in Ecclesiates.

In other words, the oppressor can certainly be God's "appointed" instrument to judge evil right in line with Romans 13. Equally true, though, is that this "appointed" authority can come under judgement themselves and their former slaves can even be the ones to take them out. We see this time and time again. My question is: Why can't the Declaration of Independence be an example of this?

I guess your contention is that God deposes these rulers so we should never fight back. I will call that the David model: Just sit and wait on God. My contention is that there is a time to do that but there is also a time to have the Spirit come upon you like Othniel and Jehu and you become the instrument of God in deposing corrupt authority. I believe that these latter examples were representative of someone doing good to overcome evil.(Romans) Perhaps they were also destroying the works of the devil(1st John) as Mayhew seems to argue.

With that said, the last thing to address in response to your question is whether kings were God's original intent? I would say no. He told Moses to let the people pick elders to judge. God used this model right up until the point that they asked for a King. This would seem to point to some sort of consent being associated with "appointed authority." This is supported by another scripture that states that the apostles appointed elders. Appointed, from the original Greek, in this context was a word that was used to elect people in Greek Assemblies. That is according to Vines.

Finally, you mentioned 1 Peter 2 in support of your view of Romans 13. The word that was instituted in regards to authority means created in this passage. By whom you might ask? It is humans according to the context. In fact, the root word talks about states. Man created states would seem to be what he was talking about. Man created implies some role for man in establishing government. This seems to cut through your, "God does it all and all is his will" mantra. It seems to point to some sort of human involvement.

So there we have it. I hope I answered your question thoroughly and clearly. In short, no I do not think just because someone has "bigger guns" and conquers someone without their consent that that is evidence of them being "God's appointed authority." I think this line of reasoning is fatalistic hyper-Calvinism that teachers that everything that happens is God's will so why bother trying to stop it? I have also shown evidence from the Bible that I feel backs this claim up.

I do disagree a bit with Mayhew in that he does not seem to leave room that evil empires can and have been used of God as judgement upon a people and that when this is clear the people should not revolt against God's discipline. A tyrant is not necessarily a work of the devil as he seems to conclude.(As the story of Saul proves) I disagree with you as well in that you do not leave room that evil empires can and have been used of the devil to do his work on earth. The former should be submitted too out of respect for the sovereignty of God the latter should be resisted. Why?:

"The reason the son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the Devil"

1 John 3:8:

The outcome of the doctrine of the "Divine Right of Kings" and how it was used to destroy innocent people's lives is a work of the devil in my opinion. It was in Mayhew's as well.

Were the Anglican Whigs Hypocrites

A huge number of America's Founding Fathers were Anglicans then Episcopalians. Official church doctrines and oaths administered by the church held as a matter of political theology the right of the King of England to rule and demanded submission to his authority. Likewise the Tory ministers like Samuel Seabury argued the traditional understanding of Romans 13 that demanded unlimited submission to rulers.

It should be no surprise that a great many American Anglicans were Tory loyalists for that very reason. But a great number of them, surprisingly, rebelled.

This relates to the controversy of Trinitarianism and the Founding in the following sense: There were a great many non-Trinitarians in Trinitarian Churches in both American and England. They called themselves "dissenters." See Franklin describe this dynamic -- and his own status as a "dissenting Christian" -- in his letter to Ezra Stiles where he wrote:

Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever Sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity: tho' it is a Question I do not dogmatise upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm however in its being believed, if that Belief has the good Consequence as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed,... [Bold mine.]

These "dissenters" in England were men like Richard Price and Joseph Priestley, who thought of themselves as "unitarian Christians" or "rational Christians" and believed orthodox Trinitarian doctrines were "corruptions" of Christianity. That's the relevance of Franklin's use of the term "corrupting changes" -- that was a term of art defined by Priestley as original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement and plenary inspiration of the Bible. These dissenters were disproportionately Whig (but not all; some Tories were unitarians as well). Dissent plays an extremely important role in America's Founding principle. America was founded on principles that got Algernon Sidney's head chopped off by the ruling authorities a generation earlier.

How this relates to Washington and the other Anglicans and Trinitarianism: Peter Lillback has explicitly argued (I remember Michael Novak arguing something similar but in a far more cautious tone) that Washington was orthodox Trinitarian because the Anglican Church to which he belonged was orthodox. And if he belonged to a church that recited Trinitarian creeds while not believing in them, then he was a hypocrite. And how dare we "secular scholars" lay such a charge of hypocrisy against the father of our country.

When explaining why Washington systematically avoided communion, Lillback vociferously argues against the idea that it was because Washington disbelieved in the atonement, which, it seems to me, is the most logical explanation. And it was John Marshall's explicitly proffered reason for not communing in that very Church.

Instead Lillback argues it was likelier because the King of England was head of this Church and many of its ministers and Bishops were officially Tory (like the aforementioned Seabury). And he didn't want to commune with THEM.

That could be the reason -- it's sheer speculation and no likelier than GW disbelieved in the atonement explanation. Yet, it seems to me this raises all of the same hypocrisy issue that come with non-Trinitarians worshipping in Trinitarian churches. In both instances -- someone who disbelieves in the Trinity OR one's church's official doctrines regarding the theological authority of the King to Rule -- one is a dissenter. And either dissenters are hypocrites for belonging to churches in whose doctrines they disbelieve or they are not.

The Anglicans who held official positions in their church -- for instance, Washington, Thomas Jefferson and George Wythe, all vestrymen -- took oaths, not just to the Trinity but of allegiance to the King of England. So in the simple act of revolting, many Anglican Whigs violated those oaths they took in their church. Though people never violate their sacred oaths like "till death us do part."

Does that make them hypocrites?

Barton, Marshall and Historical Revision in Texas Schools

Over at his blog Religion in American History, Dr. Paul Harvey has posted an excellent piece on some of the recent controversies surrounding the teaching of history in public schools -- particularly the role that David Barton and his supporters have had on the historical revision of textbooks. Removing Cesar Chavez and Anne Hutchinson from American history? Wow. Amazing how the loudest voices against historical revision are coming from the same people who want to "revise" history to fit their personal agenda.

Instead of posting the highlights from Harvey's posting, I will simply refer you to his blog. Click here to read his entire posting on this issue.

The Right to Do Wrong

That's the title of my most recent Positive Liberty post. Because it deals with some issues that aren't relevant to this site's mission, I am not going to reproduce all of it (you can read the whole thing over there). Rather I want to reproduce what's relevant to America's Founding & religion. Note I do not believe the FFs were "libertarians" like I am (though they were classical liberals a genus of modern day libertarianism) and I don't argue that they would have recognized the specific rights that I do. Rather I argue their system of "rights talk" necessarily means, in principle, a "right" to do what may violate the Bible and/or the natural law.

Some highlights:

[T]he Bible is a big complicated book. In a pluralistic society, (i.e., America’s) some folks don’t believe any of it is true; some believe parts of it are true; and some believe the entire good book is inerrant and infallible. And even those who fall into that later group profoundly disagree on what it teaches regarding moral and theological issues. For instance, my friend Gregg Frazer is a smart, biblically learned and intellectually capable evangelical-fundamentalist. AND he argues based on a long, rich orthodox political theological tradition that ALL rebellion against ANY government (including the Nazis and Communists) is wrong, a sin worthy of death, the moral equivalent of witchcraft.

So how could American “higher law” — and the human rights derived therefrom — be based on the inerrant, infallible Bible when Sola Scriptura can’t “settle” the issue of “America 101.” Moreover, it can’t settle the issue of slavery either. And it also does not speak to religious liberty, the most unalienable of natural rights, the right that gave birth to the concept of political liberty (folks might wonder why I, a political libertarian, spend so much time on religion & the American Founding; this is it).

The right to religious liberty necessarily means a right to break the first tablet of the Ten Commandments and MANY other parts of the Bible. Whatever their differences, every single “key American Founder” believed men had a natural right to worship false gods (that is, religious liberty extended beyond the biblical religions). And even limiting “religious liberty” to those WITHIN the “Judeo-Christian” or Abraham tradition doesn’t solve this problem.

Some of the more pious unitarians argued Trinitarianism is Idol Worship. If Jesus isn’t God, it is morally wrong to worship him as one. This is the same rationale that gets Christians executed under Sharia law (of course the unitarians weren’t arguing for that, just that Trinitarianism is immoral idol worship). Likewise many orthodox Trinitarians argue since God is Triune in nature, if you (Jews, Unitarians, Deists) don’t worship a Triune God, you don’t worship Him, but a false god and hence do what the Bible forbids. Heresy was an executable offense for most of the history of Christendom.

So, the notion that the inerrant, infallible Bible is the “higher law” from where human rights derive and that any thing the Bible forbids cannot therefore be a “right” does not accord with the idea of “rights” as posited by America’s Founders.

Let me note, there is a way out for those who DO want society to be more easily ruled by biblical norms — give up on the “rights talk” and, consequently the Declaration of Independence. The First Amendment may demand religious liberty for non-Christians. AND it may be a bad practical idea to refuse to permit non-Christians to worship as they please. But it’s NOT because the Bible teaches a God given right to religious liberty (it doesn’t) or because the Declaration is true (I’m not going to say either way) or that the Declaration’s “Truths” come from the Bible (they don’t).

Social conservatives might observe that the Constitution is unalienable “rightsless”; it recognizes a very limited concept of “rights”; and an unalienable rightsless Constitution permits religious conservatives to participate in politics and write their religious values into law.

This shouldn’t be a controversial issue for religious and Christian conservatives; Robert Bork, Lino Graglia, Robert Kraynak and many others argue exactly this. They would say to even DISCUSS the issue of a “right to do wrong” unduly gives credence to “rights talk.” “Natural rights” are a fiction. They don’t neatly line with a conservative Christian or a traditional “natural law” worldview. And they are entirely absent from the text of the US Constitution. They are central to the Declaration of Independence; but that document is NOT law and hence can be ignored.

Social conservatives are on stronger ground, intellectually, philosophically and historically when they argue the concept of “natural rights” from the “natural law,” as opposed to the Bible.

By natural law, we mean what man discovers from “reason” looking to “nature” without the Bible for help. If by “nature” you mean something written in the Bible then argue Bible and stop pretending you are arguing from a “different” channel.

I am going to skirt the very important issues of 1) whether the natural law exists, and 2) if it does exist and if Thomas Aquinas’ understanding of it is correct, whether said understanding vindicates ideas of “unalienable rights,” religious liberty, and a right to revolt against tyrants (arguably it does not).

Rather I want us to take the traditional understanding of the natural law as it is (complete with its prohibitions on homosexual conduct) and ask whether THAT possibly could serve as the basis for any meaningful concept of “rights.” Like the Bible, Aquinas’ book of NATURE is complex and demanding; like the Bible it is not a politically “free” code, but rather seems the opposite. I’ve heard one prominent natural law scholar claim Aquinas’ natural law is “permissive” and thus in accord with political liberty.

I don’t think it is;...

At that point I get into how the traditional natural law is extremely strict on various sexual matters. I need not get so detailed here. I recognize the FFs may not have been personally on board in a subjective sense with the specific things I argue are "rights." I'm more interested in seeing if anyone really believes the concept of "rights" or "liberty" is meaningful if for instance we don't have a "right" to do these things in the privacy of our own homes. For instance the teenage male doing you know what.

Frazer, Romans 13, and the Divine Right of Kings

This is my first post as a contributor on American Creation and I would like to thank everyone for the invitation. I figured I would begin by finishing what I started in a dialogue in the comments section with Dr. Frazer. I understand that he has some pressing personal issues and is beginning to think that this discussion is a waste of time for him. Nonetheless, he did give me the nod to finish answering the 7 questions if I thought others might benefit from it and I decide to do it.

This is for two reasons. The first is that I think they were good questions and pointed out some weaknesses in some of my arguments. I love when this happens because it allows me to see where I am wrong so I can either drop or strengthen my arguments. It is the way I learn best. I wrote a whole book on Church History based on one simple question a friend asked me. The second reason is that I abhor the doctrine of the "Divine Right of Kings" and am proud to live in a country that's first founding document spends the first few paragraphs debunking its claims. History was changed at American Creation.

So with that said, here is the first response to his questions that I posted on my blog a few weeks ago:

About three weeks ago I wrote a long post on the subject of Romans 13 as a response to Dr. Greg Frazer's comments that he left on the blog "American Creation" titled "Response to Gregg Frazer on Romans 13". It was linked to a post on that site and a good dialogue ensued between him, Tom Van Dyke, Jon Rowe, and I. I think it has generated three posts and over 200 comments up to date. For anyone who would be interested, the title of the first post is "Frazer Responds to King of Ireland Again" and the second is "Frazer KOI Dialogue Continues". One is from May 2009 and the other is from June, 2009. The original post where Frazer responded to my comments is from May 2009 as well. The address is americancreation.blogspot.com.

With all that stated, my next posts will be dedicated to answering some very good questions that Dr. Frazer has asked me to address to support my contention that a reasoned interpretation of Romans 13 leaves room for the right of "revolution" under certain circumstances. More specifically, I contend that the American "Revolution" was not in conflict with my interpretation of the Bible. Though I do object to the term revolution and prefer to look at it as a "liberation". But I digress.

To summarize briefly, I replied to Jon Rowe's use of Dr. Frazer's interpretation of Romans 13 with the example of Moses liberating Israel from the control of Egypt. He responded with several comments and questions that I replied to in my last post. This spurred a back and forth that resulted in the two posts on "American Creation" cited above. In that exchange, many ideas were addressed and bantered about.

Unfortunately, I think we all lost track of what we were talking about and became overwhelmed with sheer volume of complex issues associated with these debates.

After realizing that Dr. Frazer was accurate in his assessment that we were beginning to just talk past each other, I agreed to have him ask me 7 questions and I would respond. Hopefully this will create a good frame for enlightened discussion about Romans 13 and the role of its interpretation in the American Revolution.

My response will be constructed in many separate posts. This will allow me to address each question thoroughly and separately. After these various responses I will post on some ideas that will hopefully crystallize the argument I started from Romans 12 about overcoming evil with good in the last post. Nonetheless, out of sincere respect for the amount of time that Dr. Frazer has dedicated to responding to my thoughts I want to use these posts to respond in kind before I continue outlining my own thoughts. I hope these posts answer his questions even if we disagree.

My response to his first question will be separated into two posts. One will be philosophical and the other biblical. The following is part 1 of my response to the first question he asked me:

Dr. Frazer stated:

"You are upset that my view of Romans 13 seems to favor those with the "bigger guns" and you question the legitimacy of regimes founded or maintained thusly. The United States and the current governments of Japan and Germany were established as a result of wars--established by those with "bigger guns." The U.S. expanded itself by wiping out Indian tribes and taking over the land on which they lived. Do you question the legitimacy of these governments? If not, why is my position unreasonable in this regard?"

My response is:

First of all I am not upset about anything. I am simply, not convinced by your interpretation and the manner in which you use it to support your overall thesis. This is in large degree based on the lack of application with your theory. I asked you several hypothetical questions in an attempt to allow you to mesh the two and you responded to a few. I am still not convinced. I guess I can best answer this by restating the original question and then giving my take.

I went back and looked at the dialogue from Jon's post labeled "Frazer Responds to King of Ireland Again" and it seems my original question was: What is "legitimate authority." You responded that all authority is legitimate. This was in the context whether a tribal leader who was conquered by Montezuma and his people should submit to him and fight against the invaders or submit to Montezuma and go against his own people. You called the tribal leader a "lower magistrate". I call him someone who got conquered against his will by some bully with bigger guns. Both parties are authorities. Which one should be submitted to was my question?

I would say it is impossible to submit to both in that the orders conflict. So by definition "all" authority is not legitimate. This same verse was quoted to me by a missions leader that wanted to sit home in comfort while I did all the hard work. We had a new "elder" at the church who was a jerk and he was telling me that I had to submit to him because all authority is from God and in His sovereign will God brought me to that church. He threatened to bring me home because I questioned the sanity of this man and eventually did when I refused to endorse this idiot.

I asked him what kept me from calling myself the authority and telling them that I was part of the "all" which meant that they had to obey me based on the fact that I was DOING what they liked to talk about. I am not sure he ever got the point. It all comes down to who we can believe is really a legitimate authority. The "elder" turned out to be such a moron that most of the church left over him being placed in a position of authority. Was he a legitimate authority just because some "apostle" who turned out to be a cult leader told all of us we had to recognize him as such? What does "all" mean in regards to authority?

As far as the verses from Romans 13 in question, I think the "all" is qualified by the phrase "ordained by God". Can we just change the words "legitimate authority" to "ordained authority" for the sake of this discussion? If so, ordained seems to mean appointed in the original Greek. The "appointed authority" would be a simpler way of putting it.

So let's ask the question again in these terms: Who is the "appointed authority" in the case of the poor Aztec that would want to obey God and submit to God's "appointed authority"? Is it Montezuma the conqueror or the poor tribal leader? One tells him to submit to the great King and the other tells him to resist and be loyal to his tribe. Who does he submit to? Who is the "appointed authority"?

Personally, I would take your advice(in one comment) about what to do when there are two kings who claim authority. I would pray, meditate on the Bible, and try to reason an understanding of what God wanted me to do.(Your words) But if I was the Aztec I would have to apply "right" reason based on nature and conscience(Romans 2)since I would not have a Bible and if I did I would not be able to read it.

What would nature and conscience tell him about authority? I think Locke has it right and he should only consent if it secures him the greatest amount of liberty. Since this never happened under Montezuma he would be best served to fight off the invader and fight along with his tribe to be free from oppression. Just because Montezuma claims authority does not mean this is "appointed authority". Or does it?

Accordingly, I think we both can see that not all who claim authority are appointed by God. I would hope you would concede this point. I would also add that part of "right" reason, in my mind, would include giving legitimacy to "claimed" authority that actually had the consent of the governed as I alluded to above.

Despite what you say, these are not rare and isolated incidents. Many nations of people claim their own sovereignty but are not recognized because they do not have enough power to make it happen. Many of these peoples are Christians(Karen people of Thailand among others). Who gets to say which borders on a map should be recognized? Is it always so crystal clear as you make it seem according to your interpretation of Romans 13?

Anyway, my advice to the Navajo would stand unless I became convinced that somehow the conquering tribe had been sent by God and was appointed to conquer as part of judgement against that people. This would be His way of purging evil and in alignment with Romans 13 and consistent with the rest of scripture.

My issue with you is that it seems to me that you assume judgement due to the some perceived evil of the conquered people. Thus, my contention that your theory seems to imply that whoever wins a battle over sovereignty(bigger guns) is by default the "appointed authority". I think this is what you are talking about when you allude to these governments being "established."

Taken to its logical conclusion it would seem to equally state: The loser of the battle for sovereignty(war) is assumed to have offended God and should be deemed evil and worthy of the "judgement" of being conquered. You even seem to admit this, to at least some degree, when you state(in a comment) that this is usually the norm in the Establishment of governments.

This brings us to a natural bridge to the meat of your question about the sovereignty of the United States, Japan, Germany, and Native Americans and the fact that "bigger guns" decided who was able to enforce their view of sovereignty. Since I would like to keep this post as short as possible and still respond to your questions in a thorough manner I will just respond in regards to the Native Americans.

This will also tie in well with my whole Aztec, Cortes, and human rights scenario that we went back and forth on in the comments section at American Creation that I have briefly mentioned here. To sway away from theory and drift toward ideas in practice I would like narrow it down further to the Navajos because I have actually worked among them.

Actually, I do question the legitimacy of the United States government to rule over a group that never has consented to that rule. They were a sovereign nation of people invaded by another sovereign nation. To this day a real Navajo only grudgingly gives an ascent to what our government tells them to do. They have a Tibetan type of autonomy but what does that really mean? It is certainly not sovereignty in their own affairs. Their story is a story that has been repeated throughout history: A people of a different language, culture, and traditions invades a sovereign people and uses the persistent threat of force to maintain control.

Unless, we assume that it is God's judgement that the United States of America conquered and ruled over the Navajo simply because we had "bigger guns" I would like have their consent before I would tell them to submit to the "appointed authority" of the United States government. Some might say that the treaties they were beaten into signing provide this consent but I would counter that treaties signed at gun point are dubious at best.

Nonetheless, I turn the question back to you. You assert that the fact that these AUTHORITIES EMERGED PROVES THEIR LEGITIMACY; that they are "appointed authority." Based on what? Why would you assume it is God's will for the United States to use "bigger guns" to rape a people of their culture and amputate their spirit? If so why would God do that? Was it judgement? How would you know? If it is not judgement then how is this legitimate?

I think it gets down to your disdain for the "pagan" Navajo that has no interest in God and thus is deserving of judgement based on Romans 3 right? This is a huge leap in my view. Thinking like this led to the mass murder of millions of Native Americans. It is the spirit of Cortes at it's worst. But back to that discussion at a later date.....

So who does the Navajo submit to: the tribal leader or the President of the conquerors? Why? You stated the the Aztecs were not under the authority of Cortes right? Then why would the Navajos be under the authority of the United States government upon invasion then let alone hundreds of years later now? Does consent play any part in these decisions?

I would say yes and question whether the United States government is the "appointed authority" sent by God to rule over the Navajos. Though I do think that God has used this injustice for some good the same way he used Joseph's brothers, I do not think it makes it right nor His will. Just because something happens does not mean God intended it to be that way. I would probably agree with Mayhew and call it a work of the devil.

Well that is the first part of my response to your first question. I had to split this up into two posts because it was getting far to long. The second post will deal with the same question from a biblical point of view ending with something interesting I found in 1 Peter 3 that you quoted to me.

So there it is. Does one have to believe in the "Divine Right of Kings" to be a Christian 200 years ago? Were our Founders a bunch of rebels according to the Bible or is there evidence that a case for natural rights(or human rights) can be found in the Bible? Or are these concepts exclusive intellectual domain of secular humanist Enlightenment thinkers that were borrowed by the "Rational" Christians who misused the Bible in an attempt the Christianize their cause?Please chime in.

The Spirit of the Pilgrims

There is much great stuff in this 1831 book now available on google. It's written by orthodox figures and it details what happened when unitarianism started coming out of the closet.

You can read the following historical account in the book: In Virginia, in the 1780s, Enlightenment unitarians Jefferson and Madison teamed with evangelical baptists to separate Church & State, arguing religious establishments violated the rights of conscience. In 1780 Massachusetts where secret unitarianism was brewing, their state constitution held the standing order of "Protestant Christian" Congregational Churches could be supported with government aid without violating the "rights of conscience." Eventually, "Protestant Christians" of the unitarian bent openly preaching their doctrines got their hands on establishment aid (and the Dedham decision held by law that "unitarianism" was "Protestant Christianity" and consequently eligible for such aid) and the orthodox shrieked that this fake Christian form of "infidelity" was now the "established religion" of Massachusetts. And surprise surprise they now came to understand that evangelicals Isaac Backus and John Leland were right that religious establishments really did violate the "rights of conscience." THAT is what ended Massachusetts' religious establishment in 1833, the last state to disestablish.

Some brief highlights: On page 283, the author claims unitarianism as a form of infidelity that differs almost not at all with deism, but confusingly claims the "label" Christian and that the Bible teaches its principles:

UNITARIANISM AND INFIDELITY.

[...]

Infidels, who have renounced the Christian religion, have established a system of their own, which they call Natural religion. Creation is their Bible, and they insist that the principles they embrace are everywhere to be read upon the fair face of nature. Many persons will perhaps be surprised, on being informed that this system is, in all essential points, the same with that which is avowed and defended by Unitarians. The only difference is, the Infidel acknowledges that the Bible teaches a faith totally different from that which he receives; while the Unitarian declares that this same system is that which the Bible teaches. The Unitarians of Massachusetts, and Paine, Hume, Gibbon, &c., "harmonize almost entirely in their religious sentiments. The only question between them is, whether the Bible exhibits those views of religion, which they mutually entertain." I do not here assert, that Unitarians agree with Infidels in discarding the Bible, but that the same truths which Unitarians profess to learn from the Bible, Infidels avow and defend. Paine, in his "Age of Reason," gives us his religious belief. The subjoined extracts from that notorious publication authorize the above remarks.

[...]

Such is the religious faith of Paine. He believes in the existence of God; in the perfection of his moral and natural attributes; that religion consists in imitating him; and that there is a future state of accountability. Now is not this the same system, which Unitarians insist that Jesus Christ and the apostles taught? We would not only remark, that Unitarians believe all this; but does it not comprise the fundamental principles of their faith? Does not this creed embrace everything which they deem essential in the instructions of Christ? Would not a sober person, declaring this to be his faith, be admitted to any Unitarian church? Thus do both parties believe the same system of doctrines, and the only question between them is, Do Jesus Christ and the apostles teach it? I appeal to any Unitarian, candid or uncandid, whether Unitarianism and this pure Deism of Tom Paine is not essentially the same thing? Such an one, to be consistent, should say to Paine, "My friend, you are right; but then you ought not to abuse the writers of the Bible, for they agree with you entirely. If you will examine the Bible more critically and rationally, you will perceive that yours is that pure and holy faith which the Scriptures inculcate."

Unitarians discard those peculiar doctrines which are usually regarded as the essential principles of Christianity. Paine renounces these also; and he renounces the Bible for teaching them. He thus agrees with Unitarians, not only in what they believe, but in what they do not believe.

1. The Trinity. "The ambiguous idea of a man God; the corporeal idea of the death of a God ; the mythological idea of a family of Gods; and the Christian system of Arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three, are all irreconcilable, not only to the Divine gift of reason that God hath given to man, but to the knowledge that man gains of the power and wisdom of God."

2. Divinity of Christ. "The Scriptures represent this virtuous and amiable man, Jesus Christ, to beat once both God and Man."

"As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a system of Atheism; a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man, rather than in God."

3. Atonement. "Is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it, but the sacrifice of the Creator?"

The writings of the apostles "are chiefly controversial; and the subject they dwell upon, that of a man dying in agony on a cross, is better suited to the gloomy genius of a monk in a cell, than to any man breathing the open air of creation."

"It is an outrage offered to the moral justice of God, by supposing him to make the innocent suffer for the guilty, and also for the loose morality, and low contrivance of supposing him to change himself into the shape of a man, in order to make an excuse to himself for not executing his supposed sentence upon Adam."

I thought "that God was too good to do such an action, and also too Almighty to be under the necessity of doing it."

If it were not known that these extracts were from "Paine's Age of Reason," every one would suppose that they were taken from some Unitarian sermon or periodical. There certainly is a strong family resemblance.

[...]

Surely, the Infidel and the Unitarian are brought into very close alliance. They believe the same doctrines. They discard the same. The chief labor of Unitarians now seems to be, to advocate the religious system of Paine, and endeavor to prove that it is taught by Jesus and his apostles.*

And on page 274 one author rails on Joseph Priestley and shows how Trinitarianism and Unitarianism are theologically irreconcilable as they worship different gods:

Mr. M. insists that the "Trinitarian, who believes that Christ was [is] God," can with propriety "go to the communion table with a Unitarian, who believes him to have been an inferior, created, dependant being." He may not be aware, perhaps, that he is at points on this subject, not only with Trinitarians, but with the most respectable Unitarians. "I do not wonder," says Dr. Priestley, "that yon Calvinists entertain and express a strongly unfavorable opinion of us Unitarians. The truth is, there neither can nor ought to be any compromise between us. If you are right, we are not Christians at all; and if we are right, you are gross idolators." "Opinions such as these," says Mr. Belsham, "can no more harmonize with each other, than light and darkness, than Christ and Belial. They who hold doctrines so diametrically opposite cannot be fellow-worshippers in the same temple."—Does our author believe that the primitive disciples would have gone to the Lord's Table with professed idolators? Yet some American Unitarians have not hesitated to say, (with Dr. Priestley, as above quoted,) that those who worship the Lord Jesus Christ are idolaters.

No doubt these writings are "loaded" towards the evangelical-Trinitarian perspective. Many unitarians argued they were NOT with the Deists and were Bible believing Christians. Further, after studying the writings of Priestley et al., while they did sometimes claim that Trinitarianism was idol worship, elsewhere they stated, more or less, as long as Trinitarians learned to downplay that doctrine, they COULD worship at the same table together because both worshipped God the Father. In the end most orthodox Trinitarians proved to be FAR less accepting of the Unitarians than vice versa. But then again that's just "spiritual discernment," something many orthodox pride themselves in possessing in abundance and something unitarians went out of their way towards which to be indifferent.

The "Unconfirmed Quotations" Persist

Readers know that Ed Brayton and I have spent much time over the past few years taking note of the persistent dissemination of a dozen or so phony quotations that "prove" America was founded to be a "Christian Nation." It's a Sisyphusian task; it's 2009 and they are STILL being disseminated. Brayton, myself and others will shut up about it when the quotes stop being recited. Until then, it's game on.

With that, here is an email I sent to Joe Farah the editor in chief of WorldNetDaily:

Mr. Farah,

If you remember anything about me, you'll know that my friend Ed Brayton and I 1) debunk "Christian Nation" arguments, and 2) commonly read WND for content to debunk. Some of my more serious scholarly friends are getting sick of me constantly turning to this site to knock down straw arguments.

There are about a dozen false quotations from the FFs that sound like "proof texts" that settle the question and they are CONSTANTLY being repeated no matter how many times skeptical scholars like me (and Brayton) point this out. Greg Laurie recites two of them today in his column.

You can find them all sourced by one of the earliest disseminators of them -- David Barton -- where he ADMITS they are "unconfirmed" (a euphemism if you ask me). It would be wise if you or Mr. Kupelian or whoever is responsible for editing content keeps this resource in mind when these "Christian Nation" op eds come in.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=126

Cheers,

Jon Rowe

This is today's article that Laurie wrote to which I referred. The offending passage:

We are a country that was clearly founded on the teachings of one book, and that book is the Bible.

Of course, some would say that I am wrong, that we are a pluralistic society and these origins are not as I have explained them. But all revisionism aside, if you honestly look at history, you will see that our founding fathers had a firm belief in the words of the Bible.

Thomas Jefferson said, "The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty ... ." George Washington concluded, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." And Andrew Jackson said the Bible is "the rock on which our republic rests."

The first two quotes are phony. I'm not sure about the Andrew Jackson one. It's funny when doing a bit of google research today I came across this article from the Alliance Defense Fund which spreads these phony quotes.

Of recent note Ed Brayton blogged about Sally Kern's spreading the phony quotes. Also see this post by Rational Rant spotting an uninformed op ed that passes these quotes on.

Again folks, if you want to get Ed Brayton, myself and other skeptical minded scholars off your backs, STOP PASSING ON THE PHONY QUOTATIONS.

A priceless phrase is coined

Happy birthday wishes to the man who coined the phrase “Great Architect of the Universe.” Yes, John Calvin would be 500 years old today. More than any Masonic constitution, edict, ritual or custom, the simple phrase “Great Architect of the Universe” distinctly earns the credit for making Freemasonry’s ecumenical approach to membership understood to Mason and non-Mason alike. And that non-sectarian practice, born in the Masonic lodges of early 18th century London, would be carried across the Atlantic and be transmuted into a fundamental component of American Constitutional law. (I do not credit Freemasonry with that, but the kinship must not go ignored.)

Calvin, the legendary French troublemaker, devised this phrase in his “Commentary on Psalm 19,” which sometimes is translated to say Supreme Architect.

(The 19th Psalm itself is worthy of every Freemason’s attention.)



But the idea of God being a kind of cosmic architect predates Freemasonry by even more centuries. Depictions of this nature are found in medieval Christian art. The “Bible Moralisée,” published about 1250 AD, shows God busy at work with compasses in hand.

G.A.O.T.U. was introduced into Freemasonry by Dr. James Anderson, author of the Premier Grand Lodge’s first Book of Constitutions in 1723. A Presbyterian minister himself, Anderson is a theological descendant of Calvin. However, I’d say the credit for making the phrase Masonic vernacular belongs to Albert Mackey who used the term in his groundbreaking list of Masonic Landmarks, which has affected the jurisprudence of our grand lodges since its publication in 1858. And then of course there is the Scottish Rite and its siblings, which employ the term in prayer and ritual. (Photo courtesy GL of British Columbia and Yukon.)

Who gets to be a Founder?

One question that has always interested me is the way historians and the popular culture decide who does or does not qualify as a Founding Father, or to use the more politically correct term, Founder. The pantheon of the "greats" is pretty well established: Washington, followed in train by Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Adams and maybe Hamilton dragging up behind with his fatal stomach wound inflicted by Aaron Burr. Then there's the second tier: Fisher Ames, John Jay, Patrick Henry, Wilson, Dickenson, Morris, etc. And then there are the really major figures of the period who for some reason just are lost in public consciousness: Witherspoon, Thomas Paine, or most tragically, Samuel Adams, who has been reduced in popular imagination to the level of a beer brand. As my grandmother might have said, es ist Schade.

In recent years, in an attempt to be more inclusive of the contributions of women to our fair Republic, attempts have been made to cast Abigail Adams as a Founder -- which isn't all that bad an idea, I think. When I read her letters, I find her a delightful if difficult person, and certainly worthy of a spot in the American imagination. And Thomas Paine is finally starting to get some of the recognition that he is so richly due. The writers here at American Creation often focus on the lesser-known Founders as well, helping along the cause of increasing knowledge of this formative period in our nations history.

Are there any other neglected figures from the Founding Era who deserve more attention, more consideration as Founders? I think so. My thoughts on this point turn to another Adams, one who was just as successful as John, and perhaps more so: John Quincy Adams. President, member of the House of Representatives, abolitionist, diplomat. And it is in the last role that I wonder why he is usually excluded from consideration as a Founder. While just a lad during the outbreak of the Revolution, he served as his father's aide in France. He also served diplomatically as secretary to the American delegation to Russia. In other words, he was in important, if secondary, posts of public duty during the Revolution. He served in the Washington Administration in a diplomatic capacity, and served as Secretary of State under Monroe. So, he was alive during the right time period, he was working on behalf of the revolutionary cause, he had appointments in government after the revolution, and -- critically -- he won election to the presidency. So, why isn't he normally thought of as a Founding Father?

Here's another one for you: John Marshall. Marshall is best known for his tenure as chief justice of the Supreme Court, but he had a career before that. He was an officer in the Continental Army at Valley Forge, and he was a member of the Virginia legislature on several occassions. He was active in the fight to ratify the U.S. Constitution. He was John Adams's secretary of state. Why isn't he considered a Founder?

Granted, should either JQA or John Marshall be included in the top-tier pantheon of Founders? Probably not -- and even if they should, that is unlikely to happen given popular culture. But they usually don't even show up on the Founding Fathers radar screen. Why is that?

Any ideas?

I have a theory, but I would like to hear from others first before I provide my own explanation.

The Mormon "Christian Nation"

As many of you know, my final project for graduate school attempted to apply Benedict Anderson's concept of nationalism -- the imagined community -- to those who advocate in favor of an American "Christian Nation." During the course of my research I found myself focusing primarily on Evangelical/Fundamentalist sources -- David Barton, Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy and the like. However, I also attempted to incorporate other sources from Catholic, Mormon and even Jewish writers who were also apologists for the Christian Nation thesis. And while many if not all of these creeds hold to some of the same common themes in defending Christian nationalism, I couldn't help but notice some of the fundamental differences in how each specific religion chose to construct their ideas for American providentialism and Christian nationalism.

Such is the case with the Mormon Church -- officially known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While it is true that many Mormons accept and even embrace the traditional "Christian Nation" argument, there are some interesting and unique attributes to the Mormon "imagined community" that are not shared by their fellow Christian nation apologists.

To help illustrate my point I will turn to Ezra Taft Benson. Benson, who served as the Secretary of Agriculture under the Eisenhower Administration, was also the 13th president of the Mormon Church. During that time -- and the time he served in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles -- Benson was a passionate and vocal advocate for American providentialism and political conservatism (you can see what I mean by clicking here and hearing him vehemently condemn communism and socialism).

In a sermon given in July of 1973, Benson echoes some of the typical sentiments that have come to define Christian Nationalism:

As American citizens...we need to rouse ourselves to the problems which confront us as a great Christian nation. We must recognize that these fundamental, basic principles—moral and spiritual—lay at the very foundation of our past achievements. To continue to enjoy present blessings, we must return to these basic and fundamental principles. Economics and morals are both part of one inseparable body of truth. They must be in harmony. We need to square our actions with these eternal verities.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands firm in support of the great spiritual and moral principles which have been the basic traditions of the free world. We oppose every evil effort to downgrade or challenge the eternal verities which have undergirded civilization from the beginning.

This belief that America has lost its way and is in desperate need to return to its moral roots is one of the fundamental beliefs that virtually all Christian Nation advocates adhere to. In this respect, the Mormon Christian Nation does not appear to be all that different than that of many Protestants and Evangelicals. However, the specifics of Mormon American providentialism do not stop there.

In a popular sermon entitled, "This Nation Shall Endure" Benson points out how specific components of Mormon doctrine are fundamentally embedded in American providentialism:

When I contemplate the great events that have transpired here [America], going way back to the days when our first parents were placed in the Garden of Eden, and recall that this garden was here in America, that it was here also where Adam met with a body of great high priests at Adam-ondi-Ahman shortly before his death and gave them his final blessing, and that to that same spot he is to return again to meet with the leaders of his people, his children--when I contemplate, my brothers and sisters, that here in this land will be established the New Jerusalem, that here in this land will Zion be built--when I contemplate that prophets of God anciently served here in this land, and that the resurrected Christ appeared to them--and when I contemplate that the greatest of all visions, the coming of God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, to the boy Prophet in our day, took place in this land, my heart fills with gratitude that I am privileged to live here, and that I have the honor and pleasure not only of serving in the Church but also of serving in the government of this great land. I consider it an honor and a privilege.

Now, before we go any further, this quotation merits some additional explanation. It is important for us to recognize that many components of Mormon doctrine rests upon American providentialism. The notion that America is a land set apart does not begin with the Founding Fathers or the Mayflower, but in fact goes all the way back to Adam and Eve. As Benson states above, Mormon doctrine teaches that the Garden of Eden was actually located on the American continent -- Missouri to be exact. In addition, the Mormon Christian Nation does not end with the rapture/second coming/end of the word/whatever you wanna call it. As Benson states above, Mormon doctrine teaches that a "New Jerusalem" will be built on the American continent -- again, Missouri to be exact -- at some point after the return of Jesus Christ (reference Article 10 of the Mormon 13 Articles of Faith).

So, as noted above, the Mormon concept of American providentialism and the "Christian Nation" diverts quite a bit from its Evangelical counterparts. While both sides are likely to share in the belief that Christian teachings helped to inspire the early founders, Mormon doctrine teaches that America's providential destiny is rooted in the ancient past and will continue past the end of days.

Another important component to the Mormon Christian Nation can be found in The Book of Mormon. As most already know, The Book of Mormon is allegedly a record of the ancient inhabitants of the American continent and their dealings with God. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, claimed that he found the record via divine intervention and was able to translate it by the gift and power of God. The record itself is saturated with Christian language and teachings that advocate for Christian beliefs to be at the center of life.

In one particular chapter of The Book of Mormon we can see first hand just how powerful and important American providentialism really is. A man named Nephi, one of the Book of Mormon's first characters, claims to have a vision in which the Lord shows him the future that was to come to pass in America:

I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land. And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters. And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten. And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them. And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them. And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle.And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.

As can be seen from this line of Mormon scripture, God himself guides the gentiles (Europeans) from their homelands across the ocean to inherit the American continent. Once there, God blesses those who fought against their "mother gentile" nation, which had gathered against them to war.

This powerful image of God guiding the European settlers to the "New World" and supporting them in their eventual revolution is not necessarily unique to the Mormon concept of American providentialism. Many people of all faiths believe that God had his hand in the colonization and independence of the United States. However, no other religion -- at least none that I know of -- have these events injected into their scripture and doctrine. As a result, the Mormon Christian Nation has a special -- if not sacred -- place in Mormon theology.

In addition to the Mormon conception of America being a choice land of God, the role of the Founding Fathers is quite unique. In the Pearl of Great Price -- another book of Mormon scripture -- we read the following:

Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

This particular verse illustrated the important Mormon belief in a pre-mortal existence. In other words, Mormonism teaches that all humanity lived with God in a pre-mortal stated, and that God himself chose some of his noblest, bravest and most faithful children to carry out specific duties in mortality (Earth).

Such is the case with the Founding Fathers. As President Wilford Woodruff, the 4th President of the Mormon Church, stated:

Those who laid the foundation of this American government and signed the Declaration of Independence were the best spirits the God of Heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice spirits; noble spirits before God.

It is here that another fundamental difference between the Mormon Christian Nation and mainstream Christian nationalism emerges. For the devout orthodox Christian, the founding fathers are judged based on their acceptance of basic teachings of Christian orthodoxy. It is for this reason that men like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin are often labeled as "infidels," since they regularly rejected many of the specific components of orthodoxy.

For the Mormon, however, -- whose Christianity is often brought into question -- the orthodoxy of the founding fathers is virtually irrelevant. As I mentioned in a previous post, the doctrine of vicarious baptism -- or baptism of the dead -- provides the faithful departed with a chance to accept or reject the gospel of Christ. And as mentioned in that post, Mormon President Wilford Woodruff ensured that the founding fathers were given this opportunity. As a result, Mormon doctrine essentially gives all "honest and just souls," who may not have had the chance to accept Christ in mortality, a second chance. In so doing, the Mormon Christian Nation is more accepting of the unorthodox "infidel."

AU on David Barton

My American Creation co-blogger Ray Soller sends me this article from AU on David Barton by Rob Boston. As far as I know, Boston is one of the earliest "deconstructors" of Barton. A taste:

His official bio on the WallBuilders Web site says nothing about Barton’s educational background, probably for good reason: It’s not relevant to what he’s doing. Barton earned a bachelor’s degree in “Christian Education” from Oral Roberts University in 1976 and later taught math and science at a fundamentalist Christian school founded by his father, pastor of Aledo Christian Center.

Despite his thin academic credentials, Barton has managed to become a celebrity in the world of the Religious Right based on his research allegedly “proving” America’s Christian character. He has appeared on programs alongside TV preacher Pat Robertson and fundamentalist radio honcho James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family. Barton gives hundreds of lectures every year, rallying fundamentalist shock troops to oppose secular government and church-state separation.

All the while, Barton, a tall man who frequently sports boots, a rodeo shirt and a cowboy hat, presides over an interlocking network of for-profit and non-profit groups that have produced a tidy sum for himself and made him a star in the world of the Religious Right. In 2005, Time magazine named him one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in America.

New Barton Video

I know that we've dissected Barton to death here, but I just ran across a new Barton video in which he is quite mild and even-handed in his presentation. Now, you still see him repeat a couple of myths like, "Congress published a Bible" and "29 signers had seminary degrees." However, I must admit that I was surprised by what I saw in this video. Check it out and let us know what you think.

Benjamin Rush to Richard Price on Theological Universalism

From this wonderful book of correspondence of Richard Price see this letter from Rush to Price, dated June 2nd 1787. We have seen Rush advocate for the Trinity, claiming that 99% of late 18th Century America wouldn't appreciate anti-Trinitarianism. I see that as hyperbole. A majority? Maybe. 99%? No. Here Rush likewise may be engaging in hyperbole when he speaks of the popularity of theological universalism, the notion that all men will be saved. Rush seems surprised that the liberal unitarian Richard Price has not as fervently embraced the idea of universal salvation as did Rush (I think Price was a theological universalist, but just not as fervent an advocate of that doctrine as was Rush).

Rush begins by noting that even before he had heard of the Unitarian (i.e., Arian and Socinian) controversies, he had embraced theological universalism:

I confess I have not and cannot admit your opinions, having long before I met with the Arian or Socinian controversies, embraced the doctrines of universal salvation and final restitution.

Rush then strangely notes that his Calvinist beliefs led him to the theological universalist position (elsewhere he claimed to have moved from Calvinism to Arminianism; but Rush might not, like theologians today do, view Arminianism and Calvinism as mutually exclusive positions):

My belief in these doctrines is founded wholly upon the Calvanistical account (and which I believe to be agreeable to the tenor of Scripture) of the person, power, goodness, mercy, and other divine attributes of the Saviour of the World. These principles, my dear friend, have bound me to the whole human race; these are the principles which animate me in all my labors for the interests of my fellow creatures. No particle of benevolence, no wish for the liberty of a slave or the reformation of a criminal will be lost. They must all be finally made effectual, for they all flow from the great author of goodness who implants no principles of action in man in vain. I acknowledge I was surprised to find you express yourself so cautiously and sceptically upon this point. Had you examined your own heart, you would have found in it the strongest proof of the truth of the doctrine. It is this light which shineth in darkness, and which the darkness as yet comprehendeth not, that has rendered you so useful to your country and to the world.

Rush seems to be saying to Price, look, you are an "enlightened Christian" like I am, and it's clear that we kind of Christians disbelieve in eternal damnation. I am shocked that you don't preach as fervently against the doctrine of eternal damnation as you do against the Trinity. Note also how Rush invokes the "tenor" of Scripture. A "spirit" of scripture as opposed to various literal proof texts which might trump. As I have noted before it was this same liberal, "abstraction" approach to scripture that led Rush to oppose the death penalty on biblical grounds.

Then in a letter to Price dated July 29, 1787, Price invokes the Trinitarian Universalist Elhanan Winchester as leading a veritable Universalist revival in America:

The bearer the Rev Mr Winchester has yeilded to an inclination he has long felt of visiting London, and has applied to me for a letter to you, for Americans of every profession and rank expect to find a friend in the friend of human kind. You are no stranger to his principles. I can with great pleasure add, that his life and conversation have fully proved that those principles have not had an unfavourable influence upon the heart. With a few oddities in dress and manner, he has maintained among both friends and enemies the character of an honest man. He leaves many sincere friends behind him. I know not how his peculiar doctrine of Universal Salvation may be received in London. But in every part of America it has advocates. In New England it continues to spread rapidly. In this city a Mr Blair, a Presbyterian minister of great abilities and extensive learning, and equally distinguished for his humility and piety, has openly professed his belief of it from the pulpit.

An Immigrant Praises America's Founders

The following is an excerpt from and link to a commentary piece published July 3 in The Washington Times.

The author, Ian de Silva, is an immigrant to the United States, and takes critics of the Founding Fathers to task. In particular, de Silva excoriates those "liberals" (his term) who harbor resentment toward the Founding Fathers, due to the Founders being "white men."

It's a thought-provoking read....sure to spark some discussions here.

***********

"The Founding Fathers: An Immigrant's Appreciation"
by Ian de Silva

No other day of the year compels us, as Americans, to reflect on the greatness of this country as does the Fourth of July.

But the trouble is that, in this age of shallow values, intellectually hollow ideas such as cultural diversity are promoted over national cohesion. So, in many areas of the country, especially in academia and news media, the Fourth of July has become a generic celebration where the great men who actually brought forth Independence are barely mentioned. In fact, some critics make little effort to hide their resentment of those great men of 1776.

Of course, there is a reason for such indifference and resentment. All the Founding Fathers were white men.

To read the rest of the article, click here.

A poem for Independence Day

Concord Hymn
by Ralph Waldo Emerson (1837)

Sung at the completion of the Concord Battle Monument
April 19, 1837

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world,

The foe long since in silence slept,
Alike the Conqueror silent sleeps,
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We set to-day a votive stone,
That memory may their deed redeem,
When like our sires our sons are gone.

Spirit! who made those freemen dare
To die, or leave their children free,
Bid time and nature gently spare
The shaft we raise to them and Thee.

Happy Independence Day!

"We shall have our follies without doubt. Some one or more of them will always be afloat. But ours will be the follies of enthusiasm, not bigotry…Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free discussion are the antidotes of both. We are destined to be a barrier against the returns of ignorance and barbarism. Old Europe will have to lean on our shoulders and hobble along by our side, under the monkish trammels of priests and kings."

~Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, August 1, 1816.



And click here to read about the new copy of the Declaration of Independence that was uncovered in Britain.

Jonathan Rowe on the Radio

My friend and blogbrother Jonathan Rowe makes a very nice account of himself in a radio interview, now available on podcast.

I meself have a dozen minor quibbles, and one or two major ones, but they're still just quibbles. And for every quibble, Jon undoes two or ten myths of both the hard left and the hard right---the "Infidel Guy," the host, just listened in wonderment.

Excellent, JR.

[And to Infidel Guy's credit, he listened with complete courtesy, something that Jon might not have enjoyed from the "other side," I dunno. Perhaps Jon disarmed him at the outset, by saying that the Faith of the Founders wasn't out of sync with Phil Donohue's or Barack Obama's. That drew a chuckle, anyway. I think the Founders would have been appalled at the particulars of their politics, but Jon was spot-on in saying that their theologies would have been at quite at home at the Founding.]

Our blogbrother and now blogfather Brad Hart makes a guest appearance, too. Jon addresses not only many but most of the things we discuss hereabouts, and at the 40:00 mark or so Jon gives some excellent and original thoughts on some things we only hint at around here, like the 14th Amendment and modern jurisprudence.

Heartily recommended. Click here, skip the orange button that says "past episodes," click the downward-pointing button and then click on Episode 489, Founding Fathers with Jonathan Rowe.

Well done, Jon, and cheers for the nice shoutout for this here American Creation blog. And you too, Brad, who did NOT lob a softball for Jon to hit out of the park. [It was a heater, high and tight.]

Hear Me Interviewed Again

On the Infidel Guy radio show tomorrow night at 8:00pm on of course, the Founding Fathers and religion. There are call in and chat opportunities as well.

Since 1999, The Infidel Guy show has brought you uninterrupted freethought and science-minded guests such as Michio Kaku, Dan Barker, Ken Miller, Michael Shermer, Asia Carrera, Richard Dawkins, Massimo Pigliucci, James Randi and many others.

I'm grateful to be interviewed on a show that has featured such distinguished guests!

Update: If you click on the website, you can listen to the show already. I liked the way it went; though I think I may need a new phone (I was talking on a 20 year old cord phone). I purposefully tried to talk loud and slow and you can hear almost everything I said. However I'm still not happy with the level of my voice. It's not their fault. This was the first program I've done where they did a volume check before having me on.

Deep Thoughts, by Benjamin Franklin

For all you fellow windbags on this blog, I thought you might appreciate these profound words of wisdom from the colonial Howard Stern...Benjamin Franklin.

In response to a letter from several scientists asking for Franklin to submit a scientific work for the Royal Academy of Brussels, Franklin wrote the following. Sometimes I wonder if we too look past the mark on the issue of religion and early America and if Franklin would respond to our blog in like manner. Enjoy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

(C. 1781) GENTLEMEN,

I have perused your late mathematical Prize Question, proposed in lieu of one in Natural Philosophy, for the ensuing year, viz. "Une figure quelconque donnee, on demande dy inscrire le plus grand nombre de fois possible une autre figure plus-petite quelconque, qui est aussi donnee". I was glad to find by these following Words, "lAcadeemie a jugee que cette deecouverte, en eetendant les bornes de nos connoissances, ne seroit pas sans UTILITE", that you esteem Utility an essential Point in your Enquiries, which has not always been the case with all Academies; and I conclude therefore that you have given this Question instead of a philosophical, or as the Learned express it, a physical one, because you could not at the time think of a physical one that promisd greater_Utility.

Permit me then humbly to propose one of that sort for your consideration, and through you, if you approve it, for the serious Enquiry of learned Physicians, Chemists, &c. of this enlightened Age. It is universally well known, That in digesting our common Food, there is created or produced in the Bowels of human Creatures, a great Quantity of Wind.

That the permitting this Air to escape and mix with the Atmosphere, is usually offensive to the Company, from the fetid Smell that accompanies it.

That all well-bred People therefore, to avoid giving such Offence, forcibly restrain the Efforts of Nature to discharge that Wind.

That so retaind contrary to Nature, it not only gives frequently great present Pain, but occasions future Diseases, such as habitual Cholics, Ruptures, Tympanies, &c. often destructive of the Constitution, & sometimes of Life itself.

Were it not for the odiously offensive Smell accompanying such Escapes, polite People would probably be under no more Restraint in discharging such Wind in Company, than they are in spitting, or in blowing their Noses.

My Prize Question therefore should be, To discover some Drug wholesome & not disagreable, to be mixd with our common Food, or Sauces, that shall render the natural Discharges of Wind from our Bodies, not only inoffensive, but agreable as Perfumes.

That this is not a chimerical Project, and altogether impossible, may appear from these Considerations. That we already have some Knowledge of Means capable of Varying that Smell. He that dines on stale Flesh, especially with much Addition of Onions, shall be able to afford a Stink that no Company can tolerate; while he that has lived for some Time on Vegetables only, shall have that Breath so pure as to be insensible to the most delicate Noses; and if he can manage so as to avoid the Report, he may any where give Vent to his Griefs, unnoticed. But as there are many to whom an entire Vegetable Diet would be inconvenient, and as a little Quick-Lime thrown into a Jakes will correct the amazing Quantity of fetid Air arising from the vast Mass of putrid Matter containd in such Places, and render it rather pleasing to the Smell, who knows but that a little Powder of Lime (or some other thing equivalent) taken in our Food, or perhaps a Glass of Limewater drank at Dinner, may have the same Effect on the Air producd in and issuing from our Bowels? This is worth the Experiment. Certain it is also that we have the Power of changing by slight Means the Smell of another Discharge, that of our Water. A few Stems of Asparagus eaten, shall give our Urine a disagreable Odour; and a Pill of Turpentine no bigger than a Pea, shall bestow on it the pleasing Smell of Violets. And why should it be thought more impossible in Nature, to find Means of making a Perfume of our Wind than of our Water?

For the Encouragement of this Enquiry, (from the immortal Honour to be reasonably expected by the Inventor) let it be considered of how small Importance to Mankind, or to how small a Part of Mankind have been useful those Discoveries in Science that have heretofore made Philosophers famous. Are there twenty Men in Europe at this Day, the happier, or even the easier, for any Knowledge they have pickd out of Aristotle? What Comfort can the Vortices of Descartes give to a Man who has Whirlwinds in his Bowels! The Knowledge of Newtons mutual Attraction of the Particles of Matter, can it afford Ease to him who is rackd by their mutual Repulsion, and the cruel Distensions it occasions? The Pleasure arising to a few Philosophers, from seeing, a few Times in their Life, the Threads of Light untwisted, and separated by the Newtonian Prism into seven Colours, can it be compared with the Ease and Comfort every Man living might feel seven times a Day, by discharging freely the Wind from his Bowels? Especially if it be converted into a Perfume: For the Pleasures of one Sense being little inferior to those of another, instead of pleasing the Sight he might delight the Smell of those about him, & make Numbers happy, which to a benevolent Mind must afford infinite Satisfaction. The generous Soul, who now endeavours to find out whether the Friends he entertains like best Claret or Burgundy, Champagne or Madeira, would then enquire also whether they chose Musk or Lilly, Rose or Bergamot, and provide accordingly. And surely such a Liberty of Expressing ones Scent-iments, and pleasing one another, is of infinitely more Importance to human Happiness than that Liberty of the Press, or of abusing one another, which the English are so ready to fight & die for. -- In short, this Invention, if compleated, would be, as Bacon expresses it, bringing Philosophy home to Mens Business and Bosoms. And I cannot but conclude, that in Comparison therewith, for universal and continual UTILITY, the Science of the Philosophers above-mentioned, even with the Addition, Gentlemen, of your "Figure quelconque" and the Figures inscrib�d in it, are, all together, scarcely worth a FART-HING.