David Barton: "The Bible and Christianity Created the American Republic"

Over at his personal blog "Dispatches from the Culture Wars," Ed Brayton has commented on a recent audio interview from our good friend David Barton. And being that I have not posted in a while (sorry, busy doing the family/Christmas thing) I thought I might "hijack" Brayton's post and put it on our main page (my apologies, Mr. Brayton, the holidays don't allow me the luxury of coming up with my own stuff).

To start off, Brayton quotes Barton from the interview:

If you take the Bible and Christianity out, you will not have a Republican form of government in America. You will not have a free market economic system. You will not have a benevolent nation. You will not have common school education available for every student. You will not have freedom of conscience or religious toleration. They go through at least a dozen characteristics that are unique to America that were produced by Christianity and the Bible...they don't exist in other cultures, they exist here and they're the fruit of the Bible.

Then Brayton adds:

Really? The United States is the only benevolent nation on the planet? That will come as quite a shock to many other nations. The only Republican form of government on earth is in the United States? Really? I wonder if he realizes that we got many of the ideas for that form of government from - gasp! - French philosophers like Montesquieu?

I'll give him another example that will really make his eyes bug out. Japan is all of those things. It has a Republican form of government, public schools, religious freedom and freedom of conscience and is a benevolent nation. Yet Japan is probably the least Christian nation in the developed world.

Now, he might well respond that this is only because the United States wrote their constitution after WWII. But guess who actually wrote that constitution for them? A man named Roger Baldwin. He founded the ACLU and Barton has derided him as a godless communist bent on destroying everything good and Christian.

Smell that? That's cognitive dissonance.

And it's funny, people like Barton always point to the Massachusetts Bay Colony and the Mayflower Compact as examples of America's Christian heritage -- but where was that freedom of conscience and religion established by those people? They didn't even protect freedom of conscience for the wrong kind of Christians, much less for Jews or Hindus or non-believers. Just being a Baptist or a Quaker in Massachusetts was grounds for being jailed, exiled and even put to death.

Where was that religious freedom in the Christian colony at Maryland, where blasphemy resulted in such punishments as having a 'B' branded into one's forehead or having a hole bored in your tongue. Boy, that sure is tolerant, isn't it?

And while I agree that Barton's insistence that the Bible, and Christianity in general, are responsible for the creation of the American republic is preposterous, I think the founders were also clear in their belief that a republican government would NOT thrive without religion (whether that religion be Christian or not and what KIND of Christianity is another debate for another day). Yes, it's silly to insist that Christianity is what created the American republic, free market capitalism, etc. Barton (a "historian") would do well to look at the many examples of republican government that were created (past and present) without the Bible, Christianity, etc. Perhaps the correct answer is to say that the founders, regardless of how they established the American republic, believed very deeply that such a government would quickly fail without, as Washington put it, "God and the Bible." Franklin's advocacy for an American "public religion" is also indicative of this hope.

The American republic's STRUCTURE and ORIGIN may not have depended on the Bible, Jesus, etc. but the founders certainly believed that the ENGINE for such a republic would require such forces.

Romans 13, Justice Scalia, and Brad DeLong

As for economist Dr. J. Bradford DeLong's "Whoa! That Antonin Scalia Is One Mega Scary Unrighteous Dude, Man!" itself, well, let's stick to the original source instead, Justice Scalia's essay "God's Justice and Ours."

We must read any thinker as he understands himself.

The first thing to remember when reading Justice Scalia is that 99% of the time, he's talking about law and specifically the role of a judge, not of morality or philosophy.

To understand Dr. DeLong as he understands himself, any mention of the Bible by a Supreme Court justice tends to set any self-described "reality-based" teeth on edge [read: left-leaning teeth], especially if uttered by anyone with right-leaning teeth as Justice Scalia surely are.

Now that we've identified the players and their teeth, to business:

Romans 13 sayeth:

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good.

So when Scalia writes:

All this, as I say, is most un-European, and helps explain why our people are more inclined to understand, as St. Paul did, that government carries the sword as "the minister of God," to "execute wrath" upon the evildoer.

that's arguably "scary" to any gentleperson of the New Left. Even "Mega Scary." Theocracy! But theocracy isn't necessarily agreeable to the right either, Old or New, as we shall see.

For John Adams, no orthodox Christian he, wrote in 1799 in a call to prayer and thanksgiving:

...that He would bless all magistrates, from the highest to the lowest, give them the true spirit of their station, make them a terror to evil doers and a praise to them that do well...

Justice Scalia is clearly on very solid ground per the political theology of the American Founding. Some might find that theology---or any political theology---scary in the 21st century. But we can't help that. It's historical fact, and Scalia's merely noting it.

Now, Scalia's reason for bringing up Romans 13 isn't to argue that the Bible is true or even to argue God actually exists, but to consider the issue of capital punishment in terms of jurisprudence and America's Founding political theology.

It was clearly permitted when the Eighth Amendment was adopted (not merely for murder, by the way, but for all felonies-including, for example, horse- thieving, as anyone can verify by watching a western movie). And so it is clearly permitted today. There is plenty of room within this system for "evolving standards of decency," but the instrument of evolution (or, if you are more tolerant of the Court's approach, the herald that evolution has occurred) is not the nine lawyers who sit on the Supreme Court of the United States, but the Congress of the United States and the legislatures of the fifty states, who may, within their own jurisdictions, restrict or abolish the death penalty as they wish.

Scalia argues here not for his own view of what is decent or moral or religious, and contra some of his critics, not undemocratically---he argues for democracy, and against the Divine Right of the Supreme Court, which is no more legitimate than the Divine Right of Kings. It's a clear argument.

Because if there's one thing that Scalia says over and over [and over!] again, including in this article, is that Scalia does not think it's his right or duty as a Supreme Court Justice to dictate how things should be, only to reasonably interpret the law as written by its rightful authors, the elected representatives of the people. Sovereignty rests with the people, not the government, another Founding ideal, and part of the Founding theology.

To accuse Justice Scalia of being undemocratic is to skip past half of everything he writes.

Back to Dr. DeLong for a necessary second: As is almost inevitable in the 21st century, he plays his trump, America's unfortunate and frequently evil history on race. It's all grist for the mill.

The Martin Luther King Card is the opposite face of the Hitler Card: If MLK did it, it must be right, and anything that doesn't accommodate MLK's actions must be evil.

But Scalia doesn't mention MLK atall in the essay. When he writes


The mistaken tendency to believe that a democratic government, being nothing more than the composite will of its individual citizens, has no more moral power or authority than they do as individuals has adverse effects in other areas as well. It fosters civil disobedience, for example, which proceeds on the assumption that what the individual citizen considers an unjust law - even if it does not compel him to act unjustly - need not be obeyed.

"civil disobedience" does NOT mean Martin Luther King here---that's unfair and simplistic; it refers to a general subjectivity towards law, that we may pick and choose which laws to obey, depending on whether they agree with the individual's conscience.

Romans 13 says, and what every civilization that wishes to survive must say, is that the individual isn't free to disobey every law he thinks is unjust. Oy, that's anarchy. If all men were angels [or at least reasonable devils], we wouldn't need any laws atall.

So let's get past Civilization 101 and to the tougher stuff:

Of civil disobedience as philosophy, theology or morality, we have to read Scalia as he understands himself: He speaks as a judge, with a duty [and an oath!] to uphold the law. A judge cannot "let you slide" because he agrees with the moral reasons you disobeyed the law. That would defeat the whole purpose of civil disobedience--- to disobey the law and heroically suffer the consequences, so that the unjust law might be changed!

For as Dr. King himself wrote:

In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Justice Scalia could scarcely disagree, in fact, it's implicit in his writings. To pit Scalia against Martin Luther King is a brutality to the truth. And Scalia is not exactly silent afterall on what the individual conscience is obliged to do in the face of injustice:

I pause here to emphasize the point that in my view the choice for the judge
who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply
ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases.

He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power
to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough
he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the
death penalty—and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he
cannot do.

And this is Scalia's judicial philosophy, which he speaks of 99% of the time, because that's his job, his expertise and his oath.

If you want to see Scalia the human being, not the jurist, the philosophical aside is there, the missing 1%. The judge just gave a wink to whoever was reading him carefully...if you brought a magnifying glass to his essay instead of a flamethrower.

There must be a threshold for when civil disobedience is necessary and proper---you just don't disobey the law routinely. No society, no nation, no hamlet or village, can survive with a "cafeteria" approach to observing the law. [Not even a cafeteria can.] That's not a real scary proposition atall, it's common sense.

But if the individual and his conscience hit that threshold when it comes to capital punishment, well OK, then---resign your judgeship and become a political activist, run for Congress, chain yourself to the gates of the prison the night of an execution and accept the consequences. Or lead a revolution if necessary.

"A nation of laws, not men" is an interesting concept. But the door must swing both ways: We cannot be a nation of the "evolving standards of decency" of only 9 men [& women] on the Supreme Court; nor can we be a nation of men who disobey laws without consequences whenever they offend us. This is Scalia's argument, not as a political philosopher, but only as a judge.

As a human being like the rest of us, Nino winked. You just had to be ready to catch it. If absolutely necessary, start a revolution, another Founding ideal.

Mary Thompson on the Washington/G. Morris Exchange on Political Rulers

Mary V. Thompson, Research Historian, Mount Vernon and author of In the Hands of a Good Providence: Religion in the Life of George Washington (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2008) wrote me the following in an email, which she gave me permission to reproduce:

Dear Jon,

Thank you for the post you did about the May 1778 correspondence between Gouverneur Morris and GW; it was new to me (one of the problems of working with Washington materials is that there are so many things to go through)....

Anyway, my reading of the correspondence is based on a second definition of the word “unavailing,” which can mean, as you indicated, “useless,” but it can also mean “futile.” If I was reading you correctly, you were saying that Washington thought any information Jesus might have written to rulers would have been useless. As I understand Washington’s response, I think he was saying that, even if Jesus had written a chapter of instructions for rulers, it would have been futile, given the sinful nature of man (those rulers would have just ignored it or deliberately decided to violate what he’d required of them). Just a thought.

....

Mary

Gouverneur Morris and George Washington on Jesus' Lack of Instruction Towards Political Rulers

A common line that those who try to downplay the anti-homosexual messages in the Bible use is, "Jesus never once said anything about homosexuality." And they are right in that specific regard. However, other parts of the Bible, not many, but a one handful, quite instructively condemn homosexual acts. Where Jesus was silent, St. Paul, in Romans 1, was not.

A parallel dynamic arguably exists with regards to political rulers. Jesus had little to say (I know he did say "Render unto Caeser," directed more towards believers than "Caesers," and other tangential things about government -- that's why I said "little" not "nothing"); but St. Paul was fairly explicit in Romans 13.

With what follows, I want us to think about biblical hermeneutics regarding HOW the Bible's text was divinely inspired. We've oft-heard it said here that the "key Founders" thought PARTS of the Bible were inspired (some FFs, large parts, others, like Jefferson, probably a minority of the Bible; neither Jefferson nor J. Adams believed the Bible inerrant or infallible; but I'd bet Adams' Bible would be significantly "thicker" than Jefferson's). Jefferson cared about Jesus' words (but still doubted they were all recorded accurately in the biblical canon) and thought nothing of St. Paul's and those of the other Apostles. Still, those Apostles covered a great deal of subjects that Jesus didn't (for instance, the topic of this post, on political rulers). To a Bible believer -- one who believes the Canon infallible -- what is the significance of that? Are words recorded in the Bible from Paul and the other Apostles of the same level of authority (because, one might argue, they come from the Holy Spirit, the 3rd person in the Trinity) as Jesus' (the 2nd Person in the Trinity)? Or are the words of St. Paul et al. somehow "lesser" in a divine inspirational sense (after all it was Paul not Jesus who spoke in the book of Romans)?

As noted, with Jefferson we see belief in Jesus' words, but not those of St. Paul or the other Apostles as "divinely inspired." Arguably we see something similar with Gouverneur Morris.

The Bible in Romans 13 addresses the "rulers of mankind" in a way that is not unclear. Yet, Morris laments that Jesus never addressed them, as somehow Paul's clear words in Romans 13 were not sufficient in a way that Jesus' words would be.

In a letter to Washington, May 21, 1778, Morris, in the only known recorded place he referred to Jesus as "Savior," wrote:

Had our Saviour addressed a chapter to the rulers of mankind, as he did many to the subjects, I am persuaded his good sense would have dictated this text; Be not wse overmuch. Had the several members, who compose our multifarious body, been only wise enough, our business would long since have been completed. But our superior abilities, or the desire of appearing to possess them, lead us to such exquisite tediousness of debate, that the most precious moments pass unheeded away like vulgar things.

Washington responded (May 29, 1778) with his typical religious aloofness, though he does seem to categorize many passages of Jesus'/the Bible's words as "unavailing" hence, inadequate or incomplete guides:

Had such a chapter as you speak of been written to the rulers of mankind it would I am persuaded, have been as unavailing as many others upon subjects of equal importance. 26 We may lament that things are not consonent with our wishes, but cannot change the nature of Men, and yet those who are distressed by the folly and perverseness of it, cannot help complaining, as I would do on the old score of regulation and arrangement, if I thought any good would come of it.

Don't complain about reality; just grin and bear it. Washington that good Stoic he.

But back to the hermeneutics of America's "key Founders" like Jefferson and Morris. If St. Paul's words were as divinely inspired as Jesus', one wouldn't, it seems to me, need Jesus to speak on "rulers" any more than one needs Him to speak on homosexuality. St. Paul, divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit, already spoke on those matters and that would suffice. Yet if one believes Jesus', but not Paul's words were divinely inspired, then, yes, one would desire Jesus' thoughts on the matter while disregarding Paul's. (Simply disregarding St. Paul's words as Jefferson did and G. Morris probably did is quite an easy way to get around Romans 13's apparent textual prohibition on revolt.)

What do you think?

Calvin, Ponnet, and Deposing Tyrants

Jon Rowe stated the following in his last post about Romans 13:


"Another authentic expression of orthodox Trinitarian political theology is that Romans 13 gives guidelines for rulers, but ultimately demands submission to government no matter WHO is in power, even if pagan tyrants. This was Calvin's position. Arguably this was St. Paul's position when he told believers to submit to the pagan psychopath Nero. Thus revolt -- whether to Clinton, Obama, Reagan, GW or GHW Bush, Stalin or Hitler -- is forbidden. But godly rulers, once in power, are free to enact biblically influenced laws, for instance the burning of heretics at the stake. "


This seems to state that Calvin taught that to revolt against a tyrant was forbidden with NO exceptions.  If that is in fact what Jon is stating here he is completely mistaken.  The following is Calvin's own words:


"I speak only of private men. For when popular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings, (as the Ephori, who were opposed to kings among the Spartans, or Tribunes of the people to consuls among the Romans, or Demarchs to the senate among the Athenians; and, perhaps, there is something similar to this in the power exercised in each kingdom by the three orders, when they hold their primary diets.) So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians."(bold is mine)


Jon states elsewhere that Calvin's position is Frazer's position.  This is simply not true.  Frazer says there are no exceptions.  Now I might be missing what Frazer has stated over and over again so I will leave room for him to clarify.  But it seems clear to me that Frazer's words on the subject are not Calvin's words.  So I must ask Jon again to explain himself.  Frazer obviously is not going to comment on this or he would have.  It is a simple question that I think deserves a simple answer.  


Jon also stated:


"Needless to say what Locke argued for was NOT interposition but revolution and Calvin's and Locke's positions on the matter were almost 180% different."


It is "needed" that this is backed up with some facts.  What is the difference between a "revolution" and an "interposition"?  Ponnet was essentially a contemporary of Calvin and from what I read was a Calvinist.  Here is what John Adams had to say about Ponnet and Locke:


"There have been three periods in the history of England, in which the principles of government have been anxiously studied, and very valuable productions published, which, at this day, if they are not wholly forgotten in their native country, are perhaps more frequently read abroad than at home.

The first of these periods was that of the Reformation, as early as the writings of Machiavel himself, who is called the great restorer of the true politics. The "Shorte Treatise of Politick Power, and of the True Obedience which Subjects owe to Kyngs and other Civile Governors, with an Exhortation to all True Natural Englishemen, compyled by John Poynet, D. D.," was printed in 1556, and contains all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterwards dilated on by Sidney and Locke."

This clearly states that one of the three men responsible for the drafting of the Declaration of Independence says that Ponnet's "Short Treatise" contained all the same principles of liberty as the writings of Locke and Sidney.  In other words, there is little difference between the political theologies of Ponnet, Locke, and Adams.  Let's see what Ponnet had to say about unlimited submission to tyrants:

"Chapter VI. Whether It Be Lawful To Depose An Evil Governor, And Kill A Tyrant.

As there is no better nor happier commonwealth nor no greater blessing of God, than where one rules, if he is a good, just, and godly man: so there is no worse nor none more miserable, nor greater plague of God, than where one rules, that is evil, unjust and ungodly. A good man knowing that he or those by whom he claims was to such office called for his virtue, to see the whole state well governed, and the people defended from injuries: neglecting utterly his own pleasure and profit, and bestows all his study and labor to see his office well discharged. And as a good physician earnestly seeks the health of his patient and a shipmaster the wealth and safeguard of those he has in his ship, so does a good governor seek the wealth of those he rules. And therefore the people feeling the benefit coming by good governors, used in times past to call such good governors, fathers: and gave them no less honor than children owe to their parents. And evil person coming to the government of any state, either by usurpation, or by election or by succession, utterly neglecting the cause why kings, princes, and other governors in commonwealths be made (that is, the wealth of the people) seeks only or chiefly his own profit and pleasure. And as a sow coming into a fair garden, roots up all the fair and sweet flowers and wholesome simples, leaving nothing behind, but her own filthy dirt: so does an evil governor subvert the laws and orders, or makes them to be wrenched or racked to serve his affections, that they can no longer do their office. He spoils the people of their goods, either by open violence, making his ministers to take it from them without payment therefore, or promising and never paying: or craftily under the mane of loans, benevolences, contributions, and such gay painted words, or forbear he gets out of their possession that they have, and never restores it. And when he has it, consumes it, not to the benefit and profit of the commonwealth, but on whores, whoremongers, dice games, cards, bankletting, unjust wars, and such evils and mischiefs, wherein he delights. He spoils and takes away from them their armor and harness, that they shall not be able to use any force to defend their right. And not content to have brought them in to such misery (to be sure of his state) seeks and takes all occasions to dispatch them of their lives. If a man keeps his house, and nothing in metal, than shall it be said that he frets at the state. If he comes abroad and speaks to any other, further with it is taken for a just conspiracy. If he says nothing, and shows a merry countenance, it is a token, that he despises the government. If he look sorrowful, than he laments the state of his country, how many so ever be for any cause committed to prison, are not only asked, but are racked also to show whether he is privy of their doings. If he departs, because he would live quietly, then he is proclaimed an open enemy. to be short, there in no doing, no gesture, no behavior, no place can preserve or defend innocence against such a governor's cruelty: but as a hunter makes wild beasts his pray, and uses toils, nets, snares, traps, dogs, ferrets, mining and digging the ground, guns, bows, spears, and all other instruments, engines, subtle devises and means, whereby he may come by his prey: so does a wicked governor make the people his game and prey, and uses all kinds of subtleties, deceits, crafts, policies, force, violence, cruelty, and such devilish ways, to spoil and destroy the people, that be committed to his charge. And when he is not able without most manifest cruelty to do by himself that which he desires, then fain unjust causes to cast them into prison, where like as the bearwards muzzle the bears, and tie them to the stakes, while they are baited and killed by mastiffs and curies, so he keeps them in chains, while the bishops and his other tormentors and heretical inquisitors do tear and devour them. Finally, he says and denies, he promises and breaks promises, he swears and forswears, and no other passes on God nor the devil (as the common saying is) so he may bring to pass that which he desires. Such an evil governor men properly call a tyrant.


Now for as much as there is no express positive law for punishment of a tyrant among Christian men, the question is, whether it is lawful to kill such a monster and cruel beast covered with the shape of a man. And first for the better and more plain prose of this matter, the manifold and continual examples that have been from time to time of the deposing of kings, and killing of tyrants, do most certainly confirm it to be most true, just and constant to God's judgment. The history of kings in the Old Testament is full of it. 


And as Cardinal Pole truly cites, England lacks not the practice and experience of the same. For they deprived King Edward the Second, because without law he killed his subjects, spoiled them of their goods, and wasted the treasure of the realm. And upon what just causes Richard the Second was thrust out, and Henry the Fourth put in his place, I refer it to their own judgment. Denmark also now in our days did nobly act the same, when they deprived Christierne the tyrant, and committed him to perpetual prison."


Sounds like a long list of abuses and then a dissolving of political bonds with a tyrant to me.  Anyone see anything different than what Calvin said above and Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence? It looks like a long list of abuses that violates the covenant between ruler and ruled that ends with the tyrant being deposed.  Looks like Calvin and Frazer may disagree?  The plot thickens....


(PS Ponnet's description of what kings do fits right in with God's prediction of what kings would do when Israel asked for a king in the book of 1st Samuel.)

Get Ready For Romans 13 Round 3

Perhaps this was the work of Providence. I've been thinking about gearing up for a third round of debates on Romans 13, Calvin, Interposition, the American Founding, and this morning I see that Brad Delong linked to a Positive Liberty post I did towards the end of 2006 on Romans 13, one that discussed a post of his and where he commented. Delong's post discussed a First Things' article by Justice Scalia that addresses Romans 13.

Perhaps we can get Justice Scalia to chime in this round. After all, we've both written for First Things. (Heh. I doubt it.)

Why The Trinity?

"I acknowledge myself a unitarian -- Believing that the Father alone, is the supreme God, and that Jesus Christ derived his Being, and all his powers and honors from the Father."

"There is not any reasoning which can convince me, contrary to my senses, that three is one, and one three."

-- Abigail Adams to John Quincy Adams, May 5, 1816.

Tom Van Dyke emails me suggesting I/we need to better explain why the Trinity and its absence (part of a conspicuous top down paradigm by the "key Founders," who themselves disproportionately disbelieved in the Trinity) from the political-theological landscape of the American Founding makes a difference at all. As the Abigail Adams' above quote illustrates there were (or probably were) a lot more prominent Christian minded unitarians who believed Jesus the Son of God (though not God the Son) and Savior of the World, than cold Deists who believed Jesus either a fraud at worst or (like Thomas Paine) a nice guy at best. Even Thomas Jefferson called Jesus "our Savior" (though 100% man, not God at all) and idolized another Socinian Unitarian, Joseph Priestley, who, unlike Jefferson believed in the Resurrection (as did John Adams).

In a sense Van Dyke's assertion that as long as you have Providence, Jesus as Savior (not necessarily as 2nd Person in the Trinity) and large parts of the Bible as God's Holy Writ (not necessarily the infallibility of the Biblical canon) that's "Christian" enough for a meaningful historical-political-theological understanding of America's Founding reflects a classical unitarian mindset. It was unitarians like Richard Price who argued exactly that and "orthodox" like Timothy Dwight who argued unless you had the Trinity, you didn't have "Christianity."

Okay: The difference between Jesus as God the Son, 2nd Person in the Trinity and Jesus as Son of God, Savior of Mankind.

Theologically this is the difference between orthodox Christianity on the one hand and Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnessism, and any other heterodox, non-Trinitarian creed that presents itself as "Christianity" on the other.

[I stress Mormons, JWs when discussing classical unitarianism because the term "Unitarian" to our modern ears connotes the modern Unitarian Universalist Church. God love them, but, they -- or at least many of them -- seem far less religious or theistic than the unitarians and Unitarians of the Founding era. I respect the arguments of UUs that they are the heirs to America's Founding era political theology; however it could be that more devoutly religious heretics like Mormons, JWs, and mainline Christian denominations who are "iffy" on the Trinity are the true heirs to the theology of a Jefferson, J. Adams, Washington, etc.]

Are the differences between these creeds meaningful? Perhaps not to an anti-religious atheist. To a Christopher Hitchens, they are all irrational religious nuts. However to most of my "orthodox" friends, the difference between their creed and that of the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses or any Trinity denier is profound. Non-Trinitarians are "not Christians" and engage in soul damning heresies (to Roman Catholics, rejecting the Trinity is a potential SDH; to reformed/evangelicals, rejecting the Trinity is an actual SDH).

Further, if you are not a Trinitarian, you are not "regenerate," don't have the Holy Spirit (third person in the Trinity) in you. Of course God uses non-regenerate, non-Spirit filled men (as the orthodox should view America's key Founders) to accomplish His will. But that adds to the mystery of why God would choose non-Spirit filled men like Washington, J. Adams and Jefferson to accomplish His will in Founding America and arguably use sinful means (violating Romans 13) to do so.

So we've seen the Trinity as a matter of profound importance in personal theology, but what about politics? To even ask that question illustrates the political-theological problem that has long plagued Western-Christendom.

Christians believe all authority -- including the political -- ultimately ascends upwards to God. Thus it's important to understand who this God is and what are His attributes? Does the buck stop at a triune God, a unitary God, Allah or Ganesh? Are they all one and the same?

Further, some argue all politics ultimately have religious underpinnings. Someone once said "politics is theology applied." Hence, the inevitable existence of "political-theology."

Some questions that we, as a polity, need to answer: Is it important that America, as a polity, makes supplications to God? And if so, are we making public-political supplications to the actual God that exists or some man made false god? Are all gods man made and false? Can one supplicate to the God of the Bible while ignoring His Triune nature? Does the Bible in fact teach God has a Triune nature? Do Jews and Christians worship the same God? If so, why not Muslims?

Again, note, America's Founders commonly made supplications to Providence but almost NEVER to the Triune God. As Justice Scalia accurately summarized it in the most recent Supreme Court Ten Commandments case:

All of the actions of Washington and the First Congress upon which I have relied, virtually all Thanksgiving Proclamations throughout our history, and all the other examples of our Government’s favoring religion that I have cited, have invoked God, but not Jesus Christ.

[...]

This is not necessarily the Christian God (though if it were, one would expect Christ regularly to be invoked, which He is not)....

Further, what does God require in worldly politics? One traditional Calvinist notion demands that political bodies make a covenant to God, that is the Triune God of the Bible. This is what many American colonies did, but what America's Founders (1776-1791) purposefully DID NOT do. Instead of a covenant to the Triune God of the Bible, America's Founders replaced it with an homage to the Creator/Nature's God/Providence/Supreme Judge of the World in the DOI and with Art. VI. Cl. 3 in the US Constitution. Hence America's Founding political theology is not Trinitarian, arguably not "Christian."

Another authentic expression of orthodox Trinitarian political theology is that Romans 13 gives guidelines for rulers, but ultimately demands submission to government no matter WHO is in power, even if pagan tyrants. This was Calvin's position. Arguably this was St. Paul's position when he told believers to submit to the pagan psychopath Nero. Thus revolt -- whether to Clinton, Obama, Reagan, GW or GHW Bush, Stalin or Hitler -- is forbidden. But godly rulers, once in power, are free to enact biblically influenced laws, for instance the burning of heretics at the stake.

Like the Roman Catholic Church before him, John Calvin had heretics, or at least one prominent heretic -- the unitarian Michael Servetus -- burned at the stake for publicly denying the Trinity. This was an expression of authentic Trinitarian Christian political theology. Calvin's logic was irresistible: Heretics engage in soul damning heresies. When they proselytize, they lead others to engage in SDHs. Consequently, their public execution is justified in order to dissuade others from soul damning error.

But, if the Trinity really doesn't matter -- as America's key Founders (and apparently Tom Van Dyke) saw it -- then why not grant religious liberty to everyone while paying homage to "religion" in general and "Christianity" (broadly defined, sans the orthodox Trinitarian doctrines) in particular?

THAT'S where the ignoring of the Trinity in America's Founding politics mattered. We could not get religious liberty until we removed the Trinity and cognate orthodox doctrines from politics. And on a personal note, I'm glad America's Founders did this.

Finally, I am not an orthodox Christian so I ask any of my orthodox and non-orthodox readers and commenters to likewise chime in and explain why orthodoxy/the Trinity makes a difference in theology and in politics.

Baron Von Steuben and Timothy Pickering, Non-Key Founding Fathers who were Unitarian Or Theistic Rationalists

[BVS was probably homosexual as well. Make of that whatever you will.]

We've already demonstrated that the "key" Founding Fathers (first four Presidents, Ben Franklin and some others) either outright denied the Trinity and cognate orthodox doctrines, or, like Washington and Madison offered no compelling evidence of belief in orthodox Trinitarian doctrine (hence probably believed in what Franklin, J. Adams, and Jefferson did).

One common criticism directed against this thesis is "you have 3, 4 or 5, FFs, but many more important FFs existed beyond that." And that's certainly true. The FFs were a mixed bag, religiously. No doubt, Sam Adams, Roger Sherman, Patrick Henry and many other important second tier FFs were orthodox Trinitarian Christians. However, it's IMPROPER to presume anyone not on the list of those who provide smoking gun quotations denying the Trinity, etc. were orthodox Trinitarian Christians. Almost all FFs invoked Providence and were formally/nominally connected to an orthodox Christian Church. And this is exactly the case with Jefferson, J. Adams, Franklin, Madison, etc. There is a provable deistic/theistic minimum that connects Jefferson with Henry, J. Adams with S. Adams, Franklin with Sherman, etc.

There is NO provable orthodox Trinitarian minimum that connects almost all of the FFs, save the few exceptions. That's what the orthodox of the "Christian America" thesis argue for. That's one of many reasons why their "Christian America" thesis is false.

Again, many Christians sincerely believe if you aren't "orthodox" (that is a believer in the Trinity, Atonement), you aren't a "Bible believing Christian." I'm open to the question -- and I think it's an issue that needs to be continually discussed for the sake of clarity -- of whether those who deny original sin, trinity, incarnation, atonement, regeneration, eternal damnation, the infalliblity of the biblical canon etc., qualify as "Christians." It's only by answering that question affirmatively that any kind of meaningful, Founding era Christian American political theology can be proven.

What that, Bon Von Steuben played an instrumental role in delivering the American military victory over the British during the revolution. And it may have been during that time that Von Steuben converted Timothy Pickering to theological unitarianism.

One quote that I see in many content restricted books informs:

Timothy Pickering, began to doubt his Puritan theology when he heard General von Steuben say that he would sooner believe in an absurdity than in the Trinity.

Timothy Pickering

served in the American Revolution under George Washington, becoming adjutant general (1777 – 78) and quartermaster general (1780 – 85). He later served as U.S. postmaster general (1791 – 95), secretary of war (1795), and secretary of state (1795 – 1800). He served in the U.S. Senate from 1803 to 1811 and in the House of Representatives from 1813 to 1817.

Pickering may not have been a "key Founding Father" like the first four Presidents, but he certainly was an important 2nd or 3rd tier FF, representative of the 200 or so "other" Founders we have largely forgotten.

The following quote from Timothy Pickering to James McHenry in 1816 sheds further light on his unitarianism:

It is more than forty years, since, with strong conviction, I renounced the Calvinistic Scheme, in which I had been educated, as utterly incompatible with the perfections of the Deity. But it was not till a later period that the doctrine of the Trinity (which I had never heard controverted in the pulpit) employed my thoughts... and induced me...to reject this dogma, liberalise the creed of Calvin. It has since been the essential article of my faith and practice, to worship only One God, who sent his son to be Savior of the World.

Voltaire on Pluralism, and that clergymen basically suck

It was the anti-religionist Enlightenment philosophe Voltaire, of all people, who realized in his On the Church of England the genius of what we call religious "pluralism," that if differences in dogma are multiple enough, that's a good thing for all practical purposes.

I'll put his last paragraph first because it's the best, and go on from there, because it applies to Founding-era America even more than England in 1733:

If there were only one religion in England, there would be danger of tyranny; if there were two, they would cut each other's throats; but there are thirty, and they live happily together in peace.

And as historian Gordon Wood notes about the Founding:

There were not just Presbyterians, but Old and New School Presbyterians, Cumberland Presbyterians, Springfield Presbyterians, Reformed Presbyterians, and Associated Presby­terians; not just Baptists, but General Baptists, Regular Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Separate Baptists, Dutch River Baptists, Permanent Baptists, and Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Baptists.

Oy. That's a lotta Presbyterians and even more Baptists. And that's just the tip of the pluralist iceberg. Thank God for heresy.

Let's yield the floor back to Voltaire with some excerpts on Anglo-America, and read his England of 1733 as America in 1776:

This is the country of sects. An Englishman, as a free man, goes to Heaven by whatever road he pleases.

Yet, though everyone here may serve God in his own fashion, their genuine Religion, the one in which people make their fortune, is the sect of Episcopalians, called the Church of England, or preeminently The Church. No one can hold office in England or in Ireland unless he is a faithful Anglican. This argument, in itself, a convincing proof, has converted so many nonconformists that today not a twentieth of the population lives outside the lap of the established Church.

The Anglican clergy has retained many of the Catholic ceremonies, particularly that of gathering in tithes with the most scrupulous attention. They also have the pious ambition of being the Masters.

With regard to morals, the Anglican clergy are better ordered than those of France, and this is the reason: all clergymen are brought up in Oxford University, or in Cambridge far from the corruption of the capital. They are not called to high station in the Church until very late, and at an age when men have no other passion but avarice, if their ambition goes unfed.

Clergymen go to the tavern sometimes, for custom allows it; if they get drunk they do so in a serious-minded way and with perfect propriety.

That indefinable being which is neither ecclesiastical nor secular—in a word, that which is called an Abbé is a species unknown in England. Clergymen here are all reserved, by temperament, and almost all pedantic. When they learn that in France young men, who are known for their debauchery and who have been raised to the prelacy by the plots of women, make love in public, divert themselves with the composing of sentimental songs, entertain daily with long and exquisite supper parties, and go from there to beseech the light of the Holy Spirit, and boldly to call themselves the successors of the Apostles—then the English thank God they are Protestants. But they are nasty heretics, fit to be burned to Hell and back, as Master François Rabelais says. That's why I keep out of it.

These gentlemen, who also have some churches in England, have made grave airs and severe expressions all the fashion in this country. To them is owing the sanctification of Sunday in the three kingdoms. On that day it is forbidden to work and play, which is double the severity of the Catholic churches. No opera, no plays, no concerts in London on Sunday; even cards are so expressly forbidden that only the aristocracy, and those we call well-bred people, play on that day. The rest of the nation go to church, to the tavern, and to the brothel.

Although the Episcopalian and the Presbyterian are the two main sects in Great Britain, all others are welcome there and live pretty comfortably together, though most of their preachers detest one another almost as cordially as a Jansenist damns a Jesuit.

Go into the Exchange in London, that place more venerable than many a court, and you will see representatives of all the nations assembled there for the profit of mankind. There the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian deal with one another as if they were of the same religion and reserve the name of infidel for those who go bankrupt. There the Presbyterian trusts the Anabaptist, and the Church of England man accepts the promise of the Quaker. On leaving these peaceable and free assemblies, some go to the synagogue, others in search of a drink; this man is on the way to be baptized in a great tub in the name of the Father, by the Son, to the Holy Ghost; that man is having the foreskin of his son cut off, and a Hebraic formula mumbled over the child that he himself can make nothing of; these others are going to their church to await the inspiration of God with their hats on; and all are satisfied.

If there were only one religion in England, there would be danger of tyranny; if there were two, they would cut each other's throats; but there are thirty, and they live happily together in peace.

Well, if you got all that, it's no surprise that America circa 1776 didn't like bishops or even clergymen much. Always stirring up trouble between the sects and ruining everybody else's fun, when they're not drunk and out having fun themselves.

Everybody else, the normal people, were pretty mellow about the whole thing. That was the American Founding too.

John Adams and Romans 13

In a series of posts I have attempted to ignite a discussion about whether Christian ideas helped shape America and bring us into the modern world with the following questions:



Which Christian ideas, if any, helped bring us into the modern world?

And

Which Christian ideas, if any, helped try to derail us from progressing toward the modern world? 



With that idea in mind, I re-produced an argument by Gary Amos from his book "Defending the Declaration" where he outlines his case that the Declaration of Independence was based on the "Doctrine of Interposition" in this post Gary Amos, the Declaration, and "Christian" Ideas?.  I followed that up with another post named John Calvin and Jim Babka on the "Doctrine of Interposition".  In the comments section of the second post, Tom Van Dyke seemed to have some doubts that theological arguments around Romans 13 were that relevant to the conversation back then with this comment, 


"I'd like to see some evidence that Calvin and "interposition" were discussed much. I do believe there was a strong undercurrent that revolt would have to be legally, ethically, and indeed theologically justified [with Romans 13 the Sword of Damocles, and we see it discussed often enough in that era].

However, it seems to me the level of strict Calvinist observance and depth of Biblical authority required for revolt, Othniel or what have you, can easily be an academic issue inflated into something much more than it was.

I realize that King is having a go at Dr. Frazer's thesis, but for the bigger picture, I'd like to see some quotes from the Founding era that gave much of a damn."

Well I think that Adams quotes that Mayhew's sermon on Romans 13 were crucial to the revolution have been discussed here before and there is no need to reproduce them.  What I found is even more interesting.  The following is John Adams proclamation of prayer and fasting from 1799.  Most of it is irrelevant to this discussion but one thing stuck out to me when I read it.  The relevant part is in bold print:

John Adam's 1799 Proclamation

[I took the liberty of making the proclamation a bit easier to follow with a bulleted format.]

Proclamation of March 6, 1799 A.D.

• As no truth is more clearly taught in the Volume of Inspiration, nor any more fully demonstrated by the experience of all ages, than that a deep sense and a due acknowledgment of the governing providence of a Supreme Being and of the accountableness of men to Him as the searcher of hearts and righteous distributer of rewards and punishments are conducive equally to the happiness and rectitude of individuals and to the well-being of communities;
  
• as it is also most reasonable in itself that men who are made capable of social acts and relations, who owe their improvements to the social state, and who derive their enjoyments from it, should, as a society, make their acknowledgments of dependence and obligation to Him who hath endowed them with these capacities and elevated them in the scale of existence by these distinctions; …
• as it is likewise a plain dictate of duty and a strong sentiment of nature that in circumstances of great urgency and seasons of imminent danger earnest and particular supplications should be made to Him who is able to defend or to destroy; …
• as, moreover, the most precious interests of the people of the United States are still held in jeopardy by the hostile designs and insidious acts of a foreign nation, …
• as well as by the dissemination among them of those principles, subversive of the foundations of all religious, moral, and social obligations, that have produced incalculable mischief and misery in other countries; …
• and as, in fine, the observance of special seasons for public religious solemnities is happily calculated to avert the evils which we ought to deprecate and to excite to the performance of the duties which we ought to discharge by calling and fixing the attention of the people at large to the momentous truths already recited, by affording opportunity to teach and inculcate them by animating devotion and giving to it the character of a national act:
  
• For these reasons I have thought proper to recommend, and I do hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the 25th day of April next, be observed throughout the United States of America as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain as far as may be from their secular occupations, devote the time to the sacred duties of religion in public and in private; …
• that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the Most High God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore His pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to His righteous requisitions in time to come;
• that He would interpose to arrest the progress of that impiety and licentiousness in principle and practice so offensive to Himself and so ruinous to mankind;
• that He would make us deeply sensible that "righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people;"
• that He would turn us from our transgressions and turn His displeasure from us; that He would withhold us from unreasonable discontent, from disunion, faction, sedition, and insurrection; that He would preserve our country from the desolating sword;
• that He would save our cities and towns from a repetition of those awful pestilential visitations under which they have lately suffered so severely,
• and that the health of our inhabitants generally may be precious in His sight;
• that He would favor us with fruitful seasons and so bless the labors of the husbandman as that there may be food in abundance for man and beast;
• that He would prosper our commerce, manufactures, and fisheries, and give success to the people in all their lawful industry and enterprise;
• that He would smile on our colleges, academies, schools, and seminaries of learning, and make them nurseries of sound science, morals, and religion;
• that He would bless all magistrates, from the highest to the lowest, give them the true spirit of their station, make them a terror to evil doers and a praise to them that do well;
• that He would preside over the councils of the nation at this critical period, enlighten them to a just discernment of the public interest, and save them from mistake, division, and discord;
• that He would make succeed our preparations for defense and bless our armaments by land and by sea;
• that He would put an end to the effusion of human blood and the accumulation of human misery among the contending nations of the earth by disposing them to justice, to equity, to benevolence, and to peace;
• and that he would extend the blessings of knowledge, of true liberty, and of pure and undefiled religion throughout the world.
  
• And I do also recommend that with these acts of humiliation, penitence, and prayer fervent thanksgiving to the Author of All Good be united for the countless favors which He is still continuing to the people of the United States, and which render their condition as a nation eminently happy when compared with the lot of others.
  
  ---JOHN ADAMS, Second President of the United States of America

I am sure some are asking what all this has to do with the discussion of interposition?  Well, what makes this relevant is that the reason that one would do an interposition is based, at very least, in part on Romans 13.   Those that wanted to dispose a tyrant king used Romans 13 just like Locke did in his First Treatise.  The Lockean interpretation as recited by Mayhew in his sermon that Adams credited with helping the revolutionary cause is reproduced in the bold part above.  It is this interpretation of Romans 13 that states government has the right to punish evil doers AND the responsibility to not to mistreat those who do good.

It is the latter part that most that have a dogmatic view of Romans 13 ignore or explain off in their attempts to tell people to submit and obey government no matter what.  This view was actually the view of many loyalists at the time and is probably the common view in churches today.  The problem is that it was not the view the revolutionaries at the Founding.  Those that did care about what God thought did believe that government as an institution had been established by Him.  They also believed that tyrants could be rebelled deposed by lower magistrates.  The theological(some might say only legal since so much of common law reference Christianity and the Bible) argument and procedure available to them was interposition. I think Adams is alluding to this idea when he talks about all levels of magistrates in the first part of the the bullet point I bolded above.


Interposition was no doubt a "Christian Idea" based on a Lockean style reasoned interpretation of Romans 13.  This interpretation made it into Adams proclamation quoted above.  It must have been important to enough people for it to still be in the public dialogue 23 years later! What do 
you guys think?


More to come about "The Doctrine of 98" and Madison and Jefferson's thoughts about the states' right to use interposition to ignore the national government when it violated the spirit of the 9th and 10th amendments...

Have Yourself a Merry Unitarian Christmas

A repeat of last year's post.

Numerous articles and blogs have noted the strong case to doubt Christmas' authentically "Christian" origins. Christ probably wasn't born on Dec. 25. The Puritans banned the holiday because it wasn't authentically Christian. And many of its rituals trace to the pagan celebration of the Winter Solstice or Saturnalia.

The modern understanding of Christmas is also significantly influenced by Charles Dickens' class "A Christmas Carol." Some Christians argue we need to put "Christ" back into Christmas and remind folks what "Christmas" is supposed to be all about. They might want to turn to Dickens' classic in support of that cause; but it would do them no good.

Charles Dickens, you see, was a Unitarian Christian. And "A Christmas Carol" preaches a decidedly (19th Century) Unitarian message on Christmas. To Unitarians, "Christianity" was all about good works and good will, NOT God's grace through Christ's atonement. Indeed, Unitarians view Jesus as the greatest moral teacher, someone who "saved" man through his stellar moral example, not blood atonement. And "A Christmas Carol" hardly ever mentions Jesus at all.

Now, orthodox Christians likewise appreciate good works and good will. But that is secondary to God's grace through the shed blood of Jesus Christ -- God the Son Incarnate. And "A Christmas Carol" celebrates this message that the orthodox could consider at best secondary or incidental, not the central theme of the Christian religion.

That said, have a Merry Unitarian Christmas.

John Calvin and Jim Babka on the "Doctrine of Interposition"

In my last series of posts I have been trying to shift the frame of discussion from focusing on which people of the founding era were or were not Christian to which ideas of the founding era were or were not Christian.  I have also tried to narrow down the topic to how the ideas of the founding era helped or hindered our progression toward the modern world. I attempted to accomplish this within the frame of discussion of a series of essays at "Cato Unbound" on that topic.  In addition, I have pushed to make this relevant to the present by examining this in the light of how studying these "Second Wave" ideas can help position us as a nation to catch the Alvin Toffler's "Third Wave".  The two questions I have posed are:


Which Christian ideas, if any, helped bring us into the modern world?

And

Which Christian ideas, if any, helped try to derail us from progressing toward the modern world? 

In attempting to shed more light on the origins of the ideas of the founding era I chose to focus on the Declaration of Independence and the purposes behind it.  I did this in light of one of the "Cato Unbound" essays by Jack Goldstone in which he talked about how the concept of, "free individuals sovereign over a limited state" was the chief catalyst to the emergence of an engineering culture that helped usher into the prosperity of the modern world. 


Since my chosen focus is the Declaration of Independence it seemed logical to focus on the "free individuals sovereign" part of this equation.  With that in mind, I began to outline here American Creation: Gary Amos, the Declaration, and "Christian" Ideas? some of the arguments of Gary Amos in his book "Declaring Independence" where he outlines his case that the Declaration of Independence was crafted as a legal argument in favor of the using the doctrine of "Interposition" to depose the King and declare independence.


Jon Rowe posted this response to my argument here American Creation: The DOI is NOT a Document of Interposition where he brought up some of the thoughts of John Calvin and declared that the Declaration of Independence did not fit with the Calvinist definition of "Interposition".  The following are Calvin's words and a synopsis of "Interposition" from Jim Babka one of Jon's co-bloggers at Positive Liberty from a while back.  Read this over and make up your own mind.


John Calvin on "Interposition":

"30. When God intervenes, it is sometimes by unwitting agents
Herein is the goodness, power, and providence of God wondrously displayed. At one time he raises up manifest avengers from among his own servants and gives them his command to punish accursed tyranny and deliver his people from calamity when they are unjustly oppressed; at another time he employs, for this purpose, the fury of men who have other thoughts and other aims. Thus he rescued his people Israel from the tyranny of Pharaoh by Moses; from the violence of Chusa, king of Syria, by Othniel; and from other bondage by other kings or judges. Thus he tamed the pride of Tyre by the Egyptians; the insolence of the Egyptians by the Assyrians; the ferocity of the Assyrians by the Chaldeans; the confidence of Babylon by the Medes and Persians, - Cyrus having previously subdued the Medes, while the ingratitude of the kings of Judah and Israel, and their impious contumacy after all his kindness, he subdued and punished, - at one time by the Assyrians, at another by the Babylonians. All these things however were not done in the same way.


The former class of deliverers being brought forward by the lawful call of God to perform such deeds, when they took up arms against kings, did not at all violate that majesty with which kings are invested by divine appointment, but armed from heaven, they, by a greater power, curbed a less, just as kings may lawfully punish their own satraps. The latter class, though they were directed by the hand of God, as seemed to him good, and did his work without knowing it, had nought but evil in their thoughts.


31. Constitutional defenders of the people's freedom
But whatever may be thought of the acts of the men themselves, the Lord by their means equally executed his own work, when he broke the bloody sceptres of insolent kings, and overthrew their intolerable dominations. Let princes hear and be afraid; but let us at the same time guard most carefully against spurning or violating the venerable and majestic authority of rulers, an authority which God has sanctioned by the surest edicts, although those invested with it should be most unworthy of it, and, as far as in them lies, pollute it by their iniquity. Although the Lord takes vengeance on unbridled domination, let us not therefore suppose that that vengeance is committed to us, to whom no command has been given but to obey and suffer.


I speak only of private men. For when popular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings, (as the Ephori, who were opposed to kings among the Spartans, or Tribunes of the people to consuls among the Romans, or Demarchs to the senate among the Athenians; and, perhaps, there is something similar to this in the power exercised in each kingdom by the three orders, when they hold their primary diets.) So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians."(bold is mine)




Now Jim Babka from his post found here: http://www.positiveliberty.com/2008/04/romans-13-interposition-from-one-christians-view.html:


"NOTES ON INTERPOSITION

Calvin’s Doctrine of Interposition is a good start. But like all doctrines it is subject to enhanced understanding as knowledge and experience expand. Anything that stands in one place becomes dead and stale. This is true of all forms of knowledge and theology is no exception.

Simply put, Interposition is intervention. Calvin is suggesting, rightly in my opinion, that interposition is acceptable, even in light of Romans 13, but only via a magistrate.Where Calvin and most theologians since his time, particularly Americans, would depart is in our definition of a magistrate. In modern Christian parlance, a magistrate is a qualified leader. 

A leader is someone who has followers! The leader’s qualification would be that the leader has sufficient followers to interpose between king and subjects. In other words, “Does the leader represent people other than himself?” Under Christian Just War Theory, even the monarch lacks the power to take his people into a battle they are sure to lose. The magistrate is under no less a restriction. Nowhere does scripture suggest that kings treat their subjects, or leaders consider their followers, as “living sacrifices.” 

The magistrate, who finds himself in a position where interposition is potentially called for, must move cautiously and with deference to the king. If the magistrate is an obnoxious hot-head, he’s the wrong guy. The magistrate should work within the legal process. He should be methodical — even plodding.

INTERPOSITION IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

I realize what follows is a bit of an oversimplification of events and that not all of the colonist’s actions could be defended under this doctrine, but…

Our Founding Fathers were magistrates. They worked within a legal process, appealing to the King of England. The King returned the courtesy by taxing and regulating them further — even charging John Hancock with smuggling. Hancock responded by organizing a boycott. The King responded by shutting down the colonist’s tea industry and imposing an English monopoly.

After yet more appeals, the Boston Sons of Liberty responded with a “tea party.” Even in their conduct of the Tea Party, these men broke nothing but a lock. Only the tea was dumped. No other persons or property was harmed. Still, no less than Ben Franklin suggested the tea should be paid for and some colonial merchants offered to pay for it. The British refused.

Instead, the King imposed the “Intolerable Acts,” taking away Massachusetts’ right to self-government, as well as permitting his troops to quarter themselves in colonial homes and receive get out of jail free cards for their crimes. This “train of abuses” heightened tensions and, in the Spring of 1775, the King ordered his men to seize their guns — something no free man can tolerate. Violence ensued. Yet, even then, the organized colonists only prepared a defense.

Then the Continental Congress sent the Olive Branch Petition to King George. The King refused to read the Olive Branch Petition and it was HE that declared the colonists to be in an “open state of rebellion” (not the other way around). The Continental Congress, ever accountable, responded by explaining their actions to the world in Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of taking up Arms — a full year before the Declaration of Independence was signed. It would take that long just to round up the political will to make that significant and final step of actual rebellion.

The magistrates in this story were patient to the point of plodding. They appealed to authority at every step. And it was the King, not the magistrates, which declared the state of the people to be one of rebellion.

INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNAL REBELLION, A DISTINCTION

The Christian faith is not an individualist faith. American Evangelicals, starting in the 19th century, have increasingly treated it as individualism. But Christianity is, itself, communal (Romans 12, by the way, is one of the passages that demonstrate this point). Liberal Christians take the voluntary communal nature of Christianity and apply it where it doesn’t belong. They have come to view civil government as the vehicle through which ALL Justice, Mercy, and Humility should be carried out or imposed.

Government is an agency of coercion, so essentially the liberals are guilty of imposing their morality on everyone else. Conservatives make the same mistake when it comes to individual behavior. Both groups are easily moved to the position, “There ought to be a law.” Well, there is a law. It’s the Natural Law. It says that humans are, by nature, free — that they own their lives and the right to pursue their bliss. A Christian who recognizes the Book of Nature as a work of God (Romans 1:20) appreciates the discovery and demonstration of Natural Law.

But the student of the Bible must go even further. He or she must recognize the aforementioned Image of God and corresponding Human Will in others, as well as take into account concepts such as Grace and Love and Humility while dealing with others. And for practical, hands-on training in living such a life, Christians are to form communities. These communities are called “church.” Church is not, what the forces of Organized Religion have erroneously turned them into — a building people visit for an hour on Sundays. For it is in church, properly practiced, believers are schooled in patience, mutual submission, and the sharing of one another’s burdens. And part of mutual submission is that one doesn’t strike out on their own. Christians are told to seek counsel from a variety of sources and live their life in the pursuit of Wisdom.

So Interposition is the means by which a sufficient community can make begin a “process of appeal,” to the ruling authority. In our culture, we have the ability to vote, to organize, to publish, and to lobby members of Congress, guaranteed by the supreme law of this land in the First Amendment. These means have narrowed but have not been closed. These tactics have, in several recent instances, proved efficacious. Therefore, Open Rebellion in the United States, at this juncture, is an improper response (at least for Christians) to the tyranny we presently face. Lone Ranger civil disobedience is neither prudent nor proper for a Christian, who would then, “have Romans 13 on their conscience.”

Sounds like the difference between a "communal" and "private or individual" rebellion has already been hashed through some at Positive Liberty.  I think Jim makes a great case that the Declaration of Independence was an "Interposition" and thus a "Christian Idea".  It seems like Calvin agrees with him.  What do you all think?




(P.S. Using Calvin is Jon and Dr. Frazer's best chance to prove their historical case for Romans 13 because he is "Mr. Orthodoxy" that is why I am addressing Calvin first.  As Tom, and Jim in another part of the post above, state correctly, Calvinism does not equal Christianity.  So other evidence will follow...)


(P.S.S Dr. Frazer I see Calvin used Othniel as an example just like I did)