tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post115558166140125891..comments2024-03-10T10:54:59.776-07:00Comments on Ben Witherington: "The Faiths of the Founding Father's"--- David L. Holmes' new bookBen Witheringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-68278303243852198612009-03-01T09:54:00.000-08:002009-03-01T09:54:00.000-08:00I'm a little bit saddened that Dr. BW3 decided not...I'm a little bit saddened that Dr. BW3 decided not to respond again to my string of comments, but I understand that that is his prerogative and that Camassia was taking up the baton.<BR/><BR/>dlwDLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-13887103826852768082008-06-06T08:41:00.000-07:002008-06-06T08:41:00.000-07:00Seems like Candidate Obama and George Washington h...Seems like Candidate Obama and George Washington had at least one thing in common...both seemed to have had difficulty with their Pastors!<BR/><BR/>Wildrootwildroothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06083950371134174729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-56709972930726216692007-06-29T10:02:00.000-07:002007-06-29T10:02:00.000-07:00While it is unwise to define the architects of Ame...While it is unwise to define the architects of America's government as Christian in the sense that an evangelical may be comfortable with- it is equally wrong to define Deism with the modern implications. Jefferson - for instance wanted the federal government to fund the evangelization of the Indians- hardly a deist notion by 21 st century standards!<BR/><BR/>And while Washington was not obsessive in his observance of the Sabbath he did observe the sabbath, attend church regularly, he was god-parent to 8 children, he prayed from the book of common prayer, and when he was sworn in he knelt and kissed the bible.<BR/><BR/>We must be careful to see with both eyes the founding fathers and not read their behavior through a modern filter. I recommend Michale Novaks WASHINGTON"S GOD as a balance.Pastor Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13401038731569512858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1157898451196283352006-09-10T07:27:00.000-07:002006-09-10T07:27:00.000-07:00"My point would be that this ideology was also inf..."My point would be that this ideology was also influenced by the revival in Christianity that took place earlier in the US, even though it was not limited to Orthodox Christians."<BR/><BR/>I don't know how meaningful that "revival" is in relation to the "ideology" in question. Some of the most vocal and effective ministers pushing for revolution in Mass. -- Jonathan Mayhew and Charles Chauncy, for instance -- were outspoken opponents of "The Great Awakening."Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1157560098429947532006-09-06T09:28:00.000-07:002006-09-06T09:28:00.000-07:00Great post Ben.Holmes's book is a great resource a...Great post Ben.<BR/><BR/>Holmes's book is a great resource and I encourage others to get it as well. It captures that accurate "middle ground" that is often lost in this debate between the secular left and the religious right.<BR/><BR/>I also encourage anyone interested in this issue -- and in continuing the conversation -- to check out my blog(s), as this is one issue in which I specialize.<BR/><BR/>I've got lots of great connections to primary sources as well.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1156028900901699212006-08-19T16:08:00.000-07:002006-08-19T16:08:00.000-07:00There is a british article that reviews the issue ...There is a <A HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/american_revolution_01.shtml" REL="nofollow">british article</A> that reviews the issue of whether the USAmerican Revolution was inevitable. It generally confirms John Adams' view that what made it inevitable was the ideology of the colonialists that was formed for years prior to the war began. My point would be that this ideology was also influenced by the revival in Christianity that took place earlier in the US, even though it was not limited to Orthodox Christians. <BR/><BR/>Having said that, I don't think the <A HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/american_revolution_03.shtml" REL="nofollow">tradition of violent resistance in Boston</A> was terribly Christian, but protesting need not be violent, of course. <BR/><BR/>Here's the meat of why it became inevitable that independence would happen. <BR/><I>The fundamental difference between the British and the rebellious Americans concerned political authority. Prior to the Stamp Act crisis British authority, rarely asserted, rested on ties of loyalty, affection and tradition, not force. In the wake of the Stamp Act, Parliament repeatedly asserted its sovereignty and was compelled by American resistance to back down. Each time that this occurred the foundation for British rule in America eroded a little bit more. ...[T]he colonists [who]remained loyal to the crown once the war broke out... switched allegiances to the rebels when they experienced or learned of the heavy-handed tactics employed by the British army in America. Had the British managed to 'win' the military conflict they would have had to resort to a degree of force antithetical to their ultimate objective - the reestablishment of British authority in the colonies.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>The article concludes that the Brits did learn from their experience with US Colonies and their management of their empire improved as a result. <BR/><BR/>Long and short: political authority based on violence alone is ineffective. The conflict was about a change in authority, not a rebellion against authority. The colonialists' shared belief that Britain was in danger of reverting to the tyranny present throughout most of Europe led them to hold with sufficient solidarity for their independence for the sake of preserving liberty. <BR/><BR/>Is that Xtn? I can tell you that there wouldn't have been Swedish Baptists(my heritage) fostering greater democracy in Gov't, Industry and Churches in their country without the generous support of American Baptists. Political freedoms are key for improved economic freedoms that matter for study of the Bible and missions work of a variety of sorts...<BR/>dlwDLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1156007451617716112006-08-19T10:10:00.000-07:002006-08-19T10:10:00.000-07:00Hi Jeff:I am afraid the book you are referring to ...Hi Jeff:<BR/><BR/>I am afraid the book you are referring to published by Providence is a bad case of special pleading. George Washington, as his own pastor, bishop, and others make clear was certainly not like modern Evangelical Christians. It is revisionist history to say otherwise. Read Holmes book. What is even more troubling are Washington's connections with the Masons.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>BenBen Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1155965154140451812006-08-18T22:25:00.000-07:002006-08-18T22:25:00.000-07:00clarification: I wrote, "I don't see Romans 13 as ...clarification: I wrote, "I don't see Romans 13 as dealing with Christian participation in matters of legal change or changes in who is in authority." <BR/><BR/>That shd be "dealing exhaustively with Christian participation". There are more ethical ways to engage in warfare and for the Colonialists facing the British Army, it really was risking their lives on behalf of others above all else. <BR/><BR/>I think what <A HREF="http://www.mce.k12tn.net/revolutionary_war/lesson_3.htm" REL="nofollow">the Sons of Liberty</A> did was clearly wrong, but that the British gov't overreacted. <BR/><BR/>The Boston Tea Party was an act of violence against the property of British Merchants, but so was the way Great Britain awarded their merchants a monopoly on tea to Massachussetts. <BR/><BR/>As stated earlier, property rights are about violence or its threat. Does party A have the right to impose harms/duties on party B or does party B have the right to impose harms/duties on party A. What matters here is that both A and B have some voice in the gov't as a means to ensure a chance their interests will be protected so that they will honor the outcome worked out. <BR/><BR/>After the Tea Party, Great Britain had severe recourse with the Intolerable Acts against the damage to their property unlike the colonialists. This is what led to the first continental congress and the decision to seek autonomy. This then led to Revere's famous ride and the battle of Lexington and Concord. Our rebellion was a defense of our leaders. For the sake of liberty, including the freedom of religion, we believed it was worth standing up against and declaring our independence from the most powerful gov't of our world. <BR/><BR/>This was not rebellion, this was a change in allegiance, one that rejected the Constantinized Christianity of Europe and how it abused Xty as an opiate. <BR/><BR/>dlwDLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1155949836371689132006-08-18T18:10:00.000-07:002006-08-18T18:10:00.000-07:00C:Well, my distinction could support enlightened d...<I>C:Well, my distinction could support enlightened despotism, but that doesn't make it any less based in Christian doctrine.</I><BR/><BR/>It may make it less biblical and more likely an apologetical defense of Constantinized Christianity. <BR/><BR/><I>That's my point: you could call on one or another strand of Christian doctrine to support a lot of different forms of government, but you can also call upon Christian doctrine to refute them. </I><BR/><BR/>There have historically been doctrines/beliefs held by Christians to support a wide variety of forms of gov't. That doesn't <I>per se</I> make the doctrines "Christian". <BR/><BR/>That we are at best boundedly altruistic and fallible in the discernment of what others truly need are pretty easy to defend based on extensive experience and the witness of Christian history.<BR/><BR/><I>Every government has to balance out various interests, but I don't see what was so sacred about the particular balance that the founding fathers worked out that made it especially Christian or worth a rebellion over.</I><BR/><BR/>It's not the particular balance that matters but the principle that a balance(with some democracy/proportionality) was needed to protect freedom against the tendency for power to tenaciously grow beyond its proper boundaries. <BR/><BR/>Once again, while the FFs may not have been Christians, this concern for the abuse of authority and the deliberation on lessons from history, reflect a concern for themselves and their neighbors that stems ultimately from Christianity. It was not a rebellion against authority but rather a change in the specific composition of authority deigned to ensure that it was not abused. <BR/><BR/><I>Your reference to Yoder is curious since "The Politics of Jesus," while not weighing in on the American Revolution per se, seems to me to undercut any Christian justification for it. </I><BR/><BR/>Jesus rejected the way of the Zealot as the means to capture the state. The American revolutionaries used some violence to seek greater local autonomy for themselves, but their success was not ultimately due to their use of violence. Other factors were far more significant. And they were <BR/><BR/>The issue with Yoder is, "is the state irreparably pagan and can Christians serve in it, assisting in the way the Sword of the State is wielded?" I say no and yes, with qualifications. We are in the stage Daniel spoke of in Daniel 2, where there is a divided kingdom that is an unstable mixture of clay and iron(democracy and aristocracy/monarchy). Yes, Christians can show love in altering the manner in which the sword is wielded, but there is always risk in doing so and we do so fallibly. <BR/><BR/><I>It is true that God may be working through governments that were founded even in rebellion, but that doesn't make the rebellion itself any less of a sin. </I><BR/><BR/>Rebellion did not found the US. The shared ideology was more important and their ability to win support from others in England and France. <BR/><BR/><I>Yoder particularly picked apart the reading of Romans 13 as "conditional" submission that many of the colonists seemed to use to justify throwing off the king. Are you just not buying Yoder's argument on those points, or are you reading him differently than I am?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't see submission to authority as what was at stake, but rather a change in authority and the manner in which changes in authority are to be made. I don't see Romans 13 as dealing with Christian participation in matters of legal change or changes in who is in authority. Obviously, the scope for Xtn participation in changes was considerably different in NT times than later. Romans 13 does not set out what Xtn participation ought to be like. <BR/><BR/><I>C:As to property rights, yes they carry the threat of violence, and I assume that's one reason Jesus didn't think much of them -- if someone steals your cloak give him your shirt, sell everything and give to the poor, etc. </I><BR/><BR/>I would say that he relativized them as being of scarcely any import compared with one's salvation and one's witness to others. That doesn't mean that the stability associated with property rights is not a key part of why we shd render unto Caesar what is due to Caesar...<BR/><BR/>Property rights facilitate decentralization in decision-making. It checks the scope of tyranny or bounds the potential for the sword of the state to be abused. <BR/><BR/><I>That's why I have trouble seeing your interpretation of "love your neighbor" as being particularly Christian. All societies need some ethic of neighborliness and the common good in order to function, so probably most people would be on board with doing whatever they see as necessary for the general welfare.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know what you mean by "particularly Christian". It's not like other societies were never influenced by Judaism(particularly post-exilic Judaism), as recent work on the history of Greek philosophy suggests as a strong possibility, particularly through Pythagoras.<BR/><BR/>They may agree on received notions of the "common good", but the key here is to be agents of cultural change. To Act to ensure "no taxation without representation" is to be an agent of change, giving one's neighbors more voice in what legal changes affect them. <BR/><BR/><I>But that's quite a different thing from the wild-n-crazy love that Jesus espoused and demonstrated, which led himself and a number of his followers into persecution and death. </I><BR/><BR/>Really, I think MLKjr would disagree. <BR/><BR/><I>The kind that refused violence against the oppressor, even when it was morally justified.</I><BR/><BR/>Jesus never denied the need for the state to use the threat of violence to institute order. As such, when an order is being altered, it always follows that the potential legit violence of the state is being redirected, as well. In the case of the American revolution that included colonialists using violence against foreign intruders on their vestigial country. <BR/><BR/>The danger has been for us USChristians to perceive the new order that we belong to as the end or the means rather than a means for the renewal and propagation of Christianity. The issue is not whether we have been a Christian country, but the impact of biblical Christianity on us in the past, present and future...<BR/><BR/>dlwDLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1155943283727204862006-08-18T16:21:00.000-07:002006-08-18T16:21:00.000-07:00Well, my distinction could support enlightened des...Well, my distinction could support enlightened despotism, but that doesn't make it any less based in Christian doctrine. That's my point: you could call on one or another strand of Christian doctrine to support a lot of different forms of government, but you can also call upon Christian doctrine to refute them. Every government has to balance out various interests, but I don't see what was so sacred about the particular balance that the founding fathers worked out that made it especially Christian or worth a rebellion over.<BR/><BR/>Your reference to Yoder is curious since "The Politics of Jesus," while not weighing in on the American Revolution per se, seems to me to undercut any Christian justification for it. It is true that God may be working through governments that were founded even in rebellion, but that doesn't make the rebellion itself any less of a sin. Yoder particularly picked apart the reading of Romans 13 as "conditional" submission that many of the colonists seemed to use to justify throwing off the king. Are you just not buying Yoder's argument on those points, or are you reading him differently than I am?<BR/><BR/>As to property rights, yes they carry the threat of violence, and I assume that's one reason Jesus didn't think much of them -- if someone steals your cloak give him your shirt, sell everything and give to the poor, etc. That's why I have trouble seeing your interpretation of "love your neighbor" as being particularly Christian. All societies need some ethic of neighborliness and the common good in order to function, so probably most people would be on board with doing whatever they see as necessary for the general welfare. But that's quite a different thing from the wild-n-crazy love that Jesus espoused and demonstrated, which led himself and a number of his followers into persecution and death. The kind that refused violence against the oppressor, even when it was morally justified.Camassiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09183087564923218343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1155936930448841982006-08-18T14:35:00.000-07:002006-08-18T14:35:00.000-07:00Camassia:DLW, I think "love your neighbor as yours...<I>Camassia:DLW, I think "love your neighbor as yourself" only goes in that direction if you assume that loving your neighbor means giving your neighbor what s/he wants. </I><BR/><BR/>dlw: Hmm, I don't see giving our neighbors some voice in the rule-making process that affects them as the same as giving them what they want. <BR/><BR/>Obviously, they can abuse that voice in a completely self-interested way, but so long as we all are boundedly altruistic and definitely fallible in discerning what folks truly "need" as opposed to what they want, then allowing for proportional representation is a critical part of loving our neighbor. <BR/><BR/>Of course, we shd never simply stop there. It truly matters what habits of political deliberation and action that people have. It's too easy for people to rely on rules of thumb that are too easy to manipulate. Witness how Richard Nixon manipulated the US Economy so that it wd be doing well enough during the time of his reelection campaign to win him a 2nd term, with things going to pot shortly thereafter. <BR/><BR/>To press for more proportional gov't is consistent with loving our neighbors as ourselves, but it doesn't remove the need for us to change hearts and therein our own and other's habits. <BR/><BR/><I>C:That has not, however, always been the operating assumption, especially in light of the concept that people are fallen and many of our desires will lead to our own destruction. </I><BR/><BR/>If you read the link I made to the ideology of the American Revolution, it spoke of the need for the right balance of monarchy/aristocracy/democracy. <BR/><BR/>Let's not kid ourselves, we don't have anywhere near a pure democracy in the US and that's a good thing. Plutocracy/$peech underlies the stability of property rights that makes critical long-term investments feasible. <BR/><BR/>As for how folks use their "freedoms", it's up to their local community to hold them accountable for not self-destructing in that respect. This potential does not in anyway subvert my argument above. <BR/><BR/><I>It also assumes that the greatest happiness of the body politic as a whole comes from the aggregate of happy individuals, which is also not an assumption that all societies have shared. </I><BR/><BR/>Nope, you're presuming that because my position is a consequentialist one that it is utilitarian. I am simply saying that given our pervasive bounded altruism that we can best love our neighbors as ourselves by the dictum, "no taxation without representation", or providing them some voice wrt the decisions that affect their well-being as they and their communities see it. <BR/><BR/><I>In the past (and today in much of the world), individual happiness has been taken to flow from a well-ordered society. Such ideas have also been abused, of course, but I don't think all those Christian monarchies existed simply because they ignored Jesus' commandment.</I><BR/><BR/>In the past, in Europe, they have tended to focus too much on soteriology and not enough on missiology. Missiology is fundamentally about fostering cultural changes and invariably upsets "well-ordered societies". They also have seriously failed to follow <A HREF="http://sodsbrood.com/antimani/2005/05/17/how-would-jesus-communicate/" REL="nofollow">the communication strategies of Jesus</A>. <BR/><BR/><I>It's also worth noting that the language of the Declaration of Independence essentially replaces the divine right of kings to rule with a divine right of people to rule. The idea of anybody having a divine right to rule has biblical problems, imho.</I><BR/><BR/>According to "the politics of Jesus" delineated in "Discipleship as Political Responsibility" by Yoder, the State is needed to use sinful means to constrain sinful behavior. What matters here is not "divine right" language but its speech-act effect re:the means of change in who is in political authority. The point is that the use of more representational means to determine who is in authority by no means implies that God does not ultimately underlying the process and whoever is selected ultimately deserves our submission. <BR/><BR/><I>Moreover, saying that violently protecting economic interests somehow follows the teachings of Jesus has to deal with all of Jesus' sayings against wealth and attachment to money. Again, it's the distinction between what we want and what's actually good for us.</I><BR/><BR/>You need to realize that the use or threat of use of force underlies all property rights. Property rights are neither natural nor divinely given but rather are social artefacts that are always somewhat under reconsideration in the gov't. The issue is not whether the sword of the state is wielded but on whose behalf is it wielded to provide stability for them. <BR/><BR/>Your distinction unfortunately supports "enlightened despotism".<BR/><BR/>dlwDLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1155921567274021052006-08-18T10:19:00.000-07:002006-08-18T10:19:00.000-07:00The following book maybe of interest to you and yo...The following book maybe of interest to you and your readers <A HREF="http://www.providenceforum.org/default.aspx?pid=8" REL="nofollow"><I>George Washington’s Sacred Fire</I></A>. Peter A. Lillback with Jerry Newcombe (Providence Forum Press, 2006; ISBN#: 097860525X).<BR/><BR/>"George Washington - the Founding Father of our Nation – has been the subject of great confusion and debate about his faith, leading to the misconception that he was a deist. The purpose of George Washington’s Sacred Fire is to prove definitively that George Washington was indeed a devout, practicing Christian"<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.providenceforum.org/default.aspx?pid=32" REL="nofollow">More...</A>Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14336155651560538168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1155918162267405612006-08-18T09:22:00.000-07:002006-08-18T09:22:00.000-07:00You mention John Locke, whose influence on the fou...You mention John Locke, whose influence on the founding fathers was profound. In his <I>Second Treatise</I> Locke makes the case for the free individual's right to life, liberty and property, and to enter freely into social contracts with others. Locke's argument is based explicitly on the Bible; specifically, on Genesis 3: "The Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken." Locke takes Adam's departure into the wilderness as the starting-point for the individual man's freedom from tyranny of man. <BR/><BR/>The fact that the founding fathers treated Locke's argument seriously speaks to the persistent Christian influence on America's leaders. By contrast, Locke had no influence on the democratic revolution in France, where the Church was closely allied with the king and the aristocracy and so was regarded as the enemy.john doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484728969355294193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1155917794126431742006-08-18T09:16:00.000-07:002006-08-18T09:16:00.000-07:00DLW, I think "love your neighbor as yourself" only...DLW, I think "love your neighbor as yourself" only goes in that direction if you assume that loving your neighbor means giving your neighbor what s/he wants. That has not, however, always been the operating assumption, especially in light of the concept that people are fallen and many of our desires will lead to our own destruction. It also assumes that the greatest happiness of the body politic as a whole comes from the aggregate of happy individuals, which is also not an assumption that all societies have shared. In the past (and today in much of the world), individual happiness has been taken to flow from a well-ordered society. Such ideas have also been abused, of course, but I don't think all those Christian monarchies existed simply because they ignored Jesus' commandment.<BR/><BR/>It's also worth noting that the language of the Declaration of Independence essentially replaces the divine right of kings to rule with a divine right of people to rule. The idea of anybody having a divine right to rule has biblical problems, imho. Moreover, saying that violently protecting economic interests somehow follows the teachings of Jesus has to deal with all of Jesus' sayings against wealth and attachment to money. Again, it's the distinction between what we want and what's actually good for us.Camassiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09183087564923218343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1155874225290277412006-08-17T21:10:00.000-07:002006-08-17T21:10:00.000-07:00My apologies for the "spam", I'd like to have seen...My apologies for the "spam", I'd like to have seen a "generous orthopraxy" for right political conduct among Christians during the revolution. <BR/><BR/>One can serve in defense of one's country, thereby using violence, and the issue was fundamentally one of legal change so that the colonies would have the autonomy to defend themselves and determine their own policies apart from Great Britain. <BR/><BR/>As a Pietist who is no longer part of the free church heritage, I believe in the need to make fallible leaps of judgment as Christians in our partipation in legal changes and the need for us to keep our differences in such judgements from undermining our collective witness to others and that is why we need a generous orthopraxy for Christian political involvement. <BR/><BR/>dlwDLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1155869626860592612006-08-17T19:53:00.000-07:002006-08-17T19:53:00.000-07:00A real interesting question:What should have been ...A real interesting question:<BR/><BR/>What should have been the proper Christian response to the American Revolution?<BR/><BR/>I think that since the colonists were already practically independent (as was mentioned by jack, above), that a kind of pacifistic neutrality would have been the right stance, as opposed to either joining the patriots or torries. Obviously Wesley, who was based in the England, supported the crown. But I don't think that woulid have been the correct stance for a Christian living in the colonies. I hope I would have been an "anti-war" believer in that instance, calling on both sides to settle their differences peacefully.<BR/><BR/>On a side note, Norman Geisler, in his book Christian Ethics, called the American Revolution unjustified in his chapter on "just wars."<BR/><BR/>On Stark- The Victory of Reason was interesting, but Stark did not really go into all the Christian theology that he points to as inspiring modern science and economics. I found his earlier two book series (One True God/ For the Glory of God) much more enlightening on the Christian teaching through the centuries that he refers to in Victory of Reason.yuckabuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05286909279733012915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1155869354804144252006-08-17T19:49:00.000-07:002006-08-17T19:49:00.000-07:00Jack brings up the economic issues to purportedly ...Jack brings up the economic issues to purportedly refute that the revolution was about "no taxation without representation", but the answer one can give is "so what?" <BR/>Yes, Economics played a role in the decision to seek autonomy. Isn't Economics part of our well-being and part of what it means to love our neighbor as ourselves? <BR/><BR/>This doesn't mean that it was a "secular" rebellion. It didn't seek to throw off authority, it wanted more local authority that would be more in accord with the mixed form of gov't that had composed England's constitution in the past(see my earlier link). The revolution was about legal change of authority, not the throwing off of authority and Romans 13 does not deal with change of authority or law, neither of which were options that the early Christians had. One can submit to an existing authority, while at the same time seeking to change who is in authority or the law. It involved some violence, but that's besides the point, as it was not the violence that permitted the colonies to acheive their independence. <BR/><BR/>Likewise, contrary to what Rainsborough seems to imply, it doesn't matter that the Constitution does not mention God. Its language stands in contrast with the way God-speak was used to rationalize the existing powers in Europe. But it presumed that we need rules to govern our conflicts and that the nature of those rules will need to be reworked out over time, as shown by its intentional use of vague language. But what matters more than the letter of the Constitution, much of which reflected economic compromises between existing interests, is the willingness of the people to accept and live by the rules even when it was not in their interest to do so, and that willingness is inextricably intertwined with the faiths/belief systems of the people. <BR/><BR/>As such, it does not matter so much what the faiths of the Founding Father's were, more important would have been what would have taken place if there had not been the Great Awakenings and Revivals in the US not long after our independence. It also matters a great deal about the pessimism and individualism that later emerged after the Civil War, with our nation seriously divided with the problem of race seriously unattended. <BR/><BR/>The point isn't the specific faiths of the FFathers, but how the dynamics in USChristianity affected the US's development. The Religious Right's problem more often isn't their Christianity or their breaking of the separation of Church and State, but how they raise up traditional specific cultural forms of USChristianity as Dogma. They do engage in revisionist history, but that pales in comparison to how they violate the command given in Mark 7:7. <BR/>dlwDLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1155848350986556342006-08-17T13:59:00.000-07:002006-08-17T13:59:00.000-07:00Ben, I did not say that more proportional represen...Ben, I did not say that more proportional representation was in the Bible. I said that when the calling to love our neighbor as ourselves is coupled with the experience of how we persist in being at best boundedly altruistic, the implication is the duty to guarantee them and us more voice in the decisions that affect our lives.<BR/><BR/>As such, the "no taxation without representation" slogan behind the USAmerican revolution was quite consistent with Christian teaching, though it had been adopted by many non-Christians. As a Methodist/Anglican, the fact it doesn't simply follow from scripture shd not be a problem for you, like it would for someone more rooted in a tradition in the free-church heritage. <BR/>dlwDLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1155846246361683232006-08-17T13:24:00.000-07:002006-08-17T13:24:00.000-07:00Mr. R.: Thanks for the additional stuff on 1787. O...Mr. R.: Thanks for the additional stuff on 1787. One of the main points of Holme's book is that indeed we did have state churches if by state church we mean those that are supported by tax revenues in various colonies. The state supported churches were Episcopal in the mid and southern atlantic states, and Congegational in New England with the exception of one step. <BR/><BR/>BenBen Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1155825833555290512006-08-17T07:43:00.000-07:002006-08-17T07:43:00.000-07:00Hi DLW: I am not from the free church tradition a...Hi DLW: <BR/><BR/>I am not from the free church tradition at all. Have been a high church Methodist/Anglican for my whole life. I don't really think you can get a democratic polity out of 'love thy neighbor as thyself' and the only egalitarianism I find in the Bible is in Christ (Gal. 3.28) not prescribed or proscribed by a governmental policy or structure. <BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>BenBen Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1155784561357586282006-08-16T20:16:00.000-07:002006-08-16T20:16:00.000-07:00Ben, might I suggest that certain free-church heri...Ben, might I suggest that certain free-church heritage presuppositions are showing? Ie, part of the issue here is the desire for the Bible to settle once and for all what sort of governance we shd have for ourselves, when it really provides critical precedents whose implications need to be worked out?<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<I>The text from 1 Sam. 8 is interesting, not least because it of course does make clear that a king is supposed to be fair and just to his subjects, but the concept of representation in the modern sense is lacking here. By representation I mean persons chosen or elected who can actually help determine their own and their people's future. Not only are the 'representatives' mentioned in the Bible not elected by any open vote, they also have no power to make legislation which can change a people's life. All they can do is propose policy to a sovereign king or another authority. They can propose, but only the king can dispose such matters. </I><BR/><BR/>Yes, but a Godly King is also shown as one who listens to prophecy of the past and present! Willis J Beecher's "<A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1579108997" REL="nofollow">Prophets and Promise</A>" points out that prophets who deliver a word from God could be from any part of society back then, unlike priests. This sets an egalitarian precedent that is important for democracy. Democracy also permits ideas to percolate from any part of society and behooves for all to undertake the discipline to discern what is ultimately best for us. As such, changes to a system that restricted the importance of the King or removed the king are not without scriptural precedents that could be cited in favor of the action. It doesn't prescribe it, but it doesn't prohibit it and it certainly supports it. It doesn't prohibit it, inasmuch as Romans 13 does not deal with matters of legal change but rather Christian's conditional submission to existing rulers and their laws and need to avoid rebellion. <BR/><BR/>Ben:<I>Again, this is nothing like the democratic notion of representative 'of the people, by the people, and for the people.'</I><BR/><BR/>dlw: The principle of "no taxation without representation", guaranteeing people some voice in legal changes that affect their well-beings, does fit with loving one's neighbor when we take into account our inevitably bounded altruisms and fallibilism in acting on the behalf of others. <BR/><BR/>Ben:<I>One final point. Since America is certainly not God's chosen nation in any Biblical sense of the phrase, those strictures and policies applied to Israel in the OT in regard to governance probably should not be applied to us, except in so far as we are looking for character descriptions for those who want to run for an office of some kind.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree. But the issue really is not whether America is a Christian Nation or New Israel, but rather the importance of Christianity for our governance as a country. Contra Boyd, one can argue, in accord with the work done by non-Christian economic historian Robert Fogel in "The Fourth Great Awakening", that revivals in Christianity(and "secular or non-Christian" variants that arose later) have historically played a critical role in the ongoing reform of our governance. <BR/><BR/>dlwDLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1155782715025323572006-08-16T19:45:00.000-07:002006-08-16T19:45:00.000-07:00Have you read 1776?Have you read 1776?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14867988535483043787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1155768862145115772006-08-16T15:54:00.000-07:002006-08-16T15:54:00.000-07:00Greg Boyd's book "Myth of a Christian Nation" is a...Greg Boyd's book "Myth of a Christian Nation" is a fairly good contribution to this discussion. He makes the point that we may want to think that the US is a christian nation, but no matter what the founding principles were, it was born out of violence and has lived in violence. Even if it was founded as a christian nation (which he disputes), it has never been one in practice.Isaac M. Aldermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10282951886480508721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1155742057769024842006-08-16T08:27:00.000-07:002006-08-16T08:27:00.000-07:00Thanks for that very interesting review. I guess w...Thanks for that very interesting review. I guess we should only expect that the Founding Fathers had a variety of views on religion as they did on politics, philosophy, community, jurisprudence... The revisionists do need to do their homework before sticking everyone into today's blender.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014124722441378520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1155725691289563432006-08-16T03:54:00.000-07:002006-08-16T03:54:00.000-07:00The text from 1 Sam. 8 is interesting, not least b...The text from 1 Sam. 8 is interesting, not least because it of course does make clear that a king is supposed to be fair and just to his subjects, but the concept of representation in the modern sense is lacking here. By representation I mean persons chosen or elected who can actually help determine their own and their people's future. Not only are the 'representatives' mentioned in the Bible not elected by any open vote, they also have no power to make legislation which can change a people's life. All they can do is propose policy to a sovereign king or another authority. They can propose, but only the king can dispose such matters. Again, this is nothing like the democratic notion of representative 'of the people, by the people, and for the people.'<BR/><BR/>One final point. Since America is certainly not God's chosen nation in any Biblical sense of the phrase, those strictures and policies applied to Israel in the OT in regard to governance probably should not be applied to us, except in so far as we are looking for character descriptions for those who want to run for an office of some kind.Ben Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.com