In the spirit of Jonah Goldberg’s quote about cliches starting arguments rather than finishing them, let’s address this deism nonsense. The Founders were, generally speaking, not deists. Here is the evidence from Gregory Koukl:
The phrase “Founding Fathers” is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shaping of our nation. These 55 Founding Fathers, though, made up the core. The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists – Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin – this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.
If you’re interested, Koukl cites as his authority John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), p. 43. I will also recommend M. Stanton Evans, The Theme is Freedom where beginning on page 273 he discusses this issue at length and cites to the work of W.W. Sweet and others who come to similar conclusions. So, next time you hear someone say that “most of the Founders were deists,” say “Hogwash!” Or better yet, “Prove it.”
{ 10 } Comments
This is interesting, however I would like to point out that there are many people who claim to belong to this group or that group on paper but when it comes down to their practice, we find out that their practice reflects nothing of their belief claim. For example, take a look sometime at the Bible Thomas Jefferson created — and I say created because of the selective cut job he did. Among the cutt job, was the removal of anything super-natural which at least has a deistic element driving such a theologcial view point.
One more thing, the quote you have comes from the Lifeway Christian Bookstore page, which is operated by the Southern Baptist. There is nothing wrong with the source per say, but do realize the Southern Baptist has an overwhelming bias towards the blending of the Patriotic with the Christian faith.
I’m with Rex on this - I wrote a research paper once on Thomas Jefferson’s religious views. In source after source he denied the divinity of Jesus, and seemed fairly deist to me…
If you read more carefully, you will discover that nowhere did I or any of the sources I cite deny that Jefferson was a deist.
(1) He was not, strictly speaking, a Founder.
(2) Among the Founders he was in the extreme minority.
Extremist, though you did not deny the deism of Jefferson, the source you cited did not cite Jefferson as a deist and therefore your post came accross as though you were denying the deism of Thomas Jefferson.
This was the part of your source to which I am refering to: Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists – Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin – this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.”
Because you are an attorny, you probably have a deeper working knowledge of American History than I. However, regardless of the amount of influecne Thomas Jefferson had, the results of deistic philosophy seems to be clearly visible throughout American History.
The source I cited did refer to Jefferson, and clearly explained that he was not listed among the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention because he was not one of them.
This post was, in part, designed to correct your misunderstanding on a previous post where you commented:
The point is that “deistic philosophy” did not “pervade” the Founding Fathers. Nor do I see it having any significant influence today. I certainly do not believe that God has no hand in the affairs of the world or that our freedom can be secure without His protection. Nor, I suspect, do many conservatives.
I never thought you believed in deism, even partial deism.
I do think that much of the way our county has operated in the past and continues to operate reflects at least strands of deism. Of course I think those whose worldview is shaped at lest partially by deism is so unknowingly. Much like some people who hold a worldview which is shaped unknowlingly by Platonism.
Here is a quote from a speech delivered to our nation by President Bush on September 20, 2001. (Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html)
“Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom — the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time — now depends on us. Our nation — this generation — will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.”
Notice his language: “The advance of human freedom… now depends on us.” “Our nation… will lift a dark threat of violence…” It is rhetoric like this that is based in part on deistic philosophy, whether Pres. Bush and his team of writters know that or not. It also smacks of humanism as well. Since President Bush first became the president, we as a country have witnessed him make no attempt to conceal his Christian faith from the public spehre (which I greatly applaud and appreciate). What I find disturbing is that someone with such a faith in God can honestly make statements which refelct that human freedom and hope depends on humanity — mainly the U.S. government.
Rex, you are free, thanks to the American military, to be a motionless bump on a log praying for your enemies all day long if you like.
Scripture tells us that God takes care of the flowers in the field and the birds of the air. But, most of us still get up and go to work in the morning to earn money to put food on our tables rather than just sitting home and praying for some food. That doesn’t make us deist or “unconsciously” influenced by deism. It makes us practical, balanced human beings who try to avoid overemphasizing either the spiritual or the physical.
In the same way, many brave men do a very Christ-like thing by actively going out and risking their lives to preserve your freedom rather than just sitting at home and praying that the bombs won’t go off in their neighborhood.
The U.S. government is not an individual Christian. It is an entity with a responsibility much greater than that of any individual Christian. You would do well to recognize that and stop anthropomorphizing it and imposing silly and simplistic notions of “non-violence” on it. No government is ever “non-violent” nor can it be. To advocate such nonsense is, in effect, to advocate anarchy. Anarchy never lasts, it is generally replaced by tyranny in the blink of an eye.
It is funny that you would refer to Matthew 6 since it is the Sermon on the Mount, which is where the greatest challenge issued by Jesus to stop operating by the ways of the world.
Any ways, do you see anything wrong with the language that President Bush used in this quote I gave you from his speech?
And for the record, I do more than just pray. I actually look for oportunities to resolve injustices — just in non-violent ways, because I believe that fire does not put out fire it only adds to the problem. But do not downplay prayer! It is funny, but sadd, how little I hear prayers offered for our enemies? Maybe that is why prayer seem not to work. I wonder what might happen if we offered a prayer for our enemies as much as we prayed for our troops? Maybe this conflict in the Middle East would be over, maybe there would have been no conflict, maybe it might open the doors for missionaries to go into the Middle East to talk about Jesus without being despised, maybe…
But you say that it is necessary to take military actions against evil. Please answer me why Jesus and the first three centries of Christians then refused to use the sword against their enemies? No one on this post defending the use of warefare as being Christian seems to want to answer that one question.
If others are interested, I responded to Rex on his blog.
Post a Comment