Government is Worldview Part 5: Biblical Theism v Marxism-Leninism

What are the legitimate responsibilities of good government? More importantly, which worldview is legitimate so we know what the responsibilities of good government are?

The last Perception examined scientific naturalism and postmodernism; let’s now take a look at Marxism-Leninism.

Marxism-Leninism (ML) says, “Whatever helps communism is good; whatever hinders communism is evil;” that’s the way we ought to govern ourselves. But why would we want to follow a system that can justify the slaughter of over 100 million of its own people in the 20^th century? Marxism-Leninism doesn’t care if it doesn’t have an answer; it’ll just shoot you and move on. Ouch.

Good, Decent, and Satisfying

But let me play Marxist-Leninist’s advocate for a minute (since the ML doesn’t believe in a Devil) and state, “Marxism-Leninism does have a reason for its existence, and that’s to provide a great life for everyone, not just for the rich and powerful. In fact, the reason for ML is the elimination of classes within society. Everyone deserves to have a good and decent life: being gainfully employed, having good health care, good food, reliable transportation, affordable and comfortable housing – all the things that make for a satisfying life. So if it takes the deaths of hundreds or thousands or millions to achieve that goal for the innumerable masses of mankind, then it’s a regrettable, but necessary price to pay.”

So if ML’s reason for being is to provide a good, decent and satisfying (GDS) life to all mankind, that’s great, but who defines what GDS is? The ML leadership! (Shock). But wait—isn’t ML’s purpose to eliminate classes (so everyone can have the GDS life)? Why then is there ML leadership if everyone is supposed to be the leader?

That, my friend, is the perplexing conundrum Marxism-Leninism has to deal with: before you can get to a dictatorship of the masses, you’ve got to have ML leaders dictating. But it’s impossible to get to the Promised Land of a classless society (where everyone rules) because it’s those very ML leaders who are murdering their followers in the Wilderness of Totalitarianism. Besides, the ML leaders know what’s best for the masses, anyway. Thus, the fatal flaw lives on.

Biblical theism has a different approach to leadership. Although the concept of equality of people is the same, unlike ML, biblical theism isn’t seeking to equalize people’s way of life, but to demonstrate mankind’s equal need for a Rescuer to rescue them from their own self-destructive behavior and motivations. Biblical theism sees God as the rightful, just, and benevolent dictator of our lives. Thus, His dictates, when rightly understood, will only benefit us and others. That is the essence of what a good, decent, and satisfying life is all about.

As C.S. Lewis’ demon, Screwtape, advises his apprentice, Wormwood,

One must face the fact that all the talk about [God’s] love for men, and His service being perfect freedom is not (as one would gladly believe) mere propaganda, but an appalling truth. He really does want to fill the universe with a lot of loathsome little replicas of Himself—creatures whose life, on its minature scale will be qualitatively like His own, not because He has absorbed them but because their wills freely conform to His. We want cattle who can finally become food, He wants servants who can finally become sons.
                                        The Screwtape Letters, Letter VIII, p 37-38

But what if I don’t want God’s definition of a good, decent and satisfying life? Then, quite honestly, you don’t want a GDS life. Now before you turn me off completely and think I’m some kind of rabid Bible-thumper, may I suggest looking at it this way: if there really is a God as described in the Bible – omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omniperfect (can’t forget that one) – then wouldn’t His definition of good, decent, and satisfying be the perfect definition?

But Wait, There’s More

“What if I don’t agree with the ML’s definition of a good, decent, and satisfying life? What then?”

You’re shot. Or sent the gulag and then shot. Or sent to the gulag, beaten and starved, and then shot. The fact is, Marxism-Leninism as well falls victim to the same weakness as scientific naturalism and postmodernism: the infection of relativism. More specifically: proletariat morality. A Lexicon of Marxist-Leninist Semantics says,

From the point of view of communist morality the struggle against everything which hinders the cause of communist construction is moral and humane and for this reason we consider the struggle against the enemies of communism to be of a moral nature.
(Raymond S. Sleeper, A Lexicon of Marxist-Leninist Semantics, p. 175,  emphasis added)

This is the idea that whatever is good for communism is moral/good and whatever is bad for communism is immoral/evil. Marxism-Leninism’s makes itself the standard by which all beliefs and actions are measured. If you’re for communism, then you’re good; if you’re against communism, then you’re dead.

Some might argue, “Doesn’t biblical theism make the same claim? If you’re for God, then you’re good, but if you’re against him, you’re dead.”

The comparison isn’t the same and here’s why: you don’t have to be a biblical theist (a follower of God) to live under a government with a biblically theistic foundation. One point that’s rarely brought up, but is incredibly important in understanding biblical political philosophy is the difference between religious law and political law. Indulge me for a minute for a brief Bible history lesson…

Israelites, Foreigners, and Miss Yersinia

When the Israelites left the bondage of Egypt on their way to the Promised Land, it wasn’t just Israelites who left. Exodus 12:37-38 tells us:

The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. Many other people went up with them, as well as large droves of livestock, both flocks and herds. (emphasis added)

So although I wouldn’t say Israel was an ethnic melting pot at the time, it certainly had some ethnic seasoning to it. It’s this seasoning which precipitates the need to understand the difference between religious and political law.

It was clearly understood by the Israelites that as far as the Passover (a religious ordinance) was concerned, “No foreigner is to eat of it” (Exodus 12:43). However, if a Gentile wanted to participate in the Passover, he would be required to become a Jew. This wasn’t uncommon in ancient Israelite society: most religious regulations didn’t apply to non-Israelites. I say most because even though you didn’t have to practice Judaism, you were forbidden to practice any other religion.

“And that’s the problem with biblical theism,” the critic argues. “It’s intolerant.”

Absolutely! I agree. And I believe you’ll agree, too (or at least reexamine your position), after this little analogy.

Miss Yersinia Pestis, a tiny little (I know it’s redundant, but I wanted it to sound cute) bacterium, decides she wants to hang out with you. You say, “Sure, why not? We’re tolerant of all kinds of bacteria! Welcome!” So you shut down your immune system. After a few days, however, you develop a fever, body aches, headaches, nausea, vomiting, and nasty tumor-looking buboes (swollen lymph nodes filled with pus and blood). It won’t be long before you’re dead. Why? Because you refused to be intolerant and attack little Miss Yersinia Pestis – otherwise known as the Plague.

In the same way, the introduction of foreign worldviews, whether Baalism or postmodernism, into a biblically theistic government is going to result in the deterioration and eventual destruction of that government and its people. Thus, God’s command to the Israelites to remain religiously pure didn’t mean that all people living in Israel had to be Jews – but they did need to: 1) Respect the religious foundation of society and government and; 2) Not introduce or practice worldviews contrary to that religious foundation.

Yes, from our perspective, this is a hard pill to swallow, but I ask that you think of whether you’d want your immune system to open its borders to Miss Yersinia. The fact is, every government and every worldview is intolerant of someone or something. The question isn’t whether a nation and its people are intolerant, but what the object of their intolerance is.

Marxist-Leninist Hypersensitivity

And this brings me back to Marxism-Leninism. ML’s immune system is hypersensitive so that it not only kills foreign viruses and bacteria, but even its own cells and tissues. Historically, if there was the slightest divergence from the party line in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba, etc., that divergence (i.e., its own people) was eliminated.

Role Credits…

So biblical theism sees government as founded on the mandates of a God who is the rightful, just, and benevolent dictator of our lives, whose dictates benefit everyone. Biblical theism also readily admits to intolerance; but not the intolerance based on superfluous standards like ethnicity, gender, intelligence, wealth, etc. Instead, it is intolerant of anything that would threaten the existence of a society goverened by biblically theistic principles (without eating its own).

So, my friends, the evidence is clear that scientific naturalism, postmodernism, and Marxist-Leninism don’t offer any kind of confidence that their philosophy of government is reasonable. Ultimately, what’s offered to you in these worldviews is survival of the fittest, and ladies and gentlemen, that’s not government, that’s red in tooth and claw anarchy. Biblical theism, on the other hand, seeks to rescue man out of his predicament of selfishness and brutality by providing:

• The moral foundation of absolute truth
• The principles of reason, compassion, empathy, and justice that come from the God who embodies these principles

Still, we need to remember, it’s not the government that makes a better society, but the people that make a better society. So if you want to make a better society, we can tinker here and there with government, but if we’re going to have quantum improvement in society, we have to improve the people.

Scientific naturalism, postmodernism, and Marxist-Leninism cannot improve people. And guess what? Neither can biblical theism. It’s not what people do or don’t do that makes them better; it’s Who they’re committed to.

As John Dickinson, signer of the Constitution, governor of both the states of Pennsylvania and Delaware, and a general in the American Revolution, said:

Kings or parliaments could not give the rights essential to happiness… We claim them from a higher source — from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth.

Yep. It’s all about Who we’re committed to.

But that’s another story

Thanks for reading.

Government is Worldview Part 4: Biblical Theism v Scientific Naturalism and Postmodernism

If we know what a good government should and shouldn’t do, then we’ll know:

   –If government should legalize and fund abortion
   –If government health care is a good idea
   –If military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is appropriate
   –Whether stimulus/bailout legislation is the right course of action for helping the economy
   –Whether gay marriage is acceptable
   –The answers to a host of other issues our society faces

That’s essentially been the question we’ve been looking at: what are the legitimate responsibilities of government?

But before we answer that question, we need to realize that whatever answer we give will be based on our worldview. And that’s the reason why there are so many different and conflicting ideas as to what responsibilities government has: because there are a lot of worldviews out there. So we need to answer the question behind the question: which worldview is legitimate? As C.S. Lewis wrote, “The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.” That’s why the pro-lifer and pro-choicer, the big government proponent and limited government proponent, the hawk and the dove will never agree because they’re coming from different worldviews. What we need to do is examine the worldviews and see which, if any, have fundamental or fatal flaws, and which, if any, are fundamentally sound. As we’ve seen in past Perceptions, not all worldviews are created equal.

We’ve seen that scientific naturalism says, “Reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy” if we’re going to govern ourselves. But I ask, why should reason be balanced with compassion and empathy? Scientific naturalism has no answer.

Postmodernism says, “Culture creates reality and therefore culture creates the foundation of government; so whatever a people group decide is right and wrong is right and wrong.” But then how could we possibly govern ourselves when there are so many different and even conflicting cultures? How can the Jew and the Nazi both be right? The polygamist and monogamist? The slave owner and abolitionist? Postmodernism just smiles that quirky, knowing smile, rocks on the back of its heels, shrugs, and says, “qchoue3thih aoeh?” (you postmodernists can interpret that however you’d like… )

So what does biblical theism say with regard to government?
Well, if I had to boil it down to one word, I’d say: law. Law based on biblical ethics.

Although there are plenty of nuances and subtle paths we can travel on in discovering (or critiquing) what principles the Bible lays down for government (to which I recommend the Civil Government, Law, and Politics section of  The Biblical and Christian Worldview for the 21^st Century website), I’ll focus on the one area that’s the linchpin of them all: absolute truth.

The fact is, if people are going to get along, they’re going to need to be in agreement. If society is going to get along, they’re going to need to agree on what’s right and wrong. And that’s the fatal flaw in scientific naturalism and postmodernism: they both lie on the bed of relativism — the philosophy that there is no absolute truth (which, as we’ve seen, is an absolute truth in itself, and therefore shows itself to be contradictory). So in both worldviews you may believe that rape and murder are wrong, but that doesn’t mean that I or anyone else have to agree that they’re wrong; how dare you impose your moral opinions on me. Hmpff

Looking at it from a politically philosophical standpoint, if there are no absolutes, then there’s no reason why slavery can’t be a part of society, or genocide, or infanticide, or year-round NASCAR…

As stated above, scientific naturalism says, “Reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy” if we’re going to govern ourselves, but it can’t answer why reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy. Biblical theism, however, has the answer.

Biblical theism says reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy because there is a God who epitomizes reason, compassion, and empathy. This God made us in His image and therefore we ought to follow that same pattern of character. Otherwise we risk having a crummy time and a really crummy eternity.

Now I’m not saying you have to like the reason the Bible gives; all I’m saying is that the Bible offers a reason; as we’ve seen, you can’t say the same for scientific naturalism.

Postmodernism, unlike scientific naturalism, rejects the idea that reason is useful, looks at all the cultures of the world and says, “They’re all right.”

Biblical theism, however, says, “There is absolute truth. Therefore some cultures are closer to living out the Truth than others.”  So the biblical theist has no problem condemning the culture that encourages genocide or racism, because the biblical theist says, “God values Man, so it’s wrong to unjustifiably take his life or consider him inferior.” The postmodernist, however, can’t tell the Nazi, “You’re wrong in sending Jews to the gas chamber.” All he can say is, “How you treat Jews is… different from how I treat them.”

“Okay, biblical theist,” the critic says. “You believe in absolute truth. Riddle me this: you’re a good, blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan living in Germany in 1942. The Gestapo knocks on your door and asks if you’re hiding Jews. You have a family of four Jews hiding in your basement. Do you lie (breaking the Ninth Commandment of not lying) and tell the Gestapo you’re not hiding Jews or do you tell the truth and allow the Gestapo to arrest your hideaway Jews (and effectively break the Sixth Commandment of not killing)?

The quandary the critic poses the biblical theist really isn’t a problem when you understand there’s a difference between absolute truth/moral absolutes and situational ethics. Dennis Prager’s 2005 article, “Judeo-Christian Values Part 11: Moral Absolutes” provides an insightful response to this dilemma. Prager explains moral absolutes as:

…if an act is good or bad, it is good or bad for everyone in the identical situation (“universal morality”). But “everyone” is hardly the same as “every situation.” An act that is wrong is wrong for everyone in the same situation, but almost no act is wrong in every situation. Sexual intercourse in marriage is sacred; when violently coerced, it is rape. Truth telling is usually right, but if, during World War II, Nazis asked you where a Jewish family was hiding, telling them the truth would have been evil.

Thus we see that the fundamental and fatal flaws of governments based on scientific naturalism or postmodernism are issues reasonably, compassionately, empathetically (and let’s add justly) resolved within a biblically theistic framework.

Are there particulars critics will bring up trying to discredit biblical theism as the only legitimate foundation for government? No doubt. And I’ll be glad to answer questions any honest inquirer has, but let me say this: those particulars within biblical theism that some would wish to discredit still do no good in supporting any other worldview. To point out the problems with biblical theism doesn’t mean that scientific naturalism, postmodernism, or Marxism-Leninism are right (and yes, I know the opposite is true). The previous Perceptions showed the serious failings of the other worldviews when looking at why they ought to be followed. Here, I make the case, I give the reason, why biblical theism ought to be followed. Again, I’m not saying people will agree with or like the reason given by biblical theism; but it is a reason. The other worldviews fail miserably in providing any coherent reason why they should be followed.

As Francis Scott Key (the writer of the Star Spangled Banner) stated:

I do not believe there are any new objections to be discovered to the truth of Christianity. Men may argue ingeniously against our faith, but what can they say in defense of their own?

Next time: biblical theism v Marxism-Leninism. Thanks for reading.

Government is Worldview Part 3: Post-Modernism

 Xf uif qfpqmf pg uif vojufe tubuft jo psefs up gpsn b npsf qfgedu vojpo…

What in the world is that gobbledegook? Well, according to postmodernism, it can mean anything you want it to mean. I, as the author, have a method to my madness in writing that gibberish, but postmodernism is less concerned with the author’s intent and more concerned with the reader’s interpretation. Thus my collection of letters above may mean nothing to you, but it may mean “Love is a many splendored thing” to someone else, and it may simultaneously mean “Apple Jacks are snappy!” to another.

In case you’re interested, the gibberish is my goofy way of writing the first line of the Preamble of the US Constitution, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…” I simply moved one letter over in the alphabet, so A became B, B became C, etc. So “Xf” is “We”, uif is “the”, and so on.

But who cares what I meant?

And for the postmodernist, that’s exactly the point; it’s not what I (the author) mean when I write something, but what you (the reader) interpret it to mean. This is known as deconstruction, and deconstruction applies not only to the written word, but also to reality itself. “In other words, there is no ‘real world’ out there – only six billion constructions of the world…” (David A. Noebel, Understanding the Times, Summit Press, 2006, p. 121). Thus, in postmodernism, reality is no longer objective, but what a person, culture, or community perceives reality (truth) to be.

Now my friend, apply that philosophy to politics and what do you think you’ll get? You’re exactly right: balkanization. How’d you know?

Balkanization is the “division of a place or country into several small political units, often unfriendly to one another.” But why would postmodernism result in balkanization? Because if reality is only based on what people, cultures or communities believe, it’s apparant that different people, cultures and communities (even within the same country) are going to have different views on reality and what is truth. What happens politically is that we wind up in the same place as the naturalist/secularist: a morally relativistic ethic except without the badge of scientific rationale to justify it. This means we’re back to that fine philosophy of moral equality – the philosophy that believes that keeping the poor and downtrodden miserable so you can be comfortable and live a life a pleasure is as morally justified as helping them out of their poverty, subjugation, and misery.

So what justifies postmodernism? The denial of a universal, objective truth. But do you see the inherent problem with postmodernism’s justification? If they claim, “There are no universal, objective truths” then what have they just declared? You got it: a universal, objective truth. Ooops.

Not having objective truth is the common denominator-problem all of these worldviews –naturalism/secularism, Marxism/Leninism, and postmodernism– have. This is clearly illustrated by speaker Ravi Zacharias in his address to a United Nations’ Prayer Breakfast:

You see, postmodernism plays word games with us. Postmodernism tells us there’s no such thing as truth; no such thing as meaning; no such thing as certainty. I remember lecturing at Ohio State University, one of the largest universities in this country. I was minutes away from beginning my lecture, and my host was driving me past a new building called the Wexner Center for the Performing Arts. He said, “This is America’s first postmodern building.” I was startled for a moment and I said, “What is a postmodern building?” He said, “Well, the architect said that he designed this building with no design in mind. When the architect was asked, ‘Why?’ he said, ‘If life itself is capricious, why should our buildings have any design and any meaning?’ So he has pillars that have no purpose. He has stairways that go nowhere. He has a senseless building built and somebody has paid for it.” I said, “So his argument was that if life has no purpose and design, why should the building have any design?” He said, “That is correct.” I said, “Did he do the same with the foundation?” All of a sudden there was silence. You see, you and I can fool with the infrastructure as much as we would like, but we dare not fool with the foundation because it will call our bluff in a hurry.

This is the fundamental flaw with postmodernism (and the political philosophy that flows out from it):

1. Postmodernism is based on relativism – the philosophy that there is no absolute truth (which, as we’ve seen, is an absolute truth in itself, and therefore self-contradictory).
   A relativistic government is going to have a difficult time being true to everyone it governs; so does that mean that those who don’t agree with their government don’t have to follow it, since what the government stands for or does isn’t their truth?
2. Postmodernism is opposed to rationalism. Rationalism says that reason is the supreme authority in all matters of opinion, belief, and conduct. We’ve seen that naturalism/secularism bows to rationalism (though the Humanist Manifesto has softened its stance by including compassion and empathy); and we’ve already seen where this leads. The thing is, the postmodernist also sees where rationalism leads, but instead of determining that there must be a foundation (see Ravi Zacharias above) for reason and compassion, he rejects rationalism altogether and simply embraces relativism. But we’ve already seen, that relativism approves of both Mother Theresa and Jeffrey Dahmer, so again, we have a bit of a dilemma here with postmodernism.
3. Postmodernism believes that culture creates realities, therefore whatever the culture believes is true or false is true or false for them. Sounds good until you ask yourself,
   “Is Hijab (a Muslim woman’s dress code) good?” 
   “Is forced female circumcision good?”
   “Is genocide good?”
   “Is cannibalism good?”
   “Headhunting?”
   “Sati (burning alive a widow on her husband’s funeral pyre)?”
   “Slavery?”
   “Infanticide?”
   “Polygamy?”
   “Bestiality?”
   “Pedophilia?”
   “Animal sacrifice?”
   “Human sacrifice?”
   All of these were or are acceptable to different cultures, so do we have any right to restrict any of them? If so, on what grounds? There’s nothing postmodernism can say that can halt any of these customs without violating its own principle of culture defining truth.
   If the postmodernist is going to govern, he’s either going to have a really easy time of it because it’s not the government, but the culture that creates what’s good and bad for themselves; or he’s going to have a bear of a time governing because he’ll have to deal with dozens and hundreds of different and even conflicting behaviors and customs. Balkanization, here we come!

So postmodernism as well fails as a foundation for a legitimate government. Government can’t simply let people do whatever they want in the name of culture because pretty soon you won’t have a government anymore – just a bunch of people living for themselves without much regard for anyone else. Nice.

So if naturalism/secularism doesn’t work, if Marxism/Leninism doesn’t work, and if the goobledegook of postmodernism doesn’t work, what does?

Gjoe pvu jo nz ofyu cmph

(Find out in my next blog).

Government is Worldview Part 2: Marxism-Leninism

What legitimate responsibilities does government have?  When we answer this question, we’ll know what government ought to do. And I don’t know about you, but I think that’s pretty important, because when we, the American public, know what government ought to do, we’ll know right off the bat if they ought to be involved in health care; how, if at all, the government should support business; whether they ought to bail out failing  industries; and how, if at all, they should help the poor.

A Naturalist/Humanist Review

We saw in my last post that if we were to ask the scientific naturalist/secular humanist what legitimate responsibilities government has, they’d essentially say, “Whatever responsibilities they want.” This answer comes from their ethical philosophy based on relativism. So even though today’s naturalist/humanist would find Saddam Hussein’s torture chambers, Pol Pot’s death camps, or Stalin’s gulags revolting, admittedly that moral stand is a personal stand. It’s against naturalist/secularist ethics to declare torture chambers, death camps and gulags as absolutely morally repugnant because there are no moral absolutes in their worldview. As we saw last time, the idea of feeding little kiddies to crocodiles is as equally ethical as saving them from crocs. So in the naturalist/humanist world, Hussein, Hitler, Dahmer, Gein, Gacy, and you and I are moral equals – no one is better or worse; we’ve simply made different (not better, not worse) moral choices.

Oh sure, the naturalist/humanist will cry foul and say I’m misrepresenting their position; they’ll insist they believe in fairness, decency, and the inherent value of man – but the fact is, there’s nothing within a humanist’s worldview to ward him from adhering to a hedonistic, self-centered lifestyle. That’s why a government based on naturalism/humanism is one I believe the vast majority would utterly reject if they knew its full ramifications. Blech!

But what about the worldview of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin? Do they offer a better hope than what we’ve seen from scientific naturalism? Uhh- no.

Marxism-Leninism – What Is It?

First, a working definition: Marxism-Leninism has as its goal speading communism throughout the world. Communism is the–

theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

Translation: communism wants to get rid of free market, capitalist economies and replace them with an economy in which each person receives what he needs and each person works according to his ability (marxists.org).  No wealthy fat cats living off the sweat and labor of others; no unwashed, poverty stricken masses toiling endlessly with nothing to show for it except misery and want – instead, a society of equals, a society of people who all enjoy the fruits of their collective labor. That’s communism, that’s what Marxism-Leninism seeks to establish. It all sounds good, but is it really achievable?

Marxism-Leninism – How’s It Work?

Marxists.org defines Marxism-Leninism as–

Marxism in the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. To be more exact, Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular.

Ok, what does that mean? It means Marxism-Leninism is trying to end the economic and political dictatorships of governments, corporations, and the wealthy; it’s trying to create a literal revolution led by the people who have been oppressed by the above dictators that will eventually result in a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, a dictatorship in which the common people are in charge.

Notice the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat”; it’s not there by accident. According to Karl Marx,

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. (emphasis added)

It’s this political transition period (i.e., now; the present day) from capitalism to communism that requires a proletarian dictatorship. Now Marxists-Leninists will tell you that the dictatorship of the proletariat means that–

This dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses.

But here’s the problem with Marxism-Leninism: before you can get to a class dictatorship, a dictatorship of the masses, you’ve got to have the “little leading minority” dictating. This has always been, and always will be, the fatal flaw of communism: it’s impossible to transform the state from a dictatorship of the minority to a dictatorship of the masses.

In addition, A Lexicon of Marxist-Leninist Semantics says,

From the point of view of communist morality the struggle against everything which hinders the cause of communist construction is moral and humane and for this reason we consider the struggle against the enemies of communism to be of a moral nature.
(Raymond S. Sleeper, A Lexicon of Marxist-Leninist Semantics, p. 175, emphasis added).

The Manifesto of the Communist Party says,

Law, morality, religion, are to [the working class] so many bourgeois [capitalist] prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

And Stalin wrote,

To put it briefly: the dictatorship of the proletariat is the domination of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, untrammelled [i.e., unrestrained] by the law and based on violence and enjoying the sympathy and support of the toiling and exploited masses (emphasis added)

Thus, this is the ethical system of Marxism-Leninism:

• The justification of anything that promotes communism
• The rejection of current law, morality, and religion
• A system based on violence

So what kind of government would be birthed by such an ethical system? Well, if Marxism-Leninism says that anything that helps and spreads communism is good and whatever hinders it is evil, then we’ll see a government that will do whatever it takes to not only stay in power, but to expand its reach. So if it takes the death of millions of its own through war, starvation, purges, mock trials, or prison camps, then so be it as long as communism grows. These actions are not only necessary, according to communist ethics, but also good and humane.

As for the individual, he has no inherent worth in a Marxist-Leninist government. Liberty and personal safety are good ideals only as much as they help communism; the moment they threaten communism, then those same ideals are considered evil and to be outlawed and quashed. Good and evil are defined by whether they support (good) or hinder (evil) communism. So if torturing an infant will support communism, then that’s good.

And that, my friends, is ridiculous.

This is the fundamental flaw with Marxism-Leninism (and its subsequent political philosophy):

1. The dominance of communism is its own ethical standard–
   “From a Marxist-Leninist perspective, if 83 million people died [between 1917 and 1964] to abolish social classes and private property, it was worth the price—even morally just. Marxists judge the results, not the methods” (Understanding the Times, 2^nd edition, p. 149-50, emphasis added)
   Such draconian measures can put a bit of a crimp in trying to live, much less enjoy one’s life.
2. The dictatorship of the proletariat is impossible because you can’t have the masses lead a revolution without a guiding minority leadership, and not one single communist dictatorship has ever morphed from a minority of people in power to an entire class of people in power.
   Marxism-Leninism fails because it’s fundamentally theoretical (it’s like saying, “Let’s walk on air”, so you and your walk-on-airist comrades climb into airplanes, fly up to 15,000 feet and jump out without parachutes – sorry, it just won’t work); Marxism-Leninism is also wholly impractical (not to mention dictatorial and brutal); good government must actually work.

Thus, Marxism-Leninism fails to provide us with the confidence we’d want and need to build a civil (governed/political) society. People tend to be less confident when they’re killed or sent to labor camps (and then killed). In addition, people want confidence that their government will function properly and achieve its goals. Marxism-Leninism has had nearly a century or experimentation in the laboratory of over 20 countries and not one of them has demonstrated any governing effectiveness or progress towards its goal of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Its bleak and bloody record is its own testimony of its callousness towards human life and its failure as an effective means of government.

So would you want to live under a government that has the responsibilities Marxism-Leninism claims for itself?

I didn’t think so.

Government is Worldview Part 1: Scientific Naturalism/Secular Humanism

I’m on another series, so suckle your beatselts

Question: What legitimate responsibilities does government have?

Is it their responsibility to protect its citizens, build roads, bridges, and hospitals, feed the poor, educate children, send shuttles into space, execute criminals, make sure our food and water are safe, provide income to the unemployed, assist those who’ve survived natural disasters, fight against terrorists, prevent illegal aliens from entering the country, subsidize farmers, and a myriad of other areas of involvement?

Well, it depends on your worldview.

“So what worldview are you using to determine government’s legitimate responsibilities?“

“And why is that worldview legitimate?”

Once you answer that last question, you’ll know what government’s legitimate responsibilities are. So let’s answer that question. It’s actually pretty straightforward.

What Standards Are There?

Although we could look at a dozen different worldviews, they essentially divide into the following:

• Eastern Pantheism
• Islam
• Scientific Naturalism/Secular Humanism
• Marxism-Leninism
• Post Modernism
• Biblical Theism

It’s these major worldviews that have most influenced and shaped our planet. Sure, you can subdivide them into even more specific philosophies/ideologies/religions (i.e., paganism, deism, animism, hedonism, agnosticism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Methodism, Roman Catholicism, etc., you get the idea), and even merge one or more worldviews to create a have-it-your-way worldview combo meal. You can even super-size it if you want.  The point here is that the vast majority of this world’s population lives by one of these six worldviews.

Now although eastern pantheism (New Ageism) and Islam have certainly made inroads into American culture, they haven’t had the impact in our government and political philosophy that the other four worldviews have had. It’s the remaining four I’d like to look at.

Scientific Naturalism (Secular Humanism)

Although there’s much of scientific naturalism I agree with (freedom of speech and the press, legal right of opposition to government policies, fair judicial processes, religious liberty, etc), I’d like to focus on why scientific naturalism believes these values, and others, are important. By examining the why, we turn from a political to an ethics question. That’s fine, because the Humanist Manifesto II, the public declaration of humanism’s worldview and goals, provides us their position. It states:

THIRD: We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life. Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures. Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism. We strive for the good life, here and now. The goal is to pursue life’s enrichment despite debasing forces of vulgarization, commercialization, and dehumanization.

FOURTH: Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses. There is no substitute: neither faith nor passion suffices in itself. The controlled use of scientific methods, which have transformed the natural and social sciences since the Renaissance, must be extended further in the solution of human problems. But reason must be tempered by humility, since no group has a monopoly of wisdom or virtue. Nor is there any guarantee that all problems can be solved or all questions answered. Yet critical intelligence, infused by a sense of human caring, is the best method that humanity has for resolving problems. Reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy and the whole person fulfilled. Thus, we are not advocating the use of scientific intelligence independent of or in opposition to emotion, for we believe in the cultivation of feeling and love. As science pushes back the boundary of the known, humankind’s sense of wonder is continually renewed, and art, poetry, and music find their places, along with religion and ethics. (emphasis added)

 The Humanist Manifest III adds the following:

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

The problem in these statements is the fatal flaw of scientific naturalism: it states “reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses” yet it gives no reason why this is so. Why aren’t irrationality and stupidity the most effective instruments humankind possesses? It may sound like a ridiculous question, but if, as naturalism claims, all there is is the physical universe–  that once we die, we cease to exist without any future reward or punishment–  then what difference would it make to me whether I live intelligently or stupidly?

Additionally, scientific naturalism/secular humanism fails to answer why “reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy.” Why shouldn’t reason be balanced with brutality and coldness? For that matter, why even have reason? Why not simply live according to unbridled emotion, senseless brutality and icy coldness towards others?

If the scientific naturalist answers, “Because it’s important for the survival of our species,” we have to ask, “Why is our species’ survival important?”

If their answer is, “Because humans have inherent worth,” then we ask, “Where did this inherent worth come from?” If we simply placed worth upon ourselves (and this is the only option the scientific naturalist/secular humanist has), then we can just as easily remove such worth. Thus the only real foundation of scientific naturalism isn’t the balance of reason and empathy; no, the real foundation is power. Those with power can, in the name of scientific naturalism, exert their will to save babies from being thrown into crocodile-infested waters. That’s great. We commend such a position. But that’s not the only position scientific naturalism supports. The fact is, it can just as legitimately use that same power to order babies to be thrown into those same croc-infested waters. If it’s man who determines man’s inherent worth, then he can also change how inherently valuable man is (for better or worse).

So principles such as justice and compassion, civil rights and liberty are only as valuable in the naturalist/humanist world (and its politics) as those naturalists/humanists who are in power ascribe. If they deem it just to imprison a certain people-group or deem it compassionate to suspend their civil rights or even exterminate them, the naturalist/humanist political philosophy doesn’t condemn such measures. Why? Because it’s man who determines man’s inherent worth — and therefore man determines man’s political responsibilities and rights, or lack thereof.

But if inherent worth comes from outside of ourselves…………nawww

Thus we see the fundamental, fatal flaw with scientific naturalism:

1. Each person can determine his own ethics – he doesn’t need a religious or ideological reason for his ethics, he can simply determine for himself, “I hate good, I love evil” just as easily and with equal ethical weight as “I love good, I hate evil”.
   This obviously causes huge headaches when it comes to trying to live as a governed society.
2. Reason is the ultimate standard for determining what is best for mankind; yet naturalism/humanism never gives a reason why reason is best. Why aren’t anarchy or chaos better?
   If anarchy and chaos have as much social and political validity as government and order, then can there truly be a stable society with such a political worldview?
3. Scientific naturalism doesn’t believe in “advocating the use of scientific intelligence independent of or in opposition to emotion, for [they] believe in the cultivation of feeling and love,” but again, what’s the reason for balancing intelligence with emotion? Why shouldn’t we be cerebral Vulcans? Or aggressive Klingons? If all there is is this physical existence and our cognition of it, why pursue intellect? Why pursue love? Why pursue survival either of ourselves as individuals or as a society or as a species?

Thus, scientific naturalism/secular humanism fails miserably to provide us with the confidence we’d want and need to build a civil society. Would other worldviews have this kind of relativistic approach to government? Sure they would. Haven’t we seen Christian societies unjustly imprison, enslave, or execute people? Yes, we have.

But here’s the difference: Christian societies may do such actions in the name of Christianity, but certainly not in its biblical authority; that is to say, Christian societies may have slavery, but not because it’s mandated in the Bible; Christian societies may persecute non-Christians, but not because the Bible has passages requiring such action. However, such is not the case for naturalist/humanist societies. They do such actions in both the name of and in the authority of their worldview. Though their manifestoes may extol reason, justice and compassion, the very “reason” they hold so dear wipes away the noble sounding rhetoric and reveals to us the chaos and barbarity such a worldview justifies.

If the deaths of 100 million people in the 20th century alone under naturalist/humanist governments aren’t enough proof of the inhumanity of this worldview, then I don’t know what proof will be enough.

The Founders’ Foundation: Part 6: The Foundation Himself

Jesus Christ
(Lord of All, Savior of Mankind, Creator of the Cosmos, King of Kings)

 Not too long ago I had lunch with my wonderful wife and some good friends of ours at the local IHOP. Our conversation covered a variety of topics while I worked on savoring my chicken-fried steak, mashed potatos and corn, (my California friends and family may be tsking that I wasn’t indulging in some enchiladas or tacos – hey, I’m a midwesterner now, whaddya expect? But don’t worry, I had mexican last week). Anyway, amidst all the personal, national and global issues we solved in our booth, our lunchtime conversation centered on the Foundation Himself: Jesus.

No, it wasn’t just talk about church worship or Sunday School curricula or our favorite Bible verses – it was talk about our culture, our nation, our families, and how our faith in Christ ought to impact those areas.

During lunch I made a confession to my wife and friends. I admitted that my blogging and Facebooking were addressing issues like health care and our Founding Fathers and how they tied in to the Christian worldview; that wasn’t my confession. My confession was that even though I tied Jesus to healthcare and our Founding Fathers, the real issue wasn’t the biblical argument against nationalized healthcare or the biblical worldview of our Founders. The real issue isn’t Jesus and the cause I’m defending; the real issue is Jesus Himself.

C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters is a collection of letters written from a high ranking devil, Screwtape, to his nephew Wormwood, a novice tempter. In one letter, Screwtape writes:

…we do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything – even to social justice. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy [God] demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. The Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist’s shop. (Letter XXIII, p 108-109, emphasis added)

Confession: I got so caught up in the cause that I made it the superior and Jesus was simply the rubber-stamp-seal-of-approval of my cause. I was wrong.

I’m not saying the Founders didn’t have a biblical worldview, or that government healthcare is aligned with biblical principles. The evidence I’ve presented in this series speaks for itself and you’re welcome to review it and question me on what you read. That’s fine.

But ultimately, that’s not the point.

The real issue is that very question Jesus asked Peter a couple thousand years ago, “Who do you say I am?” (Matthew 16:15). You see, Jesus isn’t the Son of God because He was approved by America’s Founders, nor is He holy because He’s against Obamacare (by the same token, Jesus wouldn’t be legitimate if the opposite were true). The real issue is: who do you say Jesus is? Is He simply a good moral teacher, a prophet, a nationalist zealot, a champion for the poor, a social reformer, an effective pacifist, the original communist, a spirit brother of Lucifer, the archangel Michael, a New Age Jew, or any of the hundred other “Jesus’” we’ve been presented over the last two millenia? If those are our reasons for preferring Jesus, we’ve missed the point.

Screwtape writes that none of the above Jesus’ were who believers put their faith in. Instead—

The earliest converts were converted by a single historical fact (the Resurrection) and a single theological doctrine (the Redemption) operating on a sense of sin which they already had—and sin, not against some new fancy-dress law produced as a novelty by a “great man,” but against the old, platitudinous, universal law which they had been taught by their nurses and mothers. The “Gospels” come later, and were written, not to make Christians, but to edify Christians already made. (p. 108)

So why is the discussion about the Paine, Adams, Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin and their biblical worldview important? Well, it’s important to know our roots as a nation, what our Founders valued and what they expected to see burgeon from our republic. But the most important point in this discussion about the Founders and their biblical worldview is to lead us to Jesus; the Jesus who really did die on the cross and really did rise again to destroy the enslaving power sin has over you and me so that we could have a forever perfectly restored relationship with the Creator God who made us.

Perhaps I wouldn’t agree with the Jesus Thomas Jefferson believed in, or the Jesus Benjamin Franklin believed in, or the Jesus John Adams believed in. At this point, some of my friends on the other side of the political spectrum might say, “That’s exactly my point, Chris: the Founders’ had a diversity of philosophies. They weren’t in lockstep with contemporary, conservative, evangelical Christianity.” That may be the case, but I’ve already addressed the error of my friends’ statement, so I won’t take the time to go into that again (see my applicable comment in Part 3 – John Adams). No, the Jesus of Jefferson, Franklin and Adams isn’t the Jesus I believe in.

I believe the Jesus the Bible presents (and the Jesus Screwtape acknowledges):

That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. (I Corinthians 15:3-4)

That’s the point.

Our republic may last another 200 years or it may fall into obivion within the next twenty. I and every other American citizen have the responsibility to return our country back to following the biblical principles our Founding Fathers established for this nation. That’s why we dialogue. But ultimately, it’s not biblical principles I follow (you know what I mean…), I follow the Person who is the fountainhead of those principles.

It’s all about the Foundation; and our relationship to Him.

And yes, the chicken-fried steak was delicious. Hope you enjoyed the read.

The Founders’ Foundation: Part 5 – Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin
(Founding Father, Author, Printer, Scientist, Inventor, Diplomat)

Benjamin Franklin completes the triumvirate (along with Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson) of the least religious Founders. And though I’d agree that Franklin wouldn’t be one raising his hands at church and speaking in tongues, I think we’ll find out (again) that Benny wasn’t the staunch Deist contemporaries paint him out to be.

Proponents of the Deist Franklin cite the following from his autobiography:

. . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.

The Autobiography of Benjamin Frankin,
Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1916

The statement sure looks like Franklin embraced Deism. But if we read the context (that nasty word again) of this passage, we come to a completely different conclusion. The passage is lengthy, but clearly shows what Franklin was truly communicating:

Before I enter upon my public appearance in business, it may be well to let you know the then state of my mind with regard to my principles and morals, that you may see how far those influenc’d the future events of my life. My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism [The creed of an eighteenth century theological sect which, while believing in God, refused to credit the possibility of miracles and to acknowledge the validity of revelation] fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist. My arguments perverted some others, particularly Collins and Ralph; but, each of them having afterwards wrong’d me greatly without the least compunction, and recollecting Keith’s conduct towards me (who was another free-thinker), and my own towards Vernon and Miss Read, which at times gave me great trouble, I began to suspect that this doctrine [Deism], tho’ it might be true, was not very useful. My London pamphlet, which had for its motto these lines of Dryden*–

    Whatever is, is right. Though purblind man
    Sees but a part o’ the chain, the nearest link:
    His eyes not carrying to the equal beam,
    That poises all above

          *A great English poet, dramatist, and critic (1631-1700).  
            The lines are inaccurately quoted from Dryden’s Oedipus,
            Act III, Scene I, line 293.

–and from the attributes of God, his infinite wisdom, goodness and power, concluded that nothing could possibly be wrong in the world, and that vice and virtue were empty distinctions, no such things existing, appear’d now not so clever a performance as I once thought it; and I doubted whether some error had not insinuated itself unperceiv’d into my argument, so as to infect all that follow’d, as is common in metaphysical reasonings.

I grew convinc’d that truth, sincerity and integrity in dealings between man and man were of the utmost importance to the felicity of life; and I form’d written resolutions, which still remain in my journal book, to practice them ever while I lived. Revelation had indeed no weight with me, as such; but I entertain’d an opinion that, though certain actions might not be bad because they were forbidden by it, or good because it commanded them, yet probably these actions might be forbidden because they were bad for us, or commanded because they were beneficial to us, in their own natures, all the circumstances of things considered. And this persuasion, with the kind hand of Providence, or some guardian angel, or accidental favourable circumstances and situations, or all together, preserved me, thro’ this dangerous time of youth, and the hazardous situations I was sometimes in among strangers, remote from the eye and advice of my father, without any willful gross immorality or injustice, that might have been expected from my want of religion. I say willful, because the instances I have mentioned had something of necessity in them, from my youth, inexperience, and the knavery of others. I had therefore a tolerable character to begin the world with; I valued it properly, and determin’d to preserve it. (emphasis added)

If I can summarize Franklin’s entry: I thought this Deism stuff was pretty cool, but then I realized that it wasn’t all that useful to me; I mean, all that spiritual stuff sounds good at first, but then the more I thought about it, the less sense it made. It must’ve been God or a guardian angel or luck or all three that kept me in one piece while I was a stupid youth — away from the wisdom of my father or my father’s faith.

Far from being a commendation of Deism, Franklin here discredits the religion as “not very useful”, containing error, and part of his foolish youth.

Franklin quotation #2 follows:

I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it.

Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion, Part I, 1728

And here’s the context:

Here will I hold —— If there is a Pow’r above us
(And that there is, all Nature cries aloud,
Thro’ all her Works), He must delight in Virtue
And that which he delights in must be Happy.
                                                                                   Cato

PART I.

Philada.
Nov. 20 1728.

First Principles

I believe there is one Supreme most perfect Being, Author and Father of the Gods themselves.

For I believe that Man is not the most perfect Being but One, rather that as there are many Degrees of Beings his Inferiors, so there are many Degrees of Beings superior to him.

Also, when I stretch my Imagination thro’ and beyond our System of Planets, beyond the visible fix’d Stars themselves, into that Space that is every Way infinite, and conceive it fill’d with Suns like ours, each with a Chorus of Worlds for ever moving round him, then this little Ball on which we move, seems, even in my narrow Imagination, to be almost Nothing, and my self less than nothing, and of no sort of Consequence.

When I think thus, I imagine it great Vanity in me to suppose, that the Supremely Perfect, does in the least regard such an inconsiderable Nothing as Man. More especially, since it is impossible for me to have any positive clear Idea of that which is infinite and incomprehensible, I cannot conceive otherwise, than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no Worship or Praise from us, but that he is even INFINITELY ABOVE IT.

But since there is in all Men something like a natural Principle which enclines them to DEVOTION or the Worship of some unseen Power;

And since Men are endued with Reason superior to all other Animals that we are in our World acquainted with;

Therefore I think it seems required of me, and my Duty, as a Man, to pay Divine Regards to SOMETHING. (emphasis added)

So is Mr. Franklin saying that God doesn’t expect or require us to worship Him? Not at all. His point is that the infinite Creator of the cosmos is so far beyond finite, creature-man that even the very best worship we could lavish on Him would be infinitely below Him. Instead, Franklin writes that Man is required and has a duty to worship.

Franklin quotation #3:

Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.

(attributed: source unknown)

So what’s the story behind this “lighthouse” quotation? I defer to the Palos Verde Library District for the answer:

Among the many words attributed to Benjamin Franklin– and widely cited on the Internet– are these: “Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”  There are several websites using this “quotation” as if it were, well, gospel.  A number of them seem to be atheist sites, and none corroborate the citation from any print sources.

Sylvia, one of our reference librarians, began to suspect that this was a sort of re-write of something Franklin put in a letter to his wife.  He had narrowly escaped shipwreck on one of his many Atlantic crossings.  He wrote that if he were Roman Catholic, he might “. . . vow to build a chapel to some saint, but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a lighthouse.”  Later on in his life, Franklin wrote of the same incident, “This deliverance impressed me strongly with the utility of lighthouses, and made me resolve to encourage the building more of them in America, if I should live to return there.”

So yes, Franklin, ever the practical man, saw the benefit of lighthouses.  And while we can never confirm everything Ben said, there does not seem to be any evidence he wrote the words in question.

Palos Verdes Library District Website
see also Benjamin Self-Revealed, Walter Cabell Bruce, 1917, p. 102
and also The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (from the Electric Ben Franklin website)

On to Franklin quotation #4:

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.

Poor Richard’s Almanack (1758)

And the context:

The Way to see by Faith, is to shut the Eye of Reason:
The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle.

What’s the correlation here? Faith is to reason as morning daylight is to a candle. Which gives more light: the morning daylight (faith) or the candle (reason)? Just thinking Franklin’s analogy through shows us that he is not disdaining faith, but in fact is showing it to bring greater illumination than mere reason.

Franklin blasphemy #5:

I looked around for God’s judgments, but saw no signs of them.

Is Mr. Franklin looking about him to see if God’s wrath and judgment will fall on him or those around him? Well, there was no wrath, no judgment. So we’re left to conclude that Franklin didn’t see the judgment of God because there was no God (at least not one who is active in the affairs of this world). However, Walter Isaacson’s book, Ben Franklin: An American Life, provides a clearer picture of Mr. Franklin’s statement:

The most memorable was a trip to the continent in the summer of 1761. Because Britain was still at war with France, they traveled instead to Holland and Flanders. Franklin noted with pleasure that the observance of religion there was not as strict as in America, especially when it came to observing Sundays as the Sabbath. ‘In the afternoon, both high and low went to the play or the opera, where there was plenty of singing, fiddling, and dancing,’ he reported to a Connecticut friend. ‘I looked around for God’s judgments, but saw no signs of them.’ He concluded, with a touch of amusement, that this provided evidence that the Lord did not care so much about preventing pleasure on the Sabbath as the strict Puritans would have people believe.

Walter Isaacson, Ben Franklin: an American Life, 2003, p. 199-200

Once again, context clarifies. By the way, did you note the statement, “Franklin noted with pleasure that the observance of religion there was not as strict as in America”? Mr. Isaacson’s statement reveals that the early republic, in Franklin’s opinion, was noticably more religious. I won’t defend strict legalistic religiosity; my point is that Franklin could tell the difference between the enhanced religous tenor of the US and the lessened tenor of Holland and Flanders. Diversity of philosophies? Hm.

And finally, Franklin blasphemy #6:

It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin’s general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers.

Joseph Priestley’s Autobiography

Here we run into the same problem that we saw in the previous blog about George Washington: second hand information. Now again, I’m not saying that Franklin even was a believer in Christianity, but just looking at the documentary evidence that’s supposed to prove Franklin’s Deist or anti-religious attitude, we find the exact opposite. We find a man who yes, dabbled in Deism as a young man only to find it lacking; but we also find:

A man who acknowledged the God of the Bible (as seen in the quotation below when exhorting the members of the Constitutional Convention to pray to God for wisdom):

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel. (Note the specifically biblical references Mr. Franklin made)

We find a man who acknowledged the unsurpassed greatness of Jesus’ teachings:

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see

To Ezra Stiles, March 9, 1790

And we find a man who understood that he would meet his Maker:

The body of Benjamin Franklin, printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out and stripped of its lettering and guilding, lies here, food for worms. Yet the work itself shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more beautiful edition, corrected and amended by the Author.

Franklin’s eulogy that he wrote for himself

So again, when we carefully examine the evidence, looking at the context, what we discover about yet another Founding Father (and this one one of the least religious) is a worldview that isn’t contrary to Christianity — no, Dr. Benjamin Franklin endorsed the Christian faith and recommended it both to the individual and to the young republic he had helped create. For, as he said, without God’s “aid we shall succeed in this political building [the United States] no better than the Builders of Babel.”

I say we get back to building. Building our lives and our republic. And let us build on the Rock.

The Founders’ Foundation: Part 4 – George Washington

George Washington
(Revolutionary War General, Founder, First President of the United States)

Here is quite possibly the American icon; the man who helped set the stage for how our government would run. So what was his worldview? Barry Schwartz writes:

The father of this country was very private about his beliefs, but it is widely considered that he was a Deist like his colleagues.

George Washington’s practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian… He repeatedly declined the church’s sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary… Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative.

Barry Schwartz, George Washington: the Making of an American Symbol, 1987

Now right off the back I’m not going to deny the information Mr. Schwartz presents, not because I can’t contradict his claims, but because his claim lacks sources. Perhaps the book itself sources his statement, but unfortunately I don’t have his book — but if someone does and would let me know what his sources are (or loan the book to me), that’d be great

However, this second quotation is one I was able to track down. Washington wrote:

Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.

Letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792
from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations,
Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726

Here’s the entire letter:

Philadelphia, October 20, 1792.

Dear Sir: Where your Letter of the 21st of December last has been travelling since it left you, I cannot tell; but it did not get to my hands till within a few weeks past; when I likewise received your’s of the 15th. of July, introducing Mr. Anderson. I was sorry to see the gloomy picture which you drew of the affairs of your Country [Ireland] in your letter of December; but I hope events have not turned out so badly as you then apprehended. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes, that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far, that we should never again see their religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of Society.

The Affairs of this Country still wear a prosperous aspect. Our Agriculture, Commerce and navigation are in a flourishing state. In some parts of the Country the crops of Indian corn (maize) have been injured by the drought in summer, and early frosts in autumn. We have, however, a happiness, which is scarcely in any other Country; for such is the extent of the U. S. and so great a variety of climate and soil do they embrace, that we never need apprehend a universal failure of our crops, and a consequent famine. (emphasis added)

Washington wrote this letter to Edward Newenham, a ”leading radical figure in late eighteenth-century Irish parliamentary politics” (historycooperative.org). He was known as the defender of the Protestant constitution in Ireland. Ireland, during Washington’s time, was going through serious political upheaval as Wikipedia  illustrates:

After the passing of The Test Act 1673 and the victory of the dual monarchy of William and Mary in the Williamite Wars in Ireland, Roman Catholics and nonconforming Protestant dissenters were barred from voting or attending the Irish Parliament. Under the penal laws (introduced from 1691) no Roman Catholic could sit in the Parliament of Ireland, even though the vast majority of Ireland’s population had not adopted the Anglican Church Reform. This ban was followed by others in 1703 and 1709 and 1728, as part of a comprehensive system to disadvantage Roman Catholic’s and, to a lesser extent, Protestant dissenters. The new Anglo-Irish Anglican ruling class was known as the Protestant Ascendancy. In 1782, the repeal of Poynings Law the Anglican composed Parliament of the now economically buoyant Kingdom of Ireland attained a greater degree of independence from the British Parliament than it had previously held. A failure of the ubiquitous potato crop resulted in the Irish Famine of 1740–41, however, resulted in the death of about 400,000 people from the ensuing pestilance and disease. The Irish government provided significant relief, and contained the damage as much as possible. The population of Ireland boomed in the latter part of this century.

In 1798, many members of the Protestant dissenter tradition made common cause with Roman Catholics in a rebellion inspired and led by the Society of United Irishmen. It was staged with the aim of creating a fully independent Ireland as a state with a republican constitution. Despite assistance from France the Irish Rebellion of 1798 was put down by British and Irish government, mercenary and yeomenry forces (emphasis added)

So looking at the historical context of Washington’s letter, his statement about religious controversies producing acrimony and hatred isn’t a statement about American Christianity, but about Irish Protestantism and Catholicism fighting against Anglicanism. In contrast to Ireland, Washington writes, “The Affairs of this Country [America] still wear a prosperous aspect.” It’s true that Washington isn’t referring to the religious properity of the country, but his point still makes the distinction between the religious and political tumult going on in Ireland with the economic prosperity flourishing in the U.S. The point is: Washington’s quotation is not denouncing Christianity in America.

What about this quotation?

Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself.

Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal, February 1800

Okay, TJ says that GM told him that W didn’t believe in Christianity. Really? In court, that kind of evidence would be thrown out as hearsay. So how do you verify that? Well, with evidence. Is there evidence to support Jefferson’s journal entry about Washington. I don’t know of any.

But if, for the sake of argument, we’re going to include second or even third party information about Washington, perhaps the following will be useful: 

US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall said of Washington,

Without making ostentatious professions of religion, he was a sincere believer in the Christian faith and a truly devout man

Gunning Bedford, who signed the Constitution, gave Washington’s funeral oration, in which he said:

To the character of hero and patriot, this good man added that of Christian. . . . Although the greatest man upon earth, he disdained not to humble himself before his God and to trust in the mercies of Christ.

Here’s the larger context of Bedford’s eulogy:

To the character of hero and patriot, this good man added that of christian. All his public communications breathe a pure spirit of piety, a resignation to the will of heaven, and a firm reliance upon the providence of God. In whose achievements which redounded most to his reputation, we hear him exclaiming with king David, ” Not unto us, not unto us, O Lord, but to thy name be the honour and praise.” Although the greatest man upon earth, he disciained not to humble himself before his God, and to trust in the mercies of  Christ. He regularly attended in the temples of the Most High, and joined with his fellow mortals, in paying adoration to the Supreme Governor of the Universe, and in supplicating blessmgs for his country, and pardon and forgiveness for himself.—For thyself, christian, hero, and patriot! thy prayers have been heard. Thy blessed spirit hath ascended from this terrestrial orb, to mingle with congenial spirits above!

Not quite the eulogy I’d imagined one would give to a (non-christian) Deist.

Also we get the same from Nelly Custis-Lewis (Washington’s adopted daughter) and historian Jared Sparks (who compiled a multi-volume opus on Washington’s works). They confirm George Washington was a Christian.

But in addition to all that, we don’t have to rely on second or third hand accounts of Washington’s faith; we can read his own words on the subject:

You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. (emphasis added)

 The Writings of Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XV, p. 55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779

While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian. (emphasis added)

Writings, Vol. XI, pp. 342-343, General Orders of May 2, 1778

The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country. (emphasis added)

Writings, Vol. 5, p. 245, July 9, 1776 Order

I now make it my earnest prayer that God would… most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of the mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion. 

The Last Official Address of His Excellency George Washington to the Legislature of the United States (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1783), p. 12; see also The New Annual Register or General Repository of History, Politics, and Literature, for the Year 1783 (London: G. Robinson, 1784), p. 150

I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.

Resignation as Commander-in-Chief of the Military,
June 4, 1783

So again, the historical evidence shows us that George Washington (along with Jefferson, Adams and Madison) held distinctly Christian values that he believed were vital to personal character and national happiness.

So what do we find from this American icon? No secularism, no Deism, no political correctness, no diversity of philosophies.

The Founders’ Foundation: Part 3 – John Adams

John Adams
(Founder, First Vice President, Second President of the United States)

I continue in the series examining quotations of our Founding Fathers as to whether they supported or denounced biblical Christianity. Next up at bat: John Adams. His first “berating” of Christianity comes from a letter dated 1816:

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?

Letter to F.A. Van Der Kemp
December 27, 1816

It looks as if Adams here is asserting that Christianity has been corrupted with myths and legends and has resulted in “the most bloody religion that ever existed”. In itself, that’s no vote of confidence for Christianity. But, as we’ve seen before in previous Founders’ Foundations, it’s important to examine the context of the passage. So below is the letter, in its entirety, Adams wrote to Mr. Van Der Kemp. Yeah, it’s long — you’re welcome to read the whole thing, but in case you just want to cut to the chase, I’ve emphasized those statements within the letter that are at the heart of this inquiry of the Founders’ Christian worldview:

TO F. A. VANDERKEMP.
Quincy, 27 December, 1816.

I do declare that I can write Greek better than you do, though I cannot say, so well as you can if you will. I can make nothing but pothooks and trammels of the frontispiece of your amiable letter of the 15th. If you had quoted your authority, I might have found it.

Jesus is benevolence personified, an example for all men. Dupuis [an opponent of Christianity] has made no alteration in my opinions of the Christian religion, in its primitive purity and simplicity, which I have entertained for more than sixty years. It is the religion of reason, equity, and love; it is the religion of the head and of the heart.

It would be idle for me to write observations upon Dupuis. I must fill thirteen volumes. If I was twenty-five years old, and had the necessary books and leisure, I would write an answer to Dupuis; but when, or where, or how should I get it printed? Dupuis can be answered, to the honor and advantage of the Christian religion as I understand it. To this end I must study astrology as well as astronomy, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Arabic, Persian, and Sanscrit.

But to leave Dupuis to be answered or reviewed in Edinburgh or London, I must inquire into the attributes given by the ancient nations to their divinities; gods with stars and new moons in their foreheads or on their shoulders; gods with heads of dogs, horns of oxen, bulls, cows, calves, rams, sheep, or lambs; gods with the bodies of horses; gods with the tails of fishes; gods with the tails of dragons and serpents; gods with the feet of goats. The bull of Mithra; the dog of Anubis; the serpent of Esculapius!!!!

Is man the most irrational beast of the forest? Never did bullock, or sheep, or snake imagine himself a god. What, then, can all this wild theory mean? Can it be any thing but allegory founded in astrology? Your Manilius would inform you as well as Dupuis.

The Hebrew unity of Jehovah, the prohibition of all similitudes, appears to me the greatest wonder of antiquity. How could that nation preserve its creed among the monstrous theologies of all the other nations of the earth? Revelation, you will say, and especial Providence; and I will not contradict you, for I cannot say with Dupuis that a revelation is impossible or improbable.

Christianity, you will say, was a fresh revelation. I will not deny this. As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed? How has it happened that all the fine arts, architecture, painting, sculpture, statuary, music, poetry, and oratory, have been prostituted, from the creation of the world, to the sordid and detestable purposes of superstition and fraud?

The eighteenth century had the honor to discover that Ocellus of Lucania, Timæus of Locris, Aristotle, Tacitus, Quintilian, and Pliny, were in the right. The philosophy of Frederic, Catharine, Buffon, De la Lande, Diderot, d’Alembert, Condorcet, d’Holbach, and Dupuis, appears to me to be no more nor less than the philosophy of those ancient men of science and letters, whose speculations came principally from India, Egypt, Chaldea, and Phœnicia. A consolatory discovery, to be sure! Let it once be revealed or demonstrated that there is no future state, and my advice to every man, woman, and child would be, as our existence would be in our own power, to take opium. For, I am certain, there is nothing in this world worth living for but hope, and every hope will fail us, if the last hope, that of a future state, is extinguished.

I know how to sympathize with a wounded leg, having been laid up with one for two or three months, and I have felt the delightful attentions of a daughter. May you have the felicity to celebrate as many more lustres of Madam Vanderkemp as human nature can bear. (emphasis added) 

Here’s Adams’ summation of Christianity:

• It’s founder, Jesus, is benevolence personified, an example for all men
• It is the religion of reason, equity, and love; the religion of the head and the heart
• It is the religion that promotes hope to all because of its declaration of a future state with God

The only reason he calls Christianity a bloody religion is because it was corrupted by pharisaical ecclesiasticism — but its “primitive purity and simplicity” can’t be matched by any other religion or philosophy; that’s the faith — the worldview — John Adams embraced.

John Adams’ quote #2:

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved– the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!

Letter to Thomas Jefferson, September 3, 1816

In the letter Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson from which this quotation is taken, there were two themes presented: 1) What are the uses of grief, that is, how can grief be a benefit, and; 2) What are the abuses of grief; how has grief been used as a detriment. It’s this second point we’ll focus on. Summarizing Mr. Adams’ letter, he gives six examples of how grief has been abused. He writes that Plato’s death and the grief his followers experience unduly overblew Plato’s reputation (yeah, Adams’ believes Plato wasn’t all that). You may not agree, but my point isn’t whether Adams was right about Plato, but that he saw that the grief his followers had led them to abuse Plato’s legacy.

He points out five other abuses of grief that resulted from the death of Julius Caesar, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Fisher Ames, and Jesus Christ. Read it for yourself and you’ll see what’s Adams’ actual point:

JOHN ADAMS TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.
Quincy, September 3, 1816.

Dear Sir

 …Now, Sir, I will tease you with another question. What have been the abuses of grief? In answer to this question, I doubt not you might write an hundred volumes. A few hints may convince you that the subject is ample.

1 st. The death of Socrates excited a general sensibility of grief at Athens, in Attica, and in all Greece. Plato and Xenophon, two of his disciples, took advantage of that sentiment, by employing their enchanting style to represent their master to be greater and better than he probably was; and what have been the effects of Socratic, Platonic, which were Pythagorian, which was Indian philosophy, in the world?

2d. The death of Caesar, tyrant as he was, spread a general compassion, which always includes grief, among the Romans. The scoundrel Mark Antony availed himself of this momentary grief to destroy the republic, to establish the empire, and to proscribe Cicero.

3d. But to skip over all ages and nations for the present, and descend to our own times. The death of Washington diffused a general grief. The old tories, the hyperfederalists, the speculators, set up a general howl. Orations, prayers, sermons, mock funerals, were all employed, not that they loved Washington, but to keep in countenance the funding and banking system; and to cast into the background and the shade, all others who had been concerned in the service of their country in the Revolution.

4th. The death of Hamilton, under all its circumstances, produced a general grief. His most determined enemies did not like to get rid of him in that way. They pitied, too, his widow and children. His party seized the moment of public feeling to come forward with funeral orations, and printed panegyrics, reinforced with mock funerals and solemn grimaces, and all this by people who have buried Otis, Sam Adams, Hancock, and Gerry, in comparative obscurity. And why? Merely to disgrace the old Whigs, and keep the funds and banks in countenance.

5th. The death of Mr. Ames excited a general regret. His long consumption, his amiable character, and reputable talents, had attracted a general interest, and his death a general mourning. His party made the most of it, by processions, orations, and a mock funeral. And why? To glorify the Tories, to abash the Whigs, and maintain the reputation of funds, banks, and speculation. And all this was done in honor of that insignificant boy, by people who have let a Dance, a Gerry, and a Dexter, go to their graves without notice.

6th. I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved—the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! With the rational respect which is due to it, knavish priests have added prostitutions of it, that fill, or might fill, the blackest and bloodiest pages of human history. (underlining added)

The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,
Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Adgate Lipscomb, et al,
pp 66-69

Do you see how context clarifies? Adams isn’t decrying the death of Jesus as symbolized in the cross; he’s decrying how people have corrupted the true intent of the cross, turning it into a weapon of immorality and cruelty. The cross of Christ was meant to bring mankind into a right relationship with God and his fellow man — knavish priests, however, transformed it into a “prostitute” for their own selfish pleasures and desire for power. That’s what Adams condemns.

Adams quote #3:

The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.

This is actually a combination of snippets of two of Adams’ diary entries (February 13 and 18, 1756). The first portion is from the following:

Major Greene this Evening fell into some conversation with me about the Divinity and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ. All the Argument he advanced was, “that a mere creature, or finite Being, could not make Satisfaction to infinite justice, for any Crimes,” and that “these things are very misterious.” (Thus mystery is made a convenient Cover for absurdity.)

Diary of John Adams, February 13, 1756

His February 18 entry reads as follow:

Spent an hour in the beginning of the evening at Major Gardiner’s, where it was thought that the design of Christianity was not to make men good riddle-solvers, or good mystery-mongers, but good men, good magistrates, and good subjects, good husbands and good wives, good parents and good children, good masters and good servants. The following questions may be answered some time or other, namely, — Where do we find a precept in the Gospel requiring Ecclesiastical Synods? Convocations? Councils? Decrees? Creeds? Confessions? Oaths? Subscriptions? and whole cart-loads of other trumpery that we find religion incumbered with in these days? (emphasis added)

Diary of John Adams, February 18, 1756,

Although you could say there’s some ambiguity in what exactly Adams referrs to as absurd (the deity of Chirst or Major Greene’s statement about the deity of Christ and His atonment), quotation #5 below I believe confirms that Adams considers absurd the belief in the deity of Christ.

There, see? Adams is another example of the diversity of philosophies that were part of our early history.  

Well, no. And I’ll explain why when we look at quote #5 in just a bit. But before we get there, did you notice what Adams believed Christianity was supposed to do? It was to produce ”good men, good magistrates, and good subjects, good husbands and good wives, good parents and good children, good masters and good servants.” What’s he saying here?

• Good men – a quality of character we are all to have
• Good magistrates – a quality of skill in the political arena (you’ll note that Adams believed that if you were going to be a good magistrate [ie., a good civil servant], that would be achieved by being a Christian)
• Good subjects – a quality of skill as citizens (you’ll note again that Adams beleived that if you were going to be a good citizen, that would be achieved by being a Christian)
• Good husbands/wives – a quality of relationship in the foundation of a society: marriage
• Good parents/children: a  quality of relationship in the perpetuation of society
• Good masters/servants: a quality of relationship in the vocational arena

Did you notice that all of these areas Adams listed are enhanced and enriched by Christianity, and all of these areas are but reflections of worldview and values: how we live our lives. I may not agree with Adams’ theology (which isn’t the issue here), but I heartily agree with his worldview (which is the issue).

Adams quotation #4:

Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?

John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821

Adams, no doubt, was less than amicable towards Catholicism and Anglicanism. The quotation, however, doesn’t do any disservice to Adams loyalty toward biblical Christianity. He and many others were disgusted with the ecclesiasticism (as we’ve already discovered) that had become the Catholic and Anglican religions. His devotion to the scriptures, however, isn’t tarnished by this statement.

Adams quotation #5:

God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world.

Letter to Thomas Jefferson, January 22, 1825

Adams’ letter is to encourage Thomas Jefferson in his pursuit of creating what will become the University of Virginia:

Your university is a noble employment in your old age, and your ardor for its success does you honor; but I do not approve of your sending to Europe for tutors and professors. I do believe there are sufficient scholars in America, to fill your professorships and tutorships with more active ingenuity and independent minds than you can bring from Europe. The Europeans are all deeply tainted with prejudices, both ecclesiastical and temporal, which they can never get rid of. They are all infected with episcopal and presbyterian creeds, and confessions of faith. They all believe that great Principle which has produced this boundless universe, Newton’s universe and Herschell’s universe, came down to this little ball, to be spit upon by Jews. And until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world. (emphasis added)

Here I concede this point: Adams believes the deity of Christ to be blasphemy. However, it’s important for us to remember that Adams’ point is theological. As I said at the beginning of this series, I’m not here to defend the theology of the Founders (the fact is, I completely disagree with Adams regarding the deity of Jesus). Though he may consider the deity of Jesus to be blasphemous, he still embraces the foundation of Christianity for his values and worldview. Despite the conflict in theology this quotation poses to historical, orthodox Christianity, it still far from measures up to the standard needed to show a diversity of philosophies in the early years of our republic.

Adams quotation #6:

Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years?

I think by now you’re getting the picture. Here’s the rest of the story:

What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because of suspected heresy? Remember the Index Expurgato-rius, the Inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter, and the guillotine; and, oh! horrible, the rack! This is as bad, if not worse, than a slow fire. Nor should the Lion’s Mouth be forgotten. Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years: which Chateaubriand appears at this day to believe as sincerely as St. Austin did? Upon this system depend the royalty, loyalty, and allegiance of Europe. The vial of holy oil, with which the Kings of France and England are anointed, is one of the most splendid and important events in all the legends. Do you think that Mr. Adams’s system “arrests our efforts and appalls our hopes in pursuit of political good?” His maxim is, study government as you do astronomy, by facts, observations, and experiments; not by the dogmas of lying priests or knavish politicians.

Letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814 (Section XVI) 

Again, Adams writes of his antagonism toward Catholicism and Anglicanism. There isn’t a single jot or tittle in the letter above that condemns biblical Christianity.  ’Nuff said.

And finally, Adams quotation #7:

. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.

“A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-88)”,
from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258,
quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, “Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church (sorry about the long source)

And finally, again, the context:

Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which. are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind. The experiment is made, and has completely succeeded: it can no longer be called in question, whether authority in magistrates, and obedience of citizens, can be grounded on reason, morality, and the Christian religion, without the monkery of priests, or the knavery of politicians (emphasis added)

Adams makes the case that a good government can be established and succeed with the foundation of reason, morality and Christianity.

Do I agree with everything the Founders said and did? No, of course not. But is what they said and advocated fundamentally different from a biblical worldview? The evidence so far has robustly supported the Founders’ foundation being, without question, Christian.

The Founders’ Foundation: Part 2 – James Madison

James Madison
(Founding Father, “Father of the Constitution”, Federalist author, Fourth President of the United States)

Our first heretical quotation from Big Jim is:

Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.

By itself the above quotation looks pretty damning. Madison obviously doesn’t like Christianity. Or does he?

A careful reading of the document this quotation came from, “Memorial and Remonstrance”, reveals a radically different perspective. M and R was written to oppose a bill in Virginia that sought to create a tax that would help support religious teachers.

“See, Madison was against Christianity.”

Well, perhaps some additional quotations from “Memorial and Remonstrance” will help clarify Big Jim’s point. It’s on the lengthy side, so please bear with me (but then again, that’s what context is all about):

…we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe…

Later in M and R:

Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered.

…it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence.

…the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error. (emphasis added)

“Memorial and Remonstrance” isn’t trying to abolish Christianity from Virginia or the republic; it’s trying to elevate Christianity above the political arena so that it doesn’t become soiled and degraded and eventually turns into that “ecclesiastical establishment” that suppresses liberty and encourages “pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution”. That corrupted religion was readily seen in England’s Anglicanism and in Europe’s Catholocism. Big Jim was supportive of biblical Christianty, but not ecclesiastical traditionalism — that’s what he didn’t want to happen in America.

Instead, Madison sought the “diffusion of the light of Christianity…that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind.”

Madison’s next heresy follows:

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.

Letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774

Again, context is important. Here’s the historical context from, of all places, infidels.org:

James Madison (1751-1836), the Father of our Constitution and our fourth president went to Princeton at 18 with the idea of becoming an Anglican minister, and came back to Virginia a freethinker. At age 22, he wrote, “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded project.” He then fought for religious liberty for all, believer and disbeliever, which was no easy task-then or now.

In his day, the notorious “Dade Code” was a part of the Virginia statutes, and he could have been executed for his efforts. The code was written in London by Anglican bishops who laid out a tidy list of prohibitions and punishments which were meant to keep people from thinking and speaking their honest thoughts. It meant to mold the citizens into conformity and piety. The code provided the death penalty for anyone who “spoke impiously of the Trinity or one of the divine persons, or against the known articles of Christian faith.”  The same went for “blaspheming God’s holy name.” If you were new in town you had to report to the nearest Anglican priest who would put questions to you to see if you were holy enough to stay. Arguing with a clergyman could get you jail time. If you missed church without good reason on three occasions, the death penalty could be imposed. It excluded all other religions from the colony. Every person over 16 had to supply the ministers with an annual donation of ten pounds of tobacco and one bushel of corn. When the price of tobacco waned, an additional assessment was imposed: the “20th calfe, the 20th kidd of goates, and the 20th pigge.”

These laws were fought by Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists and freethinkers who banded together in common cause. They sought to disestablish the Church of England from the colony, which meant it would have to be supported only by its supporters, not everyone, and allow all other Christian religions equality. (bold emphasis added)

Madison’s “religious bondage” quotation isn’t referring to Christianity, but to the established Anglican Church. Actually, what Big Jim wanted was a Virginia free to worship God as she saw fit (or not worship God; see “Memorial and Remonstrace” quotations above).

How about some more Big Jim heresy:

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.

Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, December 3, 1821
Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, p. 242

I ask again your indulgence as I quote Madison’s letter

TO F. L. SCHAEFFER.
Montpellier, Dec’ 3d, 1821.

Rev’d Sir,—I have received, with your letter of November 19th, the copy of your address at the ceremonial of laying the corner-stone of St. Matthew’s Church in New York.

It is a pleasing and persuasive example of pious zeal, united with pure benevolence, and of cordial attachment to a particular creed, untinctured with sectarian illiberality. It illustrates the excellence of a system which, by a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations. The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.

In return for your kind sentiments, I tender assurances of my esteem and my best wishes.

That was Madison’s scathing indictment of Christianity. Actually…not.

Madison isn’t saying the US is proof of the “unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians” and “the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers”; he’s saying the US is disproof of (i.e. it doesn’t prove) these negative qualities. Does it make sense that Madison would write a letter to a pastor commending him on his address, praise the courage of Martin Luther, and then slam Christianity? On the contrary, Madison is drawing from the specific examples of Rev. Schaeffer and reformer Martin Luther and making the generalization that there are enlightened Christians who understand the proper and distinct roles church and state play in “practical Religion…social harmony, and…political prosperity.”

“Memorial and Remonstrance” and Madison’s letters of William Bradford and Rev. Schaeffer, instead of proving Madison’s secularism or this idea of diversity of philosophy, proves Madison’s worldview and values had a solidly biblical foundation.