The Faith of Our Founders (by Steven Waldman)
In writing my new book, Founding Faith, I was struck by two things of possible importance to today’s religious progressives.
First, the 18th century evangelicals had a very different approach to religious freedom than many of their 21st century descendents. They were crucial advocates for separation of church and state. This ought to be a challenge to both modern liberal secularists who assume that evangelicals are awlays on the side of tyranny, and for religious conservatives who have disowned the arguments of their ancestors. If not for evangelicals, we wouldn’t have religious freedom.
Second, the Founders mostly assess religion through the prism of one question: does it promote good behavior? Though each of the Founders I studied in Founding Faith (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison) started at different religious places, they ended up at the end of their lives whittling their creeds down to a few simple items:
Benjamin Franklin: "That the most acceptable service we can render to [God], is doing good to his other children."
John Adams: "I have learned nothing of importance to me, for they have made no change in my moral or religious creed, which has for 50 or 60 years been contained in four short words: 'Be just and good.'"
Thomas Jefferson: "1) That there is one only God, and he all-perfect. 2) That there is a future state of rewards and punishments. 3) That to love God with all thy heart and they neighbor as theyself, is the sum of religion." (Click here for an online version of the Jefferson Bible that shows how he cut out the miracles from the Bible, and highlighted the moral teachings.)
George Washington: "In politics, as in religion, my tenets are few and simple; the leading one of which, and indeed that which embraces most others, is to be honest and just ourselves, and to exact it from others; meddling as little as possible in their affairs where our own are not involved. If this maxim was generally adopted, wars would cease and our swords would soon be converted into reap-hooks and our harvests be more peaceful, abundant and happy." (Washington letter to James Anderson, December 25, 1795, as quoted in Chadwick, p. 487.)
It’s not accurate to say these men were not religious. I don’t believe it’s even accurate to say they were Deists, since most of them believed in a God that intervened in history and in their lives. But it is clear that they judged the success of religion by whether it inculcated good behavior, and created good citizens.
Steven Waldman is editor-in-chief of Beliefnet.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Dear Mr. Waldman,
How did Rupert Murdoch end up owning Beliefnet?
Just asking.
Posted by: justintime | March 26, 2008 11:04 AM
It's part of his new ministry called FoxChurch.
Seriously, though, does he really own Beliefnet?
Posted by: kevin s. | March 26, 2008 11:35 AM
Perhaps so, but half of those you quote (Franklin and Jefferson) are the strongest Deists of the founding fathers, which is clearly recorded in other statements they make, and most famously when Jefferson took out all the miraculous parts in his Bible.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | March 26, 2008 12:00 PM
I believe that your accessment of the thinking of the Founding Fathers is a little thin. If you have not finshed - night I suggest reading the Federalist Papers. What reading I have done has been enlighting to say the least.
It is Freedom of Religion - not Freedom from Religion.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 26, 2008 12:16 PM
Steven,
Thanks for your comments on the Deism of the founding fathers. This is one of the biggest myths in American history.
As far as your concluding statement,
"But it is clear that they judged the success of religion by whether it inculcated good behavior, and created good citizens." I don't see how your selected quotes exclusively prove your conclusion.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | March 26, 2008 12:32 PM
"It is Freedom of Religion - not Freedom from Religion."
Actually it's both. In Federalist Paper #51 Madison writes that the best security for religious rights rests on "a multiplicity of sects." No one sect will become so strong as to dominate the rest or deny members of other sects their religious rights.
Posted by: carl copas | March 26, 2008 12:37 PM
Jedidiah, you are without a doubt, correct. They believed the ability of humans to reason was God's greatest gift, mostly disavowing revelation.
Posted by: Cads | March 26, 2008 12:41 PM
Kevin, "Seriously, though, does he really own Beliefnet?"
Yes indeed, now we are all part of the Fox Entertainment Network.
Lo, Murdoch did bring the good news and stored up riches on earth
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/dec/05/rupertmurdoch.newscorporation
"Rupert Murdoch is out to prove that you can serve God and mammon after all.
Murdoch has described himself as a "practising Christian" who goes to church 'quite a bit'. He has been evangelical about the internet since buying MySpace for $580m (£330m) in 2005."
Posted by: justintime | March 26, 2008 1:10 PM
I can't wait to read the columns by Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilley on Sojo. Speaking of willful ignorance . . .
Posted by: carl copas | March 26, 2008 1:23 PM
Posted by: justintime | March 26, 2008 1:10 PM
WOW - Rupert Murdoch owns FOX and now also owns Beliefnet. So he saw it as a good investment. Truner owned CNN and no one saw a problem with that?
Frankly - I believe that Wallis will be shopping around for another host to Sojo.
Goose and Gander people...
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 26, 2008 1:40 PM
Posted by: carl copas | March 26, 2008 12:37 PM
Actually it's both.
I don't see it. The only way for one sect or denomination to be more powerful and have any influence over another would be if the state established one as the 'official' making the others subservant to the selected one.
Seperation is not a constitutional issue.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 26, 2008 1:44 PM
You measure the freedom in a society not by how many channels you can choose to watch "Survivor" on or how deeply in debt you can go in slavery to materialism, but by how free you are to do good for others.
By some societal constraints we have put into place - structures of sin - we have placed barriers to the scope allowed for doing good to others.
The wisdom from those historical Americans quoted follows along those lines, and therefore, they were not far from the Kingdom of Heaven in those expressions.
As for Mr. Murdoch, it has been reported that he owns the largest satellite pornography distribution network in the world, which supplies hotels and other venues with pay-per-view.
It would be nice if this powerful man could be accountable to another in the faith, but even his purported pastor, Rick Warren, has little influence other than having his church receive some of the largesse which despite the dollar value does not fall into the category of the generosity of the widow's mite.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 26, 2008 2:06 PM
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 26, 2008 2:06 PM
Goose and Gander
Mr. Murdoch's companies are help publically. I am not sure if he has too much influence on what is on the satellite. It would be nice if he could but can you imagine the law suits if he was 'selective' on who and what could use equipment held by a public company. I believe that he purchased the satellites so maybe he has to honor the contracts until they run out.
Not sure if Warren delves into the holdings or investments of the members of his congregation. Interesting that you atempt to hold Warren responsible but I bet you obsolve Wright.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 26, 2008 2:23 PM
"Not sure if Warren delves into the holdings or investments of the members of his congregation. Interesting that you atempt to hold Warren responsible but I bet you obsolve Wright."
Rick Warren is not responsible for Rupert Murdoch's failure to be held accountable. Why would you think that? Or that it has anything to do with Wright? What porno parlors does Wright invest in? Or Rick Warren?
"Mr. Murdoch's companies are help publically. I am not sure if he has too much influence..."
No more than William Randolph Hearst had influence over the Hearst Corporation. Which is to say, he could manufacture the news, and he did, in order to start wars, and he did.
It's interesting to find out how Mr. Murdoch obtained US Citizenship without going through any of the necessary waiting periods, but essentially obtained it by fiat when he needed that to hold more media control than is allowed to a foreigner. It seems some in government understand well how much influence Mr. Murdoch wields in the interest of his untrammelled pursuit of money-making.
One could apply just the same excuse-making to IBM chieftain Tom Watson, when his New York-based office signed contracts in 1942 to supply machines, punchcards and onsite service to automated human extermination centers like Treblinka and Auschwitz.
How much control did he really have after all, even if it was his own signature on the contracts? Legally, it was all solid.
As C.S. Lewis observed. much evil-doing in the modern era is enabled by polite men, well-dressed in suits, in offices, stamping and affixing signatures.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 26, 2008 2:44 PM
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 26, 2008 2:44 PM
You'er just throwing stuff seeing what sticks - talk with you later when you will deal with questions asked.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 26, 2008 2:48 PM
Rupert Murdoch owns FOX and now also owns Beliefnet. So he saw it as a good investment. Truner owned CNN and no one saw a problem with that?
Turner started CNN but was bought out years ago.
The only way for one sect or denomination to be more powerful and have any influence over another would be if the state established one as the 'official' making the others subservant to the selected one.
Which is exactly what happened on the state level when the colonies were founded, as all but one of the original 13 had official state churches. Rhode Island was the only state founded for the purpose of religious freedom -- Roger Williams was kicked out of Massachusetts for dissenting.
Anyway, it is my understanding that about half the Founding Fathers were Freemasons, who subscribed to a watered-down, "ecumenical" God -- considering the diversity of views and how committed they were to them, it was the only way they could agree on anything!
As for the Fox Network, some of the programming was so trashy that the purported pornography Rupert Murdoch puts on satellite would represent only the icing on the cake; in "God's Politics" Jim Wallis railed against the reality show "Temptation Island." BTW, Rick Warren no longer takes a salary from his church, so even if Murdoch were contributing he wouldn't necessarily see the money.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 26, 2008 2:57 PM
I went to a lecture recently given by Os Guinness, the subject of which was religious freedom and America. He compared how the church is dying in much of the West to its relative vitality in the United States. He attributed this to our First Amendment freedom of religion and the lack of a state church. When a specific religion is tied up in the apparatus of the state its popularity tends to fall with the popularity of the government. We generally don't have this problem here in the U.S. and we have our founders to thank.
He also warned that if one particular sect gets too much control in government, people are generally turned off to any religious involvement in the public sphere and faith becomes primarily a private matter. He warned against some of the excesses of the current administration and worried that a backlash might ensue. We, as Christians, should be always fearful of a anti-religious backlash that says the public square is no place for religion.
Guinness suggested a good guideline for Christians and future administrations. He said that you shouldn't try to impose something of your faith on others using the state if you wouldn't want another religion to impose something similar on you. It sounds like common sense, but too often forgotten.
Posted by: Eric | March 26, 2008 3:18 PM
You'er just throwing stuff seeing what sticks - talk with you later when you will deal with questions asked.
Meaning, I can't even follow what you'er saying, so I'ell lob an insult and then make tracks. It's time fer Rush anyway.
Posted by: lloyd crump | March 26, 2008 3:35 PM
"You'er just throwing stuff seeing what sticks - talk with you later when you will deal with questions asked."
I literally have no idea what you are talking about.
Do you mean a failure to see how this links with Obama's ex-pastor? Man, you are a one-track political animal who keeps yanking on the same pants-cuff, if that's so.
Let me reiterate - I don't think you can kick Rupert Murdoch out of attending any church, nor is a pastor responsible for the congregant's sins. I'm just pointing out that even so influential a spiritual leader as Rick Warren can't exercise accountability over someone who won't allow that. Maybe if there was a pastor who was a fellow member in the Billionaires' Club Murdoch might allow himself to be accountable?
Who knows?
But at this point it's mammon he's trying to serve simultaneously. The most absurd example of that I recall was when Larry Flynt got "saved" and mixed salvation messages and porno in Hustler Magazine, together. You have to hand it to him, he really tried to reconcile the two, God and Mammon, upfront. Murdoch's methods are more reticent. And he's far more influential financially and politically.
The satellite hardcore porno network is way worse than the worst of Fox cable. We're talking hardcore pay-per-view, Harry Rheems-style stuff.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 26, 2008 3:40 PM
Posted by: lloyd crump | March 26, 2008 3:35 PM
'...I can't even follow what you'er saying...'
I can't - I asked a simple question earlier and ST has not delt with it - so, I move on. There was no right or wrong answer to the question but it might have helped us come to an understanding. I am more interested in understanding than agreement. So - I move on.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 26, 2008 3:52 PM
Me confused... This is a post about the faith of the founding fathers and you guys are debating Rupert Murdoch, Revs. Warren and Wright, IBM dealing with Hitler, media ownership, Larry Flint's porn stash, etc. Why?
Posted by: Eric | March 26, 2008 4:37 PM
"I asked a simple question earlier and ST has not delt with it - so, I move on."
I'm having a hard time finding the question. Was this it, not exactly phrased as a question:
"Interesting that you atempt to hold Warren responsible but I bet you obsolve Wright."
The first assumption isn't correct - I don't hold Rick Warren responsible for Rupert Murdoch's decisions at all. As I said, I think Murdoch is influenced by Murdoch, not by Rick Warren. As for absolving Wright, do you mean the UCC black pastor whose heavily redacted words are being bandied about recklessly, or the Anglican pastor by that same name who has been posting on different threads here? I would have to know which I'm supposed to be absolving and what I'm supposed to be absolving them of.
However, it seems really off-topic, extrapolating from Rupert Murdoch and his influence on the media, to either one of the Wrights.
Murdoch has only come up because it's mentioned that he now owns these forums, too, which became a topic in this thread.
Since the Founders quoted "judged the success of religion by whether it inculcated good behavior, and created good citizens," it is germane to ask whether Mr. Murdoch's religion, as he lives it out in his decisions that affect so much of what we get to see and hear, is contributing positively to that.
I think I've honestly attempted to answer every question.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 26, 2008 5:25 PM
Murdoch is a very hands on owner, at least with his papers. He closely monitors and directs their editorials. Will be curious to see how this plays out
but...
methinks it will wash over, just as his purchase of Zondervan has.
Posted by: Trent | March 26, 2008 7:40 PM
The founding fathers of the USA may not have been deists, but they appear to have been pretty wishy-washy liberals (theologically that is).
Doesn't matter much to me - I've never had reason to see them as authority figures. Even though the form of government they came up with was pretty good for its time.
'Cos they were building a new set of earthly powers, not the kingdom of God
Meurig
Posted by: meurig | March 27, 2008 1:42 AM
Nice comment Eric. This often happens - tangents are very popular here.
Posted by: Cads | March 27, 2008 1:47 AM
Continuing, I was hoping to get people's views on Deism, my religion of choice, but we've strayed off the subject.
Posted by: Cads | March 27, 2008 1:50 AM
Is deism a way of removing Jesus Christ from Christianity? Please clarify.
Regarding comments about mammon. Is serving and loving mammon a philosophy of life that leads to using people for the love of money itself rather than the latter? Is the challenge that Jesus Christ made to choose between the two a choice that leads to loving people and using money for good?
Is the love of money the root of all evil or is the money itself evil? Is their any error it always characterizing people with wealth as basically evil?
What greek words does Jesus use for love in the contexts of these discussions?
God Bless us all!
Posted by: Will | March 27, 2008 7:40 AM
Cads,
How do you define Deism?
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | March 27, 2008 9:33 AM
Posted by: Jeff | March 27, 2008 9:33 AM
Deism - a belief in God based on reason rather than revelation and involving the view that God has set the universe in motion but does not interfere with how it runs. Deism was especially influential in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Short definition - Christianity without Christ.
Creator Father - Yes
Savior Son - No
(Some will refer to Christ but leave out the miracles and/or any reference to him being the Son of God)
Holy Spirit - No
Anyone else want to weigh-in?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 27, 2008 10:21 AM
Deism can be the basis for a pluralistic society that recognizes the primacy of God, but no specific religion. Hence, Eisenhower's declaration of the importance of religion to America, but it not mattering which one it is.
During his era, the phrase "under God" was added to the pledge, "In God We Trust" became the US official motto and was placed on paper currency.
Without the special significance of Jesus, from a Christian standpoint His example and teachings being unique within theistic religion and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, a national religion that vaguely if sincerely recognises "God" remains far from Him and any close relationship with Him.
Moreover, it can easily be transmuted into a nationalistic religion of tribal primacy that lends messianic and godlike status to the nation itself in place of God.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 27, 2008 11:20 AM
I heard an interview with Waldman on "Speaking of Faith" which gave a far clearer picture of his thesis. The article above doesn't go into nearly as much detail as the interview did, or his presumably his book. I think this link will bring you to the interview:
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/liberating_the_founders/
Posted by: squeaky | March 27, 2008 11:47 AM
Not bad Mod, except it's not Christianity. To quote Thomas Paine: "All other systems have something in them that either shock our reason, or are repugnant to it, and man, if he thinks at all, must stifle his reason in order to force himself to believe them. When men are taught to ascribe all their crimes and vices to the temptations of the devil, and to believe that Jesus, by his death, rubs all off, and pays their passage to heaven gratis, they become as careless in morals as a spendthrift would be of money, were he told that his father had engaged to pay off all his scores...such a cheap, easy, and lazy way of getting to heaven."
People might ask why I frequent this site if I'm not a Christian. Hey, I enjoy the interaction with mostly good, moral people who have varying political ideas.
Deism honors reason above all else as God's greatest gift to man and pretty much rejects those things in the Bible that one couldn't possibly believe unless reason is suspended and faith kicks in. By using the ability to reason, we can "contemplate the power, wisdom and goodness of the Creator displayed in the creation."
And Soj. Truth, your proclamation that the religion of Deism "lends messianic and godlike status to the nation itself in place of God" is just not true.
Thanks for the discussion.
Posted by: Cads | March 27, 2008 12:16 PM
Cads - Thank you for the explaination. Is it reasonable to believe in a Creator God of some sort or another? Doesn't this require some sort of faith?
Posted by: Eric | March 27, 2008 12:56 PM
When men are taught to ascribe all their crimes and vices to the temptations of the devil, and to believe that Jesus, by his death, rubs all off, and pays their passage to heaven gratis, they become as careless in morals as a spendthrift would be of money, were he told that his father had engaged to pay off all his scores...such a cheap, easy, and lazy way of getting to heaven.
Taught incorrectly, the Christian message can sound just as Paine writes. But Paul says, "We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?".
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 27, 2008 12:56 PM
"It is Freedom of Religion - not Freedom from Religion."
It seems to me that those who spew this oft-quoted piece of wisdom generally mean freedom "of" fundamentalist christianity, freedom "from" every other belief system.
Posted by: perramik | March 27, 2008 2:28 PM
Posted by: Cads | March 27, 2008 12:16 PM
Thanks for you post. I find morality in many of the religions of the world. I have friends that are Hindu - Islamic and cults of Christianity that are very moral. If morality was all that was needed - their would be a lot more people in heaven. Do I personally believe that an Islamic person will be in heaven with me? No - not from what I read in my Bible. They do not believe it either as they dismiss the Trinity. Deism to me does not identify any religion - it is the religoin of choice of the person that they attach the 'deity' to that identifies it. There are many people that if it were my decision - I would let them into heaven. But there is one thing that they lack - the acceptance of Christ as Savior, their Savior.
I believe that ST is correct in that Deism can make the state the religion that a person believes in - not always, but it can.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 27, 2008 2:45 PM
It seems to me that those who spew this oft-quoted piece of wisdom generally mean freedom "of" fundamentalist christianity, freedom "from" every other belief system.
Closer to the truth than you may realize, since religious freedom as we understand it was only getting started at that time. The Puritans certainly did not believe in "religious freedom"; in fact, they tried to set up a Christian state that literally took orders from the church.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 27, 2008 3:33 PM
Eric,
Yes, we believe in a "Creator God" and are in awe of his creation. The creation of the universe itself, with all of its precise workings and wonderment, is evidence to my reason and senses that there is a Creator. There's too much precision for there to have been a big bang and all of this just happened. Now, I certainly don't believe that God looks like you or me or pretend to understand how all of creation originally happened or why, because that's beyond my level of reasoning. The best thing about being Deist is that I don't have to spend all of my time arguing about who gets into heaven or not (or even if there is a heaven for sure) or "my religion's better than yours" type proclamations. I figure that that will all be sorted out at death, and the only thing I can do to improve my chances of a potentially wonderful afterlife is to try and live a moral life while on earth. Plus, I get to sleep in on Sunday morning while listening to the birds sing and hearing the rain on the roof!
Posted by: Cads | March 27, 2008 3:37 PM
The important thing about the founders is not what their "faith" may or may not have been. The important thing is that they founded an explicitly, completely secular government. They recognized that government is a human enterprise, comprised of laws made by and for human beings, not laws made by some supernatural power. They recognized that the only valid basis for human government is the consent of the governed, not some supernatural authority (like the "divine right of kings" that for centuries justified tyranny and oppression). That's why the US Constitution states right at the top that it is "ordained" by "we the people", not by God or by religious authorities claiming to act with God's authority.
You cannot have "freedom OF religion" without also having "freedom FROM religion." If people who espouse no religion at all are disadvantaged in any way by government, then there is no freedom of religion.
Moderate lad wrote: "If morality was all that was needed - their would be a lot more people in heaven."
And how exactly do you know who is in heaven and who is not? Have you been there and seen for yourself?
Posted by: SecularAnimist | March 27, 2008 4:01 PM
"If morality was all that was needed - their would be a lot more people in heaven."
Actually--I can't agree with that. If morality were all that was needed, I don't think anyone would make it to Heaven--if morality is the only test, the question then becomes how moral is moral enough? It's precisely because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God that we all need a savior.
It is because of Christ that the question becomes moot. And because of Christ that I believe there will be far more people there than anyone would probably expect. And before you ask, Secular--no, I don't know how true that is. I haven't been to Heaven, but that is my belief and my hope for God's creation.
Posted by: squeaky | March 27, 2008 5:36 PM
Posted by: SecularAnimist | March 27, 2008 4:01 PM
And how exactly do you know who is in heaven and who is not? Have you been there and seen for yourself?
I believe that squeaky hit the nail on the head.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 27, 2008 6:50 PM
Cads,
The question then becomes, Whose reason? We can all use our reason and come up with very different conclusions. Your view of creation is evidence of of this. You reason there is a creator another person with God given reason takes the evidence and comes to a different conclusion. How does Deism deal with this?
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | March 27, 2008 7:05 PM
"And Soj. Truth, your proclamation that the religion of Deism "lends messianic and godlike status to the nation itself in place of God" is just not true."
True, one doesn't follow the other inevitably. But without the brakes of a moral content, given for instance, by Jesus' prophetic admonitions to mercy, it offers no defense against those who would use it that way.
When you put it on the money and as a national motto, the deistic phrase "In God We Trust" is without any moral content other than asserting that the country is de facto trusting in God. Now combine that with how we really behave and you have a recipe - which many actually act out - for patriotism as religion - David Gelernter's "Americanism," and whatever my country does (or who happens to rule it) is right.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 27, 2008 7:19 PM
"the consent of the governed"
As long as the governed are white, male, freemen and landowners. The US Constitution is an attempt to coalesce a shambles of confederated states and was referred to by abolitionists as a compact with the devil (the "governed" blacks were fodder for census purposes but only counted as 3/5 of a person). The founding fathers were brilliant but hardly someone to set our moral compasses by.
Pastor Jeff Staples
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 27, 2008 9:00 PM
Pastor Jeff,
I agree with you completely.
o
Posted by: Payshun | March 27, 2008 9:23 PM
"What greek words does Jesus use for love in the contexts of these discussions?"
I've been told Jesus didn't speak Greek. He may have spoken King James English though.
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 27, 2008 9:25 PM
Cads: You are a blessing. If more "Christians" were your style of Deist there would probably be more true Christians in the world. (Of course that would probably put me out of a job-hmmm, can you say identity crisis?) God promises to be found by those that seek God with all their hearts and I'm sure God will use whatever human capacity you yield to God.
Pastor Jeff Staples
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 27, 2008 9:52 PM
Jeff: "The question then becomes, Whose reason?"
MY reason, Jeff. That's what makes it so great! Deism doesn't have to "deal" with differing conclusions. We're not a bunch of joiners who go to a church, mosque or synagogue to have our beliefs reaffirmed. They are what they are, and that's good enough for us.
S.T.: "the deistic phrase "In God We Trust" is without any moral content other than asserting that the country is de facto trusting in God."
Hold on there, S.T., when did this become a Deistic phrase?? Personally, I believe the separation of church and state concept should prohibit this from being our National motto, but it's so traditional, I certainly wouldn't make a big deal of it.
Wow Pastor Jeff, I don't know how to respond except to say thank you. But please keep reading future posts on other threads, as I'm sure to disappoint sooner rather than later! Afterall, I am a fiscal conservative who preaches personal responsibility more than charity, but I'm working on trying to be more kind to the needy. Thanks again.
Posted by: Cads | March 27, 2008 11:12 PM
Cads:
Your welcome! Your Deism is really the secular expression of what was termed by my spiritual forebearers (Baptists) as "soul competency". This also leads the faithful Baptists (as opposed to the creedal/denominational people that today call themselves Baptists) to completely agree with prior posts regarding the freedom to not believe. Coersion in it's many various manifestations is a seductress. The persons most responsible for the "separation of Church and State" were those directly experiencing the oppression of official persecution for their beliefs.
You are being intellectually consistent, in that, if one is to be held personally accountable for one's religious/moral conduct, how can one not also be responsible for their own fiscal estate except for the introduction of other coercive forces?
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 28, 2008 12:09 AM
"We're not a bunch of joiners who go to a church, mosque or synagogue to have our beliefs reaffirmed."
That's kind of an overreaching value judgment, or even a straw man argument for one.
You could say that's why you don't go, because you would only be going to have your beliefs reaffirmed, which are in no need of that.
However, it's not why I go at all. In fact, often my beliefs are challenged by what others reveal there. I think the insights of others, even their doubts, are a gift to me. I want my assumptions to be challenged, because they are incomplete. The three pound universe inside my skull is an incomplete representation of the much larger one outside.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 28, 2008 1:28 AM
S.T.,
That statement wasn't meant to be judgemental of you or others and perhaps could have been phrased better. My beliefs are often challenged by what others say on this site and I don't mind at all.
I was raised a Methodist, but started to question Christianity because no one could ever adequately explain to me the concept of the Trinity, Original Sin or numerous other events that occurred in the Bible that went beyond normal reasoning. I'd ask my minister and Sunday school teachers (one was Rush Limbaugh's father) about various things that seemed unbelievable to my undeveloped mind, and all they would tell me was that I had to have "faith" that the Bible is the "word of God" and should be believed. That was never good enough for me, so I started reading and found Deism. It's the only concept that's ever made perfect sense to my three pound universe.
Posted by: Cads | March 28, 2008 10:59 AM
If you still want answers about that stuff then maybe you might want to look at the mystics and saints that developed the explanations.
Here is one name you should do some research on.
St. Athanasius
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 28, 2008 1:11 PM
Cads--Have you ever read any of NT Wright's work? I ask because he does a good job at working through a lot of your questions.
I'm guessing the people you asked reverted to the tried and true "you have to have faith" because they themselves hadn't spent the time to come to an intellectual explanation for that faith. True, there will always be that wall where our reason fails and we have to leap into faith, but I suggest the wall is farther away than many would lead you to believe. Even with Deism, you need to make that leap--as to believe there is a God requires that leap.
There are others out there who have moved the wall, Wright being one, C.S. Lewis another, and others. Gregory and Edward Boyd's "Letters from a Skeptic" is interesting as well as is Brian McLaren's "Finding Faith" and "A New Kind of Christian" series. If I remember correctly, Donald Miller had some interesting things to say about original sin in "Searching for God Knows What" Just some light reading suggestions if you have not delved into these authors yet.
Posted by: squeaky | March 28, 2008 4:33 PM
Mr Waldman.
I was an early member of Beliefnet and an admirer of you and Bishop Jack Spong and your views on Christianity as revealed above.
I left Beliefnet over a dispute with Muslims who stand adverse to the ideas you write about .and are allowed to run their discussions under Islamic rules rather than those of Beliefnet.
Islam is committed to the destruction of Democracy and all our precious freedoms. Muslims seek a world governed by Shiriah law that has no respect at all for Christian Values.
These feelings are at the core of the Muslim being and are expressed in the war and hate hatred that Muslims are engaged in every day the world over. The Muslim idea of “Peace” is the day when Islam rules the world. Fighting for that Peace justifies the barbarism.
We must thank and respect our founding fathers for our country adopting the separation of Church and state as well as our freedoms, of speech and religion among others.
What is distressing to me is that devoted Christians are blinded to the reality of the Jihad against these values, that Muslims world wide are engaged in on one level or another.
Posted by: Leon Longchamp | April 1, 2008 3:01 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?