Religion and Politics

1. Religion and Politics Dr. Troy Gibson

2. Course Introduction • Why study religion and politics? • Relevance to Political History (Western Civilization) • Relevance to American History • Relevance to Political Philosophy • Relevance to Political Debate • Relevance to Political Outcomes (parties, policy, voting, elections, groups, etc.) *We may argue that religion ought not be relevant, but only a fool would say that it isnot relevant. • How will we study R&P? Where do we limit the study? Course will focus mostly on orthodox Protestant tradition, some on Roman Catholicism, and others will receive modest attention. Basis for this limitation: (1) Time constraints (2) Relevance/Influence in U.S. Political History (3) Size/Growth (4) Clarity of perspectives (5) Personal Knowledge

3. II. Religious Tradition in America • Puritans 1. Definition: group of former Protestants immigrants who came to America fleeing religious repression in Europe. 2. Puritan theology (17th-18th centuries) – stresses the sovereignty of God over the affairs of man (Calvinism) and Covenant theology (the choice of God select or “elect” a people unto Himself and give them His favor in exchange for their obedience to the terms of the covenant or agreement. In practice, Puritans stress Holy living and a purified society. 3. Puritan legacy – Originally believed that America was the “New Israel” or “promise land” or a “city upon a hill” where God’s covenant people would thrive. They have left America with an enduring legacy, though some of their thinking is now considered extreme or outdated (theocratic tendencies, witch-hunting). They not only gave us or contributed to our stress on the importance of religion in society for sake of morality, but also limited government (no divine right), self-government (autonomy of church gov’t), and attitude that America is a special place with a special God-ordained mission in this the world.

4. Pluralism – though Puritans dominated early on, religious diversity has been a mark of American society from the start. Dissidents of all kinds left Europe for the New World (Puritans, Baptists, Anglicans, Quakers, Jews) and new groups developed rapidly (Methodists). • Aided by diversity among colonies and Great Awakening (mid-18th). Let to no establishment of religion in the Constitution (relatively novel idea). By early 19th century, no state established an official church either. • Pluralism has been respected more for Christian diversity than for groups perceived as non-Christian by Protestants (Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Atheists). C. Populism has always been the fuel of religious success in America (bottom-up rather than top-down; evangelizing the lower classes)

5. III. Religious Groupings based on affiliation surveys • Evangelical Protestants (26.3%) – trace their heritage to the Protestant Reformation; stress the absolute, reliable, and sufficient authority of the Bible in all matters of faith; distinguishing doctrines (5 solas; sola scriptura; sola fide; sola gratia; sola deo gloria; sola christus); typically stress the exclusive truth of Christianity and need for conversion. E.g. Southern Baptists, Presbyterian Church of America, Assemblies of God. • Mainline Protestants (16) – same heritage, but have departed from the traditional doctrines (especially sola scriptura) from the Reformation in light of modernity and scientific theories Darwin (indeed, no unifying system of doctrine). E.g. United Methodists, PCUSA, United Church of Christ. Less likely to accept a literal Hell or need for conversion. More likely to stress social justice. • Roman Catholics (17.5) – considers itself to be the original and one true church of Christ through apostolic succession from Peter and the apostles. Distinguishing doctrines: Supremacy, necessity, and infallibility of the church, headed by the Pope or Bishop of Rome in all matters of faith.

6. 4. Latino Catholics (4.5) – most latinos have remained Catholic 5. Latino Protestants (2.8) – growth, however, has come from the charasmatic movement 6. Black Protestant (9.6) 7. Other Christian Faiths (2.7) 8. Jewish (1.9) 9. Other faiths (2.7) • Muslims (.02) 10 Unaffiliated (16) • Secular (7.5) – free from” religion” and stress belief in the powers of human reason over faith in the discovery of truth (secular humanism). • Atheist, Agnostic (3.2) – considers the evidence for God’s existence to be unpersuasive (they may then disbelieve or leave it at that). • Unaffiliated Believers (5.3) *Comments (80% Christian, 55% Protestant, 22% RC, 84% affiliated, 90-5% theistic) • Key Concepts:

7. What is religion – “A religion is an integrated system of beliefs, lifestyles, ritual activities, and institutions by which people give meaning to or find meaning in their lives by orienting themselves to what they take to be holy, sacred, or of ultimate value.” But, can we properly define religion by looking at what is common among religions? Is that not circular? Does this not require that we know what religion is BEFORE we define it? “Suppose the problem were to find the common element in all snarks in order to form a definition of snark in general. The empirical method would require an examination of snarks; but this examination could proceed only if it were first known what a snark was… That is, the empirical examination can take place only after the definition is accepted.” - Gordon Clark

8. How encompassing is this definition? Does it exclude purely individualistic religions with no institutions? Does it require belief in a god? What about animism? Does it exclude atheism or secularism? What if we replaced and with or? In a word, Religion is a worldview, or a comprehensive system of beliefs pertaining to matters of existence and being, ethics and morality, knowledge and truth. • What is politics? Political Scientists have used various emphases when defining politics. Some stress the workings of government; some stress human relationships involving power; others stress the allocation of values. For us, politics is the authoritative allocation of values in a society (values = beliefs about what is “best” or “right”). The fact that people have different values causes political conflict with varying degrees of intensity. However, sometimes even agreement among values does not eliminate political conflict. • People may agree on a value, but disagree over how to achieve it. • People may agree on a value, but not its relative weight (priority).

9. In order to avoid extreme political conflict (civil war or civil unrest), when values are allocated, the allocating body (government) must be considered legitimate and some degree of cooperation is necessary. C. Other Terms (see handout): • Poles of Religion and Politics Relationship • Theocracy – gov’t by divine rule, though mediated through human rulers who receive direct guidance from God (boundaries of religion and government power are the same). Example: OT Israel and modern day Vatican City. • Government Suppression of Religion – political state is totalitarian; claims total dominion over its subjects; state basically becomes the object of religious worship and actively fights against any other religious competitor. Example: Soviet Russia and Stalin and Maoist China 1966 • In the U.S., one of the views expressed on page 13 (Corbett) has been advocated (all of which represent an approach in between these two poles). • Dominance – let the state basically dominate (influence) the church or let the church basically dominate the state, though they remain distinct jurisdictionally. • Establishment – arrangement in which civil gov’t supports R.

10. Prescriptive – residents MUST support the favored religion (taxation, church attendance, etc.) • Permissive – allows for the dominance of a particular religion, by allowing its holy days and festivals to be acknowledged formally (celebrated in public schools, for example). • May be either tolerant or intolerant of other faiths (e.g., one receives tax support while others, whether free to operate or not, do not). • May be exclusive, dual, or multiple establishments • May be general or specific – Religion vs one denomination. Christianity or only Anglican, for example 3. Separation – church activities and state activities having nothing whatever to do with one another.

11. Christian Theories of Religion and Politics I. Key Concepts in Redemptive History (study of God’s interaction with humans in time) • Creation-Fall-Redemption – God created all things “good;” Fall distorted things; redemption makes right distorted things. • Questions germane to politics: How severe was the Fall? Did it distort only man’s moral status or everything else? If only man’s moral nature, redemption only affects man’s spiritual life (no distinct Christian approach to “non-religious matters”). If everything, redemption is total (politics too; no secular/sacreddistinction). Also, is redemption completed in this life/time? Is redemption merely restoration (back to creation) or does it go beyond that (e.g., monasticism)? Approaches that stress Creation over Fall often limit scope of redemption to man’s spiritual condition, applies nowhere else. Those that stress the Fall over Creation often consider everything in creation to be inherently evil and practically worthless. Those with a more balanced view consider the structures of creation (man’s reason, art, social structures) as still “good” and valuable but the direction men took those structures are fallen and need redeeming. II. Key Concepts in Eschatology (study of end times) • The Kingdom of Christ – extends to every sector in which the total and complete rule of Christ is established. Questions concerning it: Is it present or is it future? Is it purely spiritual or also earthly/physical (Christendom). • The Millennium - period of time (literal or not) in which Christ and His church reigns (literal or not).

12. Revelation 20:1-6 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while. Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.

13. Amillennialism (no future millennium): The view that the millennium of Revelation 20 is fulfilled in the present institutional church or in the deceased saints reigning with Christ in heaven. It specifically denies any global millennium. Kingdom is more or less spiritual, with only indirect effects in the physical world. Any physical manifestations of the Kingdom of Christ during this time are coincidental via the impact of the gospel. • Premillennialism: The view that Christ's Second Advent will occur before the earthly millennium of Revelation 20, and will, in fact, institute that millennium (or the physical rule of Christ’s church in the world). This is the idea that Christ will reign on the earth with His church physically for a long period, probably a thousand years, sometime in the future. • Postmillennialism: The view that Christ's Second Advent will occur after the earthly millennium of Revelation 20. Most postmillennialists believe that the kingdom of God advances in history slowly, almost imperceptibly, but that there will be a Godly Golden Age as prophesized in the Old Testament prophets before Christ returns.

14. C. What does this have to do with politics? The Millennium may be: 1. Physical and Present - If the millennium and reign of Christ is said to be physical and presently manifesting itself, then it makes more sense for the church to work in or engage the political process in order to usher in the Kingdom of Christ because that Kingdom will extend to both church and state prior to the Second Coming. 2. Physical but Future - If the millennium is physical, but entirely future (after the Second Coming), then there is less incentive to engage the political process, at least not tenaciously or distinctly, because the Kingdom will be limited to the church (not state/world) until the Second Coming. • Spiritual only and Present or Future - If the millennium is only spiritual, then the church at no point in time has the incentive or instruction to look to the political process as a means of ushering in the Kingdom of Christ. Indeed, the state can never be identified with the Kingdom of Christ in any sense if this is the nature of the millennium. • Theologies of Religious Disengagement

15. Augustinian-Lutheran: “By two cities I mean two societies…one…predestined to reign with God from all eternity, the other doomed to undergo eternal punishment with the devil (Book XV, Chapter 1). – St. Augustine Augustine & Luther spoke of Two Kingdoms (City of Man & City of God). One passes away; the other is eternal. Christians are dual citizens, but owe their ultimate allegiance to Jesus. These two kingdoms should carry on with no overlap, minding their own business. State promotes justice, peace, and order. The church concerns itself with the edification of believers and spread of the gospel. State should not take steps to see God’s Law (Decalogue), much less God’s Word, explicitly imposed as such on its subjects. For saints only. In city of man, all people share common goals and knowledge in politics as earthly citizens because God’s natural law, which all men possess, tells them enough about what is right/wrong and wise to solve collective problems (no need for special revelation here – Bible – to tell them). That is, Christians are to appeal to God’s natural revelation in politics and God’s special revelation in church. The church has no distinctive political worldview. Christians, like non-Christians, will disagree on how to best carry out civil justice/common good. As long as there is justice, peace, and order, the church is to be indifferent to politics.

16. “[State and church] have different purposes (salvation of sinners versus the restraint of the harm caused by sin), different constituencies (all the redeemed across time and space versus all the created within certain geographic borders), different authorities (special revelation versus reason/natural revelation), and different means (the supernatural tools of preaching and the Sacraments versus the natural means of the sword and the purse-strings). Application: Consider it a huge mistake to identify the work/mission of the church with the work/mission of a political party. Which millennial/kingdom view is closest? __________________ B. Anabaptists and Radical Reformers – basically teach that we are not dual citizens, but truly only citizens of God’s kingdom. Strict separation between church and state and even between believer and state (some go so far as to require nonvoting, but also they are pacifists, against oaths, and often against holding public office). Very suspicious of state and think of it as inherently evil. The Christian is to refrain from resistance under any circumstance (even persecution). All human institutions are evil. Today, some Baptists, Mennonites, and Amish embrace these views.

17. Fundamentalists, a term that became associated with theologically conservative Protestants who reacted to Darwinian evolution and Higher Criticism of the Bible in the early 20th century, taught that the way to deal with an increasingly secular society/state is to be removed from it (if it was secular, it was evil) or at least become more introverted. This view was applied to government involvement as well. Fairly short-lived (NeoEvangelicals). • Humanism – though not a religion in the popular sense of the term, secular humanism calls for strict separation of formal religious institutions and the state. They also call for taxing church property (they consider this exemption favoritism). Also believe that religious motivations ought not influence policy outcomes. • Jewish - though it may appear this group would favor the reestablishment of the OT theocracy (Israel), Jews virtually all champion strict political neutrality concerning religion and the state (probably due to history of persecution). Only strict neutrality, as difficult as it may be institutionally and individually, is the only goal that protects the rights of all (p. 20-21 Corbett).

18. III. Theologies of Religious Engagement • Neo-Calvinists, Pluriformity, Sphere Sovereignty – accept the Two Kingdom view of Luther, but argue that there really is no common ground between believers and unbelievers (dismiss natural revelation; embrace presuppositionalism) in the public sector. People of all faiths and no faith should be free as religious individuals and institutions to influence society and gov’t as their worldview sees fit (no favoritism of any religion, including secularism). The proper implementation of a truly Biblical society is one where all institutional spheres of creation (family, school, church, state, etc.) are limited in authority and answer directly to God with the goal of restoring those institutions back to their created order/function prior to Adam’s fall; the state’s purpose is to restrain evil, do good by promoting public justice which involves making sure that these institutions do not intrude upon each other’s turf. Cultural mandate is to “subdue the earth.” So, state can punish criminals, but not deny them communion; employer can fire an employee, but not spank them; Boys Club can keep girls out, but not from the voting booth, and state must be even-handed between all religious people/organizations, etc. Sovereign only in their God-given spheres of authority.

20. Reconstructionists – these groups basically argue that the proper government is one which grounds all civil law in Biblical law & endorses Christianity (with varying degrees of toleration for other religions). They teach that the Kingdom of Christ has a direct physical manifestation not only in the lives of believers but in society/politics as well. They are postmillennial; disagree with the Two (distinct) Kingdoms until Christ’s return view. Not necessarily calling for a theocracy, but for a state that seeks to honor and promote the God of Christianity. Called Reconstructionists because they often believe that this was the original intention of the colonialists (Puritans and Pilgrims seeking to reconstruct OT Israel in the New World). Argue that a secular state will inevitably replace Christ as savior (no neutrality). Also believe that the Bible calls for free-market capitalism.

21. Neo-Evangelicals – parted ways with fundamentalists (1950s) in theological approach (refused to ignore Bible critics, for example, but rather to engage them at the highest levels of theological, scientific, and philosophical discourse). Whereas fundamentalism responded to cultural modernity (secularism, science, theological liberalism, etc.) by withdrawing from culture, Neos argued that Christianity calls for direct engagement without accommodation. Christians must not surrender any front, including politics, to seculars and theological liberals (neglects duty and results in societal disintegration). But, no specific political theory, however. Far more tempered, contemplative, and theological in approach to politics than current “Christian-Right.” A few common threads: • Stress need for explicit recognition of divine law (God) as the only adequate ground for civil law (e.g., human rights) • Explicit support for those policies specifically prescribed to government in scripture (laws protecting human life, property, religious freedom; those punishing criminals), but respect diversity of views for all others (not all sin should be criminalized).

22. Liberation Theology - explores the relationship between Christian, especially Roman Catholic, theology and political activism, particularly in areas of social justice, poverty and human rights. The main methodological innovation of liberation theology is to do theology (i.e. speak of God) from the viewpoint of the economically poor and oppressed of the human community. According to Jon Sobrino, S.J., the poor are a privileged channel of God's grace. According to Phillip Berryman, liberation theology is "an interpretation of Christian faith through the poor's suffering, their struggle and hope, and a critique of society and the Catholic faith and Christianity through the eyes of the poor". Liberation theology focuses on Jesus Christ as not merely as Savior but as Liberator of the Oppressed. Emphasis is placed on parts of the Bible where Jesus' mission is described in terms of liberation and as a bringer of justice (Matthew 26:51-52). This is interpreted as a call to arms to carry out this mission of justice -- literally by some. A number of liberation theologians, though not all, also add certain Marxist concepts.

23. Roman Catholic view – Initially, the Roman Catholic church condemned the Revolutionary sentiment running through Reformation thinking. The Church criticized constitutionalism and democracy as producing an unnatural and godless society (preferred absolute hierarchy in church and society). But this view was basically altered in the late 19th and especially after Vatican II (1962-1965). The church then more or less embraced liberal democracy and the doctrine of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity – coined by Pope Pius XI, states in his Rerum Novarum (1931) that wherever possible, duties should be fulfilled by the lowest conceivable element in the social hierarchy (God at the top, then church, state, mediating structures); only in the case of failure is a higher authority (state) authorized to step in. In practice, this has meant an opposition to totalitarian regimes and support for social justice. Social Justice in Catholicism – Life is sacred; appreciation for differences and inequalities among men. Develop notion of Solidarity, which stresses that humans are inevitably inter-related; this warrants social action on behalf of others. Good gov’t acknowledges these principles, and intervenes to promote them when subordinate institutions fail to do so adequately (backs out when they do).

25. Distinction between Sphere Sovereignty (Neo-Calvinists) and Subsidiarity. They agree that the human will is not ultimate either individually or corporately (God’s will is), but they disagree on whether there is an ultimate source of sovereignty delegated by God in the earth (i.e., a mediating sovereign) from which other sovereignties (families, individuals, church, etc) get their authority. For the RCC, the ultimate earthly authority is the church in spiritual matters and the state in non-spiritual matters. The decision guide for the church is revelation (Bible, Tradition, and Pope); for the state it is reason. • Erastian-Anglican; Episcopalian: English Anglicanism historically viewed the church as a _______ of the state (seemingly opposite of RC). Church is under authority of King (Anglican) or Parliament (Erastian). State dictates what is permissible in religious matters. American Episcopalians have traditionally upheld this model in church gov’t, but not state gov’t. England eventually followed this lead, at least in practice. • Christian Right? Activism appears to be almost completely reactionary, not stemming from a careful theological/philosophical ground (no theology of the state). Ready, Shoot, Aim! An exercise in “status politics”? (Lost dominant status in society and reacting to new “threats” like a wounded or cornered lion (merely lashing out?)

26. Religion, Political Theory, Constitutional and Liberal Democracy • Genevan Reformation or Scottish Enlightenment: What’s the Debate? • Scottish Enlightenment and Contractarianism (mid-17th century to late 18th) – Theory says that modern constitutionalism and liberal democracy were basically products of progressive Enlightenment and Humanist thinkers (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu). Rousseau - “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains [social; not political].” We are encumbered by moral/civic/social ties we have not chosen. • Reaction to religious wars follow Reformation (Which church to establish?); goal = secular basis political order; humans were basically good if left to their natural state of disconnected individual autonomy; capable of self-government; government originates among men as a social contract in order to protect/liberate us from bonds of those who would violate our “natural rights” of life, liberty, property and individual autonomy; gov’t power must be limited and divided to prevent tyranny; did not stress need for religion in society (sometimes quite hostile to it, especially when Enlightenment thought united with Humanism which developed soon thereafter and deified human happiness, wisdom, ability, etc.). Individuality is prior to social arrangements in state of nature. People freely and autonomously consent to a social contract (unlike other social institutions).

27. The contract is the only social bond that allows individuals to retain their autonomy (their terms/conditions). Result: Liberation! Foreshadow: American political thought has usually embraced the “atomistic” view of society (basic unit is the autonomous individual rather than groups or structures; contrast with subsidiarity and sphere sovereignty). “Through the contracts that he makes with his fellow, each individual is the author of his every obligation” - Pierre Manent. • Key point: Civil society is based not on moral ideals derived from religion, but strictly from natural, biological instinct of self-preservation. Compare briefly to Christian social theory: • Creation? Dependence in Trinity/Eden vs Independence in State of Nature • Fall? Adam’s sin and consequent distortion of creation vs “chains” of civilization (family, church, workplace, marriage) • Redemption? Lordship of Christ (Restoration) vs State via Contract among Men (back to autonomy) “Each citizen would then be completely independent of all his fellow men, and absolutely dependent on the state.” Rousseau B. Genevan Reformation – Theory that liberal and constitutional democracy originated from the Scriptures and in the minds of Christian, especially Protestant Calvinist-Reformation era, thinkers. “After religious despotism is overthrown, civil despotism cannot long continue.” - Boettner

28. II. Theology of the State as It Evolved in Church History: • Constantine – converted in 312; first Roman Emperor to explicitly profess Christian faith; 313 toleration for Christianity is first act; gave $/land back to persecuted Christians; public aid to Roman Church; decreed civil actions to follow church discipline; confused leadership of church and state; church changed from disestablished to established; Non-believers?; required church membership but debate surrounding degree of ruthlessness. • Augustine – Viewed gov’t as neither inherently evil or good; saw fall of Roman Empire as instance of God’s providence “bringing princes to naught and reducing rulers to nothing” especially when gov’t pursues power instead of its only legitimate function, justice (Rom. 13). Gov’t is necessary evil; traced not to created order of God, but is a gracious consequence of the Fall. • Aquinas - Duties of a king: promote common good; promote piety and virtue and prohibit impiety and vice so far as he can. Idea was shared b all through Reformation (except Anabaptists). No discussion of political freedom or rights here. Promoting common good may and can result in violating human rights. • Medieval Christian political theology – more or less went the route of Aquinas. Membership in the church and membership in the state were considered synonymous (baptized into both).

29. Commentary: Though the notion of inherent human rights and freedom which is the foundation of liberal democracy was present prior to the Reformation, primarily in religious theology, its introduction in political theology did not emerge until afterwards. Augustine came the closest. III. Enlightenment and Reformation: Reactions to Christendom A. First generation reformers and limited government (Luther and Calvin) – stressed the sovereignty of God in salvation, the church, and then the state (over against Rome). Anti-Absolutism (whether Pope or King). Tenants of Calvin’s political thought: Only God has sovereign rights; The Fall justifies gov’t existence; Authority of rulers over other men is always bound by what God permits in revelation. In short, Calvinism “built a dam across the absolutistic stream, not by appealing to popular force (Enlightenment), nor to the hallucination of human greatness (Humanism), but by deducing those rights and liberties of social life from the same source from which the high authority of government flows – even the absolute sovereignty of God.” – Abraham Kuyper. B. Second generation reformers on Freedom, Resistance to Tyrants, Covenantalism (Bucer, Beza, Buchanan, Mornay, Althusias, Rutherford, Puritans in general):

30. 1. Beza (1574) and Mornay (1579) – No king is above The King. Beza: When obedience to the king (state) offends the King of kings, people (or lower magistrates) have right, duty, to resist; Mornay: people as a whole are above the king because they are the first covenant partners with God (radical for this time); a kings relationship to people is covenantal and people have right to depose the king when terms of covenant are violated by king; advocated a “federalistic-democratic” idea; when law of God (one or both tables of the Decalogue) are violated by king, people/magistrates may resist. • George Buchanan (1579 book) – argued for the preeminence of law (nation of laws ,not men). “It is much safer to trust liberties to laws than to kings…confine them to narrow bounds, and thrust them, as it were, into cells of law…circumscribe [them] within a close prison…The law then is paramount to the king, and serves to direct and moderate his passions and actions.” 3. Johannes Althusius (1557-1638) – has been identified as the most important Political Scientist of the Reformation period. His work Politica argued explicitly for a federal political system, which he argued first appears in the OT covenants with Jews. • He argued that societies were divided in to various divinely created spheres (church, family, nations, provinces, cities, professional associations). Government is simply a confederation of these smaller social units and may not interfere with the authority of these.

31. The civil law is toothless/shaky without a transcendent ground. • The 10 commandments provides that ground and serves a basis for civility and order in society (p. 206 Hall). He applied both tables to the state, which meant that the state had a duty to protect society against false doctrine/religion (i.e., 1st table as civil law; consistent with others to this point; discuss options here!). • Advocated the creation of a council of “Ephors” (independent supervisors) who reviewed the work of the civil authorities. They would be chosen by consent of the people as public/constitutional custodians (trustees). They can depose the king by supermajority vote. “The supreme magistrate exercises as much authority as had been explicitly conceded to him by the associated members or bodies of the realm. And what has not been given to him must be considered to have been left under the control of the people or universal association. Such is the nature of the contractual mandate…Absolute power…cannot be given to the supreme magistrate.”

32. 3. Rutherford, Puritans and Covenantalism and Liberty of Conscience In Lex Rex (1644, means Law is King), Rutherford set forth the most challenging work yet regarding the absolute power of the King. He reasoned that the king’s power is derived from the people whose authority is derived from God. The king, then, rules always and only conditionally (legal/constitutional conditions set forth by people and God). Further, Parliament is superior to king (very controversial for time). He argued that the people’s law is above the king, and the people cannot sign over their liberty/sovereignty to any king. No king is king by nature, but by law/vote. The Puritans, comprised of many separatists or noncomformists, began to argue that people had the right to worship the true God according to the “dictates of their conscience” without interference from the state. The most respected Puritan Confession of faith stated this explicitly. It asserted that in matters of doctrine and discipline, the state is not to interfere with church; state should refrain from violating freedom of religious expression for individuals subject to Christ and His Word (Westminster CF 23 and 30). Not always perfectly honored by Puritans when in power (e.g., New World).

33. Summary: Reformers of both generations articulated a political philosophy based upon Scripture which denied the absolute authority of the state (or people); considered rulers and subjects as equally valuable (same as in church); placed the people and law above the king, generally called for a federal-democratic, divided, political system; called for a constitution which mirrored Biblical covenants where divine law (perhaps 10 commandments) serves as a transcendent ground of civil law; acknowledged right of people to resist and depose a king who violates the terms of covenant; we do not form government based on self-interest or ideals that we ourselves determine. Note on church government – the most common forms of church government (decision making structure) among the Reformers was congregational (democratic) or presbyterian (federal-republican). Clearly, many reformers came to believe that their view of how church gov’t should be structured came to influence how civil government should be structured (“Presbytery agreeth with monarchy like God with the devil”)

34. Covenantalism: The Puritans viewed a covenant as a social and divine promise: each participant in the covenant is expected to do certain things. A violation of the covenant could have the most disastrous consequences for those who had entered therein. Following biblical precedents, a covenant would also last from generation to generation. By means of these covenants, Puritans were among the first English speaking people to implement a government bound by written words in a single document. Comparing Covenants and Contracts: • Covenants use Broad instead of Narrow language (no loopholes) • Covenants are solemn sacred promises instead of cold legal words on paper • Covenants are social/communitarian in nature instead of individual (We instead of I) • Covenants identify a collective purpose and identity • Covenants are validated or sealed in the presence of and by an external higher authority, typically God

35. Reformation Political Thought Political Sovereignty rests with God  people  state Ground of Natural Human value/rights = Imago Deo (originates with God) Justification for Gov’t = ordained by God at least to suppress evil (original sin), promote common good including proliferation of true religion (more communitarian) Constitution = morally-informed pact between people having independent/equal status based upon voluntary consent and established by promises made before God. Implications – Reformation political thought led more to republicanism, with divine law and God as supreme (Glorious Revolution, English Civil War) Enlightenment Political Thought People  State NHR ground = State of Nature, mutual and unanimous consent, virtue of being human (originates with humans)* Why gov’t? Self-interest, protect natural rights (life, liberty, property); return individuals to natural state of autonomy; more individualistic Constitution is a legal contract among people to form gov’t for sake of self-interest, limited gov’t, and binds all (posterity and immigrants) Implications - Enlightenment thought led more to democracy, with human law and the majority as supreme (French Revolution) *Today’s liberal theorists like Rawls attempt to ground freedom in something other than natural rights/law (too religious) and appeal only to what is rational.

36. Points of agreement: Need for government People come before (in time) gov’t, so gov’t rests upon people. Humans have inherent worth/dignity/value/rights (separate question: Why?) Civil rulers must be checked legally/constitutionally (divided government, federalism, etc.) and by elections No divine right of kings Development of liberal democracy (including freedom of worship). Product of Christian political thought? Where did freedom come from? Some critics of liberal democracy contend that it produces immoral people and a secular, even anti-religious, state. Confusion for many American Christians (hate it here, want to spread it abroad). Liberal theorists (e.g., John Rawls) have argued that liberal democracy is exclusively a product of the Enlightenment and is and was built on non-religious grounds. Nicholas Wolterstorff argues that both are wrong because both falsely attribute liberal democracy merely to Enlightenment. Instead, he contends that liberal democracy is rooted in Christian thought: salvific equality, freedom of worship/conscience, functional separation of church and state.

37. Argues that tolerance for religious freedom and pluralism was granted not because of a desire for a secular state, but because the cost (lives and dollars) of enforcing religious compliance was too great and ultimately self-destructive. • So, they arrived at: do what you can for common good and to make me good (Aquinas), but do not violate their human dignity/worth/rights (life, liberty property). Departure from Aquinas. • Political theology had caught up with Christian religious theology all based on the Imago Deo concept often expressed as Natural Rights (also Augustine’s Two Kingdom distinction). Man = “just a little lower than the angels” in terms of worth. Read Locke quote next slide. • Argues further that the Bible calls for Christian liberal democracy which allows for religious pluralism and freedom but honoring God-given human rights, where all religious perspectives/people are welcome in the public square (Dutch Calvinistic political theory) for debate and voting (unlike Rawls).

38. “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.” – John Locke

39. Religion and the American Founding • Puritanism in Colonial America • “To express and pursue the Protestant Reformation” in America. 1. Earliest Puritan immigrants (e.g., Massachusetts Bay Colony; Plymouth’s Pilgrims) left Europe primarily to escape persecution and worship, as a group, according to their religious convictions but also to expand the Kingdom of Christ. They brought with them, the Genevan Study Bible and Genevan Calvinism. 2. Key figure: Cotton Mather. Mather (1663-1729), churchmen, first historian, and political leader, argued that the consensus in New England was that the mission of colonization was to establish a “Christian Commonwealth” just as Calvin had done in Geneva. • How? • Establish colonies based upon divine covenant, which limited government, specified individual freedoms as found in the OT where all other laws were grounded. Colonial Charters (p. 317 Hall; Mayflower Compact). These Charters, based primarily on covenant theology (read Lutz comparing church/gov’t covenant), contained many innovative constitutional ideas (trial by jury of peers, governor’s “council,” declaration of rights, elementary voting for all males, etc.).

40. Establish Reformed institutions of Higher Education which mirrored Calvin’s Academy in Geneva. John Harvard said the purpose of Harvard was to teach students to “know God and Jesus Christ.” Harvard was described as an “incubator of Puritanism. Development common theological base - When the Westminster Assembly drafted its confession of faith in England (1647), virtually all Puritans in NE (churches, governments, colleges) adopted it as well. Indeed, Mather’s historical accounts of New England describes the WCF “as the faith of NE.” • Who? Two important immigration waves • Congregationalists first (1600s; originally connected to Anglican Church, but who sought local church autonomy). Pushed gov’t by covenant. • Scots-Irish Presbyterians second (1700-1776). Came to escape Anglican persecution and imposition in the UK. This group eventually became the only Christian group to unanimously and enthusiastically embrace the American Revolution. Why? It was in Scotland where Reformation thought was strongest (Buchanan and John Knox); where Presbyterian political theology (i.e.,”two-power” theory) strongly endorsed and resulted armed resistance against British Crown; where the WCF was officially adopted. Pushed resistance to British rule.

41. 22% of congregations in 1776 were Congregational; 17% were Presbyterian; most of the rest were some other kind of Reformed church with only 2% Catholic and 2% Methodist. So, 2/3s were tied to the Genevan Reformation (though many Anglicans were reformed in theology). II. American Revolution – Two religious motivations • First, support for the American Revolution came from “the school of Calvin” and Reformed ministers, especially resistance and republican oriented Presbyterians. • Blamed in England: Read from Seabrook’s Presbyterian Rebellion. Why? • Ecclesiastical fight: saw the AR as another chapter in the Scottish-Presbyterian and Puritan war against Anglicanism (church ruled by King) and Erastianism (church ruled by Parliament) as well as revenge for Huguenot persecution in France (800k French Protestants massacred); Political fight: republican in church government – republican in civil government. Basically, AR was seen as a continuation of the Reformation.

42. 3. Presbyterian Princeton the “seminary of sedition” - More than any other institution, Princeton became a breeding-ground for Reformation theology in general (until mid 20th century) and reformation political theology (advocating resistance against tyrants) in particular. 9 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention graduate from there and 87 of 243 founding fathers. John Witherspoon (1723-1794) president of Princeton in 1768 (Jonathan Edwards had also been president a decade before) had personally instructed many of the most radical revolutionaries (including James Madison - “If men were angels”). Arguably the most read and popular preacher at this time. Witherspoon’s students: 6 in CC; 12 governors; 30 judges; 21 senators; 39 HR. “Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson” – Horace Warpole (Prime Minister in Parliament). 4. More than half of all soldiers/officers in AR were Presbyterians. • The denomination was the only institution in America organized and propagating republicanism (read from Seabrook). Prior to the Continental Congress, the General Synod of the Presbyterian Church was the only body representing the 13 colonies united the country before there was a congress. B. Baptizing Enlightenment Thought – many of the founding fathers derived their some of their motivation for rebellion from ET

43. Jefferson and Thomas Paine can hardly be described as even religious, much less Christian or Reformed. The ET’s secularized view of natural rights (freedom, life, property) & self-government and anti-authoritarianism and establishment tone were sufficiently persuasive to many of the younger less-religious founders. But even among the orthodox Protestants, the great stress on individual rights and liberty and self-evident truths found in ET and Humanist theory was rapidly being adapted to fit Protestantism in America to produce a new individualized distinctly American brand of orthodox Protestantism, which is dominant to this day. How? • Religious Revivalism: Populism and Rationalism in America (Embracing of Dualism in Protestant America) A. Protestantism in 1776 – Emergence of Populists and Rationalists • Populists: 1st Great Awakening occurred amidst dying churches. The GA revivals erupt in the 1740s; downplay religious importance of doctrine, intellectualism, and community; stressed individual conversion, experience, and holiness regardless of denomination. Indeed, revivalist preachers urged hearers to leave churches where the awakenings were criticized as too emotional & irrational. Salvation was not thought to be a process connected to church life, but a personal encounter with God outside of church. Appealed to common folk and helped to grow the Baptists, newly formed Methodists and other denominations that stressed an individualized populist simple faith and opposed “elitism” of established churches.

44. Indeed, the Methodists, founded primarily by John Wesley, popularized for the first time Arminianism, which would soon overtake nearly all Protestants within a 100 years or so. • Growth in adherence did not take place among the established churches, but among the “upstart” groups (Baptists and Methodists). Note: What does this brand sound like in the Enlightenment Thought? An atomistic voluntaristic view of ecclesiology mirrors that of secular political philosophy. The covenantal view, remember, conceived of society as communal and organic. Basically, the populist wing embraced the subject of the Enlightenment, autonomous independent individual. Note: stress on individual, experiential, non-doctrinal or confessional, consumerist faith coupled with the popular view of pastors as inspirational celebrities (George Whitefield, nation’s first national celebrity) rather than theological instructors led to an eventual neglect of the “evangelical mind” among most evangelicals. Religion is a personal and heart thing only: dualism in popular religion. Led to fundamentalist movement; explicit and complete embrace of this view in 2nd Great Awakening. • Rationalists: Established/confessional churches responded to the revivals by stressing a “rational” faith (they were embarrassed) to the point that philosophical rationalism/empiricism among most of these denominations eventually replaced revelation as authoritative well in to the 19th century.

45. Started out as a mild concession to challenge of secular Enlightenment (whatever stands test of reason is true; but they believed as Locke did, that Christianity could be proven true by reason/evidence alone). This group came to embrace the methodology of the Enlightenment; scientific investigation using reason and observation alone. • Ironically, the form of enlightenment thought embraced by most established church ministers and other intellectuals in America (most founding fathers) was Common Sense Realism, from Thomas Reid in Scotland (referred to as ground of “American Enlightenment”). Reid argued there are truths which are “self-evident” (in response to Hume’s skepticism). They do not need to be defended or explained because they are common sense. No one seriously disputes them, except for bizarre idle philosophers who have nothing better to do. John Witherspoon embraced this view and taught it at Princeton. All important question: What truths are “self-evident”?

46. Answer from Reid, Witherspoon, and the growing # of “Rational” ministers: Life, liberty, property, self-government, basic teachings of Christianity (God’s existence, His goodness, His creation). These lay the foundation of knowledge; beyond this knowledge is acquired through the Baconian method of science (induction). This seemed to most evangelical thinkers in the18th and 19th centuries to be an unbeatable & satisfactory answer to the more radical/atheistic of Enlightenment thinkers (like Rousseau). This next step in the system, was based on Induction, not Deduction (don’t start with axioms, philosophical systems or set of assumptions and then investigate the world for support; start with observations from sense experience and derive a general theory). Assumes we can all agree on a common standard, facts, or method of truth discovery (neutrality). So, revelation becomes subordinate to reason. Discuss Rationalism, Empiricism, and Revelationalism (TAEs?). Note: Most Protestant thinkers/scholars/ministers from the rationalist camp pursued this rigorously and ended up at theological liberalism, especially after rise of Darwinism and German Higher Criticism (e.g., birth of Unitarianism which denies the Trinity; why?). Some developed “New Calvinism” like Timothy Dwight at Yale. Some remained orthodox but embraced basic methods of Enlightenment thought (Princeton; though discuss Darwin here). But rank & file evangelicals embraced this approach, assumed it would prove the truth of Christianity. The “scientific approach” was considered solely reliable and applied to BOTH science and theology. One does not need history/creeds/confessions if Biblical texts, like scientific data, “speak for themselves.”

47. Who needs insight of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Edwards; Baconian method will reveal truth. Result: more theological shallowness and individualism. Approach Biblical text as isolated individuals, without regard to insight from Christian historical theology. • Ethics: Since the new accepted method of truth discovery was Baconian induction, “an effort was made to construct ethics as Bacon had defined the doing of science.” That is, it was assumed that a “moral sense” was knowable apart from divine revelation. Self-evident Natural Law, apprehended through reason alone, became the basis of ethics for virtually all scholars (evangelicals too). Lower/Upper? • Not hard to see the next step: If “rational” morality could be perfectly understood as laws of nature (a purely naturalistic perspective), then Christianity loses its relevance in public and intellectual spheres of society. It’s unneeded. Dualism in Rational Religion. Schaeffer argued that if values, moral laws, etc. can be inductively known through science, experience, reason, then the lower story will “eat up” the upper story (inevitable consequence of Dualism). Alternate view: “Our sense of right and wrong is merely a datum of experience – which must be explained and accounted for by an overarching worldview. And if the Christian worldview is ruled out as an explanatory framework, the [non-]Christian worldviews will rush in to fill the vacuum.” Evangelical scholars in the late 18th and 19th centuries assumed that methodological naturalism and moral science were neutral approaches to truth discovery; findings would prove to be consistent with Christianity.

48. This opened the door to philosophical naturalism (nature is all that exists). It was not long before scholars embracing this philosophy walked right through the door that had been opened for them” largely by evangelical scholars. – Nancy Pearcey. Result: Secularization of the American university and educational system (Psychology replaces Moral Philosophy; Theology pushed into separate department; Religion largely replaced by Humanities as study of morality, meaning, etc.). “The naturalistic definition of science was transformed from a methodology into a dominant academic worldview.” – Marsden. To evangelicals it seemed they were only agreeing to use the same methods of analysis, but what really happened was they were agreeing to the basic presuppositions or worldview assumptions of philosophical naturalism: No science method, no truth (Dawkins – The God Delusion; lower has invaded the upper; e.g., religion and values do not belong in the science classroom, but science belongs in ethics, the pulpit, moral analysis). 3. The Deists: There were several deists among founders. Nearly all were private about it and did not appear so on the outside (except Thomas Paine). Views: p. 58 C. Where did it go? Critique Bishop Butler and Darwin made deism unnecessary. • Replacing Classical Republicanism with Classical Liberalism What was played out in the religious realm after 2nd GA resulted in a virtual break with Classical Republicanism in the political realm.

49. Classical Republicanism in America (from Puritans to Whigs to Federalists): Social institutions like family, church, and state were thought of as organic wholes and units of society, each with a common good transcending individuals’ interests. Words meant different things: • Virtue was primarily public, not private (fulfilling responsibilities already laid out for individuals based on civic-obligations; husband-wife, parent-child, pastor-laity, magistrate-citizen). • Liberty was publicly defined as well (“federal liberty” is right of each social institution to govern itself and right of individuals to do that which is good or which fulfills covenant obligations). Distinguished between Natural Liberty and Federal Liberty. There is a Liberty of corrupt Nature, which is affected both by Men and Beasts, to do what they list; and this Liberty is inconsistent with Authority, impatient of all Restraint; by this Liberty, we are all the worse. 'Tis the Grand Enemy of Truth and Peace, and all the Ordinances of God are bent against it. But there is a Civil, a Moral, a Federal Liberty, which is the proper End and Object of Authority; it is a Liberty for that only which is just and good; for this Liberty you are to stand with the hazard of your very Lives; and whatsoever Crosses it, is not Authority but a Distemper thereof. John Winthrop  • Leadership (whatever kind) was an “office” with divine sanction; called to be “disinterested” sacrificing personal interests and ambition for sake of common good of group. Growing criticism, in light of Great Awakening here and Enlightenment thought abroad, was the this was too elitist, authoritarian, and hierarchical (common people considered too self-interested, uneducated, to be trusted with decision-making).

50. Classical Liberalism – based on social contract theory; regarded civil society as voluntary gathering of autonomous individuals. Not an organic whole. No common group good beyond the purposes interests of individual members. No need for a “leadership class” charged with protecting common good. Denies that government is to be place of public virtue; state simply a product of individual choices; worth was functional only (facilitate individual interests). Individuals are basic unit of society (atomistic). By time of American Revolution and certainly the Constitutional Convention, Protestants were split on this issue (supporters and opponents of GA) and the Framers were also divided. But classical liberalism was gaining ground rapidly. • Explaining disestablishment of Christian denominations. • Establishment - How? Meant tithes collected by state, set parish boundaries, pay clergy salaries, hire/fire them, suppress dissent. • Establishment - Who? Congregationalists (NE), Episcopalians (NY, VA, MD, NC, SC, GA). • Disestablish. Why? • Thought to be impractical and too costly ($ and security). Not really pursuing a secular state, but seen as a means of survival in an age of rapidly growing religious pluralism.