Tim Ellsworth

16 Responses to “John Adams on self-government”

1. Cineaste says:
   June 27th, 2007 at 9:40 am
   

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

   – John Adams, “this awful blashpemy” that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D Cardiff, What Great Men Think of Religion, quoted from James A Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

   The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

   – John Adams, “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”

   The Treaty of Tripoli
   Signed by John Adams

   “As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] … it is declared … that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries….
   “The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.”

   – Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, US Consul)

2. David F. Rasmussen says:
   June 27th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
   

   Tim, the statement you quoted by Adams does not contradict the statements quoted by Cinesaste. All the above idnetify Adams as an 18th century humanist. Like his old political foe and fellow signer of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, Adams became rabidly anti-Christian in his long old age. But long before that he held to a philosophy of government that was based, as James Madison said, on the conviction that human beings have the capacity to control themselves and to keep the Ten Commandments. This is, of course, the anthropology of Pelagius - the complete denial of human depravity. It is on this hinge that the crucial question of what the Gospel is turns.

   What is tragic is to see Christians - even some reformed and Baptist Christians, who should know better at so many levels - quoting old infidels like Adams, Jefferson, and Madison with approval.

   But of course this is from the blog that declares that a Mormon can provide leadership to the country because of his moral worldview. (Did you hear him joke about how Mormons believe marriage is between a man and a woman and a woman and awoman? Were you laughing? If so, were you thinking?)

   We need to stop with the bad history lessons, see politics as the enterprise of fallen men that it is, and get back to preaching the things that upset John Adams, namely the gospel of Jesus Christ the Lord.

3. Tim says:
   June 27th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
   

   David,

   I agree that the statement I quoted does not contradict the statements that Cineaste quoted.

   I disagree, however, that because we might have theological disagreements with someone — even serious ones — that there’s nothing they can ever say that can be right, or that we can learn from.

   In the statement I quoted, I thought Adams made an interesting observation about the nature of the Constitution. By pointing it out, nowhere do I endorse a belief “that human beings have the capacity to control themselves and to keep the Ten Commandments” or deny the doctrine of total depravity. Give me a break.

   As for Romney, he’s running for commander-in-chief, not theologian-in-chief. I wish Christians could get past this idea that someone has line up with us on every theological issue in order to provide capable leadership to the country.

   Would you rather buy a car from an honest Mormon or a dishonest Christian? I’d guess you’d rather buy from the Mormon. So would I. Likewise, I’d prefer a Mormon president who lines up with my beliefs on most of the political issues of the day to a Christian president with whom I disagree on almost everything.

   Finally, discussing political issues and preaching the gospel are not mutually exclusive. If you think they are, then this blog’s not a place where you’re going to feel comfortable.

4. David F. Rasmussen says:
   June 27th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
   

   Tim,

   I certainly don’t think that you have any doubts about depravity, which is precisely why I find it puzzling that you join in with the chorus of the religious right in their quoting of Pelagian statements of early American politicians.

   Undoubtedly there are things we can learn from John Adams, who by all accounts was a leader of integrity and brilliance. But we are discussing the particular quote you cited about the government being created for a moral and religious people. It is not, as you suggest, a fine insight from a conservative political philosopher who just happened to have been an infidel. It is a profoundly unbiblical statement derived from, totally in keeping with, and inseparable from Adams’ religious beliefs.

   We can learn from unbelievers, but not while they are spouting their unbelief.

   My point about Romney is that you make the same error, when you refer not merely to his competence, his record, and his policies, but to his “Judeo-Christian” “values” as the main reason we should vote for him. You bring up religious arguments to support a political position which is in some vague way related to religion, and then you say, “Well, religon doesn’t matter.” And then you protest that you really believe in human depravity.

   I believe that you really believe in human depravity. I just don’t get the rest of it.

5. Tim says:
   June 27th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
   

   David,

   Is it possible for someone to hold Judeo-Christian values without being a Christian? Is it possible to be a moral and religious person without being a Christian?

   You obviously don’t think so. I would disagree with you.

   No, our morality does not make us acceptable to God. We are all totally depraved and unable to follow God apart from His intervention in our lives.

   But morality can make people better citizens, and it’s not Pelagianism or a denial of depravity to think so.

   I’d rather live next door to an atheist who is faithful to his wife, respects the laws of the land, works hard and is socially responsible than to live next door to a professing Christian who steals my stuff, hits on my wife and cusses in front of my kids.

   Wouldn’t you?

6. Klay Aspinwall says:
   June 29th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
   

   Both of the hypothetical neighbors in question are lost - but only one is upfront about it.

   Interesting discussion. David understands the Adam’s quote as incorporating pelagian heresy. I did not understand Adam’s words in this way, but it would be helpful to see the full context of those words.

   As I stated before, if Romney gets the nomination I will be forced to either find an agreeable third-party candidate or else write in “Tim Ellsworth”.

7. David F. Rasmussen says:
   June 30th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
   

   Tim,
   Thanks for the opportunity to respond on your very interesting blog.

   I hesitate to deal with hypotheticals. Of course, I must admit that I recognize (who doesn’t) the nasty neighbor who professes Christianity and lives like a jerk, if not like the devil.

   But who is this “moral and religious” atheist?

8. Tim says:
   June 30th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
   

   I never said there was a “moral and religious” atheist (although I do think it’s possible for atheists to be moral people).

   I said it’s possible for someone to be moral and religious without being a Christian. I would argue that Mormons fall into this category, as would many professing Christians. (And no, we’re not going to have a discussion on this post about whether Mormons are Christians. If you want to argue that, do it in the other discussion we have about that topic).

   Again, David, you’re saying that it’s not possible for someone to be moral without being a Christian, correct? If so, then I think your definition of “morality” is faulty.

9. David F. Rasmussen says:
   June 30th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
   

   Tim,
   I don’t know what to do with your question. Sure, fallen and lost people are aware of moral truths and they follow them with varying degrees of consistency. Paul said in Romans 2:14-15 that the moral behavior of the heathen demonstrates their accountability to the law of God in their hearts.

   On the other humanity is not merely fallen in some vague sense, but depraved.

   But no, I did not say that it’s not possible for someone to be moral, in any sense, without being a Christian. I said that John Adams’ line - which many conservatives have quoted as support for the idea of a “Christian America” - is nothing but 18th century humanist nonsense, and that thinking Christians shouldn’t go around quoting it with approval.

   I’ll let you have the last word — I need to get a sermon done, and I’m going on vacation after tomorrow.

   Have glorious Lord’s Day and a fun, safe and civil civil holiday.

10. Tim says:
    June 30th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
    

    David,

    Nowhere did I suggest that Adams’ statement was “support for the idea of a ‘Christian America.’” Please point that out to me, as I think you’ll have a hard time finding it. My goodness, I didn’t offer any commentary at all about the quote, so anything you think I might be saying is only conjecture and assumption on your part. Perhaps you might do a little more research next time or inquire before you jump to conclusions.

    Next, regarding depravity. Anyone who reads this quote correctly can in no way conclude that Adams is denying depravity here. Nor can you say that I am denying depravity simply by posting it. Depravity does not mean that men are as bad as they possibly can be, but that every aspect (or the totality) of their lives is tainted and twisted by sin.

    For the sake of those who don’t know, Pelagianism is the belief that man is basically good, untainted by the fall and capable of obeying God on his own. As it’s plain to see from the Adams quote, nowhere does he say as much here.

    There may be other times when Adams expresses Pelagian ideals, but this is obviously not one of them. I don’t see how any reasonable or thinking person can read Adams’ words here and conclude that Adams is saying man is inherently good. He’s saying that the Constitution only functions effectively as long as Americans remain a moral and religious people. It’s certainly possible to do that without being a Christian (again, as evidenced by people like Mormons).

    Of course, being moral and religious alone is only enough to help make a better society in this life. It gets nobody anywhere when this life is over, and I’m not saying anything to the contrary.

11. The Unfettered Monk says:
    July 11th, 2007 at 9:52 am
    

    Very interesting discussion. I recently heard the John Adams quote in a video series called “The Truth Project” and again as the tag line at the bottom of someone’s email. I wanted to dig around to see what Adams meant by the quote and I ran into this blog post.

    David has caused you to get a little off topic in that regard. David may be correct that only shallow thinking religious righty type folks would see anything of value in the quote. I’m betting he’s an OPC pastor…

    What are we to conclude about what John Adams meant by what he said? What are the implications?
    Can a religion of atheism and it’s subsequent morality provide an adequate foundation upon which the Constitution will provide proper governance? How about Islam? Did he mean “Christianity” as the religion and was he talking about “Christian” morality?

    Is his statement utterly false assuming a Pelagian anthropology? Can his statement be made by someone with a Reformed anthropology as it pertains to “common grace”?

    Discuss

12. David F. Rasmussen says:
    July 16th, 2007 at 11:33 am
    

    Monk,

    Nice try. But David is not an OPC pastor. I’ve been mistaken for a Presbyterian once or twice before. It’s a little unsettling. I worked as a janitor in a UPC church in my college days, and I grew up in Michigan Dutch Reformed country, albeit in a Methodist church. I once had this especially conservative suit that I thought made me look like a Christian Reformed minister. But I’m just a plain old Calvinistic Southern Baptist preacher.

    I don’t think that either Adams or our host Tim intended to suggest that a “religion of atheism” is an adequate foundation for constitutional democracy. I am not a student of Adams, but I am going to guess that the phrase “moral and religious” was intended to exclude atheism - but not much else.

    Tim seems to suggest that the quote has some value in pointing to the need for a civic morality for a republican constitution to work. I think it likely, given the enthusiasm of all 18th century revolutionaries for the Roman republic and its supposed virtues, that Adams had something like that in mind. Unfortunately, however, Adams did not say that the constitution was fit for “a moral people”. He said “a moral and religious people”.

    What I find in Tim’s defense of his approval of Adams is his suggestion that non-Christians can be not merely moral (of course they can), but also in some positive way, religious.

    In a classical sense “religious” had to do with reverencing and being in right standing with the deity/ies. To Bible Christians this can only refer to justification and true holiness. The notion that there are or can be such a thing as “a religious people” is inherently Pelagian. The notion that we Americans were originally (and only outsiders and traitors prevent us from now being) “a religious people” is nationalism, at best absurd and at worst - well, never mind.

13. j razz says:
    July 16th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
    

    In a classical sense “religious” had to do with reverencing and being in right standing with the deity/ies. To Bible Christians this can only refer to justification and true holiness.

    David, I don’t think you have the right to define terms for Adams. You hold that he held to a classical definition of religious. Who knows. Your classical definition of religious is what the greeks in kione’ greek would call holy.

    Whenever you have to define a term for an author, interpretation can give way to lending itself to one’s argument. It appears that this argument is just such an argument and that would mean that you are arguing for something of which you are uncertain. What further bears mentioning is that this is not worth arguing over as it is speculation on your part as to what Adams meant.

    Why hold to something of which you know not as if you did?

    j razz

14. David F. Rasmussen says:
    July 16th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
    

    J Razz,

    I will concede your point. The opening sentence of the last paragraph of my previous post is muddled. Never mind that I did not say that I know how Adams defined “religious”. I should not have written the business about the classical definition of “religious”.

    All I know is that, as a Unitarian with strong opinions against orthodox Protestant Christianity, Adams did not hold a Biblical view of what it means to be religious.

    But whatever view he held, the Biblical teaching is that real religion involves a relationship with Jesus Christ. And I repeat, by that definition there is no such thing as a “religious people”. There are indeed other senses in which “a people” (a society or culture) might be spoken of as “moral and religious” - Saudi Arabia is certainly a moral and religious society in a certain sense. But no evangelical Christian would dream of commending the religiosity of Saudi Arabia. And no political scientist would suggest that the culture of Saudi Arabia provides a foundation for constitutional democratic republicanism.

    I continue to hold that the Adams quote is humanistic nonsense and that it is unhelpful for Christians to cite it with approval.

15. Tim says:
    July 16th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
    

    I’m debating on whether even to post this, because to me it seems so obvious that a response isn’t necessary.

    But nevertheless, I’ll proceed.

    Of course non-Christians can be religious. That’s what Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims, Jews, etc., are. But no reasonable person will conclude that “religious” = “Christian.” As jrazz said, you’re doing a lot of handstanding and contorting to twist Adams’ words to mean something that he most likely didn’t mean, and that I certainly didn’t mean when I posted this. And honestly David, I don’t appreciate what you’re suggesting about me when you draw such conclusions, based upon some obscure definition of the word that you like to use.

    Let’s assume Adams means what everybody else in the world means when they label someone as “religious.”

    Finally, and yet again, this is not a statement of theology on Adams’ part, and you’re trying to read into his statement (and into my posting of it) something that simply isn’t there. Let’s look at the actual words that were spoken and judge them on their own merit, instead of trying to conjure up some theological motivations behind them.

    It’s time to move along.

16. David F. Rasmussen says:
    July 16th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
    

    Tim,

    Well, you’re right. It is time to move on. The last thing I would want would be for you to think that I think badly of you. The second to the last thing would be for you to ban me from your blog. I’m really grateful to be allowed to post here.

    The John Adams quote is all over the Christian internet as a supposed piece of evidence that our godly founders were seeking to establish a righteous nation based on the Bible.

    You obviously have no such agenda, and are under no such illusions. You would have us take Adams at face value - and to cosider that he may have a point in suggesting that democracy works best (or only) in a nation made up of moral and religious people, no matter what religion they are.

    Well, maybe so. Or maybe not. It’s a political and sociological question, not a theological or moral one, when it’s put that way.

    In any case, I’m sorry that I offended you. I never meant to call you a Pelagian, a Jeffersonian, or even a semi-Arminian. I don’t think that you believe that there is any value in non-Christian religions. I did call Adams (not you, brother!) a raving infidel, and I did suggest that you were unwise to quote him where he uses (with whatever meaning, because as j razz says, who knows?) the word “religious”.

    But I was unkind to upset you.

    Blessings.

    David