God and American Democracy
Note: This post was originally written as a response to the arguement that American democracy was largely founded on classical models such as Athens.
I was disappointed that no one followed up on PresbyPoet's comments posted earlier today at The Belmont Club. His point is important. Until John Calvin there had been little or no Biblical/theological rationale for overthrowing an "ordained by God" monarch. If, as the Medieval Church had held (and the Bible supported--see Romans 13), a monarch's authority was given by God, then any opposition to a king/queen was identical to opposition to God.
Calvin, however, showed that a "magistrate" (here read "monarch" or "any political leader") was granted authority by God soley for the purpose of protecting his/her people from injustice and oppression. Calvin speculated that, should the magistrate violate his covenant with God and become a vehicle for injustice and oppression, then the people, calling on God's mercy, had the "right" to remove or overthrow the one whose misuse of authority had proven their personal rejection of God's favor.
As PresbyPoet pointed out, this theological approach was put to practical use by Calvin's student, John Knox of Scotland. Knox confronted the "authority" of Mary, Queen of Scots and, in the end, prevailed against her. Her son, James the VI of Scotland was raised as a reformed protestant and carried this faith with him when he united the kingdoms of England and Scotland, becoming King James I of England. Scotland, meanwhile, had established a form of representative democracy overseen by representative Lairds on the civil side and church ministers and elders on the spiritual side (aka the Church of Scotland).
James I carried the Calvinist fervor into England. He was the one who commissioned the translation of the Bible into a uniform, scholarly, literate and contemporary form. In many ways he reflected a certain attitude of humility and service as befitted his Calvinist upbringing.
His son and successor Charles I, however, regressed into magisterial despotism. His pandering to selected royals was divisive and utterly rejected by the growing number of "puritans" among the English population. (Puritans were "Anglicans" who desired that the faith be kept "pure" from the corruptions emerging from a national church under the authority of a self-centered monarch.) A national revolt was begun (justified by the rationale proposed by Calvin) headed by Oliver Cromwell and his Roundhead army.
In the end, London was successfully besieged, Charles I arrested, tried and subsequently beheaded. Cromwell set up a "commonwealth" government loosely based on Calvinist principals. At his command, Calvinist and other selected religious representatives from England were called to a convocation in Westminster Hall (referred to as the Westminster Assembly of "Divines") and ordered to create a comprehensive Confession of Faith and Catechism that would unite the people of England around one standard set of beliefs. Among other things this Assembly produced the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. These documents became the standing interpretation of Scriptural doctrine for faith and life among Reformed Protestants throughout Europe and the emerging New World.
Cromwell, of course, fell into his own form of despotism and, following his death and the short rule of his son and successor, the public demanded the return of the monarchy. This was accomplished with the coronation of Charles II.
What this has to do with today's topic is this: A hundred years or so later, as American colonists sought a way to separate themselves from the often reactionary governance of the English monarchy, they did not have to look very far to find their justification. It did not hurt that the largest "religious group" represented by delegates in Philadelphia in 1776 were Calvinist Presbyterians (including the only minister to sign the resulting Declaration of Independence, Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, then President of Princeton College in New Jersey, founded as a school for educating Presbyterian pastors and later to become Princeton University.)
(Note that in colonial times the term "religion" was commonly used in the sense that we now use the word "denominations." What we would call world "religions" today were not generally granted the privilege of that term. Other faiths were "pagan." Christianity was the one true "religion." Keep this in mind as you read the first amendment and its reference to the "establishment of religion"--a clear assertion that the "United States" would not endorse one form of Christianity over another...something that had caused so much death and destruction and destablization in Europe for the previous two centuries).
Jefferson, who was commissioned to write the first draft of the "Declaration of Independence," made explicit use of the "Calvinist loophole" for overthrowing the rule of a magistrate. This does not mean for a moment, of course, that Thomas Jefferson believed in any form of Calvinism personally. In fact, I'm sure he didn't. He was, in a uniquely "American" sense, a product of the European "enlightenment." Nonetheless, Jefferson found this approach to be the most useful way to justify the colonial cause, give it a theological foundation (which was historically familiar to the English and credible among the deeply religious colonists) and unifying for the colonial delegations in Philadelphia who were seeking some form of consensus for independence.
It is not coincidental that the ensuing American Revolution was, on several occasions, described in the English Parliament as "that Presbyterian revolt."
Whereas the Declaration of Independence was explicitly religious/theological in tone the subsequent U.S. Constitution was deliberately secular in language (although philosophically based far more on ideas derived from Calvinism than from Enlightenment philosophy as can be determined from the arguments--which largely prevailed--so eloquently expressed in the "Federalist Papers.")
Although the "founding fathers" were well-versed in classical philosophy and literature, I do not believe that their political philosophies were greatly shaped by them. The influence of the Protestant Reformation in general, recent European history, Calvinism and the Bible in particular, provided the primary theoretical foundations for both the Declaration and the Constitution (any reading of the original transcripts of precedings will bear this out).
It is also not coincidental that the Presbyterian Church wrote its first Constitution as a national body meeting in General Assembly in Philadelphia in 1789--concurrently with the creation and adoption of the U.S. Constitution in the same location in the same year.
My argument is thus: The peculiar form of a democratic republic which was established in the United States of America is primarily founded on Christian civil/theological premises originating from John Calvin (who was an excellent classicist himself, personally writing his great "Institutes of the Christian Religion" in both French and Latin). If one is ignorant of the facts I have presented then one will most certainly be forced to grasp at Iroquois or Greek precedents to explain the origins of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Knowing what they knew, the "founding fathers" had no need to reach that far. Nor did they.
I was disappointed that no one followed up on PresbyPoet's comments posted earlier today at The Belmont Club. His point is important. Until John Calvin there had been little or no Biblical/theological rationale for overthrowing an "ordained by God" monarch. If, as the Medieval Church had held (and the Bible supported--see Romans 13), a monarch's authority was given by God, then any opposition to a king/queen was identical to opposition to God.
Calvin, however, showed that a "magistrate" (here read "monarch" or "any political leader") was granted authority by God soley for the purpose of protecting his/her people from injustice and oppression. Calvin speculated that, should the magistrate violate his covenant with God and become a vehicle for injustice and oppression, then the people, calling on God's mercy, had the "right" to remove or overthrow the one whose misuse of authority had proven their personal rejection of God's favor.
As PresbyPoet pointed out, this theological approach was put to practical use by Calvin's student, John Knox of Scotland. Knox confronted the "authority" of Mary, Queen of Scots and, in the end, prevailed against her. Her son, James the VI of Scotland was raised as a reformed protestant and carried this faith with him when he united the kingdoms of England and Scotland, becoming King James I of England. Scotland, meanwhile, had established a form of representative democracy overseen by representative Lairds on the civil side and church ministers and elders on the spiritual side (aka the Church of Scotland).
James I carried the Calvinist fervor into England. He was the one who commissioned the translation of the Bible into a uniform, scholarly, literate and contemporary form. In many ways he reflected a certain attitude of humility and service as befitted his Calvinist upbringing.
His son and successor Charles I, however, regressed into magisterial despotism. His pandering to selected royals was divisive and utterly rejected by the growing number of "puritans" among the English population. (Puritans were "Anglicans" who desired that the faith be kept "pure" from the corruptions emerging from a national church under the authority of a self-centered monarch.) A national revolt was begun (justified by the rationale proposed by Calvin) headed by Oliver Cromwell and his Roundhead army.
In the end, London was successfully besieged, Charles I arrested, tried and subsequently beheaded. Cromwell set up a "commonwealth" government loosely based on Calvinist principals. At his command, Calvinist and other selected religious representatives from England were called to a convocation in Westminster Hall (referred to as the Westminster Assembly of "Divines") and ordered to create a comprehensive Confession of Faith and Catechism that would unite the people of England around one standard set of beliefs. Among other things this Assembly produced the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. These documents became the standing interpretation of Scriptural doctrine for faith and life among Reformed Protestants throughout Europe and the emerging New World.
Cromwell, of course, fell into his own form of despotism and, following his death and the short rule of his son and successor, the public demanded the return of the monarchy. This was accomplished with the coronation of Charles II.
What this has to do with today's topic is this: A hundred years or so later, as American colonists sought a way to separate themselves from the often reactionary governance of the English monarchy, they did not have to look very far to find their justification. It did not hurt that the largest "religious group" represented by delegates in Philadelphia in 1776 were Calvinist Presbyterians (including the only minister to sign the resulting Declaration of Independence, Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, then President of Princeton College in New Jersey, founded as a school for educating Presbyterian pastors and later to become Princeton University.)
(Note that in colonial times the term "religion" was commonly used in the sense that we now use the word "denominations." What we would call world "religions" today were not generally granted the privilege of that term. Other faiths were "pagan." Christianity was the one true "religion." Keep this in mind as you read the first amendment and its reference to the "establishment of religion"--a clear assertion that the "United States" would not endorse one form of Christianity over another...something that had caused so much death and destruction and destablization in Europe for the previous two centuries).
Jefferson, who was commissioned to write the first draft of the "Declaration of Independence," made explicit use of the "Calvinist loophole" for overthrowing the rule of a magistrate. This does not mean for a moment, of course, that Thomas Jefferson believed in any form of Calvinism personally. In fact, I'm sure he didn't. He was, in a uniquely "American" sense, a product of the European "enlightenment." Nonetheless, Jefferson found this approach to be the most useful way to justify the colonial cause, give it a theological foundation (which was historically familiar to the English and credible among the deeply religious colonists) and unifying for the colonial delegations in Philadelphia who were seeking some form of consensus for independence.
It is not coincidental that the ensuing American Revolution was, on several occasions, described in the English Parliament as "that Presbyterian revolt."
Whereas the Declaration of Independence was explicitly religious/theological in tone the subsequent U.S. Constitution was deliberately secular in language (although philosophically based far more on ideas derived from Calvinism than from Enlightenment philosophy as can be determined from the arguments--which largely prevailed--so eloquently expressed in the "Federalist Papers.")
Although the "founding fathers" were well-versed in classical philosophy and literature, I do not believe that their political philosophies were greatly shaped by them. The influence of the Protestant Reformation in general, recent European history, Calvinism and the Bible in particular, provided the primary theoretical foundations for both the Declaration and the Constitution (any reading of the original transcripts of precedings will bear this out).
It is also not coincidental that the Presbyterian Church wrote its first Constitution as a national body meeting in General Assembly in Philadelphia in 1789--concurrently with the creation and adoption of the U.S. Constitution in the same location in the same year.
My argument is thus: The peculiar form of a democratic republic which was established in the United States of America is primarily founded on Christian civil/theological premises originating from John Calvin (who was an excellent classicist himself, personally writing his great "Institutes of the Christian Religion" in both French and Latin). If one is ignorant of the facts I have presented then one will most certainly be forced to grasp at Iroquois or Greek precedents to explain the origins of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Knowing what they knew, the "founding fathers" had no need to reach that far. Nor did they.
posted by Bird of Paradise at 5:59 PM
<< Home