What happens to someone that dies in infancy? Do they inherit heaven or are they damned to hell? Though the question has been a puzzle since the early days of Christendom (Gregory of Nyssa wrote a treatise on the topic in the 4th century), it seems to have become a question of great concern in the Church in recent decades. Partly because it (!SPOILER ALERT!) remains unanswered, but mostly because the theology behind many people's speculation results in an unnerving conclusion. Therefore, one's answer to the question of infant salvation is a scope into one's overall understanding of sin and salvation.
Before trying to provide an answer, we must first understand the reason why the question is asked in the first place. The common understanding goes something like: all men have sinned; as such, they are in need of a savior; Jesus Christ died for our sins and if we place our faith in him, we will achieve the salvation which we need. Infants, however, are unable to have faith, and therefore the difficulty arises. For how then can infants be saved from damnation?
Age of Accountability
The most common answer in the modern church is the doctrine of the age of accountability. The doctrine states that one is only culpable for his sins once he has reached a mental/spiritual age in which he is knowledgeable of his sins and understands the implications and effects of them and capable of an appropriate response. The child need not necessarily understand the Bible's exact teaching on sin (i.e., that his sins condemn him to hell), only that there is a moral right and a moral wrong, and understand that he is able to willfully choose one or the other.
In other words, the general teaching here is that God inherently has forgiven our sins before this age of accountability. The age, of course, does not correspond to an exact physical age, but is linked, as said above, to a mental age. This leads some of the doctrine's adherents to additionally claim that God does not hold the mentally retarded accountable to their sins either. Alternatively, some claim that the infants are actually without sin until the age of accountability, that what we would call sinful acts in adults are not sinful in infants.
The doctrine of the age of accountability is, of course, an attempt to provide a comfortable answer to the concern that infants are apparently unable to express faith. Likewise, they are apparently unable to repent of their sins. And if, the adherents say, there is no salvation without faith, then the infants cannot otherwise be saved. And since they are not comfortable with a God who would thusly damn those who seem innocent, they have concocted the doctrine.
I say concocted, since the doctrine has no basis in Scripture. It is entirely an attempt at providing comfort to those who do not fully understand the Bible's teaching on sin and salvation. Specifically, it stems from a denial of the doctrines of original sin and salvation by grace alone. It stems from the fact that the original 'common understanding' of the order of salvation, stated four paragraphs above, is flawed in those two doctrines.
Original Sin
The doctrine of original sin, though found throughout the Bible, finds its primary exposition in Romans 5. Here Paul lays out what is called by theologians federalism, not to be confused with political federalism (though I do find it ironic that I am federalist in both politics and theology; and anti-libertarian in both politics and theology). Paul describes man as being represented in history by two figures: Adam and Christ. By 'represented', I do not mean symbolically like an archetype; rather by 'represented', Paul talks of Adam and Christ as being proxies for mankind.
Adam was the first of these proxies and when Adam sinned, sin was brought upon all of mankind (Rom 5:12). Paul is not saying here that man was cursed with the possibility of sin. He is saying that God held the sin of Adam against all of mankind. We can rightly place the blame for the curse of sin on Adam. We are still individually responsible for the sin that we individually commit, for we do willingly commit it, but the initial sin of Adam is the reason we each have a will corrupted by sin. In theological terms, the sin of Adam was imputed upon all men.
This is a doctrine which is offensive to the ears of the modern church, a church which has eagerly adopted the individualism of our culture. For it says that before you committed a single sin, you were guilty (Rom 5:18). Furthermore, it was a man not of your own choosing who brought the curse of sin upon you. How undemocratic and unjust it sounds to our ears! We would much prefer to be our own Adam, determining for ourselves whether to take on the curse of sin. The reality is, however, that God did choose Adam as a proxy for mankind in his own wisdom and for his own glory. It is the clear teaching of Scripture.
The important aspect of this for the purposes of our present discussion is, that just as the adult has inherited sin from Adam, so has the infant: all are in sin and iniquity from the womb (Ps 51:5). It doesn't matter whether the infant has visibly committed sin or is even cognizant of the sin he may be committing. He has already been condemned with Adam. The condition for accountability for sin is not a mental state, but is existence itself.
So how then is an infant to be saved? For does not salvation require a confession of faith and repentance from one's sins? How can an infant repent from his sin, when he is presumably incapable of even recognizing it? This is where a correct understanding of salvation by grace alone is helpful.
Sola Gratia
Most Christians know and love Ephesians 2:8: 'For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.' The meaning is quite plain. Salvation comes by grace, a completely unmerited gift of favor. Further, what we have done is no precondition for salvation.
Yet the majority of the church misunderstands the verse. They instead read it as saying, 'For by faith you have been saved through grace.' For the church preaches that if one has faith, then one will receive salvation. This is the great Arminian Switcheroo (yes, that's the technical term for it). It trades the Catholic system of salvation by manifold works for a system of salvation by one great work, namely faith. In other words, we have merited grace by our faith.
What we thereby end up saying is, that what differentiates us from non-Christians is a work of faith. The reason why we Christians have salvation, we tell each other, is because we have faith: if those who do not have faith would gain faith, then God would grant to them, too, saving grace. But this is not the teaching of Scripture! The teaching of Ephesians 2:8 - and the teaching throughout Scripture - is that grace precedes faith; faith is the evidence and fruit of grace, of God's salvation working in us. There is nothing that we do - not even when we express faith - which is a condition of our salvation. Before the foundation of the world - before we had any chance at all to express our faith - God chose us in his grace to be saved (Eph 1:4). If we take the grace out of the picture, we have also taken God out of the picture.
We can sure of our salvation when we are witness to our own faith. Not because the faith has saved us, but because it is the fruit and evidence of our salvation. Our regeneration precedes our faith.
The Second Half of Federalism
(AKA The Gospel)
So what does this mean? To answer this, we must return to federalism and pick up where we left off, with Adam bringing condemnation upon all of humanity. That, fortunately for us, is not the end of the story. For God sent a second proxy in Christ. And in Christ were two more imputations which would mean the salvation of the world, for which we will consider 2 Corinthians 5:21, in addition to Romans 5.
Firstly, man's sin was imputed to Christ, so that Christ might die for our sins (2Cor 5:21). By '[dying] for our sins' we mean that he took upon the full penalty of death which was due to our sins, so that we ourselves might not be punished for them. For God is just, and sin requires punishment that he might remain just. In return, just as Adam was the proxy who brought on us sin, so Christ was the proxy who brought on us righteousness (Rom 5:18-9). Christ imputed his righteousness on us.
Thus, we understand that God did know what he was doing after all with all that federalism! Without the federal proxy of Adam, there would neither be the federal proxy of Christ. If we were each our own Adam, we would also need to be our own Christ. Is it not just like our sinful and selfish selves to shun the federal headship of Adam and the sin he imputes to us as unjust, but to embrace the federal headship of Christ and the righteousness he graciously imputes to us? Nevertheless, despite this further manifestation of our sin, all those who are in Christ will receive this righteousness on the merit of Christ alone.
Return to Infancy
So we must ask: what does this mean for infants? The ultimate answer is that Scripture is agnostic on the 'salvation status' of individual infants, or even on infants in general. However, the doctrines found in Scripture allow us to know that God does act justly, without having to fabricate a doctrine, such as the age of accountability.
Instead, we know that infants are treated like any other human. They are all born dead in the sin of Adam and will remain dead, unless the grace of God comes upon them. On the same hand, though, neither are they any less capable of receiving God's saving grace than an adult. For if there is nothing that man does which gains him salvation, then an inability to do works cannot preclude one from salvation. They are just as capable of receiving the imputation of Christ's righteousness as anyone else. They may be incapable of expressing this salvation in the ways we expect of adults (how can we know what an expression of faith looks like in an infant anyways?), but it does not mean that they have not been saved.
I would note that several Reformed theologians have speculated on the general and specific salvation of infants, but have quickly admitted that they are but speculations with little, if any, Scriptural basis. Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss reformer, believed that death in infancy was actually a sign of election, that only those who had been saved were allowed to die in infancy. Peter Martyr adhered strictly to the agnostic view that probably at least some infants were saved, but without witnessing the fruits of salvation, we cannot be sure. Friedrich Spanheim, expanding upon Covenant Theology (perhaps too much), believed that the children of believers were likewise saved and those of unbelievers were likewise unsaved. John Owen believed that the children of believers were surely saved, but the status of those of unbelievers was unsure.
We have assurance, though, that those whom God has elected unto salvation will be saved. No one will 'lose out' on salvation simply because he died in infancy. If one of the elect is to die in infancy, we know that God will remain just and save them in their infancy. The justice of God - and his sovereign execution of that justice - in his work of salvation should always remain the ultimate comfort for all believers.
23 February 2007
20 February 2007
My Free Will Made Me Write This (I Reeeaally Wanted to Anyways)
One of the largest misconceptions about Calvinists is that we do not believe in free will. This is both true and not true. For it depends on our definitions (as most things do): what do we mean when we say 'free will'? There are three main schools of thought on free will: strict determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism, each having its own implications on whether we should accept 'free will' as a reality. (Note that in this context, libertarianism is entirely different from the political theory of the same name.)
To answer the question, I will be briefly discussing in this article each form and its application to a Biblical worldview. We will find that not only is just one perspective is true, but that only one fits in with Reformed theology. There is a special pertinence to salvation - indeed, it is the most often subject of the debate over free will - but this article will discuss free will in only a general manner.
Strict Determinism
Strict determinism is an easy philosophy to define and is essentially the denial of free will. External forces are the only factors in determining the fate of each action. Those external forces may include God, the laws of physics, social norms, etc. And each external force (with the possible exception of a divine force) in turn has its own forces acting upon it. Therefore, from Time Zero, the entire fate of the universe has been determined, and is merely acting itself out. But if we were to know all of the forces involved, we could predict the beginning, the end, and everything in between.
Determinism is not at all a foreign concept. Much of science is based upon a deterministic perspective. If we observe an object behave in a certain way under certain circumstances, then we predict that in the exact same circumstances it will behave exactly the same. And many of our everyday decisions are based upon an assumption of some loose form of determinism. For example, I like Starbucks' caramel Frappuccinos. I like them because every time I've had them, they've been delicious. So I assume that the next time I order one, I will enjoy it, as well.
However, the real question is whether determinism is the correct perspective for humans. Are humans guided by nothing more than stimuli? Is my decision to drink caramel Frappuccinos merely an interaction of chemicals in my brain? If so, then we encounter a severe dilemma for the Christian: what use is morality? There cannot be good and evil.
Further, if we have no will, then how can we be held responsible for our actions? Just as we cannot blame the rubber ball for falling to the earth when I let go of it, neither can I blame the assassin from killing the dignitary. All of a sudden, 'The devil made me do it,' is not only a legitimate excuse, but the precise explanation. Every action is at the impulse of a force beyond our control.
Deism was a religious/philosophical belief prominent in the 18th century, which had its roots in determinism. Even though all things in determinism have a cause, there must have been a beginning point. Deists identified that beginning point as the point of creation by God. Since that instant, however, God has not interacted with his creation; this is often known as the 'Clock Maker Model'.
Rather, the Bible does indeed hold us to a moral code. God does judge us based on our sinful works. And the writings of Paul, especially, are filled with the imagery of freedom as opposed to slavery (cf. Romans 6). Further, God has interacted with his creation throughout history, Jesus Christ being the obvious example. Therefore, we must conclude that a strict determinism does not match the view of humanity present in the Bible.
Libertarianism
As I said above, we must first be sure not to confuse this libertarianism with political libertarianism. The two are completely unrelated apart from their etymology and emphasis on freedom. A libertarian view of free will swings to the opposite end of the spectrum from determinism. For it claims that humans are completely and utterly free to do as they wish. From a Christian perspective, God has given humans a free will with which to choose their actions in an entirely free manner.
Of course, 'entirely free' is a bit of an overstatement. If we were truly 'entirely free' from all influences, there would be no pattern to our actions. The fact that I like caramel Frappuccinos would have no bearing on whether or not I'll order one in the future. The libertarian must admit (and has no problem doing so) that there are a number of external influences on the decisions we make. My past experiences with caramel Frappuccinos will influence my future decision to order or not order one.
The distinguishing feature of libertarianism, though, is it claims that when it comes down to it, I am just as capable (though perhaps not 'just as likely') as not ordering a caramel as I am of not ordering one. That is, the decision may be influenced by external factors, but it is not determined by them. This easily addresses the problem of morality that determinism was unable to confront. For if one is able to freely choose between choices, he is certainly culpable for that decision, and can certainly be judged thereby.
The problem that libertarianism encounters, however, is the question of God's sovereignty. If each man has a free will with which he can choose whatever, how can God also be sovereign? Whatever God may will, his plans may continually be thwarted by the actions of man. Whether it be the salvation of an individual or the outcome of a war. If God is not sovereign over man's will, then anything can happen, and God has become shut out. Further, if man is able to make decisions apart from the sovereignty of God, then how can we be assured that 'for those who love God all things work together for good' (Rom 8:28)?
(An additional philosophical problem presents itself against libertarianism. If God is omniscient, then he knows all future events. And if God knows something, then in some manner of speaking, it is set in stone. That is, it can happen know other way; therefore, we are unable to otherwise. I don't think this criticism is much more than a 'gotcha'. It requires many presumptions about omniscience, divine temporality, and epistemology in general. So it doesn't really hold all that much ground unless you accept these certain presumptions, for which we have no evidence nor scriptural witness. But I wanted to mention it, since it is a common critique.)
Libertarianism is the perspective behind Arminianism and Pelagianism, both of which emphasize human free will. Calvinists, on the other hand, do not see any scriptural evidence for human free will of this sort. We see any attempt to propose a sort of sovereignty of man over any element is a fruit of the sin of pride, placing man at the center of his life.
In Eden the serpent told Eve that if she ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that she would become like God. In a sense that is true, for she would gain that knowledge of good and evil. But the Bible does not anywhere indicate that she became sovereign apart from God. Yet this is essentially the libertarian claim: that God may influence my decision, but he does not determine it.
Compatibilism
Compatibilism is the perspective on free will that most accurately represents the views of Calvin, Luther, and other reformers (as well as a number of thinkers in the Scottish reformation, such as Hume and Hobbes). It claims that both determinism and will are compatible and that both are true. That is, that God is sovereign over all, but that my actions are not coerced or forced. The best way to answer how this is possible is to distinguish compatibilism from both determinism and libertarianism.
Compatibilism differs from determinism in that it asserts that will does exist in each man. Man's decisions are not the product of biological or physical laws, but the product of the will present in man's soul. Each man seeks what he wants, and does as he wants; he acts entirely voluntarily. When I choose to order a Frappuccino, it is because I wanted one, not because my biology or external circumstances demanded me to do so. So, in that sense my will is indeed free: free from coercion.
Yet compatibilism is also distinguished from libertarianism, for it claims that God is still sovereign over all things. For while we are free to do as we choose, we are not free to choose anything. We are free to do exactly as we will, but we cannot act contrary to our will. If my will demands that I order a Frappuccino, how can I do any differently? If I did differently, it is because I willed to do differently, not because I acted against my will. The devil may seem to have made you do it, but it was what you wanted to do anyways.
Here is where we return to our initial question: what do we mean when we say 'free will'. For in this sense, compatibilism defines 'will' as something much more definite than libertarianism. Free will is not, as the libertarian understands it, the ability to have equally chosen other than what was actually chosen. Free will is the freedom to do as one wants. As long as you did what you want (which you always do, unless an obstacle, such as the laws of physics, is present), you exercised free will. It does not matter whether you were unable to do otherwise.
Now, if my will can theoretically demand anything, how is this truly different from libertarianism? The crux of compatibilism comes in the combination of the two. For isn't God the creator of all things? Then he is certainly also the creator of man's will. And just as he has designed me to have two blue eyes and light brown hair, he has all the more designed my will to desire certain things. As he is the grand architect of all of creation, he is also in control of the experiences which will further shape my will. No change in my will happens apart from the will of God.
And the most important and miraculous change to my will was its great regeneration. By nature my will desired sin and all things against God. And, sure enough, I was free to do as I wanted, free to pursue sin. In fact, I was a slave to this sin nature and its corrupting power on me. But God, in his grace and despite seeing nothing in me, re-molded my will to instead seek after him. No longer was I in sin's bondage, freed to God. As Paul puts it in Romans 6, I am now a slave to righteousness. And I rejoice in knowing that God will never allow my will to be re-bound to sin, but that I will persevere in righteousness unto death.
Further Reading
Calvin, John. The Bondage and Liberation of the Will
Edwards, John. The Freedom of the Will
Online version
Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will
Online version
Calvin and Luther speak more specifically about the role of will in salvation and the freedom from sin that results. Edwards writes more generally about will and its service to the sovereignty of God. The Edwards book is truly fantastic; perhaps his best writing. He says what I'm trying to say, but much better.
To answer the question, I will be briefly discussing in this article each form and its application to a Biblical worldview. We will find that not only is just one perspective is true, but that only one fits in with Reformed theology. There is a special pertinence to salvation - indeed, it is the most often subject of the debate over free will - but this article will discuss free will in only a general manner.
Strict Determinism
Strict determinism is an easy philosophy to define and is essentially the denial of free will. External forces are the only factors in determining the fate of each action. Those external forces may include God, the laws of physics, social norms, etc. And each external force (with the possible exception of a divine force) in turn has its own forces acting upon it. Therefore, from Time Zero, the entire fate of the universe has been determined, and is merely acting itself out. But if we were to know all of the forces involved, we could predict the beginning, the end, and everything in between.
Determinism is not at all a foreign concept. Much of science is based upon a deterministic perspective. If we observe an object behave in a certain way under certain circumstances, then we predict that in the exact same circumstances it will behave exactly the same. And many of our everyday decisions are based upon an assumption of some loose form of determinism. For example, I like Starbucks' caramel Frappuccinos. I like them because every time I've had them, they've been delicious. So I assume that the next time I order one, I will enjoy it, as well.
However, the real question is whether determinism is the correct perspective for humans. Are humans guided by nothing more than stimuli? Is my decision to drink caramel Frappuccinos merely an interaction of chemicals in my brain? If so, then we encounter a severe dilemma for the Christian: what use is morality? There cannot be good and evil.
Further, if we have no will, then how can we be held responsible for our actions? Just as we cannot blame the rubber ball for falling to the earth when I let go of it, neither can I blame the assassin from killing the dignitary. All of a sudden, 'The devil made me do it,' is not only a legitimate excuse, but the precise explanation. Every action is at the impulse of a force beyond our control.
Deism was a religious/philosophical belief prominent in the 18th century, which had its roots in determinism. Even though all things in determinism have a cause, there must have been a beginning point. Deists identified that beginning point as the point of creation by God. Since that instant, however, God has not interacted with his creation; this is often known as the 'Clock Maker Model'.
Rather, the Bible does indeed hold us to a moral code. God does judge us based on our sinful works. And the writings of Paul, especially, are filled with the imagery of freedom as opposed to slavery (cf. Romans 6). Further, God has interacted with his creation throughout history, Jesus Christ being the obvious example. Therefore, we must conclude that a strict determinism does not match the view of humanity present in the Bible.
Libertarianism
As I said above, we must first be sure not to confuse this libertarianism with political libertarianism. The two are completely unrelated apart from their etymology and emphasis on freedom. A libertarian view of free will swings to the opposite end of the spectrum from determinism. For it claims that humans are completely and utterly free to do as they wish. From a Christian perspective, God has given humans a free will with which to choose their actions in an entirely free manner.
Of course, 'entirely free' is a bit of an overstatement. If we were truly 'entirely free' from all influences, there would be no pattern to our actions. The fact that I like caramel Frappuccinos would have no bearing on whether or not I'll order one in the future. The libertarian must admit (and has no problem doing so) that there are a number of external influences on the decisions we make. My past experiences with caramel Frappuccinos will influence my future decision to order or not order one.
The distinguishing feature of libertarianism, though, is it claims that when it comes down to it, I am just as capable (though perhaps not 'just as likely') as not ordering a caramel as I am of not ordering one. That is, the decision may be influenced by external factors, but it is not determined by them. This easily addresses the problem of morality that determinism was unable to confront. For if one is able to freely choose between choices, he is certainly culpable for that decision, and can certainly be judged thereby.
The problem that libertarianism encounters, however, is the question of God's sovereignty. If each man has a free will with which he can choose whatever, how can God also be sovereign? Whatever God may will, his plans may continually be thwarted by the actions of man. Whether it be the salvation of an individual or the outcome of a war. If God is not sovereign over man's will, then anything can happen, and God has become shut out. Further, if man is able to make decisions apart from the sovereignty of God, then how can we be assured that 'for those who love God all things work together for good' (Rom 8:28)?
(An additional philosophical problem presents itself against libertarianism. If God is omniscient, then he knows all future events. And if God knows something, then in some manner of speaking, it is set in stone. That is, it can happen know other way; therefore, we are unable to otherwise. I don't think this criticism is much more than a 'gotcha'. It requires many presumptions about omniscience, divine temporality, and epistemology in general. So it doesn't really hold all that much ground unless you accept these certain presumptions, for which we have no evidence nor scriptural witness. But I wanted to mention it, since it is a common critique.)
Libertarianism is the perspective behind Arminianism and Pelagianism, both of which emphasize human free will. Calvinists, on the other hand, do not see any scriptural evidence for human free will of this sort. We see any attempt to propose a sort of sovereignty of man over any element is a fruit of the sin of pride, placing man at the center of his life.
In Eden the serpent told Eve that if she ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that she would become like God. In a sense that is true, for she would gain that knowledge of good and evil. But the Bible does not anywhere indicate that she became sovereign apart from God. Yet this is essentially the libertarian claim: that God may influence my decision, but he does not determine it.
Compatibilism
Compatibilism is the perspective on free will that most accurately represents the views of Calvin, Luther, and other reformers (as well as a number of thinkers in the Scottish reformation, such as Hume and Hobbes). It claims that both determinism and will are compatible and that both are true. That is, that God is sovereign over all, but that my actions are not coerced or forced. The best way to answer how this is possible is to distinguish compatibilism from both determinism and libertarianism.
Compatibilism differs from determinism in that it asserts that will does exist in each man. Man's decisions are not the product of biological or physical laws, but the product of the will present in man's soul. Each man seeks what he wants, and does as he wants; he acts entirely voluntarily. When I choose to order a Frappuccino, it is because I wanted one, not because my biology or external circumstances demanded me to do so. So, in that sense my will is indeed free: free from coercion.
Yet compatibilism is also distinguished from libertarianism, for it claims that God is still sovereign over all things. For while we are free to do as we choose, we are not free to choose anything. We are free to do exactly as we will, but we cannot act contrary to our will. If my will demands that I order a Frappuccino, how can I do any differently? If I did differently, it is because I willed to do differently, not because I acted against my will. The devil may seem to have made you do it, but it was what you wanted to do anyways.
Here is where we return to our initial question: what do we mean when we say 'free will'. For in this sense, compatibilism defines 'will' as something much more definite than libertarianism. Free will is not, as the libertarian understands it, the ability to have equally chosen other than what was actually chosen. Free will is the freedom to do as one wants. As long as you did what you want (which you always do, unless an obstacle, such as the laws of physics, is present), you exercised free will. It does not matter whether you were unable to do otherwise.
Now, if my will can theoretically demand anything, how is this truly different from libertarianism? The crux of compatibilism comes in the combination of the two. For isn't God the creator of all things? Then he is certainly also the creator of man's will. And just as he has designed me to have two blue eyes and light brown hair, he has all the more designed my will to desire certain things. As he is the grand architect of all of creation, he is also in control of the experiences which will further shape my will. No change in my will happens apart from the will of God.
And the most important and miraculous change to my will was its great regeneration. By nature my will desired sin and all things against God. And, sure enough, I was free to do as I wanted, free to pursue sin. In fact, I was a slave to this sin nature and its corrupting power on me. But God, in his grace and despite seeing nothing in me, re-molded my will to instead seek after him. No longer was I in sin's bondage, freed to God. As Paul puts it in Romans 6, I am now a slave to righteousness. And I rejoice in knowing that God will never allow my will to be re-bound to sin, but that I will persevere in righteousness unto death.
Further Reading
Calvin, John. The Bondage and Liberation of the Will
Edwards, John. The Freedom of the Will
Online version
Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will
Online version
Calvin and Luther speak more specifically about the role of will in salvation and the freedom from sin that results. Edwards writes more generally about will and its service to the sovereignty of God. The Edwards book is truly fantastic; perhaps his best writing. He says what I'm trying to say, but much better.
05 February 2007
You Misspelled Weltanschauung
Every one of us believes things that we cannot prove; sometimes, in fact, we cannot even convey the slightest semblance of proof. It really shouldn't be surprising to anyone, yet it is undoubtedly disconcerting to a great many. I cannot prove that God exists; likewise atheists cannot prove that he doesn't. We can each offer arguments to support our claim, but in the end, it all comes down to what each of us believes.
What is most ironic, however, is that, often, the less provable a belief is, the more foundational it tends to be in a person's life. The fact that I believe that God exists underlies my entire approach to life, death, etc. It determines my outlook on reason, tradition, politics, and relationships. It forms the foundation for my view on disasters, blessings, and even the mundaneness of life.
On some level, those who are disturbed by these facts are right to be disturbed. After all, how can we justify living our lives based on principles which cannot be proven? Should not reason guide our life, particularly those things which channel all our other thoughts? Nevertheless, each of us has these beliefs, and each of us lives by them. The epistemological term - as well as the everyday term now - for this underlying belief system is a worldview. That is, the view through which you see all other things; the tint of your mind's sunglasses.
Kuyper-Calvinism
The study of worldview has been a fascination of the 19th and 20th centuries, as philosophers and anthropologists deal with how cultures and people determine what they believe to be true. The phenomenon has been of particular importance in Christian circles since the turn of the 20th century. The genesis of the movement began with Abraham Kuyper, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands from 1901 - 1905, who formulated what is now called Neo-Calvinism.
Kuyper saw in the church, particularly the Dutch Reformed Church, a laxity brought on by the brooding modernism of the early 20th century, the ascendancy of liberal theology, and radical individualism. Christianity had become a Sunday religion, one which had no impact on the daily lives of its communicants. Kuyper saw that the Christian church had lost its Christian worldview, adopting instead the modernist worldview. Rather than focusing on God's sovereignty, the church was looking to man, and the seemingly limitless horizons before him.
Neo-Calvinism is, essentially, the adoption of Reformed theology to an increasingly post-Christian culture. There are no major theological changes between traditional Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism; rather the difference is more in points of emphasis. Kuyper's Calvinism specifically addresses the question of how Christianity should interact the secular world.
Kuyper's main goal in establishing a Neo-Calvinist theology was to emphasize to Christians that one's worldview cannot be neutral. If one's worldview is not emphatically Christian, then it will be one of another religion or of secularism. There is not a middle ground when it comes to worldview. Those who think themselves neutral are, in fact, secular in their worldview. Kuyper sought to call Christians back to a Christian worldview.
The Christian Worldview
The next logical question is, 'What is the Christian Worldview?' That question is best answered by answering the three questions that each worldview must answer. For now I'll just list the questions; in future articles I'll provide the Christian answers to the questions. I'll also be discussing some of the practical implications of how we, as Christians, answer the questions, which is the point of a worldview in the first place.
1) What is my relation to God?
2) What is my relation to others?
3) What is my relation to the world/creation?
The short summary of the answers is that all things come back to God: meaning, purpose, motive, glory, etc. Kuyper summarized both his idea of worldview and his practical application to the Christian with the following:
If you'd like to read further Kuyper's answers to these worldview questions in his own words, I suggest picking up a copy of the Stone Lectures he gave in 1898 at Princeton Theological Seminary. It's available from most online book sellers under the title Lectures on Calvinism.
The Legacy of Kuyper
Kuyper's theological concerns echoed throughout the 20th century church. His direct intellectual follower was fellow Dutchman Herman Dooyeweerd, who pioneered reformation philosophy and proposed the 'religious ground motive', which is similar to a worldview, but particular to the spiritual aspects which influence all other thought. According to Dooyeweerd all thought is driven by spiritual belief, whether it be the religion of Christianity, the religion of Islam, or the religion of secularism.
As modernism succumbed to the two World Wars and the post-modernism which followed, Christianity found a new voice for its worldview in Francis Schaeffer - he was to post-modernism as Kuyper was to modernism. Schaeffer published a number of books addressing the relationship between the church and the post-modern world, once again calling Christians to adopt the Christian worldview, making their religious beliefs their foundational beliefs, not simply something that they believe in spite of a secular worldview.
Needless to say, as Western culture has gradually parted with its Christian roots, Christians have been required to ask more and more how they are to interact with the world. What middle ground between worldliness and withdrawal are we called to? The legacy of Kuyper and his intellectual descendants has continually sought to call Christians out of these two extremes, to a worldview which affirms the teachings of the Bible.
As with every topic posted on this blog, you can be sure to see further discussion of both the Christian worldview in general and Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, Schaeffer, and others, specifically. So stay tuned.
What is most ironic, however, is that, often, the less provable a belief is, the more foundational it tends to be in a person's life. The fact that I believe that God exists underlies my entire approach to life, death, etc. It determines my outlook on reason, tradition, politics, and relationships. It forms the foundation for my view on disasters, blessings, and even the mundaneness of life.
On some level, those who are disturbed by these facts are right to be disturbed. After all, how can we justify living our lives based on principles which cannot be proven? Should not reason guide our life, particularly those things which channel all our other thoughts? Nevertheless, each of us has these beliefs, and each of us lives by them. The epistemological term - as well as the everyday term now - for this underlying belief system is a worldview. That is, the view through which you see all other things; the tint of your mind's sunglasses.
Kuyper-Calvinism
The study of worldview has been a fascination of the 19th and 20th centuries, as philosophers and anthropologists deal with how cultures and people determine what they believe to be true. The phenomenon has been of particular importance in Christian circles since the turn of the 20th century. The genesis of the movement began with Abraham Kuyper, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands from 1901 - 1905, who formulated what is now called Neo-Calvinism.
Kuyper saw in the church, particularly the Dutch Reformed Church, a laxity brought on by the brooding modernism of the early 20th century, the ascendancy of liberal theology, and radical individualism. Christianity had become a Sunday religion, one which had no impact on the daily lives of its communicants. Kuyper saw that the Christian church had lost its Christian worldview, adopting instead the modernist worldview. Rather than focusing on God's sovereignty, the church was looking to man, and the seemingly limitless horizons before him.
Neo-Calvinism is, essentially, the adoption of Reformed theology to an increasingly post-Christian culture. There are no major theological changes between traditional Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism; rather the difference is more in points of emphasis. Kuyper's Calvinism specifically addresses the question of how Christianity should interact the secular world.
Kuyper's main goal in establishing a Neo-Calvinist theology was to emphasize to Christians that one's worldview cannot be neutral. If one's worldview is not emphatically Christian, then it will be one of another religion or of secularism. There is not a middle ground when it comes to worldview. Those who think themselves neutral are, in fact, secular in their worldview. Kuyper sought to call Christians back to a Christian worldview.
The Christian Worldview
The next logical question is, 'What is the Christian Worldview?' That question is best answered by answering the three questions that each worldview must answer. For now I'll just list the questions; in future articles I'll provide the Christian answers to the questions. I'll also be discussing some of the practical implications of how we, as Christians, answer the questions, which is the point of a worldview in the first place.
1) What is my relation to God?
2) What is my relation to others?
3) What is my relation to the world/creation?
The short summary of the answers is that all things come back to God: meaning, purpose, motive, glory, etc. Kuyper summarized both his idea of worldview and his practical application to the Christian with the following:
No single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: 'Mine!'This sentence encapsulates much of Kuyper. The first clause summarizes his claim that one's worldview was all-encompassing, permeating every bit of our being. Christian and modern worldviews cannot coexist in the same mind. One will prevail. The second clause summarizes the Christian worldview wherein God is in the process of redeeming all of creation, and no part of it is free from his sovereignty.
If you'd like to read further Kuyper's answers to these worldview questions in his own words, I suggest picking up a copy of the Stone Lectures he gave in 1898 at Princeton Theological Seminary. It's available from most online book sellers under the title Lectures on Calvinism.
The Legacy of Kuyper
Kuyper's theological concerns echoed throughout the 20th century church. His direct intellectual follower was fellow Dutchman Herman Dooyeweerd, who pioneered reformation philosophy and proposed the 'religious ground motive', which is similar to a worldview, but particular to the spiritual aspects which influence all other thought. According to Dooyeweerd all thought is driven by spiritual belief, whether it be the religion of Christianity, the religion of Islam, or the religion of secularism.
As modernism succumbed to the two World Wars and the post-modernism which followed, Christianity found a new voice for its worldview in Francis Schaeffer - he was to post-modernism as Kuyper was to modernism. Schaeffer published a number of books addressing the relationship between the church and the post-modern world, once again calling Christians to adopt the Christian worldview, making their religious beliefs their foundational beliefs, not simply something that they believe in spite of a secular worldview.
Needless to say, as Western culture has gradually parted with its Christian roots, Christians have been required to ask more and more how they are to interact with the world. What middle ground between worldliness and withdrawal are we called to? The legacy of Kuyper and his intellectual descendants has continually sought to call Christians out of these two extremes, to a worldview which affirms the teachings of the Bible.
As with every topic posted on this blog, you can be sure to see further discussion of both the Christian worldview in general and Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, Schaeffer, and others, specifically. So stay tuned.
17 November 2006
Federalism
So it's been nearly two months since my last post. A number of things contributed to that, but I won't go into that. Anyways, I'm back with a new article on the Federal system of the United States.
I picked Federalism since it underlies so much of this country's politics, as well as being one of the issues I most care about (either that or it underlies so many of my issues). The federal system of the United States is one of the factors that gives the United States such a unique political system. It is also one of the most misunderstood aspects of United States politics; so with this article, I hope to give the history behind our Federal system and why it is so important that the United States preserve it.
First the history lesson...
In the spring of 1775 the American colonies were at war with Britain. The battles of Lexington and Concord had just occurred, and the Shot Heard 'Round the World had been fired. The Second Continental Congress, scheduled to convene months before any of this, found itself in a situation they hadn't bargained for. Nonetheless, the Congress handled the situation quite well, attempting to treat with King George III, created the Continental Army which General Washington would eventually lead to victory, and signed the Declaration of Independence. As their final act, however, they ratified the Articles of Confederation, a document which finally united the several colonies.
Anyone who remembers their American History classes in high school probably has a deep bias against the Articles of Confederation. He remembers his teacher telling the class how ineffective and powerless the Articles were. More specifically he probably remembers the Continental Congress was unable to levy taxes or issue paper money (strangely enough, it could issue coins). But the Articles really were quite good; they got the colonies through the last two years of the Revolution, resolved a number of inter-state issues, such as when they passed the Northwest Ordinance.
Ultimately, however, the Articles were insufficient. They had, after all, been drafted and ratified in an environment of war, with the colonies already united against a common foe, Britain. When the war ended, however, many of the powers and incentives of the Articles ceased to be relevant. So in 1787 a Constitutional Convention was convened in Philadelphia to revise the Articles. What they ended up doing was drafting an entirely new constitution, one which has lasted over 200 years.
The change being called for was essentially to create a stronger central government. In modern parlance, they were moving from a confederal government to a federal government. (I'll explain later why I don't think there's really any difference between the two.) The new Federal government was given an executive and judicial branch, was able to authoritatively resolve disputes between states, raise taxes, issue money, regulate interstate commerce. The most important change, perhaps, was the doctrine that the new Constitution and its government would be superior in all matters, a promise which didn't exist in the old Articles.
The elements of the Articles which remained are just as important, if not more so. The new Federal government was only part of the plan. Below the Federal government were each of the states, retaining an good deal of their rights. This implicit guarantee was made explicit in the 10th Amendment included in the Bill of Rights: all 'powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively...'
Thus, for over 200 years, the United States has been a conglomeration of the Federal government and the several state governments, with neither possessing all power or ultimate sovereignty. Or it should have been that way...
In my opinion, the Federal system set up by the Constitution has been all but abandoned. The Federal government has instead become a National government. This is a bad thing, and I'll be talking about all of the ways this has happened in future articles. For now I'll be addressing the question of why we need a truly federal system and some tangible effects we can witness in its practical absence.
Why Is Federalism's Fall Catastrophic?
Anyone who has paid any attention to recent national elections knows that the United States is a country with many diverse political opinions and viewpoints. The whole red state/blue state thing (which, btw, has the colors backwards; but I digress) demonstrates this quite well. This isn't a recent phenomenon, either. The founding fathers recognized this very fact, and it has persisted throughout our nation's history.
The federal system that the writers of the Constitution set up was one that allowed for all of those diverse opinions to flourish. The fear that many Americans had of a strong central government was embedded in that. The citizens of New York didn't want Georgians to be passing laws which would substantially affect how they lived, and vice versa. The federal system instead says 'New York will govern New York, Georgia will govern Georgia, and the Federal government will govern in those matters which require the intervention of a third party.' This was the agreement and understanding that the states united ratified in the 1780s.
Without this federal system, you will have Georgians making decisions for New Yorkers; or Californians for Coloradans. Each and every decision made by the United States government has the potential for enormous fallout, affecting 300 million people's lives. Representatives from urban states will be deciding how rural farmers will conduct their business. And representatives from rural areas will be deciding what values urbanites must adhere to. This is happening today; the Federal government makes all of the decisions, with the states filling in the gaps. A federal system demands it work the other way around, with states making all of the decisions individually and the Federal government filling in the gaps which the states simply cannot fill (foreign policy, interstate commerce, military, etc.).
This modern implementation was not as it was intended, for the founding fathers knew that such a system would fail. Instead, the Constitution allows each state to decide its own values, its own priorities, its own rights, and its own prohibitions. Each state is unique, and any effort to blanket over that fact will begin to tear apart the nation's fabric. Any effort to create an unauthorized 'unity' of law - as happens as a matter of course these days - actually fosters disunity and enmity. Rather, the states and state governments must be a significant part of the political system.
The modern violation of these federal principles is the real cause of today's political strife, not a 'culture war' or any other catchphrase you might want to insert. If you are looking for a reason for why the fall of federalism is catastrophic, just look around. Abortion, medicare, welfare, pork-barreling, education, etc. Just about every contentious issue in our nation today would be a mere fraction as contentious if it were approached in the manner that federalism demands. Instead, we are a nation divided against itself, with citizens becoming more and more bitter towards politics every day.
In articles to follow (and don't worry, not all will be politics; there will be plenty of religion and worldview, as well), I'll begin to outline some of the ways in which the United States government is currently trespassing against federalism, what needs to change, and what effects we can hope to see by it. I hope you enjoy following along.
A Closing Coda on the Terms Federal, Federalist and Federalism
(This is admittedly a not-so-well-written section that may cause more confusion than it clears up.)
There is a historical anomaly in American history that causes the word federal to mean several different things, depending on the context. In the 18th century, as the American republic was being created, it indicated a system with two levels of government: a central government and several sub-governments. In effect, federal was synonymous with confederal; federation synonymous with confederation.
As the Constitutional Convention of 1789 proceeded, however, those who wanted to give the create a much stronger central government became known as federalists. And those who wanted a weaker central government - though still stronger than under the Articles of Confederation - were, of course, the anti-federalists. The terms federal and confederal were no longer synonyms; instead they described similar systems of bi-level government, but indicated different balances of power.
This association of federalism with a strong central government was strengthened with Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison's publication of The Federalist papers, a series of articles which defended the strong-central-government system of the new Constitution.
Even within each camp, however, there was a diversity of opinion. Among the anti-federalists were those who accepted the Constitution as an acceptable balance of power and those who thought it gave the central government too much power. George Mason of Virginia was one of three anti-federalist members of the Constitutional Convention who even refused to sign the Constitution.
In the federalist camp there was also a wide range of opinion. Alexander Hamilton thought that the new Constitution gave too much sovereignty to the states. In fact, if he had been able to have his way in the Constitutional Convention, he probably would have all but done away with the state governments. In the nascent republic he formed the Federalist Party which would seek a strong national government.
James Madison, on the other hand, was a federalist (fairly obvious since he was one of the three authors of The Federalist papers) and a staunch supporter of the Constitution. But when political parties began to form, he found himself at odds with the more radical federalists, such as Hamilton and subsequently co-founded with Jefferson the Democratic-Republican Party, an [ostensibly] anti-federalist party (though certainly an anti-Federalist-Party party).
The wide spectrum of the definitions federalist and anti-federalist makes classifications of early America somewhat difficult, confused even more by what historical figures considered themselves to be. James Madison is one good example of that, as seen above. John Adams is another example, as he was a member of the Federalist Party, but very much believed in states' rights, and recognized that the American nation required a balance of power between the levels of government.
So essentially, in 18th century America, there were really three groups of political thought: those who thought the Constitution was too centralized (e.g., George Mason); those who thought the Constitution wasn't centralized enough (e.g., Alexander Hamilton); and those who thought the Constitution was just right (e.g., James Madison).
But what do those who call themselves federalists in the 21st century believe? Certainly since the 1980's, with the founding of the Federalist Society (which is concerned mostly with the federal judiciary system), for example, federalism has been resurrected as a political persuasion in America. A good way to answer that question is by answering another question: with what founding father does a modern federalist find himself most in agreement? In most cases, the answer will be one of those founding fathers found in the moderate group: Madison, Adams, etc.
Some, in an effort to emphasize the concern for states' rights, will cite Jefferson as a main influence. The more libertarian wing of the modern federalists will particularly look to Jefferson's agrarian republic ideals. Certainly, however, no modern federalist looks to Hamilton as a source of inspiration. For the United States have witnessed the culmination of Hamilton's vision for the federal government, and that travesty is the very reason why federalists have begun to distinguish themselves from other political philosophers.
For in general, both the 18th century federalists and 21st century federalists have the same goals: to establish a balance of power between the federal government and the state governments. In the 18th century, when the federal government had virtually no power whatsoever, that called for an increase in the federal government's power. In the 21st century when the federal government has exercised more power than it is constitutionally permitted, a decrease in federal presence is required.
So, from one angle - looking at the practical steps each is taking to achieve their goals - modern federalists end up looking like 18th century anti-federalists, by each attempting to decrease the size of the federal government. But one must look at the goals of the parties, rather than the means. With that attitude, one sees the close affinity that the federalists of the two ages have.
Clear as mud?
You can be sure of one thing, however. Whenever I use the term Federalist, I will always mean it in the original sense, one which seeks for a balance between the United States government and the governments of the several states. I will never mean it in the Hamiltonian sense, advocating for a very centralized government. Hopefully that will provide a a bit of clarity in my discussions.
I picked Federalism since it underlies so much of this country's politics, as well as being one of the issues I most care about (either that or it underlies so many of my issues). The federal system of the United States is one of the factors that gives the United States such a unique political system. It is also one of the most misunderstood aspects of United States politics; so with this article, I hope to give the history behind our Federal system and why it is so important that the United States preserve it.
First the history lesson...
In the spring of 1775 the American colonies were at war with Britain. The battles of Lexington and Concord had just occurred, and the Shot Heard 'Round the World had been fired. The Second Continental Congress, scheduled to convene months before any of this, found itself in a situation they hadn't bargained for. Nonetheless, the Congress handled the situation quite well, attempting to treat with King George III, created the Continental Army which General Washington would eventually lead to victory, and signed the Declaration of Independence. As their final act, however, they ratified the Articles of Confederation, a document which finally united the several colonies.
Anyone who remembers their American History classes in high school probably has a deep bias against the Articles of Confederation. He remembers his teacher telling the class how ineffective and powerless the Articles were. More specifically he probably remembers the Continental Congress was unable to levy taxes or issue paper money (strangely enough, it could issue coins). But the Articles really were quite good; they got the colonies through the last two years of the Revolution, resolved a number of inter-state issues, such as when they passed the Northwest Ordinance.
Ultimately, however, the Articles were insufficient. They had, after all, been drafted and ratified in an environment of war, with the colonies already united against a common foe, Britain. When the war ended, however, many of the powers and incentives of the Articles ceased to be relevant. So in 1787 a Constitutional Convention was convened in Philadelphia to revise the Articles. What they ended up doing was drafting an entirely new constitution, one which has lasted over 200 years.
The change being called for was essentially to create a stronger central government. In modern parlance, they were moving from a confederal government to a federal government. (I'll explain later why I don't think there's really any difference between the two.) The new Federal government was given an executive and judicial branch, was able to authoritatively resolve disputes between states, raise taxes, issue money, regulate interstate commerce. The most important change, perhaps, was the doctrine that the new Constitution and its government would be superior in all matters, a promise which didn't exist in the old Articles.
The elements of the Articles which remained are just as important, if not more so. The new Federal government was only part of the plan. Below the Federal government were each of the states, retaining an good deal of their rights. This implicit guarantee was made explicit in the 10th Amendment included in the Bill of Rights: all 'powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively...'
Thus, for over 200 years, the United States has been a conglomeration of the Federal government and the several state governments, with neither possessing all power or ultimate sovereignty. Or it should have been that way...
In my opinion, the Federal system set up by the Constitution has been all but abandoned. The Federal government has instead become a National government. This is a bad thing, and I'll be talking about all of the ways this has happened in future articles. For now I'll be addressing the question of why we need a truly federal system and some tangible effects we can witness in its practical absence.
Why Is Federalism's Fall Catastrophic?
Anyone who has paid any attention to recent national elections knows that the United States is a country with many diverse political opinions and viewpoints. The whole red state/blue state thing (which, btw, has the colors backwards; but I digress) demonstrates this quite well. This isn't a recent phenomenon, either. The founding fathers recognized this very fact, and it has persisted throughout our nation's history.
The federal system that the writers of the Constitution set up was one that allowed for all of those diverse opinions to flourish. The fear that many Americans had of a strong central government was embedded in that. The citizens of New York didn't want Georgians to be passing laws which would substantially affect how they lived, and vice versa. The federal system instead says 'New York will govern New York, Georgia will govern Georgia, and the Federal government will govern in those matters which require the intervention of a third party.' This was the agreement and understanding that the states united ratified in the 1780s.
Without this federal system, you will have Georgians making decisions for New Yorkers; or Californians for Coloradans. Each and every decision made by the United States government has the potential for enormous fallout, affecting 300 million people's lives. Representatives from urban states will be deciding how rural farmers will conduct their business. And representatives from rural areas will be deciding what values urbanites must adhere to. This is happening today; the Federal government makes all of the decisions, with the states filling in the gaps. A federal system demands it work the other way around, with states making all of the decisions individually and the Federal government filling in the gaps which the states simply cannot fill (foreign policy, interstate commerce, military, etc.).
This modern implementation was not as it was intended, for the founding fathers knew that such a system would fail. Instead, the Constitution allows each state to decide its own values, its own priorities, its own rights, and its own prohibitions. Each state is unique, and any effort to blanket over that fact will begin to tear apart the nation's fabric. Any effort to create an unauthorized 'unity' of law - as happens as a matter of course these days - actually fosters disunity and enmity. Rather, the states and state governments must be a significant part of the political system.
The modern violation of these federal principles is the real cause of today's political strife, not a 'culture war' or any other catchphrase you might want to insert. If you are looking for a reason for why the fall of federalism is catastrophic, just look around. Abortion, medicare, welfare, pork-barreling, education, etc. Just about every contentious issue in our nation today would be a mere fraction as contentious if it were approached in the manner that federalism demands. Instead, we are a nation divided against itself, with citizens becoming more and more bitter towards politics every day.
In articles to follow (and don't worry, not all will be politics; there will be plenty of religion and worldview, as well), I'll begin to outline some of the ways in which the United States government is currently trespassing against federalism, what needs to change, and what effects we can hope to see by it. I hope you enjoy following along.
A Closing Coda on the Terms Federal, Federalist and Federalism
(This is admittedly a not-so-well-written section that may cause more confusion than it clears up.)
There is a historical anomaly in American history that causes the word federal to mean several different things, depending on the context. In the 18th century, as the American republic was being created, it indicated a system with two levels of government: a central government and several sub-governments. In effect, federal was synonymous with confederal; federation synonymous with confederation.
As the Constitutional Convention of 1789 proceeded, however, those who wanted to give the create a much stronger central government became known as federalists. And those who wanted a weaker central government - though still stronger than under the Articles of Confederation - were, of course, the anti-federalists. The terms federal and confederal were no longer synonyms; instead they described similar systems of bi-level government, but indicated different balances of power.
This association of federalism with a strong central government was strengthened with Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison's publication of The Federalist papers, a series of articles which defended the strong-central-government system of the new Constitution.
Even within each camp, however, there was a diversity of opinion. Among the anti-federalists were those who accepted the Constitution as an acceptable balance of power and those who thought it gave the central government too much power. George Mason of Virginia was one of three anti-federalist members of the Constitutional Convention who even refused to sign the Constitution.
In the federalist camp there was also a wide range of opinion. Alexander Hamilton thought that the new Constitution gave too much sovereignty to the states. In fact, if he had been able to have his way in the Constitutional Convention, he probably would have all but done away with the state governments. In the nascent republic he formed the Federalist Party which would seek a strong national government.
James Madison, on the other hand, was a federalist (fairly obvious since he was one of the three authors of The Federalist papers) and a staunch supporter of the Constitution. But when political parties began to form, he found himself at odds with the more radical federalists, such as Hamilton and subsequently co-founded with Jefferson the Democratic-Republican Party, an [ostensibly] anti-federalist party (though certainly an anti-Federalist-Party party).
The wide spectrum of the definitions federalist and anti-federalist makes classifications of early America somewhat difficult, confused even more by what historical figures considered themselves to be. James Madison is one good example of that, as seen above. John Adams is another example, as he was a member of the Federalist Party, but very much believed in states' rights, and recognized that the American nation required a balance of power between the levels of government.
So essentially, in 18th century America, there were really three groups of political thought: those who thought the Constitution was too centralized (e.g., George Mason); those who thought the Constitution wasn't centralized enough (e.g., Alexander Hamilton); and those who thought the Constitution was just right (e.g., James Madison).
But what do those who call themselves federalists in the 21st century believe? Certainly since the 1980's, with the founding of the Federalist Society (which is concerned mostly with the federal judiciary system), for example, federalism has been resurrected as a political persuasion in America. A good way to answer that question is by answering another question: with what founding father does a modern federalist find himself most in agreement? In most cases, the answer will be one of those founding fathers found in the moderate group: Madison, Adams, etc.
Some, in an effort to emphasize the concern for states' rights, will cite Jefferson as a main influence. The more libertarian wing of the modern federalists will particularly look to Jefferson's agrarian republic ideals. Certainly, however, no modern federalist looks to Hamilton as a source of inspiration. For the United States have witnessed the culmination of Hamilton's vision for the federal government, and that travesty is the very reason why federalists have begun to distinguish themselves from other political philosophers.
For in general, both the 18th century federalists and 21st century federalists have the same goals: to establish a balance of power between the federal government and the state governments. In the 18th century, when the federal government had virtually no power whatsoever, that called for an increase in the federal government's power. In the 21st century when the federal government has exercised more power than it is constitutionally permitted, a decrease in federal presence is required.
So, from one angle - looking at the practical steps each is taking to achieve their goals - modern federalists end up looking like 18th century anti-federalists, by each attempting to decrease the size of the federal government. But one must look at the goals of the parties, rather than the means. With that attitude, one sees the close affinity that the federalists of the two ages have.
Clear as mud?
You can be sure of one thing, however. Whenever I use the term Federalist, I will always mean it in the original sense, one which seeks for a balance between the United States government and the governments of the several states. I will never mean it in the Hamiltonian sense, advocating for a very centralized government. Hopefully that will provide a a bit of clarity in my discussions.
22 September 2006
O Thou! Whatever Title Please Thine Ear
The title for this particular post comes from the opening lines of the epic poem The Dunciad by Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744). The poem is a satire (ostensibly written to Jonathan Swift, another satirist and favorite author of mine) relating the story of the goddess Dulness and her quest to bring about a decline of culture throughout the world by means of stupidity and tawdry. It's a wonderful poem which everyone should read but no one does. (You can find a copy - the second, four-book version - at Project Gutenberg.) I thought the line was a perfect fit for this blog, seeing as it's one of the principles behind it. Not to mention that this post is discussing the meaning behind this blog's title. I guess that's kinda important, too, huh?
So what is that meaning? Well, actually there are three meanings wrapped up in that title, and all within the word 'reformed'. Those three meanings pretty much capture most everything you need to know about me to know where I'm coming from and where you can expect this blog to be headed. I thought it was pretty clever.
Meaning #1: Adherents of the Reformed religion; Protestants. (OED)
I am a Christian: more specifically, a Reformed Christian. Reformed Christians are those which follow historically from the efforts, writings, and interpretation of Scripture by the Protestant reformers of the 16th century, most notably John Calvin and Martin Luther. Reformed Christians distinguish themselves from the Catholic, Orthodox, Fundamentalist, and Episcopalian (and its sundry descendants) relatives. Some might also distinguish themselves from Lutheran Christianity, in an attempt to align more closely with John Calvin than with Martin Luther. For the most part, the differences between the two are nominal. Thus, in the most strict sense Reformed Christians are Presbyterians, Puritans, and - as you would expect - most denominations with 'Reformed' in their name (such as Reformed Baptists, etc.).
Essentially, however, Reformed Christianity is Calvinistic Christianity. It is a form of Christianity whose core distinctives are found in the Five Solas. I won't expound on it all right now, since I plan on having multiple articles about Reformed theology in the future. Suffice it to say that Reformed theology includes such doctrines as predestination, inerrancy of Scripture, and, ultimately, the supreme sovereignty of God.
Meaning #2: Altered in form or content; esp. put into a better form, corrected, amended. (OED)
Being a Christian, I believe I have been saved by faith. As part of that salvation, I have been made 'a new creation'. That is, it is not only my soul which has been saved from sin, but all that I am, including my mind. My mind has been saved from the complete corruption of sin, just as much as my soul has been (though it may still be affected by sin, as may every other aspect of myself).
The tangible effect of this is that my Christian religion has an immense effect on my worldview. Everything on which I muse is seen through the lens of Christianity. A favorite description of this comes from Abraham Kuyper, influential theologian and Prime Minister of the Netherlands 1901 - 1905:
Meaning #3: Altered in form or content; esp. put into a better form, corrected, amended. (OED)
Yes, that's the same definition. I mean to apply the definition in a different manner however: read it alternatively as 'Thinking with a Mind of Reform'. It's a bit of a stretch grammatically, but I think it works... It requires reading the participle as subjective, rather than objective, something which can sometimes be done in English with past participles.
Here I am referring to mostly my view of politics. I have recently realized that I have very few definitive views of policy-making in politics. That is, I don't have strong opinions on taxation, foreign policy, energy, or most of the other major chasms in modern political debate. So, the fact that I'm a Republican doesn't really say a whole lot about the issues that I actually have a passion for. Neither does libertarian or just about any other political label.
Rather, my politics are centered around a reformation of government back to the principles of the Constitution. The Federal Government has overstepped its boundaries so far and so frequently that it's obscene. Furthermore, the balance of power in Washington has become disgusting. My belief is that if we were to keep the Federal Government in check, allowing no authority more than the Constitution allows, much of the political divide (that whole Red v. Blue thing) would virtually disappear. In short, I'm an old school, conservative type of guy. (If you didn't pick that up already, you might want to stop reading this blog. Chances are it'll be waaaay over your head.) I'll leave it at that for now. Much more will be said in future posts.
Conclusion
So those are the three meanings which come out of this blog's title: the three meanings of reform that my mind revolves around. Most of the posts in this blog will deal with at least one of those topics: Reformed Christianity, the worldview of a mind reformed by the salvation of God, and/or the reform of politics and government in the United States.
As I've said before, I have many diverse interests, so every once in a while I'll post something about those. I guess through those you'll get to know me a bit better. Or something like that.
Next topic: as of yet, undecided. Stay tuned.
So what is that meaning? Well, actually there are three meanings wrapped up in that title, and all within the word 'reformed'. Those three meanings pretty much capture most everything you need to know about me to know where I'm coming from and where you can expect this blog to be headed. I thought it was pretty clever.
Meaning #1: Adherents of the Reformed religion; Protestants. (OED)
I am a Christian: more specifically, a Reformed Christian. Reformed Christians are those which follow historically from the efforts, writings, and interpretation of Scripture by the Protestant reformers of the 16th century, most notably John Calvin and Martin Luther. Reformed Christians distinguish themselves from the Catholic, Orthodox, Fundamentalist, and Episcopalian (and its sundry descendants) relatives. Some might also distinguish themselves from Lutheran Christianity, in an attempt to align more closely with John Calvin than with Martin Luther. For the most part, the differences between the two are nominal. Thus, in the most strict sense Reformed Christians are Presbyterians, Puritans, and - as you would expect - most denominations with 'Reformed' in their name (such as Reformed Baptists, etc.).
Essentially, however, Reformed Christianity is Calvinistic Christianity. It is a form of Christianity whose core distinctives are found in the Five Solas. I won't expound on it all right now, since I plan on having multiple articles about Reformed theology in the future. Suffice it to say that Reformed theology includes such doctrines as predestination, inerrancy of Scripture, and, ultimately, the supreme sovereignty of God.
Meaning #2: Altered in form or content; esp. put into a better form, corrected, amended. (OED)
Being a Christian, I believe I have been saved by faith. As part of that salvation, I have been made 'a new creation'. That is, it is not only my soul which has been saved from sin, but all that I am, including my mind. My mind has been saved from the complete corruption of sin, just as much as my soul has been (though it may still be affected by sin, as may every other aspect of myself).
The tangible effect of this is that my Christian religion has an immense effect on my worldview. Everything on which I muse is seen through the lens of Christianity. A favorite description of this comes from Abraham Kuyper, influential theologian and Prime Minister of the Netherlands 1901 - 1905:
No single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: 'Mine!'The two-fold doctrine in this quote (I'll definitely be discussing this quote in-depth in another post) governing the Christian worldview has become a recent favorite subject of mine. Most Christians have tried to separate their spiritual life from their secular view of the world. Kuyper, and those who have followed him, have argued that this lifestyle is ultimately futile, essentially creating a 'house divided against itself'. I hope to use my reformed mind in to graft a Christian worldview onto all pieces of the 'mental world': to explain how I see my Christianity in relation to a non-Christian world.
Meaning #3: Altered in form or content; esp. put into a better form, corrected, amended. (OED)
Yes, that's the same definition. I mean to apply the definition in a different manner however: read it alternatively as 'Thinking with a Mind of Reform'. It's a bit of a stretch grammatically, but I think it works... It requires reading the participle as subjective, rather than objective, something which can sometimes be done in English with past participles.
Here I am referring to mostly my view of politics. I have recently realized that I have very few definitive views of policy-making in politics. That is, I don't have strong opinions on taxation, foreign policy, energy, or most of the other major chasms in modern political debate. So, the fact that I'm a Republican doesn't really say a whole lot about the issues that I actually have a passion for. Neither does libertarian or just about any other political label.
Rather, my politics are centered around a reformation of government back to the principles of the Constitution. The Federal Government has overstepped its boundaries so far and so frequently that it's obscene. Furthermore, the balance of power in Washington has become disgusting. My belief is that if we were to keep the Federal Government in check, allowing no authority more than the Constitution allows, much of the political divide (that whole Red v. Blue thing) would virtually disappear. In short, I'm an old school, conservative type of guy. (If you didn't pick that up already, you might want to stop reading this blog. Chances are it'll be waaaay over your head.) I'll leave it at that for now. Much more will be said in future posts.
Conclusion
So those are the three meanings which come out of this blog's title: the three meanings of reform that my mind revolves around. Most of the posts in this blog will deal with at least one of those topics: Reformed Christianity, the worldview of a mind reformed by the salvation of God, and/or the reform of politics and government in the United States.
As I've said before, I have many diverse interests, so every once in a while I'll post something about those. I guess through those you'll get to know me a bit better. Or something like that.
Next topic: as of yet, undecided. Stay tuned.
Opening Argument
I finally have my own blog. Yay... *rolleyes* I used to have a blog-type thing back a few years back on my college webpage. It had a grand total of three posts over the course of 10 months. Well, I've had a bit on my mind recently (and even more time on my hands), so I figured I'd start it up again. And because I'm too lazy to code it at all or monkey around with a third-party HTML editor, I've unfortunately decided to dive into Blogger.
The purpose of this blog is pretty simple; the non-purpose of this blog is perhaps even simpler. I don't want this to be your run-of-the-mill blog. You won't read about the dull goings-on of my life. You won't read about my reactions to the latest insignificant news story. And you certainly won't see this blog on CNN along with the rest of the inane 'blogosphere' giving their ignorant two cents about political events. But most importantly, unlike all the other social commentator wannabes out there blogging, this blog won't tell you what to think.
Rather this blog is out there as a resource with which I can comment on issues that I've been thinking about recently, informing you, the reader, of the conclusions I've come to and the method by which I came to those conclusions. One of the foundational quotes for this blog is from Calvin Coolidge, our 30th president:
But that is indeed merely a side-effect; my purpose isn't to be a resource to society to that end. The up-front purpose is to get my thoughts out there along with the in-depth reasons for those thoughts. Many people have told me that I don't fit many molds; that I am a conglomeration of many spheres of influence; I don't even fit the 'maverick' cliché. Because of that, people have been curious for many of my reasons behind the way that I am: after all, there must be a reason behind all my diverse opinions. That's what this blog will publish. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your view), since every reason has itself another reason behind it, that means that I will probably never reach the bottom of why's.
The second main purpose is entirely selfish - or at least mostly selfish. I have found throughout my life that if I take the time to write out my view on a given subject, it requires me to think quite a bit about the subject, giving me a very good understanding of my own opinion, fleshing out my thoughts. And since I'd like to have that foundation for the most important aspects of my mind, I'll write on those aspects. And if I'm writing, might as well publish for free, right?
Though I'm under no delusions that anyone will actually care. I'll be surprised if there's even half a dozen people who care about any single post on this blog. But mass readership isn't my goal. If it was, I'd be writing for an established newspaper/periodical.
So what does that all mean? It means that every once in a while I'll be writing up an article - and believe me, they'll all be quite lengthy - about a subject I've been pondering recently. Most of the time it'll be political or religious in nature, since those are the two biggest universal interests I have, but there will also be splashes of music, books, history, and other random musings. And there will, of course, be many articles on the logical intersect of religion and politics: worldview.
So, I hope that if you do decide to read this blog regularly that you'll enjoy the time and that it will be time well-wasted. Who knows, I may actually make a difference. Wouldn't my elementary school teachers be proud?
Next Topic: The Title of This Blog (exciting, eh?)
The purpose of this blog is pretty simple; the non-purpose of this blog is perhaps even simpler. I don't want this to be your run-of-the-mill blog. You won't read about the dull goings-on of my life. You won't read about my reactions to the latest insignificant news story. And you certainly won't see this blog on CNN along with the rest of the inane 'blogosphere' giving their ignorant two cents about political events. But most importantly, unlike all the other social commentator wannabes out there blogging, this blog won't tell you what to think.
Rather this blog is out there as a resource with which I can comment on issues that I've been thinking about recently, informing you, the reader, of the conclusions I've come to and the method by which I came to those conclusions. One of the foundational quotes for this blog is from Calvin Coolidge, our 30th president:
They criticize me for harping on the obvious. Perhaps someday I'll write On the Importance of the Obvious. If all the folks in the United States would do the few simple things they know they ought to do, most of our big problems would take care of themselves.One of the obvious things that most people - let alone 'folks in the United States' - don't do is think. They allow other people to think for them, form their opinions for them, and ultimately control how they view the world. And because people are so used to that, when they do begin to think for themselves, their capacity for critical thinking is in such a state of atrophy that they are unable to form any coherent or rational conclusion. So, a potential side-effect will be to demonstrate how to think. Not what to think, but the all-encompassing universal approach which must be applied to virtually each and every thought.
But that is indeed merely a side-effect; my purpose isn't to be a resource to society to that end. The up-front purpose is to get my thoughts out there along with the in-depth reasons for those thoughts. Many people have told me that I don't fit many molds; that I am a conglomeration of many spheres of influence; I don't even fit the 'maverick' cliché. Because of that, people have been curious for many of my reasons behind the way that I am: after all, there must be a reason behind all my diverse opinions. That's what this blog will publish. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your view), since every reason has itself another reason behind it, that means that I will probably never reach the bottom of why's.
The second main purpose is entirely selfish - or at least mostly selfish. I have found throughout my life that if I take the time to write out my view on a given subject, it requires me to think quite a bit about the subject, giving me a very good understanding of my own opinion, fleshing out my thoughts. And since I'd like to have that foundation for the most important aspects of my mind, I'll write on those aspects. And if I'm writing, might as well publish for free, right?
Though I'm under no delusions that anyone will actually care. I'll be surprised if there's even half a dozen people who care about any single post on this blog. But mass readership isn't my goal. If it was, I'd be writing for an established newspaper/periodical.
So what does that all mean? It means that every once in a while I'll be writing up an article - and believe me, they'll all be quite lengthy - about a subject I've been pondering recently. Most of the time it'll be political or religious in nature, since those are the two biggest universal interests I have, but there will also be splashes of music, books, history, and other random musings. And there will, of course, be many articles on the logical intersect of religion and politics: worldview.
So, I hope that if you do decide to read this blog regularly that you'll enjoy the time and that it will be time well-wasted. Who knows, I may actually make a difference. Wouldn't my elementary school teachers be proud?
Next Topic: The Title of This Blog (exciting, eh?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)