While some people are reflecting on which religions execute blasphemers, Protestants may want to be a tad circumspect — Americans as well, for that matter, if they think that John Winthrop made the U.S. a city on a hill.
Here’s one example of an attempt to assess Judaism, Christianity, and Islam on the wickedness of blasphemy:
That Christianity has less of a violence problem is self-evident, but the point is still lost on some people: at The Guardian, Ian Black declared that, in regards to the religion’s resistance to images of the Prophet Muhammad, “Islam is not unique. Judaism forbids the use of ‘graven images’ and Christianity has at times frowned on visual representations of sacred figures, allowing only the cross to be depicted in churches.”
This is a paragraph so shockingly dimwitted in its appraisal of both Christianity and Islam, and the differences between the two, that it is hard to know where to begin. I cannot readily speak for Judaism—the last time I attended a Jewish service was at a buddy’s Bar Mitzvah well over a decade ago—but I can say that Black’s appraisal of Christianity is, quite literally, total nonsense. For starters, Christianity since the sixteenth century has been a fractured religion, particularly on the subject of iconography; it does not really make sense to speak of Christianity “frowning” upon the use of imagery, unless you are willing to clarify just which branch or denomination of Christianity is doing this frowning. Catholicism is well-known for its use of crucifixes, for instance, although you can find them in Lutheran and Anglican churches, along with some other denominations. But you’re not apt to find a corpus amongst Baptists or Presbyterians, and again here Black’s characterization is frankly bizarre: it would be a profound understatement to say that the Southern Baptist Conference, for instance, “frowns” upon the artistic customs generally associated with Catholicism.
But if this piece were written in 1645, it might have a very different feel thanks to Massachusetts Bay’s Capital Laws (1641):
1. (Deut. 13. 6, 10. Deut. 17. 2, 6. Ex. 22.20) If any man after legall conviction shall have or worship any other god, but the lord god, he shall be put to death.
2. (Ex. 22. 18. Lev. 20. 27. Dut. 18. 10.) If any man or woeman be a witch, (that is hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit,) They shall be put to death.
3. (Lev. 24. 15,16.) If any person shall Blaspheme the name of god, the father, Sonne or Holie Ghost, with direct, expresse, presumptuous or high handed blasphemie, or shall curse god in the like manner, he shall be put to death.
That should put a wrinkle in the Reformation-to-Revolution-to-Toleration narrative and may cause some rethinking of the Puritans’ influence in forming the American nation.
This should not be read as some kind of exercise in moral equivalency that likens Islamic terrorism to Protestant state laws against blasphemy and idolatry. It is only designed as a reminder that Protestants too had to come out of their theocratic slumber by means other than those supplied by the reformers.
Can you clarify what you mean by “means other than those supplied by the reformers”? Are you referring to an appeal to natural revelation here?
Thanks
LikeLike
Brandon, it’s a reference to the cheers for Enlightenment.
LikeLike
All these cheers are making me thirsty..
LikeLike
Gotcha. That’s where I would take issue with you. It is my contention that it was not the enlightenment, but rather a change in interpretation of Scripture that brought Protestants out of their theocratic slumber. After all, Protestants were protesting the Westminster Assembly’s theocratic slumber before the enlightenment, and they did so on the ground of special revelation.
For example, an anonymous tract (Queries of Highest Concernment) written in 1644 to the Westminster Assembly notes the following (specifically addressing Parliament in this section):
In addressing the Assembly, he argues
Likewise, after living 70 years in New England, Increase Mather (theocrat John Cotton’s son-in-law) remarks (speaking in the third person in his autobiography):
This is consistent with Charles Hodge’s explanation of the development of thought:
LikeLike
Brandon, surely you’re not going to claim all credit goes to Christians? Hodge’s son, after all, was a proponent of adding a Christian amendment to the Constitution.
LikeLike
It depends on what you mean.
Were Christians the only influence on the Constitution? Certainly not.
Were developments in Christian thought on the relation of church and state simply a result of the Enlightenment? Certainly not.
To throw special revelation out the window in this matter simply because some Christians couldn’t figure it out is unwarranted. The evidence is clear that some Protestants did awake from theocratic slumber prior to the Enlightenment, and it was special revelation that awoke them.
I will likewise ask “Surely you’re not going to claim all credit goes to the Enlightenment?”
LikeLike
brandon, 2 cheers, but at least I can cheer. Neo-Calvinists, though, can’t.
LikeLike
“The land of Canaan was held by deed of gift from God immediately; and the condition by which they held their title to it, was their observation of the law of Moses,”
I thought Kline invented republication.
LikeLike
Well I guess you win then, huh?
I can praise God that he providentially provided for the preservation of the church over the last couple hundred years in America, in part through the faulty unbiblical philosophy of men like Jefferson, in part through the reformation of the church beyond WCF. Does that make me a Neo-Calvinist? Or can you admit there are more than two categories?
LikeLike
Brandon, why would you expect Jefferson to have a biblical philosophy? Or why would you require statesmen to have biblical philosophy? Do you enjoy ice cream? Did it come from biblical teaching of frozen sweetened cream?
LikeLike
But then again, we might want to ask if American Christianity uses the military as a proxy to commit violence. Read the link below:
http://www.jesusisaliberal.org/2006/03/is-violence-conservative-value.html
In addition, we might want to recognize that the only alternative to moral equivalency is moral relativity.
LikeLike
Good one, Curt. Violence is a conservative Xian value. Paging Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Che, Bomber Bill Ayers…
LikeLike
Curt, I have a link.
What would Machen link?
LikeLike
Curt, go to layman lately?
LikeLike
LikeLike
Nice catch, AB. Good to know that we are not the sole recipients of Curt Che’s red-tinted golden nuggets of pious…effusions.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart said to Brandon: “why would you expect Jefferson to have a biblical philosophy? Or why would you require statesmen to have biblical philosophy? Do you enjoy ice cream? Did it come from biblical teaching of frozen sweetened cream?
Now there you go again 😀
First it was Sweetbreads and cinematic debauchery and now it’s political philosophy and ice cream. And not just you, to be fair. I catch otherwise brilliant 2K people in this fallacy all the time.
Watch closely please:
Ice cream (of any flavor mind you), CANNOT carry moral content. None of the ingredients nor the process by which it is produced are capable of either directly upholding or violating any command, law or attribute of the Lord our God.
A man’s political philosophy, by definition, WILL directly touch numerous areas of life wherein the commands, laws and attributes of the Lord our God ARE either upheld or violated.
Did ya see the difference there? One is truly indifferent and one is not. That’s why one can be Christian and one cannot. Of course expecting anything truly Christian out of Jefferson is to demand good fruit from a bad tree. Of further course, whether a biblical mandate for such a philosophy can be established is also another question. What is not in question is that 2K folks need to knock off this confusion of categories. It is both untenable AND ultimately unnecessary to the 2K position.
It is however quite handy when trying to rationalize sin 😉
LikeLike
but does emoji carry moral content? hmm.
LikeLike
I don’t. But you don’t seem to understand the point of philosophy (it’s not ice cream).
As Gordon Clark notes (in all his writings)
You don’t get to pick and choose practical conclusions in philosophy. It has to be taken as a whole. And a faulty foundation will reach it’s logical results in the end.
Have a good day.
LikeLike
I agree with Greg. It is entirely unnecessary to the 2K position.
http://reformedlibertarian.com/blog/why-pr2k/
LikeLike
AB
but does emoji carry moral content? hmm.
How would you like to be a swell ol boy and splain to me what, pray tell, it is you are talking about Andrew? It does not appear that I am hip enough to participate in this conversation untutored.
LikeLike
I like teasing people who use wordpress emoticons. here, i’ll make fun of myself, i’m the most mean person to me i know:
🙂 😀 😦 😮 😯 😕 😎 😡 😛 😐 😉 😆 😳 😥 👿 😈 🙄 ❗ ❓ idea: ➡
emoticate away, i enjoy reading darryl’s and other’s tomes (and finding new blogs, look at that brandon fella, wow!)
peace
LikeLike
Brandon Adams
I agree with Greg. It is entirely unnecessary to the 2K position.
http://reformedlibertarian.com/blog/why-pr2k/
Now see here friend. I am a Van Tillian to the bone. You’re not allowed to quote Clark and then agree with me in the next breath, Waddaya tryin to do to my reputation?
LikeLike
Brandon, but I don’t think philosophy has the power that you give it, Mr. Neo-Calvinist Hegelian, you. It’s not as sweet as ice cream, but it’s all vanity (and that’s biblical).
LikeLike
Secularism as the new hope—-We are going to hope that starting January 7, 2015, a firm defense of secularism will go without saying for everyone, that people will finally stop—whether because of posturing or electoral calculus or cowardice—legitimizing or even tolerating communalism and cultural relativism, which only open the door to one thing: religious totalitarianism. Yes, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a reality, yes, international geopolitics is a series of dirty tricks and maneuvers, yes, the social situation of “populations of Muslim origin” in France is profoundly unjust, yes, racism and discrimination must be fought relentlessly. Fortunately, there are several tools that can be used to try to resolve these serious problem, but they’re all useless without secularism. Not positive secularism, not inclusive secularism, not whatever-secularism, secularism period.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/01/14/charlie_hebdo_the_new_issue_s_editor_s_note_is_a_defense_of_secularism.html?wpsrc=slatest_newsletter&sid=5388f1e1dd52b8e411000954
LikeLike
Brandon Adams
Posted January 14, 2015 at 5:55 pm | Permalink
I agree with Greg. It is entirely unnecessary to the 2K position.
http://reformedlibertarian.com/blog/why-pr2k/
Very nice. “Radical” 2k theology ignores the obligation to the natural law, as if the Church must blind itself to right and wrong.
“Propositional Revelation” need not be in opposition to NL–the natural law is not sola a priori. The truth of all natural law claims must been borne out in real life a posteriori, and further, as Rufinus argues
Natural law consists of three things–commands, prohibitions, and demonstrations. It commands what is beneftial, prohibits what is harmful, and demonstrates what is fitting, for instance, that all things be held in common and the same liberty of all.”
http://is.gd/FLPutT
“Demonstrations” show us what is “fitting.” Liberty, for instance, here. Free enterprise per Adam Smith is “provisionally” indicated. Etc. We shouldn’t trust our <a prioris (our reason is fallen) as much as we might trust God enough to demonstrate the natural law sufficiently enough to discuss it together.
As for libertarianism, I’ll take my chances with a liberal or a conservative any day. Those people are nuts.
LikeLike
Well you sure waste a tremendous amount of time on vanity then.
LikeLike
(btw, the Enlightenment was philosophical)
LikeLike
CW,
I have no problem in condemning the violence of people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and so forth. See, I have no problem in condemning the violence practice by elite-center rule whether the rulers are from the Right or the Left. But I do struggle with the American Conservative tendency to sweep the violence they’ve supported under the rug of the sins of others. Such is a denial of sin.
And, btw, perhaps the following quote from Martin Luther King Jr. might help:
My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years — especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked — and rightly so — what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government . For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.
The above quote can be found the speech at this link: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm
LikeLike
AB,
So you think that my first comment was irrelevant to the post. Ok. But consider the first line quoted in this post:
That Christianity has less of a violence problem is self-evident
See, I wasn’t the first one to bring up Christianity, violence, or the connection between the two.
LikeLike
Curt, as a USAmerican (to quote Miss South Carolina) are you not riddled with guilt for what your ancestors did to native USAmericans and slaves? How can you stand that? Why not find where you came from and go home? You are complicit. You continue to support the system. You spend blood money. Be consistent.
LikeLike
Curt likes to waste everyone’s time with his endless and pointless blather.
LikeLike
Curt, with that, I think I have your first comment directed my way.
Greetings.
Peace.
LikeLike
Kent, mebbe.
If he golfs, that something I wouldn’t mind reading about. sorry erikLikeLike
Brandon, what you do isn’t vain?
LikeLike
It can’t remotely fit into a command to a type of childlike faith, AB, yo.
LikeLike
kent, you win with me (fwiw) because you keep it short and sweet. Bryan Cross, Cletus Van Damme, and Curt Day could learn a thing from you, my friend.
LikeLike
like golf, the less strokes the better (don’t tell erik i brought up golf, if makes him grumpy that i do that).
LikeLike
CW,
Or better yet, why not develop a conscience? And why would my leaving be consistent?
LikeLike
Curt, I’d feel sorta like it was reparations (to me) if you went away. Actually, you’re a good sport and tenacious like a bulldog. And I’ve seen your profile pic so maybe shaggy dog works better. As stated before, I love everyone.
LikeLike
Even if you want to ignore me, you’ve already read this.
😀
LikeLike
emoticons..ugghh….
oh, it’s kent and he’s a golfer? oh, then it’s ok
Happy Friday to all you fellow working stiffs.
LikeLike
If you don’t like my emoticons, I’ll let the mayor of Rotterdam speak for me…
LikeLike
AB
Posted January 14, 2015 at 6:03 pm:
I like teasing people who use wordpress emoticons. here, i’ll make fun of myself, i’m the most mean person to me i know:
🙂 😀 😦 😮 😯 😕 😎 😡 😛 😐 😉 😆 😳 😥 👿 😈 🙄 ❗ ❓ idea: ➡
Aha. However, yes it would be possible for emoticons to carry moral content. 😈
D. G. Hart asks: “Brandon, what you do isn’t vain?”
Everything else aside Darryl. I’m asking you honestly to explain what you mean by this. I have been to Brandon’s page and while I’m sure we disagree on plenty, “vanityy” is not a word I’d use to describe, at least what I’ve read. Actually, that’s not how I would describe you either. Although “vain” and “vanity” can be two different things. I’m genuinely curious what you mean.
LikeLike
The mayor’s name is Greg? Here, let me fix the one I missed.
💡
LikeLike
CW,
BTW, the previous note addressed to you was meant for Chortles. Sorry about that.
LikeLike
AB: “The mayor’s name is Greg? Here, let me fix the one I missed.”
I mean this as no insult whatsoever Andrew, but I do not understand what you mean a lot of the time. Could I prevail upon you to please tell me what you meant by this?
LikeLike
‘Twas a mulligan. Forget about it.
Peace.
LikeLike
Found out last weekend that my first Charter relative to come to the new world came over from England in 1769 on a transport as a convicted thief. He had stolen silver from his employer. If it had happened a decade later he would have been sent to Australia.
The relevance to this post? Not much, but interesting to me.
LikeLike
Todd – I thought Kline invented republication.
Erik – LOL. Well played.
Darryl & Brandon had a nice conversation going but Curt came along and steered it into the crapper.
Typical Marxist rabble.
LikeLike
Curt,
I clicked through to your website.
Who does your programming, Atari?
LikeLike
AB: but does emoji carry moral content?
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/lesbian-emojis-for-iphone-shows-apple-can-do-more-for-diversity-acceptance
LikeLike
TG, (from AB), not an emoji fan, as you know. I remember when AOL instant messenger first translated my typed smilie. I had to type : ) instead to avoid the scripts..been all down hill since that day… Grr….
LikeLike
Hard to know what to make of people who punished blasphemy and constructed a “city on a hill”:
LikeLike
Darryl, it just goes to show that the Puritans were theonomists/reconstructionists and not Kuyperians/2K advocates. Of course, a theonomic place like Massachussetts or Geneva or Cromwell’s England would punish blasphemers. So, do you think there is Biblical grounds for the American revisions to WCF or did the Americans capitulate to the spirit of the age?
LikeLike
Terry, what it shows I think is that Kuyper lived after the French Revolution and the Puritans didn’t. All Christians except for Roger Williams and the Anabaptists were Constantinian before 1780. No one could imagine a society that wasn’t Christian. The realities of living with Jews and Roman Catholics, not to mention the woes of liberal national churches, showed a different way, which by the way could find a rationale in the New Testament — a rationale that 14 centuries of Christian kings had clouded.
LikeLike
Erik,
More concerned with style than content are you? BTW, is trying to insult people a fruit of the Spirit? All of us can lose the war while trying to when arguments.
LikeLike
From one of our mid-west correspondents, word that Muslims like secularity:
LikeLike
A cheer (or two) from a Roman Catholic source:
Makes sense to me.
LikeLike
If you call Bryan a man of Enlightenment liberalism you might get a punch.
LikeLike
Curt – BTW, is trying to insult people a fruit of the Spirit?
Erik – It is if you’re insulting the right people.
Can I play “Pong” on your site?
LikeLike
Curt,
Try WordPress instead of that guy living in the van down by the river.
LikeLike
Darryl, That makes for an interesting comparison between age of the earth and 2k-type thinking, at least that reflected by the WCF revisions. Our received long-standing interpretation of scripture may be wrong and it may take some extra-Biblical developments (scientific progress, the enlightenment) to shake us lose from our prior interpretation. It’s not that we’re adjusting our understanding of scripture to fit the times, but rather that the times are letting us see something in scripture that we hadn’t seen before.
LikeLike
here ya go: http://reformedlibertarian.com/blog/increase-mathers-principles-of-toleration/
LikeLike