Comments on: David Barton on John Adams – The Trinity

By: tom van dyke

tom van dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:57:43 +0000

I wish Stewart had let Barton finish. I'm not explicitly a defender of Barton, as he errs frequently [Adams clearly is being mocking in the letter to Rush]. However, if anyone's actually interested in the truth of the matter without the culture war part, from a recent blog post: As a public man, as president, what did America know of John Adams' "unitarianism"? The answer is, little or nothing. President John Adams' 1798 thanksgiving proclamation explicitly recognizes God the Father, Jesus the Redeemer and the Holy Spirit:

"I have therefore thought fit to recommend, and I do hereby recommend, that Wednesday, the 9th day of May next, be observed throughout the United States as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens of these States, abstaining on that day from their customary worldly occupations, offer their devout addresses to the Father of Mercies agreeably to those forms or methods which they have severally adopted as the most suitable and becoming; that all religious congregations do, with the deepest humility, acknowledge before God the manifold sins and transgressions with which we are justly chargeable as individuals and as a nation, beseeching Him at the same time, of His infinite grace, through the Redeemer of the World, freely to remit all our offenses, and to incline us by His Holy Spirit to that sincere repentance and reformation which may afford us reason to hope for his inestimable favor and heavenly benediction..."

Bold face mine. As we see, the Father is in there, Jesus is still the "Redeemer," and the existence of the Holy Spirit is acknowledged, not denied. Most people, whether in 1798 or in 2011, would see President Adams' proclamation as explicitly "Christian." What John Adams believed in private is of some interest, but of little importance. These days, we use the term "Judeo-Christian" to dispose of the question of whether Jesus is God or not anyway. And as we see here, in public, John Adams comes off more Christian than that, not less.

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:57:43 +0000

tom – I think you have something there. Most people would probably interpret Adams statements through their own views which were predominantly trinitarian. In fact, as you know, Jefferson was interpreted to be a non-believer by the masses, while Adams was viewed as more religious, and hence Christian. However, we find that they were pretty close to each other in belief.
The problem for Barton is that he needs Jefferson and Adams to be Christian since he makes the case that biblical Christianity is the foundation for the nation. He wants people to believe that Jefferson and Adams were acting out of a basically evangelical faith in their worldview. Well, when you really understand these men, they were not doing that.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:57:43 +0000

I read an excellent biography on John Quincy Adams, a while back, where he writes home to ‘dad’ (John Adams). Anyone familiar with what I recall… that JQA was further in the evangelical camp than his dad?
These guys were amazing thinkers, who didn’t bow out of things like theology, and JQA definitely seemed aware that His dad didn’t quite know Jesus as He did, or was starting to. JQA was recommending a sermon, or writing, on Jesus — which I’m sure was undergirding His divinity, don’t recall whether it was Trinitarian focused.
I think you may have a point on the timing. There was certainly openness / dialog, and they valued that. It looks to me like JQA definitely ended up evangelical / trinitarian.
But even Jefferson saying that if we can’t conceive of something then we can’t embrace it (the Trinity), may not have been so much a statement of definite Unitarianism, but rather a rejection of a formulaic, rigid, conformity, which they were resentful of.
I’m no expert, but perhaps in these formative years there were “Unitarians” who may not have rejected Christs divinity, so much as having said, he looks like he’s separate from the Father to me…
Three persons, on essence, yeah maybe .. just don’t be dogmatic and judge me for not parroting the way you believe in the Trinity.
Boston, at the time, was definitely the hotbed of Unitarianism, and others outside of Boston, like Washington, could have had nothing to do with it. But again he had associations with Masonry, and didn’t necessarily see the contridiction, which kept up right down to Harry Truman.
So again, some of these guys if they lived through to our day may have been anti-mason (certainly JQA turned out so), other may have dropped out of church for the lodge, or Unitarianism.
I don’t think any of us can claim them, unless they were directly involved with something like the First Great Awakening.

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:57:43 +0000

JP - I would start with John Fea's new book on America as a Christian Nation.

By: mlargles

mlargles — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:57:43 +0000

Hey, thanks for following up on this. Originally, his statement really threw me for a loop (as a unitarian, but not a theologian or a particular expert in the history this seemed an especially out of left field form of wrong). But your point that this is actually all about misunderstanding unitarian history within the Congregational Church makes everything much more clear, if still wrong... and bizarre. I wrote up another piece about it, here, where I try to mention how you helped uncover this. Thanks!

By: David Blakeslee

David Blakeslee — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:09:53 +0000

Zoe,
:).
The argument here, I think, is whether fundamentalist and evangelical Christians have a right to claim John Adams as a founding father who supported their theological positions.
Warren, over time, is trying to debunk Evangelical claims on history which are not supported by the facts.
He is doing this because he has found they have done this with concurrent science regarding SSA; and he believes no one else in the community will do it.
Given how folks in Uganda use Dominionist beliefs to drive their public policy; he is trying to create, over time, a series of documents to make such movements more easily undermined from an authentic Christian perspective.
It is an act of Tough Love :).

By: Zoe Brain

Zoe Brain — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:09:53 +0000

I trust you’ll forgive me… I’ll be rude here, discourteous, but at least honest. Though that’s a thin excuse for rudeness. All I can say is the unvarnished truth, for you deserve that.
My immediate reaction was “what a waste”! So many great minds arguing about whether Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny was more “real”.
Then, on second thought, it seemed that it was more like people arguing whether the USS Enterprise would win over the Battlestar Galactica.
These fine issues of doctrine, to me, denigrate and demean the message in Matthew 22:39-40 and 1 Corinthians 13. Messages that do not require either Theistic or Deistic belief to be valid, and relevant.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 30 Jul 2013 23:34:09 +0000

As most religions and denominations do, Unitarians fail to recognize, or flat out deny the evolutionary processes that have shaped their beliefs.
In the case of Unitarianism (which merged with the Universalists in the mid 20th Century), there are tiny seeds/roots going back to the 2nd Century of the denial of the full Deity of Christ. This slowly grew over centuries, often getting pounded back by church councils, but really began to take off in the mid to late 18th Century – spreading to England and the US with the wave of the “Enlightenment”. Still – Universalism had varying degrees – from full anti-trinitarian views, to somewhat muddy views of Christ (including a mixing with modalism). Was Adams a full-bore anti-trinitarian? It is hard to say – he certainly had such leanings. Does this change the very Christian-like contributions he made to the foundational time of this nation, or the very biblical view his writings, decisions, and actions often followed? Not at all…

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 30 Jul 2013 19:34:09 +0000

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 06:00:26 +0000