Mere Conservatism: Theology « A Voice in the Wilderness

21Oct/0912

Mere Conservatism: Theology

by: R.J. Moeller

(Note: If you haven't read the Mere Conservatism Intro yet, take a minute and familiarize yourself with what we're trying to accomplish with this series of essays.)

CharltonHestonTheTenCommandmentsC101021021 Theology, history, and economics are the three prisms through which my conservative view of the world can be most clearly seen and understood. Obviously these are three broad categories to draw upon, but stick around for the next few weeks as I will be narrowing down what it is I mean by each of these loaded terms.

I completely appreciate that for many Americans the word “theology” is perhaps scary, confusing, misunderstood, or meaningless. It’s okay to admit that, even if you consider yourself a spiritual person.

Theology is simply the study, or understanding, of God.

Every person has a theology, even atheists, for they make the bold claim that there is certainly no God. Please keep in mind that we are leagues away in this intellectual journey from making declarations as to which God is the true Higher Power. I’m merely attempting to help define theology, and then explain the type of theology that I believe usually leads to a conservative outlook on life. If you consider yourself liberal (or anything else) and find that you agree with my sentiments today, then perhaps we aren't as far apart as our partisan prejudices would have us believe.

The presupposition of my definition for theology is that one has already actually thought about God; that you have thought about what you think about a Higher Power. It is nearly impossible to separate the question of God from our own experiences of asking the “Why am I here?” and “What is my purpose?” questions that rightly plague us all. You can brush these questions off for much or all of your life, but the intellectually honest person is confronted with them and eventually says, “Results be damned: I’m getting to the bottom of life’s meaning and God’s existence.”

On a side note: If you have never reached this point of candid self-reflection in your life, I do not intend to debate the existence of God here and now, but we cannot avoid Him in a discussion of Americans, let alone of American conservatism.

As we continue our dialogue about theology, add on to the layers of existential soul-searching I just mentioned the practical, daily implications of those eternal questions. For example, issues such as abortion, murder, capital punishment, and war carry with them critically important moral conundrums that no responsible citizen should ignore. Underlying all of this, in the context of a free society like our own, is the question of “rights.”

Here is where I believe the theology of an American matters to their neighbor. Again, don’t confuse theology with “religion.” You belong to a religion, but you believe in a particular theology.

The question before us, as fellow citizens of a representative republic, is the genesis of our rights.

Where do they come from? Does everyone have them? Can they be taken away? Should they ever be taken away? What can and/or should be done if they are taken away?

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, believed in a Higher Power, but in one who created the world, wound it up like a watch, and then walked away to let things play out as they will. Jefferson believed that like a watch there were certain truths, what one might call Natural Laws, which governed the universe. He was what is known as a “deist.”

He was also a lawyer and a rationally thinking man.

The core of his reasoned defense for America’s right to be free from British tyranny was this: “All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” This is, in my opinion, the single most distinctive thing about America. The Jewish people of the Old Testament were the first to claim that mankind was made in God’s image. Jefferson, a deist no less, and our remarkable Founding Fathers took the logical next step and said “If God created us, then our rights come from Him, not a king.”

These "truths" were considered to be "self-evident"...as in, "You have to go out of your way to ignore or deny them."

How does one explain where rights come from without a Higher Power? How does one explain the history of this blessed nation without coming in to contact with a Higher Power?

If it is not God, then our rights are in my opinion arbitrary and illusionary. If our rights do not come from someone or something higher than ourselves, namely a Creator, then we are entirely dependent on the whims of the State.

You don’t have to worship on Sunday morning at Sarah Palin’s church or profess belief in a Six-Day Creation to acknowledge the importance of this point. You don’t have to (and shouldn’t) be the type of person who calls America the “Second Israel” to appreciate the uniqueness of this country’s fundamental claims about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The irrefutable genius of our Founders was this: led by their undeniable Judeo-Christian theological influences and values, they conceived a way to ground our national system in theology without forcing people to be religious. You can believe whatever it is you want about God, Jesus, Buddha or the Hale-Bopp Comet. Just remember that this freedom comes from the worldview of our Founders that recognized that our Creator affords each of us a similar freedom while on this earth to accept or reject Him. The system He set up isn’t dependent upon our liking it, but merely accepting it.

The Founding Fathers were saying. “Go ahead and pray (or not pray) to God in any way you see fit – but we believe in a Higher Power and the only possible chance for sustained freedom and liberty we can see is a nation where everyone, especially those who are lent power to lead, is held to a higher standard.” GK1

And from this a second, and for now, final, theological conclusion can be drawn: mankind is messed up. We are “fallen,” the God-fearing man or woman might say. This should be the most obvious theological point in the world. No one disputes that the world has problems. Our neighbors have problems. We have problems. Things aren’t as they should be a lot of the time.

As G.K. Chesterton (pictured right) phrased it in Orthodoxy, "Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Judeo-Christian theology which can really be proved."

Many secular-progressives excitedly say that while the Declaration of Independence may contain some “quasi-religious rhetoric,” that the real test is the Constitution and its alleged lack of “God language.” Argument won, right?

Well, first of all, there shouldn’t be any argument about the historical fact that the men who put together the framework for our republican democracy, who wrote the Bill of Rights, who signed the Declaration, who led the colonial troops in to battle were predominantly and overwhelmingly religious, theological dudes. This is simply the historical narrative of the country we all happen to live in.

No one wants a theocracy, but to write the Judeo-Christian heritage out of our nation’s history is preposterous and should not be taken seriously. For better or worse, this is who we are.

But more importantly, I contend that the Constitution is implicit in its theology. The very first thing our Framers wrote down was the concept of freedom of religion. Want to take a guess what (or Who) was on their minds when they wrote that? Certainly they were wanting to protect against a State-run church, the kind they had (have) back in Europe, but the reality of a Creator loomed in the words and on the pages of nearly everything these visionary men spoke and wrote.

Was anyone expecting James Madison and the boys, to prove how much they believe in a Higher Power, would have to have thrown in an “Oh by the way, God rules and someday secular atheists like Chrisopher Hitchens will drool,” shout-out in the first ten amendments? If they had included a specific “Jesus is my Homeboy clause” in the Bill of Rights it would have flown in the face of the liberty-based sentiments from the Declaration that was their case to the world as to why they deserved to be free.

Just because haters on the secular Left and zealots on the religious right don’t seem to comprehend these subtle, yet profound, truths about the Founders intentions doesn’t mean we all miss them.

The Constitution is also inherently theological regarding my second point from before: the fallen state of mankind. The separation of powers would not be necessary in a world where enough hope, change, progress, and blaming Fox News for its “bias” could solve all social, political and moral ills. Of course we need protection from those who inevitably do wrong, and consequently we must have debates and votes regarding how much of our liberties we are willing to exchange for security.

Compromise is a reality of life. But so are sin and crime and murder and ponzi schemes and everything in between realities of life. The Founders believed things could be better, but never perfect.

They also believed that a significant contributor to ensuring things would be perennially worse was the centralization of power in the hands of a few “elites” who promised the rest of the population that they knew what was best.

From these two fundamental theological concepts - the existence of a Creator who grants us our rights and the natural depravity of man - a coherent, cohesive, and typically conservative worldview begins to form.

If you came to my church on Sunday or asked me over coffee to explain my religious faith in Jesus Christ, I’d be more than happy to share my life and my doctrinal beliefs regarding the God of the Old and New Testament. I could draw upon deeper biblical insights to explain why I believe Scripture and Christian teaching and tradition point people to a conservative worldview.

But in the public square, in the marketplace of ideas, in a free society that should welcome all points of view, and in an essay attempting to define the basic theological ideas pertinent to a conservative outlook on life, I only need the two I’ve already stated.

This is just the first stop on our intellectual journey, but it is a big one.

(Read "Mere Conservatism: History" here)

Filed under: Mere Conservatism, Original Columns Leave a comment

Comments (12) Trackbacks (0) ( subscribe to comments on this post )

Bill Nigh
October 22nd, 2009 - 09:25

This is a well-written, well though out piece of writing, RJ. I know some will come across it and launch in to the typical “Church and State” diatribe, but you have wisely kept to the basics of what it means to believe that a Creator gives us our rights, and the far-reaching implications of that. I also appreciated that you made sure to remind people that anyone can agree with this traditional position, you don’t JUST have to be a conservative. But this is one of the pillars of that perspective.

Job well done. Looking forward to what others have to say about this column.
Kevin Johnston
October 22nd, 2009 - 10:23

How does atheism fit into freedom, if rights without God are as arbitrary as you contend? I agree rights are bestowed by the Creator, but many do not, and they still manage a cohesive belief in rights… (Deists may even fit within that framework)
-kj-
admin
October 22nd, 2009 - 12:24

KJ-

Excellent comment/question. First I would say that there are exceptions to every rule. It is absolutely possible for someone who chooses to not recognize a Creator to be not only a great person, but a wonderful citizen and staunch defender of rights (in the American sense and meaning of the word). It’s possible…but I would contend that

A) It inevitably rests on that atheist or agnostic to explain where rights come from
B) Such a person need to explain, historically, what/who the Founders meant by “Creator”
C) Such a person needs to defend why it would be better for us to do away with (or ignore) 233 years of rights being based on the belief that our Creator gave them to us, and what is the alternative option that is stronger/better?

I do not mean these questions in a combative way. But they are challenging, intellectually honest inquires none the less. We’re dealing with many layers of theology, history, philosophy, etc. here, and I love the analogy of the guy at the circus who spins plates and continues to add stacks of plates while keeping the lower levels of plates spinning. I appreciate the fact that this topic is complicated and that people have very strong feelings about any discussion that involves the words theology or Creator.

What I am attempting to do, and what I think the Framers intended, is explain how a nation founded by predominantly God-fearing Christians were able to put together a union of different denominations and belief types (including atheists and deists). Atheists have the burden of proof on them in the discussion of what the United States of America has believed is the source of their rights. But that “burden of proof” is only required of them if they come looking to erase the idea of our Creator being that source. I believe that the unique thing about America is that no one is forced to believe in God, yet we have a system of freedoms and liberties based on the idea that He gives them to us. All are welcome. All are free. The problem arises when people seek to undermine or whole-sale remove this reality from our history and from our national consciousness. We CAN remove it, we have the freedoms to remove it, but then, if we’re intellectually honest, must admit that we are removing the capstone upon which those freedoms to remove it were built.

I know it makes those who don’t believe in a Creator upset to, as some feel, have their “faces rubbed in it”, but I don’t think anyone has to see it that way or feel that way. If you come to the same limited-government, fiscal responsibility, etc. views that I believe typify conservatism (and much of libertarianism), then we can live at peace and do not have to spend time debating how many times Jefferson went to church.

Just some thoughts that came to mind from your question, Kevin. I’d love to hear your feedback, and hope others will join in the conversation. Thanks.
Todd
October 22nd, 2009 - 12:50

RJ-

I know you love The Steyn, and his blog at NRO today touches upon the type of society that comes about when people stop being treated as free citizens and become wards of the all-powerful State.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGNkMjVlOGE4NTk5YzAwMDM3YmQ3NzNhYWQ2NGIwNTQ=

Great column today.
Jillian
October 22nd, 2009 - 22:54

This is one of the best blogs I’ve ever read. I saw your article linked in the comments section at Townhall and wandered over here. I am glad I did. Some of this is pretty deep, but you handle such a big topic in an accessible way. I’m gonna be following your blog now, so keep churning quality stuff out.
Kurt
October 23rd, 2009 - 06:13

Great set of articles, RJ!
I am an agnostic, at best, but understanding the Founders were true believers and the nation was founded on the PRINCIPLE of all rights extending from the creator establishes that rights DID NOT, nor will EVER extend from the state.
Just as the Constitution is limits placed on the government, by the people, establishing that the government did NOT extend our rights is a limit on the government denying same rights.
As an agnostic, who is a Jeffersonian conservative, to the bone, I feel that establishment of the government having no place to grant, or deny, rights is the main point, and the framers also left the “creator” open to the individual’s belief in who/what is the “higher power.”
admin
October 23rd, 2009 - 07:37

Thanks for adding to the conversation Kurt. We (religious conservatives) are happy to partner with you in the public square on the key, central issues of our time. Primary to our republic are the concepts of limited government, personal responsibility, and civic duty. The Left is interested only in the third concept, and to the detriment of the first and second. You are spot-on when you say that the Framers left the term “Creator” purposely ambiguous in a religious sense. They kept things theological (in the broad sense of the word) and avoided the religious, denominational battles they knew would take place in towns and cities and counties and states on their own.
Ms. Kelly
October 23rd, 2009 - 08:55

This is all very good stuff, and it’s nice to read dialog that is civil and respectful.

One place it seems where everyone gets into trouble is defining exactly what is a right. I think as conservatives we must always reiterate that rights are not needs. How often we have heard “Everyone has a right to decent healthcare”. Obviously, since we are NOT endowed by our Creator with decent healthcare, then decent healthcare cannot be a right.
admin
October 23rd, 2009 - 09:00

Excellent point, Ms Kelly.

Here are my thoughts on rights and health care, specifically: http://rjmoeller.com/2009/08/is-health-care-a-right/
Ms. Kelly
October 26th, 2009 - 20:14

Admin:

How should we address you when responding? Admin seems a bit sterile.

In your page on health care and rights, Augo, in quoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stated that everyone has a right to “…a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

I contend that these are all NEEDS and not RIGHTS. The left has taken needs and recast them as rights by playing on our emotions. No one wants to say that people do not have a right to food, because that sounds mean and heartless. People tend to have a knee jerk reaction to the idea of a right to food or shelter, but when arguing about the famous words of our Declaration of Independence, we overlook two things that DEFINE our rights, and that is, we are “ENDOWED by our Creator” with those unalienable Rights, AND those rights are “self evident”.

The unalienable rights of mankind are endowed or “gifted” to man by God. Since it is God who gifted those rights, then no man has the authority to take them away. Anything that God has not gifted to all men is therefore not a right. The framers of the Declaration also said that these rights were “self evident”. The rights gifted to man from God are so obvious as to be without question. If we are now casting as rights those things which previous generations NEVER saw as rights, then that standard of being “self evident” has not been met.

When America first learned of the horror practiced in third world countries known as “female circumcision” we instinctively knew this was wrong. The injustice of this practice is self evident because it robs the female of something that was gifted (endowed) to her from God; namely, the ability to enjoy sexual pleasure. Taking that gift away, even if done by the parent of a minor child, is a violation of the girl’s rights because that gift is not her parent’s to take. It is the girl’s alone, given to her by her Creator.

We start out in this world equal, but we do not end up equal. What we become depends upon our own decisions and initiative. That some people end up with more than others is not something government should try to rectify under the guise of rights.

Human beings have endless needs, and government has an endless appetite for confiscation and control. Turning all needs into rights gives government Carte Blanche to take everything that others produce to provide for those needs.
admin
October 26th, 2009 - 21:52

Ms Kelly-

Admin = R.J. The Wordpress interface I use just logs me on as Admin. But it’s still me, your intrepid blogger.

I wholeheartedly agree with your point about the difference between NEEDS and RIGHTS. I would strongly encourage you (and everyone else reading this) to look in to Fredric Bastiat’s “The Law” for a much more brilliant and pithy defense for the very things you are wisely bringing up.

Here’s the link to an online version: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G700

My favorite part is the Intro: “We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. ”

I couldnt agree with basically everything you said more. Thanks for the post.
Ms. Kelly
October 28th, 2009 - 09:43

R.J.

Thank you so much for the link. I will definitely read it.

No trackbacks yet.

« Fox News Banned From Pay Czar Interview What in the world is going on in D.C.? »

What is “Mere Conservatism”?

The basic ideas, ideals, and values that generally define and characterize the central tenets of what today might be termed "modern conservative thought."

We believe that a proper understanding of history, economics, and theology leads to certain conclusions. Many of these are the same conclusions our Founding Fathers arrived at in constructing a "more perfect union."

All ideas and opinions are welcome; not all are correct.

Mere Conservatism Links:
Econ Part I | Econ Part II
Intro | Theology | History

RJ Speaking at Acton 2010

Rudy the Dog barks at "change"

Read all of R.J.’s columns here

My Columns |

A Voice in the Wilderness In Defense of "Mere Conservatism"