Was Jefferson a Christian, Atheist, or Deist?

Email from a student:

Sorry to bother you with yet another article, but I have come across several over the last few days that I think are germane to things that have been discussed in your Tuesday night class.

I take everything with a grain of salt these days and am admittedly not a Glenn Beck groupie. However, I do believe that much of his information regarding the Founding Fathers has been fairly accurate.

But to cut to the chase ... I have heard for years the story about Thomas Jefferson cutting up his Bible to accommodate his own beliefs and I heard you again mention it in class the other night.

The following article seems to shed new light (at least for me) on that story:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/do-you-know-the-real-story-behind-the-jefferson-bible-david-barton-shared-it-with-beck/

I'd like to hear your take on this.
Thanks,

My return email:

For a period of time, Thomas Jefferson was known as a Deist. Not because he had affiliation with any Deist organization, but because his Theology was Deist. Deism is, in reality, a catch-all for many beliefs of God. Recently, Atheists have claimed that Jefferson was an Atheist. This theory is making-the-rounds online. I just debated with an Atheist on Facebook about this. Finally, some Christians claim Jefferson was a protestant Christian. What we do know for sure is that Jefferson was raised as an Episcopalian/Anglican. Later in life, he wrote that he would like to join a Unitarian church, but he could not because there were none in Virginia at the time.

I think it is import to make a distinction between attendance or membership in an organization and what a person actually holds or believes. People can often claim to be one thing while holding a different worldview or theology. Certainly, we would not put it past a politician to “be all things to all men.”

David Burton has recently claimed that he is a Christian in an attempt to bolster or recover the view that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. His comments, however, have sparked some sharp criticism. I think it would be a good idea to look up David Barton. Check out the controversy over his misquotations to see it the criticism is legit.

You can find references to most of it at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_(author)
Look under Criticism and Unconfirmed Quotations.

The question is whether or not the criticism of Burton is correct and if it is material to his assertions.

So what do we think were Jefferson’s actual beliefs? He wrote that the teachings of Jesus contain the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." Sounds Christian, for sure. To take a lesson from Greg Koukl, I would ask, what did Jefferson mean by Jesus? That is, who would Jefferson say He is?

Here are some quotes from Jefferson that might shed some light on this:

About Science and Religion
The priests of the different religious sects ... dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

About the Gospels
We find in the writings of his biographers ... a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to William Short, August 4, 1822, referring to Jesus's biographers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

About the God of the Old Testament
That sect had presented for the object of their worship, a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.
-- Thomas Jefferson, referring to the god of the Jews under Moses, in his letter to William Short (August 4, 1822)

It would appear that Jefferson thought Science trumps religion, that the gospel accounts were lies and the god of the Old Testament we cruel and capricious.

In addition, I have a copy of the Jefferson Bible and in the forward there are comments about Jefferson’s dislike of the supernatural references.

With comments like this, one would think he is in the New Atheist crowd other than the fact he did believe in a god. We just aren’t certain which version of god (theology) that would be. But who can really know the heart of a man? I think it is safe to say he was a Deist or Unitarian. To say he was a Bible believing Christian or an atheist, while certainly possible, I don’t think it is probable.

Either way, what does his worldview have to do with anything today?

As for Burton, I don’t know if the criticism is sound or not, or whether it was intentional or unintentional. If he has misrepresented the facts, then he has done a great disservice to the Christian community (Body of Christ). Even if our intentions are noble, we should never misrepresent or bare false witness to anyone.

Book Review: Finding God in Ancient China by Chan Kei Thong with Charlene L. Fu

“Finding God in Ancient China: How the Ancient Chinese Worshiped the God of the Bible,” by Chan Kei Thong with Charlene L. Fu, caught my eye after I had seen some interesting websites that made a connection between the Genesis flood account and Chines pictographic characters (logograms).

Thesis
The thesis of the book is, “we will show that there is sufficient light peeking through the windows of general revelation in Chinese history, records, literature, and practices to convince one to take the next step, into the sunlight of God’s special revelation.”(40)

What this book is not saying
This book is not making the claim that there is more than one way to God. The claim is that the ancient Chinese had a rudimentary knowledge of the one true God that would have come from the revelation up to the point of their migration to the steps of China.

Chapter 1
The book starts with an explanation of the differences between myths, legends, and history. The book transitions into an explanation of general and special revelation of God. These become key points and a foundation for moving forward with their thesis. The book then promises to review the “signposts” that point to their thesis.

Chapter 2
Chapter two gives us a brief overview of the pictographic and ideographic nature of the Chinese written language. Further, the authors show how some of these characters correlate to the Genesis record and the basic tenants of sin, forgiveness, sacrifice, redemption, and salvation. The authors rightfully acknowledge that this can be dismissed as circumstantial evidence, however, “these characters should, however, compel us to seek further evidence within the Chinese culture to see if, in fact, the ancient Chinese worshipped the One True God.”(71)

Chapter 3
Chapter three addresses the name and concept of God for the ancient Chinese. The name given to God in Chinese is 皇天上帝 (Huang Tian Shang Di) which translates to Supreme Lord of the Great Heaven. Often, He is referred to only as 上帝 (Shang Di). For the ancient Chinese, this is the Creator God who is above and distinct from all other lesser gods (shen or spirits). The chapter continues with parallels between Shang Di and the Creator God of the Hebrews and Christians.

“We saw an abundance of references that strikingly show how the attributes of Shang Di (Tian) match those of the One True God of the Bible, leading us to the conclusion that Shang Di (Tian) is the general revelation to the Chinese people of the same God worshipped by the Hebrews of the Old Testament and the Christians of the New Testament.”(105) The author finally laments “It is unfortunate, therefore, that the Chinese have not worshipped this God alone; they have also worshipped a multitude of other beings. …many Chinese around the world have fallen under the power of a host of fearful superstitions and syncretistic religious beliefs.”(105)

Chapter 4
Chapter 4 compares the Great Border Sacrifice at the Temple of Heaven (which should actually be translated “Alter of Heaven”) with the Old Testament sacrifices to God. They conclude this chapter with this thought, “I found striking similarities in the ceremonies associated with sacrifices performed by the ancient Chinese and the ancient Hebrews. These very discoveries, though, raised further questions. Where did the concepts of substitutionary death – that is, an innocent dying for the guilty –and of atoning death – the requirement of death to pay for sin – originate?”(151)

Chapter 5
Chapter five covers the next “signpost” which is the blood covenant. The chapter explores the parallels in the covenants in the Bible and the rituals performed by the ancient Chinese. They conclude “The parallels between China’s practice of covenants and God’s perfect revelation of covenants in the Holy Scriptures are vivid and eloquent. God uses these dramatic ceremonies to teach eternal principles that were finally fulfilled in Jesus Christ.”(179)

Chapter 6
In chapter six, the authors explore the actions and discoveries of some of the first missionaries to China. In particular, they explore the Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci (1550-1610) and his missional approach. Ricci’s approach was to demonstrate respect for the Chinese people and culture by such things as learning the native language. This was not common-place for most missionaries of the time. Ricci’s approach was not to convert the Chinese to a Western Culture Christianity but to a Chinese Christianity. (I have a past post on Christianity and the fact that it is culturally agnostic to a point). Ricci’s work, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, is in part, a basis for this book.

“Therefore, having leafed through a great number of ancient books, it is quite clear to me that the Sovereign on High and the Lord of Heaven are different only in name.” “He who is called Lord of Heaven in my humble country is He who is called Shang-Di in Chinese.” - Matteo Ricci, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven

Others such as Johann Adam Schall von Bell (1591-1666), Ferdinand Verbiest (1623-1688), and James Legge (1815-1897) built on the goodwill built by Ricci. Particular for Legge, the key to understanding Chinese thought was by reading the classic works.

“I maintain that the Chinese do know the true God, and have a word in their language answering to our word God, to the Hebrew Elohim, and the Greek Theos.” - James Legge

Chapter 7
In this chapter the authors explore how the ancient Chinese understanding of God played a role in politics. In fact, I think this was one of my favorite chapters. The ancient Chinese had a concept they called the Mandate of Heaven 天命 (Tian Ming). This concept was that the ruler was given power by God to rule. This, however, did not mean that the emperor was free to do whatever he wanted. The concept included Tian Xia Wei Gong (Righteousness Rules), which meant that he was to be a righteous and virtuous ruler. If the emperor was not righteous in his rule, he was seen as having lost the Mandate of Heaven. This form of meritocracy is quite appealing to me. The person who was to be the next ruler was based upon that person’s merit, 禪讓 (Shan Rang), not their genealogy, wealth, or even popularity. The concept of 禪讓 (Shan Rang) is that the emperor was above all else, a servant, albeit the servant-leader.(241)

I have to admit, my biased libertarian bent, leads me to an affinity for the Mandate of Heaven.

Chapter 8
In this chapter, aptly entitled ‘Enter the Dragon,’ the authors show how the original worship of Shang Di was corrupted by the dragon cults. As you might bet, they show there are many parallels between the dragon in the Bible and those of ancient China. Much of China’s original heritage has been lost to the dragon and today, you see the principle of the dragon prominent in Chinese culture, government, and business. “Power, pleasure, and position are very enticing. But, they do not last. Like the dragon, they do not serve us; we end up serving them when we pursue them.”(291)

Chapter 9
The book finishes with a discussion of the parallel in the concepts of truth and some astronomy. The author relates a story of a doctoral student who made the statement, “The Chinese Shang Di cannot be the same as the God of the Bible because the latter is a Western deity.” The author, then, offers an illustration of two cups. If he made the claim that both cups are made up of the same material and you objected, how would you resolve the difference? The answer is, you break-down the composition of both cups and, if they prove to be similar or identical, then the two cups are the same. This is to say that you perform careful observation, critically examine the facts, and arrive at a logical conclusion.

“That is what we have sought to do in this chapter and indeed throughout this book. We have presented facts from China’s ancient historical records, records that secular scholars and experts agree are reliable and true, and we have arrived at our conclusions, which we have presented in this book. These facts are now before you, for you to draw your own conclusions.”(321)

My thoughts
I think this book is a primer for any apologetic, evangelistic or missionary work to people in the Chinese culture. The book is especially useful for contextualizing your message. I have to admit that I have a deeper appreciation for the richness of Chinese culture. I have to admit I find Chinese culture fascinating and I want to learn more about their culture.

Further, I find it absolutely fascinating how God works and leaves his fingerprints everywhere around the world. I think God is much like an artist; He loves the different cultures and expressions. It is amazing that, in each of the cultures around the world, God has “set them up” for the truth.

Other books have been written on this subject, however, this is the best treatment of the subject that I have found.

One of the problems I have found with some Christian apologists is the propensity of some of them to be disingenuous, at best, when characterizing Satanists. Many of them fall into the trap of the informal fallacy of composition. In logic and reasoning, a fallacy of composition is when someone makes the assumption that what is true of a small portion of a population is true of the whole population. A composition fallacy is like asking one student in a classroom what their favorite color is and then making the assumption that it is the favorite color of all of the students in the classroom.

When someone hears the term Satanist, they cannot help but imagine blood sacrifices, ritualistic murder, demon summoning and all sorts of other wild magical things. This perception of Satanism is actually taken from a very small minority of Satanists that have been popularized by the media and disingenuous apologists. The truth about most Satanists is much less exciting than the perception and, as it is in the newspaper business, not worthy of print. Most people don't know what a true Satanist is or even have a true perception on one.

John Smulo demonstrates this point in his article in the Sacred Tribes Journal called "Spiritual Warfare Profiles of Satanism: Are They Misleading?” John asks the question, are Satanists fairly portrayed in work by popular Christian authors? John then demonstrates that the truth is, most Satanists are actually atheists, and they don't even believe in an evil entity named Satan or Lucifer. A vast majority of them do not engage in animal sacrifice or conjure up demons.

We may wonder then, why do they choose to call themselves Satanist if they don't believe in Satan? When Saul D. Alinsky dedicates his book, Rules for Radicals; to Lucifer what does he really mean? Does he believe in the devil and sacrifice goats? Doubtful. Satan is an icon for Satanists and other people. Satan is an icon that, in their minds, stands in drastic opposition to the western culture and the Judeo-Christian ethic we call the “golden rule;” do unto others as you would have them do to you or love your neighbor as yourself. Satan stands as an icon of selfishness, self-fulfillment and do unto others before they do unto you.

Satan becomes an icon of their worldview and philosophy. He is viewed as a nonexistent representation of their philosophy. Notice how he is characterized in the Satanic Bible:

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!
2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!
5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!
7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!
Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible

"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical; from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer." Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

Why do Christian apologists tend to paint with a broad brush when characterizing Satanists? If I was only to read their books and then I ran in to a real live Satanist and started asking them about conjuring demons and animal sacrifices, they would look at me as if I was crazy. I would have lost all credibility I had up until that point. They won’t care what I have to say after that. I don’t know why some popular Christian apologists make such generalizations, but, if I am not careful to check their facts, I could end up looking like a fool.

We characterize people and make the assumption that the real difference between us is they worship a spiritual being called Satan, Lucifer or the Devil. In reality, the difference is one of philosophy. It is important to make sure we know where they are coming from if we want to engage in any type of meaningful dialog.

One of my Christian friends commented that my issue is just one of semantics, because Satan is still behind the philosophy. I don’t disagree that Satan is behind it because, technically, from a Christian point of view, Satan would be behind all the world’s false religions and teachings to one extent or another. However, the issue is how Satanists view themselves and their beliefs. We have to addresses them from where they are.

Check out my past blog on the Domains of Spiritual Warfare

I was talking with a friend of mine concerning Jehovah's Witness and Muslim view on the divinity of Jesus. Having discussed this with Jehovah's Witness (JW) friends of mine in the past, this one area is the central division between JW doctrine and that of other Christians (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant). You see you really can't say that Jesus of Nazareth was just a prophet or a great moral teacher if he claimed to be God. He either is or is not God. If He is not God and He claims to be, He is a lair and not to be trusted as a prophet or great moral teacher. In fact a prophet who lies should be put to death (Deu 18: 20-22). 

Eipen autois ho Iesous Amen amen lego humin prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi

Greek test for John 8:58

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

John 8:58 (NASB)

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a good moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God.  But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great moral teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." C. S. Lewis

“After Tripoli declared war on the United States in 1801, Barbary pirates captured 300 U.S. sailors and marines. President Jefferson sent navy squadrons to the Mediterranean, but he also authorized a secret mission to overthrow the government of Tripoli. He chose an unlikely diplomat, William Eaton, to lead the mission, but before Eaton departed, Jefferson grew wary of the affair and withdrew his support. Astoundingly, Eaton persevered, gathering a ragtag army, including eight U.S. Marines, and leading them on a brutal march across 500 miles of desert. After surviving sandstorms, treachery, and near death from thirst, Eaton achieved a remarkable victory on "the shores of Tripoli", as commemorated in the Marine Corps Hymn. His triumph gained freedom for the American hostages and newfound respect for the young United States, but for Eaton, the aftermath wasn't sweet. When he dared to reveal that the president had abandoned him, Jefferson set out to crush him.”  – Audible.com

I recently finished reading the Tao Te Ching or Daodejing (Dao De Jing), depending upon how you Anglicize it, by Lao Tzu and listening to a series of lectures (12 hours) by Professor Mark W. Muesse on the 'Religions of the Axial Age: An Approach to the World's Religions'.

The Dao De Jing did not come across as a religious text to me. It came across more like a guide book for rulers. The 'Way' is really about the way to govern which does includes spiritual concepts, however spirituality is not the focus of the text. When I was finished reading the text I was left with the impression that Daoism is a very libertarian philosophy with respect to governing.

One concept discussed in the lectures by Prof. Muesse was how the ruling classes were encouraged to avoid self-aggrandizement at public expense and to interfere as little as possible in the lives of their subjects. This concept sounds like something right out of the Libertarian playbook. Another concept of Daoism was that the governed (people) would follow the lead of the governing. Meaning, if those who govern do so amorally then the people will be amoral. This is very much like leadership by example.

A few of my favorite quotes in the Dao De Jing:

• "In studying, each day something is gained." - a great reminder to keep learning
• "Therefore the sage grasps the one and becomes the model for all." - lead by example
• "How could the ruler of a large state be so concerned with himself as to ignore the people?" - politicians should never forgot they work for the people.
• "You would not dominate the people by military force." - win with heart not force
• "Therefore the sage says: I do not force my way and the people transform themselves. I enjoy my serenity and the people correct themselves. I do not interfere and the people enrich themselves." - do not over manipulate people

Am I on the mark in seeing it as political and not spiritual?
What do you think of the concepts I have posted?

[Water is often used as a metaphor for the Dao (or Tao) hence the picture.]