Thomas Jefferson is a brilliant, mis-understood and inconsistent historical figure. His eloquent writings formed the basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia constitution among others. He is mis-understood by many people today as he is lumped by many into a superficial bucket of founding fathers who "built our country on Christianity" as many Fundamentalists would tell it. His behavior was inconsistent in that he wrote documents that proclaimed equality but kept slaves for most of his life.
As the "High Priest of Deism", he represented a system of thought shared by many of the founding fathers. Deism, in the 18th century, could range from the concept of "God as disinterested creator" to that of "closet atheist".
Deism in the theistic sense can be described as a belief in a supreme being that, Newtonian style, designed a self-sustaining Universe, set it in motion and moved on to bigger and better things. An agnostic form for the supreme being might be common, but the concept still held to that of external being vs. integrated energy in the style of Star Wars or some New Thought theology.
It was very difficult to be an atheist in the 18th century. The Deist moniker perhaps allowed many who were to clothe their beliefs in something more acceptable, while privately maintaining a more humanistic philosophy that was also consistent with the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason.
Jefferson opposed any form of Platonic or NeoPlatonic philosophy. He was supremely rational and distrusted "government by the priesthood". His Natural Theology descended from Aristotelian thinking and proposed that God was to be found by experiencing the natural world and avoiding hyper-imagination that might be found in thought that evolved from Platonic roots. Jefferson created the famous Jefferson Bible, which was a treatment of the Gospels with all miracles, superstition and supernatural content removed.
Despite his lack of respect for weak-headed religion, he was known to give to all denominations in his city in equal measure. Jefferson was painted as a diabolical atheist by his political enemies who had no problem using slippery slope fallacious arguments to defame his character for political gain. At the time, many evangelicals (mostly Calvinists in those days), predicted that outbreaks of murder, rape, sex and violence would occur if Jefferson were elected president. Ironically, this same constituency was delighted with the separation of church and state that mad its way into the constitution.
Jefferson, Adams and other prominent Revolutionary figures found their way to Deism in different ways. Jefferson and Adams were somewhat polar opposites. Jefferson had some history and ties to the Anglican church, but approached philosophy from a strictly rationalist viewpoint. Adams was something of a reformed Puritan, muddling his way through Congregationalist, then Unitarian church attendance during his lifetime.
Sadly, despite Jefferson's ideals and clear rationalism, his personal life was riddled with inconsistencies. It is difficult for us to understand the choice to keep slaves while espousing equality in his writings. However, it is also hard for us to understand the degree of prejudice that was woven into the consciousness of the time regarding the inferiority of people of color. We have to be careful judging historical figures through our modern perspectives and context.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
John Adams and Founding Fathers Theology
This post comes from a lively and stimulating discussion I participated in recently. Many thanks to the insightful, intelligent, thoughtful and engaged individuals who shared that hour with me and helped push our consciousness forward.
John Adams was a seminal figure in American history. He was known for his quick temper. He was both a friend and enemy to Thomas Jefferson at different points in his life. He and Jefferson died within hours of each other precisely on July 4, 1826. He was perhaps more traditionally religious than many of the other founding fathers, although he favored the free thought variety as encapsulated in Congregationist and Unitarian traditions. However, he attended and respected other more conservative traditions as well.
Adams believed that any religion was better than no religion, but that none of them have all the truth. He did not believe in the divinity of Christ, nor many of the supernatural aspects of the bible, but was closer to the deist concepts that were gaining momentum during the time of the enlightenment period and in the environment of liberal reason in the colonies at that time. He was educated at Harvard, where deism was a strong undercurrent of theistic conception.
Many of the founding fathers were deists rather than traditional Christians. Their beliefs tended toward liberal free thought and were highly critical of the Catholic and perhaps conservative Protestant traditions. Adams was consistent in this regard. However, he showed a propensity to defend any form of religion when attacked by more extreme rationalists such as Thomas Paine.
Unitarians and Congregationalists were the dominant denonimations during the lifetime of Adams. Interestingly enough, the Baptists at one point came to the defense of Unitarians when they were being persecuted by other more Puritanical groups. This seems the reverse of what we'd expect in the modern United States.
Jefferson and Washington held similar beliefs to Adams. While Washington was extremely private regarding his theological concepts, he was known to quit going to a particular church once they wanted to require him to partake of communion. It is well-known that Jefferson rejected the Old Testament as well as the more supernatural and mythological aspects of the Bible. Jefferson even penned his own version of the New Testament, removing the miracles and retaining the core of Jesus's teachings.
Adams once remarked that the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes contained all of his religion. This lean and focused theological approach is similar to Lincoln's, who once remarked that "when I do good, I feel good, when I do bad, I feel bad, that's my religion". How close is this to a recent popular song that offers "My religion is a smile on a dog".
How far have we come away from the liberal, thoughtful, free-thinking, open-minded mentality of many of the prominent founders of the United States? How do modern mega-churches with their simplistic sound bites, superficial scriptural interpretations and narrow intellectual sources compare to the quiet space where the true source is found? Were Adams and other enlightenment thinkers positive models we should understand better or is their brand of liberal reason only part of the whole that must include intuition, instinct and emotion as well?
We narrowly escaped becoming a theocracy, as many other voices during the time of our country's founding wanted to include language more specific to particular theological positions in the governing documents. We should be thankful that separation of church and state prevailed and we can be truly free to think, do and grow intellectually and spiritually (or not) as we are individually led.
John Adams was a seminal figure in American history. He was known for his quick temper. He was both a friend and enemy to Thomas Jefferson at different points in his life. He and Jefferson died within hours of each other precisely on July 4, 1826. He was perhaps more traditionally religious than many of the other founding fathers, although he favored the free thought variety as encapsulated in Congregationist and Unitarian traditions. However, he attended and respected other more conservative traditions as well.
Adams believed that any religion was better than no religion, but that none of them have all the truth. He did not believe in the divinity of Christ, nor many of the supernatural aspects of the bible, but was closer to the deist concepts that were gaining momentum during the time of the enlightenment period and in the environment of liberal reason in the colonies at that time. He was educated at Harvard, where deism was a strong undercurrent of theistic conception.
Many of the founding fathers were deists rather than traditional Christians. Their beliefs tended toward liberal free thought and were highly critical of the Catholic and perhaps conservative Protestant traditions. Adams was consistent in this regard. However, he showed a propensity to defend any form of religion when attacked by more extreme rationalists such as Thomas Paine.
Unitarians and Congregationalists were the dominant denonimations during the lifetime of Adams. Interestingly enough, the Baptists at one point came to the defense of Unitarians when they were being persecuted by other more Puritanical groups. This seems the reverse of what we'd expect in the modern United States.
Jefferson and Washington held similar beliefs to Adams. While Washington was extremely private regarding his theological concepts, he was known to quit going to a particular church once they wanted to require him to partake of communion. It is well-known that Jefferson rejected the Old Testament as well as the more supernatural and mythological aspects of the Bible. Jefferson even penned his own version of the New Testament, removing the miracles and retaining the core of Jesus's teachings.
Adams once remarked that the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes contained all of his religion. This lean and focused theological approach is similar to Lincoln's, who once remarked that "when I do good, I feel good, when I do bad, I feel bad, that's my religion". How close is this to a recent popular song that offers "My religion is a smile on a dog".
How far have we come away from the liberal, thoughtful, free-thinking, open-minded mentality of many of the prominent founders of the United States? How do modern mega-churches with their simplistic sound bites, superficial scriptural interpretations and narrow intellectual sources compare to the quiet space where the true source is found? Were Adams and other enlightenment thinkers positive models we should understand better or is their brand of liberal reason only part of the whole that must include intuition, instinct and emotion as well?
We narrowly escaped becoming a theocracy, as many other voices during the time of our country's founding wanted to include language more specific to particular theological positions in the governing documents. We should be thankful that separation of church and state prevailed and we can be truly free to think, do and grow intellectually and spiritually (or not) as we are individually led.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Unitarian Universalism compared to New Thought
I've finally had some time to explore the Unitarian church. I was curious about the difference between Unitarian and New Thought churches such as Unity and Religious Science. Since about March of this year, I have been exploring these three denominations to see if I can find a church I can tolerate for more than a few visits. New Thought and Unitarian Universalist brands definitely have a chance. I believe I know enough now to characterize the differences from my perspective.
I'll try to be succinct, as there is plenty of information elsewhere that compares these two approaches. Here are some ways they are the similar:
I'll try to be succinct, as there is plenty of information elsewhere that compares these two approaches. Here are some ways they are the similar:
- Both accept all religions as valid paths to the truth
- Both believe in the quest for individual spiritual truth
- Both support free thought
- Both are tolerant of all races and sexual orientations
- Both are metaphysically robust
- Both share some overlap of thinkers in the 19th century (e.g. Emerson)
Here are some ways they are different:
- Unitarians encourage no particular form of theistic belief - New Thought has a somewhat specific theistic concept
- Unitarians draw from all theological, philosophical and other sources equally - New Thought emphasizes Christianity and the New Thought tradition while accepting and drawing from other sources as well
- In particular, Religious Science draws from the Gospels, Eastern Religion, Ernest Holmes and Emerson somewhat equally while Unity tends to give a metaphysical interpretation of Christianity more emphasis
- Unitarians have a more traditional form of worship service, drawing from many traditional hymns and using lots of classical music during worship services - New Thought is more contemporary with music
- New Thought emphasizes meditation and affirmative prayer more than Unitarians
- Unitarians are more intellectual, where Unity is more emotional
- Unitarians appear to be somewhat equally represented by both genders - Unity/Religious Science appears to skew toward females
- Unitarians are more intellectually broad in their sources - New Thought writing seems to have a more specific conceptual mentality
That's just a few. I wanted to get these down while I was thinking about them. My experiences recently in some of the discussion groups at the First Unitarian Church of Dallas have been extremely intellectually stimulating and thought-provoking.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Jeff Lorber in Dallas
Jeff Lorber was in Dallas last night at the Bishop Arts Theatre in the Oak Cliff neighborhood. This was an awesome concert, at least the second half. The first half was very smooth jazz with a couple of guest artists I did not recognize. They were great musicians but the music was that tedious style of smooth jazz that repeats the same chord progression over and over while solos are bogarted for the most part by the soprano sax.
Everything changed when Lorber took the stage. He sat down, got right down to business and started plucking out some of the funkiest rhythms on electric piano. The energy level was instantly pushed to a stratospheric level and stayed there for the rest of his set. Dr. Funk was in the house and the band instantly kicked into a precise groove with lots of intricate rhythms and melodic lines and plenty of surprises along the way.
One annoyance was that the bass player never seemed to clue in that his level was set too high and he constantly overshadowed the band. This was much less of a problem once Jeff Lorber took the stage as the keyboards were up a bit higher and the dynamic range of the group was much more broad. It was only a problem in the heavier and louder portions of the tunes.
The sound reinforcement was a little weak as well. Maybe this contributed to the overdrive of the bass, but it seemed that most of the problem was coming from the fact that he was amped as well as playing through the PA.
Bishop Arts Theatre is a very small venue and was about 80% full. Promoters must have followed the stealth marketing style for this concert as almost nobody knew about it. I talked to several local musicians later that night and none of them even knew Lorber was anywhere near Dallas, despite the fact that they were huge fans. I happened to run across it in a random "jazz events" search on the Dallas Observer web site a few weeks ago. Otherwise I'd have been ignorant as well.
The venue is a great place to hear live music in an intimate setting. All the people were extremely nice to us. The room is very small with limited seating. This was the last concert of the 2009 jazz series.
Everything changed when Lorber took the stage. He sat down, got right down to business and started plucking out some of the funkiest rhythms on electric piano. The energy level was instantly pushed to a stratospheric level and stayed there for the rest of his set. Dr. Funk was in the house and the band instantly kicked into a precise groove with lots of intricate rhythms and melodic lines and plenty of surprises along the way.
One annoyance was that the bass player never seemed to clue in that his level was set too high and he constantly overshadowed the band. This was much less of a problem once Jeff Lorber took the stage as the keyboards were up a bit higher and the dynamic range of the group was much more broad. It was only a problem in the heavier and louder portions of the tunes.
The sound reinforcement was a little weak as well. Maybe this contributed to the overdrive of the bass, but it seemed that most of the problem was coming from the fact that he was amped as well as playing through the PA.
Bishop Arts Theatre is a very small venue and was about 80% full. Promoters must have followed the stealth marketing style for this concert as almost nobody knew about it. I talked to several local musicians later that night and none of them even knew Lorber was anywhere near Dallas, despite the fact that they were huge fans. I happened to run across it in a random "jazz events" search on the Dallas Observer web site a few weeks ago. Otherwise I'd have been ignorant as well.
The venue is a great place to hear live music in an intimate setting. All the people were extremely nice to us. The room is very small with limited seating. This was the last concert of the 2009 jazz series.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Elephant Room on Halloween
Last weekend I was lucky to visit The Elephant Room in Austin. Double the fun was that it was Halloween night in downtown Austin. Triple the fun was that the band was awesome.
We started with a taxi ride from the Arboreteum area of Austin to downtown. We did this to avoid the traffic gridlock that was expected (and experienced in the past) for Halloween night in downtown Austin. This turned out to be a great idea. Getting there was no problem as we zipped into downtown 10-15 minutes after leaving the house.
After getting out of the car and while standing outside the club on the street corner waiting for a second taxi of friends to arrive, we saw quite a few interesting costumes and people walk by. Outside the door was a somewhat convincing small man with a moustache and a hat that turned out to be one of the waitresses in the club. The breasts should have been a dead giveaway, but somehow I overlooked that.
Inside the club was very comfortable, aided by the fact that all of Austin bars are non-smoking. How nice to go out to a great jazz club and not have to worry about the need to burn clothes the next day from the rank smell of stale tobacco. A few nights before I had wanted to go into the Balcony Club in Dallas after the Bruce Hornsby concert to hear a couple of tunes and have a drink, but we could not bring ourselves to walk into the joint due to the overwhelming stench of stale tobacco wisping out of the entry door. The Elephant Room was a pleasant surprise in that area.
The band instrumentation was guitar, trombone, organ/piano, bass and drums. All of the musicians were great, but the guitarist was especially exciting. He played a very John Scofield sound and style. The drummer was also outstanding and his stylings reminded me of Ed Soph. The trombonist alternated between bass and trombone and sounded great on both. The organist provided the soul vaccination for the band with the rich B3 sound coming out of the organ. They started with a couple of standards, then played mostly a jazz-rock and fusion style for the rest of the night.
Some dork (who seemed to be an owner or manager of the place) insisted on standing in front of the mike on some tunes and providing poetic or narrative during vamp periods of the tune being played. Happily we were spared from most of the content as the mike was mysteriously turned off whenever he started talking or, um, singing. Thank you Mr. Sound Man. Other than this disturbing side show, the band was exceptionally professional and fun to hear.
Afterward, we had trouble getting a taxi back to the house. The streets were gridlocked and tons of people were walking around all the streets in the Congress area as well as the 4th to 6th street areas. Finally we were able to hail a couple of cabs and start the journey home. Once we got out of the inner city, traffic returned to normal and we were home in not time.
Great fun!
We started with a taxi ride from the Arboreteum area of Austin to downtown. We did this to avoid the traffic gridlock that was expected (and experienced in the past) for Halloween night in downtown Austin. This turned out to be a great idea. Getting there was no problem as we zipped into downtown 10-15 minutes after leaving the house.
After getting out of the car and while standing outside the club on the street corner waiting for a second taxi of friends to arrive, we saw quite a few interesting costumes and people walk by. Outside the door was a somewhat convincing small man with a moustache and a hat that turned out to be one of the waitresses in the club. The breasts should have been a dead giveaway, but somehow I overlooked that.
Inside the club was very comfortable, aided by the fact that all of Austin bars are non-smoking. How nice to go out to a great jazz club and not have to worry about the need to burn clothes the next day from the rank smell of stale tobacco. A few nights before I had wanted to go into the Balcony Club in Dallas after the Bruce Hornsby concert to hear a couple of tunes and have a drink, but we could not bring ourselves to walk into the joint due to the overwhelming stench of stale tobacco wisping out of the entry door. The Elephant Room was a pleasant surprise in that area.
The band instrumentation was guitar, trombone, organ/piano, bass and drums. All of the musicians were great, but the guitarist was especially exciting. He played a very John Scofield sound and style. The drummer was also outstanding and his stylings reminded me of Ed Soph. The trombonist alternated between bass and trombone and sounded great on both. The organist provided the soul vaccination for the band with the rich B3 sound coming out of the organ. They started with a couple of standards, then played mostly a jazz-rock and fusion style for the rest of the night.
Some dork (who seemed to be an owner or manager of the place) insisted on standing in front of the mike on some tunes and providing poetic or narrative during vamp periods of the tune being played. Happily we were spared from most of the content as the mike was mysteriously turned off whenever he started talking or, um, singing. Thank you Mr. Sound Man. Other than this disturbing side show, the band was exceptionally professional and fun to hear.
Afterward, we had trouble getting a taxi back to the house. The streets were gridlocked and tons of people were walking around all the streets in the Congress area as well as the 4th to 6th street areas. Finally we were able to hail a couple of cabs and start the journey home. Once we got out of the inner city, traffic returned to normal and we were home in not time.
Great fun!
Monday, November 2, 2009
Bruce Hornsby at Lakewood Theatre
It was great to hear Bruce Hornsby at the Lakewood in Dallas last Tuesday night. I had not been to the Lakewood Theatre in a long time. The venue has a great old movie house vibe and the chairs are comfy.
I was expecting a warm-up band, so it was a pleasant surprise when Hornsby came walking out a few minutes after 8pm. He was accompanied by 4 other excellent muscians including sax, guitar, keyboards and drums. The second keyboardist played lots of organ and synth pads for the most part.
Hornsby wasted no time in taking a seat at the grand piano and immediately dropping hands onto some of his signature voicings. The first tune was solo piano and singing with lots of rich harmonic color and spontaneity.
The first set was good, but the second set was much better. My complaints about the first set were mostly around the overall live mix and the fact that the guitarist only took one solo. Most of the first set he played rhythm guitar while Hornsby and the saxophonist handled the solos.
In the second set, the guitarist had several solo opportunities, all of which hit the spot. At one point the second keyboardist was able to solo a bit on organ. Overall thought, the improvisation was restrained compared to a jazz group.
Hornsby's style, while incorporating improvisation, is much more eclectic and idiosyncratic than a jazz performance. His piano harmonizations are unique and his melodic style is very angular. Elements of jazz, folk, R&B and rock can be found in his music. His later music leans much more toward a hard rock folk sound than his earlier music that I remember. Of course, the only recording of his I know to some degree is Harbor Lights, which to me is the Bruce Hornsby music I really like.
I was expecting a warm-up band, so it was a pleasant surprise when Hornsby came walking out a few minutes after 8pm. He was accompanied by 4 other excellent muscians including sax, guitar, keyboards and drums. The second keyboardist played lots of organ and synth pads for the most part.
Hornsby wasted no time in taking a seat at the grand piano and immediately dropping hands onto some of his signature voicings. The first tune was solo piano and singing with lots of rich harmonic color and spontaneity.
The first set was good, but the second set was much better. My complaints about the first set were mostly around the overall live mix and the fact that the guitarist only took one solo. Most of the first set he played rhythm guitar while Hornsby and the saxophonist handled the solos.
In the second set, the guitarist had several solo opportunities, all of which hit the spot. At one point the second keyboardist was able to solo a bit on organ. Overall thought, the improvisation was restrained compared to a jazz group.
Hornsby's style, while incorporating improvisation, is much more eclectic and idiosyncratic than a jazz performance. His piano harmonizations are unique and his melodic style is very angular. Elements of jazz, folk, R&B and rock can be found in his music. His later music leans much more toward a hard rock folk sound than his earlier music that I remember. Of course, the only recording of his I know to some degree is Harbor Lights, which to me is the Bruce Hornsby music I really like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)