HISTORY LESSONS

As a schoolboy, I both loved and hated history.  I loved to read the lengthy historical novels that were popular in the 40's and 50's.  I read and loved westerns, especially those that were informative about the great Indian chiefs, the soldiers and the gunfighters.  I read historical articles in my parents' Funk and Wagnall's Encyclopedia.  My head was full of stories about the men and women who made history.

But history as taught in school was usually a bore, both to me and (it seemed) to those who taught it.  My elementary school teachers seemed to be teaching the subject simply because they were required to.  Their main concerns were dates and names and it seems, with stifling any interest we might have.

High school was no better.  Mrs. E., my World History teacher managed to completely shut us off while she rambled through moralistic lessons.  Mr. Mc____, affectionately known as Chrome-dome, taught American History to supplement his job as assistant coach.  We were never allowed to open our books in his class, or to dispute - even question - his "facts".  I got my first C grade from him.  (I, Uni, on the other hand, never opened my book and took notes on all Mr. Chrome-dome said and got A's in the class.)

All of these teachers painted rosy pictures of America.  They required us to accept all they said as true and simply regurgitate their "facts" on our exams.  To one who read and studied history out of love for it, this was disgusting.

I strongly suspect that the disinterest and even distain that many have for history goes back to experiences similar to mine.  I agree with Walter Cronkite's words in his biography, A Reporter's Life:

          "Most depressing was the way history was taught.  I was not lucky enough in either high school or college to have a teacher who seemed willing, or perhaps able, to portray the conflict of fascinating personalities that underlies nearly all the critical moments of human experience.  Reducing this great drama to the rote of names, dates and places ought to be treated as a punishable crime.  Let the tens of thousands of students who get their diplomas thinking that history was the dullest subject of their high school years be called as witnesses as we put the offending teachers in the dock."  (page 28)

My bookshelves are lined with volumes and volumes of history and biography.  I would rather curl up with one of these than a novel or any of those self-help, "spiritual life" books.  I believe that a knowledge of history is a necessity for navigating and thinking through issues that confront us in our present world.

And yet there are tendencies - even political movements - all over America to maintain the present status quo.  The purpose for teaching American (and other) history is felt by many to be the inculcation of patriotism by stressing the good accomplishments of America and ignoring or de-emphasizing those areas of our history that could bring us into disrepute.

According to a recent Reuters report, October 2, 2014, "The question of how U.S. teens learn history in public schools is the latest flash point in a liberal - conservative fight over national curricula ..."  The article (along with many others) points out that critics of "the revised guidelines for the Advanced Placement history course" claim that these guidelines "cast the United States in a harsh light."

It seems that critical thinking is anathema to these conservative critics!  They apparently never understood the sarcasm in Bob Dylan's words, "Oh the history books tell it; they tell it so well ... "

Our nation is a long standing democracy and we have enjoyed freedoms here that are rare in this fallen world.  Yet we are a nation of fallen people and our history shows it when faced honestly.  The slavery and degradation of African peoples, the near genocide of the Native American peoples, our land-grabbing from Mexico, to name a few.  And our mistreatment of these same peoples right up to the present day.

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann has claimed that, "Once we were here we were all the same" (We never were!) "... We know there was slavery that was still tolerated when the nation began ... We also know that the ... founders ... worked tirelessly until slavery was no more."  Uni and I discussed this statement.  Uni was of the opinion that Bachmann was just an out and out liar, while I could not be that judgmental.  No one who really wanted to deceive the American people would make statements that any 6th grader should be able to refute.  I felt Bachmann was just incredibly ignorant of history as are many Americans.  The problem however is that her audience is quite probably just as ignorant!

Our knowledge or ignorance of history affects how we think and act in other areas.  I know that not everyone has the love for history that I do.  But I do believe that as Christians and as Americans we are obligated to have a working knowledge of the past so that we can avoid its sins and mistakes and so that we can evaluate our present situation in its historical context.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

- attributed to George Santayana (and others)

WHY DO WE DO STUPID STUFF?

According to Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State and likely presidential candidate, "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle."  We may agree with her assessment, yet as we look around at the nations of the world, it would seem that paying attention to this prohibition should be a necessity for good government and that it is too often ignored.
 

Why do people in authority do stupid stuff?  This question has often come to my mind as I watch the daily news programs.  It seems that quite often those who should be leaders in their nations and communities fail to exercise anything that resembles good leadership.  I'm not thinking especially of immoral acts, but of acts and behaviors that appear to be contrary to the best interests, not only of those led, but of those very leaders.

Hosni Mubarak is deposed as dictator in Egypt; rather than giving ear to the complaints of his people, he attempted to violently suppress all protest, which ultimately resulted in his overthrow.  Even when it was apparent that his methods of suppression weren't working, he continued on the same course.  Mohammed Morsi was then elected as Prime Minister of Egypt in a fair election and when protests arose, he followed the same methods of oppression as his predecessor.  And he too suffered the same fate.  Now we have a third leader in Egypt who seems to be following the same course.

We could name more middle eastern dictators and wannabe dictators, who continue to follow non-workable government policies which get them thrown out of office or killed, or even worse, destroy their nations:  Assad in Syria, Maliki in Iraq.

But we don't need to go halfway around the world to witness these strange behaviors.  The actions of the police in Ferguson, Missouri come to mind.  Attempts to quell legitimate protest with militarized force only lead to more and more violence.

Don't these guys ever learn?  Don't they watch the news?  Can't they see that their methods don't work?  That they are counter-productive?

The above examples all demonstrate that force is not only ineffective but actually contrary to the best interests of all parties.  The use of force, however, is only one way in which those in leadership can act contrary even to their own best interests.

Having been involved in church "politics" for many years, as both a pastor and a layman, I can verify that this behavior is as often the rule as the exception.  I've also seen it among engineers and educators.

Browsing through the sale rack at the Half Price Bookstore, I came across a copy of The March of Folly by Barbara Tuchman.  I am always delighted to find a book I haven't read but have wanted to for years.  Though the book is 30 years old it was still in great shape and at three dollars  I felt I couldn't afford to pass it up.  The book deals with the very question that had bothered me and it is a fascinating read.

Tuchman's first chapter sets the stage for the whole book.  She is concerned about "misgovernment" which she sees as being "of four kinds, often in combination ... :  1) tyranny or oppression ...; 2) excessive ambition ...; 3) incompetence or decadence ... and finally 4) folly or perversity" (page 5).  She tells us, "This book is concerned with the last, in a specific manifestation; that is the pursuit of policy contrary to the self-interest of the constituency or state involved."  "To qualify as folly" she continues, a policy "must have been perceived as counter-productive in its own time."  Also "a feasible alternative course of action must have been available. ... a third criterion" she says, "must be that the policy in question should be that of a group, not an individual ruler."

She cites examples from many different periods of history, but for purposes of her book homes in on just four, which make up the major sections of the book:

·       "Prototype:  The Trojans Take the Wooden Horse Within Their Walls"
·       "The Renaissance Popes Provoke the Protestant Secession 1470-1530"
·       "The British Lose America"
·       "America Betrays Herself in Vietnam"

The book is full of historical details which are usually ignored by many.  After all, I've been taught the Reformation from the view of the Reformers and the American Revolution from the American point of view without much consideration of what brought these on, from the "losers'" point of view.

But what fascinates is her comments and observations on the folly as demonstrated in the details.  She shows the various aspects of folly.  As I read I kept my iridescent yellow pen handy for every mention of the word "folly."

What we observe on our evening news then, is nothing new.  The pursuit by governments and lesser leaders of policies contrary to the interests of both governors and governed has been going on since the dawn of history; some of the earliest being Rehoboam's loss of 10 tribes and the reduction of the nation of Israel as well as the Trojan horse.

In the Epilogue Tuchman concludes, "If pursuing disadvantage after the disadvantage has become obvious is irrational, then rejection of reason is the prime characteristic of folly" (page 380).  She does not offer much hope of change but sees a need for an educated electorate "that will recognize and reward integrity of character and ... reject the ersatz" (page 387).

Tuchman does not write as a Christian but more as a pragmatist.  She does address matters, such as greed and the lust for power, but less from a moral position than a pragmatic one.  And yet as a Christian I find myself agreeing with her.  The moral position is often the practical one.  Greed, self-aggrandizement, the failure to consider what is best for one's neighbor; refusal to face the truth about one's actions -- these could all be recognized as sin.  And of course sin is ultimately self-destructive.

The Bible is full of stories similar to those found in this book.  In fact, the history of the nation of Israel as recorded in the Old Testament in a continual repetition of the book's themes:  actions taken for which there were better alternatives; refusal to heed warnings -- in most cases the prophets.  And these actions ultimately brought down the nation.

Of course, we could go clear back to the Garden of Eden, to Eve's and Adam's partaking of the forbidden fruit, which got the ball rolling.  We've been following their precedent every since.

How often have we -- have I -- taken actions that were not only sinful but destructive, not only to me but to those I am responsible for?  Forgive me Lord and help me to heed your warnings.

PHARISEES, PURITANS AND FUNDAMENTALISTS

A couple of letters in the latest issue of Sojourners magazine (April 2014) caught my attention.  They were both critical of an article in which the writer had "focused in on the Pharisees as elitist, judgmental and indifferent to the poor as a contrast to Jesus."  The Pharisees were defended in these letters against "the stereotype of them as being self-righteous hypocrites."  Both letters spoke highly of the Pharisaic party, one even making the claim that "a strong case can be made that Jesus himself was a Pharisee."

Yes, historical records and Jewish tradition tell us that the Pharisees were members of a sect within Judaism which was highly regarded.  They were Jewish patriots.  They held to a strict interpretation of the Scriptures and a strict observance of the traditions.  They are considered by many to be the forerunners of later rabbinic Judaism.  The Apostle Paul was a Pharisee, as was the historian Josephus.  Jesus was well-acquainted with their teachings, though I know of no evidence indicating or even hinting that He was a Pharisee.

And the author of the offending article gave a very apologetic reply, saying that while "Many Christians take the gospels generally negative portrayal of the Pharisees as factual history ... others don't think much about historical accuracy, choosing instead to interpret the Pharisees as characters in a story ..."  He goes on to tell other views and even have been a contributing factor in the later anti-Semitism.

However, we need to face the fact that while a few Pharisees are presented favorably in the gospels, Jesus' attitude toward them was essentially negative.  In fact, they are presented as one of the few groups Jesus could not get along with.  So what gives?  Which picture is correct?

I recently started reading American Jezebel by Eve LaPlante.  It's the story of Anne Hutchinson, who co-founded Rhode Island along with Roger Williams.  The setting of the tale is Anne's trial before the Puritan leaders of Massachusetts in the year 1637, with flashbacks, telling her life story.

For what was Anne being tried?  Those who were both her prosecutors and her judges didn't seem quite sure, although they knew she had committed some offense(s) worthy of chastisement.  She was called "the instrument of Satan," "a witch" and "Jezebel" by her accusers.  She had dared to lead home Bible studies attended by men as well as women.  She had dared to interpret the Scriptures on her own and to call into question the teachings and interpretations of the Puritan divines.

In this story and in the story of Roger Williams (as well as popular literature), the Puritans look like self-righteous hypocrites.  And yet the Puritans were heroes in their day.  They wished to "purify" the church from what they believed were pagan practices.  They were the dissenters who dared to stand up for the gospel against the leaders of the Anglican Church.  Some of Anne's accusers had themselves been imprisoned for their beliefs.  They had left their home-country England and come to the New World to escape the suffering and oppression they had experienced in England.  They had come here to establish a "City on a hill," to be an example to the world.  They hold an important part in American history.  Their writings, as well, are deeply spiritual and have blessed many readers down through the years.

So again - which picture is correct?

About 100 years ago, a movement began which came to be known as Fundamentalism, taking its label from a series of articles known as "The Fundamentals."  These articles were written by scholars who had left their mainline Protestant denomination or who were still struggling within them.  The struggle was over the truth of the Scriptures; historical-critical interpretation along with theological liberalism had taken over large portions of their denominations.  These men had taken a stand, often at great cost to themselves, for the literal interpretation of the Bible and what they felt were the essential doctrines of the Christian faith.  They were considered heroes by their followers.

And yet today the term "fundamentalist" is used almost as an epithet.  It is applied to Islamic terrorists as well as to Christians; it has taken on new meanings.  And it has become synonymous with "hypocrite," and with a particular political viewpoint.  To call one a fundamentalist is not considered a compliment!

And so I ask for the third time, which picture is correct?

Sadly, I have to say that I believe that for all three, both pictures are correct.  The Pharisees, the Puritans, the Fundamentalists and probably many other movements, all had good beginnings, fighting battles that probably needed to be fought, standing for truth, standing for freedom, standing for God.  And yet somehow they have themselves become at times the oppressors of God's people.  These party titles - all three - have become synonymous with hypocrisy, legalism and narrow-mindedness.

I believe that it is very easy for those of us who are seekers of God's truth and who have deep convictions about these matters, to feel that God is pleased, not only with our understanding of His truth, but with us ourselves for having that correct understanding.  From there it is not a large step to believing that He is displeased, not only with the "incorrect" beliefs of others, but with those others themselves.  It then becomes easy to believe that we have a  corner on the truth and thus a corner on God, to believe that we have God in our box.  And that those who are not in our box cannot possibly please God.

AN OUTLAW FOR JESUS

I've been reading a biography of William Tyndale, (Book of Fire by Brian Moynahan) that I picked up cheap at the Half Price Bookstore.  Though I was already familiar with his story and his place in the history of England and the English Church, I took the opportunity of getting a fresh look.  Tyndale was a man used by God to bring many to Himself and to change history.

Tyndale was a 16th century scholar and one of the first to translate the entire Bible, Old and New Testaments into the English language.  He had an advantage over his predecessors such as John Wycliffe, in that there was a new technology available -- the printing press.

But William Tyndale was an outlaw -- a wanted man who would eventually pay with his life for his "crimes."  He was a smuggler.  His English Bibles were outlawed in his native country.  He had to have them printed in continental Europe and taken by whatever means available into England where they were received as contraband, almost as illegal drugs would be received today.

Some background:  The Roman Catholic Church in England, as in most of Europe, had held absolute control over everyone for 1,000 years.  It was in league with the government and did not allow for dissent.  The Bible of the Church was the Latin Vulgate -- a translation a thousand years old -- and unreadable not only by the illiterate masses, but even by many in the priesthood.  And apparently the Church hierarchy liked it that way.  The Church of the middle ages had developed into a complex hierarchy, a priestly system that controlled the people and kept them in ignorance of the simplicity of the gospel of Christ and bound to a complex religious scheme.  Very few knew or understood what the New Testament actually taught.

However, a few in England, as well as in other parts of Europe, had begun to dissent from standard Church teaching and practice and recognized there was something better.  Before Tyndale's day, John Wycliffe and others had opened up minds to the Scripture.  In Bohemia, John Huss had followed Wycliffe and brought the Bible to the people of his nation.  And, of course, by the time Tyndale appeared on the scene, Germany had split over the teachings of Martin Luther.

These revolutionary events occurred because people -- common people -- were reading the Bible for themselves.  And the disagreements were not over minor points.  What people were discovering was that salvation was not through a church system but through simple faith in Jesus Christ and His death on the cross.

But Tyndale's Bible not only showed the people of England the simplicity of salvation, it posed a threat to the powers-that-be.  Even the words that he used were revolutionary.  For instance:

He translated the Greek EKKLESIA as "congregation" rather than "church," in a sense transferring authority from the hierarchy to the people.

PRESBUTEROS became "elder" or "senior," instead of "priest," again striking at the hierarchy.

METANOEŌ became simply "repent," rather than "do penance" threatening what Moynahan refers to as the "huge vested interest in the lucrative penitential industry of pardons and indulgences" (page 72).

I believe that the great threat that the reading of the Bible had toward the church of Tyndale's day was not only or even necessarily doctrinal -- a disagreement over how one could be saved -- but a threat to the very power structures of the church.  If the Church did not hold sway over the people by being dispensers of salvation, it lost its base of power.  The personal powers and wealth of priests, bishops, even the pope, were threatened.  So Church and state united to suppress the English Bible.

But the gospel spread in Roman Catholic England, as it had in the pagan Roman Empire in the first centuries, as it has in Atheist China in the last 75 years, as it often does when the authorities attempt to stifle it.

Within a few decades, the power of the Roman Catholic Church in England was broken.  However, the "Church" was still in power, united with the state; only now it was the Church of England.  Later English history records the back and forth movements of the church, depending on the religious background or preference of whoever was in power.  Catholics, Anglicans, Puritans, all took their turns at power, with wars and slaughters following.  And, of course, all of this spilled over into the New World.

Though I can rejoice over the "triumph" of Tyndale's gospel in England, is this what it's all about?  There are those in America today who claim to be followers of Christ who seem to think so.  They bemoan America's "slide into Sodom"'; they fear the "secularization" of America.  They want to see America "return to its Christian values."  They attach themselves to political dreams and would outlaw, or at least restrict (their ideas of) improper behavior.  But history has demonstrated over and over that the closer the church's well being is tied to political power -- secular or religious -- the weaker its spiritual power.

I am not concerned that the American church of today will ever attempt to bring back the tactics of the English church of Tyndale's day.  We've come a bit far since then.  And I have little fear that my faith and practice will become against the law.  I do fear, however, that there are those in the church who would exchange the gospel and its practice for power and control.

Jesus told his disciples, "The kings of the nations lord it over them, and those in authority are called benefactors.  But it's not so with you ..." (Luke 22:25, 26a).  When will we understand this?  When will we get back to the radical Christianity of Tyndale?  Or of Jesus?

ROGER WILLIAMS AND “SOUL LIBERTIE”

My hero of American history is a man named Roger Williams (1603-83).  It seems that few – too few – Americans know of this man and his contributions to the making of America.  Yet, he was the one person who most clearly articulated the principles of freedom of religion and speech, later embodied in our Constitution.  In fact, he was the first modern man to state these principles and to actually form a government in which they were practiced.

Though I have long been a lover of Roger Williams and have read a bit about him, I was excited to find and read a new volume with the rather weighty title, Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul:  Church, State and the Birth of Liberty by John M. Barry.

This is a volume I would recommend to anyone who is interested in American history, especially the thinking and actions that preceded our founding.  I would also recommend it to any who are concerned about the separation of church and state and its implications for today.  And I recommend it to every Christian who is struggling with keeping a balance between his/her faith and the so-called social issues.

A little background is necessary (see AN AMERICAN HERO).  Williams was a Puritan preacher, who if the reader recalls his history, was the founder of the colony which later became the present state of Rhode Island (officially Rhode Island and Providence Plantations”), the first government in America to allow freedom of speech and religion, or as Williams termed it “Soul Libertie,” and to outlaw slavery.  It was in its time, according to Mr. Barry, “the freest society in the world” (page 352).

The book is more than simply a biography of Roger Williams.  It includes lengthy historical backgrounds of church/state relations in England and America in the first half of the 17^th century, including the reigns of King James and King Charles (I and II) and the English Civil War.  It introduces us to many historical characters who played parts in the struggles in England:  Oliver Cromwell, John Milton and Henry Vane among others.

The author attempts to point out the men who influenced the thinking of Roger Williams.  Two stand out:  Sir Edward Coke, the great jurist and Sir Francis Bacon, the great political and scientific thinker.  While Williams was a deep scholar of Scriptures, he was also one who read and thought broadly.

We read of the persecution and suppression of Puritans by the Kings and Archbishop William Laud, and of the Puritans’ establishment of colonies (then known as “plantations”) in the new world, not only to escape these persecutions, but to set up outposts of the Kingdom of God on earth.  Of course, the primary one of these was the Massachusetts Bay Plantation, headed by John Winthrop, whose “City upon a Hill” sermon is still quoted (and sometimes misquoted) by American presidents and politicians.

The author, however, brings to our attention what many of those who idealize this particular time and place ignore:  life under Puritan rule was in many ways as oppressive as life under the Anglican Church in England.  Though the Puritans were persecuted for their non-conformity in England, in America the tables were turned, they became the enforcers of conformity.  As in England (and all of Europe and the rest of the world) church and state were hopelessly entangled.  Church attendance was required of everyone, even though not all were considered qualified to be church members.  The state was the enforcer of the teachings of the church, not only “moral” laws, but even of the doctrines taught.

And so when Roger Williams arrived in Massachusetts in 1631, he soon became a problem.  He attacked the alliance of church and state, teaching that civil “magistrates had no authority to enforce the ‘First Table’” – i.e. the first four commandments, those having to do with a person’s relationship with God.  He taught against the taking of oaths.  He also taught that the land belonged to the Native Americans and could only be acquired through honest trade or negotiation and that the crown had no authority to grant it to whomever they desired.

Worst of all (to the Massachusetts’ Puritans), Williams believed in freedom of conscience!  Though he was a Puritan, a solid Calvinist and in total doctrinal agreement with the Massachusetts preachers, he was in total disagreement with their enforcement of these beliefs on all.  He taught that one could not be forced to believe!  To force a person to externally put on the trappings of true religion was to make him a hypocrite.  The author however informs us, “His reasoning was not that of most modern supporters of separation; rather, he sought to protect the church, believing the profanity of the state could only contaminate the church’s purity” (pages 187, 188).

After continued struggles he was finally banished.  To make a long story short, the remainder of the book is concerned with the establishment, maintenance and legitimizing of Providence Plantation.  Providence and surroundings became a refuge for all sorts of rejects from the Puritan colonies surrounding it.  Williams struggled to establish what later became known as a democracy.  He attempted to be a mediator and peacemaker during Indian wars and hostilities.  He travelled to England to obtain legitimacy for this “experiment.”  And all the while his Puritan neighbors were doing their best to assure that the experiment would fail.

The book presents this history as a fast-paced, moving drama.  Barry is a good story-teller.  The reader can feel the tension as William struggles on many fronts to give birth to and maintain the “plantation.”  How he actually gained royal approval is almost miraculous.  Certainly it was evidence of the divine “Providence” that was its namesake.

There are many heroes in American history.  It is dangerous to place any of them on pedestals, as they all are only human – sinners – and have their failings.  Roger Williams is no different and yet he stands out:

·        He was a man of genuine faith in Christ.

·        He was a man who attempted to make the Scriptures the basis for his life.

·        He was a lifelong student of the Scriptures.

·        He was a critical thinker, unafraid to follow the truth wherever it led.

·        He was unafraid to stand up for his principles, even at great personal cost.

·        He labored his whole life to actualize his principles.

The author does not divulge to us his own personal faith position.  But it is clear that he is a great admirer of a man so consistent in his faith and practice.

OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, Part 2

I feel I need to make a few more comments regarding the topic of my previous post. I want to clarify my views and position.

First of all, I need to point out that I was reviewing a book – I was not setting out to give my own views on the topic covered in the book, nor was I giving a blanket endorsement of the book. However, I believe the author gave a very honest and objective view of the facts and I found myself in essential agreement with her conclusions that our prominent Founding Fathers were not Christians and that Enlightenment thinking is prominent in our Constitution and other documents. I have read biographies of many of these men, as well as some of their writings and speeches. These works support her conclusions. The author did not, however, claim that none were Christians or that Christian thinking had no influence.

Now for my views:

• The United States of America is not, never was and never will be a Christian Nation. “CHRISTIAN AMERICA” is a myth, as I have stated before. There is no such thing as a Christian Nation.
• Whatever the motives of our Founding Fathers, we Americans are blessed with religious freedom like no other nation. I believe that real democracy is impossible without this right, guaranteed to us in our Constitution.
• I am an admirer of the great men (and women) of American history, from its early settlement to the present day. I love to read their stories as well as their thoughts. I would love to be assured that all of my heroes were “born again.” The evidence, however, shows that many were not. This does not make their accomplishments of less value. Nor do their moral failures. Most were deeply flawed, often contradictory persons, who were somehow capable of great accomplishments.
• The religious writings of many of these persons, while often moving, do not always point to Jesus Christ. I am not required to make them into saints, nor pronounce judgment on them as persons.

I find a similar situation with many of the characters in the Bible. We want to make them into more than they were. In a previous post, I referred to them as "EXAMPLES OF GRACE.” Perhaps we could extend that label to our heroes of history and of the present day.

So I can celebrate our great nation and the blessings God has given us, recognizing that “every good and every perfect gift” (James 1:17) is from Him. I can do this without making America into something it isn’t. And I can celebrate America’s heroes without canonizing them.

Bill Ball

7/2/2010

OUR SKEPTICAL FOUNDING FATHERS, Part 1

Whenever I go to Barnes & Noble, I spend time at the “Bargain Book” shelves. There I frequently find some of my best reads – sometimes a discontinued hardback book cheaper than the newly issued paperback – often books I never got around to reading or books I have never heard of.

A while ago I came across a book in that last category that caught my attention: Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers by Brooke Allen. What really grabbed me was the jacket illustration, a caricature of six of America’s most well-known founding fathers. The book was originally published in 2006, but its thesis is always relevant.

The author tells us in her preface that she writes in reaction to claims made during the 2004 election campaign “asserting that this nation was founded on Christian principles.” She goes on to say, “This seemed to me so demonstrably untrue that a strong refutation was called for” (page xi). “Most Americans seem to be under an erroneous impression, given by teachers, preachers, textbooks, and pundits, that the Founding Fathers were pious bores.” “The eighteenth century was not an age of faith but an age of science and skepticism. And the American Founding Fathers were in its vanguard” (page xiii).

Pretty bold and heavy claims! She says that her “primary motive was to tell some personal stories about the Founding Fathers and their attitudes toward religion in general, and Christianity in particular” (page xv).

Ms. Allen’s presentation impressed me as being fairly objective. It is difficult at first to determine where her actual sympathies lie, though by the time we reach the end, it becomes clear that her strongest sympathies are with the Enlightenment thinking of these men.

The stories given, present (it would appear to me) irrefutable evidence to back up her thesis. They are reinforced by numerous quotes, many from the private writings of these men. (Politicians then, though not as much as now, said many things publicly which were more “religious” than their own private thoughts, although these men said and wrote many of these thoughts publicly.) Also included are two Appendices which verify her thesis.

The six men of whom she wrote (among whom are our first four presidents): Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton all said things disparaging of Christianity, and none but Hamilton would come close to fitting the definition of Christian that is held by modern evangelicals. Though not all claimed to be such, the label “Deist” would seem to be the one that best fit them. A Deist was one who believed in one god who had created all, but had little or nothing to do with the affairs of mankind – “Nature’s God,” as he is called in the Declaration of Independence. The universe and the world are left to run by natural law.

 Benjamin Franklin spent most of the period of the American Revolution as the American Minister to France. There he rubbed shoulders with thinkers and skeptics of the French Enlightenment. Though he was sometimes even accused of being an atheist, he denied that label. He came from a devout Protestant (Huguenot) family, but began early to have doubts about divine revelation, not only of that in the Bible but even of its possibility. “I soon became a thorough Deist,” he claims (page 9). Franklin held to an ethical and moral code which the author claims, owed more to the Stoics and Epicureans than to Christianity (page 18). He felt that Jesus of Nazareth had a “system of morals … the best the world ever saw or is likely to see,” but had “some doubts about his divinity” (page 29).
 George Washington spoke and wrote very little compared to the others and so left much room for speculation by believers and unbelievers alike. Jefferson wrote that it was said of him “that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion” (page 26). The author tells us, “Jesus himself is not named in any of his correspondence” (page 35). He did not apparently, as many of the others did, even hold Jesus as a great moral teacher.
Because of Washington’s heroism and virtuous life as well as that he was our first president; he is regarded as “the Father of our Country.” This coupled with his silence made for the growth of much mythology. Pious artwork and mythical tales after his death gave him almost a god-like status. It is ironic that tales of his honesty and virtue were invented in order to teach these virtues. (“I cannot tell a lie.”)
 John Adams, though raised in a strict Calvinist upbringing said, “… I cannot class myself under that denomination” (page 49). Unlike the others, though he rejected the doctrines of Calvinism, he maintained a Puritan ethic. He apparently did not hold to the optimism of other Enlightenment thinkers, but regarded mankind as fallen. In his later correspondence with Jefferson, he expressed views basically in agreement with that man. Though unlike the others he believed in the immortality of the soul, he seemed uncertain as to what form that would take.
 Thomas Jefferson was the great champion of religious liberty. He was always suspicious, often hostile, toward organized religion and this drove his thinking in that direction. He felt that the establishment of any sect was dangerous and that the various sects counterbalanced one another. His opinion of Jesus was that he was simply a great moral philosopher and Jefferson took scissors and paste to the Gospels to purge them of Jesus’ miracles and claims to Deity.
 James Madison, like Jefferson was a champion of religious liberty. Though he early held to orthodox religious beliefs, his opposition to the excesses of church and clergy led to what in later life our author could describe as agnostic.
Madison was the most prominent former of our Constitution and its secular tone reflects his thinking. “Religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together” (page 113).
During his presidency and the War of 1812, Madison proclaimed several days of prayer, which he claimed later to have done under constraint. He said that such proclamations “seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion” (page 115).
The author notes that “Madison was noticing what was becoming a peculiarly American phenomenon: namely, that full religious freedom, protected by the Constitution, seemed actually to foster religious and fan its flames rather than to spread atheism, as its opponents had feared” (page 121).
 Alexander Hamilton was, of the six discussed, probably the most difficult to analyze. He was, as the author tells us, “Pious at certain moments of his life, he was at other times thoroughly irreligious and was never a churchgoer except during his youth” (page 125). He was involved in sexual affairs for years. He did not fit the high standards he often professed.
In fact, Hamilton was one of the first prominent political leaders to use religion in politics. He was the one who inserted religious jargon into Washington’s well-known Farewell Address. He believed that pious talk could be used to political advantage. In recommending that then President Adams call for a day of fasting and prayer, he commented, “On religious ground this is very proper – on political, it is very expedient” (page 131). (Does this sound like one of our modern “values” politicians?)
The author, however, believes that shortly before his death, Hamilton may have been genuinely converted. This would seem to make him the only one of the six who could really be called a Christian, though it had little effect on his political actions.

I believe that the author’s real purpose in writing this book is not simply to show that our nation was not founded as a Christian nation by Christian Founding Fathers, but that one of our great freedoms, the freedom of religion enshrined in the First Amendment was put there because our Founding Fathers were not Christians. These men had seen what the established churches had done in “Christian Europe” and even in the American Colonies. Their hostility to organized Christianity was based, not only on their lack of faith in Christ and the Scriptures, but on their experiences and witness of the oppression that the church could inflict.

There were perhaps many other motives for their advocating religious freedom, some even contradictory. One reason was that they felt that the numerous opposing sects could keep a sort of “balance of power” with no particular sect in ascendancy. This could (at least they may have hoped) lead to religion’s weakening and eventual disappearance. If so, that didn’t work. The United States is today the most religious nation in the Western World.

And that is the great irony. Religious liberty’s great opponents in the days of our Founding Fathers were the members and leaders of the established and powerful churches. Yet ultimately Christians became the greatest recipients of its benefits. In a free society the truths of the gospel can be argued on their own merits. They don’t have to be forced.

Those of my fellow Evangelicals who want to rewrite history to make America a Christian nation are working to our own detriment. Though I know it can’t happen, I would dread the day that it actually did occur.

As Jefferson himself said (Notes on the State of Virginia), “It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself” (page 89).

Or as he said in his 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State” (page 73).

I suppose those Baptists – a minority sect in that day – took comfort in Jefferson’s words. I wonder how many Baptists or their fellow Evangelicals would take comfort in them today?

Bill Ball
6/26/2010

AN AMERICAN HERO

As an opener for my Sunday school class I often have each person stand and give their name and some fact about themselves, such as home town, favorite musical group, etc. This past Sunday, I had each of them give their favorite character from American history. There were, of course, the usual names: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy, along with a few others.

When I named Roger Williams as mine, I received blank looks from many, and requests for explanation. “Isn’t he the guy who wrote “King of the Road”? was one question (tongue-in-cheek, I hope).

Now, I’m not a scholar of history, but I do love to read history and biography and I do recall this fellow from way back in history class (6th grade?).

The following is not a deeply researched bit of scholarship, but only a few facts I’ve gleaned from a few books:

Roger Williams was a Puritan preacher in Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth Colonies in the early 1600s. He, however, ran afoul of the civil and religious authorities of the colony for preaching and teaching some dangerous doctrines.

He believed that the land they held was really the property of the natives and couldn’t be granted by some far-off king.

He believed that the civil authorities had no right to force some one to worship against his will. (Church membership was required of every citizen.)

He believed that while the civil magistrates had power over men’s bodies and goods, they held no power over men’s consciences.

For such radical ideas he was banished from the colonies and founded Rhode Island, which was the first colony to grant total religious freedom. The church he founded still exists in Providence, Rhode Island.

Williams was a devout Christian and a student of the Bible. He was not a secularist or Deist as were many who expressed similar ideas a century or more later, such as Jefferson and Payne. His desire was not to banish religion from public life, but to keep unbelievers out of the church. He saw the Puritans’ requirement of church membership for all citizens differently than the leadership of the colonies did. They saw it as purifying the state. He saw it as corrupting the church.

He felt that only by keeping the realms of God and Caesar distinct could the church remain pure. In fact, Williams is the first person (to my knowledge) to use the phrase “wall of separation” (over 100 years before Thomas Jefferson was born). Williams referred to it as “the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.” This was a very appropriate metaphor for his day, when a settler would clear out a piece of land and had to be constantly on the alert lest the wilderness should creep back in. And as this metaphor shows, he saw this wall as protecting the church from the world and not vice-versa.

That’s why Roger Williams is one of my heroes. Those who are concerned about the “culture wars” today, especially the church/state issues, couldn’t go wrong by reading a little about this man.

A couple of books I’d recommend:

Liberty of Conscience, Roger Williams in America,
by Edwin S. Gaustad

Separation of Church and State, Roger Williams and Religious Liberty,
by Timothy L. Hall

Bill Ball
1/15/2008

Correction/Clarification. Actually Williams was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. When he headed south to Plymouth, the governor there, though he was more sympathetic with Williams, asked him to keep moving, for fear of displeasing the other colony. The people of Massachusetts Bay Colony were Puritans, who still wanted to maintain ties with the Church of England; the people of Plymouth Colony were Pilgrims or Separatists who had broken free from the Church of England.

Bill Ball
1/19/2008

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT, 2

The Preacher

Our 3rd president, Thomas Jefferson, felt that he had a correct view of who Jesus was. He made for himself a condensed edition of the gospels with scissors and paste “paring off the amphibologisms.” He basically attempted to remove all references to Jesus’ deity and any miracles recorded. He felt that when he had done this there would “be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.” He felt that the material he had left was “as distinguishable (from the other gospel materials) as diamonds in a dunghill.”

So when we in the 21st century are confronted in the local bookstores with titles like “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why”; “The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant”; and, “Constantine’s Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament” we should not be surprised. Books, both fictional and “non-fictional,” denying or questioning the deity of Jesus are extremely popular, but this is nothing new. As noted above, Jefferson wrote one about 200 years ago (although his book was not published till long after his death). In fact, heresies about the person of Christ were present right from the beginnings of the church age, as even a cursory reading of Paul’s or John’s letters will show.

It would seem though that most of our modern “scholars” do not want to do away with Jesus altogether. They want to keep Him around as a teacher, a rabbi, a philosopher, a new age guru, even a prophet. Like Jefferson, they don’t want a divine Christ. His teachings are fine with them as long as we leave out all that miracle stuff or those claims to Messiahship or Deity.

But it is impossible to separate His moral teachings from His claims to Messiahship and Deity. Jesus never separates His claims from His ethics. Even in the Sermon on the Mount, which many unbelievers admire as a great ethical treatise, His claims are foundational to His teaching. Though He is a teacher and a prophet, these are not the words of a mere teacher or prophet.

-- “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you BECAUSE OF ME” (Matthew 5:11).

-- “You have heard (referring to the Mosaic Law) … but I SAY TO YOU … ” (5:21 & 22; 27 & 28; 31 & 32, 33 & 34, 38 & 39, 43 & 44). He seems to be putting His words on the same level as the Law of Moses.

-- “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness’” (7:21-23). He is saying that He will be the Judge who determines who will enter the Kingdom.

-- “ … My Father who is in heaven …” (21). Though elsewhere He had said “your Father,” here He is claiming a special relationship with God. In John’s gospel we’re told that the Jewish leaders understood this as “ … making himself equal with God” (John 5:17, 18) and wanted to put Him to death for blasphemy.

-- “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock” (7:24). “Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand” (7:26). His words are to be the foundation upon which one’s life is to be built.

It is impossible to separate Jesus’ moral teachings from His claims to deity. Every demand, every blessing, every warning has its foundation in His claims to divine authority. No other preacher, ancient or modern could preach this sermon. I wouldn’t dare! Although there is much wisdom and even practical advice in it, it is questionable whether it even makes sense apart from the Person who uttered it. It is He who gives meaning and authority to these words. His listeners understood. ”When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes” (7:28, 29). Even Jefferson left these words in!

CHRISTIAN AMERICA

For most of my life as a Christian, I have heard tales about a mythical land called “Christian America,” a country which was founded by God, or at least by Christians, to be a special nation. I have heard, however, that this nation has left its course, strayed from its original purpose, and is or almost is, no longer what it was intended to be.

Occasionally I hear or read laments about the loss of this mythical land and expressions of desire to see it restored. I hear that it is our responsibility to act (often, but not always, politically) toward this restoration, to “take America back for God.”

But is this restoration desirable or even possible? I contend that it is neither. First of all it is impossible to restore “Christian America” because it never existed. This mythology runs counter to both history and the Bible.

It is true that a great number of the early settlers of this land were Christians fleeing persecution for their faith in other lands (mostly “Christian Europe”) and wanted to set up, as the early Puritans said, “a city on a hill.” However, many of the early settlers did not come here with so noble a purpose, but were opportunists, looking to make their fortune. And even those who came for religious freedom were often only desirous of that freedom for themselves and others of the same persuasion. They denied freedom, to and sometimes became persecutors of, those who thought differently than they did.

Though our founding fathers were definitely influenced by the Bible and biblical morality, they were also influenced by Enlightenment thinking. The references in the Declaration of Independence to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” are not exactly references to the God revealed in Scripture. The God of the Declaration is closer to the God of Deism. This is to be expected since its author, Thomas Jefferson, was not a Christian (except by a very loose definition), nor were many of the others. The fact that they often quoted Scripture simply tells us that they read the Scriptures.

The morality of early America was influenced by the Bible but that doesn’t mean it was biblical. Though our present age has its share of evils, the early nation had its share as well: slavery, mistreatment of native Americans, violence toward one another. Dueling was an acceptable way of settling a dispute. According to some statistics, church attendance was extremely low.

But the strongest argument against the concept of Christian America is biblical. The Bible leaves absolutely no room for this idea. God is sovereign in setting up ALL nations, according to Daniel 4:17, “ … In order that the living may know that the Most High is ruler over the realm (Kingdom) of mankind, and bestows it on whom He wishes, and sets over it the lowliest of men.” (See also Daniel 4:32, 34b, 35; 5:21b.) God sets up all nations, not just America. That means He set up Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon, Nero’s Rome (Romans 13:1), the USA and its current government, as well as Iran and North Korea.

America is one of “the kingdoms of this world,” or more specifically, it is a part of “the Kingdom (singular) of this world.” It is not part of “the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ” (Revelation 11:15). These are two separate kingdoms and will remain so until Jesus Christ returns in glory to make “the Kingdom of the world” into His Kingdom.

We are told by Paul in Philippians 3:20, that “our citizenship is in Heaven.” Peter tells us we are “resident aliens” in this world (1 Peter 1:1). As residents of this world we have obligations to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesars” (Matthew 22:21). We are to pray for all those in authority (1 Timothy 2:1, 2), to submit to authorities (Romans 13:1-5), pay our taxes (Romans 13:6, 7), but we are to do this primarily because we are citizens of Heaven.

So, if this country is not, never was, and never will be, “Christian America,” we who are followers of Christ don’t need to waste our time and efforts on restoring it to what it never was. We need not long for some golden age of America’s past. We are also free to deal with sinners as sinners in need of a Savior and not as evil conspirators trying to take away our country.

Bill Ball
8-21-2006