Elliot Ritzema

Category: History

  • The Origins of Christmas

    Every year, I hear people talk about where Christmas came from. Here are two discussions of how there came to be a celebration of Jesus’ birth on December 25.

    From Philip Schaff, in his History of the Christian Church:

    The Christmas festival was probably the Christian transformation or regeneration of a series of kindred heathen festivals—the Saturnalia, Sigillaria, Juvenalia, and Brumalia—which were kept in Rome in the month of December, in commemoration of the golden age of universal freedom and equality, and in honor of the unconquered sun, and which were great holidays, especially for slaves and children. This connection accounts for many customs of the Christmas season, like the giving of presents to children and to the poor, the lighting of wax tapers, perhaps also the erection of Christmas trees, and gives them a Christian import; while it also betrays the origin of the many excesses in which the unbelieving world indulges at this season, in wanton perversion of the true Christmas mirth, but which, of course, no more forbid right use, than the abuses of the Bible or of any other gift of God.

    Had the Christmas festival arisen in the period of the persecution, its derivation from these pagan festivals would be refuted by the then reigning abhorrence of everything heathen; but in the Nicene age this rigidness of opposition between the church and the world was in a great measure softened by the general conversion of the heathen. Besides, there lurked in those pagan festivals themselves, in spite of all their sensual abuses, a deep meaning and an adaptation to a real want; they might be called unconscious prophecies of the Christmas feast. Finally, the church fathers themselves confirm the symbolical reference of the feast of the birth of Christ, the Sun of righteousness, the Light of the world, to the birth-festival of the unconquered sun, which on the twenty-fifth of December, after the winter solstice, breaks the growing power of darkness, and begins anew his heroic career. It was at the same time, moreover, the prevailing opinion of the church in the fourth and fifth centuries, that Christ was actually born on the twenty-fifth of December; and Chrysostom appeals, in behalf of this view, to the date of the registration under Quirinius (Cyrenius), preserved in the Roman archives. But no certainty respecting the birthday of Christ can be reached from existing data.

    From Craig Blomberg, in his Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey:

    In post-New Testament times, Mithraism (originally from Persia) amalgamated with the Roman worship of Sol Invictus (the unconquerable sun), and a festival to Sol was celebrated every December 25. Christians took advantage of this “day off” to protest against Mithraism by worshiping the birth of Jesus instead. After the Roman empire became officially Christian (fourth century), this date turned into the legal holiday we know today as Christmas. The celebration of the annual death and rebirth of the nature gods finds parallels and contrasts, too, with Christian teaching about the death and resurrection of Christ (34).

    It is important to note that Christmas did not start out as a pagan festival. It was the co-opting of a pagan festival. In this way, it is like Festivus, the holiday that Frank Costanza (A character on the TV show Seinfeld) created as an alternative to Christmas. There was already a holiday being celebrated, and Christians used the festive atmosphere to create their own holiday.

  • August 2010: Books Read

    1. Same Kind of Different as Me by Ron Hall and Denver Moore. Reviewed earlier here.

    2. Hannah’s Child: A Theologian’s Memoir by Stanley Hauerwas. Theologian Stanley Hauerwas’s memoir is called Hannah’s Child, but it could easily have been called Things that Didn’t Occur to Me At the Time. Out of the long list of things in his life that he acknowledges he was clueless about, a few are that a person would go to divinity school in order to prepare for ministry, that Protestants would not be allowed to partake in Catholic Mass, or that he would have to get used to the differences between Durham and South Bend when he moved from Notre Dame to Duke.

    Nevertheless, this was a fascinating book. Hauerwas tells his readers exactly what they expect in a theologian’s memoir: how he came to study theology at Yale in the first place, how he was influenced by his professors, how he came to be one of the few Protestants on the theological faculty at Notre Dame, how he was influenced by John Howard Yoder and Alasdair MacIntyre (among others), and how he came to teach at Duke. He also tells us more: specifically, he talks frankly about his marriage to a woman with bipolar disorder. In some ways, this memoir is a paean to friendship, and he tells us all about the many people he has encountered and become friends with along the way.

    The only interactions with him that I have ever had were a letter that he was kind enough to respond to in 2001, and a brief meeting when he came to Vancouver to give the Grenz Lectures in 2009 (he autographed one of his books that I bought for my dad). But at the end of this book, after having him open up so much of his life, I couldn’t help but feel a little bit as if Stanley had become my friend.

    3. William F. Buckley (Christian Encounters Series) by Jeremy Lott. Reviewed earlier here.

    4. Getting It Right: A Novel by William F. Buckley. I read this book because Lott mentioned it in his biography of Buckley. Somehow I had missed that Buckley was a novelist in addition to being conservative pundit, and so I decided to read one of his efforts. I chose this one in particular because it contained Buckley’s critique of Ayn Rand, whose Objectivist philosophy seems to be undergoing something of a renaissance at the moment.

    Besides being a critique of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, it is a fictionalized history of conservatism between 1956 and 1965, beginning with the repressed Hungarian Revolution and ending just after Barry Goldwater’s failed bid for president. In addition to critiquing Ayn Rand, it also contains a critique of the paranoid anti-Communist John Birch Society. Buckley himself makes a cameo, and it is clear by the end of the book that it is his brand of conservatism (rather than that of Rand or the JBS) that ought to win, and in fact did win.

    5. The Richest Man in Babylon by George S. Clason. While Buckley’s book was a fictionalized history of mid-20th-century conservatism, this book was fictionalized financial advice. Clason wrote this book in the 1920s, but in a stroke of genius he set it in Babylon and told it as a set of ancient parables. His advice is nothing new, but striking because it is so seldom followed: save 10% of all you earn. Be conservative rather than greedy in your investments. Seek investment advice, especially in areas you are not familiar with. Not particularly exciting stuff, but this book has had enduring popularity in part because of its brilliant presentation. It’s a story, which is always more interesting than straight advice, and it is presented as wisdom from the ancients. The edition I read was even in King James English, though I believe there is a modern-English version.

    6. The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith by Tim Keller. In this short book, Keller focuses on the familiar parable of the “prodigal son,” but presents it in an unusual way. That difference can be seen in the title: “prodigal” doesn’t mean “lost,” as so many people assume, but rather “recklessly extravagant; having spent everything.” This is why Keller applies the word to God, who as the father in the parable is extravagant both in giving his son his inheritance prematurely and in welcoming him back when he returns.

    Though this book is short, it gave me a lot to chew on. Take this quote: “Mercy and forgiveness must be free and unmerited to the wrongdoer. If the wrongdoer has to do something to merit it, then it isn’t mercy, but forgiveness always comes at a cost to the one granting the forgiveness” (83). Also, his description of the elder brother – and his claim that the elder brother was just as lost as the younger brother, but didn’t know it – struck home. Jesus told this parable so that the Pharisees would understand why he spent time with people they regarded as sinners, and to invite them to lay down their religious moralism and superiority. I was left wondering, How have I been an elder brother?

    The main thing that I will take away from this book is this: Keller makes a sharp distinction between religious moralism and Christianity. This is a distinction that needs to be made sharply in our world, where Christianity (at times deservedly) has the reputation of being the same as religious moralism.

  • June 2010: Books Read

    1. Letters and Papers from Prison by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I’d had this book on my shelf for a while, and after reading Eric Metaxas’ excellent biography last month, I decided to stay in the mental world of Bonhoeffer for a little longer by reading this book. As the title indicates, this is a collection of letters and papers that Bonhoeffer wrote beginning in the spring of 1943, when he was arrested and held in Tegel Prison in Berlin. He was a prisoner until his death two years later.

    For the first several months, he was only allowed to write to his family members, and each letter was read by a censor. In the fall of 1943, however, he was able to write smuggled letters to his friend Eberhard Bethge, who was with the German army in Italy for much of this time. It is his letters to Bethge that really make this book a worthwhile read. In them, we find Bonhoeffer’s speculations on what “religionless Christianity” would look like, as well as his poems, the most famous being “Who am I?”

    I found this book particularly interesting after having the background filled in by the Metaxas biography. I was already familiar with most of the names mentioned in the letters. If anything, the tragic end of Bonhoeffer’s life was made even more poignant in this book than in the biography. In the biography, how Bonhoeffer’s death came about was reconstructed. This book, however, ends with three letters from Bonhoeffer’s parents which were never answered. In fact, they did not find out that he had been killed until three months afterward.

    2. Just How Married Do You Want to Be? by Jim and Sarah Sumner. This is a marriage book that I read out loud to my wife over several months. It is unique among marriage books mostly because of the couple who wrote it: she has a PhD in theology from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and he is a former stripper who was only a Christian for a few years when they met. They have had a lot of struggles in learning how to relate to one another, and they share what they have learned in this book. It is well worth reading because of her insights into biblical passages that deal with marriage, as well as their honesty about their struggles and the wisdom they have gleaned from working out their differences in community with others.

    3. Mind Your Own Mortgage by Robert Bernabe. Reviewed earlier here.

    4. Peace Like a River by Leif Enger. I’d been hearing good things about this novel for a long time, and I finally picked it up for $1 at a library book sale this spring. I usually don’t read many recently published novels, but the buzz about this one was so consistent that I decided to give it a read.

    I was not disappointed. It is told from the perspective of an 11-year-old boy who lives in rural Minnesota with his father, an older brother and a younger sister. The father is a devout Christian man who works miracles at times, the older brother (Davy) is a 16-year-old who is strikingly independent and behaves like an adult, the narrator struggles with asthma, and the younger sister is a poet with an active imagination and an obsession with the Old West. The story is set in the early ’60s.

    It is a literary novel, with rich (but not too florid) prose – and a plot(!) which mainly involves revenge (on the part of Davy) and love and forgiveness (exhibited by the father, and learned throughout the book by the narrator). Because of the miraculous elements, some might be tempted to label this a magic realist novel. However, in Christianity (and in the book), miracles are not magical, nor can they be manipulated. They are sheer gift, and part of the narrator’s journey is learning how to notice and accept them.

  • Why Did the Wall Fall?

    Twenty years ago today, the Berlin Wall came down. I don’t remember it. That is, I don’t remember it being a single cataclysmic event which I have a distinct recollection of hearing about, but I do remember hearing about it over and over for months. Perhaps I would have understood its significance more if I had not been 10 years old at the time.

    Even if I don’t have a distinct memory of how significant it was, I am now aware of the various causes that people have attributed it to. I read an article today in the NY Times that talks about various answers to the question, “What made the Berlin Wall fall down?” (and what triggered the fall of communism throughout Eastern Europe?)

    The article says that “different groups in different countries see the anniversary differently, usually from their own ideological points of view.” The two main points of view mentioned in the article are these:

    1. The fall of Communism can be attributed to Ronald Reagan, with his “aggressive military spending and antagonism toward Communism.” Most people in the United States tend toward this view, according to the article.

    2. On the other hand, most people in Europe don’t think that Communism fell because the West was hard – they think it happened because the East was soft. It was really Ostpolitik and West German TV that brought about the softening and eventual collapse.

    I’m not going to argue for which of these is the correct interpretation. But as a Christian, I wonder: where is the spiritual interpretation of events? I don’t expect the New York Times to come forward with it, so here is a quote from a different article found on a Reuters blog called FaithWorld:

    The many anniversary celebrations, documentaries and discussions now underway across Germany seem to focus mostly on how fearless street protesters and astute politicians pulled off the “peaceful revolution” that ended communism. Films and photos of dissidents packed into the Gethsemane Church in East Berlin or Leipzig’s St. Nicholas Church (Nikolaikirche), the leading houses of worship that sheltered them until the Wall opened, are among the trademark images. But those crowded “peace prayer” evenings were only the tip of the iceberg of behind-the-scenes work by pastors and lay people who considered it their Christian duty to promote civil rights and human dignity in a rigid communist society.

    This article was about Christians in Germany. I have read a couple of biographies of Pope John Paul II, and I cannot help but think that the millions of Poles who greeted him on his official visit to Poland in 1979 with chants of “We want God!” had something to do with the fall of Communism in that country (Peggy Noonan wrote an article about it shortly after John Paul’s death in 2005).

    When I lived in Hungary, I also learned about Jozsef Mindszenty, the head of the Hungarian Catholic Church and an adamant opponent of Communism.

    And I read this in Revelation 8:3-5:

    Another angel,​​ who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all God’s people,​​ on the golden altar​ before the throne. The smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of God’s people, went up before God​​ from the angel’s hand. Then the angel took the censer, filled it with fire from the altar,​​ and hurled it on the earth; and there came peals of thunder,​​ rumblings, flashes of lightning and an earthquake.​

    In other words, this passage teaches us that the prayers of God’s people are taken up, filled with fire, and hurled back onto the earth. How many people, both inside and outside of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe, prayed for the end of Communism?

    I don’t think that we will ever know beyond argument what caused the fall of the Berlin Wall. But in all of these debates about who or what caused Communism in Eastern Europe to end, let us not forget the prayers and efforts of thousands of Christians all over the world. They believed that each human being is made in the image of God, and they believed that that image was being squashed by Communism. Before we declare an unqualified victory for Reagan or militarism or Ostpolitik or anything else, let’s remember that.

  • Truth Project 10: The American Experiment (Stepping Stones) – My Thoughts

    These are my reflections on tour 10 of the Truth Project. For a summary of the tour itself, go here (or just look below this post).

    This was one of the most difficult tours to watch. The reason is that I am familiar with the argument that Del proposes about the founding of the United States, have spent time studying it, and have found it historically inaccurate, misleading to a lot of Christians, and damaging to the church.

    Del’s thesis, broadly stated, is this: the United States was founded as a Christian nation. He is not saying that the people of the United States used to be all or even mostly Christians. He is not saying that the founders who crafted our founding documents were all or even mostly Christians. He’s not even saying that the United States has ever acted in a “Christian” manner. He is saying that the founders “tried to lay down biblical principles in the founding of this country.” If this thesis is true, then there is no problem with Del’s presentation. But if, as I will argue, Christianity was not the only influence in the founding of the United States, but one of many, then when we say the United States was founded on “biblical principles,” we are in fact combining Christianity with non-Christian influences, watering down the gospel, and neutering the church. Let’s examine Del’s claim, looking at his presentation chronologically.

    Del begins his argument by looking at the history of education in the United States. What he says does show that Christianity certainly had a greater cultural influence during the colonial era than it does today. His quotes from prominent founders show that they thought religion was very important for fostering virtue and morals. But does it prove that they were trying to lay down “biblical principles” in the founding of this country? I think that we shouldn’t go farther than the evidence suggests. All we can say from these quotes is that Gouverneur Morris, Sam Adams and Benjamin Rush thought that a virtuous people were the best kind of people to preserve a republic. Adams and Rush think that Christianity is the best source of virtue. I don’t see any official state recognition of Christianity here. I just see wise politicians placing a high value on virtue in the populace, and seeing that religion, specifically Christianity, is the best source of virtue. It seems to me that the emphasis in these quotes is not necessarily on Christianity, but on fostering virtue.

    Misleading Statement #1: Noah Webster was not, as Del would have us believe, a “founder” of the United States. He did not attend the Continental Congress or the Constitutional Convention. He did not hold public office until 1800. He was certainly a prominent citizen in the early days of the republic, but was not a founder.

    Del then recounts his own journey, saying that the history he learned as a young man is history that has been rewritten to exclude Christianity. It may be that the role of Christianity has been downplayed in some circles (though examples of this would have helped). But does that give us carte blanche to retaliate by ignoring non-Christian influences? This eye-for-an-eye method of history, it seems to me, is bound to leave everyone blind.

    Not only Del’s method of doing history, but also his biblical interpretation (which is often good in the other tours), is suspect. He quotes Revelation 2:5, which is Jesus speaking to the church at Ephesus, and says, “When Jesus removes his lampstand from a place, that church, that nation, becomes very dark.” Where in this verse, or this section of Scripture, is a nation mentioned? From the context, is Del justified in blurring the lines between church and nation? I don’t think so. This interpretation, which equates the United States with the church of Jesus Christ, is absolutely unjustified.

    Del continues to quote Founding Father after Founding Father, including George Washington, but if you look at the quotes closely, all you can come away with is that these men apparently thought religion and morality were important for preserving freedom. Again, as in the first round of quotes, their emphasis seems to be on fostering virtue. Christianity seems like just a means to the end of fostering a virtuous people. Del says during this round of quotes that “they [the founders] came here with a fundamental biblical worldview.” It is probable that some of them did (although it couldn’t really be said that the Founding Fathers “came here.” With the exception of a few, like Alexander Hamilton, they were born here. Perhaps Del is confusing them with the Puritans, who did come – 150 years earlier). Benjamin Rush certainly seems to have positive words for Christianity in particular (though if you read more about him, you will find that he was a Universalist). But all this is far from proving that the founding principles of the United States are biblical. All it proves is that several Founding Fathers thought Christianity was important for fostering the virtue that a republic requires. This does not mean that the United States is or was distinctly Christian or founded on “biblical principles.”

    The quote from Alexis de Tocqueville is an interesting one, because it shows the fusion of Christianity with other ideas in the founding era. Christianity and political liberty had become fused together in the United States, indicating that Christianity was in fact, as I am arguing, combined with other influences.

    Then Del turns to the Declaration of Independence. He says that human rights come not from the state, but from the Creator. I suppose if you want to talk about rights, then it’s better to have them come from someplace other than the state, because the state is prone to abuse them. But the idea of inalienable human rights, technically, is not something found in the Bible. They sure are found in John Locke, though, as well as the English common law tradition. This is another example of how Christianity was blended together with other influences in the founding of the United States.

    Del then says that he has heard over and over that the term “nature’s God,” used in the Declaration, is a Deistic term. So he quotes Edward Coke. But Coke’s quote, if anything, reinforces the idea that “nature’s God” is Deistic. Coke doesn’t talk about God’s intervention in history. He doesn’t talk about the history of Israel and the church. He doesn’t talk about Jesus. All he talks about is God putting the law of nature into man’s heart “at the time of creation.” Here is a definition of Deism from Wikipedia: It

    is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme god created the universe, and that this and other religious truth can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for faith.

    Coke’s quote looks a lot more like Deism to me than orthodox, biblical Christianity.

    But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that orthodox Christians used the term “nature’s God” too, and that it’s impossible to tell just from the fact that it is used whether it is meant as a Deistic or a Christian term. Even the fact that there is confusion, that there is a co-mingling, that there is a vagueness in language is troubling. Because if it isn’t entirely clear what Jefferson meant by the term “nature’s God” in the Declaration, when we take that term and say it is Christian, we’re taking a vague, amorphous conception of God and saying this is the God of the Bible. At best, it’s confusing, and at worst, it’s watering down the faith.

    I’ll skip over Del’s discussion of legal positivism, because I actually liked what he had to say there. But when he mentions that “virtually all” of the 13 colonies had religious tests for the holding of public office, I sat up and took notice.

    Misleading Statement #2: Del says that “virtually all” of the original 13 states had religious tests for office. Many of them did, but not all. Virginia and New York did not. Also, though Pennsylvania’s constitution originally contained a religious test, it was struck down before the Constitutional Convention in 1787. So it is not “virtually all,” but 10 out of 13. 77%

    It seems that the founding generation was not of one mind regarding religious tests. On the one hand, it is true that, as Del said, many of them wanted religious tests in order to ensure that those in public office were God-honoring men. But on the other hand, there were also many who were wary of religious tests because they were all too familiar with the religious tyranny caused by national churches in Europe. Most importantly for our present examination of Del’s claim that the nation was founded on biblical principles, Article VI of the Constitution contains the phrase, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” In the debate over the ratification of the Constitution, this very clause was brought up time after time in the state ratifying conventions. Many people wanted it taken out, and a religious test inserted in its place. But the Founding Fathers prevailed, and it stayed in -thus ensuring freedom of religion.

    Del then goes farther back than the founding generation, to the mid-17th century. He quotes the Constitution of the New England Federation of 1643.

    Misleading Statement #3: It is anachronistic to call a confederation of colonies in the 17th century “the United States.” The United States came 130 years later.

    The quote from this Constitution indicates that the people drafting it came to New England in order to advance the kingdom of God. That is all well and good, but the Puritans didn’t found the United States. As mentioned above, there were 130 years between this document and the United States Constitution. Over the course of that time, the influence of the Puritans waned and was combined with other influences, such as classical republicanism, radical Whig thought, English common law and the Enlightenment liberalism of thinkers such as John Locke.

    Del then quotes Ben Franklin’s plea for prayers to be offered during the Constitutional Convention.

    Misleading Statement #4: Although Franklin did make a public plea for prayer during the Constitutional Convention, it is worth noting that that plea was not acted on during the course of the Convention. Franklin’s proposal was not voted on, and no prayers were offered.

    Del closes with three more biblical passages, in addition to Revelation 2:5, mentioned above: Hosea 13:6, Deuteronomy 8:10-20 and 2 Chronicles 7:13-14. This is the most troubling part of this tour. He takes passages which are God speaking to his people (in the Old Testament examples, Israel; in the New Testament example, the church) and applies them to the United States. This is wrenching texts out of context, and results in blurring the lines between the church and the world. There were nations that thought of themselves as God’s Chosen Nation before the United States, and there probably will be after we’re gone. But we don’t have any biblical evidence that suggests God planned to choose a modern nation-state as his special people. To suggest otherwise is frankly unbiblical.

    This post has been rather long, and I haven’t even gotten into the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, which is often brought into these discussions about whether the United States was founded on “biblical principles.” But in case you missed why this tour was so troubling to me, I’ll close by saying it as clearly as I can:

    There are some quotes that show several Founding Fathers thought that religion and morality made a better republic. Some (like Benjamin Rush, Samuel Adams and John Jay) had kind words for Christianity in particular and could be described as Christians. I do think that Christianity did have an influence in the founding of the United States, and that should not be ignored or minimized. But Christianity was certainly not the only influence. It was combined with other, non-Christian influences. The God mentioned by our Founding Fathers was in many cases a vague deity. When modern Christians take these vague references to “nature’s God,” or “Providence,” or “The Deity,” and claim that they are really references to the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus Christ, they dilute Christianity. And when Christians take Bible passages about Israel or the church and apply them to the United States (or any nation), they dishonor Jesus by saying his bride and his body are not really who the Bible says they are.

    But don’t just take my word for it. Read the sources for yourself. In addition to the original source documents, which I recommend most highly, I’d recommend The Search For Christian America by Mark Noll, George Marsden and Nathan Hatch (Christians all, by the way), Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? by John Fea, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution by Bernard Bailyn, and The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America by Frank Lambert. Any of them are more fair-minded than the historical revisionism that Del gives us in this tour. Del’s definition of historical revisionism is “fiddling with the past to control beliefs in the present,” and that is exactly what he does. Ignoring non-Christian contributions to the United States for the purpose of making people believe that our founding was more Christian than it was is historical revisionism.

    My guess is that the main motivation for using selective quotes to make the founding of the United States seem more Christian than it was is to hang on to whatever influence Christianity had (real or imagined) in our society. My advice is: it’s not worth it. It’s not worth it to turn God into a vague deity, old and toothless, who does nothing but bless America. It’s not worth it to neuter the church by trying to merge it with the state. That has never worked. Forget about clinging to influence in society and trying to restore us to a mythical golden age. It won’t work, and it only alienates people from Jesus and the church. Instead, we should be faithful to the dangerous but good God of Jesus, and the church will turn the world upside down, the way the early church did.

  • Truth Project 10: The American Experiment (Stepping Stones) – Summary

    I’m going to warn you right now that this might be one of the longer entries in this series of reviews of Focus on the Family’s The Truth Project. What follows is my summary of the tour, and since the summary is so long, I will post my response separately.

    Tour ten of The Truth Project begins with Del issuing a disclaimer (much like he did before tour five). He says that he has three rules: we are not here to deify America, we are not here to deify the founding fathers, and the third is that we will not cast stones at the unbeliever.

    He begins the session proper with a question: what should the state (“the King”) look like? Whoever he is, he must see himself in relation to God. Del says that we are looking at America not because he (Del) is an American, but because he thinks that those who founded it had a comprehensive biblical worldview. The founders were sinful people like anyone else, but “I’m convinced,” Del says, “they tried to lay down biblical principles in the founding of this country.”

    Del then looks at education in America. He says that there is a great hatred for America within “liberal academia.” It is a country that people love to love and love to hate. He shows the difference in American education between the time that the states were colonies and now. The second best-selling book in the colonies (behind the Bible) was the New England Primer, which contained Bible lessons and catechisms. Now, Del quotes educational reformer John Dewey as saying that faith in God is outmoded and there is no natural law and no absolutes. Del also notes that at their foundings Harvard, Princeton and Columbia were all explicitly Christian, but now none of them are. He then quotes several “founders” (I’ll explain later why I put this in quotes) on education: Gouverneur Morris, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Rush and Noah Webster. They were all of the opinion that religion (specifically, Christianity) is of foremost importance for education of young people. He also cites Article 3 of the 1787 Northwest Ordinance to this effect.

    Del then asks, “How do we reconcile these statements with the idea that America was founded as a secular country?” Del himself was taught this, and he tells the story of how he came to change his mind. He worked in Washington, D.C. in the early ’90s, and while he was there he got to know more about the murals that decorate the walls in the Capitol. One is of Christopher Columbus, the second is of the baptism of Pocahontas, and the third is of the Pilgrims on the ship Speedwell. All three of these are religious, Del says, and profoundly Christian. Del then quotes Revelation 2:5, which is Jesus speaking to the church of Ephesus:

    Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.

    Del explains this quote by saying, “When Jesus removes his lampstand from a place, that church, that nation, becomes very dark.”

    His transitional moment, he says, came on a Saturday morning when he attended an event where someone dressed as George Washington reenacted his farewell address from 1796:

    Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports… In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens…

    Del then quotes John Adams and Benjamin Rush to bolster the same point made by Washington: religion and morality are the foundations of freedom (Adams) and of republican government (Rush). He returns to Washington’s Farewell Address to make the point that morality can’t be maintained without religion. He cites Charles Carroll, Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry in quick succession to reinforce this claim. He also cites Rush again to show that it is not just religion in general, but Christianity:

    Christianity is the only true and perfect religion; and that in proportion as mankind adopt its principles and obey its precepts they will be wise and happy.

    Del then turns to Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America, to argue that religion and politics, at the beginning, were closely tied to one another in America:

    The Americans combine the notions and Christianity and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive one without the other.

    Del interjects that this is no longer true; we are taught that religion and politics don’t mix. He then cites Benjamin Franklin, Noah Webster, John Adams and Daniel Webster to the effect that laws are inadequate to govern people who are not already governed internally. Here is Adams:

    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    “The foundation of this country is not the Constitution,” Del says. “It is much deeper than that.” He doesn’t say exactly what it is, but one can reasonably assume that he means religion (specifically Christianity) and morality.

    Del revisits Romans 13 (which he looked at in the previous tour, on the role of the state), saying that the role of the state is to punish evil and condone good. This means that the state must know the basis for calling something good or evil. What do the founding documents of the United States say about the basis of calling something good or evil? Del quotes the Declaration of Independence:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…

    The rights of man do not come from the state, but from the Creator, Del says. He quotes the Declaration again:

    … and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them…

    Del says that he has heard the term “Nature’s God” is a Deistic term. He claims that it is not, and quotes Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634):

    The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction… the moral law, called also the law of nature.

    He also quotes William Blackstone, an English jurist who wrote an influential treatise on the common law called Commentaries on the Laws of England.

    Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.

    Del says that “laws of nature” is a legal term that comes from Coke and Blackstone. However, Del says, something has happened in the concept of law in America, as a result of the theory of evolution. Darwin’s Origin of Species was published in 1859. In 1869, Charles Eliot was appointed president of Harvard. In 1870, he appointed his friend Christopher Columbus Langdell as the head of Harvard Law School. Eliot and Langdell both believed that evolution was true. Langdell, Del says (supporting this with a quote), approached law the same way evolution is approached in biology. Law is, said John Chipman Gray, one of Langdell’s colleagues in changing the view of law in America

    a living thing, with a continuous history, sloughing off the old, taking on the new.

    This new legal philosophy was called legal positivism, which Del defines as “the claim that the state is the ultimate authority for creating, interpreting and enforcing law. All legal truth is based on the decision of the state.” Del quotes Oliver Wendell Holmes as a proponent of this view of the law.

    Del then quotes Noah Webster to the effect that it is important for people in political office to “rule in the fear of God.” Del says that virtually all of the constitutions of the early states had religious tests for office – that is, they had to make a statement before taking office that they were Christians or at least believed in God. He cites the original Delaware state constitution as an example. He says they did this because people wanted to make sure that if they gave the power of the sword to the civil magistrate, they wanted to make sure that he bore that power under the authority of God.

    Going back to the larger story, Del cites the “first Constitution of the United States,” the Constitution of the New England Federation from 1643. It says

    Whereas we all came to these parts of America with the same end and aim, namely, to advance the kingdome of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to injoy the liberties of the Gospell thereof with purities and peace, and for the preserving and propagating the truth and liberties of the gospell…

    Del thinks it is because of these roots that it is now in vogue to hate America. He has Fr. Robert Sirico, head of the Acton Institute, talk about how we got to this point. Sirico says that Judaism and Christianity invented Western civilization, and asks, How did we lose control? and How are we going to re-insinuate ourselves into it?

    Del says that when he was young he was taught to believe, in contrast to Sirico, what Bishop Paul O’Brien says, that the United States was started by pagans and Deists. Del says that it was a Deist, though “not in the modern sense of the term” who stood up at the Constitutional Convention on June 28, 1787 and proposed that the delegates have someone (a clergyman) pray for them and their deliberations every morning. Del responds, “That’s one of your least religious founders. A pagan? I don’t think so!”

    Del then quotes Alexander Solzhenitsyn as saying about Russia in the 20th century: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened,” and Del applies this to the United States. He also applies these three passages from the Bible to the United States:

    When I fed them, they were satisfied; when they were satisfied, they became proud; then they forgot me. – Hosea 13:6

    Take care that you do not forget the Lord your God, by failing to keep his commandments, his ordinances, and his statutes, which I am commanding you today. When you have eaten your fill and have built fine houses and live in them, and when your herds and flocks have multiplied, and your silver and gold is multiplied, and all that you have is multiplied, then do not exalt yourself, forgetting the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, who led you through the great and terrible wilderness, an arid wasteland with poisonousb snakes and scorpions. He made water flow for you from flint rock, and fed you in the wilderness with manna that your ancestors did not know, to humble you and to test you, and in the end to do you good. Do not say to yourself, “My power and the might of my own hand have gotten me this wealth.” But remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, so that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your ancestors, as he is doing today. If you do forget the Lord your God and follow other gods to serve and worship them, I solemnly warn you today that you shall surely perish. Like the nations that the Lord is destroying before you, so shall you perish, because you would not obey the voice of the Lord your God. – Deuteronomy 8:10-20

    When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. – 2 Chronicles 7:13-14

    After quoting Hosea 13:6, Del says, “The warning is to us.” After quoting 2 Chronicles 7:13-14, he says, “It is you and I that must go before the Lord.”

    Del ends with the metaphor of light and darkness. It is very interesting, so I will quote it in full:

    Darkness doesn’t overtake light; light overtakes darkness. Why this rise of hatred for America? Why is this historic revisionism going on? If the enemy can destroy the Christian’s passion for America, then he has won the major battle for the soul of this nation. If you do not have a heart for her , if you don’t have a passion for her, you can learn all you want about Christian worldview… but you won’t do diddly doo for her. [Quotes Revelation 2:5] If Jesus removes the lampstand, we will become a dark nation like many who have fallen before us.”

    The above is just my summary of tour 10. Since I thought it was very important to include many parts of Del’s argument, it is long. So I will stop there, and leave my response to this tour until the next post.

    Update: My response is posted here. And just to warn you, I probably disagreed with Del on this tour more than any other tour of the Truth Project.

  • Truth Project 6: History (Whose Story?)

    In the sixth Truth Project tour, Del turns to examine history. He introduces the subject by quoting biblical passages (Isaiah 46:9-11, Galatians 4:4-5) that depict God as being in control of history. Del says that he rebelled against this idea for a long time because he wanted to be in control instead.

    Then Del puts several numbers on a screen one after the other, and asks his students what those numbers are. His point in doing this is to show that humans are taught to see things in a particular way. “911” is not “nine hundred eleven,” it’s “nine-one-one.” And “9/11” has a definite meaning that it didn’t have 10 years ago. “What you believe in the present is determined by the past,” Del says, and that makes history extremely important.

    To illustrate how important history is, Del gives examples of “historical revisionism.” The first example is the book I, Rigoberta Menchu, which was written as an autobiography and later was shown by anthropologist David Stoll to have falsified events. The second example of historical revisionism that Del cites is the “New School Version” of the Mayflower Compact (Del does not give a citation of his source for this revision, but presumably it came from a textbook). The revision of the Mayflower Compact leaves out references to God. Del concludes, “If I can change your historical context, I can change the way you view the present.”

    This, Del says, is not new. It is what the serpent did in the garden of Eden. It is what the authorities did after Jesus’ resurrection, saying that his disciples stole the body (Matthew 28:11-15). But in contrast to historical revisionism, Del points out that the Bible is more reliable than any other ancient document based on the number and quality of manuscripts.

    The objective behind historical revisionism, Del says, is control. He quotes Marx as saying, “A people without a heritage are easily persuaded.” In contrast, God commands his people to remember their history and what he has done for them. Our problem is that we remember things (like grudges) that we should forget and forget things that we should remember. Del then returns to his initial theme, saying that the thing we should remember is God’s providential ordering of history (Ps. 33:10-11, Acts 4:27-28).

    Then Del pits this against postmodernism, which, as Jean-Francois Lyotard said, is “incredulity towards metanarratives.” Del says that this rejection of metanarratives appeals to us because we want to live our own little story. The Truth, on one hand, is that history is God’s story which he orders through providence, and the Lie, on the other, is that there is no metanarrative and that history is a tool. We all suffer from natural myopia, Del says.

    He closes with the example of the Pilgrims, who were given strength to endure hardship because, as William Bradford said, “they rested on His Providence and knew whom they had believed.” “You can’t have this perspective,” Del says, “unless you’re caught up in the larger story of God.”

    I agree with Del that history is important. I also appreciate Del’s pointing out that we often revise history because we would prefer to believe something else. One thing that came up in our group discussion afterward is that we all revise history at one time or another. The key is to be honest with ourselves when we are faced with that temptation, and ask why we are tempted to revise history. Why are we unwilling to be honest about history? Is it because we want control or power for ourselves? I also agree that for the Christian, remembering the story of God’s interaction with humanity is crucial. History is really his (God’s) story, and if Christians remember that we are part of a story, we are prone to make fewer mistakes.

    However, I wish that Del himself were more aware of history. In the previous lesson, I wish that Del had mentioned, for example, B.B. Warfield or Asa Gray, two prominent 19th-century Christians who believed in evolution. If Del were aware of men like that, perhaps he would be less prone to believe that there has always been a conflict between evolution and Christianity, and less prone to demonize those who believe in evolution.

    Also, although we have not gotten to it yet, one of the later tours in the Truth Project deals with the founding of the United States. In my review of that tour, I will attempt to point out some places in which Del himself engages in historical revisionism.

    History is God’s story, as Del says, but this leads to two caveats: one is that if history is God’s story, we don’t have to be afraid of the truth, even if it contradicts our prejudices or makes us uncomfortable. The second is that if history is God’s story, God is the only one who knows the full story. We can know parts of it, but we ought to be humble because we know there will always be more for us to learn. I wish that Del had made those two things clear.

  • St. Patrick’s Breastplate

    The Chicago River
    The Chicago River

    Long before St. Patrick’s Day was an excuse to drink a lot and dye things green, it was a feast day celebrating the patron saint of Ireland, (Okay, maybe even then it was an excuse for some people to drink a lot). In honor of Patrick, here is a poem attributed to him, “Saint Patrick’s Breastplate.” When I was at Regent, we used to sing part of this (the part that is in bold below) in chapel from time to time.

    I bind unto myself today
    The strong name of the Trinity,
    By invocation of the same,
    The Three in One and One in Three.

    I bind this day to me for ever,
    By power of faith, Christ’s Incarnation;
    His baptism in the Jordan River;
    His death on cross for my salvation;
    His bursting from the spicèd tomb;
    His riding up the heavenly way;
    His coming at the day of doom;
    I bind unto myself today.

    I bind unto myself the power
    Of the great love of the Cherubim;
    The sweet ‘Well done’ in judgment hour;
    The service of the Seraphim,
    Confessors’ faith, Apostles’ word,
    The Patriarchs’ prayers, the Prophets’ scrolls,
    All good deeds done unto the Lord,
    And purity of virgin souls.

    I bind unto myself today
    The virtues of the starlit heaven,
    The glorious sun’s life-giving ray,
    The whiteness of the moon at even,
    The flashing of the lightning free,
    The whirling wind’s tempestuous shocks,
    The stable earth, the deep salt sea,
    Around the old eternal rocks.

    I bind unto myself today
    The power of God to hold and lead,
    His eye to watch, His might to stay,
    His ear to hearken to my need.
    The wisdom of my God to teach,
    His hand to guide, his shield to ward,
    The word of God to give me speech,
    His heavenly host to be my guard.

    Against the demon snares of sin,
    The vice that gives temptation force,
    The natural lusts that war within,
    The hostile men that mar my course;
    Or few or many, far or nigh,
    In every place and in all hours
    Against their fierce hostility,
    I bind to me these holy powers.

    Against all Satan’s spells and wiles,
    Against false words of heresy,
    Against the knowledge that defiles,
    Against the heart’s idolatry,
    Against the wizard’s evil craft,
    Against the death-wound and the burning
    The choking wave and the poisoned shaft,
    Protect me, Christ, till thy returning.

    Christ be with me, Christ within me,
    Christ behind me, Christ before me,
    Christ beside me, Christ to win me,
    Christ to comfort and restore me,
    Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
    Christ in quiet, Christ in danger,
    Christ in hearts of all that love me,
    Christ in mouth of friend and stranger.

    I bind unto myself the name,
    The strong name of the Trinity;
    By invocation of the same.
    The Three in One, and One in Three,
    Of whom all nature hath creation,
    Eternal Father, Spirit, Word:
    Praise to the Lord of my salvation,
    salvation is of Christ the Lord.

  • June/July 2008: Books Read

    Last month I didn’t post my monthly brief reviews of books I read. The reason for this is that I didn’t read any books during the month of June. I took Herodotus’ The Histories with me on the cruise that I was on from June 3 to June 19, and read a bit of it after I got back, but didn’t finish it by the end of the month. Here it is, along with the other things I had my nose buried in during July:

    1. Herodotus, The Histories. (The 1954 Aubrey de Selincourt translation) Herodotus is known as the “Father of History” largely because of this book, which is regarded as the first work of what we would today call “history.” It is ostensibly a history of the Greco-Persian wars that took place in the early fifth century B.C. However, it is sometimes difficult to follow the narrative because Herodotus interrupts himself so often. He doesn’t begin talking about the wars until well over halfway through the book. Instead, he sets the stage by giving histories of the Persians, the Greeks, the Scythians, and the Egyptians, among others, and passing along every story he has ever heard, whether true or not, about everyone and everything in the ancient world. As a source for information about the ancient world, it is invaluable. This is how we know almost all of what we know about, for example, the famous battles of Marathon and Thermopylae. As a narrative, though, it drags.

    2. F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture. I’ve been talking with the pastors of my church about teaching an adult Sunday School class in September on how we got the Bible. As part of my background research on this topic, I read this book. Even though it came out almost 20 years ago, I think that it holds up well. First he writes about the Old Testament, and gives details about why some books were included by everyone, other books (the Apocrypha) were included by some, and still others were left out by everyone. He then does the same for the New Testament. I’d recommend this book to anyone who is curious about how the canon of Christian scripture was formed. Don’t read this book if you’re looking to have your ears tickled with titillating conspiracy theories about how the church “silenced” its enemies.

    3. David Sedaris, Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim. I first heard of David Sedaris from his 2001 book Me Talk Pretty One Day. His comic, autobiographical essays are hilarious, though I’d only recommend them for adults (some of the essays have foul language or mature subject matter). One thing I particularly appreciate about Sedaris is the essays about his childhood, growing up in Raleigh, NC. Even though he is older than I am, I resonate with many of his observations about southern culture from my own North Carolina childhood. One of my favorite essays in this collection is “Rooster at the Hitchin’ Post,” about his brother Paul’s wedding. Here is a sampling:

    My brother had chosen the [hotel] not for its sentimental value but because it allowed the various family dogs. Paul’s friends, a group the rest of us referred to as simply “the Dudes,” had also brought their pets, which howled and whined and clawed at the sliding glass doors. This was what happened to people who didn’t have children, who didn’t even know people who had children. The flower girl was in heat. The rehearsal dinner included both canned and dry food, and when my brother proposed a toast to his “beautiful bitch,” everyone assumed he was talking about the pug.

    4. Lesslie Newbigin, Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt and Certainty in Christian Discipleship. This book is a short one (104 pages), but an excellent one. It is one of the best books on religious epistemology I’ve ever read, and I think that it is sorely needed as many churches are struggling with how to be missionaries in our “postmodern” world. Newbigin relies a great deal on Michael Polanyi’s idea of “personal knowledge,” and applies it to Christian discipleship and missions.

    5. Paul Wegner, A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible. I’ve had this book for over a year now, and finally got around to it because of the aforementioned Sunday School class I plan on teaching soon. This book has a different subject matter from the Bruce book above. Instead of asking how we got the canon, this book introduces the science and art of textual criticism, which is dedicated to determining as closely as possible what the original biblical texts said. The book can be a little technical (it is a “student’s guide,” after all), but I think that it will be a great resource. It has many charts and illustrations to help the reader get a sense of what the author is talking about, and the end of each chapter has a reading list for further study. It is also organized thoroughly, so you can find what you’re looking for easily. This is a worthwhile addition to my library of biblical reference books.

  • Mark Twain and the Problem of Evil

    Over the last couple of nights, Mary and I watched a documentary on Mark Twain, directed by Ken Burns (who also brought us documentaries called Baseball, The Civil War, and Jazz). Mark Twain has been one of my favorite authors for a while – ever since I was a teenager and read The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn. When I lived in Prague in 2002, I was looking around my school’s English library one fall day and found a biography of him (Mr. Clemens and Mark Twain by Justin Kaplan) and all of his essays in one volume. I read both of them that year.

    What fascinates me about Mark Twain is not just that he was a fantastic writer, but he led an intriguing and eventful life. He was born in a small town in Missouri, as everyone knows, and variously worked as a printer’s assistant, a riverboat captain, a prospector, and a journalist (among other things) before he began to earn money from his books. His was also a tragic life: even though he was a brilliant writer and made a comfortable living from his books, he was obsessed with investment schemes that would make him still richer. These invariably failed, and made it necessary for him to write and lecture constantly to get out of debt. (more…)