Saturday, April 24, 2010

Whose Freedom?

My rating: 5 of 5 stars
McPherson is excellent at capturing the drama of the war, the execution of the general's strategies, the personalities that animate the history, as well as the political and moral issues at stake. It is truly a tour de force.

His basic theses is that both sides were crying freedom. The South wanted freedom from Northern tyranny, but they were also fighting to maintain slavery. The North sought to preserve the union and the abolitionist cause came increasingly to the fore as Lincoln's views progressed. The slaves cry for freedom was the most profound.


Twentieth Century Europe

My rating: 3 of 5 stars
A concise, well written overview of Twentieth Century Europe's changing political and worldview landscape. The prose lacks vivid, lived body detail and is often less than memorable. The lack of flare is more obvious in the political and social history sections, while the worldview chapters tend to be stronger. More primary source quotations would've enhanced a basically solid treatment.


Friday, April 23, 2010

Statements of Faith

Rationalism puts faith in reason.

Empiricism puts faith in experience.

Postmodernism puts faith in individual autonomy.

Christianity puts faith in Christ and his revelation.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

The Spirit of Modernity

Modernism broke up the medieval synthesis and tried to hold civilization together with science and statecraft. Postmodernity reduces modernism to individual autonomy, and is thus not only a critique of modernity but a salvaging of its spirit.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Post-modern Fascism

My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Veith distinguishes modern, monocultural fascism like that of the Nazis from the postmodern, multi-cultural fascism of liberal governments. Fascism asserts control through the state and media propaganda and is hostile to any notion of a transcendent God. Fascists prefer a spirituality of immanent gods, goddesses, and spirits, because these pose no threat to state authority. Veith argues that this explains why both kinds of Fascists hate traditional Judaism and Christianity.
I would argue that Fascism is ultimately self-defeating, because the only way to defy God's transcendence is to make itself transcendent. This happened explicitly in Nazi Germany and Italy and the state has been extending itself over liberal governments throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. In the Judeo-Christian worldview God defines the state and the individual. Under Fascism the individual gets to define himself under the state.
Veith's book is an Eye-opening good read, but the thesis suffers a little from a lack of primary source material. I think Veith needs to establish a historical link between modern and postmodernism fascism. Otherwise we are left with guilt by association. For instance, Veith seems to imply that since both groups have the same artistic views there is a link. But correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.

We Become What We Study

This was my conversion to the baroque. Here under that high and insolent dome, under those tricky ceilings; here, as I passed through those arches and broken pediments to the pillared shade beyond and sat, hour by hour, before the fountain, probing its shadows, tracing its lingering echoes, rejoicing in all its clustered feats of daring and invention, I felt a whole new system of nerves alive within me, as though the water that spurted and bubbled among its stones was indeed a life-giving spring.
Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited


A Monologue on Conversation

We need good conversation. We are verbal creations, actually verbalized into existence and fashioned in the image of the Word. To be good conversationalists we need to be good listeners, thinkers, and speakers. Most of all we want our rhetoric to be memorable.
Conversation, as I know it, is like juggling; up go the balls and the balloons and the plates, up and over, in and out spinning and leaping, good solid objects that glitter in the footlights and fall with a bang if you miss them. But when dear Sebastian speaks it is like a little sphere of soapsuds drifting off the end of old clay pipes anywhere, full of rainbow light for a second and then--phut!--vanished, with nothing at all, nothing.
Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited

Conversing well means using vivid images, metaphors, and turns of phrase. We also need fidelity to truth if we want to resonate with our discussion partners. There is nothing more tiring than listening to bubbles. It is also desirable to leave silence and not go on endlessly bubbling. Our contributions should be more like popcorn and less like posing.

Does anyone desire to turn this monologue into a cybersation?

Thursday, April 15, 2010

The Metamorphosis of a Burden

Leve fit quod bene fertur onus.
(A burden borne well is light)

Ovid

"To thin to plow"

Twain loved the Mississippi, except when it came through a faucet. The drinking water in St. Louis was, he wrote, “too thick to drink and too thin to plow…. It comes out of the turbulent bank-caving Missouri, and every tumblerful of it holds nearly an acre of land in solution.” Such richness had undoubtedly played a large part in giving St. Louis its taste for beer.


William Everdell The First Moderns, 209.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Reality Control

My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Classic distopia. The government wants total control. Since reality exists only in the mind, the government hijacks reality through mind control. Newspeak resonates with today's political correctness and doublethink is the postmodern ability to believe two contradictory notions at the same time. Revisionism and propaganda on the telescreen is the key. "He who controls the past controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past."

The totalitarian government of Big Brother is watching for any indication of thought crime and even facial twitches are face crime. Big Brother feels threatened by the family and sex and anything that bonds people together in superior loyalties. Thus the jr. anti-sex league tries to limit fertilization to the laboratory and Big Brother makes it fun to turn in your parents for thought crime. He wants to be your family. You really root for Winston Smith, but when you realize that Big Brother is omnipresent you get a sinking feeling.

Orwell strikes me as a non-totalitarian socialist who hates the USSR for corrupting socialism. Orwell get religion wrong. Big Brother would've allowed the proles (20th c. peasants) to have religion but it turns out that they really didn't want it. Big Brother was pushing a new opiate of endless war and the proles "got a new drug."

Some writers like Tolkien make a little bit happen over many pages, but Orwell can make a lot happen in just a few. He is a splendid writer and story teller. I look forward to Animal Farm.


Monday, April 5, 2010

Losing Confidence

After the post-modern turn, we are suffering from a loss of confidence in at least two areas. We question the reliability of our senses to put us in touch with reality, and the reliability of our words to convey it.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Mastering the Ages

Bene legere saecla vincere - To read well is to master the ages. (Professor Isaac Flagg)

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Duped by Deists

The First Amendment laid down religious freedom saying: "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Now I suppose that this could be distinguished from secularism by pointing out that it doesn't prohibit congressmen from making religious arguments on the job. It doesn't prohibit religiously informed policy or a transcendent basis for law. In fact, it guarantees the free exercise of religion.

But, I would argue, that the seeds of secularism are here, especially when coupled with the Constitution's prohibition of any religious test for office. The Constitution and the First Amendment made it feasible to be a Unitarian, like many of our founding Deists, or an atheist of the kind that Jefferson liked, and enter the political process. Hooray for freedom! We were so Enlightened!

Christians like John Witherspoon, who trained many of our founders like Madison, were willing to go along with this and be marginalized to the religious marketplace. We had come a long way since Governor Winthrop's Massachusetts Bay Colony, which exiled Roger Williams for his forward thinking on religious liberty, Anne Hutchinson for her heresy, executed pesky Quakers who wouldn't go away as well as a few accused witches.

So with that not so shining "city on a hill" behind us, we thought we didn't need official recognition by the state to influence society. We can can give up our home field advantage and defeat the enemy on his own turf. I contend that we were blinded by the Enlightenment and duped by the Deists. We couldn't see much less argue for what has been called a chastised Constantinianism. It's too bad we didn't have a John Keble to preach us a sermon about "National Apostasy" and too bad that Jonathan Edwards didn't have any successors. Well we did have Patrick Henry arguing for a Christian commonwealth of Virginia but his voice was drowned out by Madison and Jefferson.

I think it's too bad that most Christians didn't argue for a non-coercive Christian state. But maybe that's our job today. Gasp! That sounds like American heresy. Shouldn't we at least point out the failure of secularism? Shouldn't we make a case for a transcendent basis for law from our Christian heritage of special revelation and natural law?

Christopher Dawson said that it's no exaggeration to say that all "civilizations have always been religious." Even our founding Deists tipped their hats to the connection between religion and morality, but they also put a wedge between the two and secularists have been driving it with reckless abandon ever since. Blind Willie Johnson used to sing:

I've got a Bible in my house
I've got a Bible in my house
If I don't read
My soul be lost
Nobody's fault but mine
Nobody's fault but mine

We need to start reading it again don't we?

Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.

Deuteronomy 4:8-9, And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and
laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today? Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them slip from your heart as long as you live. Teach them to your children and to their children after them.


So it seems to me that these are the governmental options:
  1. Constantinianism
  2. Separation of Church and State
  3. Secularism
  4. Chastised Constantinianism
Governor Winthrop tried the first with mixed results, some of which were more than a little scary this side of Israel and the New Jerusalem. The second option led us into the third with disastrous results to the state and the church. Has the fourth option ever been tried? Should it?

Sunday, March 14, 2010

God's Permissive Will and Divine Necessity

God's will, according to Luther and Calvin, extends beyond salvation to all things, and it imposes necessity on both. When applied to salvation we are talking about predestination, when talking about everything else we are talking about providence.

Augustine says that "the will of God is the necessity of all things" (On Genesis in the Literal Sense 6, 15, 26, PL 34, 350). Calvin quotes this in support of his and Luther's doctrine that everything, even the fall, happens by divine necessity or by divine decree. This means that from God's perspective nothing could be otherwise than it is, though from our perspective most things are contingent or could go in more than one way.

With regard to permissio, or God's permissive will, Augustine wrote, “Nothing, therefore, happens but by the will of the Omnipotent, He either permitting it to be done, or himself doing it” (Enchiridion 95). So there is a difference between God doing something and permitting something to be done, but both are willed by God and thus necessary. Augustine adds: "His permission is not unwilling, but willing" (Enchiridion 100).

For Augustine, God permitted the fall but it was nonetheless his will and thus happened of necessity. This because God didn't add the gift of perseverance to Adam and Eve. When Calvin and Luther speak of the divine "decree" it is simply another way for them to express that all things, even what God permits, happens by divine necessity.

Being downstream from the via moderna, Luther and Calvin use the terminology of "decree" and "ordination," but they gave it the Augustinian sense of necessity. Luther and to some extent Augustine and Calvin, spoke of God's will as preached and hidden. God's hidden will works all in all and thus imposes necessity. His revealed will expressed in the gospel works our salvation.

Friday, March 5, 2010

A Civil Debate


I haven't blogged in a while because I've been marshaling my forces for a Civil War debate that occurred yesterday. I had a ball fighting the intellectual battle, but I'm also licking some wounds inflicted by some good friends: Chris Baker (Southern Sympathizer) & Pete Watson (Southern Gentleman). I was also happy to have Michael Colvard (Northern Sympathizer) on my side. Stay tuned for some videos of the debate. Yours, a Saved Yankee.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Monster

It's too late for this year's Academy Awards, but here's hopin' for next year's best supporting actor. To see the short film click on the title.


Wednesday, February 10, 2010

The Seeds of Secularism or State Irreligion

According to the First Amendment: "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion." In the view of our Founding Fathers, state religion posed a threat to a democratic national government. But that's not all the First Amendment says: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." We as citizens can freely choose and exercise our religion, but we as a nation cannot promote a particular religion for all. State promoted religion was banned, if only at the national level (six out of the thirteen states still had a state religion at the time of the founding, and Massachusetts would be officially Congregational until 1833).

Congress did not want to get into the religion business, so they confined it to the private sphere. Our national leaders did not take responsibility for promoting true religion among the citizens. They thought they could run the city of man and leave the city of God to private individuals and churches. In St. Augustine's thinking, the city of man is a distinct sphere from the city of God, but its calling under God is to actively promote the city of God among its people. To the extent that the city of man operates apart from the city of God, it is moving in a secular direction.

It appears that the Founders thought you could keep Christian morals in the public sphere while separating church and state. It now appears, to me at least, that they were wrong. Instead of state promoted religion, we have, in effect, state promoted irreligion.

Perhaps Christians should be glad the founders didn't try to establish a state religion because most of them were Deists. But it turns out that Jefferson thought he was establishing Deism by promoting freedom of religion. He debated whether or not to create a department of religion at the University of Virginia. He finally decided that he would, because he believed that students from all the religious sects would destroy the boundaries between each other and create a non-sectarian religion. He believed that they would all unite over their least common denominator. What was that least common denominator? The death and resurrection of Jesus? No, it was Deism. He said that there was “not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian.” Thus the disestablishment of religion would lead the the establishment of Unitarianism among the populace.

He also said: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" ("Notes on Virginia"). As long as religious beliefs don't do physical harm, they are harmless, and we shouldn't care about them. Jefferson skipped the Thanksgiving Day proclamation started by Washington, because he believed that the government shouldn't endorse a religious observance. Unlike Washington, Jefferson did not consider religion one of the "indispensable supports" of "political prosperity," but defended the French atheists Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet. He said that they "are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue then must have had some other foundation than the love of God" (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, VI, 260).

The seeds of secularism are also seen in article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli:
As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
This was received by President Washington, unanimously ratified by Congress, and passed into law by President Adams. Thus the seeds of secularism were already growing in the garden of our founding.

Friday, February 5, 2010

Religious Views of Our Founding Fathers

I. George Washington:

A. Farewell Address:

“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. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity.

Let it simply be asked -- Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”


B. Letter to Brigadier General Thomas Nelson after the Battle of Germantown 1777

“We must endeavor to deserve better of Providence, and, I am persuaded, [that] she will smile on us” (The Writings of George Washington. Ed. John C. Fitzpatrick. 39 vols. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1931-44. 10:28).


C. August 1787, Letter to Marquis de Lafayette:

“Being no bigot myself …, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church that road to heaven which to them shall seem the most direct, plainest, easiest, and least liable to exception” (Washington 29:259).


D. Nelly Custis (granddaughter), Letter to Jared Sparks:

Washington “must have been a Christian,” but “On communion Sundays, he left the church with me after the blessing, and returned home, and we sent the carriage back for my grandmother” (Jared Sparks, ed. The Writings of George Washington; Being His Correspondence, Addresses, Messages, and Other Papers, Official and Private, Selected and Published from the Original Manuscripts; with a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations. 12 vols. New York: Harper, 1847. 12:406-07)).


E. Episcopal Bishop William White:

“Truth requires me to say, that general Washington never received the communion,” though “Mrs. Washington,” was “an habitual communicant” (Sparks 12:406-07).


F. Dr. Abercrombie's Letter to a friend in 1831:

"With respect to the inquiry you make, I can only state the following facts:—that, as Pastor of the Episcopal Church, observing that, on Sacrament Sundays, General Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation,—always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants,—she invariably being one,—I considered it my duty, in a Sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations, who uniformly turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it. A few days after, in conversation with, I believe, a Senator of the United States, he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who, in the course of conversation at the table, said that, on the preceding Sunday, he had received a very just reproof from the pulpit for always leaving the church before the administration of the Sacrament; that he honoured the preacher for his integrity and candour; that he had never sufficiently considered the influence of his example, and that he would not again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one then, it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal, arising altogether from his elevated station. Accordingly, he never afterwards came on the morning of Sacrament Sunday.”


G. Dr. Wilson Sermon on the "Religion of the Presidents," Albany 'Daily Advertiser,' 1831:

"When Congress sat in Philadelphia, President Washington attended the Episcopal Church, The rector, Dr. Abercrombie, told me that on the days when the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was to he administered, Washington's custom was to arise just before the ceremony commenced, and walk out of the church. This became a subject of remark in the congregation, as setting a bad example. At length the Doctor undertook to speak of it, with a direct allusion to the President. Washington was heard afterwards to remark that this was the first time a clergyman had thus preached to him, and he should henceforth neither trouble the Doctor or his congregation on such occasions; and ever after that, upon communion days, 'he absented himself altogether from church.'"


H. Mr. Robert Dale Owen Letter November 13, 1831, Published in New York:

I then read to him [Dr. Wilson] from a copy of the 'Daily Advertiser' the paragraph which regards Washington, beginning, 'Washington was a man" etc., and ending 'absented himself altogether from church.' 'I endorse,' said Dr. Wilson with emphasis, 'every word of that. Nay, I do not wish to conceal from you any part of the truth, even what I have not given to the public. Dr . Abercrombie said more than I have repeated. At the close of our conversation on the subject his emphatic expression was -- for I well remember the very words -- "Sir, Washington was a Deist."


II. Ben Franklin:

A. Constitutional Convention (1787):

“How has it happened…that we have…not once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? … The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see…—that God governs in the affairs of men…. I…beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that…clergy…be requested to officiate in that service” (Jonathan Elliot, ed. Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution in the Convention Held at Philadelphia in 1787; With a Diary of the Debates of the Congress of the Confederation as Reported by James Madison, A Member and Deputy from Virginia. 5 vols. 5:253-54).

When Franklin’s plea was tabled he wrote on his proposal: “The convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary.” (Max Farrand, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. 4 vols. New Haven: Yale UP, 1911. 1:452, n. 15).


B. To Ezra Stiles (1790).

Here is my creed. I believe in One God, the Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render Him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion (emphasis added).

“As to Jesus of Nazareth I have…doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it is needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble” (Complete Works 10:194).


C. Autobiography:

George Whitefield “us’d to indeed sometimes pray for my Conversion,” the preacher “never had the satisfaction of believing that his Prayers were heard” (109).


III. John Adams

A. Letter to Thomas Jefferson:

It was “awful blasphemy” to believe that the “great principle which has produced this boundless Universe…came down to this little Ball to be spit-upon by Jews” (The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete

Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams. Lester J. Cappon, ed. 2 vols. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1959. 2:607).

B. Treaty of Tripoli Article 11, signed by President Adams and unanimously approved by Congress:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”


IV. Thomas Jefferson:

The virgin birth was comparable to “the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter,” (Adams and Jefferson 2:594).

The Trinity was a “deliria of crazy imaginations,” (The Works of Thomas Jefferson. Ed. Paul Leicester Ford. 12 vols. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-05. 12:242).

There was “not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian” (Adams and Jefferson 2:368).

“If the sublime doctrines of philanthropism and deism taught by Jesus of Nazareth in which we all agree, constitute true religion, then, without it, this would be as you say, something not fit to be named, even indeed a Hell” (Julian P. Boyd, ed. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Princeton, 1950, II, 545-47, cited in Moynahan, The Faith, 592).


V. Patrick Henry and James Madison:

Henry proposed legislation in Virginia “that the Christian Religion shall in all times coming be deemed and held to be the established Religion of this Commonwealth.” James Madison successfully opposed Henry, arguing that any attempt to establish Christianity would overturn Roger William’s tradition of “offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion” (cited in Moynahan, The Faith, 591-92).