Wisdom and the "Heavenly Goddess/Mother" Legends

As anyone who is bilingual/multilingual will tell you, the work of translating from one language to another can, at times, be a bit of a mess.  For example:

 

Fortunately for America, this simple and innocent faux pas on the part of Secretary Clinton ended with little more than a chuckle for both parties.  Other translation errors, however, have had much more serious repercussions. 

When translating the Bible into English, for example, a number of mistakes were made in the process.  Whether confusing the words "camel" with "rope" or "eunuch" with "believer," it is clear that at least some honest mistakes could not be entirely avoided.  And while some translation errors resulted in incorrect words or phrases being published to the world, there were other errors which proved to be more subtle but every bit as critical to capturing the original meanings behind these ancient texts. 

One possible example of this fact rests with the word "wisdom," or in Hebrew, חוכמה (not that I have any clue what that means but it looks cool). According to Webster's Dictionary, wisdom is: "the quality of being wise; knowledgeable, and the capacity to make due use of it; knowledge of the best ends and the best means."  This seems to be as solid a definition as any for the word, "wisdom."

The Bible is literally saturated with beautiful references to wisdom and the importance that God places on our obtaining and cultivating this all-important attribute.  For it was by wisdom that God created the earth and established the heavens (Prov. 3: 19).  Wisdom was the gift that Solomon wanted more than any other (1 Kings 4: 29).  It was with the temptation of greater wisdom that the serpent was able to get Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3: 5).  And as every good Mormon knows, it was the quest for greater wisdom that compelled a young Joseph Smith to seek God in prayer (James 1: 5).  And it was an appeal to God's natural wisdom that inspired Poet William Wordsworth to write:

Books! ’tis a dull and endless strife:
Come, hear the woodland linnet,
How sweet his music! on my life,
There’s more of wisdom in it

Enough of Science and of Art;
Close up those barren leaves;
Come forth, and bring with you a heart
That watches and receives.

Yes, it is safe to say that wisdom is one of humanity's basic instinctual cravings. 

But is there more to the word "wisdom" than meets the eye?  As mentioned above, translation errors can, at times, distort the original meanings to certain words, or even negate what was originally an important concept that ancient writers wanted to convey. How does this all apply to the word "wisdom?"

In the Hebrew language, the word "wisdom" is feminine, as is the case in many other languages.  Of course, this isn't particularly noteworthy for us today, since most nouns are, at least in most languages, assigned masculine or feminine pronouns.  But wisdom was unique to the ancients because it not only served as an embodiment of special knowledge but also because it embodied deity itself.

Throughout the ancient tradition, wisdom was regularly personified as an exalted female figure, crying out to her lost children with loving petitions to correct their wayward behavior:

Wisdom crieth without; SHE uttereth HER voice in the streets: SHE crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city SHE uttereth HER words, saying: how long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? (Proverbs 1: 20-22).

Whether in Hebrew, Aramaic or other ancient languages, the personification of wisdom with feminine deity was an important and common practice.  Many of the earliest Goddesses of the ancient world were exalted primarily for their wisdom and loving kindness towards mankind.  In the Celtic world, the Goddess Danu was known as the "Beloved wise one" and "Mother of heroes."  For earlier Egyptians, the Goddess Hathor was one of the most important and popular deities throughout the history of Ancient Egypt.  It was her "wise guidance and counsel" to other gods within the Egyptian pantheon that earned her the title "Mother Goddess."  And then there's the case of the other "Mother Goddess" of the Semitic world, Asherah, whose wisdom and kindness to mankind earned her the title of "Queen of Heaven" and "Goddess and consort of Yahweh who is worshipped in Heaven." 

This union between wisdom and female deity may seem like little more than simple polytheism to most, but such a label oversimplifies and downplays the importance that the ancients placed on this wisdom/Mother Goddess dichotomy.  For most ancients, wisdom WAS the Mother Goddess. As historian William Denver makes clear in his work, Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel:

The rediscovery of the Goddess and of women's popular cults in ancient Israel redresses the balance. It helps to correct the andocentric bias of the biblical writers. It "fleshes out" the concept of God, brings the divine mystery closer to the heart of human experience, and yes, to the mystery of human sexual love. We humans are engendered; if we are to think and speak about God at all, it must be in a way that combines all that is best in males and all that is best in females. Even the androcentric biblical writers sometimes employed female imagery. Yahweh "gave birth" to Israel (Deut. 32:18); he has a "womb" (Job 32:29).

Whether or not we of the modern world esteem this ancient folk tradition of wisdom and the Mother Goddess as nonsense is irrelevant, for its presence can be found throughout ancient scripture.  For example:

Happy is the man that findeth WISDOM, and the man that getteth understanding.  SHE is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto HER. Length of days is in HER right hand; and in HER left hand ariches and honour. HER ways are ways of pleasantness, and all HER paths are peace. SHE is a tree of alife to them that lay hold upon HER: and happy is every one that retaineth HER.

And here's the really cool final verse:

The Lord BY WISDOM HATH FOUNDED THE EARTH; by understanding hath he established the heavens (Proverbs 3: 13, 15-19).

Was a "Mother Goddess" (a.k.a. "Wisdom") involved with the creation? 

But that's not all:

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But WISDOM is justified of HER children (Matthew 11: 19).

For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it. I WISDOM dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions (Proverbs 8: 11-12).  [Interesting to note the first person reference here!]

From the Book of Wisdom:

Now with you is WISDOM, who knows your works and was present when you made the world; Who understands what is pleasing in your eyes and what is conformable with your commands. Send HER forth from your holy heavens and from your glorious throne dispatch HER that she may be with me and work with me, that I may know what is your pleasure (NAB Wis 9: 1,6,9-10 ). [Note that Wisdom is female, and with God at creation. She is coeternal with the Father.]

And from, of all places, The Book of Mormon:

O how marvelous are the works of the Lord, and how long doth he suffer with his people; yea, and how blind and impenetrable are the understandings of the children of men; for they will not seek WISDOM, neither do they desire that SHE should rule over them! (Mosiah 8: 20).

Now, by no means am I suggesting that every single reference to wisdom in scripture is somehow referring to a female goddess.  I wouldn't feel comfortable making the claim that any of the aforementioned verses prove such an assertion.  However, I do think it is abundantly clear that the ancients esteemed wisdom and the "Mother Goddess" tradition as being one in the same.  As the great Hebrew scholar Raphael Patai points out in his excellent book, The Hebrew Goddess:

In the Book of Job, Wisdom is described as a personage whose way is understood and place is known only by God himself, while the Book of Proverbs asserts that Wisdom was the earliest of God's creations and that ever since the primeval days she (Wisdom) has been God's playmate.

In the Apocrypha, this role of Wisdom is even more emphasized. A passage in the Wisdom of Solomon states that "She [Wisdom] proclaims her noble birth in that it is given to her to live with God and the Sovereign Lord of all loved her."  It was observed by Gershom Scholem that the term appears again in the same chapter in the sense of marital connubium, and that it is therefore clear that Wisdom here is regarded as God's wife. Philo states quite unequivically that God is the husband of Wisdom.

Wisdom played a particularly important role among the Jewish Gnostics. References to the role of Wisdom in the primodial days of the world seem to indicate the existance of a Gnostic Hokhma-myth which originated in Jewish circles and was hypothetically reconstructed as follows:

Out of the primeval chaos, God created the seven archons through the intermediacy of his Wisdom, which was identical with the "dew of light."  Wisdom now cast her eidolon, or shadow-image upon the primeval waters of the Tohu wa-Bohu, whereupon the archons formed the world and the body of man.  Man crawled about upon the earth like a worm, until Wisdom endowed him with spirit. Satan, in the shape of a serpant, had intercourse with Eve who thereupon bore Cain and Abel.  Thus sexuality became the original sin. After the fall, the sons of Seth fought the sons of Cain.  When the daughters of Cain seduced the sons of Seth, Wisdom brought the flood upon the earth (Pp. 97-98).

There is perhaps no better example of this wisdom/Mother Goddess relationship than that of Sophia.  For the Hellenized Greek world, Sophia (which in Greek actually means "wisdom") was the literal philosophical personification of wisdom.  In later Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christianity, Sophia was an expression of understanding of the Holy Spirit. It was (for many of these early Greek Christians) Sophia who caused Mary to become pregnant with Jesus.  In addition, it was Sophia who descended upon Jesus as a dove at his baptism. 

One important thing to remember here is that Sophia was never a member of the traditional gods of Greek mythology.  She was a later and separate goddess who came to embody wisdom itself.  For Plato, Sophia was best understood as philo-Sophia, literally meaning the love of wisdom (or what we call philosophy today).  In fact, it was Socrates, who, when standing before the Oracle of Delphi and questioned, "Of all the Greeks who is the wisest?" responded, "Why none more so than the Mother Sophia."  Socrates then went on to make his famous declaration, "I know one thing: that I know nothing," but then went on to explain that true wisdom came from accepting this all-important fact of life.   Is it any wonder why the earliest Christians chose to name the most magnificent architectural achievement of the Medieval era the "Hagia Sophia?" (which means "Holy Wisdom").

With this concept of wisdom/Mother Goddess fully infused into much of the ancient world, we of the modern day can gain a different and newer perspective on what these ancient writers were trying to say.  There can be little doubt that the wisdom/Mother Goddess dichotomy was, for many ancients, as real as the Trinity is for many orthodox Christians.  To separate the two words from what appears to be, at least in some cases, a duel meaning would be like separating peanut butter from jelly.  Why on earth would anyone want to separate that which seems meant for the other?  And if there is to be a "Mother Goddess" theology, I can think of no better attribute for her to possess than that of wisdom.  Wisdom rules heaven together with God, and the two are peanut butter and jelly!  Or as the Muslim proverb put it, "Heaven rests at the feet of wisdom."

When did Scotland Become Scotland?

According to contemporary wisdom (not to mention the wisdom of historians over the past few centuries) Scotland was the result of Irish immigration into northwestern Britain shortly after the fall of Rome. The reasons for this take on Scotland's origins are many, most notably the fact that Gaelic language and culture had overtaken a large part of the region. In addition, the natural response by the "native" Picts of the British isles against the incursion of the Roman empire, helped to spawn not only a resistance movement but a movement that would eventually culminate in the creation of a new national conscience.

Originally known to the Romans as the "savage Picts" who inhabited the northern lands of "Britannia", these early Scottish forefathers proved to be a nuisance to the massive juggernaut that was the Roman empire. In fact, many scholars believe that the construction of Hadrian's Wall in 122 A.D. was to defend the northernmost borders of the empire from the invading Picts (It is worth noting, however, that this hypothesis is often rejected by other historians who argue that the sparsely populated lands of the Picts were really no threat or match for the mighty Roman Army. And though that may be the case, the fact remains that the wall was built at great cost to the Emperor, who must have seen a need for it).

It was in the twilight years of the empire that historians believe the world of the Picts became increasingly influenced by migrating Gaels (early Irish) who left an unmistakable impression on the region through their culture and language. In fact, the Venerable Bede (a historian and monk of this era) even noted the migration of early Irish Gaels to the region and the origins of Bede speaks extensively about the creation of Dál Riata, which was a hybrid kingdom of Gaelic Irish and Picts that existed on the western coast of modern Scotland., In the 10th century the kings of the Scots produced a similar “foundation legend” which traced their lineage back to Irish ancestors who came to Dál Riata as conquerors.

But just how credible is this history? Certainly the majority of historians/archaeologists accept it as the most plausible explanation on the origins of what eventually becomes Scotland.

But not everybody is sold.

Renowned Scottish historian Dauvit Broun has challenged the status quo interpretation of Scotland's ultimate origins in the following article from History Today. I glean the following summary of Campbell's work from historian Tim Clarkson's blog:

If the Scots had arrived from Ireland in large numbers we would expect them to build dwellings of similar types to the ones they left behind. No such evidence has been found, nor do the place-names of Argyll [the quasi-capitol of Dál Riata] suggest that a mass of Gaelic-speaking immigrants supplanted an indigenous Pictish or British population. It is usual for traces of an earlier language to be visible among place-names coined in the speech of an invader but the Argyll names are so thoroughly Gaelic that they actually appear to be indigenous. Some historians believe that the Scots came to Britain as a small, elite group of kings and aristocrats. This could possibly explain the lack of archaeological evidence for a mass-migration but, as Campbell points out, high-status foreigners would have imposed the trappings of their own culture on the native elites whom they conquered or absorbed. We should therefore expect the decorated brooch – the ubiquitous badge of high-status among early medieval cultures – to show Irish characteristics whenever an example is unearthed in the archaeology of Argyll. Again, no such evidence is forthcoming: the brooches worn by the early Scots are of recognizably British rather than of Irish design.

What, then, of the foundation legend mentioned by Bede? Surely his testimony – having been written in the 8th century – must count for something? Campbell makes a strong case for believing that Bede was merely stating the earliest form of an origin-story that the Scots would later richly embellish in the 10th century. Such tales were very common in early medieval Europe and were often concocted as political propaganda to create suitably dramatic origins for dominant royal dynasties.

As an alternative hypothesis Campbell envisages no migration from Ireland to Argyll other than a cultural one arising from social and economic links across the narrow seas between the two areas. These links led to the adoption of Gaelic as the common language of trade and social interaction but, although the people of Argyll became Gaelic-speakers, their distinctive regional identity was strong enough to preserve their indigenous culture in the face of Irish influences. Campbell suggests that the linguistic shift from Brittonic to Gaelic was achieved during the pre-Roman Iron Age. Thus, when Roman writers spoke of the Scotti (Scots) of Ireland they were probably referring collectively to all Gaelic speakers – including the Scots of Argyll

An interesting hypothesis to say the least. Campbell does present some interesting questions on the lack of archaeological evidence of early Irish dwellings and the possibility that Gaelic was an indigenous language and not adopted at a later time. With that said, I still believe that these questions cannot refute Bede's account or the fact that the Picts clearly adopted Gaelic language and culture (The Pict language became obsolete shortly thereafter). And, of course, Scotland's ultimate sense of "nation-ness" doesn't emerge until after Wallace, Robert the Bruce, etc. (one could argue that they are still arguing over this concept now that they are a part of Great Britain). Personally, I believe that Scotland's ultimate origins are probably a hybrid of both of these schools. They are a little bit country (Ireland) and a little bit rock and roll (England).

Christian Restorationism in America

From Three Unique Perspectives

First off, my deepest apologies for my lengthy absence from this blog. I have been very busy as of late and unfortunately haven't been able to engage in blogging. I have really missed everyone and look forward to rekindling my blogging habit.

One of the interesting components of American religion is how the doctrines, traditions and creeds of traditional (and dare I say European) Christianity were given a uniquely American flavor once they crossed the Atlantic. This natural evolution of American religion fused the traditional liturgies, customs and doctrines of the Old World with the emerging democratic, capitalistic practices of the New World, creating new and exciting interpretations of what it truly meant to be Christian.

Today I want to present three unique viewpoints from three very different individuals (Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson and Joseph Smith), each of whom attempted to discover the "original" version of Christianity as outlined by Jesus Christ himself. By asserting the need for a RESTORATION of Christ's original gospel (or the original meaning behind his message), these three individuals were essentially able to detour around traditional European Christianity, thus creating a doctrine unique to their respective viewpoints. Of course, these three individuals are far from being the exclusive competitors in the quest for Christ's Christianity. Virtually every religious leader, movement and church has attempted to stake such a claim for themselves in the hopes of attaining legitimate credibility for their movement. With that said, these three individuals represent three important general movements in the story of American religious history, and I believe their stories help to shed light on the complex yet beautiful tapestry that is American Christianity.

Roger Williams

As our first test subject I offer up the infamous rogue Puritan preacher, Roger Williams. As we all know, Williams was a deeply inquisitive man. His knack for questioning everything around him (particularly the religious beliefs and practices of his day) caused Williams to constantly push the envelope in Puritan America. Though he originally embraced Puritan theology, Williams' concerns that Puritanism still maintained an attachment to the Church of England, which he saw as a continuation of Roman Catholic dominion as the Antichrist, caused him to adopt a more Separatist perspective. Inspired by these anti-Church of England sentiments, Williams embraced the admonition of the Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:17 to, "come out from among them, and be ye separate."

Williams not only decided to completely separate himself from any attachment to the Church of England, but also chose to separate from the home world itself. Upon his arrival to the "New World," Williams took his religious views even further. Instead of following the traditional beliefs of the early Puritans in Massachusetts, Williams chose to criticize his new neighbors for what he saw as a lack of penance on their part. While Massachusetts Puritans were happy to accept both the godly and ungodly in their worship services (with an exception being made for the Lord's Supper) Williams believed that those outside of God's grace should not be permitted to worship with elect. In other words, those who had not yet experienced God's saving grace could not even attend the same services as those that had received God's grace (See The Hireling Ministry None of Christs). In addition, Williams also believed that any person who had not repented for his/her former association with the Church of England was in danger of losing their salvation. As Williams stated:

"why although I confesse with joy the care of the New English Churches, that no person be received to Fellowship with them, in whom they cannot first discerne true Regeneration, and the life of Jesus: yet I said and still affirm, that godlie and regenerate persons are not fitted to constitute the true Christian Church, untill it hath pleased God to convince their soules of the evill of the falce Church, Ministry, Worship etc. And although I confesse that godly persons are not dead but living Trees, not dead, but living Stones, and need no new regeneration, yet need they a mighty worke of God's Spirit to humble and ashame them, and to cause them to loath themselves for their Abominations or stincks in Gods nostrils..." (The Complete Writings of Roger Williams, vol. 1, 350).

These religious views, which eventually landed Williams in trouble with the Puritans of Massachusetts, only tell part of the story. Williams' departure to Rhode Island actually caused him to further question his faith. Williams began to question the validity of his baptism and those of his followers, which eventually helped to spawn the Anabaptist movement. As Williams continued to ponder the Bible and its teachings, he eventually came to the shocking conclusion that no church had the authority to assemble in Christ's name. His reasoning was simple: The apostles commissioned by Christ had been his personal ministers on earth. Until Christ returned to the earth and renewed the apostleship, no person/persons had the right or authority to gather as a Christian Church. In other words, Roger Williams began to believe that a complete and total RESTORATION of Christ's gospel, complete with the authority of the holy apostleship, had to return to the earth, or no religion could rightfully act in the name of God. Williams makes this belief clear when he writes:

I desired to have been dilligent and Constant Observer, and have been my selfe many ways engaged in City, in Countrey, in Court, in Schools, in Universities, in Churches, in Old and New-England, and yet cannot in the holy presence of God bring in the Result of a satisfying discovery, that either the Begetting Ministry of the Apostles or Messengers to the Nations, or Feeding and Nourishing Ministry of Pastors and Teachers, according to the first Institution of the Lord Jesus, are yet restored and extant" (The Complete Writing of Roger Williams, vol. III, 160).

Williams continues his argument:

"If Christs Churches were utterly nullified, and quite destroyed by Antichrist, then I demande when they beganne againe and where? who beganne them? that we may knowe, by what right and power they did beginne them: for we have not heard of any new Jo: Baptist, nor of any other newe waye from heaven, by which they have begunne the Churches a newe" (John Winthrop Papers, vol. III, 11. Quoted in Roger Williams: The Church and the State, 52, by Edmund Morgan).

What is interesting about these comments (which eventually led to Williams' exile from Massachusetts) is how similar they are to those made nearly 200 years later by Mormon Founder Joseph Smith (to be discussed later). His call for a restoration of the holy apostleship essentially attempts to negate the Christianity of Europe, which in Williams' mind was never legit to begin with.

Thomas Jefferson

Up next is America's favorite founding skeptic, the author of the DOI itself. As most already know, Jefferson was no friend to traditional Christianity. His altering of the Bible and statements in opposition to the doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, etc. are all evidence that Jefferson disapproved of traditional Christianity. Yet with that said, it is also important to remember the fact that Jefferson called himself a "true Christian." How exactly did he justify this claim?

He did so by insinuating that Jesus himself was not the savior of mankind but instead a marvellous (perhaps the greatest) philosopher of all-time. As Jefferson stated:

"It is the innocence of his [Jesus'] character, the purity and sublimity of his moral precepts, the eloquences of his inculcations, the beauty of the apologues in which he conveys them, that I so much admire."

This was the lost truth of Christianity that Jefferson hoped to RESTORE. As he stated in an 1818 letter to Wells and Lilly of the Classical Press:

"I make you my acknowledgement for the sermon on the Unity of God, and am glad to see our countrymen looking that question in the face. it must end in a return to primitive Christianity" [my emphasis].

And on another occasion:

"The religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconceivable, as to shock reasonable thinkers...Happy in the prospect of a restoration of primitive Christianity, I must leave to younger athletes to encounter and lop off the false branches which have been engrafted into it by the mythologists of the middle and modern ages." [my emphasis]. (Thomas Jefferson, The writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 7, H.A. Washington, ed., pp210, 257).

Later in his life, in a letter to Francis van der Kemp, Jefferson stated:

"I trust with you that the genuine and simple religion of Jesus will one day be restored: such as it was preached and practised by himself. very soon after his death it became muffled up in mysteries, and has been ever since kept in concealment from the vulgar eye" [my emphasis].

For Jefferson, the restoration of Christ's true message was not the reinstitution of the holy apostleship as Williams and Smith desired, nor was it found in Williams' Puritan doctrine of God's supreme grace. Instead, it was the simple message of doing good to others with out the fanfare of ceremonial rituals and communion with the Holy Spirit:

My fundamental principle would be the reverse of Calvin's [doctrine], that we are to be saved by our good works which are within our power, and not by our faith which is not within our power.
(Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Parker, May 15, 1819).

As evidenced above, Jefferson's love for Jesus came not from a pious devotion to orthodoxy, but from a sincere appreciation of his message of love. In this respect, Jefferson's restoration subverts all of traditional Christianity by eliminating the divinity of the child of Bethlehem and placing him with the likes of Plato and Aristotle.

Joseph Smith

And last but not least, we look at the founder of Mormonism, whose interpretation of Christian restorationism embodies the fundamental doctrine of the church he helped to create. As a young man in western New York, Smith was a first-hand witness to the excitement and fervor brought on by what historians now call the Second Great Awakening:

There was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of the country, indeed the whole district of the Country seemed affected by it and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division among the people…Priest contended against priest, and convert against convert so that all their good feelings one for another were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions (Joseph Smith, Jr., “1839 History,” The Papers of Joseph Smith, vol. I, 269-270).

For Smith, this state of religious fervor caused deep concern, so much so that he eventually prayed to God for guidance, only to receive a heavenly manifestation that eventually culminated in what Smith called the Restoration of Jesus Christ's pure gospel:

To find ourselves engaged in the very same order of things as observed by the holy Apostles of old; to realize the importance and solemnity of such proceedings, and to witness and feel with our own natural senses, the like glorious manifestations of the power of the priesthood; the gifts and blessings of the Holy Ghost; and the goodness and condescension of a merciful God, unto such as obey the everlasting gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, combined to create within us sensations of rapturous gratitude, and inspire us with fresh zeal and energy, in the cause of truth.

For Smith and the Mormon movement in general, this restoration of the priesthood and the apostleship became the cornerstone of their faith; a faith that was able to side-step the Christianity of old Europe by exposing its lack of authenticity. Like Williams and Jefferson before him, Smith's version of Christian restorationism did not rely on the pillars of traditional orthodoxy but still made a claim to legitimacy. It is therefore no wonder why Mormonism has been able to survive and thrive in the "New World" for over a century.

In conclusion, though Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson and Joseph Smith may share little in common with regards to their personal religious convictions, their quest to arrive at the true nature of Christ's teachings, without the aid of traditional European doctrines, helps us to see a small segment of the uniqueness of American Christianity. Whether it takes the form of revamping traditionally held beliefs (Williams), removing long-held superstitions (Jefferson), or rewriting the story altogether (Smith), Christian Restorationism in America has given the masses a plethora of beliefs to choose from.

The Origins of Groundhog Day

Groundhog Day is officially upon us and the only question left is will Punxsutawney Phil see his shadow or will he free us from winter's grasp? Yes, the meteorological fate of the planet rests in the hands (or paws) of this furry little Pennsylvania woodchuck!

But where does Phil get his amazing powers? How did the idea of a groundhog predicting the weather come to be? Truth be told, good ol' Punxsutawney Phil has quite a heritage that is older than Pennsylvania itself.

As is the case with many of the holidays and festivals we enjoy today, Groundhog Day's roots are buried deep in pagan culture and tradition. And as is the case with most pagan festivals, the emphasis on the seasons and changing weather patterns take a front seat. In the Celtic world, right around the time that Christianity was in its infancy, the celebration of Imbolc was becoming a popular pastime. Imbolc was hailed as a special day of weather prognostication where spectators anxiously watched to see if badgers or serpents would emerge from their winter shelters, thus predicting spring's impending arrival. This popular Gaelic proverb helps to capture the importance that early Celtic societies placed on Imbolc:

The serpent will come from the hole
On the brown Day of Bride,
Though there should be three feet of snow
On the flat surface of the ground.

In addition to its emphasis on weather, fire and light played an important role in various purification rituals during Imbolc. In many northern Celtic lands, the holiday also celebrated Brigid, the goddess of healing and wisdom. Celts believed that Brigid, if pleased, would bring the first stirrings of spring and liberate society from the clutches of harsh winter. It was through animals (usually a badger or a bear) that the will of Brigid was made manifest, which is why people would gather in almost every village to see if these "holy animals" would emerge or not. In addition, villagers also closely watched the skies. If the day of Imbolc (February 2) was clear, that meant that Brigid had created a pleasant day for herself in order to gather additional firewood for a long winter. If the day was cloudy, snowy, etc. it meant that springtime was around the corner.

With the emergence of Christianity, most pagan holidays, including Imbolc, were either forced out or adapted to fix the new dominant faith of the region. For the festival of Imbolc, the Catholic Church brought about the celebration of Candlemas, which was created to be a commemoration of the presentation of Jesus at the temple and the purification of Mary (to read the biblical account of Jesus' presentation at the temple see Luke 2: 22-39). This day (Feb. 2) became the conclusion of Christmastide, since Feb. 2 is 40 days after December 25th.

To add a further measure of credibility to the holiday, early Christians canonized St. Brigid, who is one of the three patron saints of Ireland and whose feast day fell on Candlemas. It is important to point out that St. Brigid is NOT the Brigid of Celtic folklore. St. Brigid was a real woman who became an influential nun of the 5th century BCE. Obviously, the coincidence of St. Brigid and the Celtic Brigid sharing the same holiday was not lost on early Christians who used the canonization of St. Brigid to eradicate the Celtic version.

In addition to the introduction of St. Brigid, Candlemas adopted the Imbolc usage of candles. On this day it became tradition for priests to light and dedicate candles in the dark of winter to symbolize the hope of spring's rapid return. Candlemas itself was seen as a day to predict weather. If the weather was fair and clear on Candlemas it meant that winter was sure to linger on. If the weather was cloudy and snowy then spring was just around the corner. Obviously this was an adopted Imbolc custom that made its way into early Christian culture. An old Scottish couplet helps to capture the feeling of this day:

"If Candlemas Day is bright and clear, there'll be two winters in the year."

So what does this all have to do with Groundhog Day?

It's relatively simple. The colonization of many parts of Pennsylvania by German settlers, who eventually became known as the "Pennsylvania Dutch" (it's worth noting that the term "Pennsylvania Dutch" does not mean the settlers were of Dutch ancestry, rather it's a corruption of the German word "Deutsch") brought with them to the New World many of their customs and beliefs, Candlemas being one of them. And since the traditions of Imbolc were embedded in with Candlemas, it was natural for these settlers to look for the same traditional weather signs (i.e. animals and weather patters) that they had embraced for centuries. The importance of the Candlemas/Imbolc tradition on the modern American Groundhog Day should not be overlooked. As one popular New England song of the 18th century put it:

As the light glows longer,
the cold grows stronger.
If Candlemas be fair and bright,
winter will have another flight.
If Candlemas be cloud and snow,
Winter will be gone and not come again.
A farmer should on Candlemas day,
have half his corn and half his hay.
On Candlemas day if thorns hang a drop,
you can be sure of a good pea crop.

So why did the groundhog become the accepted animal of choice to become the "prognosticator of prognosticators?" The reason may be as simple as the fact that groundhogs were in abundance in colonial Pennsylvania at the time and are easier to deal with than badgers. With that said, there is another possible explanation as to why these early settlers chose the groundhog. The Delaware Indians, who settled many of the western lands of Pennsylvania in the early years of the 18th century, revered the groundhog as a sacred animal. In fact, they considered the groundhog to be the reincarnation of their honorable ancestors who had returned to earth. These Native people established several camps in the area including one they called "Punxsutawney." The very word, "Punxsutawney" comes from the Indian "ponksad-uteney" which means "the town of the sandflies." In addition, the word "woodchuck" (a woodchuck is the same animal as a groundhog) comes from the Indian word "Wojak." The religious beliefs of the Delaware Indians suggested that a "Wojak" was in fact the ancestral grandfather of their tribe. As a result, groundhogs were revered with great respect.

So colonial America clearly embraced the Imbolc/Candlemas festival. But when did it become "Groundhog Day?" The first official record of Groundhog Day being celebrated in America comes from the diary of one James Morris who was a shopkeeper in western Pennsylvania. On Feb. 4, 1841 he wrote:

Last Tuesday, the 2nd, was Candlemas day, the day on which, according to the Germans, the Groundhog peeps out of his winter quarters and if he sees his shadow he pops back for another six weeks nap, but if the day be cloudy he remains out, as the weather is to be moderate.

The first official celebration of Groundhog Day as a holiday took place on Feb. 2, 1886. In the local newspaper, The Punxsutawney Spirit, editor Clymer Freas wrote:

Today is groundhog day and up to the time of going to press the beast has not seen its shadow.

On that same day, the official groundhog was given the name "Punxsutawney Phil: Seer of Seers, Sage of Sages, Prognosticator of Prognosticators, and Weather Prophet Extraordinary" and his hometown dubbed "The Weather Capital of the World."

So what is Punxsutawney Phil's track record? Well, if you're a warm weather fan you won't be pleased. In the 122 year history of Phil predicting the weather he has seen his shadow 98 times compared to the 15 times he did not (9 years have no record as to what Phil predicted). As a result, roughly 85% of the time Phil declares an additional 6 weeks of winter. But do not fear my fair weather friends. The National Climatic Data Center states that Phil has been correct in his predictions only 39% of the time.

I guess those Celts are just full of it! =)

Happy Samhain...er...Pomona...er...Halloween

In my opinion, one of the coolest aspects of history is to see how ancient customs and traditions from hundreds or even thousands of years ago still manage to weave themselves into our 21st century world. Such is the case with many of our current holidays. Whether it be Saturnalia (Christmas), Imbolc (Groundhog Day) or St. Patrick's Day, it is astonishing to see just how many of these ancient pagan traditions are still with us today, even if their meanings have been lost to time.

Such is the case with Halloween. This holiday, which has become a favorite for children in many parts of the world, has its roots in an era from long ago.

In the highlands of modern day Ireland and many other parts of the British Isles, the Celtic festival of Samhain was celebrated by scores of small towns and villages throughout the land. Samhain (one of the most important Celtic holidays), which was essentially an end of the harvest festival, marked the beginning of winter's reign (called the "dark half" of the year). During this day (the night of October 31 extending into the morning of November 1), Celts believed that the barrier between the living world and the "otherworld" was so thin that the souls of the deceased were able to easily pass between the two.

And while it may seem strange to us in the modern world to hear of mystical barriers between one world and the next being thinned on a singular fall evening, we need to keep in mind that the ancient world of Celts was deeply dependent on the elements. As agricultural societies of the ancient world, Celtic people understood all too well what the winter months meant. Is it any wonder that these people, who saw dying trees, plants, animals and even people with the advent of winter, would see October 31 as a day when the barrier between the living and the dead faded?

During the celebration of Samhain, Celts would invoke the help of their local priests (druids) to pray to the gods for safety from death. These prayers reached a crescendo on Samhain, when the souls of the dead (particularly those who had died in the previous year) could come to the aid of their loved ones.

But not all the souls who crossed into the land of the living were kind. As a result, Celts went to extremes to protect themselves from these unwanted visitors. Bonfires on the outskirts of town were dedicated to the gods as a way to beg for the return of the sun and as a way to keep the evil spirits away. Average people would also dress up in various costumes to ward off the unwanted spirits from their village. In addition, blood sacrifices of animals were regularly made by druid priests, who believed that on Samhain they could better predict the future of the coming year than on any other day.

Samhain wasn't the only festival in the ancient world. In Rome, the celebration of Pomona, the goddess of fruits and gardens, was held on November 1. On this day, divination games (essentially fortune telling games) were a regular part of the Pomona celebration. One of the many games, particularly for men and women who had reached the age of maturity, was to bob for apples, peel the skin, toss the skin over one's shoulder and then analyze it to see which letter of the alphabet it resembled. It was believed that the letter was the first letter of the man/woman that the participant would marry. As the Roman empire continued to expand into northern Europe the ideas of Pomona (the celebration of the harvest) and Samhain (the celebration of the dead) began to fuse with each other. Soon the Roman and Celtic festivals became a united and mainstream celebration that spanned over an entire continent.

But Pomona/Samhain would not overcome every obstacle. With the emergence of Christianity as the preeminent force of the Medieval World, the celebration of Pomona/Samhain would change forever. With its hostility towards all things pagan, the Catholic Church quickly sought for the removal of festivals like Samhain (and Saturnalia). However, church authorities quickly realized that these beliefs and traditions couldn't simply be squashed out. As a result, the church adopted a different tactic. Under the direction of Pope Gregory I, church authorities no longer sought to remove pagan ideas but to Christianize them. Pagan idols were given Christian identities while the pagan devotion to the souls of the dead was converted into a devotion to saints.

Under Pope Leo VI this tactic of pagan "hijacking" was taken even further by the creation of All Saints Day, or All Hallows Day on November 1st. On this day, all of the chosen saints of God were praised by the church, while devout disciples and priests prayed for their assistance to intercede on their behalf with god (does this ring a bell with the ancient Samhain rituals?). As a result, the day before All Hallows Day (October 31st) was known to Christians as "All Hallows Eve", which was eventually shortened to "Hallows Eve'n" and then "Halloween."

But the demonetization of pagan beliefs didn't stop there. In 1486 Pope Innocent VIII made witchcraft (by papal decree) the work of the devil. In consequence, traditional pagan roles for female druids were castigated as being the work of Satan. Needless to say, this spawned a title wave of fear and animosity towards anyone who had the slightest appearance of being a witch. Ridiculous new laws and tests were created to help "identify" witches. Black cats were seen as being the animal embodiment of a witch's soul and were considered bad luck if they crossed one's path. Heck, even the famous Joan of Arc was killed on the grounds that she was a witch!

Halloween wouldn't alway remain in the hands of the Catholics. On October 31, 1517 Marin Luther published his "95 Theses" against the Catholic Church. One of his main grievances, which became a staple of Protestantism, was a rejection of all things linked to popes, priests and saints. As a result, Halloween became a horrific celebration for devout followers of Luther and Protestantism in general. For example, Puritan settlers in America forbade its celebration (along with Christmas) from taking place in the New World. Perhaps this helps to also explain their paralyzing fear of witches, which eventually overcame them and brought about the Salem Witch Trials.

Which brings us to today, where Halloween is seen as a secular holiday for kids. And though this current interpretation is a lot more serene than those of old (no witches have been burned in quite some time) it is still important to remember the origins. After all, they show us just how much we still maintain the legends and symbols of old.

Where Do Jack-o-Lantern's Come From?

Of all the traditional symbols of modern Halloween perhaps nothing captures the spirit of the holiday more than the Jack-o-lantern. For generations of Americans, the jack-o-lantern is to Halloween what the Christmas tree is to Christmas. One would be hard pressed to celebrate the holiday without it.

And though the jack-o-lantern has thoroughly become an American tradition, it is worth noting that its origins are much older...and foreign to our coasts. Long ago in the Irish highlands, scattered groups of local agrarian people, known as the Celts, created jack-o-lanterns during the celebration of Samhain (later converted to All Saints Day or All Hallows Day with the arrival of Christianity) to honor the memory of "Stingy Jack." And who was Stingy Jack? I'm glad you asked.

The Irish legend states that Stingy Jack was a miserable, old drunk who liked to play tricks on everyone. On one particular evening, Stingy Jack was taking part in his favorite pastime (getting drunk) when the devil decided to pay him a visit. Upon seeing the devil, Stingy Jack offered him a chair and poured the devil a tall, cool ale. As the evening passed and the two men enjoyed each other's company, Stingy Jack realized that he didn't have enough money to pay his bill. Realizing his dilemma, the devil offered to change himself into a coin so that jack could pay his bill. All that was required was for Jack to give the devil his soul, which Jack was more than willing to do. After changing into the coin, however, the devil was cleverly outwitted by Stingy Jack, who pocketed the coin (devil) along with a silver cross, which prevented the devil from changing back into his original form. After some time had passed, Jack agreed to release the devil, under the condition that he would not return for a year. With no other option available to him, the devil reluctantly acquiesced to Stingy Jack's demands.

Once the year had passed, the devil sought his revenge. He tracked Stingy Jack to an apple orchard where Jack was forced to climb a tree for safety. As the devil pursued Jack up the apple tree, Jack once again outwitted the king of the underworld by carving a cross into the tree's bark, thus preventing the devil from coming down. This time, Jack made the devil promise to never lay claim to his soul, to which the devil reluctantly agreed.

Shortly thereafter, Stingy Jack downed one too many adult beverages and kicked the bucket. As the legend states, Jack was denied entrance into the pearly gates of heaven, due to the wrenched life he had chosen to live. God then sent Jack's soul to the gates of hell, where the devil was also unable to permit his entrance due to their pact. As a result, the devil sent Jack on his way to roam the world lonely in limbo. Knowing that his world would be dark and isolated, the devil gave Jack an ember from the fires of hell, which he placed into a hollowed out turnip. The burning ember not only became Jack's exclusive source of light, but also served as a warning to the living of his coming. As a result, the Irish people made sure to hollow out hideous figures in turnips and potatoes on every All Hallows Day (Halloween) to ward off Stingy Jack from their homes.

The immigration of thousands of Irish settlers to the United States in the 19th century meant that the traditions of Halloween (and Stingy Jack) were sure to make the journey as well. Upon their arrival, Irish settlers discovered the indigenous pumpkin, which was much larger and easier to carve than turnips. As a result, the "Jack-o-lantern" became synonymous with the American pumpkin.

So as you enjoy tomorrow's festivities, be sure to protect yourself from the wrath of "Stingy Jack" by carving out a pumpkin...or a turnip if you're old school!

They're Always After Me Lucky Charms

Origins and Meanings of
St. Patrick's Day Symbols

Once again, happy St. Patrick's Day, everyone! On this day, the good deeds of Ireland's favorite missionary (and slave) are hailed by one and all (except for some Protestants) by wearing green, clipping on a shamrock lapel pin, and drinking Guinness Beer. And while most know the general story surrounding dear St. Patrick, few these days are aware of the origins of many of its popular symbols.

The Shamrock

As is the case with most other popular holidays (click here and here), many of the symbols of St. Patrick's Day are heavily rooted in pagan origins. And of course the most popular St. Patrick's Day symbol is the shamrock. Often associated with Christian symbolism (many suggest that St. Patrick himself used the three leaves of the shamrock to explain the Trinity) the special nature of the shamrock is actually much older. In Celtic lore, the number three is a significant and holy number. Instead of representing the three parts of the Christian Trinity, the shamrock held pagan significance for its representation of sky, earth and underworld. In addition, it's important to point out that Celtic symbolism was highly dependent on number sequences. Also, the pagan goddess Brigit, whose sacred number is often either 3 or 9, had special significance when it came to the shamrock. Celtic beliefs were also deeply dependent on magic enchantments and lucky charms. And since the shamrock was easy for both the rich and the poor to obtain, it became a popular "lucky charm" to carry around (incidentally, this helps to explain why a 4-leaf clover is/was seen as popular. It was a rare gem that represented even greater luck).

The Leprechaun

And of course, what would St. Patrick's Day be without Leprechauns! Originally (at least according to Celtic lore) leprechauns were sometimes considered to be sea creatures that would grant three wishes (there's that #3 again) to anyone who could catch them. Later, however, the leprechaun evolved into a mischievous, miniature fairy who made shoes, protected pots of gold and, interestingly enough, wore RED!

But to really understand the origins of the leprechaun, we have to look at the Celtic tales of Tuatha Dé Danann. In Celtic mythology, the Tuatha Dé Danann are a race of gods who not only controlled Ireland but much of the heavens. It was believed that a rainbow was their bridge between this world and the world beyond, and that if one could get to the end of a rainbow before it disappeared a common person could join their ranks. Over time, and with the appearance of Christianity, the Tuatha Dé Danann were replaced with Christian deity (and saints like St. Patrick) and the magical, enchanting gods of Celtic mythology disappeared...or at least evolved into the more modern form: a leprechaun.

The Harp

Contrary to popular belief, the shamrock is not the official symbol of Ireland. The harp has that all-important distinction. In Medieval Ireland, the harp took on special significance, since it was believed that its music could commune with the gods. As a result, harp players were usually from the nobility and carried tremendous importance in Irish society. In addition, since the harp's music was considered the language of the gods, many harp players had their eyes removed, since it was believed that looking upon god was unacceptable.

So the next time you take a look at one of these "lucky charms" remember that you are in good company. They go back a long way indeed and carry powerful "magic." No wonder the Irish always get mad about "people after me lucky charms!"

And why all the green? Check out this post for that answer.

Romans 13 and the American Revolution

Over at my other blog (American Creation) a large debate over the significance and interpretation of Romans chapter 13 has been raging for the past few months. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Romans 13, it is a chapter in which the Apostle Paul lays out some of the "rules" regarding a Christian's duty to follow civic leaders. Here are a few of the more important verses from that chapter:

1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

As is evident in the aforementioned verses, Paul admonishes the Christian populace to submit to even the wickedest of leaders because "Whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." In other words, to defy a leader is to defy God himself.

Immediately prior to the American Revolution, a decent percentage of theologians became deeply concerned with the Biblical implications of the American Revolution. Was God going to be angry at the colonists for their rebellion to the British King? Especially when we consider that Paul was admonishing the Christians to submit to the horrific reign of Nero? After all, if submission to Nero was imperative to the salvation of the practicing Christian, what right did the American colonists have to rebel against a King who wasn't nearly as bad?

As I mentioned before, this has been a very intense and thorough debate over at my group blog. I have watched, over the past several months, my fellow blog brothers debate this issue into dust. This debate usually follows the same rough outline where one person will enter the ring armed to the teeth with quotes from Locke, Rutherford, Sidney, Mayhew, Calvin, Jefferson, etc., etc., etc. Not soon after, my email inbox will be full of comment notifications, full of anxious rebukings, most of which are, like the original comment itself, delivered with powerful counter-punch material from some of the same sources. Now, it's not that I dislike this back-and-forth debating over this singular (and in my opinion, relatively unimportant) issue. On the contrary. I have found the debate to be both extremely enlightening and quite entertaining. I've admired the abilities and passions of the "key participants" (you know who you are) along with the enormous arsenal of knowledge and understanding they possess.

With that said, my personal beliefs are that the Romans 13 issue was a mere side issue compared to the other pressing challenges taking place. In a nutshell, I simply do not believe that this was as big of an issue as many are making it out to be. Please, don't get me wrong here. I realize that it was a major issue for many people. After all, obeying the will of God is no small sack of potatoes, and I realize that many people believed that salvation (not just worldly freedom) hung in the balance. However, if we take a step back and look at the grand picture, I believe we can see that the American Revolution was much larger than one simple chapter from the "Good Book" and that war with Britain was going to happen with or without Romans 13.

With all of that said, I am going to try and play along as best I can. Let's assume that I am completely wrong and that the Romans 13/God sanctioning rebellion was not only an issue but THE ISSUE of the American Revolution. Given this new sense of importance I still maintain that the debate surrounding Romans 13 was not that big of a deal for those involved in the American Revolution.

Why you ask? Because the matter had already been resolved...

...

...At lest for those who established the American republic.

Long before the Founding Fathers arrived on the scene the debate over the Kingship/rule of law had been raging for centuries. As has been pointed out numerous times on this blog, a number of important theologians, thinkers, and civic leaders took up this very cause as their own. Everyone from Locke to Rutherford, Sidney to Montesquieu helped to mold how the founding generation would come to understand the relationship between God and government, government and the people and the people's duty to government.

Much has been made of Romans 13 and rightfully so. But there is another Bible chapter to consider; one that inspired a certain Samuel Rutherford to challenge Divine Right kingship. In Deuteronomy 17 we read:

14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;

15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them.

20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

For men like Rutherford, this was clear-cut evidence from God himself that the LAW was king, not the other way around.

Algernon Sidney, whom Thomas Jefferson credited (along with Locke) as being one of the primary sources for the American conceptualization of individual liberty, agreed with Rutherford's interpretation that the rule of law was to be superior to any kingship. To defend his thesis, Sidney appealed to the very laws of nature:

If there be any precept, that by the light of nature we can in matters of this kind look upon as certain, it is, that the government of a people should be given to him that can best perform the duties of it. No man has it for himself, or from himself; but for and from those, who, before he had it, were his equals, that he may do good to them. If there were a man, who in wisdom, valour, justice, and purity, surpassed all others, he might be called a king by nature; because he is best able to bear the weight of so great a charge; and, like a good shepherd, to lead the people to do good . . . Solomon tells us, 'That a wise child is better than an old and foolish king.'

[...]

If governments arise from the consent of men, and are instituted by men according to their own inclinations, they did therein seek their own good; for the will is ever drawn by some real good, or the appearance of it. This is that which man seeks by all the regular or irregular motions of his mind. Reason and passion, virtue and vice, do herein concur.... A people therefore that sets up [government does it so]...that it may be well with themselves and their posterity.

Which of course sounds awfully familiar to:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

For Jefferson, who was never a big fan of St. Paul to begin with (you may recall that his version of the Bible contains none of Paul's epistles), Sidney's interpretation of law rang strong and clear as it pierced through the "old school" interpretation of complete submission to God's rulers. In a letter to his chubby little New England buddy John Adams, Jefferson points out just how appealing Sidney's view of government was:

I have lately undertaken to read Algernon Sidney on government...As often as I have read it, and fumbled it over, it now excites fresh admiration that this work has excited so little interest in the literary world. As splendid an edition of it as the art of printing can produce —- as well for the intrinsic merit of the work, as for the proof it brings of the bitter sufferings of the advocates of liberty from that time to this, and to show the slow progress of moral, philosophical, and political illumination in the world —- ought to be now published in America.

Of course skeptics will point out that the American Revolution cannot, in any way, be reconciled with Romans 13 because if Paul admonishes Christians to endure the treacheries of Nero, how can they possibly justify rebellion against a king who simply raised their taxes? Perhaps they are right. There may be no biblical way to justify the American Revolution. I suppose one could cite Biblical examples such as Deuteronomy 17, 1 Kings 11, Daniel's civil disobedience, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego's refusal to obey Nebuchadneezar's laws, Moses, etc., but I doubt much of it would stick. Simply put,much of this debate is based off of personal biblical interpretation.

And such was the case with our founders. The moment that Jefferson, Madison, etc. committed to embracing the perspectives of Locke, Sidney, etc. they also committed, perhaps subconscientiously, to rejecting a literal interpretation of Paul's admonition in Romans 13.

But Paul's lesson wasn't completely ignored either. Yes, the framers of the Revolution were not about to let some obscure chapter from the Bible deter them but at the same time, they weren't about to rush into a reckless rebellion either. The trick was knowing when abuses from tyrannical leaders required a response from the people. Again, Algernon Sidney helped to provide the answer:

Those who had wit and learning, with something of ingenuity and modesty, though they believed that nations might possibly make an ill use of their power, and were very desirous to maintain the cause of kings, as far as they could put any good color upon it, yet never denied, that some had suffered justly (which could not be, if there were no power of judging them); animate them to persist in the most flagitious courses, with assurance of perpetual impunity, or engage nations in an inevitable necessity of suffering all manner of outrages. They knew that the actions of those princes, who are not altogether detestable, might be defended by particular reasons drawn from them, or their laws or their country; and would neither undertake the defense of such as were abominable, nor bring princes, to whom they wished well, into the odious extremity of justifying themselves by arguments that favored Caligula and Nero, as well as themselves, and that must be taken for a confession, that they were as bad as could be imagined.

[...]

They who are already fallen into all that is odious, and shameful and miserable, cannot justify fear...Let the dangers never be so great, there is the possibility of safety while men have life, hands, arms and courage to use them but that people must surely perish who tamely suffer themselves to be oppressed.

Or in other words, it is completely silly (and contrary to the laws of nature) to endure inept leaders who had demonstrated their incompetence or their ill will towards their subjects. Or as Jefferson put it:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[...]

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

And while this debate is likely to rage on for months (or maybe even years) here on this fair little blog, I remain convinced that the Founders' understanding of kings and law had already been shaped by centuries of European debate on the matter. Men like Locke, Sidney, Rutherford, etc. (along with many before and after them) helped to mold (and perhaps justify) the arguments for Revolution.

But again, it doesn't really matter because war was a' coming regardless of what the Bible said.

And that's a fact, Jack!

Merry Saturnalia (and a Happy Pagan New Year)

The holiday season is fully upon us, and with it the "cups of good cheer," mistletoe, holly wreaths, etc. Yes, Christmas is not only a wonderful time of the year but also one of the most celebrated holidays in the world. Over 2 billion people on the globe join together in singing their praise of the birth of Jesus Christ.

But just how "Christian" is Christmas? We all remember our Sunday School lessons about Mary and Joseph wrapping the baby Jesus in swaddling clothes and placing him in a manger. And don't forget the star and the three wise guys...er...men, who journeyed from afar to witness this December...er...spring miracle.

To understand the TRUE history behind the holiday we call Christmas, we must travel to a time when the world was dominated by pagan doctrine and Roman might. Long before Mary and Joseph made their trek to Bethlehem to pay their taxes...er...be counted in the imperial census, Roman society (along with other European groups) embraced a few interesting (and familiar) holiday traditions that may come as a surprise to the devout Christian of our modern era. So, let us pretend for a moment that we have ventured back in time to late antiquity and witness how these various European societies celebrated their winter holidays.

Our first stop in our voyage back in time will take us to one of the greatest civilizations known to man: Rome. The date is December 17th and the streets are full of celebration and jubilation. It is Saturnalia: a holiday dedicated to the pagan god Saturn, who has been loosen from his bonds during the festivities so that he can enjoy the fruits of the offerings given to him. As the god of the harvest/agriculture, Saturn is praised by the masses from having provided a bountiful harvest.

To celebrate the occasion, Roman citizens gave up their traditional toga and adorned themselves with more festive clothing. Traditionally, the clothing was green and decorated with leaves, flowers and berries. Men and women regularly took holly berries and branches and turned them into wreathes, which they placed on their heads, believing that they had the power to ward off evil spirits. It was also common in homes throughout the Roman empire to have their halls "decked" with holly in order to keep them safe from the wrath of the gods.

In addition, Saturnalia was also marked by the temporary freeing of slaves, who would often (in pure fun) switch places with their masters. Public demonstrations of sex, gambling, drunkenness were commonplace, while many other laws, which were normally punishable, were temporarily allowed (in some cases even rape). Simply put, Saturnalia became the ancient world's version of Mardi Gras.

Along with the revelry and laissez-faire Roman policies governing these holidays, many Roman citizens also took to adorning evergreen trees as part of the festival of Saturnalia. It was common for wealthy Roman families to decorate a tree with candles, silver and gold lace and to have it nailed to the floor of their home. This "Saturnalia Tree" became a symbol of Rome's collective petition to the gods for a bountiful new year. The Jews (and early Christians), refused to embrace such pagan beliefs and even preached against them. As the Bible itself states in Jeremiah 10:2-4:

2.) Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

3. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

4.) They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

And while the common person was busy celebrating Saturnalia, the elites of Roman society also celebrated the birth of Mithras: the god of the unconquerable sun, whose birth fell on December 25th. For many, this was the holiest day of the year and celebrating his birth was done in the hopes that Mithra would return in full power (summer) to bless their harvest, etc.

Now that we've had our "Saturnalia fix," let us move up north a bit and enter the Norse/Celtic/Germanic regions, where the winter holidays were celebrated with just as much festivity as their Roman neighbors. For many who dwelt in the Rhineland, the celebration of Yule (or Yule-tide) took place in late December and lasted for usually twelve days (hence the Twelve days of Christmas). During the celebration of Yule, people gathered in their homes to burn the Yule Log in the hearth of their home (a tradition that eventually spread all the way to the British isles). The Yule Log was occasionally even carved into a penis shape due to the fact that some (albeit smaller) Celtic communities believed the Yule Log had the ability to impregnate.

Even our "blessed" Mistletoe has its roots in the ancient world. In both Celtic and Druidic rituals, mistletoe (which blooms in winter) was believed to be a powerful sexual stimulant. Ancient legends maintained that the juices found in the mistletoe berries were, in fact, the semen of the gods. As a result, it was believed that if a man held the mistletoe over a woman's head she would be unable to resist his sexual advances (a far cry from a simple kiss). In essence, mistletoe became the ancient world's date rape drug. Exciting!

Along with the funny looking Yule logs and sexual plants, many Germanic communities also believed that the god Odin (Lugas in Celtic England), who patrolled the skies during those cold winter nights, would decide who should prosper and suffer, live and die in the following year (a.k.a. "going to find out who's naughty or nice"). Later, of course, Odin would be woven in with other figures to give us Santa Clause, but that's a topic for another day.

So maybe you are wondering how the birth of Christ got entangled in this pagan mess. The answer is pretty basic. Once Rome became a Christian nation, the newly established Christian church found itself in competition with the entrenched pagan traditions of Roman, German and other Nordic, communities. Instead of abolishing festivals like Saturnalia, the church simply decided to embrace the holiday, but added its own elements. For example, the evergreen trees that were taken into homes were adorned with apples in an effort to symbolize the Garden of Eden (later these became ornaments). Stories of pagan gods were replaced with tales of elves, gift-giving, etc., all which eventually evolved to give us many of our current holiday symbols.

And Since none of the gospels mention specifically when Jesus was actually born, early Christian church leaders simply adopted his birth to fit an already existing holiday. Pope Gregory the Great and other early and influential popes, established the earliest foundations for converting Saturnalia into CRISTES MAESSE (which eventually evolved in the English version to CHRIST-MASS and then Christmas), called for the removal of older pagan gods to be replaced with the Christian ones. It was believed that Christ's birth would eventually replace the festival of Saturnalia and abolish its traditions. The early church was at least half right in this respect. While the implementation of Christmas eventually led to the demise of Saturnalia, the pagan traditions and celebrations remained intact, and many still permeate our celebration of Christmas to this day. In fact, if we were to see some of the earliest Christmas celebrations of the Medieval world, we would be surprised to see how similar it was to a carnival or to Halloween. Most Christians of the Middle Ages continued the ancient celebrations of Saturnalia and Yule by indulging in public drinking, lascivious sex and dressing up like demons. For over two millennia the Christmas/Saturnalia Mardi Gras never let up!

In conclusion, while many of the TRADITIONS of Christmas remain rooted in ancient pagan beliefs, there is no doubt that the SPIRIT of Christmas is something quite different. My intention for writing this was NOT to discredit the celebrating of Christmas. Quite the contrary. I believe that understanding the TRUTH of the Christmas season can actually aid in our celebration of Jesus' birth. After all, it's never been about trees, gifts, flowers etc.