The New Mormon Hymnal: What Must Stay and What Must Go

Rumors have been swirling for several month regarding the possible changes to the Mormon hymnal, which was last updated in 1985. Even one of my favorite Mormon bloggers, Janna Riess, has got in on the action.  As she aptly points out, these are rumors and nothing more.  We have yet to hear anything concrete regarding a new Mormon hymnal.

But what if we did get a 21st century Mormon hymnal?  What changes would we see?

With this in mind, I am going to enter the world of the hypothetical and assume that I have been charged with the task of producing a new Mormon hymnal.  The guidelines I have been given are simple:


1.) Choose 10 uniquely Mormon hymns to be labeled "classics" that will stand forever.
2.) Choose 10 hymns to be tossed out and banished forever.
3.) Choose 10 new songs to be added to the new hymnal.

So, without further delay, I offer my amendments for the new Mormon hymnal (all ranked 10 to 1 in order of importance):

10 Uniquely Mormon "Classic" Hymns

10.) Our Savior's Love: Hymn #113
So this selection has a family bias to it.  "Our Savior's Love" was written by Edward Hart, a somewhat distant relative of mine.  With that being said, I still believe it is a wonderful hymn that so many Mormons today enjoy.  It's a good one to start off our list of "Mormon Classics."

9.) Called to Serve: Hymn #249
Any Mormon who has served a mission (or who hasn't served) knows the significance of "Called to Serve."  It's a no-brainer selection.

8.) I Believe in Christ: Hymn #134
For as unpopular as McConkie was when it came to Mormon doctrine, the hymn he wrote is timeless.

7.) Love One Another: Hymn #308
Simple but beautiful.  "Love One Another" is a perfect example of the fact that hymns don't have to be complex or carry elaborate lyrics in order to be meaningful.

6.) If You Could Hie to Kolob: Hymn #284
Initially I intended to add this song to the "gone forever" list because...how do I put this...it's a REALLY WEIRD song!  "If You Could Hie to Kolob" touches on one of the most bizarre aspects of Mormon doctrine that comes from one of the most bizarre books of scripture. Abraham, chapter 3 states that God lives on a planet orbiting a star named Kolob.  With that being said, "If You Could Hie to Kolob" is still a beautiful hymn that is uniquely Mormon, perhaps more so than any other hymn out there.

5.) The Spirit of God: Hymn #2
This hymn has been a favorite going all the way back to the beginnings of the church itself.  "The Spirit of God" was originally sung at the Kirtland Temple dedication and has been sung ever since.

4.) I Am a Child of God: Hymn #301
This hymn is a favorite of kids and adults. Originally a Primary children's song, "I Am a Child of God" was so popular that it became an  official hymn in 1958 and has remained ever since!

3.) O My Father (or as it was originally titled, "The Eternal Father and Mother"): Hymn #292
Arguably Eliza R. Snow's best hymn, "O My Father" is powerful, touching and illustrates some of the best aspects of Mormon doctrine that exist.

2.) Where Can I Turn For Peace?: Hymn #129
This is my favorite hymn in the world and another biased (but I believe still solid) selection.  It is loved by almost all Mormons.

1.) Come, Come Ye Saints: Hymn #30 If there were to be a "Mormon National Anthem" chances are this would be it!

10 Hymns to be Removed Forever

10.) Adam-ondi-Ahman: Hymn #49
W.W. Phelps is arguably the greatest contributor to the Mormon hymnal.  He wrote a number of gems (a couple in our list above) but he also wrote some disasters, namely "Adam-ondi-Ahman," which touches on another less-than-pleasant tidbit of Mormon doctrine. We almost never sing it so I don't think it will be terribly missed.

9.) There is Sunshine in My Soul Today: Hymn #227
It's upbeat, happy and a popular hymn, but "There is Sunshine in My Soul Today" probably isn't the most appropriate hymn for a Sunday worship.  Why?  Because, frankly, there isn't sunshine in everyone's soul.  Some people go through really tough trials in life and a song like this can do more harm than good.  We would all do well to not assume that everyone is blissfully happy all of the time. We need to be more sensitive than that.

8.) Sons of Michael, He Approaches: Hymn #51
Another weird hymn about another weird tidbit of Mormon history. But nobody should mind because it's another dead song that is almost never sung to begin with.

7.) Onward Christian Soldiers: Hymn #246
I think we can safely say that mingling religious rhetoric with war rhetoric isn't the best course of action in the 21st century.  I love "Onward Christian Soldiers" as much as the next guy (at least in terms of the music) but the message needs to go. Singing "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war. With the cross of Jesus, going on before" isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we can do better.

6.) Put Your Shoulder to the Wheel: Hymn #252
I have always loathed this hymn. Work, work work, It all depends on work!  No room for grace, no room for mercy.  Work, work, work, work, work.  Salvation depends on us!  For all of Mormonism's preaching about works, we sure do forget the importance of grace, and this song does that better than most!  It's gotta go.

5.) In Our Lovely Deseret: Hymn #307
Yet another weird song about weird points of doctrine. Besides, it's too bubbly, to strange and too infantile to be considered a hymn (my apologies to Eliza R. Snow).  Any song that sings, "Tea and coffee and tobacco they despise" and "eat very little meat" isn't a hymn for worship. It's a piece of propaganda and rhetoric. It's outta here!

4.) Joseph Smith's First Prayer: Hymn #26
Yes, I know I am going to catch some major crap for eliminating this very popular hymn but hear me out. One of the charges often levied against Mormons is that we worship Joseph Smith.  I refute these charges but also understand how somebody could feel that way.  This hymn tends to support the skeptic's claim.  Besides, Joseph's "First Vision" isn't exactly a clear-cut piece of doctrine.  After all, which version of the First Vision are we talking about?  Or how about the fact that most early Mormons never even heard of the "First Vision?"  It's just not the best hymn for the 21st century church.

3.) Families Can Be Together Forever: Hymn #300
Another popular hymn that most will want to keep but I still maintain needs to go.  Sure, it's inspiring, meaningful, touching and pleasing...so long as you fit the traditional Mormon mold.  But what if you don't?  What if you're a single mom? A partial member family?  A family with individuals who hate or no longer participate in the church?  In that case, "Families Can Be Together Forever" is a painful song that has little appeal.  Plus, not everyone wants to be "with my own family."

2.) Hope of Israel: Hymn #259
Talk about a hymn that REALLY needs to go!!!  "Hope of Israel" is full of lyrics that promote war and violence, yet very few see it.  Consider:

"Hope of Israel, Zion's army...Now the victory we must win...Every stroke disarms a foeman, every step we conquering go.

And the terrible chorus:

"Hope of Israel rise in might. with the song of truth and right.  Sound the war cry, watch and pray.  Vanquish every foe today."

Need I say more?  For the 21st century it isn't needed.  Time to go!!!

1.) Praise to the Man: Hymn #27
For as long as I can remember, "Praise to the Man" has been my least favorite Mormon hymn.  I realize it is popular with most, but as I mentioned above, the charge that we worship Joseph Smith is harder to refute when we regularly sing a hymn like this.  As Jana Riess states:

If I could jettison just one song from our repertoire, by God it would be this one—and it’s a shame, because the tune is fabulous and the tempo brisk, unlike the more snail-like LDS hymns. But this theology is simply awful. How is it that Mormons can insist up and down and until Tuesday that we don’t worship the prophet and yet continue to sing this hymn? Here the recently deceased Joseph Smith is communing with Jehovah, mingling with gods, and making plans on our behalf from heaven...kind of like God makes plans for us from heaven. Even worse, the song is all about how we need to glorify Joseph Smith, not God: “Kings shall extol him, and nations revere.” I realize this hymn has already been made slightly less vengeful and bloody from a 1927 revision, but that’s not enough: the whole concept of this song is about worshiping a human being. Only God deserves our worship. End of story.

I couldn't agree more!


10 Hymns to be Added to New Hymnal

10.) Beautiful Savior
This ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS German hymn has been around for at least 3 centuries. Though the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has performed it on multiple occasions, "Beautiful Savior" is still not in the Mormon hymnal...and it should be.  Sample of the song by clicking here.

9.) I'm Trying to be Like Jesus
This is a favorite Primary song of almost all Mormons and it's high time it became a hymn!  My favorite rendition of this song is here.

8.) O Come O Come Emanuel
One of the best Christmas hymns ever, yet for whatever reason not in the Mormon hymnal.  DUMB!!!!  M y favorite version of this hymn is here.

7.) The Resurrection Day
I couldn't find an online version of this hymn but it's awesome.  It was also Brigham Young's favorite hymn.

6.) Swing Low, Sweet Chariot
We Mormons would GREATLY benefit from some cultural diversity.  We're just too damned "whited and delightsome" as the Book of Mormon states.  =)  We need some soul, and this has always been one of my favorite African spirituals.  Since jazz is my favorite form of music, it's hard to beat this rendition of "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot."

5.) Holy, Holy, Holy
Here's another MASSIVE Christian classic that we've turned our back on.  It's legendary, has an amazing message and is quite old.  Written in the early 19th century by Reginald Heber, "Holy, Holy, Holy has been a part of almost every Christian worship...except ours.  Here's MoTab singing it,

4.) O Holy Night
Yet another no-brainer.  Why isn't this song in the hymnal?  Enough said.  My favorite version of "O Holy Night" here.

3.) Homeward Bound
Probably not well known to many Mormons but an instant classic that I completely love. "Homeward Bound' was written not long ago, actually in 1998 by a middle school music teacher named Marta Keen Thompson.  The song exploded and was even sung by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.  It would make for an awesome addition to our hymnal.  Song by clicking here.

2.) Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing
It's just stupid that this hymn isn't in our hymnal.  I don't know what else needs to be said.  MoTab singing it here.

1.) Amazing Grace
The greatest idiocy of our current hymnal is the absence of "Amazing Grace." I'm sure John Newton is turning in his grave over the fact that we shunned his timeless song.  The hymn that inspired the great William Wilberforce and has become arguably the most popular Christian hymn in the world BELONGS IN OUR DAMN HYMNAL!!!  Period, end of discussion!

We should include the bagpipes as well!

Book Review: Architects of Annihilation

Architects of Annihilation: Auschwitz and the Logic of Destruction. By Gotz Aly and Susanne Heim (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2002. Pp. 514).

The events that led up to the atrocities of the Holocaust have been a source of ardent debate for historians. Being able to add clarity to the fog of Holocaust historiography is no small task for any writer. In their work, Architects of Annihilation: Auschwitz and the Logic of Destruction, historians Gotz Aly and Susanne Heim have effectively provided simple but convincing evidence that adds a new perspective to this critical historical event. Instead of prescribing to the traditional view of Holocaust historiography, Aly and Heim have challenged the status quo interpretation of the causes of the Holocaust by rejecting the notion that Nazi atrocities are simply too evil to be understood from a scholarly perspective. Instead, Aly and Heim suggest that it is both logical and prudent to view the Holocaust as a well constructed and detailed plan of mass execution (Pp. 4-5).

The central component in the development of Aly and Heim’s thesis is their suggestion that the Nazi extermination of the Jewish population was not motivated purely by racial hatred, but by a desire to establish German economic hegemony over the whole of Europe. In an effort to secure their economic destiny, the Nazi regime embarked on a, “negative population policy,” which sought to achieve, “an optimum population size” (Pp. 4). In other words, the Nazi’s targeted undesirable groups of the population in an effort to purify the German economic machine. The Nazi justification for the elimination of specific groups of the population came from the belief that, ‘Europe was one vast wasteland crying out for ‘readjustment’ and ‘reconstruction,’” (Pp. 7). Aly and Heim suggest that the Jewish population made a perfect target for the Nazi’s “negative population policy,” because of their strong participation in the German and Austrian economies, which was quickly branded as a detriment to Germany’s quest for economic superiority. Instead of being branded and persecuted by racist xenophobes, Aly and Heim suggest that the Jewish population’s sufferings originate out of the Nazi doctrine of economic domination.

To help support their claims, Aly and Heim appeal to the role of Auschwitz as a micro history of sorts, which they believe is representative of the larger Nazi policy of “negative population.” Aly and Heim point out the fact that the construction of Auschwitz coincided with Germany’s plan to improve the economic situation in Poland. From the Nazi perspective, Poland was a virtual economic backwater in desperate need of modernization. According to Aly and Heim, the construction and implementation of Auschwitz as a means of population control became a medium through which Poland could be put on the path towards economic prosperity, In other words, the “undesirable” or “excess” segments of the population that were seen as a burden to the Polish economy could simply be collected and eventually eliminated in the most efficient way possible. This bold move towards “social modernization,” in which segments of the Polish population were forced into camps such as Auschwitz, gave the Nazi regime all the justification it needed to further its acts of brutality.

In addition to their analysis of Auschwitz and other parts of Eastern Europe, Aly and Heim devote a large amount of their book to the role of social and economic “technocrats,” who they believe were the principle developers of the Nazi policy of population control. In this regard, Aly and Heim are, yet again, directly challenging the traditional historiography of Holocaust research. Instead of placing the blame on the shoulders of Nazi elites, Aly and Heim suggest that it was the contributions of social scientists (sociologists, economists, demographers, etc.) that were instrumental in developing the Nazi doctrine of negative population. Aly and Heim clearly support the notion that the German policy of population control would not have come to fruition without the involvement of these social “technocrats,” who were given free rein to develop and present their Darwinian-influenced ideas of population control and economic growth to the Nazi hierarchy.

Though clearly a unique perspective into the development of German economics and population control, this book fails to address the role of racism anti-Semitism in the Nazi doctrine of “negative population.” Despite Aly and Heim’s sporadic mentioning of German racism, there is a noticeable omission of its possible influence in shaping Germany’s policy towards the “undesirable” segments of society. Instead, Aly and Heim suggest that German racism and anti-Semitism were used as a secondary influence, which helped to bring about the primary goal of German economic superiority.

Despite its controversial claims, Architects of Annihilation should be seen as an enlightening perspective into the possible motives behind the horrors of the Holocaust. Gots Aly and Susanne Heim’s interpretation of Nazi policy is likely to inspire a plethora of debate between critics and supporters on the issue. Regardless of what skeptics or believers may say, this work should remain as a unique contribution to the historiography of the Holocaust.

Book Review: Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century

Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century. By Benjamin Valentino. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004. Pp. viii, 253).

The twentieth century was the bloodiest in all of human history. The consequences of two world wars left a haunting impression upon the millions of survivors, who became reluctant witnesses to the atrocities of modern warfare. Along with the millions of war victims is another body of mass casualties that is often forgotten in the muddle of twentieth century history. The approximately 60-150 million victims of genocide across the world stand as a monument to the carnage of numerous regimes that embraced mass killing as a necessity. In his book, Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century, author Benjamin Valentino attempts to address the causes and motivations that have inspired genocide in the twentieth century. By essentially addressing genocide as nothing more than a “powerful political and military tool,” Valentino provides the reader with a detailed perspective into the motives behind genocide.

First off, it is important to recognize the fact that Valentino’s work avoids a discussion of semantics when dealing with the definition of genocide. Instead, the author’s book centers on “mass killings” of more than fifty thousand in number (Pp. 3-4). In so doing, Valentino broadens the scope of his argument by including numerous mass killings that are often ignored in the traditional study of genocide. Valentino also argues that the traditional understanding of genocide as being motivated by “severe ethnic, racial, national, or religious divisions” does not hold up, since “some of the bloodiest mass killings in history have occurred in relatively homogeneous societies” (Pp. 2). Valentino continues his assault on the traditional historiography of genocide by also suggesting that the “traditional studies of genocide have tended to diminish the role of leadership on the grounds that the interests and ideas of a few elites cannot account for the participation of the rest of society in the violence” (Pp. 2). Instead, Valentino proposes in his research that mass killing “occurs when leaders believe that their victims pose a threat that can be countered only by removing them from society or by permanently destroying their ability to organize” (Pp. 5).

To defend his thesis that leaders are responsible for mass killing as opposed to the masses, Valentino provides a detailed comparison between several similar regimes. For example, Valentino makes special mention of the racial tensions that permeated both German and South African society, along with the various forms of intolerance that covered Asia After briefly discussing the backgrounds of these regimes, Valentino poses a question to his audience: Why does mass killing occur in only some of these regimes, which, on the surface, appear to be very similar? Valentino then answers his question by suggesting that a cohesive leadership of elites, with an objective to consolidate their power, is the catalyst for mass killing. By pointing out that perpetrators of mass killing see their actions as, “a rational way to counter threats or implement certain types of ideologies,” Valentino discards the assumption that these regimes kill simply for the sake of killing.

To support his claims, Valentino focuses on three distinct groups of mass killings: communist, ethnic and counterguerrilla mass killings. In the first of these three classifications (which Valentino claims is responsible for the largest number of mass killings), Valentino focuses on the communist regimes of China, the Soviet Union and Cambodia. Valentino then points out the fact that these regimes have resorted to mass killings in an effort to secure that their social changes are met. As Valentino points out, “the effort to engineer utopia has been the justification for some of the world’s most horrendous crimes” (Pp. 92). For communist regimes to secure this “utopia,” they are often required to redistribute land and wealth, which is understandably a difficult change for the masses to accept. For this reason, communist regimes have embarked on some of the worst mass killing policies in world history. As Valentino points out, “The history of communism in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia is a powerful demonstration of the degree to which historical accidents, serendipity, and the power of individual personalities can determine the rise of extremely radical and violent groups’ (Pp. 150).

In his second group, ethnic mass killings, Valentino pays special attention to the Nazi regime and its motivations for committing to a policy of ethnic mass killings. Valentino emphasizes the fact that the Nazi regime (along with other regimes that are guilty of mass killings) had a specific strategic goal in mind, as opposed to the traditional assumption that they were simply out for blood. As Valentino writes, “Ethnic mass killings, especially the Holocaust, have tended to be portrayed as little more than killing for killing’s sake…The strategic approach, however, suggests that ethnic mass killing occurs when leaders come to believe that large-scale violence is the most practical way to accomplish a policy of ethnic cleansing” (Pp. 155). By focusing on the ethnic cleansing of Turkish Armenia, Nazi Germany, and Rwanda, Valentino provides his audience with ample insight into the evolution of how these regimes came to embrace mass killings as the only plausible solution to their respective ethnic dilemmas.

In the third group of mass killings addressed in his work, counterguerilla mass killings, Valentino discusses how a number of guerilla insurgencies (particularly in Guatemala and Afghanistan) have compelled governments to adopt a policy of mass killing. Valentino points out the fact that these forms of mass killing often come about not because an army becomes undisciplined or fed-up with the guerilla opposition it faces. Instead, Valentino suggests that counterguerilla forces often see their efforts as being “positive policies designed to improve the lives of the civilian population and draw support away from guerillas” (Pp. 199). In essence, the justification for such actions embraces the notion that one must kill in order to save.

Though often contrary to the traditional understanding of genocide, Valentino’s work provides us with a unique perspective into the causes and motivations behind mass killings. By suggesting that mass killings are primarily the result of an elite leadership, Valentino also proposes that we can better prevent these atrocities from happening again, by being proactive against regimes that have committed to the rapid disposal of a specific group from their society. An objective insight into the causes of mass killing, which Valentino considers to be born out of a political motivation to eliminate a perceived threat as opposed to simple hatred, may serve to prevent future atrocities from ever happening again

Of Kings, Popes, Ecclesia and Mundus

The Love/Hate Relationship
Between Church and State

210 years ago today, on New Year's Day, 1802, President Thomas Jefferson penned a letter to a group of Connecticut Baptists who had been the unfortunate victims of religious persecution. At the time, Connecticut had established Congregationalism as the official religion of the state, and these Danbury Baptists had asked President Jefferson for aid. In what has become known as the Danbury Letter, President Jefferson responded to the Danbury Baptists by repeating the words of the First Amendment, which state that Congress shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." President Jefferson then added the words, "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

This "wall" of "separation" between church and state is the fundamental issue at play in many a culture war today. Advocates in favor of a "Christian Nation" reduce the significance of the Danbury letter by revealing the fact that the phrase "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be had in our founding documents. Those opposed to the "Christian Nation" rebuke such a claim by pointing out that many of those same founding documents (particularly the Constitution) make no mention of God. And while both sides make appeals to different influencing factors that helped to bring about the formation of the United States (i.e. Christianity, Enlightenment, etc.) it is important for us to recognize that there is NOTHING uniquely American about this church/state battle.

To better understand the depth and the importance of this church/state conflict let us travel back to a time when it wasn't constitutions and congresses that made law but rather kings and popes. Of course I am speaking of Medieval times. This was a time of passionate religious and political bickering, as heads of state (or kingdoms) and vicars of Christ jockeyed with one another for ultimate control. The question of who possessed ultimate authority became the central theme of almost all Medieval politics. Pontiffs and princes, priests and politicians, spend centuries arguing over this singular issue in the futile effort to seize a measure of control over the other.

The analysis into the origins of this Church/State conflict could, if we let it, take us all the way back to Constantine himself. Ever since the day that Constantine the Great saw his famous vision and heard the voice "En Hoc Signo Vinces", the battle between church and state has been a raging fire throughout the Western world. Constantine's newly endowed Catholic Church, complete with imperial sanctioning and ecclesiastical authority, was a budding juggernaut of power that would eventually monopolize the governments of heaven and much of earth. Unlike its pagan predecessors, which required no major governing bureaucracy, Christianity (at least of the dominant Roman Catholic form) developed a hierarchical, authoritative governing body that eventually came to rival that of the Roman Empire itself (many historians, including the legendary Edward Gibbon, have hypothesized that this development was THE catalyst to the demise of the western Roman Empire). Traditional and simplistic rituals to the various gods and priests of paganism were replaced with dominant and influential representatives of the resurrected Christ who held all the keys to one's salvation.

As Christianity continued to rise upon the ashes of the dead western Roman Empire, various leaders of various lands hitched their wagons to the church in order to add divine sanctioning to their leadership resumes. Gothic lords and Frankish kings all saw the advantages that Christianity provided. It is therefore no surprise that so many of these former "barbarians" eventually became anointed kings and saints of the church. But these perks were not without their costs. As the Medieval world continued to evolve, monarchs found themselves at odds with their religious counterparts. Popes, abbots, bishops and priests demanded more control (and money) from their secular leaders, who were often found reluctant to acquiesce to those heavenly demands. And with Catholicism still in its infancy, secular leaders were able to put the early church in check by integrating themselves in with church authority. For example, most early popes relied upon powerful monarchs for not only protection but also for their nomination to the papacy. For centuries, the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire wielded incredible influence over new nominees to the Holy See, and once in power, these same popes relied heavily upon the Emperor's authority. There is no greater example or precedent of this fact than Pope Leo III, who begged Charlemagne for protection and for reinstatement to his seat as Bishop of Rome. Charlemagne obliged Leo and restored him in Rome; a gesture that Leo rewarded by pledging his allegiance to the Holy Roman Emperor and by crowning Charlemagne in St. Peter's Basilica on Christmas Day, 800.

But this reliance upon monarchs was not held in high esteem by everyone within the church. For centuries church authorities had tried, with varying levels of success, to break free from the secular power. From the fraudulent Donation of Constantine to Libertas ecclesiae, examples of Ecclesia's quest to be on equal or superior footing with Mundus fill the archives. The best example of this quest to "break free" and assert the church's ultimate authority is the Investiture Controversy, in which several kings (specifically King Henry IV) and popes (specifically Pope Gregory VII) took center stage in a clash worthy of a Hollywood script. In a nutshell, the Investiture Controversy was a disagreement that arose when church leaders challenged those monarchs who had granted appointments (investitures) to bishops and abbots within their kingdom. Contrary to popular belief, the church did not always exercise its domain over the appointment of local leaders. In fact, almost all local bishops and abbots of the early Medieval period were appointed by their local secular powers. This was due to the fact that these positions were almost always accompanied with a large land endowment. In what became known as the practice of Simony, kings and lords profited substantially from the sale of these church investitures, which were usually granted to secular nobles who could both afford to pay for the post and would remain loyal to the crown. For obvious reasons, church leaders saw this practice as an affront to their sovereignty and authority and looked for ways to change the status quo. This effort, however, proved to be extremely difficult, especially in the wake of ugly affairs like the Rule of the Harlots and the Great Schism of 1054.

An opportunity for change finally presented itself 1056 with the death of Emperor Henry III. Henry's successor, six-year-old Henry IV, was obviously too young to govern, thus opening the door for the church to make its move. During Henry IV's youth, the church made three significant moves to help establish its supremacy: First, in 1059, Gregorian reformers helped to push forward the all-important Papal Bull, In Nomine Domini, which established the College of Cardinals and invested in them the exclusive power of electing future popes. Second, in 1075, Pope Gregory VII created the Dictatus Papae, which, among other things, stated that the Pope alone had the authority to depose an emperor. And third, in a Lantern Council of 1075, church leaders declared that the Pope alone had the power of investitures. With these three new mandates in hand, church authorities were finally armed with the justification for ultimate sovereignty that they had longed for.

But as was often the case with Medieval politics, many within the secular realm were not impressed. Now no longer a child, King Henry IV elected to continue with the status quo and appointed his own bishops and abbots. In addition, Henry revoked his imperial support of Pope Gregory and issued a stern warning to the Holy Father. In a letter to Pope Gregory (in which Henry addressed him as "Hildebrand, at present not pope but false monk") Henry declared that his divine kingship came not from papal decree but from god himself:

And we, indeed, have endured all this, being eager to guard the honor of the apostolic see; you, however, have understood our humility to be fear, and have not, accordingly, shunned to rise up against the royal power conferred upon us by God, daring to threaten to divest us of it. As if we had received our kingdom from you! As if the kingdom and the empire were in your and not in God's hands! And this although our Lord Jesus Christ did call us to the kingdom, did not, however, call thee to the priesthood. For you have ascended by the following steps. By wiles, namely, which the profession of monk abhors, you have achieved money; by money, favor; by the sword, the throne of peace. And from the throne of peace you have disturbed peace, inasmuch as thou hast armed subjects against those in authority over them; inasmuch as you, who were not called, have taught that our bishops called of God are to be despised; inasmuch as you have usurped for laymen and the ministry over their priests, allowing them to depose or condemn those whom they themselves had received as teachers from the hand of God through the laying on of hands of the bishops.

Unfortunately for Henry, his royal rebuking fell on deaf ears. Pope Gregory simply ignored the letter and responded by excommunicating the Holy Roman Emperor. Not only did Henry's excommunication please church authorities but it also excited a number of German lords who had longed for a justification to usurp the king and increase their own wealth and power. Faced with overwhelming opposition from the church and growing hostility from his nobles, Henry finally chose to swallow his pride and appealed to Pope Gregory for reinstatement (legend has it that Henry traveled to Canossa, adorned himself in hairshirt and stood barefoot in the snow). Pope Gregory eventually removed Henry's excommunication but did not declare him king. In 1080 German lords had elected a new king, Rudolf of Rheinfelden, and had petitioned Gregory to anoint him as Holy Roman Emperor. Gregory found himself at a difficult crossroad and decided to not anoint either man as king. This infuriated Henry who proclaimed Clement III as pope (or antipope if you are on Gregory's team). Henry then attacked and killed Rudolf of Rheinfelden and moved on Rome to forcibly remove Gregory from the papacy. Left with no choice, Gregory called on Normon allies to come to his rescue. And though the Normans were successful in driving Henry's forces back, they chose to sack Rome themselves, causing Gregory to flee for his life.

Eventually the Investiture Controversy was resolved by Henry and Gregory's successors. The Concordat of Worms, which essentially granted sovereignty to both the church and the state in their respective realms, became one of the first occasions in which a "wall" of "separation" was created. The Investiture Controversy, though a dramatic mess to say the least, had revealed the fact that mixing matters of church and state together would surely lead to an explosive reaction. Both entities needed a buffer from one another. As the great Medieval historian Norman Cantor put it:

The Investiture Controversy had shattered the early-medieval equilibrium and ended the interpenetration of ecclesia and mundus. Medieval kingship, which had been largely the creation of ecclesiastical ideals and personnel, was forced to develop new institutions and sanctions. The result during the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries, was the first instance of a secular bureaucratic state whose essential components appeared in the Anglo-Norman monarchy.

And though the tug-o-war between church and state would rage on for several more centuries, the Investiture Controversy was a landmark event for both ecclesia and mundus. It gave religion a greater measure of independence from secular authorities who had for too long meddled in affairs to which they did not belong. The Investiture Controversy also endowed the state with a very clear sense of legitimacy that would, over the next millenia, rely less and less upon ecclesiastical endorsement and divine right authority. In short, the Investiture Controversy became the launchpad for future reformers and revolutionaries, who battled against the powers of church and state, in an effort to legitimize the independent authority of both. While the Investiture Controversy (along with subsequent struggles over the next several centuries) didn't completely solve the church/state debate, it did lay some of the initial mortar for the "wall." And as we have learned, this "wall" is not made of bricks but rather is a semi-permeable membrane through which church and state are able to occasionally cross, though once crossed is navigating through delicate waters.

For me, the church/state barrier is like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich: though very different in texture and flavor the two were made for one another, so long as they are applied in the appropriate proportions and nobody uses the jelly knife to scoop out the peanut butter (or visa-versa). And as everyone knows, though sticky and often messy, there is nothing better than a peanut butter and jelly sandwich!

Forget the Devil, The Nun Wears Prada

A recent article by German historian Eva Schlotheuber reveals that Medieval nuns were not as humble or anti-worldly as we may think. Recent research on medieval nuns shows that many of them were dressing in the latest fashions instead of simple religious habits. And while their were efforts by the church to make nuns dress more humbly, by the 14th and 15th centuries these rules were becoming less and less adhered to. As Dr. Schlotheuber states:

in the rhythm of daily life and feast days the nuns developed a great deal of creativity, and lived in a much more lively fashion than the morally and didactically coloured theological texts of the period want us to think.

And though efforts were made to restrict clothing for nuns, particularly at the Council of Vienne (1311-12), which forbade the waring of silks, furs, sandals, and lavish hairstyles, many Medieval nuns were slow to fall in line. As Dr. Schlotheuber points out:

The fact that these rules were being repeated again and again makes it clear that many nuns were not following them. This can be seen in the visitation reports of clerics to nunneries. In 1249, Eudes Rigaud wrote that the nuns at Villarceaux were wearing pelisses of rabbit, hare, and fox fur; they wore their hair long and curled, scented their veils with saffron, and adorned their belts with silver- and steeled-work clasps. The nuns were also not following other monastic rules either – Rigaud noted that everybody in the convent seemed to have a lover, and several had children.

Besides wearing fashionable clothes, rings were also widely worn – this symbolized their marriage to Christ. Sometimes these would be adorned with precious stones. During special occasions, such as some feast days, the nuns would dress up. An elderly nun at the German town of Ebstorf wrote how her sisters celebrated the Feast of St. Inocentius (September 22) by wearing felt caps, clothing with fur and knives hanging from the side. She added “others dressed in the courtly style and had primped their hair with a curling iron. A few wore monk’s habits. But we [the older girls] were not allowed to put on costumes. But we were jolly anyway.”

So how did Medieval nuns justify their worldly apparel? Some believed that it was their duty to appear separate (and dare I say superior) to the common people of their community. Being considered the brides of Jesus Christ himself, one could easily see why such fancy clothing and jewelry were considered desirable. After all, if the wife of a king/prince should be adorned in the finest of clothing, then shouldn't the brides of the King of Kings have just as much? And let us not forget that many women who filled the ranks of Medieval nunnery came from the higher social strata. Wearing fancy apparel would only be a natural thing.

But for those who saw the church and its clergy/nunnery as the guardians of faith, one can only imagine how they reacted to the sight of women who were supposed to dispose of all worldliness being covered in silks and jewels. Hard to imagine how they reckoned this with Christ's admonition to go into the world "without purse or scrip."

No wonder why Martin Luther and others would eventually condemn the church for its apparent worldliness.

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! =)

Book Review: The First World War

The First World War. By John Keegan. (New York: Vintage Books, 1998. Pp. 427).


"The First World War was a tragic and unnecessary conflict." This opening sentence to John Keegan’s book The First World War serves as the prevailing thesis for the duration of his book. By suggesting that the First World War could have been avoided, Keegan invites the reader to join him in an in-depth look into the origins, causes, and consequences of Europe’s "Great War." In this work, Keegan rejects the notion that the First World War was an inevitable conflict between rival superpowers, but insists that the growing trends of nationalism, combined with the massive military/industrial buildup of the various European nations, brought already existing tensions to a frenzied crescendo. As a result, cooler heads were unable to prevail over the supercharged militaristic intentions of the differing European powers.

Though primarily written as a military history, Keegan provides a good amount of scholarly insight into the origins of the First World War. Keegan’s prose effectively sheds light on the true nature of the First World War, which he claims is often overshadowed by the subsequent Second World War. Keegan insists that both world wars can and should be understood jointly, as opposed to the traditional view of separate world conflicts:

The derelict fortifications of the Atlantic wall...the decaying hutments of Auschwitz...A child’s shoe in the Polish dust...are as much relics of the First as of the Second World War.

Though separated by roughly two decades, it was the First World War that sharpened the resolve and fury of the Second World War. Or as Keegan put it, "The First World War inaugurated the manufacture of mass death that the Second brought to a pitiless consummation."

The initial chapters of Keegan’s book focus on the origins of the First World War. Keegan points out the fact that early twentieth-century Europe actually saw itself as a relatively peaceful and civilized society. International dependence in the economic, religious, and political arenas created an imaginary sense of stability between the various European powers. These illusionary factors, however, were unable to prevent the turbulent tide of nationalistic and militaristic development, which propelled Europe to the avant-garde of warfare. Once one nation started down the path of military development, its rival powers soon followed. Such an atmosphere of militancy made any effort to keep the peace progressively more difficult. As Keegan points out:

The tragedy of the diplomatic crisis that preceded the outbreak of fighting...is that events successively and progressively overwhelmed the capacity of statesmen and diplomats to control and contain them.

In essence, diplomacy was held at bay by the aggressive agendas of militarism.

Along with presenting the origins of the conflict, Keegan effectively demonstrates the impact that the First World War had on shaping European identity. Throughout the text, Keegan strives to depict the “Great War” as one of the preeminent international events that propelled the world into modernity. According to Keegan, the development of nationalism and military might essentially pushed aside the rational ideology left over from the Enlightenment. As a result, an injection of nationalistic fervor infected Europe’s populace, creating an atmosphere of patriotic loyalty. Keegan alludes to this fact when he writes of how each nation’s citizenry rallied behind the war:

Crowds thronged the streets, shouting, cheering and singing patriotic songs. In St. Petersburg...the entire crowd at once knelt and sang the Russian national anthem. In Germany, the flag was carried higher than the cross.

Keegan’s description of the war itself gives the reader a full view of its dramatic impact. Since virtually every European nation believed that the conflict was to be short, the general public was utterly shocked to its core once reality set in. The sheer terror of seeing so many soldiers killed or maimed caused soldiers to desert and citizens to reassess where their loyalties stood. As Keegan points out:

Civilian discontent fed military discontent, just as the soldiers’ anxieties for their families were reinforced by the worries of wives and parents for husbands and sons at the front...nationalism and popular patriotism took its appropriate back seat to basic human needs and desires.

The war’s violent impact brought the once fevered nationalistic chants to a dull roar. As Keegan suggests, the war’s lengthy duration, combined with its bloody outcome, left the masses in a virtual daze. Gone were the days when massive crowds gathered in public squares to thank god for their nationalistic superiority. Instead, families and friends came together to bury their dead and pray for an end to the violence. One's nationality barely mattered anymore.

Keegan’s work takes a bold stand against the traditional historiography of the First World War. Instead of seeing the war through the traditional lenses of military greatness and national pride, Keegan seeks a different rout of understanding. As he states in the book’s final pages:

Why did a prosperous continent, at the height of its success as a source and agent of global wealth and power...choose to risk all it had won for itself and all it offered to the world in the lottery of a vicious and local internecine conflict?

It is likely that the various European powers that participated in the conflict would respond by invoking their nationalistic and militaristic duties to protect and defend their respective homelands as a justifiable reason for declaring war. Keegan, however, would likely respond by using the same words that he chose to begin this book: “The First World War was a tragic and unnecessary conflict.” Or as George Bernard Shaw put it:

Patriotism is your conviction that your country is superior to all others because you were born in it.

That is the First World War in a nutshell.

The True Origins and History of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

Like almost everyone on this planet, I am a big fan of Disney cartoons. With my two little boys, I enjoy watching the latest and greatest animated feature that the miracle workers at Disney and Dreamworks are able to throw together with such brilliance. It never ceases to amaze me how these producers, animators, etc. are able to continually push the creative envelope further and further. Whether it's Toy Story, Shrek or Cars, these animators have created a massive assortment of instant classics that are sure to delight generations of fans.

With that said, I must admit that despite the obvious brilliance and technological superiority of newer animations, one "old school" cartoon stands supreme in the pantheon of animated film: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Ever since I saw it for the first time as a little boy, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs has remained my all-time favorite cartoon, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Aside from being a personal favorite, Snow White has also played a unique role in the history of animated film that literally transformed animation forever and launched Walt Disney into immortality. That's right, it wasn't Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck that made Disney the worldwide brand we all recognize today, but rather a pale, dark-haired damsel and her seven vertically-challenged roommates!

The Origins of the Snow White Story

Contrary to what some may think, Snow White was not the brainchild of Walt Disney or any of his colleagues. In fact, the original story of Snow White is much older than America itself. The first known accounts of the Snow White story come to us from the Brothers Grimm, who, during the early years of the 19th century, collected and published a number of old European folktales, many of which dated back to the Middle Ages (Snow White possibly being one of them). The original Snow White story (known in German as Schneewittchen) has several different twists that make it unique from the Disney tale we all know and love. Here are just a few:

- In the Grimm tale, Snow White is but a 16-year-old girl.

- The dwarfs (more than 7) DEMAND that Snow White work and cook for them in order for her to have their protection.

-The evil queen step-mother actually tries to kill Snow White on three different occasions. First she ties Snow White up and leaves her for dead, only to discover that the dwarfs have freed her just in time. Second, she disguises herself as a poor peddler and combs Snow White's hair with a poisoned brush but is again unsuccessful when the dwarfs come to save her. And finally, the part we all recognize, Snow White is poisoned by an apple.

-The "handsome prince" does not meet Snow White prior to her fleeing into the woods. Instead, he stumbles upon her in her coffin and pays the dwarfs to take her and the coffin with him on his journey home. While in route to his kingdom, the coffin shakes open and a piece of the poisoned apple is released from Snow White's throat causing her to regain consciousness. The "handsome prince" and Snow White then (after vomiting the apple, not embracing in a romantic kiss) ride off into the sunset to live "happily ever after."

-The evil queen stepmother, who is shocked to see Snow White alive at the wedding of her and the prince, is hunted down by the dwarfs and is forced to dance for hours on end while wearing a pair of heated iron shoes, which eventually burn her to death.

This original version of the Snow White tale (which most experts agree probably dates back to at least the 16th century) may seem strange at first to those of us in the modern era, but it was a huge hit for those who heard it first hand. In fact, the Snow White tale was not confined to Germanic lands. In Italy, the tales of Bella Venezia and The Young Slave contain many parallels, as does the Greek story of Myrsina and the Scottish tale Gold-Tree and Silver-Tree However, the non-German tales usually depict the dwarfs as rough thugs who steal, murder, plunder, etc. but are eventually cured of their evil deeds upon seeing Snow White's beauty (even though in an Albanian version the dwarfs basically gang rape her).

What is important to remember about these versions of the Snow White tale is that they provide an interesting glimpse into the late Middle Ages. With the rise of the Renaissance and Reformation, the role of women faced a strict dichotomy: on the one hand, you had the beauty, purity and ignorance of Snow White; on the other, you had the conspiring, vindictive and hateful nature of the evil stepmother. Such was the case for women of this era. Women were seen as unpredictable creatures who were in great need of "control" and "stability" that only a male partner (the "handsome prince" and dwarfs) could provide. Women were to be as Snow White: pure, innocent and helpless. All of this could, of course, be achieved by her acceptance of her new role in society. Without such a system, women were sure to become like the evil stepmother.

The Case of Margarete von Waldeck

Aside from these traditional folktale stories of old, there is another possible explanation for the origin of the Snow White story. In 1994, the German scholar, Eckhard Sander, published Schneewittchen: Marchen oder Wahrheit? (Snow White: Is It a Fairy Tale?). In his book, Sander alleges that many of the traditional components to the Snow White tale can be found in the real life story of Margarete von Waldeck (1533-1554), who was a countess and the alleged lover of Philip II of Spain. As was the case with almost all royal marriages, political aspirations were more important than love. And as was the case with Philip II (who was destined at the time to inherit the kingdom from Charles V) almost everyone of royal blood had a vested interest in his love life. And though Margarete was a countess, the relationship held no real political clout. Nothing could have been gained politically from their union and as a result, many have argued that Margarete was poisoned to get her out of the way. Her death at a young age, coupled with the fact that many of her contemporaries believed she had been poisoned (there is an obvious tremor in the handwriting of Margarete's final will) have convinced many that her death was in fact from poisoning. And as was the case with Snow White, Margarete allegedly had a terrible relationship with her stepmother (though it should be noted that the stepmother was already dead prior to Margarete's alleged poisoning so there is no way she could have been responsible). Nevertheless, the family dynamics between Margarete and her stepmother were such that many believed she had reached out from the grave (possibly possessing the body of a vagrant old woman) to poison Margarete. In addition, a wild madman of the time had been trying to kill a number of children by poisoning apples and many believed that the spirit of Margarete's stepmother was "coaching" the madman in an effort to kill Margarete von Waldeck.

In addition, it is worth noting that Margarete was forced to leave her home and live in Brussels at the age of 16 (allegedly due to problems with her stepmother). Also, the town in which she grew up (Wildungen) employed a countless number of young children to work in the copper mines as quasi-slaves. The poor conditions there caused most to die before age 20 while the rest faced severe malnutrition, which attributed to a severe stunt in their growth during puberty. As a result, these workers were often ridiculed for being "poor dwarfs" who were only good for human chattel in the mines. Margarete would have certainly been aware of them since it was primarily members of her family that "employed" the "dwarfs."

Walt Disney's Snow White

As pointed out above, it is obvious that Walt Disney did not create the Snow White story. Even so, this does not mean that his role is irrelevant in promoting and preserving this classic European folktale. Quite the contrary. Without Disney, it's likely that few people would know anything about the Snow White tale or the other Brothers Grimm tales (Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, etc.) that he brought to the big screen.

But the role of Snow White, as it applies to Walt Disney, was much more than the mere preservation of a folktale. It was, in every sense of the word, the single most important and influential decision of his career. It was Snow White (not Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, a cool theme park ride, etc.) that launched Disney to greatness.

During its earliest years, the Disney brand confined itself to making small 5-10 minute animated "shorts" which usually preceded full-length feature films. Of course it was Mickey Mouse that became Disney's "golden child" during these years. The creation of the "Silly Symphonies," a running series of animated shorts that were distributed by Columbia Pictures, helped to lift the likes of Mickey, Donald and Goofy past Betty Boop and other rivals.

Despite his early success, Disney quickly saw his monopoly on animated "shorts" disappear with the emergence of Popeye the Sailor Man and Bugs Bunny. Animated shorts were becoming increasingly more expensive to make and were bringing in less and less money. Simply put, the competition was beginning to slowly squeeze the Disney franchise to death.

It was under these circumstances that Walt Disney suggested a new and radical idea for animation: create a full-length feature film. And while the notion of a full-length animated movie sounds standard to the modern movie buff, the idea of such an undertaking was seen as both crazy and suicidal in the 1930s. After all, animation was nothing more than a side show event to precede the "real" movies. Surely nobody would pay to see an hour long cartoon!

Nevertheless, Disney could not be dissuaded, even when his own wife told him that "nobody will go to see your stupid dwarf cartoon" and the New York Times labeled Snow White as "Disney's Folly." After convincing other like-minded animators to join his project, Disney was able to raise the $250,000 needed to begin production on Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (the amount eventually climbed to over $1 million). In addition, Disney was forced to mortgage his home and studio as collateral. In every sense, this was an "all or nothing" gamble for Disney.

Finally, on December 21, 1937, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs debuted to sold out theaters across the country. In Los Angeles, the film received a standing ovation from a crowd that included Hollywood juggernauts like Clark Gable, Charlie Chaplin, Shirley Temple, Judy Garland, Jack Benny, Ed Sullivan, etc., many of whom were engulfed in tears. Audiences were stunned to discover that they could in fact develop an emotional attachment to animated characters. Charlie Chaplin and Gary Cooper went so far as to hail Snow White as "The greatest movie ever made." By May, Snow White had become the most successful film of all-time, a position it held for 4 years until finally beat out by Gone With the Wind. In a very real sense, Walt Disney had hit a home run...a grand slam.

The success of Snow White forced others to reevaluate their "game plan" for movie production. For rival MGM, it was the success of Snow White that convinced them to take a chance on a project that almost everyone was afraid to touch...a little project known as The Wizard of Oz. After Snow White Disney would go on to create Fantasia and other blockbuster films, all of which made Disney a worldwide success story.

But none of it would have happened without a silly, gullible maiden and her seven short sidekicks, who got the "snowball" rolling for Disney, which is why there can be no question that Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is the greatest cartoon ever made. In its rankings of all-time greatest movies, the American Film Institute ranks Snow White as the #41 greatest and most influential film ever made (the only cartoon to make the list). The "evil queen stepmother" ranks #10 as the all-time greatest movie villain and the film ranks #1 as the greatest animated film ever (eat that, Shrek, Donkey, Woodie, Buzz, etc.)

Oh, and let us not forget the music. The AFI also ranked "Someday My Prince Will Come" as the #19 greatest movie song of all-time. And for your listening pleasure, here is a modern twist performed by a young woman who happens to also be a member of my faith: