This week was another milestone week in the Hart home. Zakary turned 4!!! Here are some pictures from the weekend's festivities:
On Saturday, we spent the day checking out some of Zak's favorite places. After having lunch at Rudy's Barbecue we traveled up to Woodland Park (beautiful area by the way) and visited the Rocky Mountain Dinosaur Museum.
The following skeleton is of a mid-sized female Tyrannosaurus Rex. The museum is currently in the process of putting together a very large male skeleton, which they say dwarfs this one. I don't know how that is possible. She looks pretty big to me.
Jaxson and Zakary "digging" for bones.
Jaxson and Zakary with T-Rex. Zak's favorite dinosaur has always been T-Rex, so needless to say, he was thoroughly impressed when he saw this skeleton.
Our future Paleontologists.
On Monday (Zakary's official birthday), we had a very unique dinner. Zakary wanted spaghetti, green beans, Mandarin oranges and root beer.
So yesterday's end of the world prophesy turned out to be a massive dud (shocker). The day passed without so much as a single significant tornado, earthquake, flood or lightening bolt from a pissed off God who has decided that he aint' gonna take our crap anymore. And while the overwhelming majority Americans (both religious and non-religious) fully comprehended the utter stupidity of yesterday's bogus apocalyptic prediction, I couldn't help but notice just how much attention this ridiculous little story had attracted.
We live in a funny era. On the one hand the blessings of science, technology, medicine, etc. make our time better than any before it. People live longer, healthier and I believe happier than ever before. Gone (for the most part) are the days of peasantry, totalitarianism and general ignorance. Technology has brought our world together in ways that we still don't fully understand or appreciate. To borrow from the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams." How very à propos.
On the other hand, however, we live in a time when apocalyptic, doomsday prophesies of all kinds seem to be constantly hovering about, reminding us that some catastrophe is lurking just around the next bend. They attempt to convince us that our society, despite its incredible achievements and advancements, is doomed to collapse under the weight of our pride, gluttony, wickedness, stupidity, or simply because we refuse to listen to Glenn Beck. Whether in the form of a Mayan calendar, global warming, economic collapse, Muslim terrorists, solar flares, killer asteroids, swine flu or those "evil liberals", we are literally inundated with a constant barrage of the crazy and the insane.
Now, I need to make it clear that as a practicing Christian I believe 100% in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. With that said, I also believe in Jesus' admonition in Matthew chapter 6: 33-34:
33.) But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
34.) Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
In other words, quit worrying about what you can't control. Yes, bad things may happen in the future but this should not be our focus. If instead we choose to "seek first the kingdom of God" by helping those who despise us, doing good to our enemies, caring for the sick, etc., etc., etc. we will discover that "the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself."
Of course Jesus isn't suggesting that we shouldn't prepare for a rainy day. Of course we should. Preparing for a rainy day is one thing (what any prudent, reasonable person can and should do). Giving into the mass hysteria of impending Muslim incursion, predicted Mayan destruction, pretended overthrows of our freedoms by evil communist fascists, and cataclysmic celestial events is quite another thing.
But apocalyptic, doomsday nonsense isn't confined exclusively to the end-of-days type rhetoric we have all come to "enjoy."
While Harold Camping and his followers were anxiously awaiting the commencement of the Rapture, I was with my family at the Rocky Mountain Dinosaur Museum in Woodland Park, Co. While informally perusing the various collections of bones, fossils and teeth left behind by those massive animals I couldn't help but think of how these same Christian radicals (not to mention millions of other devout Christians across the nation) would be horrified to hear the things being told to my children. Dinosaurs living millions of years ago? I don't think so. Doesn't the Bible tell us that the earth is only 6,000 years old?
You mean the same Bible that Harold Camping used to predict yesterday's rapture? Or the same Bible used to justify slavery by the Confederacy?
Perhaps on the surface this seems like a ridiculous comparison to make but hear me out. In a 2010 Gallup Poll, Americans were asked whether or not they believed in evolution. The results were deplorable. Only 35% of Americans believed in (er, ACCEPTED the reality of) evolution, less than any other "modern" nation on the planet. In addition, 40% stated they believed God had created the world in 6 literal days and that the earth was no more than "a few thousand years old." In other words, most Americans reject the reality of our origins and a very large percentage (4 in 10) believe that dinosaurs walked with man despite all of the irrefutable scientific evidence to the contrary.
Maybe I am making a mountain out of a mole hill here but I doubt it. Take for instance the "Creation Museum" in Petersburg Kentucky, which attempts to explain the world's origins within the context of the Holy Bible. Then there is the group "Answers in Genesis", an organization created by Evangelical "scientist" Ken Ham (who is also responsible for the Creation Museum). Answers in Genesis does exactly what its name suggests: they attempt to explain man's origins based on the Genesis story (i.e. Garden of Eden, world-wide flood of Noah, etc.). And speaking of Noah, one cannot help but grimace in pain at the thought of a Noah's Ark theme park being funded by taxpayer dollars (and let us not forget that Kentucky Governor Beshear defended its construction, not to mention the inclusion of DINOSAURS being present on the ark. After all, the world is only 6,000 years old). Make no mistake about it, religious conservatives (and they are a huge segment of this nation's populace) have declared war on science:
Now, it would be one thing if this war on science centered around small, seemingly insignificant tidbits (i.e. is the earth 4 billion or 5 billion years old). But when you claim that fundamental concepts of modern science are wrong simply because "the Bible says so", you are being willfully idiotic. When you claim that carbon dating, quantum physics, biology, geology, paleontology are all wrong and you are right, you have gone down a VERY slippery slope. As Martin Luther King Jr. stated, "Nothing is more dangerous to the world than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
It is with all of this in mind that I return to my original point. How can Americans be so willing to believe in crazy, apocalyptic predictions? How can we as a society be constantly chasing phantoms that don't exist, while at the same time having more technology and information at our disposal than at any other time? Could it be because we are unwilling to accept reality? We are so scared of the unknown; so uncertain of what lies ahead. We cling to ancient stories of long ago as the basis for our lives instead of simply appreciating the fundamental messages of said stories: that faith, love and charity conquer all. Of course Noah didn't load all the animals on his ark, nor was there a global flood as so many desperately continue to claim. Instead of getting hung up over these obvious falsehoods, let us appreciate Noah's incredible faith in the face of ridicule and scorn. After all, isn't that the main point?
And on that same note, of course God will return in his own due time and in his own way. Do we really need to fret over when and how this is to come to pass? Is stressing over economic turmoil, political strife or killer asteroids really going to change anything? Again, I appeal to the teachings of Jesus:
33.) But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
34.) Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
Everyone take a deep breath. Things are going to be just fine.
It has been a while since I posted some family pictures, so I thought I would throw this post together. A few months ago my family took a trip to the Garden of the Gods here in Colorado Springs. And to make matters even better for Jaxson and Zakary, Grandma and Grandpa tagged along. Here are a few highlights:
Grandma, Grandpa, Jaxson and Zakary in front of the Garden of the Gods Trading Post. If you ever make it out to Colorado Springs, you MUST visit this trading post. It's an absolute blast.
Some of the awesome scenery surrounding Garden of the Gods. Keeping the kids from falling off the rocks was quite a chore for the parents and grandparents.
Brothers to the bone.
Sometimes it does take the entire family working together to lift mountains, but together there is NOTHING we cannot do.
Guns!!!
Hanging out with Grandpa.
If you love the outdoors but don't want an expensive or long getaway, Garden of the Gods in Colorado Springs is just for you!
Today is the Rapture! That's right, in only a few hours time the world's righteous will be called up into heaven while the rest of us heathen, Theistic Rationalist, infidels are forced to roam the earth, lamenting our foolish choice to not believe in Harold Camping's apocalyptic prediction. Let the weeping and gnashing of teeth begin!
This rapture hype has been a unique anomaly to follow. I guess that in light of the other apocalyptic predictions that are hovering about (i.e. the Mayan calendar, climate change, the swine flu, etc., etc., etc.) none of us should be all that surprised when we see Camping receiving all kinds of media attention. And even though the overwhelming majority of us accept the reality that Camping is an obvious fraud and that we can all expect to return to work come Monday, I am amazed at how many "experts" are weighing in on such a silly little story. Everyone from historians to scientists, theologians to sociologists have added their $0.02 to the ongoing rapture dialogue, providing detailed insight as to why we can look forward to yet another Halloween, Thanksgiving and Christmas season.
But none of this is new.
Ever since our conception as a nation, Americans have been anxiously awaiting the end of days that have been prophesied of since the beginning of Christian theology. Whether it has taken the form of Christopher Columbus' bold prediction that Jesus Christ would return after the "savage" Indians of the New World were converted to Christianity, The Shakers, who predicted that the world would end in 1792, or Charles Wesley (one of the founders of Methodism) who declared the end of the world to take place in 1794, apocalyptic predictions have been a major component to American religious DNA. Heck, even some of our nation's most skeptical founders couldn't help but be interested in all the end-of-days rhetoric whirling around them:
Although you and I are weary of Politicks, You may be surprised to find me making a Transition to such a Subject as Prophecies. I find that Virginia produces Prophets as well as the Indiana Territory...they are not much more irrational than Dr. Towers who wrote two ponderous Vollumes...to prove that the French Revolution was the Commencement of the Millennium, and the decapitation of The King of France but the beginning of the series...the King of France who had been executed, was the first of the Ten Horns of the great Beast...Napoleon is Antichrist...the City of London is or is to be the Head Quarters of Antichrist.(John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, February 10, 1812).
And though the list of former doomsday practitioners could go on for volumes, I would like to focus on one particular apocalyptic prediction that seems to have a few similarities to the one we have today.
The Story of William Miller
Most Americans have probably never heard of William Miller. Miller (whose teachings eventually led to the creation of Seventh-day Adventists, Advent Christians, Millerites and even Jehovah's Witnesses) was a Baptist preacher from the early 19th century. While living in New York during the era we call the Second Great Awakening, Miller became deeply troubled by the Christian doctrines surrounding death and the afterlife. As a result, Miller actually spent a brief period of his life juggling between the doctrines of deism and Protestant Christianity. After a few years of sincere study, however, Miller became convinced that Jesus Christ was indeed the Savior of mankind. As he stated in hisApology and Defence:
Suddenly the character of a Savior was vividly impressed upon my mind. It seemed that there might be a Being so good and compassionate as to Himself atone for our transgressions, and thereby save us from suffering the penalty of sin. I immediately felt how lovely such a Being must be; and imagined that I could cast myself into the arms of, and trust in the mercy of, such an One.
In addition to accepting the entirety of Jesus Christ's human sacrifice for the sins of mankind, Miller also came to the conclusion that the Bible itself foretold of his eventual return to the earth; his "Second Advent" as it was called. In a manner similar to that of Harold Camping today, Miller somehow deciphered the hidden chronology inside of the Bible, which revealed the date that Christ could be expected to return. Relying on a passage from the Book of Daniel (8:14 to be exact), Miller eventually came to the conclusion that Jesus Christ's Second Coming would take place in the year 1844. Eventually Miller and his "Millerites" would narrow it down even further, hailing October 22, 1844 as the official date.
Of course nothing of note happened on October 22, 1844. In what became known as "The Great Disappointment", Miller and his followers were forced to accept the reality that Jesus Christ had not returned to the earth. Long story short, Miller's credibility was shot and he and a large number of his followers faded away into oblivion (it is worth noting that Miller never gave up on his hope for the "Second Advent". He vehemently defended his beliefs all the way to his death in 1849).
What is interesting to note about Miller's end of the world prediction is how even its utter failure inspired scores of Millerites to break off and create their own movement. Instead of recognizing the failure of Miller's prediction, many came up with alternative interpretations for what had happened on October 22, 1844. In what became known as the doctrine of Divine Investigative Judgement (which is still a fundamental component of Seventh-day Adventist theology to this day), Hiram Edson and a few others taught that the judgment of God's professed people began on October 22, 1844 when Christ entered the "Holy of Holies in the heavenly sanctuary." Using scripture to defend their position (see Daniel 7:9-10, 1 Peter 4:17 and Revelation 20:12), Edson & Co. were able to "vindicate the saints" before God.
In addition to this unique interpretation, others came up with the "shut door" doctrine, which juxtaposed the events of October 22, 1844 with Jesus' 10 Virgins parable. The "shut door" suggested that the sincere followers of Christ (those who truly waited for him as the brides waited for the bridegroom) would be accepted into the kingdom, while the foolish brides would be cast out. In other words, Christ had seen and recognized those who were waiting for him on the date predicted, and their efforts would not be in vain. In many ways, this interpretation would be repeated at a later date by another Miller break off (the Jehovah's Witnesses) who also had specific dates for Jesus' return to the earth. When he didn't appear in person, leaders were quick to make the assertion that Christ had "returned in spirit."
In conclusion, regardless of whether or not you believe in the Rapture today, a future date or not at all, American religion is likely to continue to employ the end-of-days doctrine that has become so very popular in our society today. And keep in mind this: Harold Camping may seem like just another geriatric nut-job but the movement he has created may lead to even bigger things.
Just look at what William Miller's prediction caused.
So Mike Huckabee isn't running for president in 2012 (hard to believe that candidates are ALREADY starting to jockey for position in the 2012 race when 2011 is still just getting started).
But that doesn't mean that he hasn't been making waves.
Over the past couple of months, Huckabee has been focusing his attention on history, "positive" American history to be exact. Huckabee's newest project, entitled "Learn Our History", attempts to present an "objective", pro-American interpretation of our nation's past, free from the smears and errors of current historical revisionists:
Many of our schools and teachers today haven't found ways to make history for kids fun. Instead, they’re teaching with political bias that distorts facts for the sake of political correctness. As a result, our national pride and patriotism are in jeopardy.
And on his Fox show:
Of course this isn't the first time Huckabee has been caught in a historical tug-o-war. It was only a couple months ago that Huckabee stated made the claim that all Americans needed to listen to pseudo-historian and Christian Nation Apologist David Bartonat gunpoint if necessary. And during the 2008 presidential primaries, it was Huckabee who regurgitated the Barton myth that "The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave people, most of whom, by the way, were clergymen." In addition, it was Huckabee who asserted his belief that the Constitution needed to be amended to fit the standards of God's holy word (the Bible).
And though I personally have no problem with Huckabee's desire to promote patriotism and a love for America's beautiful heritage, I do question his objectivity. After all, isn't it both necessary and appropriate for historians to point out the negative aspects of our past? This is where Huckabee is, in my opinion, in error. The perceived "attacks" on Huckabee's new project are not exclusively based on a hatred for America but rather on his clear bias. Maybe Huckabee's intentions are pure but it's hard to believe he is free from the "political bias" he laments. When his presentation praises all things Reagan, but never make mention of FDR in his WWII cartoon, one has to wonder how he came to such conclusions.
Of course this is all to be expected. Since when has a political pundit NOT used history to further his/her agenda? It's just further evidence that the culture warriors lack the true historical integrity needed to sustain any legitimate discussion on our nation's TRUE history.
I guess the old adage is true: political history isn't history; it's politics.
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."
"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.
If you've followed my posts over the past couple of years it should come as no surprise that I absolutely, 100% reject the "America is a Christian Nation" nonsense. My reasons for such a stance are numerous (and I won't dive into them today) but sufficeth me to say that I believe such as stance is actually quite anti-Christian in nature. With that said, I don't want to be misunderstood here. This does not mean that I believe religion played no role in the founding of America. Quite the contrary. I believe it was (and still is) a fundamental component of American republicanism; one that we cannot and should not do without. Religious freedom and diversity is as important to us as are our separation of powers.
And I don't believe I am alone in my beliefs. The role of religion has always been a difficult juggling act throughout American history. The question of when and how religion can be taken too far (or not far enough) in relation to government was a question even our Founding Fathers wrestled with. And in our modern era the story is no different.
Which bring us to today, which is, by presidential proclamation, the National Day of Prayer. And as can be expected, the typical pro and con voices of "reason" have emerged to support/lament this time-honored practice of fighting over prayer, more specifically prayer being sanctioned by government officials. And though I tend to oppose the "Christian Nation" crowd on a regular basis, I am choosing to stand with them today. The National Day of Prayer is a good thing and the secularists need to back off. Here's why:
First off, let's travel back a ways to the era of our Founders. Yes, many of them were "Theistic Rationalists," "Unitarians," "Deists," "atheists" or any other "ist" you can think of. However, these same heathens LOVED to pray (it's true). Take, for example, the First Continental Congress. You all know the story. It was suggested that the first official act of business should be to begin with a prayer but when deadlocked over who should give that prayer, Samuel Adams (a pious man to say the least) arose and stated that he was "no bigot, and could hear a Prayer from any gentleman of Piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his Country." Shortly thereafter, Jacob Duché, an Anglican minister, was selected to lead the group in prayer.
Fast forward to the war for independence. One of the first General Orders issued by General Washington required soldiers to adhere to a moral code that included prayer:
The General most earnestly requires, and expects, a due observance of those articles of war, established for the Government of the army, which forbid profane cursing, swearing and drunkeness; And in like manner requires and expects, of all Officers, and Soldiers, not engaged on actual duty, a punctual attendance on divine Service, to implore the blessings of heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense.
And then there is the case of John Hanson, president of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, who, in 1782, issued a proclamation calling for a national day of thanksgiving in which the nation was to "give thanks to God" for their good fortune during the war.
And let us not forget, despite the controversy over whether or not he said "So Help Me God", President George Washington stated in his first inaugural address:
No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.
Of course not everyone liked the idea of prayer being sanctioned by government. In 1812, John Adams actually lamented his call for a national day of prayer and thanksgiving:
The National Fast, recommended by me turned me out of office. It was connected with the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which I had no concern in. That assembly has alarmed and alienated Quakers, Anabaptists, Mennonists, Moravians, Swedenborgians, Methodists, Catholicks, protestant Episcopalians, Arians, Socinians, Armenians, & & &, Atheists and Deists might be added. A general Suspicion prevailed that the Presbyterian Church was ambitious and aimed at an Establishment of a National Church. I was represented as a Presbyterian and at the head of this political and ecclesiastical Project. The secret whisper ran through them “Let us have Jefferson, Madison, Burr, any body, whether they be Philosophers, Deists, or even Atheists, rather than a Presbyterian President.” This principle is at the bottom of the unpopularity of national Fasts and Thanksgivings. Nothing is more dreaded than the National Government meddling with Religion."
Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the time for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and right can never be safer than in their hands, where the Constitution has deposited it. ...civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.
~Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808.
There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive Proclamations of fasts & festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms. In this sense, I presume you reserve to the Govt. a right to appoint particular days for religious worship throughout the State, without any penal sanction enforcing the worship.
~James Madison to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822.
And while most modern presidents have followed suit by declaring national days of prayer (Harry Truman even signed a bill requiring presidents to do just that), some presidents sided with Jefferson. Presidents Ulysses S. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt spoke up for what Roosevelt called "absolutely nonsectarian public schools." Roosevelt added that it is "not our business to have the Protestant Bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in schools."
Yes, truly the debate over prayer has a long and tedious history. As Diana Butler, author of the controversial book, A People's History of Christianity points out:
When it comes to prayer, Americans love to fight -- and our prayers have driven us apart. Arguing over prayer is an American tradition.
In the 1600s, Puritans rejected the formalized prayer of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and founded their own churches as a way of protesting state-supported prayer. For their trouble, the Anglicans put them in jail. When they got out, they left England and settled in the New World. But the Anglicans were already there with their own colonies and outlawed Puritan prayers again. So the Puritans outlawed Anglican prayer in their own colonies. Quakers, disgusted with the Puritan-Anglican quarrel, rejected verbal prayers altogether, choosing to pray silently instead.
In the 1740s, during the Great Awakening, the new evangelical preachers practiced extemporaneous prayer. They rejected all written prayers in favor of being "moved by the Spirit" and making up public prayers on the spot. Many in traditional churches -- Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Congregationalists -- found extemporaneous prayer to be theologically shallow and "unlearned" and forbade its exercise in their churches. These groups didn't imprison each other over prayer. Instead, they consigned each other to hell and set up rival denominations to insure their own salvation. American churches split over prayer, leaving some to free-form prayer and others to written and ritualized prayers.
After the Revolutionary War, a puzzling question arose: Whose prayer would undergird the new nation? How might prayer be practiced in the commons? What words should bless state functions?
The political leaders (perhaps recognizing that prayer was above their pay grade) came up with a unique and practical answer: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." In other words, "We won't touch that prayer-thing with a twenty-foot pole. You are on your own, people."
Of course, the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the Constitution didn't solve anything. Congress, despite trying to avoid the issue, had chaplains -- most typically of the formal type -- who prayed for their work. And Americans -- even in the early period when most of them were Protestants -- kept arguing over whose prayer was theologically accurate and most spiritually effective. Entire denominations were formed on the basis of devotional style. And as Americans argued and denominations split over prayer, religious leaders and politicians continued to proclaim days of prayer for national unity.
And though it's likely that the debate over prayer's role in the halls of government is sure to remain for as long as the stars and stripes continue to fly, I believe it is important for us all to recognize one important fact: whether you favor prayer being intertwined with government or not we must acknowledge its role in American history. Americans are, for the most part, a prayer-loving people. I am reminded of the very first post ever done at my other blog (American Creation) entitled, "Did Washington Pray at Valley Forge?" In that post, I pointed out that the story of Washington kneeling in prayer (and made famous by Arnold Frieberg's now infamous painting) is surely a farce. Despite its obvious mythology, fellow blogger Brian Tubbs made an excellent point. He stated, in this blog's first ever comment:
Whether GW knelt in prayer at Valley Forge as depicted by the paintings is like asking whether he stood in the boat when he crossed the Delaware. GW probably didn't kneel in the snow at Valley Forge. But I'm sure he prayed at Valley Forge. That GW prayed in the exact manner depicted in the famous painting may be called into question. That he was a man of prayer cannot be challenged.
And so it is with prayer on a national level. Perhaps we are not a Christian Nation and that a separation of church and state does keep the men of the cloth from dictating policy. This truth, however, does not mean that we need to throw the baby out with the bath water. We have been, and probably always will be, a nation of praying people.
And maybe both the pro and anti-prayer advocates can appeal to Jesus for a resolution on this matter:
"Thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men...
"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret." ~ Matt. 6:5-6
A Brief History of Cinco de Mayo and its Important Role in American History
Happy Cinco de Mayo everyone!
With the recent controversy over immigration, this year's Cinco de Mayo celebrations have been obscured by political, social and racial tensions, all which have created a climate of animosity between two nations that actually share more in common than they realize. Now, it's not my intent today to weigh in on the current immigration issue. I know that both sides of this issue feel passionate about their views and believe they are justified in their respective protests. With that said, I ask that you check your politics at the door. This post isn't political in nature but instead focuses on the forgotten history of this day...a day that even Americans should be thankful for.
For whatever reason, most people think Cinco de Mayo is the Mexican independence day. Not so. Mexican independence day is actually celebrated on September 16th (this year will be the 201st anniversary of Mexican independence). Cinco de Mayo is a commemoration of an important battle that impacted both Mexico and the United States.
On the morning of May 5, 1862, while the United States was embroiled in its greatest crisis (the Civil War) Mexican forces under the command of General Ignacio Zaragoza Seguín soundly defeated a French invasion in what became known as the Battle of Puebla. This unlikely victory not only shocked the invading French, but it also sent sound waves to the North. American leaders (better put Union leaders) were overjoyed at the news that the Mexican Army had defeated the French. After all, the French had been unofficially favoring the Confederacy, hoping that a Southern victory would help to cripple the United States. In fact, President Abraham Lincoln was so concerned with the impending French invasion of Mexico that he granted permission to several hundred Union soldiers to join up with the Mexican military. Many Union leaders sincerely believed that America's future depended on a Mexican victory. It was no mystery that French Emperor Napoleon III, who detested the United States, hoped that the invasion, occupation and eventual domination of Mexico might serve to better supply the Confederacy and once again give France a legitimate presence in the Western Hemisphere.
It seems that Mexico, however, did not get that memo. The French invasion was forced to retreat with their tails between their legs, humiliated and soundly beaten by the "inferior" Mexicans. Their quest for conquest died a sudden death as did their desire to provide aid to the Southern Confederacy. This shift in momentum came at a perfect time for the Struggling United States. It is no mystery that the early part of 1862 was not a high mark for the Union. Robert E. Lee was on a roll, the South was still strong and the Union was in desperate need of a turn of fortune. Cinco de Mayo (or perhaps better put, the Battle of Puebla) gave them at least a small turn of that fortune. This shift in momentum was later coupled with the Union victory at Gettysburg (just 2 months after 5 de Mayo). Without the coveted French aid, Confederate forces eventually succumbed to the obvious superiority of the Union's resources and manpower.
Now, I'm not suggesting that those brave 4,000 Mexican soldiers (and the few hundred Americans who accompanied them at the Battle of Puebla) saved the United States. Nobody knows what would have happened had the French won on that day. Perhaps they would have been able to strengthen the Confederacy enough to give the Union a longer fight. Perhaps not. Nobody knows. But those points miss the main point: Cinco de Mayo matters to the United States. If Americans are able to embrace and accept the Irish St. Patrick's Day holiday, surely we have enough room to accept and embrace Cinco de Mayo. After all, it had a legitimate impact on our history. At a time when our nation was saturated with nothing but crisis, our southern neighbors gave us a hand. I think that calls for a day of celebration!
Everyone raise your Coronas and Tamales! Viva Mexico y Los Estados Unidos! Feliz Cinco de Mayo a Todos!
Sorry for my absence from blogging. Life has just been busy. In an effort to return to my blogging roots I have decided to post the following videos. The first is of renowned early American historian Gordon Wood (my favorite American historian). In the video, Dr. Wood discusses the role that religion played during the founding of America. The second video is of well-know atheist Christopher Hitchens, who discusses the same thing.
What I find interesting in these two videos is that both men draw some of the same conclusions but from different angles. Wood makes it clear, from a historical perspective, that religion was a big deal for the American masses, but that the key Founding Fathers (Jefferson, Madison, etc.) held reservations as to how religion was to be treated in a republic. Essentially Wood makes it clear that though skeptical of organized religion, the Founders understood that religion (in the general sense) was necessary for a republic to survive. On the other hand, Hitchens argues that the founders saw religion as a threat to any free society, and endeavored to have its power and influence put in check. Take a look:
Wood:
Hitchens:
Now it might be our nature to give Wood more credit than Hitchens, since he's a historical juggenraut and doesn't have the disdain for religion that Hitchens exhibits on a regular basis. I myself admit that I agree more with Wood's synopsis. However, Hitchens does make some valid points that Wood himself makes from a different angle. Hitchens is right when he points out that the founders saw organized, government-sanctioned religion as a terrible threat to the infant republic. But Hitchens' assumption that the key founders detested religion in the general sense just isn't true. As Wood points out, religion was still a big deal to the masses of colonial America, and as the infant U.S. became more democratic, their religious zeal found new outlets, hense the massive Evangelical explosion of the early 1800s (not to forget the explosion by other groups like the Mormons, Shakers, etc.).
Yes, America's favorite imported Irish holiday replete with drinking, shamrocks, leprechauns and hidden pots of gold is upon us! And while it's fun to enjoy the wonderful symbols of this day while adorning one's self in your favorite shade of green, let us not forget that St. Patrick's Day has a unique history that might surprise some.
The origins of Boston’s Irish community stretch back to the early 18th century when considerable numbers of Ulster Presbyterians came to New England in search of economic opportunity and the religious and political freedom which the Penal Laws denied to Dissenters and Roman Catholics alike. Merchants and artisans of Ulster stock founded the Charitable Irish Society in 1737 with the express purpose of assisting fellow Irish immigrants in the traumatic process of settling in a strange new city and country.
Interestingly enough, these Irish immigrants from Ulster were NOT Catholic but Protestant. Their Presbyterian beliefs had also incorporated the St. Patrick's Day holiday as more of an expression of cultural heritage rather than a recognition of Catholic faith and tradition.
Approximately three decades later, New York City became host to the first ever official parade commemorating the celebration of St. Patrick's Day in America. On that day, Irish soldiers, serving in the British military, marched proudly through the streets of New York, while eager crowds gathered to praise their bravery during the Seven Years' War (French & Indian War) and to recognize their Irish heritage.
What? Where did the green go you ask? How un-Irish of me you say! Well, the answer is actually based in the history of this day. It was during the early part of the 17th century that the celebration of St. Patrick's Day became the officially recognized feast of Ireland. During those first centuries, St. Patrick's Day was regularly recognized with the customary blue, since blue was associated with the ancient colors of Ireland (and St. Patrick himself). If we had lived during this time it would be blue clothing, food, decorations, etc. that we would see throughout town, not green. It wasn't until many years later that the "wearing of the green," meaning to wear a shamrock on one's clothing, made its appearance, thus forever changing the "official" color of St. Patrick's Day.
And perhaps we should change the blue to orange, since many Protestants actually chose to wear orange on this day as a symbol of defiance to the Catholic faith. And while this tradition is still continued by some Irish Protestants to this day, it is interesting to note that many attribute the wearing of orange to William of Orange (William III), who defeated the Catholic King James II to take over the throne of England. Perhaps those who credit William III should remember that the "Orange" in William's nickname has nothing to do with the color, but the French province in southern France. In fact, the orange color in Ireland's flag is actually used to recognize Ireland's Protestant minority.
So should we start pinching those not wearing blue...or orange??? Either way, a very happy St. Patrick's Day to you all!
