Much thanks to Jeff Jacoby, the late Paul Harvey, and all the others who have written and spoken about the fates of the signers, to keep their story alive.
Monday, July 4, 2022
Mankind's Greatest Hour
Monday, May 30, 2022
Memorial Day
Today is Memorial Day -- a day set aside not so we can grill burgers and toss back beers while the kids swim in the pool. It is set aside for the solemn purpose of honoring our servicemen who died while defending America's citizens from the myriad enemies who have sought to drive freedom from our shores.
To observe past Memorial Days, I have published a couple letters that were written by soldiers during wartime. Here they are again.
* * * * *
Saturday, April 23, 2022
The Reality
This post was first published in 2015.
"Word deflation" has become almost epidemic in our society. For example, above-average sports performances are so often called "great" that the word has lost its meaning.
Within moments, vengeance-minded people swept through the train and carried Hose off at gunpoint. A separate train, consisting of only one coach car in addition to the locomotive and coal car, was quickly assembled to transport him to Newnan. Roughly 150 "escorts," most if not all of whom were armed, crammed into it to make sure he did not escape en route. When the train arrived, mob justice was waiting.
But here is what really happened to people back when lynching was stunningly commonplace in this ethically conceived nation, and you need not take my word for it -- instead, take the words of articles that were written at the time, like this one from the Springfield Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts, reporting on Sam Hose's death:
Notice the nonchalant nature of the words, how the murder of a human being is described as antiseptically as the dissection of a fish in a high school science class... Notice the use of the word "negro" instead of "man"... And keep in mind that Hose being "deprived of" his ears, fingers and genitals (i.e., having them cut off with knives) occurred while he was still alive and very much awake.
According to this thoroughly researched book by Phillip Dray, Hose kept his fear hidden until he saw sunlight reflect off the blade of someone's knife, after which he pleaded that the mob kill him quickly. Of course, his plea was denied because "the mob's act of retribution would be considered something of a failure if Hose did not die a prolonged, painful death."
He was stripped of his clothes and tied to a pine trunk atop a pyre, which had been built of lumber, limbs, fence posts, and railroad ties. Dray provides the following account of the lynching:
The torture of the victim lasted almost half an hour. It began when a man stepped forward and very matter-of-factly sliced off Hose's ears. Then several men grabbed Hose's arms and held them forward so his fingers could be severed one by one and shown to the crowd. Finally, a blade was passed between his thighs. Hose cried in agony, and a moment later his genitals were held aloft.
From the crude incisions he'd suffered, the bound, naked man was soon covered with bright crimson blood from head to foot, and must have appeared at last to be the "black devil" the newspapers had made him out to be all along. It was the last clear glimpse the crowd had of him, for with the command "Come on with the oil!" three men lifted the large can of kerosene and dumped its contents over Sam Hose's head, and the pyre was set ablaze.
"Sweet Jesus!" Hose was heard to exclaim, and these were believed to be his last words. As the flames began licking at his legs and smoke entered his nose, eyes, and mouth he turned his head desperately from side to side. To the crowd's astonishment he somehow managed to reach back and, pushing with all his might against the tree to which he was chained, snapped the bonds around his chest, bursting a blood vessel in his neck with the strain of his exertions. For a moment it appeared this writhing, half-dead apparition might break free and stagger into the crowd, but the whites rushed forward and, using several large, heavy pieces of wood, pushed him back into the fire and pinned him down. One of these logs was near his head, and with a last desperate effort Hose grimaced and sank his teeth into it, then died.
Word of Hose's capture reached Atlanta before the lynching was carried out. So, too, did word that the lynching was planned, and trains were hastily chartered to transport people to Newnan so they could watch it like spectators at a sporting event. Therefore, when the sun climbed into the sky on April 24th, W.E.B. Du Bois was very much aware of what had happened outside of Newnan the day before.
31 years old at the time and already a renowned author, Du Bois had been living in Atlanta for two years. Troubled by what he had already learned while researching lynching, and by the fact that Sam Hose had just been lynched not far from where he lived, Du Bois decided to do something about it. He donned his best clothes, grabbed his walking cane, left his home, and began walking through downtown. He carried with him a letter of introduction to Joe Harris, an editorial writer for the Atlanta Constitution who openly supported black rights and condemned lynching.
Du Bois's intention, as he later told it, was to speak with Harris and "try to put before the South what happened in cases of this sort, and try to see if I couldn't start some sort of movement." As he made his way down Mitchell Street, however, he heard that Sam Hose's knuckles had been brought to Atlanta and were on sale at a grocery store mere blocks away. This news delivered a shock that Du Bois said "pulled me off my feet," and likely drove him to fear. It prodded him to turn around and head back home, and his hoped-for meeting with Harris never happened.
That, my friends, is what it means to be lynched. And the victims of every lynching include more than the person who was actually lynched.
Consider the case of Sam Hose. He was of course the primary victim, but when you read about the horrors of his final hour, it becomes easy to forget that Alfred Cranford also died a horrific death when the blade of an axe was smashed into his skull eleven days earlier.
Then there was Mattie Cranford, who, at best, witnessed the killing of her husband; or, at worst, witnessed his killing and was then immediately and violently raped while his corpse laid nearby. Mattie was only 24 at the time and died just 23 years later, after moving inside of Newnan's town limits and living a sullen life, sewing to support her family and rarely leaving the house
Which brings us to the matter of her and Alfred's children. Obviously, they were left fatherless by the events of 1899, but what I did not mention above is that they were also injured during the attack that left their father dead. The youngest son, Clifford, was blinded in his left eye.
All black residents in the area were victims, in that they must have lived the remainder of their lives on a razor's edge of fear, knowing what fate could befall them if somebody decided to accuse them of a crime.
Hose's mother was a victim, left ill and frail and without her son.
The consciences of white people in the area -- those who were sickened by the wickedness of the lynching yet had to keep living amid those who did it -- were also victims
Honor was a victim because the Newnan residents who tried to stop the lynching -- one of whom was a former governor, William Yates Atkinson -- never got the recognition they deserved.
Truth was a victim because there is no way to know if Hose was innocent or guilty of killing Alfred and raping Mattie.
Justice was a victim because Hose was killed without proof of wrongdoing, without even being allowed to defend himself... and justice was also a victim because if Hose was in fact innocent, then it means the killer walked free and remained able to harm others.
W.E.B. Du Bois's faith in humanity and the United States were victims, for he lost them both and understandably so. Although he went on to have a long and decent life, often advocating for civil rights and not dying until the age of 95, it is a stain on our history that one of our most brilliant minds wound up feeling compelled to flee into the arms of Communist sympathizing; and I can't help but wonder if the lynching of San Hose was a major reason that happened.
And, though it is easy not to think about them, the souls of some of the people who participated in the lynching were victims, as were the souls of some of the people who watched and enjoyed it. It has been said that several perpetrators struggled with emotional problems for the remainder of their days. In 2006, a Coweta County retiree said that an older relative once confessed to having participated in the lynching and to spending the rest of his life struggling to come to terms with his actions that night. The anguish of the guilty in this case was as nothing compared to the anguish of the innocent -- and I suspect it was no different than the anguish of Marley's ghost, who declared "I wear the chain I forged in life" -- yet I do believe that for some of them, it was just as sincere as it was deserved.
Addendum: There is an interesting side note regarding Joe Harris, the editorial writer that W.E.B. Du Bois intended to meet with. Although he went by Joe Harris as a journalist, people today are more likely to know him by his full given name, Joel Chandler Harris, under which he wrote the Uncle Remus stories when he was younger.
Monday, April 18, 2022
247 years ago
But as with all mass "remembrances" of things that happened long ago, some of the things people assume to be true are not. In the case of Paul Revere's ride, the inaccuracies cut both ways and are of differing levels of importance.
Generations upon generations of American schoolchildren have been told that Revere warned farmers and villagers that "the British are coming!" Those schoolchildren have grown up and passed along that telling to their own kids. In reality, however, what Revere said that night was "the Regulars are coming out." That quote is from his own subsequent account, and from accounts of those he warned. It would never have occurred to him to say "the British are coming!" because he himself was British and so was everyone else in the 13 colonies.
For Revere to have warned people that "the British are coming" would be like me telling my neighbors that state troopers are entering the neighborhood by saying "the Floridians are coming." It would not have made sense. But by keeping the "British are coming" narrative alive for so long, and casually saying that the subsequent Revolutionary War was against "the British," we citizens of the United States have unwittingly distorted something important about our nation's genesis. Specifically, we have abetted a myth which holds that the idea of individual human beings having rights upon which government may not infringe was born on these shores, in the brains of our Founding Fathers. In reality, that idea -- which I fervently believe and which I do indeed "hold to be self-evident" -- was born not in American colonies of the 1700's but in southern England of the 1200's.
A full 558 years before the Boston Tea Party, 560 before Paul Revere's ride, and 561 before the Declaration of Independence, the outline of individual rights that would later serve as the basis for the United States was laid out in the Magna Carta, in the year 1215. Because human nature is human nature and political power abhors a vacuum, the British government infringed on those rights as the centuries passed, but the Magna Carta did not disappear from the British public conscience. In the 1500's an upsurge of interest in that document was kindled; and in the 1600's, Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke argued in favor of the freedom that was enshrined in it.
When our Founding Fathers pushed back against the monarchy of the 1700's, they did not do so with the belief that they were sailing uncharted philosophical waters. They did so because they believed, accurately, that their rights as British citizens had been violated by a British government that was acting counter to British ideals. They considered themselves the true Britons and the rulers from London the false Britons. The notion of a separate American identity decoupled from any British identity probably never entered their minds, yet a separate identity is what came to be. Most Americans living today wrongly believe that a separate identity was part of the plan.
I am not sure exactly how to build the bridge between the inaccuracy I just noted and the one I am about to note, so I won't even attempt to build it. However, the inaccuracy is worth noting and there may be no better time to do it than when talking about Paul Revere's ride, so here I go -- and it is related to, of all things, race.
I am a history buff who grew up in a house where history was frequently discussed, and I always did good in school, always taking advanced classes, so it says something bad about American schools that I never heard of Crispus Attucks or Peter Salem until I was grown. Rather than learn their names when I studied AP American History, I learned them by reading the text of a speech that was given by Duke Ellington in 1941, in which he passionately made the case that black Americans are historically loyal to and historically integral to the United States.
Opining that "although numerically but ten percent of the mammoth chorus that today, with an eye overseas, sings 'America' with fervor and thanksgiving, I say our ten percent is the very heart of the chorus," Ellington mentioned that "America is reminded of the feats of Crispus Attucks, Peter Salem, black armies in the Revolution..." Realizing that those names had been mentioned with the assumption that listeners knew them (in the era of Jim Crow, no less) got me to researching, and I learned things that most Americans would have a hard time believing.
Crispus Attucks was born a slave, circa 1723 in the vicinity of Framingham, Massachusetts, which tells you that slavery was not just a Southern thing. Attucks was the son of a black man and Natick Indian woman, and at some point in his adult life became either a free man or a runaway slave who was not seriously pursued. What is known for sure is that he became a productive rope-maker, seaman, and goods-trader who was known and respected on the Boston docks.
On March 2, 1770, five years before Paul Revere's ride, a fight erupted between redcoats and Boston rope-makers. Three nights later, the dispute escalated when five Bostonians were killed by redcoats in an event that came to be known as the Boston Massacre. Many historians consider the massacre to be the first violent act that started history's train chugging toward the Revolutionary War, and because Attucks was the first colonist to die in the massacre, he -- a biracial man born a slave, hailing from the only two races that have experienced systemic legal racism in America -- is considered by many to be the first fatality of the American Revolution. Today you can visit his final resting place in Beantown's third-oldest cemetery.
Meanwhile, Peter Salem was also born a slave in the vicinity of Framingham. His original slave master, Jeremiah Belknap, at some point sold him to Lawson Buckminster. In 1775, when Salem was believed to be 25 years old, Buckminster granted him freedom and he enlisted in the Continental Army to combat the redcoats.
Salem was literally involved in Paul Revere's ride because he fought as a minuteman during the skirmish in Concord. One week later he enlisted with the 5th Massachusetts Regiment and went on to fight at the famous Battles of Bunker Hill, Saratoga, and Stony Point.
One of the colonists' main achievements at Bunker Hill was the killing of British Major John Pitcairn as the battle unfolded. It is known that Salem was one of the soldiers who shot Pitcairn, and generally believed that his shot was the first to strike him. Salem's role was publicly acknowledged as far back as 1786, when a famous painting by John Trumbull depicted him holding a musket as Pitcairn fell. In 1968, that portion of the painting (excluding the image of Pitcairn on the ground) was reproduced as this U.S. postage stamp.
After the war Salem built a cabin near Leicester, Massachusetts, where he lived most of his remaining days subsisting as a gardener and cane-weaver. He was reportedly well-liked by the townspeople and enjoyed regaling children by telling them stories of the war. Upon his death in 1816, he was laid to rest at the Old Burying Ground in his birth town of Framingham. In 1882 Framingham established an annual Peter Salem Day, and the town still observes his birthday each October 1st.
None of which is to deny that slavery was America's Original Sin, or that racial inequality in non-slave areas was American's Original Sin Part 1(b). These historical facts do, however, show that the racial jumble which existed at America's founding was not as cut-and-dry as most people assume. They show that the Revolution was supported by more people than just the rich and "lily white." These things need to be understood and taught in order for future generations to have a true, balanced understanding (and appreciation) of how America got to where it is.
The train of history does not follow an inevitable track. It changes direction over and over again based on the actions and inactions of men and women. If a bunch of ticked-off English property owners had not precipitated the drafting of the Magna Carta in 1215... if later encroachments by the British monarchy had not incited people to hold the Magna Carta dear to their hearts... if the likes of John Locke had not later written clearly about the ideals of liberty that were at its heart... if, later still, Adam Smith had not written about how those ideals apply to economics and lead to mutually beneficial free trade... if the Founding Fathers had not read the likes of Locke and Smith, and not sought to re-assert individual rights against the monarchy's despotic aims... if Crispus Attucks, by being murdered along with four other Bostonians in 1770, had not helped make commoners feel antipathy to the crown... if Paul Revere had not chosen to warn colonists with his midnight ride, so that the colonists could prevent the British Regulars from stealing their arms... if Peter Salem had not been at Bunker Hill to shoot Major Pitcairn and deprive the British military of one of its most creative leaders... if America's early abolitionists were not able to point to heroic actions by the likes of Peter Salem, in order to give some of their uncertain countrymen pause and thereby keep their movement alive... well, who knows what would have happened? Those are a lot of ifs, and every one of them was an important link in a very long chain that eventually led to freedom expanding its reach and slavery being abolished in North America.
Today is a day for reflection on our shared past, and a time for figuring out how we can learn from that past to decide what course we should take in today's extremely dangerous world. We must take pains to ensure that our national memory first gets strengthened, and that it then gets preserved, if we have any hope of being confident and self-assured as we face the future.
Friday, April 15, 2022
Good Friday
This post was first published in 2021.
My most recent post highlighted logical reasons for believing that the resurrection of Jesus actually occurred, and why Christians should not be sheepish about saying so.
Yesterday was Holy Thursday (sometimes called Maundy Thursday) which commemorates the Last Supper, and today is Good Friday which commemorates Jesus's trial, scourging, and crucifixion.
The specific year in which those events took place is up for debate, seeing as how the BC/AD delineation (or BCE/CE, if you prefer) was not yet devised, but it's almost certain that it was sometime between 30 and 38 AD. Regardless of the year, the overlapping nighttime hours between the events are when Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane and Judas betrayed him in exchange for thirty pieces of silver.
There have been several times I've been in conversation about the importance of prayer and have pointed to a scene from the Gospel of Luke in which, the day before Jesus chose his twelve disciples, he "went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God." I've basically said "he's Jesus, if even he needs to pray, and pray all night, then surely we need to pray too." But as important as that example of praying is, I don't know why I usually cite it instead of the example in Gethsemane -- for the latter is probably the most poignant moment in the entire Bible.
Because we get so hung up on the idea of Jesus being divine, we tend to forget that he was also fully human while he was here on Earth. He was trapped, as it were, in a human body with all of its limitations and frailties, and therefore with much of the trepidation that can result from those limitations and frailties.
Jesus felt pain just like us, and needed rest just like us. His bones could be broken, his skin torn, his arteries ruptured, etc.
It is significant that he did not sin, but the reason that's significant is that he pulled it off while still subject to the lures of temptation.
Because Jesus was born a baby and had to grow up, he was not born with a brain that already knew his divine nature. That was something he would need to learn as he grew, and it is not clear if he had learned it before he was 12 and Mary and Joseph found him in the temple.
He felt joy and sadness -- John 11:35 famously records that upon the death of Lazarus, "Jesus wept" -- and, yes, he even felt fear, which fueled his prayer in Gethsemane. Knowing the unthinkably terrifying pain that awaited him the following day, Jesus described himself as "overwhelmed" and asked his disciples to "stay here and keep watch with me." Then he walked "a little farther" and "fell with his face to the ground and prayed, 'My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.'"
Thus he asked to be spared from crucifixion, despite knowing full well that crucifixion was the whole reason he was sent here and born of Mary. In fact he asked three times that night to be spared, yet concluded his praying with resignation by saying: "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."
It is a moment unlike any other in history. In our modern age, it is best captured by this scene from The Passion of the Christ. It's too easy for us to forget about the fact of Jesus's humanity, and sometimes it's difficult to force ourselves to think about just what his humanity meant; but when you watch that movie, especially the scene I just linked to and this scene of him being whipped, there is no way to avoid thinking about his humanity and suffering.
On this Good Friday (and frankly, on every other day as well) we should remember Jesus's torment and the reason he willingly endured it. We should appreciate that gift and indulge in it.
And as I was getting at earlier, we should remember that prayer is also a divine gift, one that Jesus himself saw need to use, so we should appreciate that gift and indulge in it too.
I have recently been reading Meditations on the Passion and Death of Christ, which was written in the 1860's by somebody I had not heard of until a few weeks ago: Father Ignazio del Costato di Gesu. I don't know if it's the Catholicism or the 1860's authorship that makes its reading seem more slow and its wording more flowery than I am accustomed to -- it's probably both -- but it is definitely worth the read, and on page 17 it contains a sentence that strikes me as something every human being needs to read and commit to memory: "The slightest trouble, or the most unimportant business, distracts you from prayer, and the consequences of neglecting to strengthen your soul with that heavenly food is that you become weak and languid, sink down, and fall into sin."
I can't say it in any better than that, so I won't try.
Have a happy, reflective, and thankful Easter weekend everyone.
Sunday, April 10, 2022
Resurrection
Today is Palm Sunday, designated to memorialize a particular day almost 2,000 years ago (specific date unknown) that an itinerant, 33-year-old, rabble-rousing, street rabbi from Nazareth rode a donkey into the city of Jerusalem.
We often hear the phrase "according to Christians" or "according to Christian tradition" grafted onto the beginning of articles which go on to state that during the fifth through seventh days after his arrival in Jerusalem, this street rabbi was arrested, sentenced to death, killed by crucifixion, then rose from the dead... and that he then proceeded to spend 40 days walking around, sermonizing to people and instructing his disciples to become apostles by spending the rest of their lives teaching the world about him... and that after those 40 days were up, he departed Earth not by dying but by ascending (being supernaturally teleported, if you will) into Heaven... and that although he was fully human on Earth, he was also God Himself, having chosen to become flesh and bone and to enter the material world in order to engage in a supreme act of spiritual warfare that transcended the material world and reverberated through the supernatural one.
We cannot blame people for using "according to" language when discussing this account. It is not the kind of account that even sounds possible, much less plausible, at first blush -- especially in our modern age here in the Western world.
Even among believers, many (most?) Christians accept the resurrection account with a faith that is divorced from historical evidence. It is fair for critics to refer to such faith as "blind."
But what if there is historical evidence? (There is.)
And what if the evidence is so strong that an overwhelming majority of historians, including those who are atheists and skeptics, concede to it? (It is.)
* * * * *
There are six things about which experts in ancient history agree. I hate to sound like a broken record, but I am going to re-emphasize what I said just one paragraph above: Even the experts who are atheists and skeptics agree on the six things, and they do so in overwhelming numbers. The six things are as follows:
One: Jesus was an actual person.
Two: Jesus died by crucifixion during the governance of Pontius Pilate.
Three: Jesus's body was buried in a tomb.
Four: After his body was buried, both friends and enemies of Jesus claimed to have seen him alive again in the flesh... and their belief about what they saw was so strong and sincere that their behavior was radically and permanently changed, and there is no record of a single one of them ever recanting despite being violently persecuted and some of them even being put to death for their claims.
Five: Resurrection claims were made extraordinarily soon after Jesus's death and were opposed by the entire power structure of Jerusalem, both Roman and Jewish.
Six: Despite that resistance by the power structure, Jesus's corpse was never removed from the tomb and presented as evidence that he had not risen, although that should have been exceedingly easy to do. (In other words, the tomb was empty.)
I hope you don't mind hearing my broken record skip yet again, but now I'm going to repeat that these six things are agreed upon even by atheists and skeptics who are experts in the field of ancient history. They are accepted as being true even by professionals who doubt the overall accuracy of the Bible.
Of course this does not prove that Jesus rose from the dead, not in the conventional sense that to "prove" something means to confirm it with absolute, one hundred percent certainty. But then again, nothing can be proved to that degree of certainty.
People earnestly and fairly disagree about whether or not Jesus was resurrected, and it's not like there are no reasons to question it. Dead bodies are known to stay dead, after all. But in my humble opinion, if anybody wants to engage in a serious and objective discussion about this topic, he must should acknowledge and account for all six of the above points. I find it noteworthy that after 2,000 years of discussion, debate, disagreement, scholarship, scientific advances, technological advances, archaeological research, and so on, literally no theory other than resurrection has been offered that can account for all six.
* * * * *
The lack of "sufficient alternative" theories is certainly not for lack of trying.
Plenty of alternate theories have been proposed, including the swoon theory, hallucination theory, and stolen body theory, to give just three examples. But while all of the alternates account for some of the six points mentioned above, none of them account for all six. The resurrection theory stands alone.
Resurrection alone accounts for all of the accepted historical evidence. Resurrection alone does so without simply rejecting other theories out of hand. Resurrection alone does so without the luxury of merely ignoring alternate theories.
It's easy to blame Western culture in general, and American culture specifically, for the fact that so few people are aware that the case for the resurrection is based on evidence and logic rather than gullibility and superstition, and it is not inaccurate to cast such blame. However, we must blame the church -- i.e., ourselves -- for the fact that Western and American culture has come to this pass.
The reason millions of people, including millions of believers, are clueless about the strong case for the resurrection is that they have never heard it. And the reason they've never heard it is that churches don't teach it to their own congregations.
This is not merely shameful, it is scandalous. It results in people being told from youth to "believe in Jesus" but never being educated as to why they should believe. And so, when they inevitably have questions or doubts and when they inevitably encounter atheist arguments and competing religious claims, their faith often crumbles. They have been set up to fail, sent into battle without armor, tossed into the ocean without a lifejacket, or any other long-odds analogy you want to use.
Why should parents who fail to educate their own children about this topic turn around and criticize "America" for "removing God from the schools"? Why should pastors who fail to educate their own parishioners about this topic turn around and criticize "the culture" for not understanding Christianity or not respecting it?
If you choose to spend the night naked in the snow, you should not be surprised to find yourself with hypothermia come dawn.
* * * * *
The week that begins today is called Holy Week. Good Friday is on the horizon and Easter is just beyond, ready to send up its rays next Sunday morning.
I think those of us who believe in God -- and especially those of us who believe Jesus rose from the dead twenty centuries ago -- should treat this week as a call to carry ourselves with confidence and without timidity, but also without arrogance.
Like clockwork, Holy Week brings an abundance of documentaries and magazines that superficially acknowledge Easter while unsubtly casting doubt on whether it commemorates an actual event. Christians often respond to these "mainstream media" provocations with irritation or defensiveness, or by withdrawing from the "secular" conversation. But we should not. Instead we should relish these provocations and relish this week, for they present us with a golden opportunity to explain the rational foundations of our faith.
We should take this opportunity and offer an explanation respectfully and cheerfully. It's an almost ironclad guarantee that any explanation other than "I feel it in my heart" will fall upon ears that have never heard it before; and thus it will be heard by people who currently have no idea there is any evidence-based reason for believing in Christianity.
At the end of the day, when people reject the historicity of Jesus's resurrection, their logical reasoning usually hinges solely on the pre-supposition that nothing supernatural can be real. But if that one pre-supposition gets removed and a person admits that "supernatural" does not equal "impossible," the philosophical ground on which he stands will, by definition, shift beneath his feet. That is a game-changer because it means the historical evidence for the resurrection must be dealt with in order to continue any investigation -- and the historical evidence itself is an aggregate doozy of a game-changer.
At all times, however, we believers need to remember that very few human beings are wired to remain calm, cool, collected, and accepting when game-changers arrive on the scene and challenge their worldview. If we mention something and somebody reacts negatively, we need to remember that we would probably react the same way if the roles were reversed.
* * * * *
There are of course other questions non-believers can raise about Christianity. Why does evil exist? Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do children sometimes get cancer? Why do natural disasters occur?
Such questions are valid. Believers have them too, and they are troublesome. But they all fall under a single category that C.S. Lewis dubbed "the problem of pain," and they have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not God is real, whether or not God is Yahweh as identified in the Bible, whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, et al.
The problem of pain is a serious one, but it happens to be the only one that believers must wrestle with in the great question of theism versus atheism -- as indicated by the fact that even atheists like Richard Dawkins have recently been reduced to uttering phrases like "the universe has the appearance of design" when they are confronted with evidence. (emphasis mine)
And the problem of pain happens to be one that every religion must grapple with.
Christianity is unique in that it builds its foundation on the singular event of Jesus rising from the dead... and has built its foundation on that event since the early days when it could have been easily disproved... and yet it grew into the world's largest and most far-reaching religion, and remains so to this day.
As Holy Week unfolds we should be gracious, and should not be in anyone's face, but at the same time we should be transparent and unafraid and unashamed.
We must not allow anyone to get away with suggesting that we are playing with a weak hand, for nothing could be further from the truth.
Note: For the sake of time and space, I did not use this post to specifically tackle each alternate theory that has been offered to address "the six points." Instead I simply (and correctly) stated that none of them explain all six points. If you want to learn more about the alternate theories and why they don't suffice, good resources include writings and/or lectures by Michael Licona, Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, J. Warner Wallace, Nabeel Qureshi, and many others. This one by Peter Kreeft is especially good for being both succinct and thorough.
Sunday, March 20, 2022
Spring Equinox
Here in the Eastern Time Zone, the vernal equinox occurred this morning at 11:33 -- so here are some thoughts about spring, on its first day:
And finally, I am riveted by the most intense pursuit in all of sports: the NHL playoffs.
Thursday, March 17, 2022
St. Paddy's Day
My drinking days are now behind me but I still enjoy the quirkiness of St.Patrick's Day, so I decided to re-post this piece from eight years ago:
As you grow up you see the snakes story for the crock it is, and based on your observations (and eventually on your experiences) you come to believe that the main point of St. Patrick's Day is
In many ways, St. Patrick's Day is one oddity of a holiday. It celebrates a genuine Catholic saint, but few of us know anything about him other than the fact that people celebrate him by getting drunk every March 17th... And most of us who celebrate him in the U.S. are not Catholic, instead identifying ourselves as Protestant or even agnostic... And although the holiday is specifically tied to an island with a population smaller than New York City's, it is celebrated around the entire friggin' globe.
Jaded, fortysomething Americans such as myself like to say (while consuming a pint of Murphy's Stout and ordering a round of green Bud Light) that St. Patrick's Day is an American construct gussied up in Irish drag. We like to say that it has no real ties to religion, that it goes unobserved in "the old country," and that it is nothing more than an excuse for our alcoholic countrymen to get falling down drunk and chalk it up as "tradition." But we are wrong -- wrong! -- because the Vatican made it an official holiday way back in the 1600's. Even the gluttony/drunkenness thing has some churchy basis when you consider that on March 17th the Vatican lifts the Lenten restrictions on drinking alcohol and eating.
Perhaps the diaspora of Irish people explains part of St. Patrick's Day's wide appeal, since the sheer size and extent of their dispersal makes the scattering of Jews from the Holy Land seem trifling.
Long ago I remember hearing that there were 4 million people living in Ireland and 44 million Irish people living in the United States... Huge percentages of the populations in Canada's Atlantic provinces, especially Newfoundland and Labrador, are made up of people from Irish stock... An estimated one million people of Irish ancestry reside in Argentina...Ireland accounts for the second largest ancestry group in Australia... etc. etc.
When you consider the outsize influence Ireland's diaspora has had on the world, you really start to appreciate the role Irish genealogy plays in our affairs. We know the Beatles as an English band, but all of them except Ringo trace their ancestry to Ireland, not Liverpool...Oscar Wilde made his mark as London's biggest playwright, but was born in Dublin...John Wayne came from Irish stock and so did Maureen O'Hara, the smoking-hot redhead who often starred alongside him and is still alive and kicking at the age of 93.
In the decisive decade of the Cold War, America's president was Ronald Reagan and Canada's prime minister was Brian Mulroney. Both were Irish by blood, and together they helped hasten the end of the Soviet Union. In the following decade, Irish-by-blood Tony Blair became the most influential British Prime Minister of the post-Thatcher era.
In the sports world, seemingly white-as-can-be boxing champ Jack Dempsey was an American of Irish descent -- and so was seemingly black-as-can-be boxing champ Muhammad Ali, whose great-grandfather was born in County Clare, on Ireland's west coast, before moving to America.
Still, genealogy and diaspora can't completely explain the global reach of St. Patrick's Day. Not when Japan (yes, Japan!) celebrates it not just on March 17th but all month long. Not when Russia's notoriously xenophobic government plays a part in staging an annual St. Patrick's Day parade in Moscow. And not when prickly French Montreal also hosts a parade.
Some things just can't be explained. And it's often better that way.
Sunday, February 27, 2022
About "The" Book, Part Eight
Some of the Bible's books are so famous that knowledge of them is almost universal. Others, not so much.
People who have never opened a Bible and never intend to are nonetheless aware that its first book is Genesis. They are also aware that its second book, Exodus, describes the Hebrews' escape from Egypt and 40-year journey to the Promised Land. They are so aware of these books that most of them have properly used their titles as nouns in casual conversation, referring to something's beginning as its genesis and to some long journey or transformation as an exodus.
Then there are books like Habakkuk and Philemon. If those two don't ring a bell, don't feel ashamed. They're in the Bible but many believers probably wouldn't recognize their titles if you mentioned them in passing.
Which brings me to Titus. Over the years I have seen it sitting there in the table of contents, and several times I've seen its actual text fleet across my field of vision while rifling through the New Testament looking for something else. Titus is easy to miss, partly because it doesn't get quoted on tee-shirts and coffee mugs but mostly because it is extraordinarily short:
I read Titus for the first time last Saturday for the simple reason that I thought: Why not? I wonder what it says. And I can tell you that it scores high on the bang-for-buck-o-meter.
* * * * *
As with every book in the Bible, it is important to understand Titus's historical context.
Verse Ten of Chapter One opens with a warning that can be applied to every social or work setting -- "For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers" -- and then it careens into six words that will sound exceedingly strange if you are unfamiliar with history: "especially those of the circumcision party."
Because Jewish males have been circumcised as infants going back to time immemorial, circumcised genitalia was a visual indicator that a man was a Jew in ancient times. Because Christianity involves a fulfillment of the Judaic faith by bringing Gentiles to God in order to fulfill God's plan for humanity, the early days of the Christian church featured some debate about whether Gentile men should get circumcised when they commit their lives to God.
The biblical book called Titus is one of Paul's epistles (letters) that he addressed to specific leaders of new churches in various parts of the Greco-Roman world. Composed about 30 years after Jesus's crucifixion, it was sent to a man named Titus who was charged with evangelizing the inhabitants of Crete. Titus needed to be aware of false teachings that opponents of the faith might try to spread, and thus "the circumcision party" refers not to some weird event at which converts were subjected to a torturous initiation rite, but rather to people who claimed that converts should be required to get circumcised.
Those people's insistence on convert circumcision was not the big problem, however. That was merely a symptom. The big problem was their overarching demand that Gentiles under the new covenant be subjected to the same pharisaical laws that were applied (and often abused) to ethnic Jews under the old one. Paul considered those people's demand to be heretical, having previously referred to it in Galatians as "a different gospel" that is "contrary to the one you received" and whose teachers should "be accursed." Knowing this makes it clear why he advises in Titus 1:13-14 to "rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth."
(Twenty-first century disclaimer: Paul himself was Jewish and was not being an ethnocentric bigot when he said "Jewish myths." He was referring not to Judaic people but to certain aspects of the Judaic religion, and his contemporary audience knew that. So if you are currently a college student or member of America's politically correct white intelligentsia, you may now arise from your fainting couch and resume reading.)
* * * * *
A reader with an emotional, pre-existing devotion to certain denominational beliefs might easily veer off course if he were to read Titus without paying close attention.
Stressing the importance of good church leadership, Paul instructs Titus to "appoint elders in every town" and then qualifies that by saying "if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife..." Sadly, some people are always itching for a Protestant-Catholic cat fight and might take the phrase "husband of one wife" and use it to start claiming that today's Roman Catholic Church engages in heresy when it requires its priests to be celibate. Such people should be asked to raise the topic of priestly celibacy another time, since Paul here was referring not to parish-specific priests but to town-specific "elders" and made no mention whatsoever of sex.
Many of those same people will react to Chapter Three like an alley cat who just ingested a few mouthfuls of catnip. One of the great misunderstandings between overzealous Protestants and overzealous Catholics is the former's (false) claim that Catholics teach "works-based" salvation and the latter's (false) claim that Protestants "ignore the importance of works." People from the latter camp might be prone to believe they've found confirmation of support for their claim when they read in Titus 3:1 that we are "to be ready for every good work," and also in 3:8 when they read that "those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works."
In between, however, people from the former camp might be prone to believe they've found confirmation of support for their claim when they read in 3:5 that God "saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy..." And of course, overzealous Calvinist Protestants are likely to find a way to construe 3:5 as confirmation of support for their belief that God predestines everybody to salvation or damnation before they are even born.
All of which goes to show why it's so important when studying an ancient text to remove your filters and pay attention to every word... while remembering the context in which it was written... and also remembering to whom, and by whom, it was written.
Which is very, very, very hard to do. We are all predisposed to certain conclusions, and we are all tempted to leapfrog straight to them when we perceive a fitting opportunity to do so.
But leapfrogging springs you up in the air for a bit, and while you're up there you might not see a beautiful flower on the ground that you were supposed to stop and smell.
I think the dichotomy between faith and works is a false one, not a real one, but many people strongly disagree with me about that. Those whose theological ears are highly tuned to the "real dichotomy pitch" might overlook the importance of some other lessons interwoven into Chapter Three, such as when Paul counsels in 3:2 to "speak evil of no one" and "show perfect courtesy to all people" (emphasis added); and when he stresses in 3:3 that "we ourselves were once foolish...slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy"; and especially when he admonishes in 3:9 to "avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless."
* * * * *
There is a lot going on in Titus.
The college kids and white intelligentsia I chided earlier will might instinctively and wrongly reach for smelling salts when they encounter the word "submissive" in Chapter Two.
As somebody who enjoyed reading Bartlett's even as a kid, I have a fondness for great quotes and therefore was thrilled to come across this pearl from 1:15: "To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure..."
On a lighter note, I found it amusing that Titus bluntly says a man must not be "a drunkard" (1:7) yet takes a more nuanced approach when it comes to women by saying they must not be "slaves to much wine" (2:3, emphasis added).
There are a couple other things in The Epistle of Paul to Titus that I would like to elaborate on... but I am not skilled at keeping things brief, and this blog post already contains more paragraphs than the epistle itself, so for now I think I'll just call it a day!
Saturday, January 15, 2022
MLK, Born Today
Next Monday is set aside as Martin Luther King Day. But today is his real birthday, and he would be turning 93 had he not been met by an assassin's bullet on that "early morning April 4" (though with apologies to Bono, it was actually in the evening when the shot rang out in the Memphis sky).
...I am not afraid of the word tension. I have earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.
A man can’t sit on your back unless it’s bent.