http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WVtpao0KSM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

G.K. Chesterton

His comments are very, very interesting. Especially considering the timing of it being written in 1922. This was less than 60 years removed from the Civil War. That would be like someone writing about Korea and Vietnam right now. The memories and direct consequences of those wars are still very real to us today. Chesterton was born in 1874, only four years after Virginia itself was re-admitted to the Union (1870).

Anyway, I cherry picked what I thought were the most interesting:

On religious liberty at America’s founding:

Now there is nothing in this to diminish any dignity that belongs to any real virtues and virilities in the Pilgrim Fathers; on the contrary, it is rather to the credit of their consistency and conviction. But there is no doubt that the note of their whole experiment in New England was intolerance, and even inquisition. And there is no doubt that New England was then only the newest and not the oldest of these colonial experiments. At least two Cavaliers had been in the field before any Puritans. And they had carried with them much more of the atmosphere and nature of the normal Englishman than any Puritan could possibly carry. They had established it especially in Virginia, which had been founded by a great Elizabethan and named after the great Elizabeth. Before there was any New England in the North, there was something very like Old England in the South. Relatively speaking, there is still.

–G.K. Chesterton (1922)

On a Northern vs. Southern birth view of America’s founding:

Long ago I wrote a protest in which I asked why Englishmen had forgotten the great state of Virginia, the first in foundation and long the first in leadership; and why a few crabbed Nonconformists should have the right to erase a record that begins with Raleigh and ends with Lee, and incidentally includes Washington. The great state of Virginia was the backbone of America until it was broken in the Civil War. From Virginia came the first great Presidents and most of the Fathers of the Republic. Its adherence to the Southern side in the war made it a great war, and for a long time a doubtful war. And in the leader of the Southern armies it produced what is perhaps the one modern figure that may come to shine like St. Louis in the lost battle, or Hector dying before holy Troy.

–G.K. Chesterton (1922)

On the analogy of Ireland as the American South:

England once sympathised with the South. The South still sympathises with England. It would seem that the South, or some elements in the South, had rather the advantage of us in political firmness and fidelity; but it does not follow that that fidelity will stand every shock. And at this moment, and in this matter, of all things in the world, our political propagandists must try to bolster British Imperialism up, by kicking Southern Secession when it is down. The English politicians eagerly point out that we shall be justified in crushing Ireland exactly as Sumner and Stevens crushed the most English part of America. It does not seem to occur to them that this comparison between the Unionist triumph in America and a Unionist triumph in Britain is rather hard upon our particular sympathisers, who did not triumph. When England exults in Lincoln’s victory over his foes, she is exulting in his victory over her own friends.

–G.K. Chesterton (1922)

Observation on the Southern view of the War’s court history:

I can answer for it, at least, that there are some people in the South who will not be pleased at being swept into the rubbish heap of history as rebels and ruffians; and who will not, I regret to say, by any means enjoy even being classed with Fenians and Sinn Feiners.

–G.K. Chesterton (1922)

On Southern slavery vs. Northern “slavery”:

Strange to say, it is not certain that a lost cause was never worth winning; and it would be easy to argue that the world lost very much indeed when that particular cause was lost. These are not days in which it is exactly obvious that an agricultural society was more dangerous than an industrial one. And even Southern slavery had this one moral merit, that it was decadent; it has this one historic advantage, that it is dead. The Northern slavery, industrial slavery, or what is called wage slavery, is not decaying but increasing; and the end of it is not yet. But in any case, it would be well for us to realise that the reproach of resembling the Confederacy does not ring in all ears as an unanswerable condemnation.

–G.K. Chesterton (1922)

On ex-post-facto justification of Lincoln:

And if [Lincoln] has been proved right, he has been proved right by the fact that men in the South, as well as the North, do now feel a patriotism for that American nation. His wisdom, if it really was wisdom, was justified not by his opponents being conquered, but by their being converted.

–G.K. Chesterton (1922)

This last quote was particularly interesting. It is the quote that Nock was referring to in his book. The crushing of secession was ultimately written down in history as the “right” thing to do, only because, ultimately, most Southerners accepted it as simply immutable. That’s what reconstruction was all about. Reconstruction was to be the re-programming of the Southern mind. It worked, and now Lincoln is seen as great. If, as Chesterton alludes to with his Irish example, the Southern spirit had continued to buck against centralized government and the resistance had continued into the twentieth century, Lincoln would be viewed more like Cromwell than Bismark.

We decided last year that we wouldn’t do the Santa Claus thing with our kids. That doesn’t mean that we just say “santa isn’t real”. No, we just decided to handle it a little bit differently. We tell our kids the true history of St. Nicholas and that he used to be a real person and we commemorate his kind acts of Christian charity today as a Christmas tradition. We are very careful to tell them that some people like to have fun with the idea of Santa Claus and act like the presents come from him, so they shouldn’t spoil it for other kids. But what’s our motivation for this in the first place? Well, there are several.

First, it’s the truth. I’ve heard all the arguments for and against pretending that Santa Claus is real. I’m just not compelled by them enough to trick my kids. I want them to have total faith in what I tell them; that it’s the truth, as fully and complete as I know it to be. When kids finally do find out that Santa isn’t real, it is usually from other kids. I remember when I found out that Santa wasn’t real in the lunchroom at school back in the 3rd grade. I was so embarrassed. I remember a couple of bullies, Anthony and Brian making fun of me for “still believing in Santa Claus” and the other kids at the table laughing at me. A child’s self-esteem is so fragile and I don’t want them to feel like I tricked them, and that’s what got them embarrassed in front of their friends.

Second, I want them to know that their presents came from us. Maybe it’s a little selfish, but I want them to know right now that we care about the things they like and that it’s we who love them and know just what to get for them. I don’t want that love and care to be laid at the feet of some made up character who doesn’t exist. Kids get lots of gifts during the holidays and if you’re not careful, Christmas will be over and they have gotten lots of gifts from lots of people, but the gifts they should be getting from their parents are instead coming from Santa Claus.

Thirdly and most importantly, to a child, Santa Claus and other fictional holiday characters are just too similar to the secular view of God for my taste. On one hand you have Santa Claus whom you never see but he evidently knows everything about you and keeps up with whether you are being good or bad. He gives you good presents if you’re good and bad presents if you’re bad. He loves you and brings you toys (which God doesn’t even do). And Mommy and Daddy tell you all these stories about him and how he is real even though you never see him. My question is what in a child’s mind makes that any different than God? If Mommy and Daddy lied to me about this person who I can’t see but who loves me nonetheless, why should I believe them when they tell me that we can’t see God but he sure does love me?

If you think that’s far fetched then just read this article about some teachers in the UK who told their students that Santa Claus was not real, and then read the very first reader comment in the feedback section:

“I think next they should start going to funeral homes and telling the loved ones of the recently deceased that there is no Heaven or afterlife and that their loved one will just rot in the ground and they’ll never see them again. This would be especially good to do to any small children who lose a parent.”

- Peter, Houston TX

The fact that Peter from Houston associates Santa Claus as being the same as Heaven and Hell proves my point. The secular world today lumps Christ in right alongside Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. I see no reason to give them extra ammo with my kids.

Now for the disclaimers: I Dave Jones, being of semi-sound mind and unsound body do willingly acknowledge the following:

• Millions of people believed in Santa Claus as kids and were not made fun of when they found out.
• Millions of people believed in Santa Claus as kids and did not lose their belief in God.
• Millions of people believed in Santa Claus as kids and still knew their parents loved them.

That is why we don’t get all preachy about it with other parents. As far as I’m concerned, issues like this should be decided by each parent based on what they think is best for their children. It doesn’t bother me one bit when a parent tells their kid that Santa Claus does exist. But my conscience won’t let me tell that to my own kids, because my mind tells me they might not handle it as well as other kids. If you want to say that I’m an insane, overprotective, right-wing, puritan worshipper as a dad, then you would probably be right. As a dad, it’s my job to be overprotective and to worry. That’s what dads do. But I also think my points make good sense, and reason should always accompany concern as a parent’s guide.

Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor?

If you don’t know the answer to this question, you really shouldn’t speak on the topic until you go and find out. So, to help you, let me paint some broad brush context to begin with:

1. In war, nobody is blameless.
2. Progressive era wars were about empires, not “freedom” as we would describe it now.
3. Countries the size of Japan don’t just attack other superpowers without, what they consider, really good reasons.
4. After war, the winner writes the history.

It’s these three concepts that drive my interest in WW2. The official history doesn’t seem to take any of those important ideas into account, and thus, it smacks of mythology. So, what’s the context of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor? Why would they make such a bold move when they were already deeply involved in wars within their own continent? Why attack the U.S. specifically? Why Hawaii? Well, let me give some more specific context about Japan in this era and suggest some good books:

• World War I was about competing European empires, and America sided with the British to help defend the economy of the British empire against competition from a rising German empire. A continuation of this story is what World War II was all about.
• Japan’s defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese war (1904-1905) marked the Empire of Japan as a surprise threat to the English-American-Dutch empire. They were suddenly a serious player in Asia that could threaten European colony dominance.
• Japan has virtually no natural resources, so it relies on imports for all of it’s heavy industry and military. Thus, the U.S./Dutch oil embargo on Japan in July of 1941 was seen as a major provocation. It was a continuation of previous sanctions on heavy industry items.
• The U.S. knew their actions would provoke Japan into attacking(see the “8-action memo”) and cut off negotiations. The subsequent moving of the entire Pacific fleet to Hawaii provided a nice honeypot target for Japan to attack first and be seen as the aggressor.

This just barely scratches the surface of what was going on at the time. Here are some books you should read for more details:

• A Century of War by John Denson
• Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnet
• Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy by Percy Greaves
• The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable by George Victor
• No Clear And Present Danger: A Skeptical View Of The United States Entry Into World War II by Bruce Russett
• Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: A Critical Examination of the Foreign Policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Its Aftermath by Harry Elmer Barnes

These books aren’t all written by modern revisionists. Some of them are old. And, two in particular were written by men who thought Roosevelt did the right thing by provoking the Pearl Harbor attack. What’s not in doubt is that he did provoke the attack. Calling the attack unprovoked is mythology, not history. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether the provocation was “worth it.” For my part, I think the killing of 3 million Japanese is non-justifiable.

According to Lawrence Stone, “the greatest triumph of the Tudors was the ultimately successful assertion of a royal monopoly of violence both public and private, an achievement which profoundly altered not only the nature of politics, but also the quality of daily life.” It was under Henry VIII that the word state first acquired its modern sense of body politic or supreme civil power; state had already been in use for a hundred and fifty years, but only as a synonym for estate.

–Bruce Porter, War and the Rise of the State

It’s this “monopoly of [public and private] violence” that literally defines the state at it’s most fundamental level. Without a general consent (reluctant or willing) to this monopoly by the public at large, the state would never get off the starting blocks. It requires violence to survive. I’m amazed that this doesn’t give us pause. Shouldn’t any institution that is defined by a self-determined right to inflict harm on others give us serious reason to stop and evaluate it’s legitimacy?

I’ve blogged before on how central banks and fiat currency allow states to silently fund large scale war machines. This idea was reinforced to me today when I ran across this quote in the book War and the Rise of the State:

The wars with Spain depleted the French treasury and forced Francis I (1515-1547) to undertake administrative reforms. Yet his reforms never resolved the fiscal dilemma, since other contenders were also boosting their military spending. France was caught in a cycle of escalating violence, which its own efforts at taxation and military spending only served to propel upward; hence a fresh military crisis loomed every few years. This unremitting fiscal pressure forced centralizing reforms on a government whose inclinations were still largely medieval, but whose aspirations required the organizational accoutrements of a modern state.

Bruce Porter, War and the Rise of the State

This is what you would expect. The French were bankrupting themselves in the so-called “Italian Wars” that seemed to go on and on. War is very, very expensive. So, what did they do about it? They created a central bank:

Two reforms in particular arose from France’s involvement in the wars. In 1523, as it was mobilizing troops for a fresh campaign in Italy, Antoine Duprat, the king’s chancellor, established the first central treasury of the realm, the Trésor de l’Épargne or Treasury of Savings.

Bruce Porter, War and the Rise of the State

This is what states do when the burden of war becomes too high. They look for ways to hide the cost from the public, who would rapidly grow disenchanted with funding endless war if they had to do so up front at face value. This is precisely the reason that nobody younger than 50 knows what a “war bond” is. The direct connection between the citizen and the funding of war has been broken. Instead, the Federal Reserve now prints the money which ends up back in the treasury, through the purchasing of Treasury Bonds, where it can be used to pay for more war. The only effect we see is price inflation on a lag. Basically, our endless wars are funded with debt created and sold by the Fed, and paid for in the form of higher market prices.

This is why I call the Federal Reserve the “silent” killer of millions of people all over the world. It’s the great enabler of vice and moral hazard. The next time a drone strike takes out a wedding party in Afghanistan, you’ll know that the extra .03 cents per gallon you’ll pay for milk in a few weeks helped pay for it.

And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

–Matthew 27:51-54

In Licona’s most recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, he says this about the above passage:

This brings us to that strange little text in Matthew 27:52-53, where upon Jesus’ death the dead saints are raised and walk into the city of Jerusalem. During Jesus’ crucifixion and upon his death, Mark and Luke report two phenomena that occurred: there is darkness and the temple veil is torn in two (Mk 15:33, 38; Lk 23:44-45). John is silent on the matter. Matthew likewise reports the darkness and tearing of the temple veil but adds four more phenomena: the earth quakes, the rocks split, the tombs are opened, and the dead saints rise up and walk into Jerusalem after Jesus’ resurrection (Mt 27:51-54).

Raymond E. Brown notes that similar phenomena were reported at the death of Romulus and Julius Caesar.296 Confining himself only to those who wrote within one hundred years on either side of Jesus’ death, his examples include Plutarch (Rom. 27.6; Caes. 69.4), Ovid (Fast. 2.493), Cicero (Rep. 6.22), Virgil (Georg. 1.466-488), Josephus (Ant. 14.12.3; 309) and Pliny (Nat. 2.30; 97). In a clearly poetic account, Virgil reports that the following sixteen phenomena occurred after Caesar’s death: prolonged darkness, dogs and birds acted unusually, Etna erupted, fighting in the heavens was heard, the Alps shook near Germany, a powerful voice was heard in the groves, pale phantoms were seen at dusk, cattle spoke portents, streams stood still, the earth opened up, ivory idols wept and bronze idols were sweating in the shrines, dark intestines appeared outside of animals in their stalls, blood trickled in springs, wolves howled, lightning appeared in a cloudless sky, a bright comet was seen.

…

Given the presence of phenomenological language used in a symbolic manner in both Jewish and Roman literature related to a major event such as the death of an emperor or the end of a reigning king or even a kingdom, the presence of ambiguity in the relevant text of Ignatius, and that so very little can be known about Thallus’s comment on the darkness (including whether he was even referring to the darkness at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion or, if so, if he was merely speculating pertaining to a natural cause of the darkness claimed by the early Christians), it seems to me that an understanding of the language in Matthew 27:52-53 as “special effects” with eschatological Jewish texts and thought in mind is most plausible.

There is further support for this interpretation. If the tombs opened and the saints being raised upon Jesus’ death was not strange enough, Matthew adds that they did not come out of their tombs until after Jesus’ resurrection. What were they doing between Friday afternoon and early Sunday morning? Were they standing in the now open doorways of their tombs and waiting?

–Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus

In contrast to Licona’s critics, I have not cherry picked fragments of his comments to make him look glib. I quoted a large part of what he said in full. When you read the entire text, you see the flow of his argument much more clearly than you would when reading Geisler or Mohler’s commentary on it. I’m a stickler on large quotes. Especially when you’re going to to call somebody down in public. It just will not do to quote sentence fragments when someone’s reputation and career is on the line. But that seems to be Mohler and Geisler’s motif. Mohler’s article in particular reads like a political op-ed in the Washington post, rather than a technical critique of the argument’s merits or lack thereof. It contributes nothing to the debate except rhetoric.

I, for myself, have no problem with a literal interpretation of this passage. I also don’t mind it being taken as period-accurate embellishment. I’m agnostic on the matter. If I had to pick one side or the other I would fall on the literal historical event side. But, like I said, it’s not a hill I’m going to die on. The reason I have no problem with either side is that this is simply a hard passage.

The fact that this is a hard passage of scripture seems non-controversial to me. I mean, what are these raised dead? They clearly are not glorified bodies since the passage indicates they were raised prior to Christ himself(the “firstfruits” of the resurrection). So, sans glorified body, what did they eat and drink in the tombs while they were waiting for three days to come out? What happened to them when they finished walking around Jerusalem? Did they continue on living, aka Lazarus, or did they return to their tombs and re-die? Why are these details missing, when in every other case in scripture resurrection from the dead is treated with the utmost detail? Mohler addresses this line of questioning by saying:

This is a very troubling argument. First of all, if we ever accept the fact that we are to explain what anyone in the Bible was doing when the Bible does not tell us, we enter into a trap of interpretive catastrophe. We are accountable for what the Bible tells us, not what it does not.

–Albert Mohler, Blog

Of course, it’s not that simple. When an event is described, we have no choice than to make deductions about intervals between beacon points within the narrative. If someone says “Joe stood in the doorway, staring at the sun.” And the very next line says, “One day, six years later, Joe heard the phone ring. He picked it up…,” are we to believe that Joe stood in the doorway for six years until the phone rang? Of course not. It’s perfectly valid to mentally fill in that gap with something akin to normal everyday life.

When Matthew says, “the tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many,” this is not easy to interpret. There is a gap with no clear indication from the preceding or postceding landmarks as to what could have happened in the middle. The harder it is to bridge that gap, the more likely it is that the passage isn’t meant as a historical event. You could say something like “if God raised them then he would have given them food and water for a few days while they waited, or miraculously made their bodies not need these things.” But, that seems like a dodge. The fact that none of these details are present is rather odd when compared to the other resurrection accounts.

Like I said, I believe the account is historical. But it’s still a tough passage. Admitting that doesn’t sabotage inerrency in the slightest.

It’s also worth noting that the most probably cause that I can see of Geisler picking up his pitchfork against Licona in the first place is because Licona mentions Robert Gundry in his discussion of this passage. Robert Gundry was expelled from ETS after a push by Geisler in the early 80′s. This fact makes me wonder if Geisler simply had a knee-jerk reaction to seeing Gundry’s name as a reference. Who knows?

My biggest concern, however, is a broader one about on-line theological debate. This whole thing smacks of the NT Wright controversy all over again, as we have prominent evangelical leaders calling out a well-respected New Testament scholar publicly over one controversial statement in a massive work. And, just like with Dr. Wright, it’s all being done at lightning speed on the internet. This has the effect of speeding up the debate to a break neck pace, so that there is very little room for charity and thoughtfulness.

Evangelical leaders need to learn how to use their internet voices in a responsible way. Careers and reputations can be ended overnight with a single 500 word blog post from a person with the right pedigree. That type of power must be treated with care. Debates such as this one need to be initiated and incubated at ETS, or within theology journals. Or, heaven-forbid, in private discussions. Email still works, and so does the phone.

NT Wright got the chance to eventually clarify his position at last year’s ETS. This is partly because of his very long body of work and immense level of respect within the evangelical community. My fear is that Dr. Licona will not get that same opportunity. The veiled threats from Mohler of being expelled from ETS are simply mean spirited and extremely premature.

In much the same way that John Piper set his will against NT Wright early on in that discussion and never stopped publicly savaging him, it seems that Mohler and Geisler have unilaterally decided that Licona is unorthodox with virtually no input from other textual scholars. This is not a good sign for the state of public evangelical debate.

• WWI – Woodrow Wilson (D)
• WWII – Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
• Korea – Harry S. Truman (D)
• Vietnam – John F. Kennedy (D)
• Gulf War I – Bush Sr. (R)
• Kosovo – Clinton (D)
• Gulf War II – Bush Jr. (R)

You can also easily pin the Spanish-American War on the Democrat party since President McKinley made it very well known that he wanted to avoid war with Spain at all costs: “political pressures from the Democratic Party pushed the government of President William McKinley, a Republican, into a war McKinley had wished to avoid.” (source)

And now look at Obama (D). Just like Wilson, he ran on a peace platform. Then, when he gets in office, he proceeds to expand the war into 3 new middle-eastern countries (Libya, Yemen, Pakistan). The Republican party loves war too, and I don’t care about political parties, but it’s about time the Democrat establishment got called to task for their love of war. The only thing a Democrat shill loves more than stealing your money is killing brown people in foreign countries.