Ascension Day: Why stand ye gazing up?

GRANT, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that like as we do believe Thy only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ to have ascended into the heavens; so we may also in heart and mind thither ascend, and with him continually dwell, who liveth and reigneth with Thee and the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen. [Thomas Cranmer]

JESUS said, Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: and were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God.
[John XVI]

Salute the last and everlasting day,
Joy at the uprising of this Sunne, and Sonne,
Yee whose just teares, or tribulation
Have purely washt, or burnt your drossie clay;
Behold the Highest, parting hence away,
Lightens the darke clouds, which hee treads upon,
Nor doth hee by ascending show alone,
But first hee, and hee first enters the way.
[John Donne]

The lone sheriff

An unlikely coalition of liberals and conservatives came together to urge the "humanitarian intervention" in Libya. Peter Berger describes the liberal case for such intervention, exemplified by one Samantha Power, a member of the National Security Council and one of the President's advisers who advocated intervention. The argument is based on a comparatively new doctrine in international law called the responsibility to protect which Berger describes: "States have the duty to protect their citizens. If they are unable or unwilling to do so, other states may have the duty to intervene, in the final instance by military means. Specifically, such intervention is justified in the case of four derelictions: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. The intervention has to be approved by legitimate authority—which turns out to be (surprise!) the United Nations. Very importantly, sovereignty cannot be used as a shield behind which any atrocity can be perpetrated." Berger then goes on to consider whether the doctrine is credible:

This cannot be the place to go into the legal intricacies of the “responsibility to protect” (I am not competent to do so anyway), let alone to discuss the moral or realist merits of the invasions of Iraq and Libya. But it is within the broad purview of this blog to look into the moral reasoning behind this doctrine. I think it is essentially plausible. The insistence on the exclusive authority of the UN is much less plausible: The UN is not a world government, but a conglomerate of states, some of which are egregious violators of human rights. It seems to me that a “coalition of the willing, if the ”willing” consist of democracies with a respect for human rights, is a more plausible authority. Be this as it may, I would suggest that the moral reasoning here can be described as the “logic of the lone sheriff”.

Let us assume that there is one solitary sheriff responsible for the security of a village. Let us further assume that he fulfils this responsibility quite well. A neighboring village has no sheriff . If a serious crime is about to occur in the neighboring village, our sheriff will feel the right, even the responsibility to cross the boundary between the villages in order to stop the crime. Nothing Quixotic about this. It becomes Quixotic if the sheriff now goes from village to village, even far from home, looking for crimes to stop—even leaving aside the likelihood that, in this case, his own village will become insecure and perhaps go bankrupt.

It seems to me that this metaphor expresses a plausible moral logic. It remains plausible if one extends the logic to an imperial power, such as Britain in the nineteenth century or the United States today. American exceptionalism has been rightly criticized. In terms of this particular issue, America is not exceptional because it is morally superior, but quite simply because its power is exceptional. Whether by design or by happenstance, the United States is the only global sheriff. There is no one else to play this role. Much if not all the world is covered in a grid of Pentagon Commands. There are all these peasants, blissfully unaware that they are denizens of, say, Central Command—unless an American drone hits them, or unless a flotilla of American ships and planes comes to their relief after an earthquake or tsunami. Such power brings with it a “responsibility to protect” that is indeed exceptional. Yet even the United States cannot exercise its power all the time, in every place. If it tries to do so, it will indeed come to resemble Don Quixote. And it will very likely fall off its horse. .... [more]

Samantha and the Lone Sheriff | Religion and Other Curiosities

But not in church

As Memorial Day approaches Kevin DeYoung wants us to consider seriously whether it should be a part of our worship. He addresses each of the points below. I have quoted only from the last one.

1. Being a Christian does not remove ethnic and national identities.
2. Patriotism, like other earthly “prides,” can be a virtue or vice.
3. Allegiance to God and allegiance to your country are not inherently incompatible.
4. God’s people are not tied to any one nation.
5. All this leads to one final point: while patriotism can be good, the church is not a good place for patriotism.

We should pray for service men and women in our congregations. We should pray for the President. We should pray for the just cause to triumph over the evil one. We are not moral relativists. We do not believe just because all people are sinners and all nations are sinful that no person or no nation can be more righteous or more wicked than another. God may be on America’s side in some (not all) her endeavors.

But please think twice before putting on a Star Spangled gala in church this Sunday. I love to hear the national anthem and “God Bless America” and “My Country, Tis of Thee,” but not in church where the nations gather to worship the King of all peoples. I love to see the presentation of colors and salute our veterans, but these would be better at the Memorial Day parade or during a time of remembrance at the cemetery. Earthly worship should reflect the on-going worship in heaven. And while there are many Americans singing glorious songs to Jesus there, they are not singing songs about the glories of America. We must hold to the traditions of the Apostles in our worship, not the traditions of American history. The church should not ask of her people what is not required in Scripture. ....

In some parts of the church, every hint of patriotism makes you a jingoistic idolater. You are allowed to love every country except your own. But in other parts of the church, true religion blends too comfortably into civil religion. You are allowed to worship in our services as long as you love America as much as we do. I don’t claim to have arrived at the golden mean, but I imagine many churches could stand to think more carefully about their theology of God and country. .... [more]

Thinking Theologically About Memorial Day – Kevin DeYoung

Blessed and blasted, depending

Archbishop Dolan of New York [formerly of Milwaukee] notes the varied reactions to pronouncements by the American Catholic bishops on issues of public policy:

.... One side usually blesses us when we preach the virtue of fiscal responsibility, the civil rights of the unborn, the danger of government tampering with the definition of marriage, and the principle of subsidiarity — that is, that the smaller units in our society, such as family, neighborhood, Church, and volunteer organizations, are usually preferable to big government in solving social ills.

Yet this same side then often cringes when we defend workers, speak on behalf of the rights of the undocumented immigrant, and remind government of the moral imperative to protect the poor.

The other side enjoys quoting us when we extol universal health care, question the death penalty, demand that every budget and program be assessed on whether it will help or hurt those in need, encourage international aid, and promote the principle of solidarity, namely, society’s shared duties to one another, especially the poor and struggling . . .

. . . and then these same folks bristle when we defend the rights of parents in education, those of the baby in the womb and grandma on her death bed, insist that America is at her best when people of faith have a respected voice in the public square, defend traditional marriage, and remind government that it has no right to intrude in Church affairs, but does have the obligation to protect the rights of conscience. .... [more]

Subsidiarity and Solidarity « The Gospel in the Digital Age

Pursued

The 39 Steps is basic reading for anyone who enjoys thrillers, preferably first read at about age fourteen. It was written by John Buchan, whose place in the genre was described by Christopher Hitchens thus: "Between Kipling and Fleming stands John Buchan, the father of the modern spy thriller." A new paperback edition has been published in Britain and its cover illustration seemed to me perfect.

Looking at rather than through

Via Sean Curnyn, Abraham Joshua Heschel in 1963 on how we approach the Bible:

Into his studies of the Bible the modern scholar brings his total personality, his increased knowledge of the ancient Near East, his power of analysis, his historic sense, his honest commitment to truth—as well as inherent skepticism of biblical claims and tradition. In consequence, we have so much to say about the Bible that we are not prepared to hear what the Bible has to say about us. We are not in love with the Bible; we are in love with our own power of critical acumen, with our theories about the Bible. Intellectual narcissism is a disease to which some of us are not always immune. The sense of the mystery and transcendence of what is at stake in the Bible is lost in the process of analysis. As a result, we have brought about the desanctification of the Bible. [Insecurity of Freedom]

A.J. Heschel on the Bible | The Cinch Review

Chesterton discounted [for a limited time]

This looks like a good deal. "Save 20% on select Ignatius Press books by and about G.K. Chesterton." From that site:

G.K. Chesterton was a prolific writer. The author of many novels, as well as thousands of poems, there were numerous subjects he wrote about. He touched on everything from religion to history to politics. Due to the varying subjects that he wrote about, and the way he approached each subject, Chesterton is known as one of the most stimulating and well-loved writers of the 20th century. To honor this beloved writer on his birthday, May 29, Ignatius Press is offering 20% off select titles by and about him.

Offer ends Tuesday, May 31th, 2011 at 12:00 midnight EST. These prices are available online only through Ignatius.com

Click here for a listing of books. Or visit Chesterton's author page on Ignatius Insight.

I had forgotten that the anniversary of Chesterton's birth fell on the same date as mine. That completely undeserved association pleases me.

Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog: Save 20% on select Ignatius Press books by and about G. K. Chesterton

Every single relationship

Via Cranach: The Blog of Veith, from an interview with Mollie Hemingway, religion reporter, and a Lutheran:

Many people consider a vocation to be an occupation — or maybe an occupation that's especially satisfying. How does the Lutheran understanding of vocation extend beyond our careers?

Lutherans have a special understanding of vocation. It's not limited to one's job but every single relationship I have, including parent, child, friend, neighbor, parishioner and citizen. It's any position in which I am the instrument through which God works in the world.

So, for instance, God heals us by giving us doctors and nurses. He feeds us by giving us farmers and bakers. He gives us earthly order through our governors and legislators, and he gives us life through our parents. God is providing all these gifts — but we receive them from our neighbors.

Luther wrote that fathers should not complain when they have to rock a baby, change his diaper, or care for the baby's mother, but instead should view each act as a holy blessing. Everything we do in service to others is a holy blessing.

Credo: Mollie Hemingway | Leah Fabel | People | Washington Examiner

"Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit"

Hard upon Memorial Day, I'm watching the Blu-ray edition of Gettysburg [which adds about seventeen minutes to the film and looks significantly better], the film of the best historical novel I've ever read, The Killer Angels, by Michael Shaara. That was the book that enabled me to understand the battle of Gettysburg. In three days there were almost as many American casualties as in nine years of war in Vietnam. I recently walked the battlefield with my friends, Paul and Linda Manuel. It was an extraordinary experience and what it meant to this Union and what it stands for was explained early in the film in an exchange between Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, commander of the 20th Maine, and his Irish-American sargeant:

Tell me something, Buster... what do you think of Negroes?

Well, if you mean the race...I don't really know. This is not a thing to be ashamed of. The thing is, you cannot judge a race. Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time.

To me, there was never any difference.

— None at all?

— None at all. Of course, I haven't known that many freed men but those I knew in Bangor, Portland...you look in the eye, there was a man. There was a "divine spark," as my mother used to call it. That is all there is to it. Races are men. "What a piece of work is man. How infinite in faculties, in form and moving...how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel."

Well, if he's an angel, all right then...but he damn well must be a killer angel. Colonel, darling, you're a lovely man. I see a great vast difference between us, yet I admire you, lad. You're an idealist, praise be.

The truth is, Colonel there is no "divine spark." There's many a man alive no more of value than a dead dog. Believe me. When you've seen them hang each other the way I have back in the Old Country. Equality?

What I'm fighting for is the right to prove I'm a better man than many of them.

Where have you seen this "divine spark" in operation, Colonel? Where have you noted this magnificent equality? No two things on earth are equal or have an equal chance. Not a leaf, not a tree. There's many a man worse than me and some better but I don't think race or country matters a damn. What matters, Colonel, is justice. Which is why I'm here. I'll be treated as I deserve not as my father deserved. I'm Kilrain, and I damn all gentlemen. There is only one aristocracy and that is right here. And that's why we've got to win this war.

Gettysburg Script - transcript from the screenplay of Gettysburg

Jerks win?

James Taranto notes a study:

"Rude People Can Be Perceived as Powerful," according to a Scientific American headline. The magazine reports on a new study in which subjects read about "a person who, without asking, helped himself to a cup of coffee from another person's pot" and "a bookkeeper [who] consciously ignored a financial error," as well as "scrupulous coffee drinkers and bookkeepers." The subjects reckoned that the bad-behaving ones were "more in-control and leaderlike":

In another test, being publicly rude also seemed to engender a perceived sense of power. A hundred twenty-six subjects watched one of two videos. One of a man sitting in a sidewalk café and acting courteously, the other of the same man stretching his legs out on a chair next to him, tossing his cigarette ashes wherever, and barking orders at the cafe staff. Subjects thought the crude man was more likely to be a decision-maker and get his way than the same man behaving himself.

So next time you think someone is important, remember: They [sic] may simply be a jerk.

And a comment at Scientific American suspects that may explain another behavior pattern:

That might also explain some of the appeal of "bad boys" to certain women, as they're unconsciously perceived as being more socially dominant....

I Timothy 3:1-3 suggests that Christian leaders should exemplifly other qualities:

If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome.... [ESV]

'Don't You Know Who I Am?' - WSJ.com, Rude People Can Be Perceived as Powerful: Scientific American Podcast

Enthusiastic, joyful, seriousness

Appreciating—enjoying—G.K. Chesterton, but not necessarily the biography of GKC by Ian Ker he is reviewing here, Robert Douglas-Fairhurst:

.... Everything about Chesterton was larger than life: his height, his bulk, and a list of publications long enough to stock a small library. In a career spanning four decades, he produced some 80 books, 200 short stories, 4,000 essays and countless newspaper columns that he dictated while chuckling at his own jokes and jabbing at the air with a knife. A “man of colossal genius”, according to G B Shaw, he sometimes seemed to have several other writers nested inside him like Russian dolls. ....

.... A true democrat, he was interested in everything and brought the same infectious enthusiasm to lampposts or the colour grey that he did to more obviously ambitious essays such as “The Plan for a New Universe”.

His most famous fictional creation took this principle even further, because the skill of his detective Father Brown lies in noticing what everyone else had missed, but everything Chesterton wrote was based on the same “ecstasy of the ordinary”. He described the world with all the wonder of Adam naming the creatures in Eden. .... [more]

G K Chesterton: A Biography by Ian Ker: review - Telegraph

In whom do you place your faith?

Anthony Sacramone thinks many of us put altogether too much confidence in "superstar" preachers.

If your pastor, preacher, teacher, elder, priest were to walk into an open manhole tomorrow, only to be replaced by some less-winsome personality, would you leave your church? If so, leave now.

Better yet: if your pastor, preacher, teacher, elder, priest were to be led out in handcuffs tomorrow, or discovered to have run off to Acapulco with the 16-year-old daughter of the youth minister, would you consider leaving the Church, full stop? If so, leave now.

Evangelical churches seem to be particularly susceptible to superstar preachers, because of the emphasis on preaching. We want to hear a new, fresh take on the old wooden Cross. We need some spiritual Red Bull to keep our enthusiasm up, but too often we wind up with just the bull. ....

So the next time you hear that your guy (or, in some cases, gal) will not be leading worship on a particular Sunday, ask yourself if your heart sinks a little, and whether you even reconsider showing up for services until he/she makes his/her return. If so, ask yourself why — and in whom you have been putting your faith. .... [more]

Promises, Promises » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

Frodo's wound

The editor of a new book, The Ring and the Cross: Christianity and The Lord of the Rings, Dr. Paul E. Kerry, is asked about his favorite moment in LOTR:

In Book I, in the chapter "A Knife in the Dark", Frodo is seriously wounded by one of the Black Riders. After his time in the House of Elrond his grievous injury seems to be healed. Yet, much later, after (the) defeat of Sauron and when Frodo appears to be settled into some kind of domestic tranquility, he tells Sam, twice, that he is "wounded" and that this is the kind of wound that would never heal. Soon thereafter, of course, he leaves for the Grey Havens, stating a truth that Tolkien would have known all too well after experiencing the two World Wars.

Those who sacrifice to save us and preserve our lives and ways of life, whether they be soldiers, sailors, submariners, or airmen, or those our parents, teachers, religious leaders, and so forth, often cannot fully enjoy that which they (give) so much to preserve. It may come as a surprise to those readers, perhaps readers whose experience in life thus far has taught them that everything is recoverable, all can be made anew, that we can spring back in perfect health from any setback, that there are wounds from which we on our own cannot fully recover.

Tolkien's Faith | An Interview with Paul E. Kerry, editor of "The Ring and the Cross: Christianity and The Lord of the Rings" | by Sean McGuire | Ignatius Insight | May 23, 2011

That would be the beginning

This day pray for the disappointed, that they do not lose their faith. Jared Wilson:

From our dinner table conversation tonight.

Dad: (seeing Mom looking at the clock) Are you seeing if the rapture happened? I think it's past 6 p.m.
Mom: No.
Grace, 7: What's the rapture?
Macy, 9: The rapture isn't happening today.
Grace: What's the rapture?
Macy: It's when Jesus comes back.
Grace: Oh. Yeah, I don't think that's happening today.
Mom: Would you be ready if Jesus did come back today?
Grace: That would be like the end of the world.
Mom: No, that would be the beginning of it!

I love my ladies.

The reporter assigned by the New Republic doesn't like how we are reacting to the disappointment:

.... [T]he more I looked into the story, the more it began to turn my stomach to think of spending my Saturday evening in someone’s living room, waiting for that gotcha moment when they realized it was all a lie—leaving me to file a story the next day, poking fun at their gullibility. I decided I couldn’t do it.

Yet the media coverage has continued, and now to me, the schadenfreude has turned sinister. Based on the high traffic the articles are garnering, it would seem as if many of us are intrigued voyeurs, gleeful in knowing the exact day when these people will experience their life’s greatest disappointment. We feel superior, knowing that even though they told us we were heading for death and destruction, now, they get theirs. ....

.... There’s a cruelty underlying our desire to laugh at this story—a desire to see people humiliated and to revel in our own superiority and rationality—even though the people in question are pretty tragic characters, who either have serious problems themselves or perhaps are being taken advantage of, or both.

Sure, it’s an interesting story when a fringe group decides the world is ending tomorrow. But it’s also a small story. Come Sunday morning, as news articles flood in about the disillusioned end-timers, and those articles instantly become some of the most popular on the web—as they surely will—we might want to ask ourselves not what is wrong with this sad group of apocalyptic believers, but rather what is wrong with a society that takes such pleasure in their dysfunction.

The Gospel-Driven Church: That's What's Up, The Media's Shameful Obsession With The Rapture | The New Republic

Easter V: Doers and not hearers only

O LORD, from whom all good things do come; Grant to us thy humble servants, that by Thy holy inspiration we may think those things that are good, and by Thy merciful guiding may perform the same; through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
[Thomas Cranmer]

BE ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: for he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. [James 1]

O LORD, in whose hands are life and death, by whose power I am sustained, and by whose mercy I am spared, look down upon me with pity. Forgive me, that I have this day neglected the duty which Thou hast assigned to it, and suffered the hours, of which I must give account, to pass away without any endeavour to accomplish Thy will, or to promote my own salvation. Make me to remember, O God, that every day is Thy gift, and ought to be used according to Thy command. Grant me, therefore, so to repent of my negligence, that I may obtain mercy from Thee, and pass the time which Thou shalt yet allow me, in diligent performance of Thy commands, through Jesus Christ. Amen.
[Samuel Johnson]

When He comes

Regarding what Our Lord says in Matthew 24:37-44, Jared Wilson concludes that "It Is Good to be Left Behind":

.... In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll be up front and confess that I am not a pre-tribulationist. Without getting too much into the various views of eschatology, I will say that when I read this passage, I don’t see it as being a good thing to be taken away.

Before you demur, let me explain:

Notice Jesus compares his coming to the flood coming in Noah’s day. Just as then, people were minding their own business, eating and drinking, going about their daily life, unprepared and unaware of the imminent danger. Suddenly, God came and wiped them away. In the same way, Jesus says, he is coming and people who are not prepared for the invasion of the physical kingdom will be minding their own business and will be taken away. I believe this means they are taken away to judgment. Can we agree that a thief coming into your house is not a good thing? ....

And a blogger named Marcia Morrissey reminds us that:

Each day the Lord gives us is a gift, and an opportunity to live it the best we can. I don't know when the Lord will return—maybe soon, but only God knows. The thing I do know for sure is that each day is a day closer to the Lord's return for me personally, and I want to be ready....

The Gospel-Driven Church: It Is Good to be Left Behind, Everyday Rapture

Evangelicals and Aquinas

From an interview with Gregg Allison, Baptist professor and author of Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine:

Do you really think evangelicals can and should be as familiar with Thomas Aquinas as they are with Mark Driscoll, as you write in the preface?

I bet Mark Driscoll would agree with me! He is a staunch proponent of sound doctrine and is attempting to articulate and defend it with a particular method well-suited for his contemporary audience and with a missional focus. .... Thomas Aquinas was a staunch proponent of sound doctrine—notice how often he quoted Augustine and other early church theologians—who attempted to articulate and defend it with a particular (Aristotelian) method well-suited for his medieval audience and with a missional focus. Just look at his masterpiece—Summa Theologica, or summary of theology. And don’t overlook his Summa contra Gentiles, a manual for missionaries working among Jews and Muslims, providing support for the Christian faith.

Evangelicals can learn much from Aquinas: his careful reasoning, his appeal to Scripture, his attempt to use philosophy for the benefit of theology, his interaction with historical theology, his championing of sound doctrine, his contextualization of the faith, and much more. Why would we intentionally ignore such help as we seek to do much of the same in our contemporary society? Read Aquinas. Read Driscoll (or at least listen to his podcasts). We will progress further as result of both. ....

Driscoll, Aquinas, and the Need for Historical Theology – The Gospel Coalition Blog

"It depends where you look..."

For some reason there has been much recent criticism of David Barton's version of American history. It deserves criticism — but he has been around for a long time and his oversimplifications are no more egregious than those of many of his critics. When actual history is being done about the role of Christianity in this Republic, the truth becomes more complex than either the "Christian America" or "wall of separation" types admit. At Patheos, an interview with John Fea: "The Founders, Faith, and the American Nation." From Greg Garrett's introduction to the interview:

Was American Founded as a Christian Nation? It's one of the questions ricocheting around our national discourse, and it has strong proponents of both "no" and "yes." Those who argue that we should do X because we are a Christian nation are assuming an answer. Those who argue that we have no responsibility to do X—or must not do X—because we are not a Christian nation are likewise assuming an answer.

But as Professor John Fea explores American history in his fine new book Was America Founded As a Christian Nation?, his intent is to complicate this dualist debate by doing his job as a historian. ....

History as a discipline is much richer and more powerful than we see when each side cherry-picks the facts or quotes it needs, and Professor Fea reminds us that the question framed by his book's title does not have a simple answer, no matter what you may have heard. And that history shouldn't be so easily reduced; that's not what history is for. ....

A couple of questions and answers from the interview:

Greg: In researching, writing, and, now, talking about your book, what historical misconceptions or factual errors have you encountered in the contemporary debate about faith and our founding that most surprised or alarmed you?

John: To be honest, I came into this project with the perception that it would be easy to show that the Founding Fathers were not out to create a Christian nation. But then I read the state constitutions written between 1776 and 1780. Almost all of them had very strong Christian qualifications for office-holders. For example, in the state of Pennsylvania civil rights were afforded to anyone who, among other things, upheld the divine inspiration of the Old and New Testaments. This led me to wonder how we define nationhood in the 1780s—the time between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It is clear that during this period political power was invested in the states (under the Articles of Confederation), and most of these states (Virginia was a big exception to this rule that cannot be ignored) had Christian religious establishments or Christian qualifications for office-holding. Did the founders want to create a Christian nation? It depends where you look and how you define your terms. ...

Greg: Given the complexity you mention that always pervades history, which of the founders would you say approximate contemporary understandings of Christianity? And what founders are sometimes called Christian but don't seem to express orthodox beliefs—or perhaps orthodox Christian practices?

John: Most of the major Founding Fathers were not orthodox. John Adams was a Unitarian who rejected the Trinity. Thomas Jefferson rejected the resurrection. Benjamin Franklin did not believe in the deity of Christ. George Washington is a tough one to nail down. He was probably an orthodox Christian, but did not spend much time reflecting on matters pertaining to religion and theology.

But there is a larger issue here. It is illogical to assume that the personal religious beliefs of a founder automatically translate into his understanding on the role of religion in government. Recently Peter Lillback wrote a 1000+ page book defending the idea that George Washington was not a deist. Fair enough. I agree with him that Washington was not a deist. But I am not convinced that Washington's personal faith meant that he wanted to create a Christian nation. .... [more]

The Founders, Faith, and the American Nation: An Interview with John Fea

"Even Thor has grown richer through acquaintance with Jesus"

Lars Walker, who knows something about Norse culture and myth, likes the new film, Thor, but doubts that any of the old Viking believers would recognize these "gods":

.... What particularly intrigues me is the way the Odin of the comic books and of the movie differs from the original Odin we encounter in the sagas, eddas, and scaldic poetry of the Viking Age. The differences, I think, are instructive.

To anyone schooled in Norse mythology, the Odin of the movie is almost unrecognizable, except for his long beard, lack of one eye, and possession of Sleipnir, the eight-legged horse (which provides an extremely cool special effects moment). Anthony Hopkins' Odin is wise and good, full of benevolence and cherishing a horror of war. ....

The Odin of the Vikings was most of all an extremely powerful magician, a wizard—not the nice kind of wizard like Gandalf, though he was one of Tolkien's inspirations for the character, but the old kind of wizard—treacherous and murderous, with lies on his lips and blood under his fingernails. He delighted in war for two reasons—one in order to feed the wolves and ravens that were his familiars, secondly in order to fill his hall, Valhalla, with heroes who would stand with him at Ragnarok, the last great battle. To this end he raised heroes up and then brutally betrayed them. He was also, according to the eddas, a sexual predator and a known deviate.

The difference between these two Odins, I think, is suggestive of important—and generally unrecognized—elements in western culture. The script writers have confused Odin with the Yahweh of the Jews and Christians. It doesn't even occur to them that a high god could be anything but kind and peace-loving, since we all have so thoroughly internalized Christian suppositions that even people who reject the Christian religion—and I assume that a large proportion of the people who made this movie do—can't conceive of a religion founded on darkness and brute force and the domination of the weak by the strong.

In an odd plot element (I'll try not to spoil it) Thor submits to a Christ-like humiliation for the sake of others. This is something that would have never been said of him in the old religion, except as a joke. Even Thor has grown richer through acquaintance with Jesus. .... [more]

Brandywine Books: Movie review: Thor

CSL and the Aeneid

C.S. Lewis was very good at a great many things, but it might have been better if some of his unpublished work remained so. Sarah Ruden on C.S. Lewis as Translator

If the attitude of Lewis and his brother had prevailed, we would have no trace of a great writer's efforts to render the great Roman epic in English. In a somewhat similar way, the intervention of Vergil's friends saved the original, half-finished Aeneid from the flames to which its author, on his deathbed, was keen to send it.

But in Lewis' case the intervention is not as easy to praise. .... (more)

And he wasn't terribly good at original poetry either.

C. S. Lewis as Translator | Books and Culture