"I Am Second"

You may have seen billboards for a ministry that uses the title, “I Am Second.” It’s a sort of collection of personal testimonies, and we’re to presume, I gather, that the meaning is that God is first. I’m certainly not here to disagree with the general thrust of that sentiment, but I will be borrowing that ministry’s catchphrase to celebrate, with a certain amount of humble trepidation, a milestone that I never expected to happen when I first sat down at a computer to debate Skeptics on AOL debate forums in 1996.

By 1998, many of you may remember, I was part of another online ministry called the Christian Apologetics Bookshelf. Somewhere in that time period, someone suggested to me that I might try submitting an article to the Christian Research Journal (CRJ), the leading apologetics magazine. My memory is somewhat dim on the chronic details; I seem to recall that by then I had already been approached by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International to write something for their journal. 

(By the way, Dr. Sarfati has remained a good friend ever since; we’ve even had him over for dinner, and once took him to Outback Steakhouse, where we had a ball passing him off as a sort of ambassadorial inspector who was visiting from Australia to make sure that the chain was “properly representing” his home nation. The look on the server’s face when Dr. Sarfati whipped out his Australian drivers’ license was priceless.)

I had some hesitation about submitting something to CRJ, and hedged for a bit. The stellar names who wrote for that august publication were an imposing lot, and I had very little thought that I would pass their rigorous standards for publication. Still, I was encouraged by various parties to give it a try, and I did so. The result was an article titled, “Celsus Strikes Again,” which was all about how the ancient pagan critic Celsus made the same arguments that modern critics of Christianity do. I packaged it up, sent it off, and waited.

I didn’t hear back. 

Naturally, I assumed that my work simply hadn’t passed editorial muster, and I moved on to other things, including more work for CMI.

Then, sometime I think in early 2000, I got a phone call. On the other end was Elliot Miller, the editor of the Journal. I remember very little of the exact words of our conversation, but what it amounted to was, they had found my article in a file somewhere, and wanted to publish it. The few exact words I do remember were me saying, “I can’t believe this is happening” – more than once. And in turn, Elliot Miller replying: “It’s happening.” And indeed it did.

After that it was a sort of snowball effect. Bob Passantino, who was then associated with CRI, called me about a year later after reading my analysis of Dennis MacDonald’s Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. He wanted me to create a condensed version for the Journal. That was the first time someone there called me to write something for them. 

The next two articles were my own submissions: A look at popular Mormon apologetics works (like those of Barry Bickmore) and a discussion of how evangelism in the book of Acts was actually a form of apologetics. One assignment shortly after that was a particularly sad one. Bob Passantino called me again, asking me to do an article on The DaVinci Code. He passed away soon thereafter, and as far as I know, I’m the last person he called to give a writing assignment.

From there it went on with an eclectic mix of submissions and assignments: Several book reviews, a few “departmental” articles, and several “feature-length” articles. My memory of most of them, at this later date, is fairly dim, such that I can re-read them today and not even recall writing them. Tekton readers will recognize some of the topics as related to favorite themes of mine: E.g., an article on how to deal with people who suffered from “the Dunning effect”; on the question of Hitler’s religious beliefs; a review of Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes; an article on how “inerrancy” is to be defined, and a review of the Zeitgeist movie.

(That last one is the butt of a special joke among friends of mine. I had pledged, at one time, to never watch the Zeitgeist movie, and Nick Peters, my junior ministry partner, along with his friend David Sorrell, started a running gag asking when I would review the Zeitgeist movie. When I finally did watch it, in order to write the article for CRJ, the terms of the joke changed, but the joke itself didn’t.)

CRI also made use of my knowledge in other, more specialized areas. In 2005, knowing that I had worked for many years in the Florida prison system, they asked me to do an article on religious movements in prisons. In 2011, I used my background in library science to compose an article which in many ways I consider my favorite and most technical: it was about how the Internet affects the human brain, and how this relates to the performance of apologetics. Also in 2011, I submitted an article that was all about how to create online videos.

It was about that time, in 2011, that something first occurred to me. I had been averaging between 2-3 articles for CRI each year, and it made me curious as to whether anyone else had kept that kind of pace with them. So I started with the contents of the magazine from 1978 (when it was still called “Forward” magazine), counting the number of articles attributed to each author, excluding anyone who was an editor.

Much to my surprise, I was on pace to become CRI’s second-most prolific non-editorial writer within a few years. And now, with the publication of an article in the latest issue, titled “Jephthah’s Bloodless Sacrifice,” that is exactly what has happened. Formally, I have now authored enough articles for CRI to pass James White and say, of this category, and with the same humility that puts God in first place: “I am second.”

I say this, again, with a certain amount of humble trepidation, much like those on that personal testimony website.  It was an unexpected privilege to find myself in this position, and I will forever be grateful to Elliot Miller, as well as Melanie Cogdill (the managing editor at the Journal) and Hank Hanegraaff for making this possible. I never expected to get that first article published; and even after it was published, I certainly never expected to receive any more assignments. To be at this stage, now, is a surprise of such magnitude that I find myself repeating that same phrase I pronounced to Elliot Miller: “I can’t believe this is happening.” It is. But I still can’t believe it even as I have that milestone issue lying on the desk beside me.

Elliot in particular has been a special blessing to my wife and I, and you’ll note that I refer to him by his first name, as though to a friend. That is exactly what he and his wife Corinne are to us. A few years back, they moved to the southern part of Florida, and proposed a get-together in person. Much to our delight, we found in them a couple of kindred spirits who appreciated many of the same things we do: Nature walks, museums, and zoos, for example; and naturally, we talk shop about apologetics. We now have an established biannual ritual where we visit one another in our respective hometowns: They come see us in May, we go see them in December. The friendship of the Millers has been, in many ways, the most treasured reward that has come of my work with CRI, and I look forward to many more years of serving that publication and visiting with our special brother and sister in faith. 

And so this post is offered to memorialize this happy occasion, which I never in my wildest dreams expected to happen. At the same time I’m celebrating this milestone, though, there’s also a crueler and darker mechanism at work which it is time I said a great deal more about, though I alluded to it back in February. Someone has outright made it his purpose to destroy all that Tekton has worked for, and he’s not in the least ashamed of his tactics. I’ll save that, though, for another posting; and that one posting, when I make it, will be the only one to be made on the Ticker in coming weeks until I get certain matters resolved.

In close…I guess you’re wondering, if I’m second, who’s first, and when will I catch up to them? If you’re interested, I’ll tell you by email who’s first; regardless, I won’t ever catch up to him, nor have I made it my goal to do so. The man in first place has been writing for CRI for ten years longer than I have, and he’s got more the double the writing credits with them. I won’t even try to catch up to him, and I actually prefer to be “second” behind a far more august name like his.   

After all, my original expectation, back in that yesteryear of 1998, was that I’d never be on that list at all – and who am I to ask for more than this great blessing that I now have?

Thomas Jefferson's Thanksgiving

The post this week is by guest contributor W. R. Miller.

***

             In recent years a new Thanksgiving tradition has developed:  people complaining about  it.  Critics allege that our third president, Thomas Jefferson, regarded Thanksgiving as “The most ridiculous idea I’ve ever heard.”  As of this writing, a Google search yields 581 results of this statement, coupled with “Jefferson” and “Thanksgiving.”

            Did Jefferson really say those words?  What documentation is cited by the skeptics?

            Virtually, none.

            Thanks to the digital revolution, a comprehensive repository of published materials from the eighteenth and nineteenth century is available online.  Newsbank offers America’s Historical Newspapers, America’s Historical Imprints.  Gale provides Eighteenth Century Collections Online, The Making of the Modern World, Sabin Americana, Nineteen Century Collections Online, and Nineteenth Century U.S. Newspapers.  Digitized newspapers are also available through ProQuest and Access Newspaper Archive.  Do these sources document the quote?  No.  Neither is there any citation at Thomas Jefferson’s libraries at Monticello.

            Why do critics not cite the source of their claim?  Perhaps because the quote is bogus.

            J. P. Holding pursued the matter online and could find no usage of the quote earlier than 2006—nearly two centuries after Jefferson’s death.

            Why would Jefferson disparage Thanksgiving?  The concept was commonplace in early American history as documented in the Thanksgiving Proclamations stored here.

            It may shock critics to learn that when Jefferson was governor of Virginia, he issued a Thanksgiving proclamation, on November 11, 1779:

            Here it is:

WHEREAS the Honourable the General Congress, impressed with a grateful sense of the goodness of Almighty God, in blessing the greater part of this extensive continent with plentiful harvests, crowning our arms with repeated successes, conducting us hitherto safely through the perils with which we have been encompassed and manifesting in multiplied instances his divine care of these infant states, hath thought proper by their act of the 20th day of October last, to recommend to the several states that Thursday the 9th of December next be appointed a day of publick and solemn thanksgiving and prayer, which act is in these words, to wit.

"Whereas it becomes us humbly to approach the throne of Almighty God, with gratitude and praise, for the wonders which his goodness has wrought in conducting our forefathers to this western world; for his protection to them and to their posterity, amidst difficulties and dangers; for raising us their children from deep distress, to be numbered among the nations of the earth; and for arming the hands of just and mighty Princes in our deliverance; and especially for that he hath been pleased to grant us the enjoyment of health and so to order the revolving seasons, that the earth hath produced her increase in abundance, blessing the labours of the husbandman, and spreading plenty through the land; that he hath prospered our arms and those of our ally, been a shield to our troops in the hour of danger, pointed their swords to victory, and led them in triumph over the bulwarks of the foe; that he hath gone with those who went out into the wilderness against the savage tribes; that he hath stayed the hand of the spoiler, and turned back his meditated destruction; that he hath prospered our commerce, and given success to those who sought the enemy on the face of the deep; and above all, that he hath diffused the glorious light of the gospel, whereby, through the merits of our gracious Redeemer, we may become the heirs of his eternal glory. Therefore,

Resolved, that it be recommended to the several states to appoint THURSDAY the 9th of December next, to be a day of publick and solemn THANKSGIVING to Almighty God, for his mercies, and of PRAYER, for the continuance of his favour and protection to these United States; to beseech him that he would be graciously pleased to influence our publick Councils, and bless them with wisdom from on high, with unanimity, firmness and success; that he would go forth with our hosts and crown our arms with victory; that he would grant to his church, the plentiful effusions of divine grace, and pour out his holy spirit on all Ministers of the gospel; that he would bless and prosper the means of education, and spread the light of christian knowledge through the remotest corners of the earth; that he would smile upon the labours of his people, and cause the earth to bring forth her fruits in abundance, that we may with gratitude and gladness enjoy them; that he would take into his holy protection, our illustrious ally, give him victory over his enemies, and render him finally great, as the father of his people, and the protector of the rights of mankind; that he would graciously be pleased to turn the hearts of our enemies, and to dispence the blessings of peace to contending nations.

That he would in mercy look down upon us, pardon all our sins, and receive us into his favour; and finally, that he would establish the independance of these United States upon the basis of religion and virtue, and support and protect them in the enjoyment of peace, liberty and safety."

I do therefore by authority from the General Assembly issue this my proclamation, hereby appointing Thursday the 9th day of December next, a day of publick and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God, earnestly recommending to all the good people of this commonwealth, to set apart the said day for those purposes, and to the several Ministers of religion to meet their respective societies thereon, to assist them in their prayers, edify them with their discourses, and generally to perform the sacred duties of their function, proper for the occasion. Given under my hand and the seal of the commonwealth, at Williamsburg, this 11th day of November, in the year of our Lord, 1779, and in the fourth of the commonwealth.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

            Thanksgiving was observed sporadically in the early 19^th century on the federal level while being observed regularly on a state level.

            In Volume Three of his diary, President Rutherford B. Hayes pointed out, "I have the Thanksgiving Proclamations of twenty-seven States--all recognizing religion, nearly all the religion of the Bible, and several the Divinity of Christ. More are coming, doubtless. Our Legislature for many years has passed a joint resolution annually authorizing a thanksgiving and frequently in terms which recognized the religion of the Bible. The last Legislature omitted to do so by a mere accident this year, but in [the] Sixty-fifth volume Ohio Laws, page 306, passed one last year. If you wish to borrow my bundle of Thanksgiving Proclamations I will send them to you. All state institutions have religious exercises, some of them chaplains paid under state laws. The meetings of the two houses of the General Assembly are always opened with prayer in accordance, sometimes, with resolutions (passed unanimously usually), and sometimes by common consent. The inaugurations of governors are prefaced by religious exercises."  From the Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, p. 72. 

            Historian Franklin Benjamin Hough wrote a compilation,  Proclamations for Thanksgiving, issued by the Continental Congress: Pres't Washington, by the national and state governments on the Peace of 1815, and by the governors of New York since the introduction of the custom; with those of the governors of the several states in 1858, accessible here.

            President Chester Arthur stated in hisThanksgiving Proclamation,  “It has long been the pious custom of our people, with the closing of the year, to look back upon the blessings brought to them in the changing course of the seasons and to return solemn thanks to the all-giving source from whom they flow.”

            To honor God is the least we can do for all He has done for us, for America.  Jefferson understood that—as have American statesmen throughout history.

            Why let critics rob us of this privilege?

*  *  *

            J. P. Holding exposes more bogus quotes at TektonTV.  Click here for more.

Slavery and Secularism

I take a generally negative view of newspaper opinion pieces. My complaint holds for almost any popular publication, but a 700-word op-ed provides just enough space to make an argument and a convenient excuse to ignore serious criticisms of your viewpoint. To the informed reader, this just annoying, an unfortunate side effect of how we consume news in the modern world. But the larger problem lies in the fact that most readers probably aren't in a position to analyze the claims being put forward.

That leads us to a piece by Hector Avalos published in the Ames Tribune last week [November 2011], exonerating secularism of its crimes and heaping all kinds of scorn on religious belief for the violence it has caused, and with very shoddy evidence.

Citing the Civil War, World Wars I and II as examples, a reader wrote to the editor arguing that "secular ideologies have caused more harm to humanity than religious ideologies." And Avalos, the skeptic and defender of truth that he is, couldn't let that stand.

There's an argument to be made that the letter writer was being a little overzealous in his accusations against secularism for the harm it's done, but Avalos didn't go that route. He decided to return the favor and ignore inconvenient facts in order to keep his disdain for religion intact.

"The American Civil War was fought, in part, on the basis of biblical interpretation about slavery." Perhaps. But there's more to the story. The arguments fished out of the Bible to justify slavery were gross misinterpretations of the text; they were concocted because the southern states needed to vindicate slavery, not because the practice is sanctioned anywhere in the Bible. It's long been pointed out by Christian apologists that slavery as it was practiced during the Civil War is not the same as that mentioned in the Old Testament. The latter could more accurately be called indentured servitude, which was voluntary.

Furthermore, there were Christian abolitionists writing during and after the Civil War who attacked the supposedly biblical basis for slavery. It's difficult to argue that the Bible condones slavery when some of its most vociferous critics were believers. How curious that Avalos left this out his article.

"In the case of World War II, José M. Sanchez, a Catholic historian, tells us that regardless of Pope Pius XII’s alleged complicity in the Nazi holocaust: 'There is little question that the Holocaust had its origin in the centuries-long hostility felt by Christians against Jews' (“Pius XII and the Holocaust: Understanding the Controversy,” The Catholic University of America Press, 2002, p. 70)."

If you pick up any scholarly history of Nazi Germany, it will be immediately obvious how foolish an argument this is. The truth is that as a matter of policy, the Nazis hated Christianity. They saw religion as an obstacle to overcome, because religion requires its adherents to dedicate themselves to something greater than a government. And that's trouble if you're a totalitarian regime.

In reality, the churches in Germany offered some of the first resistance after the Nazis took control of the country. Historian Joachim Fest reports in his book Plotting Hitler's Death that the Nazis openly attacked the churches too soon, and left the churches a degree of freedom after realizing that they wouldn't roll over. As Fest explains, "...the churches provided a forum in which individuals could distance themselves from the regime" and the resistance was so intense that "...Hitler decided to postpone a showdown until after the war." (p 32)

But if Avalos is correct, I'd love to know why the Nazis persecuted Christians so heavily, attempting to nationalize the Protestant church and make its doctrines more congenial with Nazism. As historian Richard J Evans reports in The Third Reich in Power, "Hitler seems to have had the ambition of converting [the church] into a new kind of national church, purveying the new racial and nationalist doctrines of the regime..." (p 223)

The result of this effort was a split in the Protestant church; The German Christians fell in line behind the Nazis and the Confessing Church held out its resistance, though in the face of much persecution. Evans says that their pastors were banned from preaching and denied  their salaries; Protestant publishing houses were seized, theology students were forced to join Nazi organizations, and by 1937, 700 pastors were imprisoned, some eventually murdered. (p 230)

My point, as with slavery, is not that Christians were perfectly innocent in all these affairs, but that the history is far more complex. It simply is not acceptable to lay Nazism at the feet of Christianity the way Avalos suggests we should.

"Similarly, Emperor Hirohito, who ruled Japan at the time of World War II, was seen as a god. The surrender of Japan came when president Harry S. Truman, a Baptist Christian, targeted and killed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

Apparently you can fault religion for the atomic bomb with anecdotes about two individuals. "The emperor was seen as a god! All religious people believe in god! See, World War II was religion's fault!" Be serious. The point about Truman is even more ridiculous. Avalos is taking a few facts in isolation, stripped of any historical context, and stringing them together to make his argument. To say that Truman's religious beliefs were the primary factor in the decision to drop the bomb on Japan is a crude oversimplification of a very complicated historical question.

But if you want to see just how vapid this argument is, try blaming the secular dictators of the last century on atheism, then watch its apologists, people like Avalos, begin rapidly backpedaling. Lenin's crimes (and those of his successors) were only political in nature, Richard Dawkins claimed in 2012, not an expression of his explicit atheism—though Lenin himself seemed to disagree. "Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses," he  wrote in 1905, about a decade before the Soviet Union began executing Russian Orthodox priests by the hundreds, and ultimately many millions of dissidents. The double standard is clear. Religious leaders commit violence because of their beliefs; secular dictators slaughter innocent people independent of their atheism.

"The main ethical criticism of religious wars is that they always trade real human lives for resources or entities (e.g., paradise, “holy land,” God’s will) that can never be verified to exist. On the other hand, secular wars, even if not always justified, often are fought over scarcities and threats (e.g., oil, water, a physical personal attack) that can at least be verified to exist."

A miserable ending to a miserable screed. What are often labeled religious conflicts actually fit comfortably into what Avalos calls "secular wars." It's true that enemies in a war are often divided along religious lines, but, as Dinesh D' Souza points out in What's So Great About Christianity?, equally important is what they're fighting over - usually, land, self-government, oil, or something else very non-religious, a point backed up by serious scholarship should you doubt D'Souza's reliability.

Unsurprisingly, then, Avalos' argument is painfully unconvincing. A little common sense and a brief survey of the relevant research are all we need to defuse this popular but ultimately unconvincing counter-apologetic.

 

-- Will Lawson