Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for January, 2009

Abraham Lincoln

Yesterday for my day off, I went to Borders, ordered a large coffee, and, in connection with my recent interest in biographies, read James M. McPherson’s Abraham Lincoln. There are a host of books on Lincoln being published this year (because it is the 200th anniversary of his birth), but McPherson’s stood out to me because it is concise – at 65 pages, it can be read in one sitting. But despite its brevity I found it very informative, and I found more joy and fascination in reading it than I can express. At the risk of sounding overly praising of Lincoln, I would like to list several things that stood out to me while reading:

(1) The fact of historical contingency. Things did not have to play out the way they did. We tend to view the events of the past as inexorable and fixed, because to us – looking back in time – they are. But the preservation of the Union and the abolition of slavery was, to human eyes, anything but fixed and determined during the constant ebb and flow of Lincoln’s presidency. At many points, success must have seen desperately improbable. Reading this book was a powerful reminder that many of the celebrated events in our history – events which shape our world almost as much as the rising of the sun – were effected only by the narrowest of straits, and the strenuous effort of good people. The largest and most momentous events in history are unalterably annexed to the smallest and most apparently random details which surround them.

One example would be the timing of General Sherman’s capture of Atlanta on September 3, 1864, which turned the tide of the 1864 election in Lincoln’s favor. Would Lincoln have been re-elected if the taking of Atlanta had gone differently? So much often seems to have turned upon the head of a pin. I can understand how people can love the study of history – it is so interesting. All of this gives a new appreciation for divine sovereignty, a concept which Lincoln seems to have grown in his appreciation of throughout his presidency.

(2) Lincoln’s political courage. Today, of course, Lincoln is revered, and thus it is easy to forget how initially obscure, frequently misunderstood, and throughout controversial he was in his own day. While he was loved by many Americans, he was fiercely despised by many others, both within and without his party, both in the North and South, both radical abolitionists and opponents of abolitionism. Some in his very own cabinet, McPherson noted at one point in the book, thought themselves better fit for the presidency! The pressures and anxieties he must have faced are difficult to imagine, and on top of it all he had to deal with incompetent generals for the first half of the war.

Had he caved into popular demand, against his convictions and his wisdom, on any one of a number of occasions when it would have been easy to do so, all would have been lost. He then would have gone down in the history books as the President who failed to preserve the Union, not the President who saved it. But he didn’t. He made the right decisions and stuck with them – even when they were extremely unpopular. For example, McPherson records how in the summer of 1864 Lincoln faced enormous pressure to make peace with the South by dropping the issue of slavery. Although he firmly believed it would cost him the upcoming election, Lincoln stayed the course, claiming, “I should be damned in time and eternity for so doing. The world shall know that I will keep my faith to friends and enemies, come what may” (57).

According to McPherson, America could not have survived the Civil War without Lincoln’s wisdom and courage. Wisdom in knowing the right course, and courage in taking that course (often in the face of much opposition). “It seems quite likely that without (Lincoln’s) determined leadership America would have ceased to be” (62). His fame is deserved.

(3) Lincoln’s rhetorical eloquence. His speeches and letters were beautiful. How fascinating it would have been to watch this gangly, awkward, ill-dressed, no-name Westerner hold huge audiences spell-bound. I liked the concluding line from his speech in New York City in February 1860, which earned a thundering ovation:

“Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.”

(4) Lincoln’s military genius. He spent much time reading military strategy, conferring with his generals, and visiting the troops. He summed up his strategy for achieving victory in these words:

“I state my general idea of this war to be that we have greater numbers, and the enemy has the greater facility of concentrating forces upon points of collision; that we must fail, unless we can find some way of making our advantage an overmatch for his; and that this can only be done by menacing him with superior forces, at different points, at the same time.”

According to McPherson, this was the strategy, employed by General Ulysses Grant, that ultimately won the war.

(5) Lincoln’s wisdom in leadership. Objections like, “why didn’t he free the slaves sooner?” or “why did he initially say he was not going to free the slaves?” usually fail to appreciate the delicacy of his situation. If he was too rash, he could have lost support for the war. If he was too passive, he could have weakened their position. He had to rally all different kinds of people with different perspectives to the common cause, and he had to do this at just the right time. Somehow he managed to walk this fine line without compromising his values.

(6) The importance of Lincoln in American history. He did not merely preserve the Union – by ending slavery he improved it and enabled it to finally realize the dream it had been founded upon – the dream of a nation built upon equality: “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

What was dreamed in 1776, and was written in 1787, was not merely tested in 1861-1865: it was completed. Whatever respect we pay the founding fathers for the dream of a nation founded on the principle of equality, we must pay also to Lincoln, not only for preserving this dream in its severest trial, but for finishing it.

In other words, Lincoln didn’t merely save America: he completed it.

Read Full Post »

When I started seminary I thought that among the various fields of theology, New Testament would be my primary interest. During my time in seminary, I have been surprised to find in me a growing interest in studying historical theology. I recently came across this statement by Carl Trueman, which I found helpful as a statement about the importance of historical theology, especially as an answer to the question, why study historical theology if the Bible is our only authority?

“The Reformation emphasis on Scripture as the sole authoritative source for theological truth never precluded a careful sifting of the great texts of the past for help in expressing this truth, and these texts were not restricted to any single artificially constructed period of church history but were drawn from the wider Christian tradition as it developed throughout the ages. Respect for the past was something which pre-modern Christianity assumed from the outset” (John Owen: Reformed, Catholic, and Renaissance Man, p. 11).

Read Full Post »

Proper Knowledge

For a Jan-term class on the Puritans I just finished, I had to read John Owen’s Communion with the Triune God, and I loved it. Its a great model of deep theology done unto a practical and devotional end. Owen takes a doctrine and turns it over and over until he just about exhausted it for emotive impact. This is a helpful quote for how he was able to do this, and one which is very instructive for all of us who want to communicate theology:

“I hold myself bound in conscience and in honor, not even to imagine that I have attained a proper knowledge of any one article of truth, much less to publish it, unless through the Holy Spirit I have had such a taste of it, in its spiritual sense, that I may able, from the heart, to say with the psalmist, ‘I have believed, and therefore I have spoken.’”

Read Full Post »

The professor I referenced in my last post would also frequently say during class discussions, “all of us see reality through a grid” in order to relativize a claim. For a while the way this was done bugged me, but I could not figure out why. Gradually I noticed that these kinds of comments were being consistently directed towards statements of faith. So one day I raised my hand in class and asked, “is the reaction against religious faith the result of a grid, just as much as religious faith is the result of a grid?” He shrugged and said, “yes, of course.” He didn’t seem to understand the point of my question, but for me it was the most memorable moment of the semester because I realized that the arguments for relativism ultimately relativize themselves. His comments about seeing through a grid never bothered me again.

I am not big into culture, but here are some further haphazard thoughts I scribbled out last week while thinking about this: postmodernism is more like a mood than a state. Its a journey, not a house to live in. It is, by nature, reactionary and cynical and in flux. However much it chastens the claims of modernism, it cannot replace them because it has no substance to live off of. It has thus left people in a vacuum. Eventually the mood passes, and people look around for something to base their lives on.

Bruce McCormack: “my own guess is that postmodernism is a storm that is already moving off the coast and out to sea, where it will simply blow itself out.”

Read Full Post »

Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) was born in Austria and spent much of his life in Cambridge. He lived a fascinating and very sad life – for example, three of his four brothers committed suicide. His main areas of focus are logic, math, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of language. His two major works are Tractacus Logico-Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations. He has had a huge impact across many disciplines, and is considered by some to be greatest philosopher of 20th century.

Wittgenstein does not fit into any philosophical school, but he is similar to Kant in his emphasis on the limits of language and reason in philosophy, and similar to some of the existentialists in that he emphasizes that philosophy should be practically helpful and is skeptical of metaphysical claims. Much of his work was in the attempt to limit the ability of human language to refer to metaphysical reality. Knowledge of ultimate reality must be shown, not told. Philosophy is descriptive, not deductive. The problems of philosophy are solved only when they go away. In the Tractacus he wrote, “what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.”

In college I had a professor who would occasionally dismiss a student’s comment with the remark, “that’s just a language game.” This was a Wittgensteinian influence, and a Wittgensteinian phrase. According to Wittgenstein, words do not have a static meaning corresponding to some external object, but rather take on various meanings according to the way they are used in their speaker’s language. To understand the meaning of a word, you must look at its context, and how it is being used by the speaker – how it fits in with the overall “game” of what the speaker is saying. Some interesting quotes:

“Language is a part of our organism and no less complicated than it.”
“If a lion could talk, we could not understand him.”
“If we spoke a different language, we would perceive a somewhat different world.”

One thing I find interesting about Wittgenstein is that, despite being very post-modern and skeptical, he seemed to recognize some of the problems inherent in rigorous skepticism. He was certainly not a Christian – Bertrand Russell (his teacher and one time friend) said of him: “he is far more terrible with Christians than I am.” But he recognized that doubting is only possible when there is already faith. According to Wittgenstein, doubting is only possible where testing is possible (in which a belief is found wanting of evidence, and thus doubtful), and tests presuppose something that is not doubted and not tested. He said, “our doubts depend on the fact that some propositions are exempt from doubt, are as it were like the hinges on which those turn.” Therefore, he claimed, “the game of doubting presupposes certainty.”

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,357 other followers

%d bloggers like this: