Grace and life eternal
in that blood I find,
blest be his compassion
infinitely kind!

Blest through endless ages
be the precious stream
which for sin and sorrow
does the world redeem.

Lift now then your voices;
swell the mighty flood;
louder still and louder
praise the precious blood.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” -Lewis

How I loathe the passing of this bill.

The Venerable Bede in his History of the English Church and People writes about this monk, Caedmon of Whitby, who was exceptionally adept in poetry.

Bede says of Caedmon, “So skillful was he in composing religious and devotional songs that, when any passage of Scripture was explained to him by interpreters, he could quickly turn it into delightful and moving poetry in his own English tongue. These verses of his have stirred the hearts of many folk to despise the world and aspire to heavenly things.”

The question we are asking is: Why do we speak English?

After all, Latin was spoken for centuries and French was massively spread throughout England, even mandated for awhile. Yet we don’t speak either of these languages.

Throughout the year I have been asking my students two important questions: Where have we come from? And where are we going?

In order to know where you are going you need to understand where you have come from.

Also, In order to live a happy life that truly flourishes understanding where you have come from is a necessary foundation. Studying the history of our own language might seem like learning only interesting facts about the past, but the study of history is more than just a mere study of information from the past.

History helps us to understand the present.

It helps answer all those “why” questions that we always ask. It helps us to gain a knowledge of our own self (which is the quest of the true philosopher) and frees us to think clearly about where we are going.

Hopefully, the students today can learn how the knowledge of the history of their own language can lead to a deeper understanding of who they are and who God calls them to be.

“We may [reverently] divide religions, as we do soups, into ‘thick’ and ‘clear’. By Thick I mean those which have orgies and ecstasies and mysteries and local attachments: Africa is full of Thick religions. By Clear I mean those which are philosophical, ethical and universalizing: Stoicism, Buddhism, and the Ethical Church are Clear religions. Now if there is a true religion it must be both Thick and Clear: for the true God must have made both the child and the man, both the savage and the citizen, both the head and the belly. And the only two religions that fulfil this condition are Hinduism and Christianity. But Hinduism fulfils it imperfectly. The Clear religion of the Brahmin hermit in the jungle and the Thick religion of the neighbouring temple go on side by side. The Brahmin hermit doesn’t bother about the temple prostitution nor the worshipper in the temple about the hermit’s metaphysics. But Christianity really breaks down the middle wall of the partition. It takes a convert from central Africa and tells him to obey an enlightened universalist ethic: it takes a twentieth-century academic prig like me and tells me to go fasting to a Mystery, to drink the blood of the Lord. The savage convert has to be Clear: I have to be Thick. That is how one knows one has come to the real religion”

2. Gotta love Fred Sanders over at Scriptorium Daily.  He uncovers some interesting history.  Here’s a bit on a prideful, and priggish C.S. Lewis.

3.  Dr. John Mark Reynolds, from the great Biola University, referenced in the Wall Street Journal on his vision for restoring the intellectual life of evangelicals.

4.  Ann Coulter defends Fox News reporter Brit Hume for his comments about Tiger Woods need to turn to a faith like Christianity in order to receive forgiveness and redemption. Others, predictably go on the attack.

5.  Apparently there is a Rush Limbaugh Musical coming out.  Weird.

6.  What makes a Great Teacher?

7.  Do you give approval to the President Obama’s work so far?

8.  Don’t like my links?  Here’s some more from Evangelical Outpost.

9.  Great chapter on Aquinas’ view on Justification, Sanctification, and Divinization, directed there via Dr. Francis Beckwith’s blog

10.  New issue of Touchstone Mag is out.

1.  Where am I going?

2.  How should Tradition inform my interpretation of Scripture?

3.  What is the nature of human freedom?

4.  In what way does the Doctrine of the Incarnation inform my understanding of the relationship between the spiritual and material?

5.  What is the dialectic?  How do I guide 7th graders in it?

6.  What are the pagan questions that Christianity answers?

7.   Is justification transformative?  Does the Bible teach Justification by faith alone?

8.  What is the role of the human will in Salvation?

9.  How do I fuse together  appropriate  Christian reason and Christian imagination?

Hopefully soon I will write what I think about each.

There seems to be couple senses in which a religion can rule a nation:

First, if a religion rules a nation the leaders of the specific religion are also in governing control, thus in enacting laws the ruler(s) acts only in the interest of that particular religions beliefs.  The State is always subservient to the religion.  The religion is eternal whereas the state is the temporal means through which the eternal truth is communicated and brings society to order.

Second, if a religion rules a nation this could also mean that the ruler is appointed by the leaders of the religion.  This is the case for Charlemagne at the beginning of the 9th century, as Pope Leo III appoints him as Holy Roman Emperor.  However, Charlemagne rules as a Christian Emperor seeking to structure society and government upon a Christian understanding of the world.  Thus, while he is not head of the Church like the Pope, he still governs in the interest of a particular religion.

Often living on this side of history makes us develop habits of thinking that C.S. Lewis calls, “chronological snobbery.”  We assume the myth of progress, the “success” of American democratic ideals as a triumphalist situation in which we can now look condescendingly toward our ‘naive’ ancestors.  We commit the fallacy of thinking the “new” is automatically better than the “old.”

Furthermore in looking at the past, the question of “Should religions rule nations?” is a much different than “Should religious believers have attempted to rule nations with their religion?”

It is all too easy to condemn the views of dead people, and while the past societies may have been wrong they deserve the utmost Charity.  We must let those who have gone before us to have their say.  Yet, often the vices of Christendom are more often discussed than its overwhelming virtues.  The critics of past Christian nations will sooner point to the Crusades, rather than to the Churches role in education and relieving poverty.

Yet, historically, people of faith have resorted to integrating their faith and government so as to ensure the success of their religion.  This is not to merely propagandize.  Most people of faith believe they have the Truth.  Truth is essential to any manner of governing.  Religion is not about subjective beliefs, but facts about the world.  Thus, they do this in order to give their posterity the Truth.

It is not my purpose here to argue that past societies, particularly Christian ones, are unjustified in their nationalization of their particular religion.  However, in the wake of a history of religious bloodshed wisdom now says that the integration of a nation with a particular religion is to be avoided.  In a pluralistic world no nation should operate under a system in which the ruling class forces others to believe a particular religion.  Christianity in particular is not a religion of force, but rather of choice and love.

However, there are eternal truths that all people in all cultures have believed, regardless of religion, e.g. morality.  Unfortunately, European nations and increasingly in America, the nationalizing of religion is often associated with people who are pro-life, and, furthermore, many are accused of the desire to nationalize religion because they engage in public religious discourse.  The secular world desires to denude society of religious language as a secularists view of reality is that faith is merely about private living, not knowledge.

It is important to note that the most religious of people were the founders of the free-world.  Government, as the founders realized, ought to protect fundamental rights.  These rights, regardless of the religion that is the actual source of them, are that of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Yet, this happiness is not a subjective state that one determines on their own, the happiness here is an objective state that one reaches through becoming virtuous by acting out virtue.  Being good is what makes one happy.  Therefore, a nations primary goal ought to be about making good citizens.

Having a religion rule a nation is often more about the force of the religion upon the people, and less about the actual making of good citizens.  One becomes good through free choice, not through coercion.  Radical Islamic nations often fall into the trap of coercing others into belief, rather than persuasively communicating it’s message.

Just as nation ought not nationalize religion, but should allow the free expression of differing religions, a nation with religious freedom ought not reduce religion to merely personal private beliefs held only by merely subjective faith.  Legitimate religions, that is those religions that are grounded upon a reasonable view of reality in line with a universal norms, ought to be allowed freely and openly debated even in a public forum.

Historically, of course, America has consisted of predominantly Christian citizens.  This is no secret.  Even today the largest religion in America is Christianity.  However, the fact that the majority of the citizens identify themselves as Christians does not necessarily mean that America is a Christian nation.

What then does it mean to be a Christian nation?

The idea of a Christian nation reaches as far back as emperor Constantine in the late Roman empire.  Although Constantine did not declare Christianity as the official religion, he did favor Christianity to an extraordinary degree as he reversed the Great Persecution of Christians under emperor Diocletian with the Edict of Milan in 313.  Because of Constantine’s significant influence on the spread of Christianity he has become the historical lightening rod through which Christianity has become implicated, for good and for ill, with the actions of the state.

It was not until the reign of emperor Theodosius in the late 4th century that Christianity officially becomes the State Religion.  However, the Church and State had been significantly linked decades before.

Much can be said about the Christian Church and State relations throughout history, but suffice it to say that there is a reason the founders of America desired to distinguish these two entities.  Much blood has been shed for such a relationship, yet too often this reality is too prominently emphasized to the exclusion of the overwhelmingly positive impact the relationship did have. (i.e. the University system was established by the integration of the two).

It would be very misleading to say that the founders of America wanted to separate these two entities if you mean by this that they wanted to create a publicly secular nation and leave matters of religion to be merely privatized.

Too often the phrase “separation of Church and State” is used to mean ‘all matters of faith should be removed from the public square.’  This was never the intention of the founders.

On Washington Posts On Faith blog website, Susan Jacopy says, “The majority of Americans are still Christians, but our government is secular and our nation is now composed of nonbelievers and believers of numerous religious denominations–some of which did not even exist at the time of the nation’s founding.“

Jacopy seems to ground her idea that our government is secular primarily on the fact that “God” is not in the Constitution.  And she complains that schools should teach more about the “secular” side of the American History.  It seems that in so far as American historical education is supposed to focus on the main influences of the past in America then religion (especially Christianity) ought to be most studied since it does indeed provide the foundational principles for our nation.  No one can argue with the historical fact that the founders had thoroughly Judeo-Christian cultural values, which significantly influenced their shaping the Constitution.

Furthermore, her quip that “God” is not in the Constitution  ignores the fact that the Constitution was shaped primarily to fulfill those inalienable rights given to man by God as articulated in the Declaration of Independence.  Theism or religion is not rejected just because the name “God” does not appear explicitly in the constitution.  The delegates met in Philadelphia primarily because (as the Federalists argued) the Articles of Confederation were insufficient to properly protect the colonies therefore it was in each colonies best interest that a federal government be formed, albeit it a limited one.  They wanted to form, as the preamble states, a more perfect union,  establish justice as well as secure the blessings of Liberty.

If understanding the author’s intention is the proper method of interpretation, then it is absurd to assume by reading the Constitution that America is a “secular” nation.  America is a reigious nation, if not a Christian nation.  And our government is a religious government.  Ideals like Liberty, Justice, Perfection makes no sense without Theism.  Again, American principles make no sense without God.  It seems that Jacopy, in attempting to distinguish our naton as not a Christian nation, falls off the other side of the horse by reducing American government to “secular”.  The government is not against religion, and promoting faith based insitutions is a good thing for the government to do.

In thinking historically about what it means for a nation to be Christian, there is one sense in which Obama is absolutely right.  We do not have a official state document that says “We are a Christian nation” nor do we have a Christian King who dictates matters of Church and State.  America is a place where people are free to worship their religion of choice, of course this is so long as this religion does not violate anyone’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and as long as it does not hinder the governments ability to protect the freedom of the people.  One can not have a religion that is based on committing crimes, or on hurting individuals.  Their religion most in some sense be consistent with the values upon which our nation is built.

Naturally, the question arises: from where did these values come from?  Values such as equality and liberty?

It seems on some level that it could possibly be argued that America is a Christian Nation, if one wants to lay down the premise that only Christiantiy teaches such ideals.   That is, America is thoroughly a Christian nation if one wants to argue that the principles upon which the government is founded are incomprehensible without Christian values and ideals.  This argument is possible, but goes beyond what I desire to claim here.

We do live in a pluralistic nation, where many religions are given equal treatment by the government.  Yet, even if America is not a Christian nation in the sense that we do not officially state this in a formal governing document this does not mean that America is “secular”.  The American government is thoroughly pro-religion, and whether or not one agrees if Christianity is true should realize that they are indebted to Christians for setting up such a nation.

In these times, all intellectual questions about the nature of pain and suffering are presently brought to our mind, yet they are now caught up and entangled with the knowledge and experience of our humanity—we are deeply aware of our lack of answers as we are flooded by overwhelming emotion- like when a stubborn child, who normally is ambivalent to his mothers constant presence, becomes lost and, consequently, desires above all things the embrace of his mothers arms, so we to in the midst of emotional grief long for an embrace that will grant hope amidst the stream of tears.

Because we are who we are—that is because we are human we desire comfort precisely because we need comfort.  Our desires are congruent to a true fact that describes who we are—we are people whose subsistence is derived from something outside ourselves.

There is no experience quite like loss, pain, and death that gives us a more real capacity to understand the often (deeply ignored) fact that we live move and have our being not of our own accord, but through Him who gives life.  In the death of those we love, the reality of our finitude jolts us—even if only for a time—out of our complacency and reduces us to what we truly are: whimpering children in need of something outside ourselves to comfort us in the midst of deep sorrow.

Some have said that “God” is merely our sorrowful “wish fulfillment”.  He is the one whom we have created to comfort us—a sort of psychological blanket to cover our deeply felt despair.  However, suffering is adverse to humanity precisely because we believe in an objective Good—indeed, there is no meaning to the words ‘suffering’, ‘pain’, or ‘evil’ without latent ideas of Good.  The very meaning of these words presupposes a standard to reality.  Something is outside us giving us an “ought’ in life.
Just as the sun gives a glimmer of morning light before it shines blazingly in the day, so this true understanding gives us a glimmer of real hope that slowly begins to shine brightly amidst the steady stream of sorrowful tears.  It is an odd paradox: suffering exists only because Good is real.

And though we live in this world filled with tragedy, the fact that ‘tragedy’ can mean ‘tragedy’ smuggles in this gloriously hopeful truth that reality at its core is a joyous Comedy.  Our hearts are awakened and the Comedy of the world shines brightly—the sun has risen giving life to the flowers that bloom.  Spring has returned on this day and that which has died is resurrected to life.  We see that the world is filled with truth and meaning; it gives us—even if only a shadow—a picture of true reality—“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face, now we know in part, but then we will know fully just as we also have been fully known.”

A world where suffering actually happens is also a world that presupposes happiness, goodness, and truth.  Living in a world that has meaning is living in a place where things do not happen randomly.  Our choices do matter, and do have consequences.  God cannot be our wish fulfillment for why would we wish for anything without meaning?  And, meaning surrounds us.

In this fallen world to love anything is to risk pain and loss.  When we put our hearts in something we are by that act opening our hearts to the severity of grief.  It might be thought that we should only give our hearts, our love only to God because He is the one who will truly satisfy, one who will truly never change.  But we follow One who gave His life to gain our love.  Yet instead of falling at his knees and embracing the love he extends, we rejected His love.  And yet He shows his love for us in that while we are still sinners He dies for us.  Far from merely experiencing heartbreak for us rejecting His love, He surrendered himself to death to reconcile us and establish the ability for us to love Him.  Thus, we do not have insurances against heartbreak:

There is no safe investment. [Like Christ shows us as he weeps over Jerusalem and also in the garden of Gethsemane] To love at all is to be vulnerable.  Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken.  If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal.  Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness.  But in that casket—safe, dark, motionless, airless—it will change.  It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable.  The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation.  The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all dangers and perturbations of love is Hell. (Lewis, The Four Loves).

When Christianity says that God loves man, it means that God loves man: not that He has some ‘disinterested’, because really indifferent, concern for our welfare, but that, in awful and surprising truth, we are the objects of His love.  You asked for a loving God: you have one.  The great spirit you so lightly invoked, the ‘lord of terrible aspect’, is present: not a senile benevolence that drowsily wishes you to be happy in your own way, not the cold philanthropy of a conscientious magistrate, nor the care of a host who feels responsible for the comfort of his guests, but the consuming fire Himself, the Love that made the worlds, persistent as the artists’ love for his work and despotic as a man’s love for a dog, provident and venerable as a father’s love for a child, jealous, inexorable, exacting as love between the sexes…it passes reason to explain why any creatures, not to say creatures such as we, should have a value so prodigious in their Creator’s eyes.  It is certainly a burden of glory not only beyond our deserts but also, except in rare moments of grace, beyond our desiring…

for we are, not metaphorically, but in very truth a Divine work of art, something that God is making, and therefore something with which He will not be satisfied until it has a certain character…it is natural for us to wish that God has designed for us a less glorious and less arduous [painful] destiny; but then we are wishing not for more love but for less.

God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf word (Lewis, the Problem of Pain).