Today marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of “The Origin of the Species” by Charles Darwin. If you’ve followed this blog for a significant time you know that I have doubts about the compatibility of Darwinism and the belief in God as the Creator.
I remember as a high-school biology student, in addition to various other evolutionary facts, our teacher showed us the famous Heackel drawings of the developmental stages of embryos. He made us all memorize the phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” And he insisted that it was a scientific “fact” that proved that Darwin’s theory was undeniably true. It was all very convincing and I believed him. As a faithful member of the LDS church I reasoned that “evolution” was simply the device which God employed to bring to pass the creation. This was in 1989 and little did I know that the “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” hypothesis had, even then, been long discredited.
In an interesting article published in the Christian Science Monitor, Michael Spencer argues that within the next 10 years there will be a major collapse of Evangelical Christianity. Spencer, who describes himself as a “postevangelical reformation Christian in search of a Jesus-shaped spirituality” says:
“Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success. Emphasis will shift from doctrine to relevance, motivation, and personal success – resulting in churches further compromised and weakened in their ability to pass on the faith.”
…
“I believe the coming evangelical collapse will not result in a second reformation, though it may result in benefits for many churches and the beginnings of new churches.”
…
“We can rejoice that in the ruins, new forms of Christian vitality and ministry will be born. I expect to see a vital and growing house church movement. This cannot help but be good for an evangelicalism that has made buildings, numbers, and paid staff its drugs for half a century.”
“We need new evangelicalism that learns from the past and listens more carefully to what God says about being His people in the midst of a powerful, idolatrous culture.”
Merry Christmas!
Some fathers get their kids video games for Christmas. Some get them fancy dolls that blink, and cry, wet their pants, or dance and sing. Some get iPods, remote control cars, or some other gizmo of instant gratification.
What did this dad get his kids?
A rock tumbler. That’s right, a rock tumbler: a motor, a cylindrical container, some grit, some polish, and a bunch of scraggly rocks; four days of tumbling rocks with course grit, fourteen days more with fine grit, and another seven with polish– twenty-five days of waiting for the payoff. For Christmas, my kids got the gift of patience.
Don’t worry, we got them some instant gratification too.
But Christmas is the celebration of the Rock of our Salvation: Jesus Christ.
I have shared a couple of my poems on my blog in the past (Why Osiris is Green and The Christmas Tree). Now, I have a new poem, just finished this week, that I want to share. While the poem will not likely appeal to many people, it is precious to me and perhaps some of you will enjoy it.
I started it more than three years ago and have been trying to finish it since. I would sit for hours at a time struggling to eke out a few words that could match what was in my mind, and then, exhausted, put the poem aside for a month or more before trying again.
First, a few points to help you enjoy the poem more.
There are a couple of places in the poem where the rhythm requires a non-standard pronunciation. Those places have been marked with an accent over the vowel. For instance, “crackèd” should be pronounced “crack-ed” not “crack’d.” Otherwise the words should be pronounced as you would normally read them aloud.
My poetry tends to be complicated, and this particular poem is probably the most complex yet. It utilizes some very obscure language, references, and etymological connections, so I am including a gloss of some of the words after the text.
This is not a nonsense poem. It is based on true events with multiple layers of meaning.
And without further ado…
—————————————————-
The Kingdom of Pissemyre
by J. Max Wilson
East of the cemented waste, the aspen stood, a sapling still,
And there a few aphidian peasants leeched their lives from phloem’s rill.
They lapped the aspen’s sweetest sap; rapt in bohemian blissmare, blind—
And sapped the sapling of its health (though still it prospered of a kind).
Then came the Bishop Barnaby and Stinkfly Deacon forth to feed,
And sanguinary sermons spoke with lurid liturgy and creed.
And so, by priestcraft’s gory glut, their doctrine inadvertently
Restored the tree to verdant form, though only temporarily.
Then from across the crackèd desert came the Piss’myre army, strong—
The ‘nighted nibelungian host marched one-by-one as ‘counts the song.
And up the sapling, up they marched (still one-by-one-by-one) until
With formic might the pissant host subdued the lesser peasants’ will.
The dreaded deacons then received the doctrine they themselves had taught.
The bloody bishops banished were, to starve to death for all they wot.
And in their place the Piss’myre lords set up a new society;
A kingdom grand, a great machine of order and efficiency:
“Divide, assign, to each allot a place, a part, a role to play;
To each his branch, his twig, his leaf, an overseer to obey.
Revoke their freedom every whit, yet to their vice impose no let:
To cultivate and harvest more their sweet, mellif’rous excrement.”
And gladly, gladly did submit the chattel to their slavery,
Contented only to be free to wallow in debauchery.
So nurtured by their overlords the lech’rous population waxed,
And ‘neath the load of sponsored sin the aspen sapling’s blood was taxed.
Through sun-scorched day and dark new moon, the kingdom throve thus for a spell,
And still the tree, all wan the leaves, drew strength from root’s deep, clonal well.
‘Till on a night an august storm with thund’rous wind ‘rose from the west;
The trees all danced ‘fore God’s great breath; from each its wrath obeisance wrest’.
The scent of dawn hung o’re the earth, while sun’s ascent revoked the night,
And lo, what new apocalypse dispensed now was by mourning light?
The jagged edge of xylem cracked; the leaves pressed wet against the ground;
Behold! The Kingdom down is cast! It’s unseen canker now is found!
There! bored by pissants through the pith, an hidden tunnel had been wrought
Up through the trunk, through which the yield of sin-crop might be swiftly brought!
And compromisèd thus the constitution of the sapling’s core,
The aspen could not then endure the storm and tribulation sore.
To ev’ry kingdom, vast or microscopic, certain laws are laid,
And exhortations, prophesies, and types and shadows in them played.
And so a warning sign is raised to kingdoms great and persons small:
Beware the taste of honeydew, lest thou like Piss’myre also fall.
—————————————————-
Gloss:
- pyssemyre is the Middle English version of “pismire,” which is an obscure English word for “ant.” (see pissant below)
- phloem is the food conducting tissue if the tree.
- mare is an archaic English word meaning “a spirit or demon” and is the root word for nightmare. I have coined the word blissmare based on this meaning.
- bishop barnaby is an old name for a Ladybug beetle in English folklore.
- bishop comes from the Greek word “Episcopos”, which is also the root word for Episcopal. Epi-scopos in Greek means literally “over-seer” so the use of overseer later in the poem is intentional.
- stinkfly is an obscure name for a lacewing insect.
- nibelungian is a reference to the race of subterranean dwarfs whose hoard of riches and magic ring were taken from them by Siegfried in Germanic mythology
- formic means “1. of or relating to ants or 2. of, derived from, or containing formic acid” The Portuguese word for ant is “formiga”. In Spanish the ‘f’ over the last few centuries transformed into a silent ‘h’ and the word is now “hormiga.” The word is probably related to the smell of the formic-acid secreted by ants.
- The same smell of formic acid referred to by formic is probably the reason for the reference to “piss” in pissant, as well as in pismire, meaning the smell was associated with urine.
- wot is the past tense of the archaic English verb “wit” which means “to know.” It occurs 9 times in the King James translation of the Bible.
- let is an archaic noun that means “an hinderance” or “obstacle”.
- melliferous means “bearing or forming honey.” Some types of Aphids excrete a sugary substance called honeydew. Certain kinds of ants will herd aphids like cattle and harvest from them the honeydew.
- chattel is a movable piece of property, specifically a slave. It is etymologically related to the words “capital” and “cattle.”
- throve is the obscure past tense of “thrive”
- clonal is related to “clone” and refers to an organism descended asexually from a single ancestor. Aspen trees are often part of a vast, clonal organism consisting of many trees with shared roots.
- obeisance means “a gesture or movement of the body that expresses deference or homage”
- apocalypse is Greek for “to uncover or reveal” and means “revelation” but the poem also references the secondary meaning that has since developed, with which you are familiar: “end-of-world destruction.”
- xylem is the woody portion of the tree.
Earlier this year I was reading John Winthrop’s famous 1630 sermon, A Modell of Christian Charity which is more popularly known as “The City on A Hill” sermon.
According to tradition the sermon was given aboard the Pilgrim ship Arbella before landing at what would become the Massachusetts Bay Colony, but recent scholarship suggests that it was more likely given in England before the pilgrims set sail.
The image of the City on a Hill that Winthrop envisioned has become a common American theme. U.S. President Ronald Reagan famously cited Winthrop’s imagery in his 1988 farewell address, and it is Reagan’s reformulation that is most often recognized:
The past few days when I’ve been at that window upstairs, I’ve thought a bit of the “shining city upon a hill.” The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined…. I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it and see it still.
Reagan’s formulation of the city on a hill as an example and guide to all nations is, in my experience, what most people now associate with the phrase “city on a hill.”
I admire President Reagan a great deal. But reading Winthrop’s original sermon, it is clear to me that Reagan’s Shining City on a Hill was different from that of Winthrop. Winthrop never described a “Shining” city on a hill at all. The word shining does not occur in the text.
“Shining” in Reagan’s speech was likely adapted from the 14th verse of Matthew’s account of the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus declares, “Ye are the light of the word. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.”
But Winthrop’s focus was on the fact that a city on a hill cannot be hidden. Winthrop says:
For wee must consider that wee shall be as a citty upon a hill. The eies of all people are uppon us. Soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our God in this worke wee haue undertaken, and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. Wee shall open the mouthes of enemies to speake evill of the wayes of God, and all professors for God’s sake. Wee shall shame the faces of many of God’s worthy servants, and cause theire prayers to be turned into curses upon us till wee be consumed out of the good land whither wee are a goeing.
For members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Winthrop’s message is well worth considering. Because of the nature of their endeavor and the claims that they made to be God’s people, the Puritan Pilgrims were as a city on a hill. As Jesus mentioned, and Winthrop emphasized, such a city cannot be hidden from the eyes of the world. Their actions would be subject to elevated scrutiny.
Like the Puritans, as we Latter-day Saint’s strive to establish Zion, the nature of our claims to be the Restoration of God’s church on the Earth make us a city on a hill and, for good or for ill, all the eyes of the world are upon us. Mistakes easily forgiven in those of less lofty endeavors will be held against us and, as Winthrop warned, “open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God.” We should have ever present in our minds that grave fact and we should be ever circumspect in our words and our actions.
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has released the results of a new Survey on Religious Belief and Politics in America (pdf).
More than three-quarters of American adults (78%) believe there are absolute standards of right and wrong, with a majority (52%) saying they rely primarily on practical experience and common sense for guidance regarding right and wrong. Far fewer say they rely mainly on their religious beliefs (29%), and fewer still say they rely on philosophy and reason (9%) or scientific information (5%). Only among Jehovah’s Witnesses (73%), Mormons (58%) and members of evangelical churches (52%) do majorities say they rely primarily on their religion for guidance about right and wrong.
Some of the interesting findings:
- 39% of Mormons surveyed agreed to the statement that “Many religions can lead to eternal life” (Compare: Protestant 66%, Catholic 79%, JW 16%, Muslim 56%, Jewish 82%)
- 100% of Mormons Surveyed believe in God in some form (Compare: Protestant 98%, Catholic 97%, JW 98%, Muslim 92%, Jewish 83%, Atheist 21% ??)
- 90% of Mormons Surveyed say that are absolutely certain about their belief in God (Compare: Evangelical: 90%, Catholic 72%, JW 93%, Muslim 82%, Jewish 41%)
- 75% of Mormons Surveyed attend religious services as least once a week (Compare: Evangelical 58%, Catholic 42%, JW 82%, Muslim 40%, Jewish 16%)
- Among all adults surveyed 1.7% were Mormon, the same as the number of Jewish. 16.1% were unaffiliated.
- 95% of Mormons Surveyed believed in “Heaven”. 59% believed in “Hell.” (Compare: Protestant 84%/73%, Catholic 82%/60%, JW 46%/9%, Muslim 85%/80%, Jewish 38%/22%)
- 92% of Mormons Surveyed pray at least weekly (compare Protestant 86%, Catholic 79%, JW 95%, Muslim 82%, Jewish 44%)
- 67% of Mormons Surveyed agree that their values are threatened by Hollywood (Compare: Protestant 46%, Catholic 43%, JW 54%, Muslim 41%, Jewish 25%)
- 70% of Mormons Surveyed say that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases (Compare: Protestant 49%, Catholic 45%, JW 77%, Muslim 48%, Jewish 14%)
- 68% of Mormons Surveyed said that homosexuality is a way of life that should be discouraged by society (Compare: Protestant 51%, Catholic 30%, JW 76%, Muslim 61%, Jewish 15%)
“The connection between religious intensity and political attitudes appears to be especially strong when it comes to issues such as abortion and homosexuality. About six-in-ten Americans who attend religious services at least once a week say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, while only about three-in-ten who attend less often share this view. This pattern holds across a variety of religious traditions. For instance, nearly three-in-four (73%) members of evangelical churches who attend church at least once a week say abortion should be illegal in most or all cases, compared with only 45% of members of evangelical churches who attend church less frequently.”
Also of interest were the following stats on those identified as Conservative, Moderate and Liberal:
- 50% of Conservatives attend religious services at least weekly (Compare: Moderate 31%, Liberal 12%)
- 46% of Conservatives say religion is very important (Compare: Moderate 32%, Liberal 14%)
- 44% of Conservatives Pray Daily (Compare: Moderate 33%, Liberal 15%)
Also of interest: This previous post on statistics regarding Atheism and Christianity
This is an entry in an ongoing, periodic series I call “An LDS Lexicon.” Each entry in my LDS Lexicon series contains etymology, etymologically related words, some information about the Hebrew and Greek terms from which the word is translated in the Bible (if applicable), and some personal insights about the word.
The views expressed here and in other entries in this series are my own and should not be construed to represent the official doctrine of the LDS Church. They are subject to change and amendment.
You may view all entries in this series: An LDS Lexicon
SACRAMENT
Many Latter-day Saints aren’t particularly adventuresome when it comes to serving drinks at mormon get-togethers. If you go to a mormon party you will often find that there isn’t much of a variety when it comes to beverages. It is likely that you will have to choose between the most inexpensive generic band of Rootbeer, Lemon-Lime soda, Orange soda, or if it is the season, Steven’s Hot Chocolate.
Faithful members of the church live by a dietary law called “The Word of Wisdom” which prohibits drinking Cofee, Tea, and Alcoholic beverages. Many also avoid drinks containing Caffeine, though it is not explicitly required (the church owned Brigham Young University does not sell cafinated drinks on campus).
Latter-day Saints are also often quit frugal, and this also affects what they drink. I attended a Mormon “bachelor” party recently in a beautiful, multi-million dollar home. What did they have to drink? Generic-brand Rootbeer, Sprite, and water.
So, this holiday season, I thought it would be fun to compile a list of Mormon Friendly beverages that one might consider serving at party for a little more variety. By Mormon friendly I mean drinks that not only strictly comply with the official Word of Wisdom restrictions, but drinks that could easily be stocked and sold at the Creamery on BYU campus—no caffeine; drinks that shouldn’t give even the more fastidious Word-of-Wisdom-Czar any reason to worry.
Here are a few of my favorites, most of which are currently available at the BYU Creamery or Church-owned Deseret Bookstore. They should all be served cold:
Apple Beer
http://www.applebeer.com
Recently, Apple Beer has become my favorite Mormon-Friendly soda. It is not too strong and has a nice subtle flavor and after-taste. It bills itself as the “Soft Drink with a Head.” Get it in the bottles if you can, the flavor is much better that way.
The LDS Church Newsroom is highlighting a speech given by Elder Russel M. Ballard, one of the Twelve Apostles of the Church, at the graduation ceremony of BYU-Hawaii on Friday, December 15th, in which he encouraged students to embrace the “New Media,” including blogging, as a way to share the gospel and support the kingdom.
You can read the full text of the speech:
Using New Media to Support the Work of the Church
This is very exciting news! Blogging is a wonderful tool for all the reasons Elder Ballard enumerates and I hope to see increasing numbers of faithful Latter-day Saints blogging about the gospel.
However, to all of you who are just beginning to discover and explore Mormon blogs, I feel compelled to post a Caveat Lector:
Elder Ballard endorsed LDS Blogging, but he did not necessarily endorse the existing LDS Blogging community known as “The Bloggernacle.”
I have been blogging since January 2004, and blogging about specifically LDS topics since August of that same year (first under the pseudonym “Ebenezer Orthodoxy” and later under my own name as one of the founding members of The Millennial Star blog). During that time I participated in the recently coalescing LDS blogging community called “The Bloggernacle.”
In August 2005 I withdrew from the “Bloggernacle,” disappointed by what I considered a widespread, inappropriate emphasis in the community on criticizing the Church and questioning its leadership and policies. I announced my withdrawal very publicly in a post entitled Alternate Voices: Why I Am Abandoning the Bloggernacle which sparked a little community controversy at the time.
Recently, Brother Micheal Otterson, who is the media relations director for the LDS Church, wrote a wonderful essay on whether or not Mormons are Christians.
I recognize that Creedal Christians have a specialized definition of “Christian,” and Later-day Saints are not “Christians” by that definition.
Latter-day Saints, they say, are not Christians because they reject the Trinitarian doctrine of the Nicaean Creed, and instead believe in a Godhead of three separate beings (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) who are one in purpose.
Aside from the question of how Protestants square Creedal Cristianity with their doctrine of Sola Scriptura, we should examine whether they apply their creedal definition consistently?
I remember the first time that I read John Milton’s Paradise Lost discovering that Milton presented God the Father and Jesus as two distinct beings. In particular this passage where the Father asks the equivalent of the famous Whom shall I send? query in LDS scripture:
To prayer, repentance, and obedience due,
Though but endeavour’d with sincere intent,
Mine ear shall not be slow, mine eye not shut.
And I will place within them as a guide,
My umpire Conscience; whom if they will hear,
Light after light, well us’d, they shall attain,
And to the end, persisting, safe arrive.
This my long sufferance, and my day of grace,
They who neglect and scorn, shall never taste;
But hard be harden’d, blind be blinded more,
That they may stumble on, and deeper fall;
And none but such from mercy I exclude.
But yet all is not done; Man disobeying,
Disloyal, breaks his fealty, and sins
Against the high supremacy of Heaven,
Affecting God-head, and, so losing all,
To expiate his treason hath nought left,
But to destruction sacred and devote,
He, with his whole posterity, must die,
Die he or justice must; unless for him
Some other able, and as willing, pay
The rigid satisfaction, death for death.
Say, heavenly Powers, where shall we find such love?
Which of you will be mortal, to redeem
Man’s mortal crime, and just the unjust to save?
Dwells in all Heaven charity so dear?
He ask’d, but all the heavenly quire stood mute,
And silence was in Heaven: on Man’s behalf
Patron or intercessour none appear’d,
Much less that durst upon his own head draw
The deadly forfeiture, and ransom set.
In Milton’s story, the question is asked after Lucifer has been ejected from Heaven, whereas in LDS doctrine it was, in part, his response to a similar question that lead to the expulsion of Lucifer along with those that agreed with him. But the similarity is striking.
Milton continues with the response from a pre-mortal Jesus, distinct from the Father:
And now without redemption all mankind
Must have been lost, adjudg’d to Death and Hell
By doom severe, had not the Son of God,
In whom the fulness dwells of love divine,
His dearest mediation thus renew’d.
Father, thy word is past, Man shall find grace;
And shall grace not find means, that finds her way,
The speediest of thy winged messengers,
To visit all thy creatures, and to all
Comes unprevented, unimplor’d, unsought?
Happy for Man, so coming; he her aid
Can never seek, once dead in sins, and lost;
Atonement for himself, or offering meet,
Indebted and undone, hath none to bring;
Behold me then: me for him, life for life
I offer: on me let thine anger fall;
Account me Man; I for his sake will leave
Thy bosom, and this glory next to thee
Freely put off, and for him lastly die
Well pleased; on me let Death wreak all his rage.
For Milton, even in a heavenly, pre-incarnation state, Jesus is a distinct being, subordinate to the Father. In fact, one might argue that Milton presented Jesus as the brother of the Devil more than anything that Latter-day Saints espouse.
Milton’s description of God’s “Umpire Conscience,” quoted in the first passage above, is very similar to LDS doctrine of The Light of Christ (compare Moroni 7:12-19 ) and Personal Revelation (compare Alma 12:10-11 ).
In an unpublished work attributed to Milton, discovered many years after his death, called De doctrina christiana, he even went as far as to express support for polygamy.
(Just to be clear, by pointing out some similarities between John Milton’s Christian beliefs and those of Mormons, I am not trying to imply that there aren’t plenty of doctrines we disagree about.)
So, despite the fact that John Milton held many views deemed heretical and in particular rejected creedal Trinitarianism, Christianity Today still lists him among the 131 Christians Everyone Should Know and few would say that Paradise Lost is not a Christian work.
It is my impression that most Creedal Christians consider John Milton one of the “great Christian writers” as he is explicitly labeled in this essay on the Christian website Crosswalk.com .
So, to Creedal Christians, Milton was a great Christian with perhaps some heretical views, but similar views of Latter-day Saints disqualify them from being Christians at all. Huh?
This inconsistency between the application of their definition of “Christian” to John Milton and Joseph Smith underscores the fact that their desire isn’t for doctrinal purity so much as it is for bigoted exclusion.
To prove otherwise, let Creedal Christians demonstrate a consistent application of their definition of Christianity by ejecting Milton and his “Non-Christian” works from the fold. We Mormons will gladly welcome him into ours.
If they are unwilling to revoke Milton’s Christianity, then they should accept Latter-day Saints for what they are: Christians.
As a kind of a follow up to my previous post on the family, I wanted to share a story about our children that occurred yesterday.
First, a little background:
A few years back, the Marriage and Family class at our LDS church was taught by sister Williams, who is a professional psychiatrist working with young, recently married couples at BYU. She had lots of wonderful insights, both as a marriage dynamics professional and a gospel instructor, that have stuck with me ever since.
Among the many topics she presented, one discussed studies that indicated that some parents were enforcing the virtue of “sharing” upon their children so much that their children were growing up with a deficient, warped, or even nonexistent concept of personal property. As a result, these children who lacked a sense of property were less likely to respect the property of others and more likely to steal or vandalize.
My own parents had been careful about how much we were forced to “share” our toys.
With our own children, we have tried to teach that their belongings really do belong to them, and that, while sharing is the right thing to do, we will not force them to share against their will. After all, what virtue is there in sharing unless you have the choice not to share? And if no property is ever your own to withhold, then what beneficence is there in giving?
In my previous post I discussed briefly the theory that Europe is less religious than the U.S. because of a stifled market of religious competition. While I think that religious freedom has certainly played a part, I would like to discuss another contributing factor.
Some years ago I speculated upon the role of the family in propagating traditional values and religion. I wrote:
…if religion is the opiate of the masses, the traditional family is the pusher.
Relativism is perhaps easy to espouse intellectually. However, it is completely impracticable in the day to day interactions between father, mother, and children. A great deal of familial interaction represents an ongoing negotiation with an innate sense of right and wrong, justice and injustice, “fair” and “unfair.” Regardless of how well it is adhered to, the Law of Nature, as C.S. Lewis called it in Mere Christianity, is the unassailable backdrop to the entire experience of Family.
Just as there is a relationship between form and function in poetry, chemistry, biology, physics, and government, the structure of the family is interrelated with its function. I believe that the structure of the family not only propagates the values of society—it engenders them.
Along these lines, there is an interesting article in the June-July edition of the Hoover Institution’s “Policy Review” by Mary Eberstadt called How the West Really Lost God in which she sets forth the following idea:
…what secularization theory assumes is that religious belief comes ontologically first for people and that it goes on to determine or shape other things they do — including such elemental personal decisions as whether they marry and have children or not. Implied here is a striking, albeit widely assumed, view of how one social phenomenon powers another: that religious believers are more likely to produce families because religious belief somehow comes first.
.
And therein lies a real defect with the conventional story line about how and why religion collapsed in Western Europe. For what has not been explained, but rather assumed throughout that chain of argument, is why the causal relationship between belief and practice should always run that way instead of the other, at least some of the time.
…
This essay is a preliminary attempt to supply that missing piece. It moves the human family from the periphery to the center of this debate over secularization — and not as a theoretical exercise, but rather because compelling empirical evidence suggests an alternative account of what Nietzsche’s madman really saw in the “tombs” (read, the churches and cathedrals) of Europe.
.
In brief, it is not only possible but highly plausible that many Western European Christians did not just stop having children and families because they became secular. At least some of the time, the record suggests, they also became secular because they stopped having children and families.
The article then goes on to present the case and, though a lengthy read, it is fascinating and well worth the effort. Do take some time to trudge through it and let me know what you think.
If you haven’t watched Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” address, you should take twenty minutes or so and do so. A copy of the address as prepared for delivery is available. However, I recommend watching the speech rather than just reading the script. His delivery was great and he exhibited a great deal of charisma, passion, and eloquence. If you only read the transcript you will miss out.
I’ll update this post with embedded video when it becomes available.
There were many memorable and quotable parts the speech. I liked that Romney referred to Abraham Lincoln’s 1838 address before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield Illinois on The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions in which Lincoln describes our nation’s “political religion” as the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. The relevant part of Lincoln’s speech referred to by Romney is as follows:
Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap—let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges;—let it be written in Primmers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;—let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.
.
While ever a state of feeling, such as this, shall universally, or even, very generally prevail throughout the nation, vain will be every effort, and fruitless every attempt, to subvert our national freedom.
.
When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made. I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed.
Lincoln’s address is also worth reading in full if you get a moment.
Primarily I want to draw attention to one part of Romney’s address in particular, if only because it is something I have been meaning to write about myself for some months.
Romney said:
I’m not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired … so grand … so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too ‘enlightened’ to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe’s churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.
This statement reminded me of an article I read back in July from The Wall Street Journal entitled In Europe, God Is (Not) Dead that I have been meaning to blog about.
Basically, the thesis of the article is that Europe is less religious than America not because of modernism but because established religions thwart religious competition:
Now even Europe, the heartland of secularization, is raising questions about whether God really is dead. The enemy of faith, say the supply-siders, is not modernity but state-regulated markets that shield big, established churches from competition. In America, where church and state stand apart, more than 50% of the population worships at least once a month. In Europe, where the state has often supported—but also controlled—the church with money and favors, the rate in many countries is 20% or less.
…
In 1776, he says, around 17% of Americans belonged to churches.
…
In the U.S., the American Revolution ended ecclesiastical hegemony in the 11 colonies that had an established church and unleashed a raucous tide of religious competition. As Methodists, Baptists, Shakers and other churches proliferated, church-going rose, reaching around 50% in the early part of the 20th century, he says.
.
Europe never developed such a religious bazaar. The Church of Sweden, the Church of England, the Catholic Church in Italy and France, state-funded churches in Germany and others lost their de-facto “monopoly” status to other denominations over a century ago. But they retained their ties to the state and economic privileges.
Mitt Romney appears to be propagating this theory in his speech. It is an intriguing idea, with a lot of room for debate.
In my previous post I alluded briefly to the linguistic and scriptural interplay between the words “Breath” and “Spirit.” A decade ago I wrote a poem based upon the semantic interplay of words etymologically related to breathing and the spirit, and, since I had mentioned the idea already, I thought I’d share the poem as well.
In the years since I wrote this, my poetic style has become more formal, but the focus of this poem is less on structure and more on etymological pun and religious symbolism.
Why Osiris is Green
by J. Max Wilson
When one is inspired,
‘Tis wise to hold one’s breath.
Lay hold upon that aspiration.
To exhale is expiration;
And expiration, death.
When people talk about ADD they usually are talking about an inability to focus. Attention disorders are prevalent in my family and, superficially, you might attribute a great deal of my behavior to this standard concept of ADD. In reality, however, my disability is exactly the opposite. I struggle with an Attention Over-Focus Disorder. I become over focused on a project, a task, or an idea, to the exclusion of perspective. It is very difficult for me to transfer my attention from one thing to another and as a result I often neglect important tasks, spend to much time on minutia, and resist change.
Over-focus is both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, when my focus does shift to something that needs to be done, I am capable of long periods of sustained focus with a great deal of attention to detail and I get a lot accomplished. On the other, if my focus does somehow turn to something else before I have completed that upon which I was previously focused, it may be a long time before I manage to get back to it. And when I am over-focused I overreact negatively to even minor interruptions, tend to give undue weight to perceived slights or criticisms, unnecessarily go over the same idea repeatedly in my head, over-focus on the negative in general, and I don’t get anything else done, no matter how important it is.
Controlling this behavior involves influencing the levels of Dopamine and Serotonin in my brain. It is a tricky balance to strike because I need to become unfocused enough to not be over-focused, but still focussed enough to be productive. Often the effort results in an unhappy choice: I can be a pleasant, happy person and make my wife and children happy to be around me and be completely unproductive, or I can be highly productive and a miserable excuse for a husband and father. We have been praying that Heavenly Father would reveal to us a better solution to my disability.
Recently I have taken up running or jogging in the mornings as a way of trying to strike the balance. It appears to be helping.
