John H Armstrong

Harry S. Truman: A Different Kind of President

President Harry S. Truman was a very different kind of politician. First, he could not be bought by special interests and thus spoke his mind pretty openly. He wasn't called "Give 'em hell Harry" for nothing. Second, he did what was necessary to bring an end to World War II and by his actions allowed history to judge him. I think, as awful was the atom bomb was and still is, he made the right choice given what the resistance of Japan still meant to the world, and to our troops, at the time. Third, he was a committed believer in the essential philosophy that stood behind the American experiment, namely democracy. Truman believed that freedom of the people, by the people and for the people was at the heart of who we were as a people. I find few who understand or believe this very deeply in our time.

President Truman once said:

    Democracy is, first and foremost, a spiritual force; it is built upon     a spiritual basis---and on a belief in God and an observance of         moral principles. And in the long run only the Church can provide     that basis. Our founders knew this truth---and we will neglect it     at our peril.

I doubt many in our time, especially in the political party of Truman, actually would say anything close to these words in defending our American experiment in freedom.

Notice that President Truman did not say the Church and state were the same. What he said was that the state must be built on a spiritual basis and that basis can only be provided for by a strong Church. I do not want to tear down the "wall of separation" that Jefferson wrote about but I do believe, as did Truman, that our freedom cannot be rooted solely in secular principles. We need a strong set of moral principles and without the Church these cannot be established in the West. The danger now is that a combination of secularism and new zealotry by various types of religious fundamentalism is a dangerous mixture. 

By the way, this is one of my concerns with libertarianism. It wants to legalize most human actions, including ones that tear down the social fabric of a society, all in the name of personal freedom. (More to write on this later this week.)

I believe the Enlightenment brought some needed principles to Western society that helped stop the vicious religious wars of a previous era. I do not want to give up those positive contributions but I do not, at the same time, want a complete secularism that knocks the foundation out from under this highly developed culture. The "naked public square" (rooted in secularism) is dangerous, much more dangerous than one in which various religions compete openly for people's devotion without coercion or governmental interference.

Conservative Christians often argue quite well for correct moral principles but sometimes in the wrong way. What is called for is not a return to the pristine past, as if there ever was one, but a new understanding of what place faith has in public policy and spiritual formation in our culture. There are many excellent voices that are raising these sorts of questions today but too many people on the far left and the far right cannot hear them very well.

 

Jimmy Carter and a Little Lesson in History

Former President Jimmy Carter has recently said: "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, [the Bush] administration has been the worst in history." Read that again, "The worst in history."

Besides the issue of denying the long historic role of ex-presidents, who have never engaged a current administration in this manner, Carter reveals an amazing ignorance and bias that is almost beyond belief. Even if President Bush has made huge mistakes in Iraq, and it appears that he has made a few, there is no way anyone, especially a former president, should be saying that this administration is "the worst in history." Especially when you consider the massive international mess-ups of Carter's four years in office. As Mark Moyar recently wrote, "As president, Mr. Carter managed to alienate nearly every major country in the world and did so without asserting American power in ways that might justify that alienation." Do you remember the Sandinista takeover in Nicaragua and the Iranian hostage crisis?

Such an evaluation should be left to the work of serious historians, not angry ex-presidents. Second, it is still way too early to know many of the real facts about Iraq. Time will, as in all such cases, bring these facts to light. When Harry Truman left office he was viewed by many as one of the worst presidents in our history but today cover stories ask: "Who will be the next Harry Truman to run for the presidency?" John Kennedy is lionized by certain elites but his administration appears to have been mediocre at best. Richard Nixon was a sad and pathetic man, with serious emotional weaknesses, but he may have accomplished a great deal of good in the end. And the immoral Bill Clinton may not have been as bad a president as most conservatives think. Time will tell in every case and historians will continue this healthy debate. Books will be written and thousands of pages of once-private documents will be studied. Carter ought to know this better than any of us but he seems to have lost something over the past five years or so.

I believe Jimmy Carter should stick to teaching the Bible in Plains, building Habitat Homes for the poor and helping direct the Carter Center's efforts for peace and reconciliation around the world. It was once said that he was our best ex-president. I am no longer sure that this can be said given the rash foolishness of his comments and his distorted perceptions of reality. I did not like Carter's presidency. That was the widely held view at the time since only 21% of the people approved of his leadership at the end, lower poll numbers by far than Bush has presently. But I have always liked Jimmy Carter the man. I am losing what remaining positive respect I had for the man the more he keeps talking about these things in public. Is this another case of an old man's syndrome, an aging man who needs to learn when to stop seeking center stage and to give himself up quietly to good causes in his final years. Gerald R. Ford had some strong opinions too, and some of these views opposed the Bush doctrines. But he never reduced himself to such banal and foolish nonsense as Jimmy Carter. Frankly, I find the whole thing very sad.

The Role of Limited Government

Our religious and political rights are uniquely bound up together. Most young Americans, and far too many older native born American citizens, have little or no idea how important this truth really is.

The central idea behind this unique relationship in American political understanding is limited government. This is really what classical liberalism understood and fervently practiced. Modern liberalism has little or nothing to do with this understanding, preferring to stress ideologies that are neither truly liberal nor limited.

The founding fathers fervently believed that we were all created equal, with inherent rights to life and liberty given to us by God. This belief was rooted in both Judeo-Christian beliefs and some elements of Enlightenment philosophy. The securing of these rights was the very basis for a limited government. And a limited government was based upon the understanding that true power arose from the governed who were willing to consent to a just government.

There were some very big differences of opinion among our founding fathers, such as two very different views of America's future as represented by Jefferson and Hamilton. In some ways these two distinct views clashed in the Civil War, as North and South came to represent these two differing positions. But regardless of these early differences what clearly united the founders was a deep respect for individual rights and for limited government.

This is one reason why public education developed in the United States. We wanted an educated populace so that we could protect our rights and become an informed people who would protect basic liberties through a limited government. This is also why religious liberty has been such an important issue in this country. If we begin to see these basic values erode, as they are now being eroded through both federal courts and the ever expanded role of a more powerful federal government that has more freedom to control our daily lives, then we could potentially lose our most treasured freedoms.

It is generally those people who champion issues like judicial reform, the limitation of regressive taxation and a faithful straightforward reading of the Constitution, that are most likely to understand what limited government really means and why it still matters. Oddly, this was once what liberalism was all about. Times have truly changed, both in terms of what people believe today, but also in terms of how everyday words like liberal and conservative have changed their basic meanings.

When I am asked about my own views I answer: "I am committed to preserving a liberal democracy that will protect our individual rights, conserve what is truly good in our past, and remain open to dynamic changes that will improve our common lot and the public good. I believe all of these should operate under a limited government that fosters both fairness and community-based benevolence." This is a truly liberal democracy, in very simple language. I believe this type of democracy is actually threatened in our time. We may lose it if we do not better understand it and learn how to promote it and preserve it. Nothing will destroy us faster than an ignorant populace that universally assumes the primary role of government is to promote things like tolerance, sexual freedom and opposition to the public role of religion. This is why, in the present sense of the terms that we use today, I am a conservative.

This is also why I think many leaders of the religious right do not understand the better instincts of this truer and more widely understood conservatism, a conservatism rooted in basic human rights and limited government. Any type of theocratic emphasis should never become the basis of a liberal democracy, thus such an emphasis is never consistent with the best kind of modern conservatism. The religious right has done us much good over the last twenty-five years but it has failed to grasp, at times, these important foundational points about good government. This is especially true when it stresses a litmus test of narrow religious interests as primary to America's future. If the religous right wants to truly change America it should help us establish the first things before it advances its bigger agenda. In fact, many of the litmus test concerns of the religious right would be much better addressed by rebuidling a truly liberal democracy first and then by seeking to change people's views on moral issues through the hard work of community service and faithful Christian teaching. The problem is the religious right has come to believe it can change culture by direct political force. This is a denial, in the end, of truly liberal democracy.

Alexander Hamilton on Danger and Disgrace

I admit the statement struck me immediately with a sense that I needed to reflect on it further. I thought about it for some time today and then took down my dictionary to think about it more deeply.

The words I refer to are those of founding American father Alexander Hamilton, who created our central treasury, and in some ways gave to us the concept of a central federal government that developed after the Civil War. Hamilton is not, by any stretch of imagination, my favorite founder. But here is his quote that stopped me in my tracks today: "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one."

Disgrace? The word means a loss of favor or a downfall from a position of respect. It also refers to a cause of reproach or a thing or person involving dishonor. So, if I read Alexander Hamilton correctly, he is saying a nation that prefers to become a reproach, or to be deliberately deceived, or to willfully dishonor itself rather than face a serious or real danger, is likely to be mastered by a tyrant or a despot. Have we reached that point? Only God knows. I do wonder. I can't think that our civilization can stand for many decades given the moral vacuum we have created and generally now accept. The church is not guiltless in this turn toward disgrace since it has lost its saltiness and deep and true love for both the good and the just.

Was Lincoln Really the Great Emancipator?

There has been a debate for 140-plus years regarding whether Abraham Lincoln was really an emancipator, much less the Great Emancipator. We all know the facts: He signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. His reluctance and prevarication about abolition, and his willingness to not free the slaves if he could save the Union, are well known to those who study the man in his actions and words. So, should African-Americans be grateful for the work of "Father Abraham" to free them?

Last evening I had the oportunity to think a lot about this question. Drs. James and Lois Horton, two really superb historians and speakers, gave the annual Gettysburg College Remembrance Day lecture on Abraham Lincoln at the Majestic Theatre in downtown Gettysburg. The evening included a special award given to novelist E. L. Doctorow for civil war fiction. His recent book, The March, is about U. S. Grant's march to the sea. This is the work that gained him the evening's honor. (I have not read the book yet but I did get a signed copy, along with several of the Horton's books as well. I'll keep you posted.) In the presentation of the special Civil War fiction award to Doctorow novelist Jeff Shaara spoke about writing fiction as well, based upon his father Michael Shaara's famous book Killer Angels, the finest work on the Battle of Gettysburg in existence. Jeffrey Shaara has also become a great writer of historical fiction on his own. Shaara's words, along with Doctorow's, were well worth the evening for me. How I wish I could write fiction. (I may take a stab at it someday, or so I tell myself.)

James Horton concluded that Abraham Lincoln was our greatest "flip-flopper" of all our forty-three presidents. He continued to change his thinking about slavery and race right up to four days before his death. (Booth heard him speak and seethed in his racial anger, so it was reported.) He not only changed his views about African-Americans but about their role in the future of America. He reasoned, as he came to embrace abolition openly toward the end of his life, that "if God is right and the Bible is true" then nothing can stop this movement toward full citizenship and freedom for all. (Sadly, it took a 100 more years, and the labors of Dr. Martin Luther King, to bring about Lincoln's dream. Remember where King's famous speech "I Have a Dream" was actually given!)

Two things stood out to me in the presentation about Lincoln last evening. First, Lincoln's unbelievable humility, which I mentioned in an earlier post. Contrary to most leaders in our day he could admit that he made a mistake, continue to gain new information, listen to many people and their thoughts, and then change his mind. We call this "flip-flopping" but I call it courage and strength.

Second, what is striking is that Lincoln believed America's future following this terrible war would be very dark. He believed we might remain deeply troubled about the race issue for a long time. Given the terrible history of how the nation had treated the African-American we faced dark days ahead. Lincoln spoke of America paying the last measure of judgment for the blood of black men that it had wrongly shed. I am not precisely sure how providence works in these matters but it does give us pause to consider how steep the price has been for America since 1865. Our injustice and brutality, all legally defended in our founding and perpetuated after Lincoln's death by Jim Crow laws, is our real history.

What grieves me deeply is the way the church has responded, or not responded as is the case so frequently today, to this defining issue. We are still, generally speaking, influenced by a great deal of racism in the church. I am personally amazed at what some conservative white Christians still write and say about race. The struggle for justice and true equality under the law is a long way from over even though the 1960s saw great changes in the law itself. Will we keep pressing for a change that comes in our congregations and communities or will we allow this vile prejudice and racism of our American past to linger in our hearts and actions?

A Day at the Lincoln Forum: The Real Greatness of Our Greatest President

I am attending the Lincoln Forum this weekend at Gettysburg. This is a superb event in every way. I so enjoy this time each year with about 200 people who love all things Lincoln as I do. The lectures and conversations here are always superb. Lincoln, in my judgment, was our greatest president. He is still a man who attracts incredible scholarly and popular interest the world over, 141 years after his death.

The lecture tonight was titled: "Abraham Lincoln: The Humble Military Genius." The presenter was Dr. John Marszalek, a professor of history (emeritus) at Mississippi State University. How could Lincoln, clearly a political genius by all accounts, also be seen as a military genius? He had no military training and learned everything that he knew on the job (during his presidency). He had no combat experience either. (Lincoln actually went to the Library of Congress on a number of occasions to study military tactics during his time in the White House.) The answer to this question, said Professor Marszalek, lies in the word "humility." Lincoln learned how to develop a war plan that eventually led the Union to triumph, after making many mistakes. Why? Marszalek suggests that it was his ability to question 19th century rational certainity and thus to operate outside the box. This allowed Lincoln to see that conquering armies was more important to final success than securing cities and territory. Marszalek said Lincoln's willingness to adjust his thinking to new realities was one of his greatest strengths. This willingness lay in his humility. I was moved once again to ask God for this kind of spirit in order to be a true lifelong learner. My pride is a great hindrance to my being a good leader. I learned again tonight how important humility is to really effective leadership.

Woodrow Wilson's Faith

I spent another wonderful day in Washington, D.C. today. It was a gorgeous fall day in every way. I had an opportunity to spend several hours with Rev. Dan Claire, who works with the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) and also pastors The Church of the Resurrection, a fine young church on Capital Hill. (I hope to preach there in 2007.) Dan is an unusually gifted Christian leader with a real vision for a missional church in an emerging context. He, and two other ministers who work with him, have seen rapid growth and exciting response to the gospel over the past four years. Dan is also completing a doctoral program in biblical studies at the Catholic University of America, which we toured following lunch. We also visited the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, one of American Catholicism's greatest buildings. (It is truly gorgeous and reverential place, though the Marian elements did not move me. Some of the more clearly biblical elements, expressed in various mosaics, are breathtakingly beautiful.)

During the morning hours I made two sight seeing stops. The first was at the National Zoo where I saw the most famous guests in Washington, two panda bears from China who grace the newly opened Asian Trail. Then I found a historical site that few know even exists, the Woodrow Wilson House, located at 2340 S Street NW. This historic home is the only presidential museum in the District. (The 28th president, Woodrow Wilson, is buried in the District, near the National Cathedral.) I am interested in Wilson for several reasons. His presidency, in so many ways, was the first "modern" presidency. Our role in the world changed under his leadership more than under any previous president. I am also interested in Wilson because of his deep devotion to a thoughtful version of Reformed Christianity, which some readers are not aware of I feel sure.

Wilson's father was a devout Presbyterian minister. At one time Wilson thought that he would pursue the ministry but eventually he chose to become an educator, finally serving as president of Princeton University. After this call he was elected governor of New Jersey. This political turn led to his being elected president in 1912. His ability as a teacher was apparently unique and his students loved him. An introvert, he loved to study and write and was often misjudged because he did not enjoy long conversation and small talk. This hurt his public peception as president, especially following Teddy Roosevelt as he did.

At the Wilson House there is a display that was created to celebrate the 150th anniversary of his birth. In that display there is a reference to Woodrow Wilson's faith. I wrote the quote down in order to keep it. Here is what Wilson wrote:

"Never for a moment have I had a doubt about my religious beliefs. There are people who believe only so far as they can understand---that seems to me presumptuous and sets their understanding as the standard of the universe."

Wilson was a historian and college adminsitrator, as well as one of our most gifted presidents. He was a keen intellectual. He was not saying, by the above statement, that he never found problems in his study of the Bible or in his thoughts about Christian faith. It is evident to me that what he meant was that these problems never caused him to have real doubts about his beliefs because he knew his mind was not the final judge of truth in the universe. Not a bad expression of faith at all coming from a serious intellectual, or anyone else for that matter. I think it could be said that Wilson reflected the ancient Christian understanding that one believes in order to understand, not vice versa. 

Is History Bunk Afterall?

The late Henry Ford once said that history was “bunk.” Lots of modern Christians seem to agree with Ford without realizing it. Why do I say this? Because so many pay little or no attention to the stuff of history, demonstrating that they know little about what is actually happening, and why it matters, in our own time. There is an old epigram that adds, “Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know.” There are consequences to our ignorance, willful or otherwise.

I meet a lot of people who are blest with an incredible certainty about almost everything in the world but who have little basis for that certainty. Hans Urs von Balthazar, the magnificent Catholic theologian, understood correctly that “true history is [really] made up of the distillation of countless biographies.” Get to know people and you will become really interested in history. Ignore people, focus on your own views as the truth, and you will be doomed to make huge mistakes in life. King Louis XI understood this and thus said, “When conceit marches in front, shame and damage walk behind.” How true this is of those who ignore history like Henry Ford. Too many of his heirs are setting the agenda in both the church and the culture.

The 300th Birthday of Benjamin Franklin

Some have noted that this is the 300th birthday of a truly great American, Benjamin Franklin, born on January 17, 1706. Franklin played an immensely important role in the early history of this nation. But who was Benjamin Franklin, really? Better yet, what did he believe and what difference does it make now?

Franklin was most certainly not an orthodox Christian in the confessional sense of the word. Like many of the founders he had confidence in the principles of right and wrong and most assuredly believed in a God of providence. Franklin often wrote down these principles and certain ideas he was considering at the time. He once wrote what he called "The substance of an intended creed, containing as I thought the essentials of every known religion, and being free of every thing that might shock the professors of any religion." This creed listed the following beliefs of Franklin:

That there is a God who made all things.

That he governs the world by his providence.

That he ought to be worshipped by adoration, prayer and thanksgiving.

But that the most acceptable service of God is doing good to man.

That the soul is immortal.

And that God will certainly reward virtue and punish vice either here or hereafter.

And in a letter to Ezra Stiles, written on March 9, 1790, Franklin added:

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble [Franklin was 84 when he wrote this letter]. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed (italics mine).

Franklin was a good friend of the famous Anglican evangelist George Whitefield, who often urged him to believe the gospel. He relates an unusual, and quite humorous, story about hearing Whitefield preach in Philadelphia to a very large crowd. When an offering was taken for Whitefield's Georgia orphanage, Franklin gave much more than he planned because of the effect that Whitefield's earnest appeal had upon his heart and mind.

In today's Philadelphia Inquirer David Blankenhorn argues that Franklin's greatest contribution to society, at least today, is the character trait of thrift. He suggests that this is "a complex idea." It means more than managing one's finances, or merely accumulating wealth. The core idea in Franklin's thought seems to have been "industry" (diligence) and "frugality" (conservation). The contrary ideas to these are idleness and waste.

Franklin's idea of thrift also included the pleasure principle, rightly so, and opposed hoarding or seeking wealth simply for wealth's sake. He saw wealth as "a pathway to humane moral values" adds Blankenhorn. This idea was progressive and broad. It was also nonpartisan and clearly formed charitable behavior.

Thrift sounds "quaint" in the modern context, says Blankenhorn, but we could do much worse than to regain it when we consider how to build true community in the modern world. Franklin's thought, at similar points, is still worth considering. Poor Richard's Almanac is still a good place to start.

Did The Catholic Church Kill Lincoln?

One of the more  interesting things about my time at the Lincoln Forum in Gettysburg (November 16-18) last week was the theme of this year's event: The Assassination of President Lincoln on April 14, 1865. As with the Kennedy assassination in 1963 a host of theories have surrounded Lincoln's death for over 140 years. For example:

1. Did John Wilkes Booth act alone? There is no doubt at all that he fired the shot that caused Lincoln's death at 7:22 a.m. on April 15. In this case there is no second-shooter theory advanced by anyone.

2. If the eight co-conspirators arrested in the aftermath were really involved how so?  All eight were convicted by military tribunal, not a civil court. Four of the eight who were convicted were hung and four were sent to prison. The four who were hung included the first woman put to death by law in American history. What did these eight individuals know and when did they know it? Were all truly guilty in some way? The sense of the panel, though not entirely universal, was that all were rightly convicted.

3. Was the Confederacy involved directly in Lincoln's assassination? Did Jefferson Davis know of the plot and even finance it? (Why was Booth going to meet with Rebels in Montreal regularly? Where did he get his money? Where was he going when he tried to escape through Maryland?)

Perhaps the most foolish, and completely unsubstantiated, of all the conspiracy ideas associated with the Lincoln assassination is the suggestion that the Catholic Church helped to kill the president. The eight scholars at the Lincoln Forum were asked, "Did the Catholic Church particpate in Lincoln's death in any way?" They answered emphatically, and clearly, "No."

I have thought about this question a great deal since last week. I had been aware of the idea for many years. I had no idea where it came from or what fed it over the years. But 140 years after the death of Abraham Lincoln some still cling to the idea that Rome was involved. Why? Simply put, some people hate the Catholic Church, plain and simple. Because of this hatred they find this theory appealing. Sadly, some things never change. Anti-Catholicism is still around. It has a long history in America, dating back to the founders in some ways. And it was thick in the Civil War era, especially in the South. And today, from Chick tracts to recycled conspiracy theories, some people are still convinced the source of much evil in the world has to be the pope and the Catholic Church. Face it, fear and hatred still have great power. Thank God, however, the love of Christ has much greater power.

"Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" (1 John 4:7-8).