John H Armstrong

New Blog Site Soon

Over the course of the next 24-72 hours a mentor/coach is finishing the design for my new blog site. It will be on a WordPress platform hosted by a different server than the one I have used for over seven years. Please check back in a few days and let me know what you think when this site is launched. I will be doing a series of blog posts on the extremely important new book, Bad Relgion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics, Ross Douthat (Free Press: New York, 2012) over the next several weeks. I really hope that you will read these posts and interact with me as you do. I believe this is one of the most important books for missional-ecumenists I have read. 

Why It's Important to Oppose Anti-Sharia Movements in America

Since 9-11 many Americans have reacted strongly against Muslims and Islamic laws. Some see the presence of Muslims as a threat to our nation. Others are more open but are still guided by a great deal of fear when it comes to Muslim practice. Many conservative commentators stir up a general, and often ill-defined, negative reaction to Islamic culture. The truth is that this is a culture they neither understand nor care to understand with any degree of empathy. Christians can, and should, do much better. If for no other reason we have clear statements from our Lord about loving our neighbors, even our enemies. Though this does not mean that we should be anything less than vigilant with regard to radical Islamic movements and people (for reasons of security) it also does not mean that we should oppose Islamic movements, people or their laws. It is this last idea (Muslim laws) that I write about today.

Make no mistake about this–there is a strong anti-Sharia movement in the United States. This movement had led to 22 state legislatures having either passed or considered bills to prohibit judges from considering Sharia law, or any foreign laws, in their decision making. But since 2011 numerous bills have either died or been withdrawn in states. This prompted Omar Sacirbey, of Religion News Service, to suggest that the anti-Sharia movement may have "lost its momentum." I hope so. 

Take Oklahoma as one example. In 2011 voters passed an amendment to the state constitution that prohibited judges from considering foreign laws, including all religious laws, in their decision making. Two federal courts have since ruled that this amendment is unconstitutional, forcing lawmakers to revise the law. A new bill passed the state House in 2011 but the Senate Rules Committee did not hear the bill until recently and the Rules Committee voted it down 9-6. In Minnesota and New Jersey anti-Muslim bills were withdrawn after various expressions of protest. One Republican legislator in New Jersey, Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi, said that her bill was never meant to be an anti-Sharia law bill, bur rather an "anti-foreign law" measure. She withdrew it on March 12 saying, "After sitting down with members of the Muslim community, and taking into consideration everything they'd been through in the last few weeks, I didn't want to create any more tension." It pays to sit down and listen. 

In New Jersey Muslims rallied against a surveillance program specifically aimed at Muslim businesses and community centers in Newark. They also spoke out against actions of the NYPD. In both cases their voices were heard and steps were taken to correct abuses. 

One online newsletter recently reported that similar bills have recently died in Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi and New Mexico. A few could be revived next year but the trends are moving in the other direction for now. Only four states have actually passed such bills: Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona and South Dakota. At this moment anti-foreign law bills are alive in 12 states altogether. So the movement is anything but dead. 

A recent poll shows that the number of Americans who believe Muslims want to impose Sharia on all Americans is now only 14%, down from 30% in the same poll last September (Public Research Institute). 

Why should anti-Sharia laws be opposed in America?

1. They are plainly discriminatory against Muslims. Our nation has rightly eschewed such forms of religious discrimination, especially over the last fifty years. 

2. This movement, and the passage of anti-Sharia laws, could adversely affect other religious groups such as Jews and Catholics, both of whom have religious laws that have been used by judges for many years to decide family or property disputes.

3. These anti-Sharia laws discourage businesses by invalidating foreign laws altogether.

These bills target Muslim communities at a time of deep national tension about the proper role of Islam in America. Muslim laws are seen by some as a menace to American freedoms. Behind these responses you can often find a veiled expression of xenophobia as well as a bad legal precedent that violates the practice and religious beliefs of minorities. In the light of what I wrote yesterday about our courts I believe that it will only be time until the Supreme Court will hear a direct challenge to such a state law. I think it is likely that they would strike down such a law as a clear violation of the First Amendment rights of Muslims.

Opposing anti-Sharia laws is important to a healthy democracy and to the proper understanding of the role of church and state in America. Informed Christians should promote the defeat of this kind of legislation on the grounds of religious freedom, a freedom that if threatened in one area can be threatened in another at some future point. We need to remain vigilant about our religious rights. This includes the rights of our Muslim neighbors. At its core this is what makes America unique from France, Germany and most other nations in the West. We do not promote religion through the state nor do we use the state to hinder religious practice so long as the rights of others are not violated. 

 

The Will of the Majority, the Rights of the Minority and the Bill of Rights

In my college days I took one of the toughest undergraduate classes offered at Wheaton College. It was a course on constitutional law taught by a rigorous and demanding professor who knew the history of the debates very well. The class was a challenge and getting a decent grade was really hard work. But I believe that course may have done as much to shape my view of America as any single college course I ever took. More than forty years later I remain grateful for this class. It has helped me understand America in a way that I think far too few Christians get, especially in the heat of modern debates over political opinions, left or right. 

I learned then, and have seen since, that debates about the interpretation of the Bill of Rights are common in modern American political and social debate. Ever since I can remember we have debated judicial activism. Whether from the political left or the political right our national tradition of ensuring religious liberty for all stems from the protections of the First Amendment. Our courts, especially our Supreme Court, must vigorously enforce the religion clauses in ways that are often counter-majoritarian if we are to ensure the proper separation of church and state. The will of the majority does not apply to court decisions if the courts are doing their job as intended by the founders.

President Obama, in the wake of the Supreme Court hearing debate over his signature legislative accomplishment on mandatory health care, recently made strong remarks about the problem of “unelected judges” opposing the will of elected legislators. The president taught constitutional law for ten years and knows better. The right of the judiciary to declare specific acts of legislation unconstitutional goes back to the famous Marbury vs. Madison (1803) decision in which Chief Justice John Marshall articulated the concept of judicial review and thus declared the judiciary to be the final arbiter in determining what the law is. 

The President clarified his statement the day after making it by saying he had in mind the 2010 Affordable Care Act case, not the responsibility for judicial review. He knows the necessity of judicial review and admitted he was speaking only about this one case. But regardless of your view of Obamacare, love it or hate it, the president’s statement raises a great question about several basic concerns in our democracy that both liberals and conservatives do not often understand well. 

For example, how do we handle the will of the majority and legally support the rights of the minority? J. Brent Walker puts this succinctly, in Report from the Capital (Vol. 67, No. 4), when he says, “How do we resolve the tension between a fundamentally majoritarian Constitution with an essentially counter-majoritarian Bill of Rights?” 

Most of our elections and policy decisions are rooted in the will of the majority expressed through a peaceful democratic process. But, as former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has said, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights have been withdrawn from the “vicissitudes of political controversy” and “depend on the outcome of no elections.” We rightly fear totalitarianism in this country but we forget that “pure majoritarianism” can also wreak havoc on our freedoms as well. The majority is not always right and there are times and situations in which the majority must be legally challenged. This is why judges have a responsibility to protect the rights of the minority, even if the majority is led by the president and/or an overwhelming election result. (This is also why federal and Supreme Court judges are not subject to elections!)

Again, the political left and right both tend to forget this vital point based on a case by case context. What was odd about the president’s statement was that it reflected a strong reaction against the Court from the left. 

This understanding of the Bill of Rights is what should guide the Court in all decisions but this is especially true with regard to cases about religion. The Court has the task of enforcing the religion clauses in the First Amendment. In recent history no other part of the law has been more frequently undermined by Christians in particular. Believing that Christianity is the “majority faith” and that the nation was founded on Christian principles people on the right tend to argue that the Court is repeatedly thwarting the will of the majority about the role of the church and religion in our society. For this reason the majority of cases that end up before the Supreme Court these days are related to the free exercise clause. 

When majoritarian values push a case before the Supreme Court the decision, which sometimes does not go for the majority view, is sometimes struck down. This raises the cry of “judicial activism” thus we hear again debates about the courts making laws and the courts being out of control. For the duration of my lifetime, since the end of World War II, the conservative movement has actively opposed “judicial activism.” While there are times when lower courts have been guilty of this charge the Supreme Court seems to have gotten this just about right, at least in most cases. 

Think, for example, about major decisions that were extremely controversial; striking down school-sponsored prayer, upholding abortion rights, protecting unpopular forms of speech and flag burning. These have fostered “judicial activism” feelings on the right. But recent opposition has come from the left who remind us that the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have struck down 46 federal laws over two decades compared with fewer than 130 in the first two centuries of the Supreme Court. (Read that again!)

What is the lesson here? J. Brent Walker rightly concludes: “The lesson we should all learn is to be careful, those on the left and on the right, about charges of judicial activism. No, the Court should not strike down laws of Congress and other legislatures lightly and without much study and discretion. However, when elected branches pass or enforce laws that transgress constitutional rights, including protection for minority rights, the courts must act to take up their mandate to correct the error.” 

No one complains about judicial activism when the Court’s decision agrees with their own. Someone once quipped, “When the Court makes a decision that you like, it’s applauded as judicial statesmanship. If you don’t like it, it is called judicial activism.”

I am thankful for our third branch of government, the one we know the least about and also the one we complain about routinely. The nine justices do not judge every case perfectly, which is of course impossible. They have made decisions that I do not like. But they have more often than not protected us from allowing the will of the majority to trample on the rights of the minority, a right that is vital to the well-being and peace of this nation. With three branches of government there are ways to challenge Court decisions but they require a slow and (seemingly) tortured process. It is this very process that helps protect our way of life from tyranny and majority domination. This makes America rather unique among modern nations, a uniqueness that I have deeply treasured ever since I took constitutional law in college. 

 

 

The Misuse of Free Speech is Harmful

I am a huge defender of free speech. It is a core value and a cherished right of all Americans. I believe it is a double-edged sword but one that should be protected. Now and then we have obvious examples of provocative speech that causes social harm, even death outside of America. The line here is very thin and it is often extremely hard to grasp in terms of distinctions and nuances. It is this particular freedom that the Supreme Court has often had to protect by new rulings and decisions that create more misunderstanding. I am personally thankful that they remain vigilant about free speech.

I thought of this recently when Pastor Terry Jones, minister of a 25-member congregation in Gainesville, Florida, publicly burned a copy of the Qur’an last Saturday, April 28. Jones' public burning followed a personal meeting and intense conversation just one day earlier with representatives of the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA), including the executive director, Dr. Geoff Tunnicliffe. Geoff is a friend that I deeply admire and respect. I believe he acted in good faith in trying to defuse this publicity stunt and to stop Jones from carrying out his ridiculous display of foolishness. 

The World Evangelical Alliance issued a news release about the private meeting between Jones and Tunnicliffe. I urge you to read it carefully.  

One of the great tragedies of free speech is the harmful way some Christians use it to make a statement. Such was the case with Jones' newest episode. But the misuse of free speech doesn't alter the simple fact that it should be protected under law. I do not expect Muslim societies to broadly understand our view of the law (one can pray that the day will come when this changes) but we cannot go back and restrict it in the U.S. or we will become a society that is little different than those presently inflamed by the passions of religious fundamentalism. 

 

The Problem of Conservatives and Government

We loosely speak of conservatives and liberals when we talk about ideologies and modern politics as it relates to government. Besides the fact that these labels are often anachronistic, and even widely misused, we infrequently take care to see the downside of the views we personally promote. As in all areas we share in a kind of personal and corporate blindness to the weaknesses of the views we so stridently promote. While I might be labeled a conservative, at least on some issues, I am clearly more progressive when it comes to other modern debates over issues. I view the death penalty, and our modern wars and continual military buildup, with considerable suspicion. I also care for the environment in ways that are anything but consistent with the party line views of most political conservatives. I further believe that our personal liberties are being violated by an over-reaction to questions regarding terrorism and security. (I have named only a few issues to simply give you a sense of my problem with the label.) Yet, I am not a modern political liberal either, at least when it comes to promoting entitlement programs and a great deal of state and federal spending. I am profoundly troubled by the liberal partnership between governments and almost all labor unions. This is why I admire Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin. (I believe in the right to form unions and to unionize work but the pendulum has swung too far from the middle through massive entitlements.) The long term well-being of the nation is thus threatened by our out-of-control debt problem. Our present spending could well destroy our economy and then alter our way of life in radically unforeseen ways that could wreck the social fabric of our society. For this reason, the rising debt (and everything connected with solving it) is THE issue that moves me profoundly at the present moment. (What we need is a better, and more realistic, centrist argument about the real size and consequence of our debt.) I do not believe this is a left or right issue. I believe both parties need to give on some of their special projects and stop posturing in order to work together to solve this massive problem. Until after November I am not holding my breath for any real solutions and beyond November I am still not sure that we will see the radical changes that we actually need. If this is a form of political cynicism then so be it. 

Some months ago I heard a prominent conservative express my deep doubts about what happens when conservatives hold power. He said that "the tendency of conservatives is to turn government into a private sector bidding war." That nailed it for me. When this happens we have a government by entrepreneurship. While I believe deeply in the power and initiative of the entrepreneurial spirit I do not believe that governments should pursue entrepreneurship. When they do, bad things always happen. Conservatives need to understand this if they are to ever learn to govern wisely and humanely. I am just not sure most of them do at this moment. 

Burning Questions for Missional Christians

Christianity began as a tiny movement of Jews who believed that God had raised Jesus from the dead. They spread this message to Jews and Gentiles and planted churches across the Roman Empire in the first three centuries of the common era. There is abundant evidence that these churches were generally small and that most congregations numbered something like 30-70 people. Issues regarding how to develop and govern these churches arose over time. It seems apparent that there is no extant blueprint that has been passed on to us regarding how this should be done down through the centuries. Christianity seems incredibly adaptable to various cultures and for this reason it could spread into all cultures. 

What we do know is that in spite of many faults the church acquired it eventually provided the basis for a new era of learning, industry and civil order that arose from the impact of the church upon society. In the sixteenth century the Reformation not only divided the church in the West but it led to renewal in the Catholic Church. Eventually this resulted in a great rise in missionary activity from both Protestant and Catholic sources. By the twentieth century a worldwide exportation of products and ideas followed and this global expansion opened the door even wider for global missions. At the same time Europe's civilization began a long, slow slide toward secularism. There is an almost astonishing correlation between the decline of births with the decline of the church and its influence throughout Europe. The question remains what this will mean for North America. Will we follow this European pattern? There is growing evidence that we might follow Europe but there is considerable reason to think that America could follow a very different model. 

By 2050 Patrick Johnstone says that less than half of Europe will claim any adherence to Christianity. This leads Johnstone to conclude that there are "uncomfortable parallels between the situation in Europe today and the collapse of the Greco-Roman civilization of antiquity."

But here in America the situation does not entirely parallel that in Europe. Two centuries of Protestant immigration and numerical growth combined with periodic revivals have shaped a different kind of situation. Here church and state were never connected in the same way. The church in America was free to innovate and develop new ideas. (This is a double-edged sword I realize!) The result of these developments is a Christianity that has a huge variety in church life, teachings and worship styles. In the midst of this chaos some very good things have emerged at various times in our history. Cults have grown, for sure, but so have genuine Christian churches and movements that have given us both health and numerical growth. 

The rise of non-Christian immigration, in recent decades, and the gains of the non-religious (or "nones") in our religious demographics, makes things extremely problematic for the church going forward. (We are in a period of church decline, make no mistake about this fact.) The influence of secularism remains strong, especially in higher education and among the culturally elite. The problems these changes present will not go away anytime soon. But the separation of church and state makes for a unique opportunity for thoughtful Christians to emerge into new missional thought and practice in America. Let me explain.

Could a new kind of civilization, one not rooted in empire or in dependence upon religion linked with the state in any form, arise in the twenty-first century? Simply put, could a new kind of Christianity emerge that produces a more tolerant, less proud and more deeply caring expression of public faith? Could a vigorous, but less politically motivated, Christianity take the place of a church deeply engaged in culture wars and partisan, divisive bickering? 

I do not believe that we know the answer to these questions quite yet. There are signs that give me hope but there are signs that I find deeply troubling. This leads me to ask the question I've been asking for some years now:

"What will Christianity look like in North America when the impact the church once had upon the culture is gone and Christians must then learn how to live meaningfully in a setting where they do not get to directly determine the cultural outcomes of their society?"

How should Christians prepare for this future? 

I believe we need to train leaders who are genuine missional-ecumenists. These will be leaders who grasp the central importance of Jesus to all of life. Such missional faith is not privatized religion. It must be very public. But it is not public in the way we've known it in the past. It is not boisterous and in your face about its truth claims. What we need, especially in the face of religious pluralism, is a developed imagination produced by the Holy Spirit. This developed, Spirit-filled imagination, will guide is in knowing how to proceed in our "brave new world." Without this we will not thrive in being faithful to Christ's mission in the decades ahead of us. With it then who knows what kind of civilization might we become under God's grace? 

One thing I am sure about in asking these kinds of questions. We cannot go back. The America I knew as a child is gone. Political elections, revival campaigns, new church plants, and a myriad of other religious and social solutions, will not bring back that America. We cannot work ourselves out of this new diverse context. It is here to stay. The question is how the church will respond and what our role will be in a new American reality? 

Is the World on a Permanent Downhill Slide?

Is the world on a permanent downhill slide? To listen to many Christians you would think so. During this political season you would think so even more than during other years. People, left and right, remind us daily of the dire consequences of this election and of what will happen if the wrong person, or party, is elected in November. For many you would think that America's entire future hangs in the balance. Pardon me if I am skeptical about all of this but I heard this message in 1960. I was only eleven years old. It was not true then and it is very likely not true now either. Wars followed Kennedy's election, economic cycles came and went, morals improved and declined (yes there have been ups and downs both). Over and over things went on coming and going like waves of the sea. Some things improved, some didn't. Has our culture drifted? Well, in some ways yes. Marriage is in deep trouble. But then if I was an African American I would say things have improved, at least in terms of freedom, since 1960. And the economy, with some setbacks, has generally grown over the long haul. 

If you say, "Things got much worse after 1960" then I'd like to ask you what you know about the period between 1861 and 1865 in this country? And what about the moral breakdown in the 1790s following the Revolutionary War? Illegal drugs, alcohol consumption and divorce were at amazing highs. What about the Great Depression, from which many felt we would never recover? Or the hippies and the counter-culture of the 1960s, through which I lived during my college years? And when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 some felt strongly that Armageddon would be launched by this crazy yahoo of a new president.

I was thinking about this social and cultural pessimism last week when I came across my friend Fr. Robert Sirico's "President's Report" in the January-February issue of Acton Notes. Here is how Fr. Sirico puts it:

Many people I know are rather despairing about our future. This is contributing to a real and growing pessimism throughout society. I can understand all of these feelings but there is a potential mistake here. I’ve begun to think that those who are too attached to the day’s headline news develop a bias toward thinking that the world is on a permanent downhill slide. The mistake is looking only at the bad things we know about without considering the good trends for the future.

Consider, for example, all the amazing technologies we are benefiting from today that would have been unheard and unimagined five or ten years ago. Digital communications—fueled by private investments, the market economy, and entrepreneurial risk— have connected the world as never before, making life much more efficient and easing poverty. These technologies have spread art, beauty, and truth across the globe.

The very nature of the market economy, which is an extension of human action and choice, is that we can’t anticipate its results ahead of time. Markets are constantly surprising us with new ways of communicating, healing, teaching, creating, interacting. In a way, it reflects God’s restoration of creation. Because we cannot know the shape of the future precisely, we tend to look only at the bad trends and form an overall picture that can be very bleak.

Such a bleak outlook on life can also cause us not to seize on the special opportunities that our times have given us for living out the dream of a free and virtuous life. If we understand free markets and the astounding way in which the Lord delivers us from despairing about our contemporary politics, we would temper our pessimism to realize that blessings can come to us when we least expect them. Our age has given every living generation a difficult challenge. This challenge is unlike any we’ve faced in our past. Through prayer and hard work, we can build a beautiful future for truth and liberty. This is what we are working toward at the Acton Institute, and we are grateful for your support.

Some of you who read this blog are inclined to question this kind of optimism. Why? Perhaps you've been listening to too much cable news lately. Or maybe you've been touched by the kind of prophetic teaching that confuses God's people and leads them to pessimism as a way of life. I know not the reason(s) but I can assure you Fr. Sirico is not offering a perspective that is without some serious reasons for commending it. Is the world on a permanent downhill slide? Are you sure? Have you bought into some form of pessimism when there is always reason to believe that God has a lot more to do to accomplish his good purpose in our world? Even if things do get worse there will be new opportunity to see the myriad of ways in which God might lead us in order to bless us and show again that his ways are not our ways. A little less pessimism is not a bad thing right now. God's truth marches on and he is still blessing those who trust him and follow his ways.     

Will the Election Fundamentally Change Our Government?

Thomas B. Edsall, professor of journalism at Columbia University and the author of the forthcoming book The Age of Austerity: How Scarcity Will Remake American Politics, wrote a Sunday opinion piece in the New York Times (01/08/12) that should give us considerable pause if we really think that the electorate, at least those of us who are ordinary citizens who might be called the grass roots, will be able to fundamentally change the way our government works.

In his next to last paragraph Edsall concluded:

There are idealists who believe that two recent developments raise the potential for reform. On the conservative side, the Tea Party movement is adamantly opposed to machinations inside the Beltway. On the liberal side, the Occupy Wall Street movement has similarly challenged the power of the ‘1 percent,’ a constituency heavily represented by the special-interest community, many of whom are themselves members of the 1 percent. In Washington, the consensus is that despite these movements, little will change (emphasis mine).

What is the problem here? Many believe that our government is broken and many also believe that no matter what happens in these elections our biggest problems will not be fixed by what they try do about it. Increasingly I share this perspective. This is not a conclusion based on pietism or upon a complete disdain for the dirty business of politics. And it is not a position of fatalism. I think, as best I understand what has happened in our society during my six-plus decades of life, we have passed through a fundamental change where both money and power have a much greater influence over the electoral process than ever before.

Make no mistake about this. Money and power have always corrupted societies and governments. This is why Lord Acton said in the 19th century, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” What has changed in America is that money and power have become the real game-changer in our electoral politics and now on a massive scale. Unless, or more likely until, the people change we will not see government change. We as people will change when we value freedom and moral responsibility over influence and personal pleasure. If the roots are rotting then the tree will follow. It appears that we are in a long process of moral and social decline that might even speed up in ensuing years. Time will tell.

Edsall concluded his editorial by saying:

The weaponry of the special-interest community has become increasingly powerful. Lobbyists not only have ever greater resources at their disposal, they are also armed with the sophisticated technology of influence — polls, television, focus groups, computerized data banks, micro-targeting, each of them important in itself, and devastating when deployed in effective combinations. The net result is that the power of the electorate relative to the power of the Washington establishment has inexorably declined.

Can the power of the electorate be regained by the people? Yes, but the electorate has to change itself. If we are many and yet one nation, as e pluribus unum says we are, then something truly culture changing must take place. This requires more than grasping for power, from either the left or the right. It requires a new kind of civic commitment that requires a new kind of citizen/person. Where will these new citizens/persons come from? How will they be prepared for a future that looks very different from the past? Given the breakdown of family and communities what will bring us together?

My own dreams are not rooted in the past. What I long for is a greater display of the fruit of the Spirit in the lives of those who love Christ and sacrifice their time and money for the good of community. This might influence the political process but this surely cannot be limited to what is happening in the elections of 2012. You will hear a lot about how this election is the most important in history. Don’t believe it. It is mostly rhetoric. Both sides will employ it to great effect. But in the end the outcomes of this election will not fundamentally alter our society.

Killing Lincoln: A "Flawed" Book Well Worth Reading

You have to admit it, television talk-show host Bill O'Reilly is extremely popular. His nightly Fox News Channel program is the highest-rated cable news show in America. Love him, despise him, or simply ignore him, millions of people know Bill O'Reilly and most have an opinion about him, one way or the other. His often bombastic style irritates and delights, driving his ratings through the roof. While he defends conservative political points consistently he is willing to go where similar hosts will not go in criticising certain conservatives by using his famous tag of "pinhead." Yet he continues to get most political leaders and pop-culture icons to appear on his show, something rarely done in this venue. He may well be the most talked about political commentator of our day. But can he write a successful historical book that goes beyond his modern political opinion? (O'Reilly was a history teacher at one point in the past.)

I confess that when I first saw the numerous advertisements for O'Reilly's new best-seller, Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever, I was distinctly not interested. Why? I am neither a fan of O'Reilly nor a huge critic. I just do not pay much attention to Bill O'Reilly at all. (I might watch him once or twice in a month for all of about ten minutes.) And as a serious student of Abraham Lincoln, our greatest president, I was quite sure that this book would never keep my interest for long. I was prepared to find so many flaws. Before reading word one I already knew what a few of these flaws were. 

My wife asked me to borrow the book from the public library when I was headed that way one afternoon. We were put on a waiting list. Finally the book became available. When Anita finished it in six days I still had eight days to read it before it had to be returned. So last week I finished it in five days! It was that good. I confess that I have read better history, and better Lincoln biography by far, but this is a truly well-written book. It is emotionally engaging in a way that is rarely found in books about Lincoln or any other American president or historical event. 

Short chapters, a vivid and imaginative style of writing, and enough detail to be helpful to ordinary readers, the book is truly a page-turner, especially for those who would never read the work of professional historians. Yet this is precisely why so many critics have widely attacked this book. It's popular style, joined with its non-use of historical footnotes, creates the perfect storm for genuine and fair criticism. The lack of notation is considered a cardinal sin in the academic world. Even some credible historians have been shredded by reviewers for lesser flaws than can be found in Killing Lincoln. And flaws there are in this book. 

But O'Reilly (and Dugan) clearly set out to write a "historical thriller." I believe they succeeded quite well. The authors make you feel like you were right there at Ford's theater or in the fields of Virginia when John Wilkes Booth was found and shot. 

I could pick numerous examples to show why the writing style of this books works so well. I will use but one good example, in describing Booth's actions and thoughts just fifteen minutes before he shot Lincoln. The authors say, "Booth had a head full of whiskey and a heart full of hate. He thinks of the Confederate cause and Lincoln's promise to give slaves the vote. And then Booth remembers that no one can put a stop to it but him. He is the one man who can, and will, make a difference. There will be no going back" (page 195). Is this an accurate account of Booths thoughts? Well, yes and no. He did not write them down precisely nor was a reporter there asking him fifteen minutes before he fired on the president. But this form of writing liberty is exactly what makes the book so interesting. You "feel" all this in Booth since this is quite close to what he did say about himself and his actions before and after the assassination. Historians will challenge this free form of writing but I confess that I loved it. 

Now, back to the question of flaws. Is the book accurate in all ways? No, there are clearly some details that O'Reilly (and co-author Martin Dugard) got wrong. Consider the criticism of several published reviewers on November 13 in the Huffington Post. But anyone who follows political reporting and opinion knows that the Huffington Post is no fan of Bill O'Reilly. Other reviews are also critical but far more fair with the book. An example of this can be seen in the respected Kirkus Reviews.

So should you read Killing Lincoln? If you know very little about the story, enjoy a good way of telling it in evocative words and are not looking to do serious research on the subject then my answer is affirmative. If you are interested in Lincoln scholarship then try several of the books recommended in the Kirkus Reviews. 

The Complete Failure of Prohibition

I spent a few days before Christmas watching the recently released Ken Burn's documentary series Prohibition. It is, as most Ken Burns' productions, a great success. This three-part series, lasting over five-plus hours, relates the story of American idealism, folly and unintended consequences.

In 1920, after literally a century of crusades and agitation, we passed the 18th Amendment which outlawed the manufacturing and sale of alcohol. For thirteen years we then battled to apply a law that had no chance of doing what its proponents had hoped for, namely saving families and ending vice. And who do we have to thank for this foolish amendment? Mostly well-intentioned moralists who were crusading and zealous Christians! These Christians may have had good motives but their actions were rooted in a terrible misuse of Scripture and a total misunderstanding of the role of government in terms of personal freedoms. 

This series tells the amazing stories of small-time whiskey-jobbers, big-time bootleggers, and brutal gangsters; e.g. think Al Capone and Chicago in the late 1920s. From politicians to preachers America became a land of massive hypocrisy. Some studies actually show that drinking and drunkenness increased as a result of prohibition. One thing we know for sure; the number of lobbyists increased, as did wide-spread graft in government and the police departments. Catholics and Protestants (at least some Protestants like the Methodists and Baptists) became even further divided over prohibition. The debate was as much about small-town values vs. city-values as it was about drinking or not drinking. And there was a strand of anti-immigration xenophobia in this that ran deeply through the American divide much as it runs through our politics today. 

What is the proper role of government? We still debate this question as fiercely as ever. On the Left and the Right we think we know the answer, and thus give simplistic answers routinely. But history reveals how little we truly understand the question or the answer(s). And no issue shows this quite like prohibition. 

In 1933, less than a year after FDR became president, the state of Utah became the deciding vote that was needed to repeal the only amendment to the U. S. Constitution that was ever rejected. (I found that intriguing given the deep roots of Mormonism in Utah!) Few would deny that prohibition was a complete and total disaster. In the throes of a Great Depression repeal became a no-brainer when the revenue from alcohol was desperately needed and as many as one in four Americans was out of work and the repeal created jobs. "The Noble Experiment" came to an ignominious end. But what did we learn from its failure? I wonder, I seriously wonder. 

Personally this series made me question a number of the ways that conservative Christians still try to bring about a better moral environment through passing governmental laws against "sin." What made prohibition a total failure and Civil Rights a moral necessity? If you cannot answer that one with a fair degree of clarity then you had best rethink your zeal for making laws to stop or check sin in society. I can still hear, from my childhood, Christian people telling me that passing Civil Rights laws would not work since we could not change people's hearts through legislation! Their piety might be admirable but their grasp of law and freedom was positively awful. These same people were the folks who promoted prohibition! History makes us come face-to-face with some genuinely moral ironies in our American story. It would be extremely useful for modern Christian conservatives, and liberals, to see this excellent series.