His God Is Marching On
If you relied on wire service accounts, Catholic commentary, and the few snippets of video on the evening news, you can be forgiven for believing that the White House Welcoming Ceremony held for Pope Benedict XVI on April 16 was entirely "warm," "friendly," and marked by "mutual admiration and respect."
But beneath the surface, the waters weren't so calm, as anyone who watched the entire ceremony, listened closely to President Bush's speech, and paid attention to the symbolism knows.
True, the President praised the Holy Father's commitment to life, his embrace of "a culture of justice and truth," and his proper understanding of liberty as entailing responsibilities as well as freedoms.
The shadow of the Iraq war hung over the festivities, however. President Bush had sought the approval of Pope John Paul II in the run-up to the war in 2002 and 2003, and he had been disappointed when Benedict's predecessor spoke out strongly against the war. Cardinal Ratzinger himself had made it clear after the war had started that "reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist," and that a preemptive war could never be a just war.
Five years after the start of the war, President Bush might simply have refrained from any reference to it, but, for whatever reason, he could not bring himself to do so. Ironically, he began his remarks with a reference to Saint Augustine, usually regarded as the first expositor of Christian just-war theory. He quickly moved on, though, to describe America as "a nation of compassion," and his description of what such compassion entails included a veiled reference to the war:
Each day across the world the United States is working to eradicate disease, alleviate poverty, promote peace and bring the light of hope to places still mired in the darkness of tyranny and despair.
The fact that Saddam Hussein's "tyranny" was used to justify "regime change" by force of arms leaves little doubt about what President Bush was referring to, and the smile that Pope Benedict had been sporting disappeared from his face.
Interestingly, the Holy Father's remarks, prepared in advance, read at points as if they were a direct response to President Bush. Stressing the link between freedom and the moral order, which "calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good, and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate," Pope Benedict invoked George Washington's Farewell Address:
Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation.
Those decisions include not only domestic but foreign policy:
For well over a century, the United States of America has played an important role in the international community. . . . I am confident that this concern for the greater human family will continue to find expression in support for the patient efforts of international diplomacy to resolve conflicts and promote progress.
President Bush, however, would have the final word, as the U.S. Army Chorus chimed in in support of his vision that compassion can be spread at the point of a sword. The decision to perform "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" for a religious leader known as a man of peace, one who has stated that he chose the name "Benedict" in part in emulation of Benedict XV, who campaigned unstintingly for peace during World War I, was odd enough. Set aside Julia Ward Howe's Unitarianism, which leads to serious theological errors in the verses; set aside even the role that the Battle Hymn played in stoking the fires of fratricide. Focus, instead, on the symbolism at an event in which the President of the United States has justified an unjust war in the name of "compassion."
And then watch the video of the performance. Observe the arrangement of the song: When the Army Chorus reaches the third verse ("In the beauty of the lilies"), the tempo is slowed, the dynamics soften—all fairly traditional, though exaggerated on this occasion. To what purpose? To heighten the effect when, after the words "As He died to make men holy," the Army Chorus abruptly picks up the pace and drives home, in staccato beats, each word rising to a higher pitch, the final lines of that verse: "LET. US. DIE. TO. MAKE. MEN. FREE."
"While God is marching on," indeed. But the look of bewilderment that had settled on the Holy Father's face at the beginning of the Battle Hymn changes so abruptly at that moment to a look of pain that one wonders whether he was asking himself just who that god might be. And the fact that Pope Benedict rises as quickly as he can—even before President Bush does—to leave the stage and head into the White House speaks volumes.
On occasion, here and elsewhere, I have described President Bush as a nationalist, and I'm almost always taken to task immediately by those who argue that nationalism simply means the defense of the nation-state. President Bush cannot be a nationalist, they argue, because he has no qualms about the destruction of the American, the shipping of U.S. jobs overseas, the tearing down of what remains of our borders, the demographic transformation of the United States.
While it's true that many people who are concerned about these issues identify themselves as nationalists, historically nationalism has signified something else: an abstract commitment to a nation that isn't necessarily concerned with the well-being of a particular people in a particular place (traditionally denoted as patriotism). For a century, American nationalists such as President Bush have been committed to an idea of America that has little or nothing to do with the actual lives of actual Americans (much less the land on which they live), and everything to do with America as a "proposition" or "credal nation," which can accept all people as part of itself, while spreading what is "essential" to the nation (the proposition or creed) to populations abroad.
In President Bush's case, even more strongly than in the case of, say, Woodrow Wilson, this abstract nationalism has been bound up with the conviction that he, like President Lincoln, can discern God's Will. His continued commitment to the war in Iraq is not mere stubbornness; it reflects his sense that "a nation of compassion" does the work of God by "bring[ing] the light of hope to places still mired in the darkness of tyranny and despair." As he sends men to "die to make men free," his god is marching on.
Pope Benedict, who came of age under the rule of a man with a similar conviction of his (to borrow a phrase from Mel Bradford) "prophetic, teleological task," undoubtedly sees parallels between Hitler's national god and Bush's.
What he does not see is the Prince of Peace—the true God Who did not die merely to "make men holy" but died and rose again to offer men the true freedom that comes from taking up their cross and following Him.
Entries(RSS)
Allen Wilson @ 40:
First rate! Thank you!
As my daddy used to say, "Do not get into a biblical sword drill with the devil, for he knows the Scriptures better than you do."
The "good" Unitarian lady was probably referring to the following verse from Holy Writ, totally out of context, of course.
"Then another angel came out from the altar, the angel who has power over fire, and he called with a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, "Put in your sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth, for its grapes are ripe." So the angel swung his sickle on the earth and gathered the vintage of the earth, and threw it into the great wine press of the wrath of God." (Revelation 14:18-19 RSV)
Scott,
Listen to yourself.
“In President Bush’s case, even more strongly than in the case of, say, Woodrow Wilson, this abstract nationalism has been bound up with the conviction that he, like President Lincoln, can discern God’s Will.”
You are using ambiguous language. If discerning God’s Will means for example having a rudimentary understanding of the 1st commandment – then any regenerate Christian can discern God’s Will to some extent. I can discern that God’s preceptive Will includes “Thou shalt have not other gods before me.”
Not that I necessarily believe that Bush 43 is a regenerate Christian, for if he is, what is he doing in the liberal United Methodist Church?
Did Bush or Lincoln ever claimed to have extraordinary powers for discerning God’s Will above and beyond those of the ordinary Christian? I doubt it. That kind of claim of extraordinary discernment has been openly made percentage wise by a small number of individuals (Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus and various other patriarchs, prophets and apostles) – and also by other more modern era brazen types, Muhammad, Joseph Smith and Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessors, being some of the best examples that come to mind.
Benedict can quote Washington’s Farewell address and Bush can have the Battle Hymn of the Republic played. In the end it is just the Satanic workings of two politicians and heads of state using various symbols including abstract creedal nationalism to promote their own power enhancing agendas.
A church government that ordered, carried out and praised the wars, crusades and massacres against the Albigensians, Hussites and Huguenots shouldn’t be taken seriously when it notes “concern for the greater human family will continue to find expression in support for the patient efforts of international diplomacy to resolve conflicts and promote progress.”
Pope Gregory XIII ordered a Te Deum to be sung as a special thanksgiving (a practice continued for many years after) and had a medal struck with the motto Ugonottorum strages 1572 showing an angel bearing a cross and sword next to slaughtered Huguenot Protestants. I'm not surprised by the resolution of “conflicts” and promotion of “progress” deceptive rhetoric, nor would I be surprised if the pontiff “discerns” 2nd Thessalonians Chapter 2 differently from the way Paul intended it to be discerned.
Good catch, Mr Peters, although a quick look at KJV gives : 'And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast [it] into the great winepress of the wrath of God.'
Was the RSV at least partly based on a pre-1861 version which had 'vintage' instead of 'vine'? If so, we may see the source of the use of that word in the hymn, but wikipedia lists only post-1865 versions as sources for the RSV, along with KJV and Tyndale. The Tyndale version doesn't use 'vintage'.
Regardless, 'vintage' looks like a clear misuse of words. If such misuses have already gotten into more modern versions of the Bible, then obviously Dr Fleming was right when he said in his most recent thread that we need some way of correcting bad usage.
Finally, here's a terrifying thought: what if the use of 'vintage' in the evil 'hymn' influenced scholars to use the word in later American Bible versions?
Finally, here’s a terrifying thought: what if the use of ‘vintage’ in the evil ‘hymn’ influenced scholars to use the word in later American Bible versions?
I was thinking the same thing last night, after reading Mr. Peters' comment, so I tried to find an earlier version that uses the word vintage. No luck. I'm afraid Mr. Wilson's suggestion might well be correct.
The 14th chapter of Revelation is terrifying enough when the language hasn't been hijacked. For instance, verse 20 goes on to say: "And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs."
The first verse of the Battle Hymn sets the stage for transferring the Son of Man and the angels at the end of time into time and into the hands of men. I'm not one to throw around Eric Voegelin's warning about the dangers of "immanentizing the eschaton," but with the connection to Revelation 14, it's perfectly clear that that is what Howe is doing.
Even more alarming: Revelation 14 includes two references to the "wine of wrath," and these are clearly two "vintages," so to speak. In Rev. 14:8, we have: "And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication."
At first glance, this would seem to be what is trampled, which is bad enough, considering that Rev. 14:9 follows with an explicit reference to the Antichrist (thus seeming to place the enemies of those that the sing the Battle Hymn in the camp of the Antichrist).
But Rev. 14:10-11 discusses another "wine of wrath": "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."
And, reading all of this in context, it would appear that it is this vintage to which the first verse of the Battle Hymn refers, because this leads to Rev. 14:19-20: "And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs."
In other words, the grapes of wrath are turned into the wine of the wrath of God, and the winepress which effects the transformation is that which is trampled ("trodden"), bathing the earth in blood.
Over at Sean Dailey's blog, a 25-year-old ex-sailorette has accused me of engaging in ad homen [sic] attacks on the Battle Hymn, because I've brought up Julia Ward Howe's theology. While I did not engage in ad hominem (I discussed the theology implied by the song first, then explained its roots in Howe's Unitarianism), she does inadvertently point to a problem with most of the longer criticisms I've seen of the Battle Hymn.
The ex-sailorette points out that "Truth is truth," even if the Devil utters it, and, of course, she thinks that the Battle Hymn is true. What we need is a dispassionate examination of the theology of the Battle Hymn, relying on the words themselves. Then, having laid that groundwork, we can discuss how that theology reflect's Howe's own theology.
While I don't expect such efforts to change the mind of my ex-sailorette, whose blog makes it clear that she is a fanatical supporter of the war in Iraq, those efforts might well convince some who regard the best-known attacks on the Battle Hymn as primarily ad hominem.
I think the comments on this piece have made a significant step in the right direction.
BadCompany makes a good point. Instead of writing:
bound up with the conviction that he, like President Lincoln, can discern God’s Will
I should have written:
bound up with the conviction that he, like President Lincoln, can discern God’s Will in a special way.
Unfortunately, she then proceeds to sabotage her own point, by writing:
Did Bush or Lincoln ever claimed to have extraordinary powers for discerning God’s Will above and beyond those of the ordinary Christian? I doubt it.
There's no reason to doubt it, when the evidence is clear. I've already pointed to Lincoln's statement that, if God were to reveal His Will to anyone, it would be to Lincoln, and Clyde Wilson has pointed out that Lincoln's Second Inaugural is proof that he had become convinced that God had indeed done so.
As for Bush, how soon we forget! In July 2003, Nabil Shaath, then Palestinian foreign minister, claimed that Bush told those at an Israeli-Palestinian summit that "I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan,' and I did. And then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.' And I did."
While the White House denied the statement, others present at the summit confirmed it.
To PcH @ 50,
Thank you for your comment. I do not ascribe, however, a moral tone to the battle hymn; I merely state that it has a catchy beat. Which, of course, it does.
Leaving that point behind, vintage is used with poetic license, but it is used correctly. Vintage=stored grape juice (harvested from wrathful grapes) turned to wine. The wine of course shall be used to intoxicate and lower the inhibitions of soldiers and commanders to provide an excuse for moral abandon and reckless destruction.
Man's natural state is war (fortunately or unfortunately), and is only interrupted by brief periods of peace to rebuild and reload.
Man is an animal...and animals fight...
Bad Company @ 53:
Just to quibble: I think the current PC narrative of the Albigensian wars is wrong. They (like the wars with Islam) were a rare example of a necessary war, if unfortunate as all wars are. The Albigensians were a violent, non-Christian religion and hardly innocent as some pretend.
PCH (@58):
Indeed. But there are certain Protestants who regard all things opposed by Rome in the centuries leading up to the Reformation as precursors of the Reformation. From BadCompany's remarks, it appears that she is one of them.
Mr. Wilson @ 54 and Mr. Richert @ 55
The "Battle Hymn of the Republic" is fraught enough with heresy and blasphemy before we come to the word "vintage." The point of my post was to demonstrate that our "good" Unitarian lady was most likely referring to the verse in Revelation which I cited. What translation of Scripture a New England Unitarian might have read or referred to is unknown to me. One assumes the King James, but that is, as stated, an assumption.
I will yield to the authority and expertise of Dr. Fleming and others on what the original Greek might say and on wine or wines and the words therewith associated. I do enjoy wine and have come to prefer Franconian wines, particularly the Klingenberger Rotwein; however, a connouisseur thereof I am not.
To the hymn in question, there is no record that the Holy Ghost, the Church or Holy Writ has given the republics which make up these United States, the people thereof, the general government thereof, or the armies or agencies of that general government the role of being the agent of the Almighty in unleashing His wrath or in executing his vengeance on any individual, group or nation.
Christ was transfigured before the select diciples on the mount. There is no transfiguring of "you and me" through some "glory in His bosom." That's "figure of speech" is pure New England transcendentalism influenced by a wayward current in German Romanticism.
I have read, but cannot verify, that Mrs. Howe when referring to "the terrible swift sword" claimed to be thinking of John Brown's sword which he used to murder innocent people in horrible ways. If so, this makes her "hymn" even darker.
Scott P. Richert @ 59:
The irony about the excessive complaints against Rome is that they actually concede the best arguments to the Rome they criticize. For example, the hyper-critics ignore all early church history, but insist that the whole church (including Eastern Orthodoxy!)was subject to the supreme power of the pope back since before Constantine to the close of the apostolic age. Which if it were true, would be a pretty good precedence for them to "follow the pope" today. But at the time of the Albigensian wars (800 years after Constantine), power was only just beginning to be centrally consolidated, as the Refomers knew it, in Rome.
I look forward to the discussion on the Battle Hymn including (1)specific reasons that justify defending people from war and (2) ways of seeing through the usual propaganda that blame aggressive war on its victims.
For example, the first few Crusades were justified because the Christian Crusaders were defending Christians in Christian countries from being tortured and murdered by Muslim hordes.
And for example on propaganda, Fort Sumter was not the beginning or spark of anything. It was just clumsy propaganda to distract from the North's invasion of the South, planned far in advance.
PcH @ 62: You're right concerning excessive complaints against Rome, especially concerning the crusades.
Even in the podcast lecture series on the history of the Church which I have been listening to (recorded in class at Covenant seminary), which in all other ways, including the church's suppression of heretics, seems fair to Catholicism as far as I can tell (though I dont remember enough about the part concerning the Albigensians to state an opinion on it's treatment of that subject), there was still a negative attitude taken by the lecturer concerning the crusades, and he was even sympathetic to that silly pilgrimage to the middle east that took place during the late 90's, when those idiots went around apologising to Muslims for the crusades. I would recommend the podcast series most highly, but get your information for the crusades elsewhere. I dont understand why so many today are so critical of the Church militant when the church itself was under direct assault. It was nothing like Howe's heretical vision of her god marching on.
It is said that the heretic 'hymn' came to Howe in a dream and then she wrote it down right after she awoke. If this wasn't a lie she or someone else came up with just to make the song seem divinely inspired, then perhaps the nonsensical use of 'vintage' can be traced to it's dream state origins. Even if that's true, however, certainly the song must have been rewritten or edited to some degree after she initially wrote it down, so there is still no reason for 'vintage' to be used so nonsensically.
My favourite part of Twain's version is, 'As ye deal with my pretensions, so with you my wrath shall deal'. We could go on for months discussing that one sentence.
I have been waiting for somebody else to point this out. The music to the BHR was stolen from a Southern camp meeting song, "Oh, Brother, will we meet on Canaan's distant shore?..."
I have always thought that anyone who appropriates meaning from Revelation is self-evidently up to no good.
Flavius Claudius Julianus: War is not man's natural state, commonplace though it may be, and the state never seems to run out of stooges.
Here is the US army's understanding: (My percentages are from memory so may be slightly off) In WWI fewer than 10% of frontline GIs actually fired their rifle at an enemy soldier; in WWII it was less than 25%; in the Vietnam war it was less than 40%; but in Iraq II, the selection and training has been so successful that that percentage is 100. This doesn't come cheap as the US military is shooting something going on 6,000,000 rounds per enemy combatant killed. The majority of soldiers killed in WWI, WWII, and Korea were killed with artillery. I suspect that automatic fire and bombs from gunships and planes has overtaken artillery. Wait till our police learn push button enforcement administered by kids watching the TV output from city-patrolling drones.
Great post. I have noticed that many pro-war Catholics I know (and pro-war Protestants for that matter) seem to confuse just-war theory (both ius in bellum and ius in bello) with pacifism, which allows them conveniently to dismiss Papal disapproval of the war along the lines, "Well, he's unrealistically against all war, so of course he'll be against this one." It this observation unique to my experiences, or have others noticed it as well?
Matthew, I've had similar experiences. What makes this inexcusable is that just-war theory is not particularly hard to understand.
On the other hand, there is a certain grain of truth in the remark that you quoted, at least as it applies to Pope John Paul II. While he certainly did not dismiss just-war theory, he tended not to frame his discussions of war in those terms, and that often gave the impression that he was somewhat closer to pacifism.
The same is not true of Benedict, either as pontiff or as cardinal, and those who dismiss his objections out of hand are really dismissing two millennia of Church doctrine on just war.
Lee @ 65
Thank you for your comment. I will not quibble with your statistics; after all, I do not have any of my own so I must take your word for it. Your numbers sound close to the mark. However, I am not certain as to the implication you try to project. From the beginnings of recorded history, man has been fighting man. My statement, mentioned previously, is not really questionable; man's natural state is to be at war. The evidence is irrefutable. Just pick up a history book--your choice as to which one--it won't matter.
Thank you.
Cannot war ever be glorious, though? Tolkien and Lewis certainly thought so. Putting the War in Iraq aside, isn't it a Christian's duty to do battle on behalf of what he loves when the time calls for it?
"Among the signs of hope we should also count the spread, at many levels of public opinion, of a new sensitivity ever more opposed to war as an instrument for the resolution of conflicts between peoples, and increasingly oriented to finding effective but 'non-violent' means to counter the armed aggressor." -Pope John Paul II Evangelium Vitae 1995
When I look at this quote I am reminded of the modern world's cowardice and inability to defend what they love: their homes, their women and children, their way of life, and their Faith.
When I am at college I always see signs in protest of the Iraq War (usually by the International Socialists) but I never see any other positions that are also shared by Chronicles or even the Church being supported by these same liberals. I can tell you, anecdotally, why there are Catholics who agree with this particular war even though I am not saying that I still do. It is because when you look at these faithless infidels who support abortion, "gay marriage", state socialism, atheism, and modern liberalism in general you tend to violently react against the totality of it. I did when I was 15 (5 yrs ago). I decided to reject everything they stood for, and when they were calling the president a Nazi and saying we went into Iraq for oil or to kill innocent people etc. I saw the same people saying similar things about the Church's history. They also said opposing "gay-marriage" meant you hated gays and opposing abortion meant you hated women etc. (you know how it goes). I decided that they were wrong about everything.
Edward, as you seem to know now, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Nor is anyone likely to be wrong all the time.
We need to be careful about judging that something is right because all the wrong people oppose it. We at Chronicles oppose the war in Iraq for very different reasons from those international socialists that you mention. And yes, it is a Christian's duty to do battle on behalf of what he loves when the time calls for it.
But what is that time? Well, in fact, just-war theory tells us what it is: It's when that which we love needs to be defended against an aggressor.
The statement from John Paul II that you quote is one of those that I had in mind when I noted that he tended not to frame his discussions of war in terms of just-war theory. On the other hand, I'm not sure why it reminds you of cowardice, since the Holy Father assumes the need for "effective . . . means to counter the armed aggressor." That Christians should prefer "non-violent" means, if they are effective, to violent ones seems a truism.
Agreed. Thank you for you response and I think you are exactly right. Speaking of the Pope's words, what I meant was that I thought he was 'reading the signs wrong,' so to speak. The modern world's aversion to war does not spring from love or peace but from a refusal to acknowledge that something exists which is indeed worth going to war for (The Crusades come to mind. Most liberals think that the very reason for going to those wars was superstitious and ridiculously unjust.) I can understand why the Pope might find this hopeful, though, as he was a child of Poland and was directly affected by war. Maybe I am just wary of pseudo-pacifist language because it reminds me so much of leftists. But your point about the means being 'effective' is well-taken.
The unitarian nature of the lyrics to such a
chest-pounding nationalist song makes
sense in a way, since they have to try to appeal to everyone.
They express no particular sentiment of any particular people, in the way that the
South has her (enviously much better) song about wishing one
was in Dixie.
Edward, I sympathize with you.
But hang in there; sometimes these fine points
find us on the temporary side of unsavory
company. Of course they hate our religion as much as they
hate conservative politics.
Don't throw the baby (the truth that the war is absolutely
unjust) out with the bathwater (the sick liberal creed).
This is one example of why the Catholic Church,
very rightly, does not promote any one political system.
Mr. Roberts you are not alone. I see it all the time.
Since politics is a spectator
sport, it's all related to whose side you're on. If Bill Clinton had started
the war, they'd be on our side, calling anyone who supported it a tax-and-spend bloodthirsty
warmonger.
Eyes which have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord (that glory being almost exclusively tied to the notion of wrath and destruction) are remarkably more prescient than most. The esoteric nature of the religious experience found in the terrible Battle Hymn is ridiculous...no redemption from a true man dying on a true cross, no mediating notion of sacrament or Scripture, vague (at best) references to decontextualized passages...the song is a train wreck. The movement it bespoke was not any better.
Christ does judge, and He will bring God's final justice to this world - but it won't be connected to any republic. If I'm not mistaken, He also covers our sins with His blood and carries the title "Prince of Peace."
Awesome song, Mr. President. Walk over the graves of all your enemies all the way to Kennebunkport.
The statement that war is man's natural state is generally used by war mongers to save themselves the trouble of justifying any particular war. It's pretty much the equivalent of saying that theft or adultery or sodomy are man's natural state. These things, after all, occur in history even more frequently than war does. Any morality that goes beyond might makes right has to distinguish between man's nature as God created it and the flaws in that nature due to the original sin.
Another diabolic rejoinder I frequently hear is "war is hell" in response to any account of atrocities done in the course of war by US or allied forces. Of course, the same people who make this rejoinder will wax supremely indignant at any atrocity, even hypothetical, commited by designated enemies and even call for their "obliteration" - note would be warrior queen Hillary's comments with respect to Iran. Thank you, Mr. Julianus, for your introduction to neo-con morality.
#13: Thanks, that's interesting, but ambiguous at best (as you acknowledge). Especially in light of the Second Inaugural . . .
#18: I don't see how you can read the Second Inaugural as claiming to know God's will:
"Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. . . . The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes."
* * *
"If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'"
"If we suppose" is not normally the language of certainty, is it? "His own purposes", being unknown to us, can only be speculated about -- is this not what is being said?
#13: Thanks, that’s interesting, but ambiguous at best (as you acknowledge).
No, what I wrote was that it was ambiguous on September 13, 1862, because Lincoln says that he has been looking but hasn't received a sign. Post-Antietam (September 17, 1862), it's no longer ambiguous: “members of his cabinet and leaders of the Republican Party in Congress [reported] that he saw in Antietam a direct communication from on high.”
“If we suppose” is not normally the language of certainty, is it? “His own purposes”, being unknown to us, can only be speculated about — is this not what is being said?
No, that's not what's being said at all. Lincoln is assuming both that slavery must now end, and that God has willed that it end by bloodshed; the only thing that he questions is how long it will take. Yet, however long it takes, "the judgments of the Lord"--being enforced by the war--"are true and righteous altogether."
By the way, even the most fervent supporter of Mr. Lincoln's war would, I should think, be sickened by this: "until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword." Long before the Second Inaugural, infinitely more blood had been spilled by the sword in the Civil War than was spilled by the lash in "the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil."
Scott, it is reasonable to suppose that Lincoln believed what you are saying, but it is not reasonable to argue that the Second Inagural says it.
It says: "If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, . . .." By the plain meaning of the words, that is supposition -- not as to timing -- but as to the Divine purpose, on the very point at issue.
It is sickening to me, to imagine that God would require the horrors of the Civil War. I do not see the Divine hand in such things -- only the hand of fallen man, whose misdeeds God sees fit to tolerate. But the American Protestant tradition, in particular, had already by Lincoln's time a significant strain that saw direct Divine intervention as the explanation for events.
As he was peaking to an audience where many held such views -- both in the North and, critically by the time of the Second Inagural, in the South -- Lincoln's decision to expand his speculation about Divine intent to the possibility of Divine retribution does not seem surprising. It spoke to a question that must have been very much on people's minds -- why is this happening to us?
I don't believe that even (most of) Lincoln's critics would argue that his internal answer to this was "because I have chosen to force war upon the South to destroy the traditional Republic." I think it likely that he himself wondered at the dramatic course of events, and actually considered the possibility of God's judgment working out as expressed in the Second Inaugural. But, still, to consider it is not to claim to know God's will.
Tom K, what you're missing is the rhetorical technique at work here. Go back and look at the full passage that you quoted in #75. Yes, Lincoln starts out with the language of supposition in that first long sentence. Then we get the transitional sentence: "Fondly do we hope, etc."
But then, the very next sentence takes as a given that which was merely supposed in the first sentence. Lincoln is no longer suggesting that the war might have been God's will; he's now assuming that it is, and asking only how long it might last. It is, in fact, in asking how long it might last that he makes it clear that he believes he knows the meaning of the war: That's where the blood of the lash and the sword come into play.
It's a common rhetorical technique: Begin by saying, "Let us suppose," then put forth a supposition that isn't accepted by all. Then build the argument upon that supposition. At the end, don't come back and point out that this is, of course, all based on the disputable supposition, and, therefore, if the supposition is wrong, the argument falls.
Indeed, the effect of this technique is to convince people that the argument (initially based on the supposition) somehow itself justifies the supposition. Whatever else one might say about Lincoln, he was a skilled orator.
Kirt Higdon @ 74
Seeing man as he is, however great my lamentations for said observation, does not make me a neo-con. Mr. Higdon, I long for the day humanity evolves into a more rational creature, when violence gives way to discourse and intellectually resolved disagreements ...But I shan't hold my breath.
Additionally, name calling does not prove a point.
Thank you.
God does and always has intervened in his creation. What I object to is Lincoln's blaming the victim. This is now very common. People commonly worship status and if you don't have that, then you are responsible. In other words, they are denying God's will. Lincoln was denying God's will, because he is saying the South got what it deserved.
Lincoln is denying the possibility of innocent suffering. But if we went back and read the book of Job, we could conclude that:
(1) God does what he needs to do for the greatest good in ways we cannot possibly understand;
(2) We cannot explain everything, and if we try, we are really imposing our will upon the world;
(3) The South, like Job, remained true to God through the greatest hardships, while the North, particularly the Puritans, lost their faith while acquiring fabulous wealth;
(4) We must stay true to God whether we our suffering is divine chastisement, or to our strengthening, or a chance for God to reveal his comfort and grace;
(5) The Bible is clear that all evil-doers, even those carrying out divine chastisement, are guilty of sin and will judgement.
Thus even if the war were somehow divine chastisement as Lincoln insists, he is nonetheless guilty of great sin – like the king of Assyria who stole away the kingdom of Israel and the king of Babylon who stole away Judah.
So the bottom line is that if Howe in her Battle Hymn were somehow right that her beloved war were divine wrath, she is admitting to her region's own bloodguilt.
And hasn't the Yankee ethnicity been almost entirely replaced by Irishmen, Italians, and the Third World in their own region? Doesn't the South still stand? Could this not be God's will, His judgement on the sinners of that catastrophe that replaced our own constitutional age of judges with the unconstituted and unlawful rule of kings?
#79 - I didn't call you a neo-con, Mr. Julianus, I stated that you had provided us with an introduction to neo-con morality. Also, you do not see man as he is. Man does not await a process of evolution to become a more rational creature. Man was created rational and devolved due to his own freely chosen sin, beginning with the first man and woman. But in cooperation with God's grace as earned by the redemptive merits of Christ, man is already capable of behaving rationally and without violence toward other men. Although ruthless rulers attempt to condition their subjects for violence as mentioned in #65, the majority of men enjoy peaceful relations with their fellows the overwhelming majority of the time. The habitually peaceful are acting in accord with human nature as God created it; the habitually violent are often referred to as sociopaths. Do you consider this to be name-calling?
Abe explained the war thus: "And the war came." An abstraction (like Sherman's "War is hell") which relieves him of his responsibility for the bloodshed. Abe then goes on to suggest that the war was punishment for slavery, something that had nothing to do with his acts and motives in inaugurating the war.
He was not talking about "blood drawn by the lash" in 1861 but is making a retrospective justification for the horrendous slaughter and revolution he had brought on, making himself the helpless victim of Divine will. In order to fully understand what is wrong with this, you need to study the contemporary Southern orthodox Christian comment on the war, which accepted responsibility for their actions and saw the outcome as a manifestation of God's purpose beyond the comprehension of men. If you can't see the origins of Amnericans' penchant foir self-righteous agression in Abe's rhetoric, then you are in the thrall of that very same self-righteousness.
making a retrospective justification for the horrendous slaughter and revolution he had brought on, making himself the helpless victim of Divine will.
That's a very good point, Clyde. And it brings up something that I've never quite settled in my own mind. Much of Bradford's critique of Lincoln takes Lincoln (and the testimony of those close to Lincoln) at his word. In other words, when Lincoln indicates that he has come to know God's will, Bradford seems to accept that Lincoln actually believes this.
But as you point out, it could all be a retrospective justification. Lincoln might no more believe that he is an instrument of God's will after Antietam than before; he might simply recognize that certain events allow him to make that claim.
Which do you think it is?
Nobody can know for sure what was in his heart, but I think he felt it sincerely, though conveniently, as self-justifi9cation. His Biblical rhetoric before that point was entirely calculated, I think.
Mr. Kirt Higdon @ 81
Once again, Thank you for your post. Yes, your implication is clear; by refering to my statement as neo-conesque, you are calling me a neo-con--which is of course incorrect.
Putting that aside, I imagine all there is left to be said is--Christ is risen! Truly he is risen!
If Lincoln is to be taken at his word, then the Second Inagural cannot be cited as evidence that he claimed to know God's will, as it is overtly speculative on the subject. As I said earlier, it becomes a different argument if one says that, despite the literal meaning of his words, Lincoln's actions suggest that he believed he knew God's will.
Tom K (@86):
Yes, you said that. Then I went through and explained what Lincoln was doing, on the basis of his words and rhetorical technique.
Then, rather than respond to the argument I made, you simply said it again.
#78: I missed this until after I had posted 86 above. I reread the inaugural with your comments in mind, and cannot agree that there is a clear transition from speculation to certainty as to the war being God's will. The phrase "if God wills that it continue until . . ." could, I suppose, assume that the war is God's will, and that the subject of speculation has shifted to how long God intends to continue it. But without a clear statement of that assumption, the continued use of "if" to signal uncertainty seems more fairly read as signalling continued uncertainty at the broader level as well.
Scott: I also wrote my 38 without seeing your 37, and thought my answer would excuse my earlier omission. As your post intervened, I do formally apologize for having overlooked your response, which was substantive and deserving of response not only as a matter of good manners, but on its merits.
Terrible left margins on my screen -- that should have been "88" and "87" in my last post, and I don't want to sow confusion by leaving that uncorrected. I will stop cluttering the board until I'm confident I can read what I think I'm reading.
That Abe was offering such speculations in explanation of his role in history speaks for itself. The style may be speculative but the intent is clear.
I just watched the video and all I can say is that many of you, including Mr. Richert, suffer from popalotry. His Holiness applauded the battle Hymn of the Empire and cordially walked away with the Bushwacker. While I don't ascribe bad intent to His Holiness, he nonetheless was used by the neo-con propaganda machine to advance its agenda. The post is another example of the neophyte, still wet behind the ears, Catholics who edit and write at Chronicles.
The intent looks pretty clear to me. It's nothing but demagoguery, much like what Bush often says, if not always in content, then certainly in character. The big difference is that Lincoln was a lot more articulate and could be expected to at least put words together coherently, while Bush often can not.
It's amazing that people so often forget that Lincoln was a lawyer. Why does this not inform their understanding of what he said and wrote?
Guadalupe Guard, I've been accused of a lot of things in my life, but this is the first time I've been accused of "popalotry" (sic). Yes, the Holy Father applauded--in a perfunctory way--after the Battle Hymn was finished. Yes, he "cordially walked away" with his host.
Tell me, what would you have had him do? He stood on the White House lawn and quoted George Washington's Farewell Address to President Bush. He made it clear that the United States should be guided by virtue--and, in saying so, implied that the country has fallen short. He explicitly tied the discussion of virtue to foreign policy. And he refused to attend a White House dinner in his honor.
As for "the neophyte, still wet behind the ears, Catholics who edit and write at Chronicles," this "neophyte" was baptized in May 1968, shortly after he was born. I do not claim to know all that there is to know about my Faith, but perhaps you might be so kind as to instruct me.
Your first characterization: "And the fact that Pope Benedict rises as quickly as he can—even before President Bush does—to leave the stage and head into the White House speaks volumes."
Your revised, more accurate characterization: "Yes, the Holy Father applauded–in a perfunctory way–after the Battle Hymn was finished. Yes, he “cordially walked away” with his host."
Unfortunately, His Holinesses' acquiescence to the militaristic honors, which resulted to his being used by Bush and his neo-con handlers to prop up the popularity of the regime and imply papal support. Unfortunately, HH enjoyment of the reception, including his applause of the Battle Hymn, is what speaks volumes, though, I am sure, not volumes His Holiness would choose to write on his own accord.
I doubt HH has really studied the lyrics of the Battle Hymn and was probably trying to catch the words, something difficult in any case for an octogenarian and non-native English speaker. Finally, it is not customary for the Pope to dine with others, much less dine at a banquet, hence it cannot be construed as a slight.
Alright Mr. Richert, unlike others at Chronicles who did not see the biased slant of your post, you cannot use neophytism as an excuse.
Your revised, more accurate characterization
I did not "revise" anything. I made a second statement that does not contradict the first.
Finally, it is not customary for the Pope to dine with others, much less dine at a banquet, hence it cannot be construed as a slight.
Did you pay any attention to Pope Benedict's schedule when he was in the United States? On every other night (and at a number of lunches), he dined with others.
Finally, what exactly is my "biased slant"? Most of those who disagreed with my piece thought that I was biased against President Bush, but your comments about Pope Benedict's "acquiescence" show that you cannot mean that. Why don't you enlighten us as to what you mean?
But without a clear statement of that assumption, the continued use of “if” to signal uncertainty seems more fairly read as signalling continued uncertainty at the broader level as well.
I guess the question, then, is this: If Clyde Wilson and Allen Wilson and Mel Bradford and I are wrong about what Lincoln was doing, then what do you think he was doing? In other words, what purpose was served by the speculation?
To look at the text and say, "Well, he did put everything in terms of if and suppose, so clearly he's not certain" reduces Lincoln's Second Inaugural to something like a bull session in a college dorm. Lincoln got up to address the people who had reelected him, and he said--what? "I really don't know what's going on. Here's one thought; you folks have any others?"
The fact is, despite the ifs and supposes, Lincoln doesn't offer any alternative explanations. You can argue, I suppose, that that's just because the alternative is that the war has no divine meaning, so why mention that, but that's hardly a satisfying counter-argument.
Lincoln felt it important to mention what he mentioned. To reduce it to mere speculation, I think, actually does a disservice to Lincoln.
Well, the question, as I understood it, was not what Lincoln was doing (that is, not why he said what he did), but what he was saying (what his words mean, as a matter of direct textual exegesis). Taken at face value, I don't think the words reasonably support the assertion that he clamed to know God's will. I'm not looking to do him a service or a disservice, just to evaluate the words . As to what he was trying to do, it seems clear that he was *suggesting* a Divine purpose -- and one that would put the war he had chosen on the side of God's plan -- but that is different than claiming to *know* God's plan. The Second Inaugural does not contradict his saying (paraphrasing), "rather than claim that God is on our side, I would rather strive to be on God's side." One who had so striven (granting him that, for sake of argument, since the question here is the consistency of his phrases, not his sincerity, decency or judgment) could properly and consistenly engage in the speculation of the Second Inaugural, it seems to me.
Note in the Gettysburg Address how absrtactly and remotely Abe deals with the struggle and death and destruction of thousands of his fellow countrymen at that place. He was simply portraying himself as a sad but wise and pious observer of history---making himself the central character, bearing all our sins, but without responsibility for what happened.
Tom K: The problem is that we have only two options: either Lincoln believed he was an instrument of God's will or he didn't. If he didn't, then he was a cold, sociopathic monster. If he did, then he was a lunatic madman. The effect is the same: war, death, destruction, and the end result of it all was the dooming of civilisation in America to a long, slow descent into barbarism and eventual collapse, when that didn't have to happen.
I choose the former option, because his words seem to me to be the mark of a manipulative sociopath.