What about the Pledge of Allegiance—and Its Author?

Perhaps few of you know the name Francis Bellamy, but all of you USAmericans know well the Pledge of Allegiance, which he wrote in 1892. Bellamy died 90 years ago on August 28. 

Bellamy’s Beliefs

Francis Bellamy was born in May 1855, the son of a Baptist minister in New York. After graduating from the University of Rochester and further study at Rochester Theological Seminary, in 1879 Francis was ordained as a minister and became pastor of First Baptist Church of Little Falls, New York.

Before his 30^th birthday, Bellamy moved to Boston, becoming pastor of Dearborn Street Baptist Church. After serving five years there, in 1890 he accepted a call to Boston’s Bethany Baptist Church. But the next year, under pressure, he resigned from that pastorate and left the ministry.

There was tension in the church because of Pastor Bellamy’s political views. In 1889 the Society of Christian Socialists was founded in Boston, and Bellamy was elected to serve as the Society’s vice president. He also wrote for their newspaper, The Dawn.

In the May 1890 issue of that paper, Bellamy urged pastors to become Christian Socialists, defining Christian socialism as “the science of the Golden Rule applied to economic relations.”**

It must be noted that the last decades of the 19^th century was the time of the “robber barons,” a pejorative term typically applied to businessmen who used abusive practices to amass their wealth.” It was a time of bad working conditions for many, child labor, and other exploitative practices.

Provisions such as Social Security and laws restricting the employment and abuse of child workers were not enacted until the 1930s, after Bellamy’s death—but had he lived a few years longer, he no doubt would have been delighted with such “socialistic” advances.

Bellamy’s Pledge

After leaving the pastorate, Bellamy took a job with Youth’s Companion, a Boston-based family magazine with half a million subscribers.

As part of the promotion of the World’s Columbian Exposition to be held in October 1892 in commemoration of the 400^th anniversary of Columbus reaching the Americas—and to bolster the schoolhouse flag movement that Youth’s Companion fervently supported, Bellamy wrote this pledge:

I pledge Allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

Over thirty years later, my flag was changed to the flag of the United States of America. That change was made largely to make it clear to immigrant children what flag they were saluting.

The words under God were not added until 1954, sixty-two years after the Pledge was written by an ordained minister without those words. As Baptist historian (and Thinking Friend) Bruce Gourley has explained, Bellamy’s text “intentionally reflected the Baptist heritage of church-state separation.”

Bellamy’s Pledge Now

As I have written previously, as a Christian I am not a fan of any Pledge of Allegiance to a flag or a nation. (You can read what I wrote about that in my 7/5/14 blog post, which has had nearly 1,200 “pageviews.”)

Apart from that, how can we USAmericans affirm that our country is “indivisible.” There seems to be greater polarity (political divisiveness) now than at any time since the Civil War, which ended 27 years before Bellamy wrote the Pledge.

Inexplicably, last week all 212 Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted against the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act legislation.

So, not only is there great division among lawmakers, there also seems to be opposition to providing “Liberty and Justice for all.” Among other things, liberty and justice for all surely must make it possible for full voting rights for all citizens.

_____

** Content in the last two paragraphs was taken from Brian Kaylor, “The Baptist Socialist Who Left God Out of the Pledge” (Word&Way, Aug. 24, 2020). 

Misusing the Bible: The Tragedy of Nat Turner’s Rebellion

Earlier this month I watched the 2016 movie The Birth of a Nation for the third time. It graphically depicts the rebellion of enslaved men in Virginia that began 190 years ago on August 21, 1831. 

Historical marker erected in 1991

The Making of a Black Preacher

Much of what is portrayed in The Birth of a Nation is fictional—or a composite of the historical people of the time rather than specifically about the one boy/man Nat Turner, who was, in fact, born in October 1800 in Virginia’s Southampton County.

It also is historically true that Nat was a precocious boy who learned to read at a young age—although not necessarily in the way it was portrayed in the movie. And he learned to read by using the Bible as his “reader.”

Further, it is factually true that Nat continued to read the Bible regularly and had a deep, even mystical, spiritual life. Both because of his knowledge of the Bible and his mystical experiences, he apparently became a preacher at an early age.

However, Nat was not used by his “owner,” Tom Turner, as portrayed in the movie, for in fact, Tom Turner died in 1822.

But even if Nat was not “used” to pacify the enslaved people to whom he preached in Southampton Co., it is historically accurate that “slaveowners” expected Black preachers to use Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, and 1 Peter 2:18 often in their sermons.

Also, similar to what is portrayed in the movie, those preachers did so when “slave owners” were present, as they often were. Selective use of the Bible became a tool for the control of enslaved people in the American South.

That is just one of numerous examples of the historical—and current!—misuse of the Bible.

The Re-making of a Black Preacher

Nat Turner, however, seems to have begun to read the Old Testament more and more, especially passages about the “warrior” God depicted in Deuteronomy, Joshua, and some of the Minor Prophets.

Spurred by visions that he considered of divine origin, Nat began to preach more and more, when he could, about the use of force against evil—and he began to plot a violent rebellion against the Whites in Southampton. And, as indicated, the actual uprising began on the night of August 21, 1831.

The actions of Nat Turner and his fellow rebels were brutal. White children were killed along with their slave-owning parents. That was consistent with what the Old Testament includes as God’s instructions to the Israelites in their battles against the Canaanites and others.

The insurrection was quelled in just a couple of days, but it took the lives of some 60 Whites and about four times that number of Blacks. After successfully hiding out for more than two months, Nat was captured and then hanged on November 11.

Critiquing Black Preacher Turner

The main problem I have with Nat Turner’s use of the Bible—as well as with the pro-slavery people of the South—is his/their paucity of references to Jesus Christ and his teachings in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere.

Still, it is not hard to have considerable sympathy for Nat Turner. As Judith Edwards writes near the end of Nat Turner’s Slave Rebellion in American History (2000), her helpful book written for high school students,

Nat Turner, whose rebellion was so very bloody, seems not to have been a violent man by choice. The excesses of slavery caused the excesses of his rebellion (p. 99).

So, perhaps the (mis)use of the Bible by Nat Turner wasn’t any worse than, and maybe not as bad as, the (mis)use of the Bible by the Whites of the South in the 19^th century—and now.

But when, oh when, will Christians ever learn how to believe/preach the word of truth correctly (see 2 Tim. 2:15)?

_____

** My blog post for Oct. 10, 2016, was titled “The Birth of the Nation” and is about the 2016 movie with that name and Nat Turner’s rebellion. While the content overlaps this present post, there is much that is different, and I commend it for your consideration (again). (Surprisingly, there have been over 850 “pageviews” of that post.)

Liberally Criticizing Libertarianism: The Case of Sen. Rand Paul

In the summer of 1959, June and I (with our young son) moved from Missouri to Kentucky where we lived for the next seven years. We soon became quite fond of Kentucky and most of the Kentuckians we came to know—there are always exceptions—and we still are.

However, two of my least favorite U.S. Senators now are the two from Kentucky.

Opposing Libertarianism

Although there are many negative things I could say about Sen. Mitch McConnell, who became a Kentucky Senator way back in 1985, this post is mostly about the junior Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, who was first elected to that post in 2010.

Please note: I am not criticizing Sen. Paul as a person. He is probably a fine man in many ways. He has long been an active member of a Presbyterian church and of Lions Club International.

But I oppose many of Paul’s ideas and political positions. Specifically, I am critical of his libertarianism, which seems to be the basis for his political views.

Libertarianism, according to Britannica.com, is the “political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value.”

Two weeks ago (on Aug. 4), FoxNews.com (here) published an opinion piece by Sen. Paul. He forcefully spoke out against mandates for covid-19 vaccinations and the wearing of masks.

In his strongly-worded article, Sen. Paul implored his readers to “choose freedom” and declared, “We don’t have to accept the mandates, lockdowns, and harmful policies of the petty tyrants and feckless bureaucrats.” And, specifically, he criticized “Petty Tyrant Pelosi.”

This wrongheaded libertarianism, even when not so labeled, is prevalent among numerous Republican politicians. As eminent columnist Eugene Robinson wrote in an August 5 opinion piece, “Too many Republicans are taking covid-19’s side in the fight against the pandemic.”

Robinson asserts, “Public enemy number one is Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis,” who “has signed legislation barring local governments from imposing covid-19 restrictions and prohibiting businesses from requiring that patrons be vaccinated.”

Kearney protester

Further, “DeSantis has taken the position that pandemic public health measures are an intolerable assault on personal freedom.” This libertarian position is the same as Sen. Paul’s and seems to be “a message many rank-and-file Republicans apparently welcome.”

And this libertarian view, even when not recognized as such, is seen in local protests across the country. For example, in the small town of Kearney, Mo., about 15 minutes from where I live, there was a contentious school board meeting with some parents vociferously protesting mandatory masking.

Advocating Liberty

As you regular readers of this blog know, I have long advocated four foundational words beginning with the letter L: Life, Love, Light, and Liberty. But in writing/talking about liberty, I have regularly linked it with responsibility.

Liberty must always be tied to responsibility, so perhaps libertarianism would be all right if accompanied by an emphasis on responsibilitarianism. (Yes, the latter is a word used in several sites found by a Google search.)

It must also be recognized that there are variants of libertarianism: not all libertarians are as objectionable as Sen. Paul. But, in general, libertarians seek to live with freedom as individuals without external restrictions, especially by the government.

Even though they may not be Republicans, as Sen. Paul is, most libertarians agree with Pres. Reagan: “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” A few years ago, that was a basic position of the Tea Party Movement, of which Sen. Paul was a part.

But I agree with Pastor Preston Clegg, who (here) wrote an August 10 opinion piece titled “Freedom Without Responsibility is Moral Adolescence.” Clegg asserts,

People are—quite literally—protesting what would save their lives and cheering their own death, all in the name of liberation from what they perceive to be an overreaching government that is advocating for nothing more than our safety from a deadly pandemic.

Such protesters are egged on by people like Sen. Paul, so that is one strong reason I liberally criticize libertarianism and ardently advocate liberty with responsibility. 

There, But for the Grace of God . . .

The last somewhat personal blog post I made (here on July 26), was not widely read, but today I am sharing more personal reflections indirectly related to that post—and to my 83^rd birthday, which is tomorrow (Aug. 15).

A Wonderful Life

Although I am experiencing a definite decline in physical energy and the need for multiple 10-minute naps every day, I am happy to say that at the end of my 83^rd year I am basically healthy. (Yes, the birthday number marks the end of that year.)

Moreover, I am also basically happy. Last year I published a book mainly for my children and grandchildren. The subtitle of that 186-page book is The Story of My Life from Birth until my 82^nd Birthday (1938~2020). But the main title, A Wonderful Life, is problematic. 

I wrote in the book’s conclusion that “to this point I can honestly say that it has been a wonderful life—and I don’t mean wonderful in the sense that I should be praised for it, but wonderful in the sense that I have for the most part enjoyed the last nearly 80 years that I can remember.”

I can, thankfully, say the same thing now, a year later.

In the book’s brief conclusion, which I finished exactly one year ago today, I wrote, “I thank God for blessing me with a wonderful life. I have received God’s grace (unmerited favor) in manifold ways, and I am deeply thankful for those blessings.”

I fully agree with that statement now, a year later. But what can I say to those who have not been blessed so bountifully? I am more and more seeing this as problematic.

Miserable Lives

We have all heard the words, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” Those words are generally spoken as an expression of humility, acknowledging that the good fortune one enjoys is due to God’s grace rather than to one’s own ability or goodness.

That is all well and good. But here’s the problem: why isn’t God’s grace more available for all the many people who are suffering so miserably?

Certainly, we must recognize that some people have miserable lives because of bad choices they have made in the distant or recent past. For example, more and more people are suffering right now because they spurned covid-19 vaccinations.

However, many suffer through no fault of their own. The miserable life of some people is directly linked to having been born into a dysfunctional or an economically poor family.

Or they haven’t experienced what I have because of my white privilege, male privilege, Christian privilege, and straight/cis privilege, etc. (This is in no way meant to demean BIPOC, females, non-Christians, or LBGTQ people; rather, it recognizes that many such persons lack advantages I have had.)

Compassionate Lives

Perhaps we hurt others unintentionally when we “brag” about what we have received “by the grace of God.” Instead of thinking about ourselves and how well off we are, we need to think more about the needs of others—and work to help disadvantaged people experience more of God’s grace.

That is, many of us need to talk less about our blessings and listen more compassionately to others talk about their needs.

I have a couple of cousins who regularly post Christian content (memes) on Facebook. Last week they both posted about how good God has been to them—and I am truly happy that they are experiencing and acknowledging God’s blessings.

But one of those cousins also often posts negative things about “illegal aliens” and the problems they cause in the U.S. Most of those she criticizes, though, are desperately seeking to improve their misfortunate lives.

Why isn’t God good to them also? Why does my cousin experience God’s grace so much more than the suffering refugees and immigrants from south-of-the-border?

And shouldn’t being graced by God make us more gracious?

So, I’m suggesting we change the old saying: There but for because of the grace of God, go I will . . . .

Congratulations, Missouri!

Recently, Missouri was often in the news, but for embarrassing reasons for us Missourians: Missouri, especially the southwest part of the state, was a hotspot for new covid-19 cases. But today (8/10) is a celebratory day for all Missourians; it is the state’s bicentennial. 

Missouri History

The name Missouri came from the Native Americans, and it is usually pronounced mĭ-zo͝or′ē, although in the west/northwest part of the state, mĭ-zo͝or′ə is more common.

The land that became the state of Missouri was part of the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 and was called Louisiana Territory until 1812 when Louisiana became a state. From then until 1821, most of that area was called Missouri Territory.

Then on August 10, 1821, Missouri became the 24^th state of the United States. That was following and in accordance with the Missouri Compromise of March 1820.

That Compromise was federal legislation that stopped northern attempts to forever prohibit slavery’s expansion by admitting Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state in exchange for legislation that prohibited slavery in the remaining Louisiana Purchase lands except for Missouri.

Missouri Fame

Missouri was the first state completely west of the Mississippi River to be admitted to the Union, and long ago St. Louis was dubbed “Gateway to the West.” In 1965, construction of the Gateway Arch in St. Louis was completed, and it is the world’s tallest arch.

Missouri was the birthplace of many who became nationally, and internationally, famous. Foremost of those is Harry S. Truman, who always had a home in Missouri. Earlier this year, historians again ranked Truman the sixth best President in U.S. history.

Other famous Missourians include (in alphabetical order), the painter Thomas Hart Benton, author Dale Carnegie, George Washington Carver, theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, and Mark Twain. Also, author Laura Ingalls Wilder lived in Missouri for over 60 years before her death in 1957.

The geographical center of the contiguous United States is actually in Kansas, about 250 miles west of the Missouri-Kansas border. But because of its diversity, Missouri seems more like the center of the nation.

Missouri is not East or West, North or South, but right in the middle, adjacent to all four geographical areas of the 48 states, so I have sometimes claimed that it is the most typical part of the U.S.

Missouri Roots

Even though my pride in Missouri has waned some in recent years, mainly because of the state’s political position, my Missouri roots run deep, and most of my life I have been justly proud of my home state.

My Grandpa George’s grandfather, Franklin Wadsworth Seat, was born in Cooper County in 1818, three years before Missouri became a state.

Not long before Franklin’s birth, his parents, Littleton and Elizabeth, migrated with two of Littleton’s brothers from Tennessee to Cooper Co.—and then in 1844 moved to what is now Worth County.

The area that became Worth Co. in 1861 was the very northwest corner of the state—and of the United States—when Missouri was admitted to the Union and remained so until the Platte Purchase was added in 1837.

I regret that the Seat family in Tennessee, and previously in Virginia, “owned” enslaved people, but as far as I have been able to ascertain, the Seats in Missouri never had “slaves” and a couple of Littleton’s nephews in Cooper Co. were Union soldiers in the Civil War.

Today, I am happy to join with fellow Missourians all over the state in celebration of Missouri’s bicentennial—and to take pride in the fact that some of my branch of the Seat family have lived in the state for all of these 200 years, and even longer.

After my death, some of my ashes will be buried not far from the grave of Franklin Seat, who, as mentioned, was born in Missouri before it became a state and who was buried in Worth County’s New Hope Cemetery in 1905.

So, as a deeply rooted Missourian, I join the chorus of those who, today and this month, exclaim, Congratulations, Missouri! 

_____ 

** For those who would like to learn more, here is the link to the Missouri Statehood Day website, which has a schedule of activities, some of which will be live-streamed.

** Many Missouri communities will be having ice cream socials today, including here in Liberty. There will be free ice cream on the square between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. (More information here.)

A Poet/Theologian Worth Remembering: Ernest Cardenal of Solentiname

Ernesto Cardenal, a Nicaraguan priest, poet, and theologian, died last year at the age of 95. Although perhaps many of you haven’t heard of him, he is a man well worth remembering, so I am commending him to your attention. 

Ernesto Cardenal in 2009

Introducing Cardenal

Ellin Jimmerson is one of my Facebook friends. Among other things, Ellin self-identifies as an ordained Baptist minister, a liberation theologian, and an immigrant advocate (see here). She also is highly appreciative of Cardenal, who, she says, had an “immeasurable impact” on her theology.

On March 2 last year, the day after Cardenal’s death, Ellin wrote this succinct explanation of who he was:

Ernesto Cardenal of Nicaragua was a Roman Catholic priest, one of the most widely read poets in the Spanish language, . . . a supporter of the Sandinistas, Minister of Culture during the early years of the Sandinista Revolutionary government, and critic of Daniel Ortega in the years during which Ortega became increasingly authoritarian.

In 1965, Cardenal established a parish on the archipelago of Solentiname in Lake Nicaragua. The Gospel in Solentiname was published in four Spanish-language volumes between 1975 and 1977, all of which were translated into English (and issued in one volume in 2010).

Evaluating Cardenal

The Gospel in Solentiname contains radical readings of the gospels, stating that the God of the Bible is a God that sides with the poor, because God is love, and love can only exist in accordance with equality and justice.

Such was the basic belief of Cardenal and the majority of his parishioners, most of whom were “unlearned,” who agreed with their priest. But he was not so highly evaluated by the Catholic hierarchy.

Cardenal’s liberation theology placed him in staunch opposition to the dictatorial rule of Anastasio Somoza, the Nicaraguan dictator who was officially the President of that country for ten years between 1967 and 1979. The group that led the opposition was the Sandinistas.

According to Howard Zinn, the Sandinistas were “a coalition of Marxists, left-wing priests, and assorted nationalists” who “set about to give more land to the peasants and to spread education and health care among the poor” (A People’s History of the United States, p. 585).

The best known of those “left-wing” priests was Cardenal, and after the successful revolution by the Sandinistas in 1979, he became the Minister of Culture in the new government.

He was chastised by Pope John Paul II when the latter visited Nicaragua in 1983. “Probably the most famous image” of Cardenal, writes Robert Ellsberg in 2020, is the one below showing the Pope wagging his finger at the priest and telling him to withdraw from his revolutionary government post. 

The Sandinista government, which included Cardenal, was also not liked by the U.S. government, which had supported the Somoza dictatorship.

In 1985, following the 1984 elections in which Daniel Ortega was elected with two-thirds of the popular vote, Pres. Reagan declared an embargo on Nicaragua and that was followed by the “Iran-Contra affair,” illegal action by the Reagan administration in support of counterrevolutionary activity there.

Admiring Cardenal

In addition to my FB friend Ellin, there are many who continue to have great admiration for Cardenal.

I decided to write this article on Cardenal after reading Matthew Fox’s “daily meditation” for July 18 (see here). Fox began by sharing how Cardenal emphasized how we are all enveloped by cosmic love and beauty, and he cites these words of the Nicaraguan priest:

God surrounds us on all sides like the air. And like the atmosphere he emits visible and audible waves, and we are unable to see and hear them unless we are tuning in on the proper channels.

Fox also cites words of a poem by German liberation theologian Dorothee Sölle (1929~2003): “Ernesto Cardenal, / questioned on how he came to be a poet, a priest, / and a revolutionary, gave as his first reason / love of beauty.”

Yes, Ernesto Cardenal, who sought to liberate poor people from oppression and poverty and to liberate all of us from that which keeps us from seeing God, and beauty, is a person worth remembering with admiration and appreciation.