Receiving and Reflecting Light

This is the fourth post in my 4-Ls series introduced on March 9 and continued with articles about Life (March 30) and Love (April 20). I plan to conclude this series with a post about Liberty on May 30. But now, let’s focus on Light,  the third of the 4-Ls. 

Light is a pervasive symbol in world religions and has played a central role not only in Christianity but also in the histories of Judaism, Islam, and some Hindu and Buddhist traditions, including some new Japanese religions.*¹

Light and darkness are prevalent symbols in the Bible. The opening verses of the Gospel of John state, “What came into being through the Word was life, and the life was the light for all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness doesn’t extinguish the light” (vv. 3b~5, CEB, bolding added).

“Word” is the translation of the Greek logos, which has a broad and deep meaning, expressed as Tao in China and as dharma in India. Thus, the light of the logos has enabled the Chinese to speak of Heaven, the Asian Indians to speak of Brahman, and the Native Americans to speak of the Great Spirit.

According to John’s Gospel, “The Word became flesh and made his home among us” (1:14). Further, John reports Jesus saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me won’t walk in darkness but will have the light of life” (8:12).

These words are best interpreted not in a narrow, exclusivistic sense but inclusively, seeing Jesus as the “cosmic Christ.”*²

In his epic poem Paradise Lost, John Milton in the 17^th century referred to Satan as “the Prince of Darkness,” the embodiment of evil. The Gospel of John says that the devil (=Satan) is “a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44). By contrast, light dispels the darkness of ignorance and illuminates truth.

The English word enlightenment is often used to refer to a core emphasis in Hinduism and especially Buddhism, but the core idea of the Sanskrit words moksha and bodhi is more about being liberated and/or awakening rather than being enlightened.

A major intellectual and philosophical movement that occurred in Europe in the 17^th and 18^th centuries has long been called “the Enlightenment.” This new emphasis on using human reason and empirical science was an important development in human history.

But there was a basic problem: it was right in what it affirmed but wrong in what it denied. Yes, the light of reason is important for understanding the truth about the physical world. But the physical sciences can’t explain the truth about everything, especially the non-physical realm of reality.

Thus, my emphasis on the light of truth has long been, and still is, on faith and science rather than science without faith (or faith without science). It has also been on revelation and reason, rather than science without revelation (or revelation without science).*³ And I am convinced that “all truth is God’s truth.”

We are all called to receive and to reflect the light of truth. According to John, Jesus invited people to “believe in the light so that you might become people whose lives are determined by the light” (12:36). If our lives are determined by the light of truth, we will be an influence for good in the world.

This influence is not spread just by “religious” activity. Consider, for example, these notable people who reflected/reflect the light of truth in the world around them:

◈ Abraham Lincoln was a man whose remarkable life was determined by the light. Historian Jon Meacham’s nearly 700-page biography of Lincoln is titled And There Was Light: Abraham Lincoln and the American Struggle (2022), and as he wrote in the Prologue, Lincoln “shed that light in the darkest of hours.”

◈ Ida B. Wells (1862~1931) was a noted civil rights activist and investigative journalist. In 2021, The Light of Truth: Ida B. Wells National Monument was unveiled in Chicago. The sculpture takes its name from Ms. Wells’s oft-quoted words, "The way to right wrongs is to turn the light of truth upon them."*⁴

◈ Ahmad Abu Monshar, a Palestinian man, and the Community Peacemaker Teams (CPT) Palestine have produced Light, a documentary film that premieres online on May 18. A CPT spokesperson invites us to join them in finding the light to carry us all through the long struggle toward justice. 

How can each of us become better receivers and reflectors of light?

_____

*¹ Mahikari (“true light”) is the name of a new Japanese religion, founded in 1959. and now with over one million members worldwide, including a Facebook friend Susan Nakao and her Japanese husband Koji who live in Pomona, Kansas (about 75 miles from my home in Liberty, Missouri), and head one of the Mahikari centers in the U.S.

*² This is an important claim about Jesus, and I invite you to read what I have written about this in past blogs (on 10/15/15 and 1/30/18) as well as briefly in my book The Limits of Liberalism (2010, 2020, pp. 232-3)

*³ I remain indebted to Swiss theologian Emil Brunner for his book titled (in English translation) Revelation and Reason: The Christian Doctrine of Faith and Knowledge (1946), one of the most important books I read as a seminary student. Offenbarung und Vernunft, the German edition, was originally published in 1941.

*⁴ My blog post on March 25, 2021, is partly about Ida B. Wells and mentions that a 2014 anthology of her writings is titled The Light of Truth: Writings of an Anti-Lynching Crusader.

The Relevance of Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamation

The circumstances of the United States (such as it was) in 1863 and now in 2022 are greatly different, but there is much to learn from President Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamation issued then. Consider the relevance of Lincoln’s lasting words written in that momentous year. 

Here in the U.S., this Thursday (Nov. 24) is Thanksgiving Day, and across the country people will be scrambling to be with loved ones for that traditional time for families to be together—and sometimes finding traveling difficult as depicted in the 1987 comedy film Planes, Trains and Automobiles.

The USAmerican Thanksgiving Day “myth” is traced back to 1621, and for decades from the early days of the USA in 1789 on, national thanksgiving days were observed only intermittently.

But on October 3, 1863, in the midst of the Civil War, Pres. Lincoln issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation, calling for November 26 of that year to be a national day of "Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens."

This year, then, marks the 160th year that Thanksgiving Day has been observed annually, and for the last 80 years the official national holiday has been on the fourth Thursday of November.

In recent decades, Thanksgiving Day has become less and less a time for giving thanks to “our beneficent Father” and more and more a time of feasting, arguing with relatives around the dinner table, watching football games, and even shopping for Christmas presents.

Perhaps the time has come to go back to Lincoln’s proclamation and to recover his original intention. The fall of 1863 was certainly not the “best of times” to have a national day of thanksgiving. But in spite of the difficulties the President was looking back with thanksgiving and looking forward in hope.

In January 1863, Lincoln issued the Proclamation Emancipation, changing the legal status of more than 3.5 million enslaved African Americans in the secessionist Confederate states from enslaved to free.

Then, exactly three months before that 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation, the victorious battle at Gettysburg on July 3 marked the turning point in the Civil War. Thus, in that call to national thanksgiving, the President noted the coming likelihood of a “large increase in freedom.”*

Lincoln’s call for thanksgiving also included an appeal for citizens “to fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union.”

In his second inaugural address, delivered seventeen months later on March 4, 1865, Lincoln reiterated his call for thanksgiving with an appeal for magnanimity. That magnificent speech/sermon ended with these words:

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.**

In this month of the U.S. midterm elections, which were held following a long period of militant mud-slinging and rancorous political campaigning, let’s join in the spirit of Lincoln to give thanks that democracy and the common good were largely victorious.

Further, as we celebrate Thanksgiving Day this year, let’s ask our family and friends to join us in going forward “with malice toward none and justice for all,” seeking to do all we can to create a nation, and our own neighborhood, with peace and justice for all. 

_____

* Lincoln’s outstanding Gettysburg address was delivered on November 19 of that year. I recommend reading Heather Cox Richardson’s last Saturday’s informative “letter” regarding that address (see here).

** On Feb. 28, 2015, I made a blog post titled “Lincoln’s Greatest Speech/Sermon,” which was how I referred to his second inaugural address.

Will the U.S. Remain a Democracy?

Benjamin Franklin, a four-hour documentary directed and produced by Ken Burns, first aired on PBS early last month. This blog was inspired by Franklin’s words near the end of that highly informative film. 

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 opened its first session on May 25, exactly 235 years ago. The 55 delegates (from 12 of the 13 states in the new nation) chose George Washington to preside. Other notable delegates were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin.

At 81, Franklin was the elder statesman at the Convention—and arguably the most influential.

When the time came to sign their drafted document, Franklin encouraged his fellow delegates to give the proposed Constitution their unanimous support, despite the fact that he himself did not approve of every aspect of the new plan of government.

Franklin concluded: “On the whole . . . I cannot help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention . . . would with me, on this occasion, doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to the instrument.”

“A Republic, if You Can Keep It”: these were the words spoken by Franklin as he was leaving the last session of the Constitutional Convention on September 17. It was in response to a question about the nature of the government in the new Constitution. 

The question was about whether the new country would be a monarchy or a republic. That is, would there be a king, or a government elected by eligible voters.

A republic is “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law” (Merriam-Webster).

Preserving the U.S. government as a republic seems to be one thing current Republicans as well as Democrats agree on.

In September 2019, when House Speaker Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced the formal impeachment inquiry of Pres. Trump, she used the words of Franklin to back her arguments.

That same month, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump nominee, issued a book titled A Republic, If You Can Keep It.

Can the U.S. be Kept a Democracy? This is the burning question for the U.S. now. There seems to be little threat to the U.S. remaining a republic. The Republican Party is in support of that—although some question whether there is full support by the most ardent Trumpists. But the matter of remaining a democracy is a more precarious matter.

The Democratic Party is certainly not opposed to the U.S. remaining a republic, but they firmly believe it should be a democratic republic.

It should be noted that “democracy” is not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution. Accordingly, some present-day Republicans and rightwing “talking heads,” insist that the U.S. government is not and was not intended to be a democracy.

The Democrats, naturally, strongly disagree, as do most political science scholars. The title of a November 2020 article in The Atlantic is “‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument.” But that flawed argument has even been made by U.S. senators.  

In October 2020, Utah Senator Mike Lee (R) sent a series of tweets declaring that the United States is "not a democracy" and that "democracy isn't the objective; liberty, peace, and prosperity are.”*

Earlier this year, sociologists Phillip S. Gorski and Samuel L. Perry’s book The Flag and The Cross: White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy was published. The authors refer to democracy as rule by “the people,” which also includes universal suffrage, human rights, and equality under the law (p. 114).

They declare, “As white Christians approach minority status, white Christian nationalists are starting to turn against American democracy.” They further assert that “white Christian nationalism has become a serious threat to American democracy, perhaps the most serious threat it now faces” (p. 8).

As a White Christian who is definitely not a nationalist, I urge you to join in the struggle to keep the U.S. a democracy—a federal government of, by, and for the people such as Pres. Lincoln envisioned in his Gettysburg Address delivered in November 1863.**

_____

* For example, on Oct. 7, 2020, Lee tweeted, “We’re not a democracy.” That brief statement was “liked” by 31,600 people and retweeted over 4,500 times.

** For more about this, see my June 20, 2016, blog post.

The Inaugurations of 1865 and 2021

It has been three weeks since the inspirational inauguration of President Joe Biden. There are some distinct differences and a significant similarity between that inauguration on January 20 and President Lincoln’s second inauguration on March 4, 1865.

The Inauguration of 1865

This Friday is 2.12 and the 212^th birthday anniversary of Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps the most often quoted POTUS in American history, his short Second Inaugural Address was one of his most powerful speeches.

Lincoln won the 1864 election, held during the Civil War, as the candidate of the National Union Party (made up of Republicans and “War Democrats”). He defeated Democratic candidate George McClellan with 55% of the popular vote and with a whopping 212-21 advantage in the Electoral College.

Lincoln’s inaugural address the following March ended with these impressive words:

With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

(Here is the link to that 3/4/1865 inaugural address, which was only a tad over 700 words long. At that link you can both read the speech and hear it read. And this is the link to my blog post in 2/2015, which was mostly about that remarkable address.) 

The Inauguration of 2021

President Biden’s inaugural address was a solid one, but perhaps there were not a lot of memorable statements. The following words spoken to the international community, though, are noteworthy:

America has been tested and we’ve come out stronger for it. We will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again, not to meet yesterday’s challenges but today’s and tomorrow’s challenges. And we’ll lead not merely by the example of our power, [but] by the power of our example. We’ll be a strong and trusted partner for peace, progress, and security.

The most memorable words at the inauguration were spoken by Amanda Gorman, the dynamic young inaugural poet. She ended her poem, “The Hill We Climb,” with these words articulated with her immaculate diction,

The new dawn blooms as we free it
For there is always light,
if only we're brave enough to see it
If only we're brave enough to be it.

(In case you want to hear/read Gorman’s poem again, here is a link to it.)

Differences and a Similarity

The Senate’s second impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump is set to begin today. As you know, the House of Representatives voted on January 13 to impeach the 45^th POTUS. The tally was 232-197 with ten Republicans and all the Democrats voting to impeach DJT for “incitement of insurrection.”

Before that vote, however, House Republican Whip Steve Scalise cited Lincoln’s words about having “malice toward none” in voicing his opposition to impeachment.

Scalise ended his appeal for acquittal of DJT: "Madam Speaker, in times like these, let’s not reach for our darkest demons but instead, like Lincoln, seek the higher ground.”

Then, in the week following Biden’s inauguration, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley portrayed Trump as a victim of ill will and exclaimed “Give the man a break! . . . move on.”

Seeking to convince lawbreakers—or high government officials inciting insurrection—is not done because of malice, though. It is done for the sake of justice and with the intent of keeping society—or democracy—safe.

Lincoln’s second inaugural address was near the end of a long civil war in which perhaps up to 750,000 soldiers had died—and he had won the election by a huge landslide.

By contrast, Biden’s inaugural address was after a disputed election, just two weeks after an attempted insurrection, and with extensive armed protection, for it was not known what the insurgents might do to disrupt the festive events of January 20.

One thing is clearly the same now as in 1865, though: we all want a “just and lasting peace.”

The Feats of Clay

In February 2014 I posted an article about Cassius Clay / Mohammad Ali, who accomplished many outstanding feats. The famous boxer was the namesake of Cassius Marcellus Clay, a noted Kentucky politician and abolitionist. This article is about Henry Clay, the latter’s second cousin.

CLAY’S EARLY FEATS

Henry Clay was born in Virginia 240 years ago, in April 1777, the son of a Baptist minister. Soon after being admitted to the Virginia Bar to practice law in 1797, he moved to Kentucky, where he soon became politically active.

In 1803 at the age of 26 Clay was elected to the Kentucky legislature. Three years later he was chosen to serve briefly in the U.S. Senate even though he was not legally old enough for that position. He was then elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1811—and was chosen to be Speaker of the House when he was only 35.

Several years later, Clay proposed the “Missouri Compromise,” which allowed Maine to become a state in 1820 and Missouri in 1821. Partly because of Clay’s part in Missouri statehood, a new county formed in 1822 was named Clay County. (That is the county where I have lived since 2005).

CLAY’S POLITICAL DEFEATS

Henry Clay long sought to be President of the United States. He first ran for that office in 1824, but he lost to John Quincy Adams. There were four candidates that year, and Clay came in fourth, carrying only three states (including Missouri).

Eight years later Clay ran against incumbent Andrew Jackson—and again lost (badly) in a four-way race. But that time he came in second.

Clay strongly opposed the Jackson administration—and Jackson himself, referring to him derisively as “King Andrew.” That opposition led to the formation of the Whig Party in 1834, and Clay was its primary leader until his death in 1852.

In 1840 the Whigs elected their first President, William Henry Harrison—who died just 31 days after his inauguration. The Whigs chose not to support Harrison’s successor, John Tyler, so Clay became a candidate for President a third time—and lost (to James Polk) for a third time. 

CLAY’S INFLUENCE

While he never became President—and in 1840 he famously said, “I’d rather be right than President”—Clay had considerable influence as a Representative and then as a Senator. In 2000 the Senate adopted a resolution naming the seven greatest senators of all time. Clay was one of those seven.

Clay also had considerable influence on Abraham Lincoln, a young member of the Whig Party. “Honest Abe” joined that Party in the year of its formation and was a Whig during his years in the Illinois legislature, 1834-41.

When Clay died in 1852, Lincoln delivered a eulogy at his funeral. After Lincoln became President, he continued to praise Clay and to quote from his speeches.

Sam Graves is the current U.S. Representative for much of north Missouri, including most of Clay County. In his March 20 “e-newsletter,” Rep. Graves wrote, “On March 20, 1854, a group of former Whig Party loyalists came together . . . to replace the failing Whig Party—plotting a new path forward during a perilous and uncertain time in American history.”

Then he went on to write, “What emerged from that meeting was the modern-day Republican Party.”

Rep. Graves’s first statement is historically accurate. His second assertion is very questionable. The primary political positions of Clay and Lincoln, the first Republican President, were certainly not the same as held by today’s Republican Party.

Rep. Graves needs to learn more about the feats, and political ideas/ideals, of Henry Clay.

Taxation and Representation

When I was in Washington, D.C., this month, once again I saw many license plates with the words “taxation without representation” on them. The newest plates with those words look like this: 

The issue, of course, is that the citizens of D.C. must pay federal income tax just as all U.S. citizens do, but they do not have representation in Congress. The words “taxation without representation” were first used on some D.C. license plates in 2000—but, as you know, it was expressing a sentiment from long ago.

A Boston pastor used the phrase “no taxation without representation” in a sermon as early as 1750. After the Stamp Act of 1765 it became common for the colonists to exclaim that “taxation without representation is tyranny.”

Have you seen the new U.S. postage stamps that were issued on May 29? They commemorate the 250th anniversary of the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766. These new “forever” stamps are sold only as souvenir sheets of 10 stamps and are $4.70. 

The USPS website explains: “The commemorative stamp art depicts a crowd gathered around a ‘liberty tree’ to celebrate the repeal of the Stamp Act.” Such “liberty trees” were “found in a number of cities throughout the colonies, and were popular gathering spots for community meetings, political discussions, celebrations and more.”

The new British legislation required American colonists to pay a tax on a wide array of paper materials, such as newspapers, legal documents, mortgages, contracts—and even playing cards. A revenue stamp embossed on those papers indicated payment of the tax.

Many colonists were not happy with the new tax, to say the least. Accordingly, the USPS website also says that the Stamp Act, which was passed by the British Parliament in March 1765, “proved historic in galvanizing and uniting the American colonies, setting them on a path toward independence.”

The first chapter of The Beginnings of the American Revolution (1910) by Ellen Chase is sub-titled “Stamp Act Causes Riot,” and then the second chapter is “The Colonies Unite Successfully for Repeal.” Thus, actions resulting from the negative reaction toward the Stamp Act was a major impetus toward the colonists’ declaration of independence from Great Britain on July 4, 1776.

The tax levied by the Stamp Act was not exorbitant; it was the principle that rankled the colonists. As Chase says, “The exception was not taken to the tax in itself. . . . The objections rose solely from Parliament’s assumption of supremacy in the Colonies’ internal affairs” (p. 23).

For a long time after independence from Great Britain, however, U.S. citizens mostly had representation without taxation. There was an excise tax placed on whiskey in 1791—but that led to the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794.

The first personal income tax resulted from the Revenue Act signed into law by President Lincoln in August 1861. He who wanted government “of the people, by the people, for the people” needed to raise money to pay for the Civil War activities of the Union.

The first permanent income tax in this country, though, was not established until 1913—and the first general sales tax not until 1930.

In D.C. now, though, there is taxation but no representation on the federal level. Statehood for the District is one possible solution to the problem.

However, the “party of Lincoln” that freed the slaves in spite of strong objection by the Democratic Party then does not want to grant statehood now to a territory that would most probably send Democrats to the U.S. Congress. As I wrote earlier, the Parties have switched positions.

What Does “Of the People, By the People, For the People” Mean?

It is sobering to visit Cemetery Hill in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania—as I did for the first time last week.

Cemetery Hill is the name of the place where a private cemetery was started in 1854. Nine years later, from July 1-3, 1863, it became the site of one of the most important battles of the Civil War.

That was also the place where in November of that year President Lincoln delivered what we know as the Gettysburg Address, a speech that took about two minutes. In the picture below you see June looking at the bust of Lincoln. His entire talk is engraved on the bronze plaque behind her. 

In some of the most widely quoted words from Gettysburg Address, Lincoln expressed his strong desire that “the nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Those words are generally taken as a clear call for democracy—and surely that is correct. But there is almost no one in this country, regardless of political party, who does not advocate or support democracy. 

For some reason, though, more than one speaker at the meeting of the Faith and Freedom Coalition meeting (that I wrote about here) thought it important to cite Lincoln’s words—and to emphasize that he was a Republican.

Some say that Lincoln was making a clarion call for equality among all people of the nation. Those words were spoken after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on Jan. 1, 1863. Still, that proclamation only freed slaves in the Confederate States.

Moreover, it would be another 57 years before women of any color could participate equally in the democratic process by voting.

Others may point out that a government “for the people” is one that actively promotes the “general Welfare,” as stated in the preamble of the Constitution.

That, though, seems to be at odds with a major emphasis of the Republican Party since the days of President Reagan, who emphasized that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

It is somewhat puzzling that in his inaugural address of 1981, Reagan went on to say, “From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people.”

Republicans now repeatedly talk about smaller government, states’ rights, and decisions made locally rather than in Washington.

Lincoln’s words, though, were spoken in the midst of the Civil War, fought first of all to keep the Union together. He was surely talking about a federal government “for, by, and of the people.”

If it had been left up to the individual states, or to local governments, how long would it have taken for the slaves of the South to be freed? Another 50 years? Another 100 years? Perhaps.

As it was, it took almost a hundred years for the Civil Rights Act to be passed in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act to be passed in 1965—and those two extremely important pieces of legislation were enacted by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President.

Basic positions of the Democratic and Republican parties in the 1960s were almost completely reversed from those of the 1860s—and people who fail to note that change misconstrue American history.

So, I want a federal government of, by, and for the people—just like Lincoln did. 

Celebrating FOR’s 100th Anniversary

The Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR) is celebrating its 100^th anniversary this week in New York City.

FOR was launched as the result of a pact made by two Christians in August 1914, at the outset of the First World War. The two men, an English Quaker and a German Lutheran, had just arrived for a conference of Christian pacifists when hostilities broke out. 

Needing to return home immediately, as they were parting on a platform of the railway station in Cologne, Germany, they made this pledge to each other: “We are one in Christ and can never be at war.”

What a difference it would have made in world history if all the Christians in Europe had made that same pledge!

In late December of that year the Englishman, Henry Hodgkin, organized a conference in Cambridge at which 130 Christians of various denominations joined in the founding of the Fellowship of Reconciliation in England.

About a year later, in November 1915, FOR was begun in the United States by sixty-eight pacifists, including Jane Addams, the first woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize, about whom I wrote a few weeks ago.

Another of the organizers in the U.S. was Congregationalist minister A.J. Muste, who later became a Quaker and who served as executive secretary (now titled executive director) of FOR from 1940 to 1953.

One of Muste’s most cited statements is, “There is no way to peace; peace is the way.”
John Swomley served from 1953 to 1960 as FOR’s next executive secretary. In 1960 Swomley became a professor of social ethics at St. Paul’s School of Theology in Kansas City, where he taught until his retirement in 1984.

During those years he was the leader of the local branch of FOR, and in 1976-77 when we were back from Japan for a year and living in Liberty, I attended a few FOR meetings in Kansas City and became acquainted with Swomley and gained a greater appreciation for FOR.

Since 2013 the Executive Director of FOR-USA has been Kristin Stoneking, an ordained United Methodist Church minister. 

(Kristin’s father, John Stoneking, was once pastor of Rosedale United Methodist Church in Kansas City, Kansas; the same church building is now the home of Rainbow Mennonite Church where June and I are members.)

From 3 p.m. to 9:30 on Saturday there will be activities at Riverside Church in New York celebrating the 100th anniversary of FOR-USA.

The 75th anniversary in 1990 was also celebrated at Riverside Church with an interfaith service. (Adherents of non-Christian religions have been active participants in FOR for many years.)
Ten years ago, Paul R. Dekar, a seminary professor, authored Creating the Beloved Community: A Journey with the Fellowship of Reconciliation.

In Part I, Dekar describes six ways FOR challenges “the nexus of evil,” including “challenging the making of enemies.”

Dekar writes that FOR members “have sought to see so-called enemies as potential friends.” That statement reminded me of the well-known story about President Lincoln.

During the Civil War, Lincoln was criticized for speaking of benevolent treatment for the Southern rebels. The critic chided Lincoln, reminding him that there was a war going on, that the Confederates were the enemy and so they should be destroyed.

Lincoln’s wise response: “Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”
FOR has not succeeded in bringing about reconciliation among all people. There is much yet to do. Still, the world is doubtlessly much better off because of FOR’s meritorious work over the past 100 years.

Happy Birthday, FOR—and best wishes for your next 100 years.

Lincoln’s Greatest Speech/Sermon

Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated for his second term as POTUS on March 4, 1865. The brief inaugural address he gave that day has been called “Lincoln’s greatest speech.”

That evaluation of Lincoln’s 1865 address has been made often. It is also the title of a book by Ronald C. White, Jr., who was professor of American Religious History at San Francisco Theological Seminary when his impressive book was published in 2002.

Remarkably, White takes more than 180 pages to examine, to explain, and to evaluate Lincoln’s 703-word speech delivered 150 years ago. (To give you some sense of how short that inaugural address was, my blog articles are generally around 600 words.)

I greatly enjoyed reading White’s book this month and highly recommend it.

Remarkably, Lincoln’s inaugural speech is also the first chapter of the book The Greatest Sermons Ever Preached (2005), compiled by Tracey D. Lawrence. That book includes sermons by John Wesley, Dwight L. Moody, and Billy Graham—and also Tony Campolo’s sermon “It’s Friday, but Sunday’s Comin’” that I recently mentioned (here).

For a President’s inaugural speech to be included in a book of only 19 of the greatest sermons ever preached is quite amazing. But calling it a sermon is not something new. On the day he heard it, African-American statesman Frederick Douglass remarked, “The address sounded more like a sermon than a state paper.”

Since the Civil War was drawing to a close and the Union victory close at hand, many thought Lincoln would talk about the triumph of the North over the South, or even the triumph of good over evil. But the President sought to be conciliatory rather than divisive and to be compassionate rather than vindictive.

Lincoln talked about what the people of the country had in common, not about their differences. According to White, Lincoln “spoke out against a tribal God, on the side of the North, and spoke instead of an inclusive God—inclusive, as Lincoln would explain, in both judgment and reconciliation” (p. 113).

White writes (in 2002), “No president, before or since, has so courageously pointed to a malady that resides at the very center of the American national family” (p 150). And, “While the audience wanted to hear words of self-congratulation, Lincoln continued to explain the implications of the judgment of God” (p. 203).

In reading these statements, I couldn’t help but think how the current President resembles Lincoln in many ways. And just as in the present day there are some who have nothing good to say about President Obama, most of Lincoln’s critics responded only negatively to his inaugural address.

One of the most positive appraisals was by The Spectator, the venerable British magazine:

Mr. Lincoln has persevered through all without ever giving way to anger, or despondency, or exultation, or popular arrogance, or sectarian fanaticism, or caste prejudice, visibly growing in force of character, in self-possession, and in magnanimity.

Lincoln’s closing paragraph is especially powerful. It begins with those oft-quoted words,

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

Powerful words! And words our national leaders badly need to hear and to heed today. May they do so! 

Excerpt from Manuscript of Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address