Enjoying and Expanding Liberty

Liberty is the fourth of “the 4-Ls,” and this post is the last of the five-part series that I started on March 9—and it is not completely coincidental that I have written this article in Liberty (Mo.) where my wife and I have lived since 2005.**

The school song of Seinan Gakuin, the large school system in Fukuoka City, Japan, where I served for 36 years (1968~2004) as a university professor and the last eight of those years as Chancellor, contains the Japanese words for Life, Love, and Light, the first three of the 4-Ls.

But I thought/think Liberty needed/needs to be emphasized also. 

In my May 10 post on Light, I linked light to truth—and then truth is linked to Jesus’ words about freedom/liberty in John 8:32: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (CEV). And there are other important words about freedom/liberty in the New Testament.

According to Luke 4:18, in the synagogue of Nazareth, Jesus read these words from Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me…To proclaim liberty to the captives…To set at liberty those who are oppressed.” Then Galatians 5:1 says, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free” (NKJV).

Since I was emphasizing the 4-Ls at Seinan Gakuin where about 98% of the students and more than half of the faculty and staff were not Christians, I didn’t talk/write a lot about these Bible verses. But I did regularly emphasize the close connection of liberty to the light of truth.

Also, I always talked about liberty being accompanied by responsibility, emphasizing that true liberty doesn’t mean freedom to do as one pleases; it is not a license for self-centeredness. Liberty means we are not enslaved by another person or by the power of any ideology (“ism”).

There is both negative and positive liberty, and both are important. Negative liberty means freedom from, but positive liberty means freedom for—and emphasis on the former should include stress on the importance of the latter.

Serious problems arise when only negative liberty is emphasized and liberty is used in inappropriate ways. For example, liberty is misused when it means “free speech for me but not for thee.”*¹ In this connection, consider these limited and inferior uses of liberty/freedom in the U.S. now.

◈ The “Freedom Caucus” in the U.S. Congress. According to Wikipedia, this U.S. House caucus was formed by Republican Representatives in January 2015 and “is generally considered to be the most conservative and furthest-right Congressional bloc.”

◈ “Freedom Summer” in Florida. As part of what Florida Governor DeSantis calls by that name, his Transportation Department has declared that only the colors red, white and blue can be used to light up bridges across the state. (For what that implies, see this May 23 Washington Post article.)

◈ Liberty University in Virginia. Jerry Falwell’s university changed its name to Liberty Baptist College in 1976 and to Liberty University in 1985. A Washington Post March 2015 article was titled, “Virginia’s Liberty University: A mega-college and Republican presidential stage.”

Liberty, nonetheless, is an important traditional value of the USA. The Declaration of Independence speaks of the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And since 1831 Americans have sung about their nation being the “sweet land of liberty.”  

Even though the scope of those thought to have the unalienable right of liberty in 1776 or 1831—or even in 1942 when the Pledge of Allegiance was officially adopted—was much too narrow, it has increasingly been recognized as meaning liberty and justice for all.*²

On January 6, 1941, President Roosevelt delivered what is known as the Four Freedoms speech, declaring that people "everywhere in the world" ought to have freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

These are freedoms that we all should be able to enjoy and seek to expand. And the liberty expressed in those four freedoms is still badly needed in the world today.

Further, we citizens of the USA must work energetically to preserve those (and other) freedoms in the light of the Christian nationalists who are seeking theocracy and of the Republican candidate for President, whose speeches (past and present) evidence racism, xenophobia, and a trend toward authoritarianism (fascism?).

_____

*¹ My wife and I moved to Liberty about three months after our marriage in 1957 and enrolled as students in William Jewell College, from which we graduated 65 years ago this month. We lived in Liberty again during the 1976-77 academic year. Then we bought our retirement home in Liberty and have never regretted our choice in the least. Somewhat tongue in cheek, I have sometimes said, slightly altering Paul Revere’s famous words, Give me Liberty until my death.

*² These words, harking back to 1798, are the title of the editorial in the March/April 2022 issue of Liberty magazine, a Seventh-day Adventist publication established in 1906. Please take a look at this article if you want to learn more about the context and meaning of those words.

*³ The U.S. Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. The original version was later expanded, but from the beginning, it ended with the words “with Liberty and Justice for all.” For more about this, see my August 30, 2021, blog post about Bellamy (here).

Note: It is also problematic when liberty is conflated with libertarianism. That political philosophy, which over-emphasizes negative liberty, strongly values individual freedom and is skeptical about the justified scope of government, especially the federal government. 

Thank God for Uncle Tom(s)!

It is probably apocryphal, but the story is told that when Pres. Lincoln met Harriet Beecher Stowe near the beginning of the Civil War, he declared, “So this is the little lady who started this great war.”

Think with me now about this “little lady,” who was born 210 years ago (on June 14, 1811), and about Uncle Tom, her best known character.

The Power of the Beecher Family

The Beecher family was highly prominent in the U.S. during the nineteenth century. Lyman Beecher (1775~1863) was one of the best-known preachers in the country, and eight years after his death the still extant Lyman Beecher Lectureship on Preaching at Yale Divinity School was established.

Henry Ward Beecher (1813~87), the eighth of Lyman’s thirteen children, also became one of the premier preachers of the 19th century. In fact, Debby Applegate’s Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Henry is titled, The Most Famous Man in America (2006).

But neither her father nor her famous little brother exerted as much influence on American society as did Harriet Beecher (1811~96).

She married Lane Seminary professor Calvin Stowe in 1836, and because of one of the many books she authored, the name Harriet Beecher Stowe became a household name.

The Power of the Pen

“The pen is mightier than the sword” were words found in a 1839 play written by English author Edward Bulwer-Lytton, and those words have been used innumerable times since then.

There was a lot of might in Harriet Beecher’s pen as she wrote her powerful novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Before being issued as a complete book, it was published serially in National Era, an abolitionist newspaper published weekly from 1847 to 1860.  

The first chapter of what became the famous book of Harriet Beecher Stowe (HBS) was printed in National Era 170 years ago, on June 5, 1851. (Click here to read the first chapter of HBS’s story as printed in that issue.)

The entire book was published the following year and immediately became a bestseller. In fact, it became the best-selling novel and the second best-selling book of the 19^th century, following the Bible.

Uncle Tom’s Cabin is credited with helping fuel the abolitionist cause in the 1850s, giving rise to the words attributed to Lincoln referring to HBS as the little lady who started the big war.

The Power of “Uncle Tom”

In HBS’s novel, Uncle Tom was a loyal Christian who died a martyr’s death. I read Uncle Tom’s Cabin about 25 years ago, and I remember how impressed I was with Uncle Tom. Indeed, his powerful personality as created by HBS helped forge the determination of many to rid the nation of slavery.

But sadly, Uncle Tom morphed first into a servile old man and then to a racial epithet hurled at African American men deemed, by other Black people, to have betrayed their race.

The story of that unfortunate transition is told by Canadian university professor Cheryl Thompson in her book, Uncle: Race, Nostalgia, and the Politics of Loyalty, published in March. She seeks to show how from martyr to insult, “Uncle Tom” has influenced two centuries of racial politics.

Black writers such as James Baldwin, among many others, came to use the name “Uncle Tom” to refer to Black men who were too submissive to Whites. Jackie Robinson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Barack Obama have all been accused of being Uncle Toms.

What a shame that the name of the powerful Black man created by HBS was turned into a slur!

But just as the Uncle Tom of the “little lady’s” novel was an important instigator of freedom for Blacks in the 1850s, so have many men called Uncle Toms in modern times been powerful proponents for freedom and justice for all.

So, yes, thank God for Uncle Tom—and for Uncle Toms such as those noted above!

Celebrating Juneteenth

June 19 is a special day that, unfortunately, is overlooked and/or disregarded widely by the dominant culture in the U.S. But Juneteenth, celebrated on June 19 each year, is the oldest nationally celebrated commemoration of the ending of slavery in the U.S.  

The Beginning of Juneteenth

The Civil War officially ended on June 2, 1865. But, much earlier, the Emancipation Proclamation became official on January 1, 1863, so the slaves in Texas were technically freed on that date.

It was not until June 19, 1865, however, that Major General Gordon Granger and his Union soldiers landed at Galveston, Texas, and announced that the Civil War had ended and that all enslaved persons were free.

Granger read “General Order Number 3” to his audience in Galveston. It began,

The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and hired labor.

That was the beginning of Juneteenth.

Large celebrations on June 19 began in 1866 and continued regularly into the early 20^th century. Throughout much of the 20^th century, though, there was a decline in the celebration of Juneteenth.

But then in 1980, Juneteenth became a legal state holiday in Texas. By 2000, only three other states had followed Texas’ example. But now Juneteenth is recognized as a state holiday or special day of observance in 47 of the 50 states and in D.C.

The Celebration of Juneteenth

One of the most meaningful events I attended last year was the local Juneteenth banquet, which I mentioned in this blog post. Unfortunately, because of the covid-19 pandemic, there will not be a local in-person gathering this year and few nationwide.

But I am wondering if the strong opposition to, and removal of, Confederate statues and other memorials cannot be seen as this year’s Juneteenth celebration.

Juneteenth is sometimes called Black Independence Day. Certainly, for the enslaved people in the U.S. before 1865, July 4 had little significance, for as Frederick Douglass asked in his famous July 5, 1852, speech, "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?"

It goes without saying that after the Revolutionary War there were no monuments or statues to King George III of the UK or any British monarch or military man in the U.S. There was no honoring of the opponents of freedom.

Since Juneteenth is the celebration of freedom for the formerly enslaved people of the U.S. and their descendants, why should statues and monuments honoring the military men who fought in opposition to their freedom be allowed on public property?

Ideally, those monuments should be removed in a legal and orderly manner, not by “lynching.” But they should be removed—and, yes, that is a way that Juneteenth can be meaningfully celebrated this year.

The Antithetical Celebration of Juneteenth

As the mainstream news media widely reported last week, DJT was scheduled to go to Tulsa, Oklahoma, for a political rally on June 19.

Plans for a racist President, who a WaPo columnist recently said “might go down in history as the last president of the Confederacy,” to hold a rally on Juneteenth in a city marking the 99^th anniversary of terrible white-on-black violence raised the hackles of many.

Consequently, late last Friday night DJT tweeted that the MAGA rally would be postponed a day and be held on June 20. Yet, that also happens to be the day of many Juneteenth celebrations since it is a Saturday—and even downtown Tulsa (see here) is planning its Juneteenth celebration from 11 a.m. on the 19^th to midnight on the 20^th.

No, holding a political rally in Tulsa on June 19 or 20 is NOT a proper way to celebrate Juneteenth.

But, seeking/supporting the removal of statues and/or monuments that honor those who fought against the freedom, equality, and dignity of enslaved people—or the removal of names of blatant racists on public facilities—is one excellent way to celebrate Juneteenth this year.

Defending Freedom: The Meritorious Work of the ACLU

So, if you are a USAmerican, do you highly value the Bill of Rights? If so, you might be, or might want to be, a supporter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which was born 100 years ago, on January 19, 1920.  

What’s the ACLU’s Purpose?

According to Samuel Walker’s nearly 500-page book In Defense of American Liberties: A History of the ACLU (1990), the “essential feature of the ACLU is its professed commitment to the non-partisan defense of the Bill of Rights” (p. 5).

From its very beginning, the ACLU has had many critics. In his Introduction, Walker recounts how in the 1988 presidential election campaign, George Bush attacked Michael Dukakis, his Democratic opponent, for being a “card-carrying member of the ACLU.”

Twenty-five years later, Jerome R. Corsi, who (among other things) is a conspiracy theorist, published Bad Samaritans: The ACLU’s Relentless Campaign to Erase Faith from The Public Square.

On the opening page of his book, Corsi (b. 1946) cites these words from the Pledge of Allegiance, “. . . one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.” Because of their support for the rights of atheists also, the ACLU objects to those first four words that were added to the Pledge in 1954. But clearly, their main emphasis is, literally, “liberty and justice for all.”

And “all” means, well, all, even those who may harbor mistaken and/or wrongheaded ideas.

The ACLU has been the target of stringent criticism for defending, for example, the free speech right of Communist sympathizers in the U.S.—but also for defending the right to free speech by the KKK and Fred Phelps, the notorious pastor of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas.

In a 2010 article about Phelps (1929~2014), an ACLU spokesperson wrote, “To be clear: the ACLU strongly disagrees with the protestors' message in this case. But even truly offensive speech is protected by the First Amendment.”

She went on to say, “It is in hard cases like this where our commitment to free speech is most tested, and most important.”

Why’d the ACLU Start?

The ACLU was formed largely because the freedom of people in the late 1910s to speak out against the movement of the U.S. toward participation in World War I was being suppressed.

The primary founder of the organization was Roger Baldwin, a pacifist whose conscientious objection to “the Great War” was not recognized by the U.S. government and in 1918-19 he spent nine months in prison.

After the ACLU was formed in January 1920, Baldwin remained the executive director until 1950. Even though he retired from that position when he was 66 years old, he remained active in working for the civil liberties of all people.

In 1981, seven months before his death at the age of 97, Baldwin was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Carter.

Who’d Be Against the ACLU?

Through the years the ACLU has supported many noted people/causes, including John Scopes in the “monkey trial” of 1925, Japanese Americans after they were placed in internment camps in 1942, African Americans in the Brown v. Board of Education lawsuit of 1954, the “reproductive freedom” of women since before the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, and gays/lesbians in the Obergefell v. Hodges lawsuit of 2015.

So, who would now be opposed to the ACLU? Well, among others, those who think a literal interpretation of the Bible ought to be (en)forced on all U.S. citizens in spite of the principle of the separation of church and state as well as those who think that it is acceptable to discriminate or legislate against minorities, gays and lesbians, immigrants/asylum seekers, and (desperate) women seeking to end an unwanted pregnancy.

Those who cherish the Bill of Rights, however, are deeply grateful for the meritorious work of the ACLU over the past 100 years.

The Election of 1868 (and 2018)

Since my hometown is Grant City (Mo.), I have long had an interest in, but not much knowledge of, Ulysses S. Grant. My recent reading about him, though, has convinced me that he is a man who should not be taken for granted and that his election in 1868 was one of great importance.

The Election of 1868

Even though my Oct. 30, 2016, blog article was about the presidential election of 1868 (see here), I didn’t write much about Grant, who was the winner of that election and thus became the 18^th POTUS.

For whatever reason, during most of my lifetime Grant seems not to have received the attention and the accolades he has deserved. But he and his accomplishments as President should not be taken lightly.

In one of the most important elections in U.S. history, 150 years ago on November 3, 1868, Grant won a decisive victory that was of great significance to the nation.

His election was especially significant for the American Indians and for the “freedmen,” the former enslaved persons who had a new birth of freedom because of the Civil War.

The Background of the 1868 Election

Hiram Ulysses Grant was born in Ohio in 1822, the son of a tanner—and a fervent abolitionist. When he was 16, Ulysses, the name by which he was called, was nominated to West Point by the district’s U.S. Representative—but his name was mistakenly given as Ulysses S., and the name stuck.

After graduation, Grant distinguished himself as a daring and competent soldier during the Mexican-American War of 1846-48. He left the army in 1854 but joined again in 1861, the beginning year of the Civil War.

Grant distinguished himself as a war hero, and after being elevated to the rank of lieutenant general in 1864, he forced and then received Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s surrender in April 1865.

Results of the 1868 Election

Because of his great popularity across the nation—and it has been said that he was more popular in the 19^th century then Lincoln—Grant was nominated unanimously as the Republican candidate for the presidency in 1868.

In spite of his political opponents calling Grant a drunk and accusing him of trying to “Africanize” the South, he won the 1868 election decisively: 214 to 80 electoral votes.

Among the premier accomplishments of Grant’s presidency are these:

** Organized (in April 1869) the Board of Indian Commissioners; this was Grant’s attempt to formulate a new humane policy towards Native American tribes. While not without problems, this “Peace Policy” was a great advancement in the way American Indians had been treated in the U.S. up to this time.

** Ratification (in February 1870) of the 15^th Amendment giving the freed slaves the right to vote.

** Passage of the “Ku Klux Klan” Act (in April 1871) that curtailed the activities of the KKK and other white supremacy organizations; this bill is also called the Civil Rights Act of 1871.  

(Actual 1868 campaign poster with an explanation added)

And What about the Election of 2018?

While not a presidential election, U.S. voters will go to the polls tomorrow (Nov. 6) to determine whether the racist, xenophobic, pro-white supremacy policies and rhetoric of the current administration are going to remain unchecked by a supportive Congress or whether there will be a better balance of power in the U.S. government.

The election of 1868 proved greatly beneficial for people of color then, and I fervently hope and pray that tomorrow’s election will similarly turn out well for people of color, immigrants, Jews, and the poor in contemporary society.

For further reading:

Two recommended books for further study of Grant (and the election of 1868):
** Grant (2002) by Jean Edward Smith, which presents Grant much more positively than most biographies up to that time.
** Grant (2017) by Ron Chernow, the latest, highly-acclaimed, 1000-page tome about Grant.

TTT #11 For Christians, Jesus Must Be Lord Of All If He Is Lord At All

Chapters nine and ten of Thirty True Things . . . (TTT) were about the lordship of Jesus, but there is one more thing to be considered about the meaning of that lordship. Christians need to know that when one confesses Jesus as Lord, he must be Lord of all aspects of their lives. Those who are not Christians need to know that about Jesus’ lordship in order to differentiate between authentic and pseudo Christianity.

Is Confessing Jesus as Lord an Enslaving Act?

When Jesus is allowed to be Lord of all, then for the individual Christian believer every area of their life—their personal actions, their family relationships, their financial decisions, their recreational activities, and every other sphere of their existence—will be surrendered to Jesus. 

There are some objections to this idea, though, the first being a push back against something that looks like a loss of freedom. Especially USAmericans have from the beginning placed great emphasis on personal freedom (“Give me liberty, or give me death!”).

Many modern people resonate with the words from “Invictus,” treasured and made popular by Nelson Mandela: “I am the master of my fate: / I am the captain of my soul.”

So how do people react to emphasis on Jesus’ total lordship? For many Christians it results in compartmentalization, allowing Jesus’ lordship to apply only to one’s religious life, not to every aspect of one’s thoughts and actions.

For some or many people who are not Christians, talk about the lordship of Jesus is off-putting. Those who pride themselves on their independence, their self-reliance, and, above all, their freedom as one who is captain of their own soul, why would they possibly want to acknowledge Jesus as Lord?

That sort of response may not often be expressed, but recognized or not, that is likely one of the most basic reasons why some people don’t want to become a Christian, a follower of Jesus.

Is Confessing Jesus as Lord an “Ensmalling” Act?

Some Christians now seem to think that they need a broader view of the world than is possible through Christianity or through Jesus Christ. Talk about the lordship of Jesus is for them a restrictive idea that they want to move beyond.

But I strongly disagree that commitment to the lordship of Jesus is an “ensmalling” act. Rather, rightly understood, it is an enlarging one.

According to an affirmation of the New Testament, “all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” in Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:19). If that is a correct description of the true nature of Jesus as the Christ—and that has been a central affirmation of Christianity from its beginning—how could allegiance to Jesus possibly make one’s understanding of the world narrower or more limited?

If the fullness of God dwells in Jesus, then far from causing people to have a more parochial, smaller view of the world, commitment to Jesus as Lord actually expands one’s vision, enlarges one’s viewpoint, and stretches one’s capacity to understand the world that Jesus came to save.

So, What are the Implications?

If Jesus is truly Lord of all, then those who live under that lordship live with the desire to follow Jesus and his will rather than following their own often selfish desires.

When Jesus is truly Lord of one’s life, that person’s purpose for living is focused on the kingdom of God, on doing that which is most beneficial for human society and for the world of nature.

Living with Jesus as Lord is a full commitment to the one who seeks to transform this world into a realm of peace and justice for all.

[Please click here to access the entire eleventh chapter of Thirty True Things Everyone Needs to Know Now.]

TTT #4 The Holy Spirit is God’s Universal Presence in the World and is Not Limited to Those Who Know Jesus

Christians have traditionally understood God as being “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” The first two chapters of Thirty True Things Everyone Needs to Know Now [TTT] were about the “Father,” and the previous one was about Jesus Christ, the “Son.” Now we turn our attention to the enigmatic “Holy Spirit.”

Grasping at the Wind

Trying to understand the Holy Spirit is like grasping at the wind—and, indeed, the Hebrew word ruach and the Greek word pneuma can be translated “breath” or “wind” as well as “spirit.”

Some Christians tend to think of the Holy Spirit being active in the world only after the resurrection of Jesus. This is largely because of Jesus’ promise of the coming Spirit (such as in John 15:26) and the events recorded in the second chapter of Acts.

There are many references to the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, however, and some even think that the first reference to the Spirit is in Genesis 1:2. (Is it the Spirit, or just the wind, moving over the waters in the creation story?) 

The Church’s creed of A.D. 381 spoke of the Holy Spirit proceeding “from the Father.” But in the sixth century, the Church in the West added one (Latin) word: filioque (“and the Son”).

That word became a point of division between the Church in the West (Roman Catholicism) and the Church in the East (Eastern Orthodox). But the eminent German Lutheran theologian Jϋrgen Moltmann rejects the addition of filioque—and for good reason (see his The Spirit of Life, 1992).

The Holy Spirit is linked from the beginning to the eternal Word (Logos), and not just to Jesus.

The Go-Between God

John V. Taylor, a distinguished Anglican missionary and theologian, was the author of the seminal book The Go-Between God (1963). Taylor convincingly contends that all of creation is a result of the movement of the Spirit and everything is related to God because of the Spirit.

That certainly doesn’t mean that everyone is aware of their relationship to the Spirit. But the Spirit is aware of everyone!

Here again we are confronted with the problem of the universal and the particular—and again I agree with Taylor when he avers that “the Holy Spirit is universally present through the whole fabric of the world, and yet uniquely present in Christ and, by extension, in the fellowship of his disciples” (pp. 180-1; italics in the original).

The Holy Spirit, we might say, leaves footprints of God all over the world, and people from all ages and in all parts of the world, to varying degrees, see those tracks.

The Spirit of Truth and of Freedom

Three times in the Gospel of John we find the words “the Spirit of truth,” and also according to John, Jesus declared that “the truth shall set you free.” Further, the Apostle Paul also declares that “the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (1 Cor. 3:17).

In the first chapter, I indicated that “all truth is God’s truth.” It can also be asserted that because of the Spirit, all freedom is God’s freedom. Thus, the work of the Spirit can be linked to the core assertions of the theologians of liberation.

Black theologian James Cone, for example, avers that “God’s revelation in Jesus Christ is identical with the presence of his Spirit in the slave community in struggle for the liberation of humanity” (God of the Oppressed, rev. ed., p. 181).

Thank God that the Spirit, known uniquely through Jesus Christ, can also be known universally throughout the whole world!

[Please click here to read the entire fourth chapter of TTT.]

The Gospel According to "Eve"

Wm. Paul Young, as perhaps most of you know, is the author of The Shack (2008), which was made into a movie by the same name and released earlier this year. Some of you may also remember the blog article I posted on the book/movie back in March (see here). Then in April, I read Young’s 2015 novel, Eve.

A FANTASY NOVEL

Eve is classified as a Christian fantasy novel. For some reason, though, I have never cared much for fantasy books, Christian or otherwise. I have not read the highly acclaimed fantasy fiction of C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien, although some of my children and grandchildren have greatly enjoyed their books of fantasy.  

An online dictionary defines fantasy as “the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable.” Maybe that is my problem: I just don’t have enough imagination to enjoy fantasy. At least that was my main problem in reading Eve.

Looking at the reviews of Eve on Goodreads.com was interesting (see here). Some readers gave it five stars and praised the book. Others gave it one star. One such person is Megz, a young white woman in South Africa. She is a fan of The Shack, she said, but then stated bluntly, “I don’t have a nice way of starting this review: I hated this book.”

I certainly didn’t hate it—but I had trouble appreciating the fantasy.

SOME FANTASTIC STATEMENTS

While I had trouble with much of the fantastic (= “imaginative or fanciful; remote from reality”) parts of the book, which was most of it, I was, nevertheless, impressed with some fantastic (= “extraordinarily good or attractive”) statements in it. Here are some examples.

Near the end of the book Eve says, “Perhaps this desire to reach out to the other [to Adam in her case], to make amends and repair loss, to build a bridge and heal, is a part of God’s maternal being that is in all of us” (p. 282).

One theme of the book is human freedom, which includes being able to make bad choices. In that regard, Eve says, “I have learned that God has more respect for me than I do for myself, that God submits to the choices I make, that my ability to say no and turn my face away is essential for Love to be Love.”

Eve then goes on to state,

Adonai has never hidden His face from me, nor has He kept from me the consequences of my choosing. That is why many of my sons and my daughters curse the face and name of God. But God refuses to be like what we have become and take power and dominion. He has the audacity to consent and even submit to all our choosing. Then He joins us in the darkness we create because of all our turning (p. 283). 

A THEOLOGICAL NOVEL

There are some appealing theological aspects to Eve. As in The Shack, the feminine aspects of God, whom (because of his strong Trinitarian ideas) Young regularly refers to with plural pronouns, are highlighted. That maternal side of God is also portrayed as a part of all humans, made in the image of God.

God allows human freedom, as mentioned above, even when that leads to turning away from God. But they (God as the plural Trinity) still love unconditionally those who turn (sinners), and they are very eager to embrace all those who re-turn.

Another Goodreads reviewer, Rhonda in Virginia, wrote, “This book caused me to think deeply about my own brokenness.” Perhaps it also helped her, and others, to see the gospel (good news) according to Eve: God’s love is always available for the healing of every broken person.

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.

Fighting for the Four Freedoms

It is has been called the best State of the Union address of all time. That was President Roosevelt’s speech seventy-five years ago, on January 6, 1941. It is the one popularly known as the Four Freedoms address.

The four freedoms that FDR delineated in his eighth State of the Union speech, as you likely know well, are freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. (Here is the link to hearing FDR articulate those four freedoms.)

The beginning of the new year 75 years ago saw the Western world in turmoil—much worse than now in 2016. WWII had begun in Sept. 1939 with Germany’s invasion of Poland, and by June 1940 Germany had taken over much of Europe.

In July, Germany launched air attacks on England, bombings that lasted for months. Then Germany, Italy, and Japan formed the Axis Alliance in Sept. 1940. The situation was certainly grave for America’s allies across the Atlantic.

But Americans did not want to get involved in war again.

In that 1/6/41 address, Roosevelt sought to provide a rationale for why the U.S. should abandon the isolationist policies it had followed since WWI—such as refusing to join the League of Nations in 1920.

The four freedoms as propagated by FDR were not just for the U.S. They were explicitly his goal or vision for “everywhere in the world,” as he repeatedly said.

While FDR’s call for freedom from fear was primarily a call for “a world-wide reduction of armaments” along with the other three it became the center of attempts to rally public support for the war.

Artist Norman Rockwell made the “four freedoms” and support of the war even more popular with his noted paintings in 1943.

Just four days after his Jan. 6 speech, FDR proposed the Lend-Lease program, which was enacted two months later. It gave the President power to sell or lend food and armaments to the United Kingdom and other Allied nations—and later to the U.S.S.R.

There were still more than 4½ years of devastating war after FDR’s Jan. 1941 speech. But in Dec. 1948 the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, incorporating the four freedoms in the preamble.

But one wonders how many more people of the world enjoy those four freedoms now than 75 years ago. In this country, the first two freedoms are basically strong: after all, they are guaranteed in the Constitution.

But is there actually any more freedom from want and freedom from fear in the U.S. now than there was in 1941?

Fighting for those freedoms domestically is important for us to do—as well as working for them globally as part of the human race.

Freedom from want is needed by so many people around the world—and in this country, partly because people keep wanting more and more. But combatting income inequality and providing jobs with a living wage for everyone are two current imperatives.

Of course, fear of terrorism has been heightened in the past few months—by one incident in California and by heated political rhetoric of presidential candidates playing on people’s fears.

But the fight for freedom from fear is not done best by using weapons or violence. As Malala Yousafzai emphasizes,

As 75 years ago, there still needs to be an emphasis on the four freedoms that FDR espoused. And we need to consider wisely the best way to fight for those freedoms.

Are Biblical Values Under Attack in the U.S.?

Earlier this month a friend sent me an email that was mainly Dennis Prager’s June 30 article titled “Court Calls an End to Judeo-Christian America.” (That piece on Investor’s Business Daily’s website can be read here.)

Prager, a nationally syndicated radio talk show host and columnist who was born in 1948 to Orthodox Jewish parents, began his article with this assertion: “The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the redefinition of marriage seals the end of America as the Founders envisioned it.”

Prager’s piece is just one of numerous articles declaring that Christianity and/or biblical values are currently under attack in the U.S.—especially by the Supreme Court and by the President.

In a June 16 WallBuilders article, David Barton posted a screed under the title “America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U.S. President.”

Barton lists 96 incidences of President Obama’s “attacks on Biblical persons or organizations,” “examples of the hostility toward Biblical faith that have become evident in the past three years in the Obama-led military,” the President’s “open attacks on Biblical values,” and finally “numerous incidents of his preferential deference for Islam’s activities and positions.”

Prager and Barton of just two of many who think this way. But how can Christians who see things differently respond to such strong charges? Following is the heart of the response I sent to my friend:

The court certainly did not call for an end to Judeo-Christian America, although its ruling was contrary to what many people, such as Prager, think a Judeo-Christian America looks like. There are many Christians, however, who believe that the Supreme Court's ruling makes America more Christian, not less so.

Prager writes, "From well before 1776 until the second half of the 20th century, the moral values of the United States were rooted in the Bible and its God." But were those moral values compromised when freedom and equality were given to former African slaves and their descendants who lived in America? Some thought so. But I believe America became more Christian when freedom and equality were granted to Black people living in the country.

Were those moral values compromised when the right to vote was given to women (50 years after it was given to Black men!) and when there came to be more freedom and equality for all the women in the country? Some thought so. But I believe America became more Christian when freedom and equality were granted to women living in America.

The Constitution had to be changed to make greater freedom and equality a reality for Blacks and women. Was that a change in the moral values of the nation?

In some way it was, for many thought slavery and the subjection of women were taught in the Bible and that being faithful to the Bible meant being for slavery and for the subjection of women. But I think that was an incorrect interpretation of the Bible—and a position used by whites and then by men to maintain their position of power.

In much the same way, the Supreme Court decision about same-sex marriage grants freedom and equality to a segment of our society that has been discriminated against, vilified, and treated in many mean-spirited ways.

That decision is in opposition to the position of many Christians—just as the decisions to allow Blacks and women to be free and equal were. But I firmly believe that that decision is not contrary to the will of God or the teaching and spirit of Jesus.

The Gospel is always good news for those who are fettered and mistreated.