Considering the Complexity of Human Beings: The Case of Woodrow Wilson

So, what do you think about the presidential election of ’16? Actually, there have been three elections in ’16, the first being in 1816 when James Monroe was elected POTUS. And then in the election of 2016 you know who was elected for four tumultuous years.

In between, in the election 105 years ago on Nov. 7, 1916, Woodrow Wilson was elected for a second term as POTUS. Thus, for four more challenging years the U.S. was to be led by a complex man.

The Making of Pres. Wilson

Thomas Woodrow Wilson, called Tommy until adulthood, was born in 1856 in Staunton, Virginia, where his father was pastor of the Presbyterian church in that small (under 4,000 residents) northeast Virginia town where the Wilson Presidential Library and Museum is now located.

Tommy became a well-educated man, graduating in 1879 from the College of New Jersey (which became Princeton University in 1896) and then earning a Ph.D. in political science and history at Johns Hopkins University in 1886.

Wilson served as president of Princeton U. from 1902 to 1910, then in November 1910 he was elected governor of New Jersey with about 54% of the vote. He resigned as governor as of March 1, 1913, after being elected POTUS.

In the presidential election of 1912, Wilson defeated the incumbent, Republican William Howard Taft, former president Theodore Roosevelt, who came in second running for the Progressive Party, and Eugene Debs, the Socialist candidate who received 6% of the popular vote.

The Positives and Negatives of Pres. Wilson

According to this American history website, “Wilson brought a brilliant intellect, strong moral convictions, and a passion for reform to his two terms as president.”

Commendably, Wilson had a strong belief in peace and international cooperation. Consistent with that belief, he appointed William Jennings Bryan, a pacifist, as his Secretary of State at the beginning of his first term.

President Wilson campaigned for re-election in 1916 under the slogan “He has kept us out of war”—and he was narrowly elected to a second term. 

Ironically, the following month after his March 1917 inauguration, the complex Wilson addressed Congress and emphasized the need for the U.S. to enter the war in Europe. Among other things, he said U.S. participation in the “Great War” was necessary “to make the world safe for democracy.”

In January 1918, though, Wilson proposed a 14-point peace plan, the last point being the creation of the League of Nations—and for that proposal he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 1919.

In spite of this and other very positive aspects of Wilson’s presidency, there were negatives as well—the main one being his well-documented racism, which was seen during his years as the president of Princeton U. as well as after he entered the White House.

Because of Wilson’s obvious racism, in June 2020 the Princeton University board of trustees decided to delete Wilson’s name from the university’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

The trustees stated that Wilson’s "racist thinking and policies” made him “an inappropriate namesake for a school or college whose scholars, students, and alumni must stand firmly against racism in all its forms."

The Point

As perhaps can be said about every human being, Woodrow Wilson was a complex person. As indicated above, there are ample reasons to admire him—and certainly many more could have been included.**

There are also sufficient reasons to find fault with him, although most are minor compared to his unfortunate racism.

What was true of Woodrow Wilson is true of everyone. Human beings are complex; everyone is a mixture of good and bad traits, ideas, and actions. Thus, perhaps no one deserves to be put on a pedestal and publicly honored in perpetuity.

_____

** For helpful information about key, and mostly positive, events from Wilson’s election in 1912 until the end of his presidency in 1921, click on this link.

Thank God for the Quakers!

Growing up in rural northwest Missouri and then going to two small Baptist colleges in the state, I had no opportunity to know any Quakers. But long before I knew a Quaker personally, I came to have great admiration and appreciation for those known by that name. 

Quaker Origins

The beginning of the Quaker movement goes back to Englishman George Fox (1624~91) and the “openings” (revelations) he experienced 375 years ago, in 1646. A few years later, the Religious Society of Friends was the name settled on by Fox and his followers. They were also called Quakers.

In spite of considerable opposition, the number of Quakers in England grew quite rapidly, and by 1655/6 the first Friends arrived in North America, where there was also great opposition and great growth.

In 1681, 340 years ago, British King Charles II granted a land charter to William Penn, a Quaker, and that was the beginning of what became the state of Pennsylvania—and a period of significant Quaker influence in North America.

Quaker Beliefs/Practices

According to Quaker.org, “Quakers are a worldwide, global community of people who are diverse in every way, including what they believe and practice. There are Quakers who are progressive Christians, there are Quakers who are Evangelical, and Friends who are . . . even atheist.”

A foundational belief of Quakers from their beginning is that there can be direct, unmediated relationship with the Divine. Fox emphasized there is “that of God in every person,” and through the centuries since their beginning, Friends have stressed the Light Within or the Inner Light.

Because of that basic belief, Quakers originally, and many still, reject having clergy, creeds, or sacraments/rituals (including baptism and Communion).

Quaker Contributions

Even though there are many differences among contemporary Quakers, the historic contributions of the Religious Society of Friends are considerable. They include the following:

1) Their consistent emphasis on peace and opposition to violence. 

Perhaps that is the position for which they are best known, and that is one reason I developed such a good opinion of the Quakers in the 1970s, when I learned about the work of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC).

AFSC’s current website gives this vision statement: “A just, peaceful, and sustainable world free of violence, inequality, and oppression.” They also state that their mission is to work “with communities and partners worldwide to challenge unjust systems and promote lasting peace.”

2) Their emphasis on equality and opposition to the subordination of women and to slavery.

Margaret Fell (1614~1702) was one of the co-founders of the Religious Society of Friends, and she was prominent in the early years of the Quakers in England. (More than ten years after the death of her first husband, she married George Fox in 1669.)

In the U.S., the Quakers were the first religious body to protest slavery publicly. In 1790 they presented a petition to Congress calling for the abolition of slavery, and the Quakers are positively mentioned in Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

Several of the most prominent advocates of both the abolition of slavery and women’s suffrage in the U.S. were Quaker women: Sarah & Angelina Grimké, Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, and others.

3) Their emphasis on simplicity and opposition to ostentation and unnecessary consumption.

Friends have traditionally believed that people should use their resources, including money and time, deliberately in ways that are most likely to make life truly better for themselves and others. 

“Live simply so that others may simply live” is a saying often attributed to Mahatma Gandhi. But long before Gandhi was born in 1869, simple living was a cornerstone of Quaker practice.  

So, even though I have some misgivings about the underpinnings of Quaker theology, I say, emphatically, Thank God for the Quakers and for their 375 years of emphasis on peace, equality, and the simple life! The world now would be better off if there were more of them and more of us like them.

_____

** In background preparation for writing this article, I found Thomas D. Hamm's The Quakers in America (2003) to be helpful. And now I am looking forward to reading J. Brent Bill's brand new book Hope and Witness in Dangerous Times: Lessons From the Quakers on Blending Faith, Daily Life, and Activism, which is scheduled to be delivered to my Kindle tomorrow.

Lying Down with the Lions

Although perhaps he is now not widely known or remembered, this article is posted as a tribute to Ron Dellums, a man whom I long admired—and who died a year ago today, on July 30, 2018.  

Ron Dellums (1997 portrait by Andre White)

Who Was Ron Dellums?

Ronald Vernie Dellums was born in West Oakland, Calif., in 1935. Following a stint in the Marine Corps from 1954~56, Ron earned the B.A. degree from San Francisco State University in 1960 and his Master of Social Work degree from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1962.

After working for a few years as a social worker and a community organizer, in 1967 Dellums won his first political election and became a member of the Berkeley [Calif.] City Council. Three years later he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served for the next 27 years without interruption.

Dellums decided to retire from the House in 1998, although he would undoubtedly have won re-election for another term had he wished to remain in Congress. Later he did run for another political office and consequently succeeded Jerry Brown as Mayor of Oakland (Calif.), serving in that office from 2007~11.

At the age of 82, Dellums died of complications from prostate cancer.

Why Praise Ron Dellums?

You might wonder why I was such an admirer of Congressman Dellums and why I am writing about him now. In the early 1970s, I became aware of, and appreciative of, Dellums because of his thoroughgoing opposition to the war in Vietnam/Indochina.

(I probably first heard of Dellums from reading The Post-American, which began publication in 1971 largely as an anti-Vietnam War tabloid and which later became Sojourners magazine.)

All along I liked Dellums’s consistent opposition to increased military spending and support for more spending on anti-poverty programs. And then later I—and Nelson Mandela!—applauded his pivotal part in helping to end apartheid in South Africa.

Overall, I was an admirer of Dellums because of his commitment to the implementation of principles he learned from Martin Luther King, Jr. In 1967 he heard King give a speech in Berkeley. In that talk, King argued that “peace is more than merely the absence of war, it is the presence of justice.”

Dellums accepted the truth of what King said. He realized (as recorded in the book cited below), “By working for peace you must work for justice; by working for justice you work to bring about peace” (p. 49). His whole political career was rooted in that realization.

When he announced his retirement from Congress in 1997, he said that he knew he had “maintained faith.” He stated, “I had been comprehensive in my moral concerns; I had sought to live and work from a perspective of peace; I had sought to link the quest for peace with the quest for justice” (p. 198).

When he left his congressional seat, Dellums was succeeded by Barbara Lee, whom he mentored and whom I have also admired over the last 20 years. (Lee, b. 1946, still is serving in the House.)

Why Read Ron Dellums?

Dellums’s political memoir was published in 2000 under the title Lying Down with the Lions. It is an engrossing book that I greatly enjoyed reading.

Written with the assistance of H. Lee Halterman, a white man who was his chief aide for 28 years, Dellums’s book details the inspiration behind, the struggles in, and the accomplishments of his political career up to his departure from the House.

The title apparently comes from Isaiah’s vision of the peaceable kingdom (see Isaiah 11:6-7). It was inspiring to me and many others to have a U.S. Congressman with that kind of vision. May his tribe increase!

Celebrating Einstein (and Pi Day)

This Thursday will be March 14, which, since it can be written as 3.14, has also become known as Pi Day (sometimes represented by a pie). But did you know that Einstein was born on Pi Day 140 years ago? He was, and with that in mind, I am posting this to celebrate his life and legacy. 

Einstein’s Brief Bio

Albert Einstein was born in the German Empire on March 14, 1879. Even though the Einstein family were non-observant Jews, young Albert attended a Catholic elementary school for three years until the age of eight.

In 1896, Einstein renounced his German citizenship to avoid military service and enrolled in a Zurich, Switzerland, university. He graduated in 1900 and the following year he acquired Swiss citizenship. In 1906 he received his doctorate from the University of Zurich.

The year before finishing his doctorate, Einstein made a series of discoveries that altered the course of modern science. Those discoveries were embodied in his theory of special relativity, best known by a simple, elegant equation: E = mc².

Einstein’s theory of general relativity was confirmed 100 years ago, in November 1919, during a total eclipse of the sun. Three years later, Einstein received the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on quantum theory—and became world-famous.

Shortly after the Nazis seized power in 1933, Einstein emigrated from Germany to the U.S., where he became a member of Princeton University’s Institute of Advanced Study—and he remained there until his death in 1955.

Even though Einstein was involved in the development of the atomic bomb, as a lifelong pacifist he was an outspoken advocate of nuclear control and world peace. As early as 1930 he declared, “Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only come by understanding.”

(Einstein’s thoughts on peace can be found in Einstein on Peace, the 2017 version of which is available on Kindle for just a few dollars.)

Einstein’s God

Krista Tippett is a journalist and author. Beginning in 2003 she conducted discussions on public radio related to the theme “Speaking of Faith”—and then in 2010 the name of her program was changed to, and has remained, “On Being.”

Einstein’s God (2010) is the title of Tippett’s second book, and it is based on interviews with 13 people, and those interviews are said to be “conversations about science and the human spirit.”

The first chapter of Tippett’s book, and the only one explicitly about Einstein, contains material from the author’s interviews with Freeman Dyson and Paul Davies, two noted physicists.

Davies (b. 1946) points out that while Einstein did not believe in a personal God, as he clearly stated, he was a deist and was fond of using the word “God.” Here is one of Einstein’s most-cited quotations: “God does not play dice with the universe.”

(Einstein made that statement to express his antipathy to quantum physics and its indeterminism.)

Einstein on Science and Religion

According to Davies, Einstein believed “in a rational world order, and he expressed what he sometimes called a ‘cosmic religious feeling,’ a sense of awe, a sense of admiration at the intellectual ingenuity of the universe” (Tippett, p. 34).

At a 1940 conference on science, philosophy, and religion, Einstein asserted (see here) that there were “strong reciprocal relationships between science and religion.” Further, “science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding”—and that “source of feeling . . .  springs from the sphere of religion.”

Einstein then memorably stated that the interdependency of science and religion may be expressed by the following image:

TTT #6 The Main Characteristic of the Kingdom of God is Shalom

If God’s desire is the realization of the kingdom of God, as I contended in the fifth chapter of Thirty True Things Everyone Needs to Know Now (TTT), there are ample grounds for claiming that the main characteristic of that kingdom is shalom.

What is Shalom?

The Hebrew word shalom, as seen below (and read from right to left), is popularly used as a greeting meaning hello or goodbye—as is the similar term salaam in Arabic. This is an excellent greeting when it includes the desire for all that is encompassed in the original concept of shalom.  

Shalom is generally translated peace, and it certainly means that—but it also includes the idea of harmony, justice, and well-being for all.

The harmony of shalom is all-embracing: it means the harmony of human beings with God (what has popularly been called peace with God), harmony of all individuals and all groups (communities, ethnic groups, and nations) with each other (what is usually referred to as world peace), and harmony among all parts of creation (which we might call ecological peace).

Two of the greatest twentieth-century advocates of shalom were Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. It is noteworthy that they were both assassinated; Jesus, the Prince of Peace, was also executed. Peacemakers are not always popular.

Seekers of shalom often are not appreciated by those who profit from an inequitable status quo; there are always some who enjoy the fruits of injustice. But shalom always requires justice and is possible only where justice is a present reality.

Shalom and Justice

Shalom means societal harmony, and such harmony is possible only where there is social justice, which is quite different from the common idea of punitive justice.

Social justice envisions a society where all the hungry are fed, all the sick are cared for, and everyone is treated with respect. Further, social justice requires that exploitation and all forms of prejudice and discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, class, religion, or sexual orientation be eradicated.

Social justice recognizes the inherent equality and worth of all persons. If everyone really has equal value, then there is insufficient justice if some people have too much food to eat while others are starving.

There is also inadequate justice if some people have luxurious houses or multiple dwellings while many people are homeless and living on the streets, sleeping under cardboard boxes.

The lack of justice often leads to violence and at times even to war. For that reason, one of the most important statements of a Pope in the twentieth century was made by Pope Paul VI on New Year’s Day in 1972: “If you want peace, work for justice.”

Probably everyone who hears those words wants peace. But here’s the rub: do we want peace bad enough to work actively for justice?

Waging Peace / Working for Shalom

In the previous chapter, I emphasized that people are called on to work for and also to wait for the coming of the kingdom of God. The same can be said about shalom, the chief characteristic of that kingdom.

Just as the kingdom of God is never going to be completely realized on this earth, at least not by human efforts, neither are we humans ever going to be able to create a world completely characterized by shalom. But that shouldn’t keep us from working earnestly to that end.

In Chapter Six of TTT (see here), I give examples of people/groups who are seeking to wage peace and who are working for shalom—and some examples of how some real progress has been made. 

From "Just War" to "Just Peace"

New Year’s Day has come and gone and it's already in the fifth day of 2017. But do you know that January 1 was not only New Year’s Day but was also the Catholic Church’s World Day of Peace (WDP)? In fact, this year was the 50^th anniversary of the WDP. 

The Pope promotes nonviolence 

For this year’s WDP observance, Pope Francis chose the theme “Nonviolence: A Style of Politics for Peace”.

John Dear, a Catholic priest and peace activist (whom I wrote about here in 2014), has pointed out (here) that the Pope’s message on New Year’s Day was the Catholic Church’s first statement on nonviolence ever made. 

The Pope emphasized, “To be true followers of Jesus today also includes embracing his teaching about nonviolence.” He goes on to state, “The name of God cannot be used to justify violence.” (Click here to see the Pope’s entire message.)

In his WDP message Pope Francis said, “I plead for disarmament and for the prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons.”

Those important words by the Pope were made public last month about two weeks before the PEOTUS (foolishly? dangerously?) tweeted, “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”

The long “just war” position

The term “just war” was introduced by Augustine of Hippo in his early fifth century book The City of God. It was later articulated in depth by 13th-century theologian Thomas Aquinas. At present, it is outlined by four conditions in the formal Catechism of the Catholic Church. 

(See here for a brief statement of “the traditional elements” in what the Catechism calls the “‘just war’ doctrine.”)

A major problem, though, is this: the leaders of every country that is at least somewhat culturally Christian thinks that all wars they engage in are just wars. When have you ever heard the political leader of a Western country admit that their country’s war activities were not just?

When will you ever hear that? My guess is, Never.

In February 1991, then-President Bush sought to assure the American public that his proposed Gulf War conformed to the historic principles of Just War theory.

(It is perhaps noteworthy, however, that Bush II did not use that same language with regard to the Iraq War; although he would never admit it, perhaps he harbored doubts about his presumptive war being just.)

Death kneel for the “just war” doctrine?

There have always been opponents of the just war doctrine. Erasmus of Rotterdam, for example, wrote (in 1508), “The most disadvantageous peace is better than the most just war.”

Now, however, key leaders in the Catholic Church have spoken against it. “Death Knell for Just War: The Vatican’s Historic Turn toward Nonviolence” is the title of John Dear’s article in the Autumn 2016 issue of Plough. (Click here to see that important article.)

(And if you are interested, see this link for an article I wrote last summer about Plough.)

Dear’s article was about the Vatican’s Nonviolence and Just Peace Conference held in April of last year. That seminal meeting issued a document titled “An Appeal to the Catholic Church to Recommit to the Centrality of Gospel Nonviolence.” That appeal included a call for the Church to no longer use or teach “just war theory.”

The Pope seems to have followed that guideline in his World Peace Day message.

My prayer is that all Christians, and others, will heed the recent Catholic call for movement from “just war” to “just peace” and will seek to sanction only nonviolence as the style of politics for peace.

10/10 in Japan: 1905 and Now

The opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics was on October 10, 1964. To commemorate that date, 10/10 was observed from 1966 to 1999 as a national holiday called Taiiku no Hi (Health and Sports Day in English).

(Since 2000, Sports Day has been celebrated yearly on the second Monday in October.)

A hundred and ten years ago, 10/10 was significant for another reason: The Treaty of Portsmouth, which was signed on September 5, 1905, was ratified by the Japanese Privy Council on October 10 (and in Russia four days later).

The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05 was fought between Russia, an international power with one of the largest armies in the world, and Japan, which had only recently emerged from 250 years of isolation. That war is unique in that the warring nations fought over, and only on, the territory of two neutral countries, China and Korea.

That conflict also saw history’s greatest battles between two nations in terms of numbers of troops and ships prior to World War I. (Http://portsmouthpeacetreaty.org/ is an excellent website about the War of 1904-05 and the peace treaty.)

President Theodore Roosevelt helped broker the Treaty of Portsmouth that ended the war—and he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts, the first American to win that prestigious prize.

But the Japanese public was greatly upset. As some historians explain the situation, Japan won the war but lost the peace. Or as James Bradley writes in his book The Imperial Cruise (2009), “For the second war in a row, Japan had won all the battles but afterward was shamed by White Christians” (p. 303).

(Ten years earlier Japan had defeated China in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95.)

Today, 110 years after the ratification of the Treaty of Portsmouth, is seems that there will not be a lot of peace/anti-war activity going on in Japan. But there were many such protests in August and September.

Last month Japan’s parliament passed a package of eleven bills, dubbed “Peace and Security Preservation Legislation,” allowing the Japanese military (now known as the Self-Defense Forces) to fight on foreign soil, something that has been banned in Japan since World War II.

The upper house of the Japanese parliament gave final approval to the controversial legislation on September 19, despite fierce attempts by opposition politicians to block the move.

Opinion polls show that the vast majority of Japanese are against the changes, and on a scale rarely seen in Japan, before the bills’ passage, tens of thousands of people took to the streets in almost daily rallies showing their strong opposition toward the bills.

August protest in front of Japan's Diet Building

Back in 1968 when I joined the faculty at Seinan Gakuin University, there were many student protests against the Vietnam War, against the upcoming (in 1970) renewal of the United States-Japan Security Treaty, and for the return of Okinawa to Japan.

In Aug. and Sept. this year, the protests on campus at Seinan Gakuin against the “security bills” before the Japanese Diet was mostly by faculty and staff and led by Dr. Ichiro Sudo, Dean of the Department of Theology.

Christians in Japan were among the loudest opponents of what are now enacted “security laws.” Most Christians have also been among the most vocal in opposing suggested changes to Article 9 of the Japanese constitution.

Article 9, in the new Constitution adopted in May 1947 and which Prime Minister Abe now seemingly wants to change, outlaws war as a means to settle international disputes.

As of 10/10/2015 many Japanese fear that Article 9 is headed for the dustbin.

The Significance of August 15

It goes without saying that for me, personally, today (August 15) is a very significant date, for this is my birthday. Little did I know, though, growing up as a boy in rural northwest Missouri that August 15 is one of the most significant dates in Japanese history and also an important date for the Roman Catholic Church.

In Japan, August 15 is usually referred to as shusenbi (“end of the war day”), although since 1982 it has been officially designated by the Japanese government as “the day for mourning of war dead and praying for peace.”

In the U.S. September 2, when the signing of the surrender document aboard the USS Missouri occurred, is considered V-J Day. But it was on August 15, 1945, that Emperor Hirohito announced on radio to the startled and grieving Japanese public that Japan had accepted the terms of surrender included in the Potsdam Declaration of July 26.

In classic understatement, the Emperor told the Japanese citizens, who were hearing his voice for the first time, “the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage.” (Even then, the Emperor’s speech was not a direct broadcast; it was replayed from a phonograph recording made in the Tokyo Imperial Palace a day or two before.)

For centuries before that fateful day in 1945, and long before it was made a Church dogma by Pope Pius XII in 1950, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary into Heaven had been celebrated on August 15. That is the event by which Mary “having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory” according to the Catholic Church, and it is still a “holy day of obligation.”  

Doubtlessly, it was by intention that Ignatius Loyola and his six friends in 1534 formed the Society of Jesus on August 15. Then, exactly fifteen years later, Francis Xavier, one of the seven original Jesuits and the first Christian missionary to Japan, first set foot in that country. 

In the book about Takashi Nagai that I mentioned earlier this month, author Paul Glynn tells about the 400th anniversary of that event being celebrated by Dr. Nagai and other Christians in Nagasaki on August 15, 1949. 

And in his book Bells of Nagasaki, Dr. Nagai tells of going to the dawn mass on August 15, just six days after the bombing, in celebration of the Feast of the Assumption (p. 77). 

On November 23, 1945, there was a memorial mass for the more than 8,000 Christians who were victims of the Nagasaki atomic bomb. Dr. Nagai gave an address to those who had gathered by the ruins of the Urakami Cathedral. 

In that notable speech, Dr. Nagai said, “On August 15th, the imperial edict that put an end to the fighting was officially issued, and the whole world saw the light of peace. August 15th is also the great feast of the Assumption of Mary. It is not for nothing that the Urakami Cathedral was consecrated to Her” (p. 107). 

(That Cathedral, which in 1945 was the largest church building in Asia, was called St. Mary’s Cathedral in English.) 

Last Sunday most Christians and many others all across Japan thought deeply about the tragic events that took place in Japan 70 years ago this month and about the end of the war on August 15. 

Let us join with them, and people all around the world, to remember that today is an appropriate day for mourning the war dead—in all countries—and praying for world peace.