christians

Doctrine of Last Things

 

Maybe the last time I don't know... _{Rolling Stones}

 

General Overview

Alhough popularly eschatology seems predominantly a study about end-time study, it actually is about "last things" as one can see from the term derived from the Greek word, eschata. As a biblical concept within mainly Protestant systematic theology, it refers to God's purpose being acted out in repeating terms, involving punishment and rewards, indictments and salvation, but, not always concerning the very end of time, or the world. It was not exactly purely linear, but it was not the endless cyclical process others postulated. Maybe stuff even on this scale gets recycled. If you follow along, maybe you can understand some of the "Christianese" bantered about, and not get lost.

All evangelicals basically agree on the following concepts regarding this doctrine. (The differences occur in the last one, the Second Coming -but about which all agree: Jesus will return-- and most written about, that will be discussed.)

Individual Eschatology

Death

This first example of how one might study a short-term 'end' is concerning death. As O.J. Simpson said in his interview with Howard Stern, "It Happens." "From dust to dust" as we might be familiar with refers to physical death, the end of material life. The Christian viewpoint from Scripture, (Gen. 3:19, Rom. 5:12, 6:23) points to the cause of becoming deceased is from Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden. (We will not discuss its twin, Taxes, however.) Also this is not the death of the soul, or spirit of man, as Jesus' story of Lazarus and the rich man, and their rewarded and tormented spirits lived on. The Rich man had, according to the tale, passed by poor old sick Lazarus on his way into the City, but, they both died, and since Lazarus made it to Paradise, and the Rich Man was in Hades, he asked him for just a drop of water but to quench his terrible thirst. (To break up the pedantry here, there is an amusing anecdote on this -a cake and eat it too theology- where the Sunday school teacher asks the little boy who he'd like to be. "The Rich Man, now, I'll be Lazarus after I die.") Also, He declared that the Father "was not God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him." The psalmist, David, also rhetorically asked, "If I make my bed in Sheol, thou art there!" (Sheol=Hell, Hades, the grave). Some scholars theorize that this concept is not brought up much in the Old Testament as to not have the Israelite seem associated with Canaanite cults of the dead. But, from the oldest book in the Bible, Job declares, "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God..."

Resurrection

In spite of the Old Testaments theme of national restoration, like Ezekiel's dry bones, (please, not to be confused with dem_bones©) "Thy dead shall live, their bodies shall rise," Daniel, reassures us, "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Note that Jesus, Who stated that He was the Resurrection, cited Daniel). Also in the Pentateuch, Korah hoped for that rescue, as well.

Of course, the New Testament clarifies that teaching, especially where Jesus had to remind the non-Resurrection believing Sadducees. Paul teaches that without the Resurrection, there would be no hope, no reason for faith. We learn in Revelation about the First Resurrection, that one will be for the righteous, and then, after the millennium, there will be the White Throne Judgment whereby God will judge all by their works. The late Princeton Professor J. Barton Payne describes John the Revelator's Book as

...without question as the most highly predictive book in the NT. Though less than two-fifths the size of Matthew, its 56 separate prophecies occupy 256 verses; and this out of a book whose total amounts to but 404. The proportion is over 63%; compare Matthew's slightly larger sum of 278 predictive verses, which however come out of a total of 1067 and amount to 26%. ...Daniel's 20 out of 58.

Of course, John cites Jesus as the author.

 

Eternal State

This idea that souls of men live on has been touched on in Death and Resurrection. And the two places for that inhabitation:

Heaven

The theologians distinguish three types:

1. Atmospheric
   The air we breathe, etc.
2. Celestial
   Like the name implies, where the astronomical bodies are. How many Hollywood stars are there is yet to be determined, although John Glenn, a political star was in space.
3. God's Dwelling
   "Our Father Who art in Heaven." We hope to join Him in His presence there, where He looks down, where Moses and Elijah went directly bypassing death. Paul hints of a future time when some live believers could be 'raptured' directly to their new spiritual bodies. Then there will be the New Jerusalem, the City Four Square, a place without tears, Crystal seas, and streets where gold will be only paving stones. (There's a joke about the guy who wanted to take his gold with him, and he found out it was practically worthless up there, like asphalt.)

Note: Roman Catholic theology includes a teaching on "Purgatory" where souls (if they have not committed damnable "mortal sins") can be cleansed first to move on to Heaven. At first Luther adopted the same, but his last policy abandoned this idea, and most all Protestants followed suit (must have been made out of asbestos.)

And, perhaps more unpopularly (unless one's in a Heavy Metal Band):

Hell

You don't even want to go there! After much of the Bible utilizing the Hebrew word, Sheol, to mean that pit where we lay, and the Greek term Hades, which implied some punishment, Jesus shed further light on that gloomy subject. He portrayed that place where that was darkness and "gnashing of teeth" (where's that dental brace for TMJ?) is likened to the Judean's continually burning trash pile called Gehenna. There is Tartarus holding demons chained until later. Finally, the Lake of Fire in Revelation does not conjure up visions of pleasantly soaking in a hot tub.

Global Eschatology

OT

The vindication of Jehovah is a recurrent theme in the Old Testament. Actually, the whole purpose of Creation and its redemption is for His glory. (It is written that he will not share His glory with any man.) Looking at OT examples starting with man's expulsion from Eden, then the known-world Flood, the dispersal of the single linguals at the Tower of Babel, fire raining down on Sodom and Gomorrah, the intervention against the various '-ites' resisting Joshua, and later champions of Israel, and even the several diasporas of the Israelites and Judeans, the Lord has enforced His will dramatically. The psalmist celebrates God's Kingship, and the Davidic Kingdom was supposed to represent that royalty. Later the prophets, like Jeremiah and Amos, because of human failings, reiterated the Divine Ruling Power, especially as relayed to us by Daniel. The warnings of "The Day of the Lord" carry over into the Church Age.

For detailed discussion related to this see ephealy's excellent essay, Rise of Apocalyptic Literature.

NT

"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things be fulfilled?" Some of the disciples asked Jesus. Judas thought there was going to be a kingdom, this zealot thought he was on the winning side in another Maccabean type overthrow of the Romans and their puppet. But, Jesus told first of the Kingdom of God that is within you, (His death freed our spirit). Since Jesus always shared the Glory of the Father, and we now can become one with Him, we can now share that Glory, too. When at the very end there is a New Heavens and a New Earth, Jesus hands all things over to the Father, and all things are finally together. However, he did tell us to pray "Thy Kingdom come" the time when Death is finally thrown in the Lake of Fire, all part of His role as judge since He is King of Kings, Lord of Lords. Which brings up another doctrine:

The Second Coming of Christ

The disciples second part of their question above gets to the query that interests most, "...and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" The word here "coming" in the Greek is parousia and it is used two dozen times in the New Testament. It denotes multiple activities associated with his glorious coming. Also, elsewhere, apokalypsis "bringing to light" describes it. Finally another word, epiphaneia is an appearing of deity in visible presence. This question was posed after visiting the great temple in Jerusalem, and prophesying that not one stone of that edifice would be standing on another. (They tore it apart going after the gold facing had melted into the seams, after the fire from the sacking by the Romans in 70 AD.) Most of the NT is looking hopeful to the final triumphant fulfillment of prophecy. It is the flip side of the coin that contains the warnings of inevitable persecution in it as well. The reality of the latter might have made their faith in the former actually stronger. As it has been said, "The blood of the marytrs watered the ground upon which Christianity grew."

The term living in the Last Days actually refers to this time we are in, but that was true for the first century as well. One might consider with two thousand years past by that we could be closer to the last days of the Last Days.

The discourse that follows in Matthew 24 basically follows harmoniously with Daniel's description, and foreshadows that which is in the book of Revelation. Lots of catastrophic geological, meteorological, political, and military troubles in history to come, but do not get fooled because just before He comes back (in the nick of time), it will be worse than it ever has ever before or since. Then, with an light display that cannot be ignored, He will come back at the Last Trumpet. His angels will gather the elect to Him. The question is when? That is where our divergence begins:

Amillennialism

The thousand years mentioned in Revelation is not taken literally be those who hold this position that Christ will return after a time when the Church age is finished. Hence, the millennium is an allegory, the same as this present 2000 year period of grace. Augustine of Hippo in the fourth century was its first major proponent, though he did not label it such, and this view that replaced the Church for the millennium, now thus symbolized, was happily accepted as official Roman Catholic position, when so many rebellions seemed to be coincidental to pre-millennialism. This view transferred to many into the Reformation. They believe there is a real Resurrection and Judgment just as it is written. A subset of this school is Progressive Parallelism, that last book of the Bible is segmented into parts fulfilled already in history, and then there will be the final victory of the Church over the world. Many proponents of this school were liberal theologians and adherents to the 'social gospel.' Preterism plays an important part in this doctrine. All prophecy has been fulfilled in history, already.

Most amillennialists, who do not believe in an imminent return, see it as a one-time affair.

Postmillenialism

The only difference between this view, which was very popular in the nineteenth century, and the one above, is that somewhere in all the Church's efforts to transform this world it will find itself in that thousand year period, may or maybe literally, then Christ will return. Many who held this view were part of the men (Warfield, Strong) who wrote for The Fundamentals around the turn of the 20th century. This kind of thinking influenced the Founding Fathers, Manifest Destiny, and could be called Dominion or Kingdom Now theology, as well. The Civil Wars and other conflicts at that time started cracks, World War I started breaking, and definitely after the Second there was a real bust on those first two millennial views.

Premillenialism

This puppy has a real mongrel pedigree, and folks get hot over this issue, yet, in reality has no bearing on saving faith. It has basically three angles on this teaching that Jesus will return before the literal thousand years' reign of Christ. They stress the rapture of the church, a word based on the Latin word translating 'catching away.' The term in early Church history was Chiliasm from the Greek word for a thousand, chilias. The Apostle Paul tells us that we will be changed in the "twinkling of an eye" (scientists have it measured to the nanosecond) Jesus will destroy the Antichrist at the Battle of Armageddon, imprison Satan, and he will establish his Kingdom. After the Thessalonian Church founded by Paul was severely hounded by their pagan neighbors, the Apostle had to comfort them in his First Letter that these were the kinds of things that preceded the Lord's Return and the catching away of the saints. When they received reports that Paul was gone, and things got tougher, they basically sat around on their hands bemoaning and waiting. Paul had to write his Second Letter to them explaining that terrible apostasy must come first, and a restraint will be taken away allowing the "Wicked" man of Satan will be revealed. After his supernatural display of authority he force worship of him, since he's replaced the Truthful One. This is reiterated in Daniel and Revelation. At the end of the thousand years, He will allow Satan to gather deceived people to siege the Kingdom, but, we know who wins at the end of the book. But in all this mess is the terminology, needed to make sense of all this, concerning the 7 year Tribulation (Gr. = thlipsis). The idea of a week of years is computed out of Daniel's calculations, some of which told 100% accurately the (first) return to Israel from the Babylonian Captivity by Persian King Cyrus. There is a seven week period during this Church Age, or Age of Grace that is in a state of suspended animation, if you will. Jesus, also said there would be Great Tribulation as never witnessed before, and the Book of Revelation has two back to back 3 and a half year timings. The increasingly difficult planet-wide events come on like 'birth-pangs' we are told. So, if one takes that part literally, there will be a Tribulation, (also abbreviated Trib) But the question is asked (concerning the Rapture in relation to this "Testing to come on all in the World") again, when?

Pretribulationism

This is the rage today, developed out of dispensationalism, it also was called the 'double pre-s.' It simply teaches that most of all those signs have been fulfilled (there have been more earthquakes lately, haven't there?), except for actually knowing who the Antichrist is, (but hey, he could be your next door neighbor) so therefore imminently -- at any time now the Lord will come back for his Church, and take them away, with new bodies, before the Devil indwelt man will wreak Hell on Earth. After 42 months of this, (and those 'left behind' Christians will have figured it out, and help evangelize) then the last three and a half years after the 4th seal are It has been especially espoused by Tim LaHaye in his book and movies of the Left Behind series. In the 70's, Christian Fundamentalist Hal Lindsey began the popularization of this dispensational theology. Dallas Theological Seminary and John F. Walvoord are the main modern teachers, and Jack Van Impe promotes it weekly via the Tube. Its roots go back to 'exclusivist' Plymouth Brethren, once a Church of Ireland curate, John Nelson Darby, who wrote profusely on the subject. C. I. Scofield made his famous annotated Bible, and it has grown steadily. However, this view has been criticized as not, as Darby and Scofield and others say, "rightly dividing the word," but we learn, as Princeton's Boettner states

The plan of salvation as set forth in the Bible is one organic whole, revealing a marvelous and profound unity. It cannot be split up into contradictory parts, much less into seven mutually exclusive dispensations.

The dispensations were the specific segmented periods of time where God dealt with man. They are:

1. The Age of Innocence
   Before the Fall. (You know the Eve, the Snake and the Apple story.)
2. http://www.deviantart.com/view/11716803/The Age of Conscience
   Adam to Noah.
3. Age of Human Government
   Flood to Abraham
4. The Age of Promise
   Abraham to Moses.
5. The Age of the Law
   Moses to Jesus Christ.
6. The Age of Grace
   Pentecost to the Rapture.
7. The Age of the Millennial Kingdom
   The thousand year reign of Christ.

Important to their view of this --is the separation of Israel from the Church (which can include previously religious {or secular} Jews with Gentiles). They were and are strong supporters of the Zionist movement, and indeed Israel's nationhood in 1948 was and is seen as prophecy come true. (And the two other wars won seemingly miraculously by the tiny country against outnumbering Arab neighbors are cited.) Anytime situations flare up in the Middle East, oil crises included with invasions, since Iraq (Babylon), Syria (Assyria), Egypt, Jordon (Moab) as well as others are all ancient nemeses --these always make the "Prophecy in the News" highlights of their media. Unfortunately, because much of what they see is perhaps relevant, they become overly dogmatic with other interpretations, causing for as many numbers attracted to their excitement, to have like amount to be turned off. They like to take some imagery and put it to modern use, like Revelation's stinging locusts --of course! they are helicopters. And if the sky is rolled up like a scroll --that is an atomic blast. We used to be worried about the National ID card, but smart chips are being made right now that could be implanted on your forehead or hand. (All bar-code SKU's have binary 666, you know.) They seem to forget that there may be a supernatural cause, and the colorful visions are the best that poor old first century John at Patmos could do for them or us. But, I think we get the picture of how bad things are foretold.

Another crucial part of this mindset is the Revived Roman Empire. Indeed, Daniel prophesied, dreaming a multimedia symbolic statue that represented the Persians overtaking the Babylonians (he lived to see that one), they, in turn, would be conquered by the Greeks (and he foresaw their porky pig defiling the rebuilt Temple), and then the Romans would take over the world. Here's the key: the Iberian part of the figure had ten toes. Revelation has the Beast with ten horns, that wind up finally the one horn or the Man of Sin. There is where the Europeans get dragged into this dispensational scenario, they could be the descendants geographically/politically of the Romans.

 

There is the additional efforts made to identify the Antichrist as well. Reagan?, Gorbachev?, King Carlos?, or some crazy in the east, in the old days they picked on religious leaders they differed with. I think LaHaye thinks it's someone like Boris Badanov, the way the voice-over sounds on the tapes.

The problem of more than two Resurrections, with the secret Rapture (until people notice many missing) is overcome with the argument that their were three different Greek words used for Jesus' Return (remember discussion above in "Second Coming.")

Also Partial Rapture must be mentioned. It is where only the "spiritual" Christians will be raptured

 

Midtribulationism

They actually believe the Tribulation does not start until the middle of the seven years, so this is a matter of semantics. However, Marv Rosenthal promotes cogently, in my opinion, the case that since it is written, "we are not appointed to suffer Wrath" believers will be carted away before the Last Trumpet (Revelation mentions seven heavenly horn blasts.) The first 3.5 years under the Beast, called by Jesus "the beginning of sorrows" entailing persecuting Jews and Christians (Rev. 12) will be a severe Test, but not a Judgment, but when those bowls are poured out, it is going to get messy! This Messianic Jew used to follow the pretrib position, but felt the chinks in its armor were too big, and developed this theory.

Posttribulationism

This is the teaching that makes one wince. We all will be here for all of the horror. Somehow the promise to the Church in Philadelphia (Yo, no, not the PA one) to keep them from the Hour of Testing coming on all the world will be something different than the Rapture -- as the proof-text for the pretribbers. The case for this is made on the radio daily by "The Prophecy Club." R.G. Stair, a very independent Pentecostal, who minces no words speaks strongly to those "still living in the cities." He warned David Wilkerson (The Cross and the Switchblade author)to leave New York City, who, also holds to this view (at last hearing.) Brother Stair has a community in Walterboro, South Carolina, growing their own food, waiting for the end.

One writer, (a contributor to the cult busting Christian Research Institute founded by Walter R. Martin) who has debunked much of the neo-apocalyptic craze is William M. Alnor. In his book Soothsayers of the Second Advent he exposes the date-setting, naming games (besides Gorby, even Jimmy Carter with his Mid-East Peace Plan made him a--as Alnor calls it -- "pin-tail-on-the-donkey" victim) and more associated with especially doomsday scenarios. Many of the books mentioned below, like Grant Jeffrey's Armageddon (6000 years are up, so the Lord's coming back in 2000) are rightly ridiculed for their (hindsight's 20-20!) proven error un-Christian approach to this subject. In 1987 and 1988 many, were predicting that year as the one for the sudden rapture. Harold Camping, who always makes it clear that anyone who does not agree with him has "another gospel" went against type, and dogmatically declared 1994 as the year. What's the answer when as that writer observed it, "egg on their faces"? The Almighty must have changed His mind. Update:  Camping predicted the end of the world in May 21st, 2012, and when that passed by without even a whimper, he reset the date for October later in the year, and that, too, was incorrect.

---

I wanted to add a paragraph concerning the movies that have been made concerning an eschatological theme. Ingmar Bergmann had The Seventh Seal in the sixties, and it was remade a couple of decades later with Demi Moore. Earlier than that was Gregory Peck in The Omen, and DJ The Greaseman had great fun making radio parody with the demonic kid, Damien. Arnold Schwartnegger had an End of Days, and TBN heir Mat Crouch produced, as a Christian film, not too long ago a more "Hollywood" type release, Omega Code which made use of the recently written about "Bible Codes." Texas Pastor Hagee and Canadian prophecy author LaLonde have made several of these Pretrib vehicles. Most of these apocalyptic movies go quickly to videotape. (Vangelis made a record album in the early seventies, 666, which had a strong rockin' song on the Four Horsemen.

Update, 2010:  Since this writeup there have been other movies with Apocalypse in their name.  The end as predicted by the Mayan Calendar in 2012 has prompted written and video material.  Harold Camping, mentioned elsewhere, wrongly predicted the end a couple of years ago, but now admits his math was wrong.  (There are approximately 6700 years in the Hebrew Calendar, and since 6 days to create, a day is like a thousand years, he did the arithmetic and we'll all be finit on May 21, 2011.

Now, we can pick our favorite theme song, either Skeeter Davis' "(Don't Say No) It's the End of the World," or if you like rock better than country, there is Elvis Costello's "Waiting for the End of the World." (My fave is "When the Roll is Called Up Yonder {I'll Be There}")

---

Sources and Bibliography (From my personal library):

Loraine Boettner, The Millennium; Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1957.
Robert Lightner, Last Days Handbook; Thomas Nelson, 1997.
Marvin Rosenthal, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church; Nelson, 1990.
J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy; Baker, 1980.
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology ed. Walter A. Elwell; Baker, 1990.
Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology; Moody, 1989.
New Dictionary of Theology eds. S.B. Ferguson, D.F. Wright, J.I. Packer; InterVarsity, 1988.
Pat Robertson, The New World Order: It Will Change the Way You Live; Word, 1991.
I.D.E. Thomas, The Omega Conspiracy: Satan's Last Assault On God's Kingdom; Hearthstone Publishing, 1986.
Robert Van Kampen, The Sign; Crossway Books, 1992.
Stephen D. Swilhart, Armageddon 198?: God's Plan for the End Times; Logos, 1980.
Harold Camping, 1994?; Vantage Press, 1992.
Grant R. Jeffrey, Armageddon: Appointment With Destiny; Bantam, 1990.
Grant R. Jeffrey, Heaven: The Last Frontier; Frontier Research Publications, 1990.
Grant R. Jeffrey, Surveillance Society: The Rise of Antichrist; Frontier Research Publications, 2000.
John E. and F. Walvoord, Armageddon, Oil, and the Middle East Crisis; Zondervan, 1980.
E.G. White, Will America Survive? (Originally, The Great Controversy pub. 1888); Inspiration Books, 1988.
Robert W. Faid, Gorbachev: Has the Real Antichrist Come?; Victory House Publishers, 1988.
Jack Van Impe, Revelation Revealed: Verse by Verse; JVI, 1982, (rev. 1992.)
John Hagee, Beginning of the End: The Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and the Coming Antichrist; Nelson, 1996.
William M. Alnor, Soothsayers of the Second Advent; Revelle, 1989.
N.W. Hutchings, The Persian Gulf Crisis: And The final Fall of Babylon, Hearthstone (div. of SW Radio Church), 1990.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/24009/false-prophet-harold-camping-sets-another-date-for-rapture-may-21-2011

 

If this makes you uncomfortable, then maybe should be asking yourself that question Dirty Harry asked, "Do you feel lucky today? Well, do you punk?"

Nazis' Christian Martyr

His Life

Beginnings

On the fourth of February, 6 years after the turn of the 19th to the 20th century the birth of twins thrilled the new parents, the Bonhoeffers, in Breslau, Germany. The established neurologist's family had added a daughter and a son, the latter they named Dietrich, and the former, Sabine. Eventually he would have eight siblings. After some schooling in Tubingen, Dietrich attended for three years the University of Berlin starting in 1924, and finally after his dissertation, Sanctorm Communio the twenty-one year old earned his Doctorate -- with honors. He went to Barcelona in 1929 for year as curator and Student pastor for the German congregation in Spain. His travels in Europe included a Roman adventure, as well. He was accepted to teach at this the University of Berlin in 1930 after finishing his qualifying thesis (Habilitationsschrift) "Act and Being."

Halcyon School Days

The August of 1930 started a year when he did postgraduate work at Union Theological Seminary in New York until he returned to his post lecturing theology at his alma mater in 1931. While in New York he did regular work at the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem. He also traveled to Mexico and Cuba. In his day, Bonhoeffer, despite his youth, could more than ably communicate the intricacies and sophisticated ideas out of a German and English theology.

Church Position

Dietrich became Pastor Bonhoeffer in an ordination at Saint Matthias Church in Berlin on November of 1931. The same year he attended the World Alliance for Promoting International Friendship Through the Churches -- which opened more his awareness of the global faith that he started abroad. For that group he was named Youth Secretary for Germany and Central Europe. He started his evangelical movement around this time that strove to deal with correct doctrine for the Church. Nazi propaganda claiming that they were bringing moral and spiritual renewal to Germany (and ultimately Europe and beyond) did not penetrate Dietrich Bonhoeffer's true discernment of this movement as it did for so much of the world's Christians having "itching ears." Bonhoeffer published his winter semester of 31-32 lectures "Creation and Fall." Events of 1933, namely the election by one vote of Adolf Hitler chancellor of Germany, prompted his continued criticism of National Socialisms' Aryanism and its hatred of everything else, especially the Jews. He belonged to a group that openly rebutted the pro-Nazi German Christians. By April he wrote that civil disobedience was correct when opposing unrighteous political movements. His last seminar on G.W.F. Hegel and published lecture in Berlin "Christ the Center," an example of his emphasis on Christology, was in that summer of 1933. Before he began to pastor at the Sydenham German Evangelical Church he helped organize the Pastor's Emergency League in September 1933. This year he started to question Christians' avoiding sin when obsessed with questionable politics. He authored the Bethel Confession His belief in the planetwide brotherhood of the Body of Christ needed forgiveness and responsibility. He, as a result of his life, is most noted on this other focus -- ethics. He befriended the prominent George Bell, Bishop in the Anglican Church while Dietrich assumed a pastorate at London's Reform Church of Saint Paul. In 1934 he became a member of Bishop Bell's Universal Christian Council for Life and Work (UCCLW).

Storm Clouds on the Horizon

More auspices of that year, 1933 proved evil -- by April Hitler's first official act was to order a day's boycott of Jewish businesses. Factories and stores witnessed the pickets; but, Julie Bonhoeffer, Dietrich's brave grandmother marched right passed the SS stormtroopers, and bought strawberries in one of the Jewish department stores. An American visitor of the Bonhoeffer's witnessed: "They didn't dare take this elderly woman. She was very alert and walked elegantly. So nobody was going to stop her!" The next step was the removal and banning of Jews in public office and even church posts, Christian or not. Even though at this time until 1935, Bonhoeffer was still a pastor in England, he kept in touch with the opposition, who would become the "Confessing Church" (Bekennende Kirche) which included Karl Barth and was led by Martin Niemoeller. This "Confessing Church" would involve about a third of Germany's Protestant leaders. Also, theologically, Barth's neo-Orthodoxy would influence Bonhoeffer throughout his career.

The Confessing Church

As a member of the UCCLW he toured Europe and tried to put those of the ecumenical movement on a much needed "guilt trip" in behalf of the beleaguered Confessing Church being maybe the only ones with orthodoxy and pacifism. The Confessing Church was born in Barmen, Germany in May 1934. The Barmen Declaration of 1934 officially made complaint against the incursion of Nazism in the German Church. August of 1934 Bonhoeffer preached a dynamic message convincing attendees to denounce the Church - State affiliation with Fascism and promote peace at the youth conference in Fano, Denmark. Because the Nazis took over all of the theological seminaries, in April of 1935 Zingst, on the Baltic sea, became the new home for the underground Preacher's Seminary for the Confessing Church until June when Finkenwalde, Pomerania provided the haven. It was here that the confessing community was emphasized in his teaching. This coincides with the time Bonhoeffer returned to Germany in the spring from Great Britain. This group eventually seemed to Dietrich to lean to much in an overly apolitical, more militant, and especially with an overabundance of a neutral outlook toward the Semitic persecutions. But, he stayed involved with them to 1939. Inspired by these heady days he wrote "Spiritual Care" and other Pastoral ministry pieces, and his two most famous books: The Cost of Discipleship (1937) and Life Together (1938). On August 5, 1936 the professor was no longer welcome to teach at the University of Berlin.

Deeper Underground

The Gestapo raided Finkenwald Seminary in 1937 arresting 27. Now, Bonhoeffer devised "collective pastorates" where those learning the ministry hooked up with individual underground pastors and he met with them for classes. He was rethinking his Gandhi-like pacifism seeing patriotism in treason. In February of the next year Bonhoeffer was introduced to the resistance circle by his brother-in-law, Hans von Dohnanyl. This conspiracy of political and military overthrow of Hitler and the Nazi regime was aborted with the Munich agreement. Around this time he wrote his Ethics whereby he declared: "There is now no law behind which the responsible man can seek cover." He expected believers to serve Jesus Christ with moral responsibility guided by obedience to His ways even to the point of civil legal disregard. On the second of June 1939, Bonhoeffer went back to New York's Union Theological Seminary to teach; but the threats of war only caused this man with a great heart from God for his people, to return to Germany and the resistance on July 27th of that year. His prophetic rationale:

I have had time to think and to pray about my situation, and that of my nation, and to have God's will for me clarified. I have come to the conclusion I have made a mistake in coming to America. I shall have no right to participate in the reconstruction of the Christian life in Germany after the war if I did not share in the trials of this time with my people. Christians in Germany face the terrible alternative of willing the defeat of their nation in order that civilization may survive, or willing the victory of their nation and thereby destroying civilization. I know which of these alternatives I must choose. But I cannot make that choice in security.

The Nazis Clamp Down

1940 came offering more misery to Bonhoeffer's ministry when the police put a gag order on his preaching, but Dohnanyl arranged to get Dietrich a job with the staff of the Abwehr (military intelligence) department. He could have gathered crucial data and used this courier position and his fame, especially considering his outreach across denominational lines, to garner outside resistance assistance in foreign journeys. Unfortunately the Main Security office was run by the SS and they busted the Abwehr -- they thought was unnecessary competition. By March of 1941 Bonhoeffer was not allowed to write, publish or distribute anything.

In 1943 the 37 year old Dietrich, who in January just had become engaged to Maria von Wedemeyer, became involved in Operation 7, which was the smuggling of Jews out of Germany into neutral Switzerland. On April 5 of that year, Bonhoeffer continued his ministry -- in Berlin's Tegel prison -- joining Dohnanyi and sister Christine, where inmates and guards as witnesses told of his giving counsel and soul nourishment. He was still allowed to see family and comrades, and to write. How much this paralleled the Apostle Paul. We have the opportunity to glimpse into his intermittent experiences with correspondence including love letters from his fiance. One would think that all this disappointment would have embittered the pastor, who could have felt like the Hebrew Joseph, instead he reminded:

We in the resistance have learned to see the great events of world history from below, from the perspective of the excluded, the ill treated, the powerless, the oppressed and despised .... so that personal suffering has become a more useful key for understanding the world than personal happiness.

On July 20, 1944 a suitcase bomb placed under the conference table by conspirators, including some of the Abwehr group, exploded, but failed to kill Hitler. Initially Bonhoeffer, who was moved on February 7, 1945 to Buchenwald Concentration Camp, was not tied to them, but the Gestapo found Admiral Canaris' diary in April that evidenced his connection, and now, along with others, were sent to Flossenburg. Exactly two years after his first arrest, he was ordered to be annihilated by Hitler. On the same day that his brother-in-law was killed at Sachsenhausen Camp, April 9, 1945, at Flossenburg, a stripped naked Bonhoeffer, only thirty-nine years of age, knelt for his last prayer before being hanged from a gallows that could be called a "Twisted Cross."

---

Writings

• (Poem from Prison--published in 1946)

Who Am I?

Who am I? They often tell me
I stepped from my cell's confinement
Calmly, cheerfully, firmly,
Like a squire from his country-house.

Who am I? They often tell me
I used to speak to my warders
Freely and friendly and clearly,
As though it were mine to command.

Who am I? They also tell me
I bore the days of misfortune
Equally, smilingly, proudly,
Like one accustomed to win.

Am I then really all that which
other men tell of?
Or am I only what I myself know of myself?
Restless and longing and sick, like
a bird in a cage,
Struggling for breath, as though
hands were
compressing my throat,
Yearning for colors, for flowers, for
the voices of birds,
Thirsting for words of kindness, for
neighborliness,
Tossing in expectation of great
events,
Powerlessly trembling for friends at
an infinite distance,
Weary and empty at praying, at
thinking, at making,
Faint, and ready to say farewell to
it all?

Who am I? This or the other?
Am I one person today and
tomorrow another?
Am I both at once? A hypocrite
before others,
And before myself a contemptibly
woebegone weakling?
Or is something within me still like
a beaten army,
Fleeing in disorder from victory
already achieved?

Who am I? They mock me, these
lonely questions of mine.
Whoever I am, Thou knowest, O
God, I am Thine!

---

(1943-45) Letters and Papers from Prison -- last years writings of his life were compiled and published posthumously in 1951 by associate Eberhard Bethage. These were the primary post-war source of initiating his Western popularity.

(1943-45) Love Letters from Cell 92 -- are the published letters of fiance, Maria von Wedermeyer.

His Scholarly Work (bypassed by contemporaries)

• (1930)Sanctorum Communio
• (1931) Act and Being
• (1933) Creation and Fall

His Tracts (were more popular in his lifetime)

(1937) The Cost of Discipleship
This is where he discusses 'costly grace' versus 'cheap grace.'

(1939) Life Together
He emphasizes balance in the communities Christian discipline.

(1939) Ethics -- published in 1949

Collected Works -- the comprehensive compilation whose 1958-1974 German publication is yet to be completely translated into English.

---

Theological Contributions

Some of his theological assertions concerning man's independence, even from God, which were taken more liberally in the 60's. These perhaps misunderstood ideas like "Religion-less Christianity" unfortunately were not more elaborated upon more fully due to the premature death of this great Christian.

The intellectual community is aware of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's ethical musings, but they stem from an intense Biblical perspective scanned here:

• Separation of the Church from the World
  

  Whether a pacifist or resistance sympathizer, Bonhoeffer was consistent with his strong feeling of the Churches not conforming to the popular worldview, but following the Mind of Christ.

• Costly Grace versus Cheap Grace



He was fighting the good fight against what is called, also, Easy Believism, that is taking advantage of God's ultimate forgiveness on the cross. Sometimes known as pietism, or an holiness movement was an answer to the problem of Calvinism's teaching in layman's terms: "One Saved, always Saved." The cavalier attitude that leads to willful sinning is the opposite of what that unearned, undeserved sacrifice in our stead giving us freedom and power to live sanctified lives.

Religion-less Christianity

• He saw in history a drifting since the 1200's regarding man's relationship, individually and corporately as becoming a set of rituals, rules and philosophies "winning" recruits that run into escapism -- the very opposite of participating and or relieving suffering fellowmen.

Jesus the Man for others

He wants us to follow the template set down by Jesus himself, one interactive in people's lives in the good times and bad.

The Church for Others

Contrary to some modern interpreters, Bonhoeffer did not want to completely secularize the institution, but he continued to promote the ordinances, fellowship and the worship with the congregants. The separation from the cosmos (Plato's world system) was while we are in the midst of mankind, striving to reeducate modern error of total (or even partial) independence from the Almighty and His Word.

Besides the works of fiction, of which we are eagerly awaiting translation, Bonhoeffer was a musician; and it would have been interesting to know what else this giant of a man would have done if he hadn't demonstrated so dramatically (and literally) that there is "...no greater love than when a man lays down his life for others..."

Source: Great Leaders of the Christian Faith, Moody Press
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology; ed. Walter A. Elwell, Baker: (1984).
The Moody Handbook of Theology; Paul Enns, Moody Press: (1989).
Gospel.com

I was a committed nineteen-year-old. Committed to God, my church, my education, and my future. I was determined to save my first sexual experience for my wedding night. This was never a problem, it was just a given based on my beliefs. I'd never considered it any other way.

I'd heard the horror stories about pregnancy and disease, but those never fazed me. I knew my taste and perhaps overestimated my judgment, and figured I'd never choose a guy who wasn't a best friend first. The truly scary tales were the less dramatic ones. Like the hours I spent one night at a girlfriend's while she poured her heart out about the way he treated her afterwards, like she was a slut, like she didn't exist, like he was better than her. She told me about that empty hole it left in her heart when she realized she'd given away a part of her she could never get back, or give to anyone else. She felt tainted, used, incomplete, worthless. I was scared to death of knowing that feeling first hand.

All of us remember that girl from high school with the "reputation". No one ever bothered to find out why she acted the way she did, or how it made her feel. Just talked about her. I knew that feeling all too well. I developed before most of the other girls. They got jealous and I got a reputation. It faded after a few years, once people grew up a little and everyone knew it wasn't true anyway. But I could always sympathize with "that girl" as a result.

I knew about the promise that the sexually immoral would never see the Kingdom of Heaven (I Corinthians 6:9). That scripture always struck a little fear in my heart - just enough to motivate me to wait for marriage.

That's when he came into my life. I knew I was going to marry him. Our relationship started very pure, so innocent. I don't remember whose fault it was. It really doesn't matter now. We were sort of engaged. Everyone knew we'd get married, and so did we. Marriage was our intention. He was perfect; he still is as far as I'm concerned. He was so strong, so able to resist the temptation. We hadn't even kissed.

That's when it happened. We got too comfortable. We slipped. Our first kiss. Then, just three weeks later, I gave him my virginity. Suddenly, I knew that feeling, that fear.

He stuck by me. He planned to marry me before, and this didn't change his intentions. I respected him more for that. I still felt like someone, or something, had just ripped away the most precious part of me. I loved him and he was there for me, but I still felt empty. I knew better, but did it anyway. I spent several nights crying myself to sleep. Nineteen years I'd waited. Why? Why couldn't I have waited just one more? For nineteen years I said no to several guys. Why couldn't I say no this time? I didn't understand what went wrong. I still don't.

I became more emotional, a little more depressed. He had to fight a little harder to keep me around. People with depression tend to run away from anything and anyone that may cause pain. I got so scared he'd change his mind. I was even more scared at the idea of having to tell another guy somewhere down the road that he wasn't the first.

It affected every aspect of my life. I distanced myself from everyone else. I didn't want anyone to know. I distanced myself from God. I didn't know how He could forgive my hypocrisy considering how dedicated I'd been to promoting physically pure relationships.

Our relationship changed. We no longer spent nights on the phone talking till two or three o'clock in the morning. He stopped sending me cute little e-mail messages at school. Our communication stopped. I guess we figured there was nothing else to learn. We never started fighting, but there seemed to be a greater distance between us. I felt like I didn't know him anymore. I cried a lot, he hated that. I pulled away, and he thought I didn't want to be with him anymore. They weren't fights, but very emotional. We both shed a lot of tears over our regret and the emptiness it brought into our relationship.

We officially got engaged nine months after our first time together. We committed to keep our hands to ourselves from that point until the wedding night. We knew we'd have a lot people to answer to during our pre-marital counseling. We couldn't change what we'd already done, we knew being held accountable for our actions would help us stick to our decision.

During our short seven-month engagement, we started talking again. It was a stressful time, so things were still tense, but in the midst of that stress I fell in love again. I know it was because we were spending more time talking and just being together. We were no longer in a hurry to get back to my place. We could take our time at dinner again. There was nothing but some dirty dishes and laundry to go home to. A weight had been lifted. The desire was still there, but there was more satisfaction in the thought of how rewarding our wedding night would be if we waited. I don't why we couldn't think of that before. But once "the prize" became the focus and not "the moment" waiting got easier, and we got closer.

We’ve been married for a while now, and I don’t regret marrying him one bit. I do, however, regret that someday I will have to tell my children we didn’t wait, that I will always know I betrayed God, myself and him, that I stayed in our dating relationship because I felt like I didn’t have any other choice. Don’t get me wrong, I married him because I am desperately in love with him and because I know he was the only one for me, but until we got engaged and stopped having sex I’d lost sight of those things. I went through a season where I felt like no one else would ever want me, like I had nothing else to offer. I felt tainted, used, incomplete, worthless. He tried so hard to be there for me, to put me first and to understand. He was wonderful, but I never felt like he tried hard enough.

Things would have been so much easier had we waited. We would’ve remained connected instead of going back and forth. Having sex before we got married prolonged my depression. He was such an encouragement to me that had we waited, I may never have dealt with another depressive episode again. Now, I’ll never know and I’ll continue to deal with an occasional episode probably for the rest of my life. Luckily for me, they are manageable. I will pay the consequences of my actions until the day I die. It crosses my mind every time we make love now, and I’m sure it will do the same every time I look at my children. Every time I try to teach them the importance of chastity, it will hang over my head. Things would have been so much easier had we waited.

---

What I learned from this? First of all, God will take what the devil has meant for evil and turn it around for His good. I know we wouldn't be the people we are, or have the relationship we have had things been done in the right order. The end NEVER justifies the means, but sometimes God uses our lives to foreshadow things to come. We can't always see His plan until the story ends, then all the pieces fall into place.

Sex outside of marriage, even if he/she is "the one"? Well, if he/she is “the one”, aren’t they worth more than a cheap roll in the hay? Aren’t they worth waiting for? After all, that pain, those empty feelings, that fear that comes with wondering what will happen next, is very, very real. Until that relationship is secured within a marriage, that fear does not go away. Before marriage, there is just no way to tell what will happen. There is no security in sex, only in commitment displayed by the bonds of marriage.

My first item is a direct response to Robby's (my pro pre-marital sex pal) charge that being against pre-marital sex is "Christian fundamentalist bullshit". Robby's argument first says that if you think the Bible is against it, you are "100% incorrect", because he says the idea of marriage didn't exist at the time of it's writing. First off, any claim of what was a current idea "when the Bible was written" is problematic. The Hebrew Bible alone was written over hundreds of years, and the New Testament was written in a completely different setting- the "Pax Romana".

Next, the ideas of marriage and divorce are very old in Jewish (and most of human) society, Mosaic law allows divorce- an idea that cannot exist without marriage. Now, it is true that at the time of Christ's birth, one way of marrying a woman in some Jewish societies could be the act of sex (so, I guess it would be technically pre-marital). But, even this was carefully controlled, because a mezner (a child of suspect parentage) in the pre-Diasporic days was any child where even the father was suspect (most people are familiar with how now, "Jewishness" for lack of a better term is passed through the mother). So, even in this case marriage was a known public contract.

Now, in order to tackle the very concept that pre-marital sex is OK I am left to defend the very idea of marriage. Now, I'll agree that in the purely civic sense marriage lacks intrinsic value. However, there is good reason to go through this commitment in public. It shows that both parties are mature enough to be public in there commitment (even though this means little now, when movie stars have million dollar weddings for a three-week marriage). Now, in the Christian sense (correct me if I'm wrong, this is what I learned in church) marriage is the only sacrament that is never performed by the priest/minister/reverend/etc. himself, but by the actual couple being married. So, Robby, you are quite right in saying that marriage is in "God's eye". Now, I see no reason (except in extreme situations, stranded on a desert isle mayhaps?) not to go through the actual public ceremony of matrimony. To say that you're married in "God's eye" just because you were feeling particuarly horny is a terrible mistake. You have not displayed the willingness for commitment inherent in a true marriage.

Now, I must get down to the reasons why pre-marital sex itself is wrong. Now, I won't go into the medical reasons, the pregnancies, and all that. Anyone my age has been so bombarded with such information that repeating it would not accomplish much.

In his address "The Inner Ring", C.S. Lewis said that in a promiscuous society (like our own) the virgin would be left out of that Inner Ring of knowledge, and many would have sex just to enter within that Inner Ring. Now, this is a base motive (and don't even pretend it doesn't affect so-called "nonconformists") and shouldn't enter into our considerations. We deny a little piece of our humanity when we react on pure social motives.

What is a plausible non-moralist motive for abstaining 'till marriage?

Poetry.

The whole of modern life is trying take the beauty, mystery, and specialness out of every act, and to cheapen and degrade it. We have cheapened beauty by believing it lies in the display of flesh. We have cheapened religion in believing it lies in souless "Meet Me at the Flag" meetings (many otherwise good Christians are sucked into this empty FCA and Youth Meeting variant of Christianity). We have cheapened art by believing it's purpose is to shock. We cheapen our very selves by believing ourselves unaccountable for our actions.

And we have cheapened both marriage and sex by seperating the two.

The much repeated statistic of a 50% divorce rate is due in large part to a fundamental misunderstanding- sex is not condition for marriage, but marriage a condition for sex. Sex should be nothing less than the closest intimate contact possible between two members of this race who have made a commitment to love and cherish each other.

Society has lowered it to a mere recreational activity! Something as poetic, nay, as sacred as sex has been lowered to a mere pleasurable activity between two people who may or may not have been dating for a while. The idea of "making out" has already cheapened the kiss as a show of affection- so now we are very close to laying sex out on the table as a nothing.

The very fact that this slightly bothers even people who are involved in the cheapening of everything else shows that there is still hope here. But any amount of "abstinence education" will not turn back the tide. We must once more restore meaning to sex.

One last question, have you seen "A Clockwork Orange"? I would not be suprised if sex will soon become the "old in-out in-out" which you don't have time for if you've just come to read the meter.

The Summer of Law
The Power of the People to be Protected from Same

Singing: Power to the People, Power to the People, Right on!----John Lennon

 

Opening Remarks

Where should one start in discussing this most famous convention that resulted in one of the longest surviving republican democratic constitution in the world (two centuries plus)? (First kudos go to the Swiss by many years.) The Constitution of the United States of America became a model for the rest of the global community. I must add it is more complicated than one can fully explain in this venue. For understanding the cause for the assembling of some of the greatest political minds the newly Confederated United States of America produced for that steamy Philadelphia summer of 1787 one should go back further in time.

Background History

Always Something There to Remind Me

Every student in democratic societies have been taught about the roots of the peoples' speaking and voting on issues in classical Greece and Rome. They are also aware of the mob using that tool to actually bring leadership over them that turns despotic. This is the case now; and it was the same for the 18th century English-speaking scholars. They had a tradition where they enjoyed the fruits of legal liberties contracted in writing, starting with the Magna Carta of 1215. Of course early Renaissance Venice was a Republic, and eventually England became a Constitutional Monarchy, answering to Parliament. But the Reformation and the Civil War and Cromwell had additional effects on people's views of managing their destiny, as Kenneth Scott Latourette aptly put it:

When carried to its logical conclusion, Protestantism made for democracy. Its basic principles, salvation by faith and the priesthood of all believers, issued in governments in which each citizen had a voice and possessed rights and responsibilities equal with those of all his fellows. The majority of Protestants did not go as far as this. Most Lutheran states were monarchies. The Reformed Churches moved further towards democracy. Calvin disliked monarchies, but held that if God ordains governments we must obey them. He was not an egalitarian or a leveler. He taught liberty and fraternity but not equality. he shrunk from revolution and desired an elective aristocracy. Yet under his leadership Geneva became a firmly established republic. The organization of the Reformed Churches had in it much of democracy. That was especially true of the Presbyterians. Still more democratic were the "gathered" churches, including the independents, the Baptists, and the Quakers. The seventeenth century struggle in England in which Puritanism and the Independents were prominent and even more radical groups had a voice, contributed immeasurably to the democratic trend in the government of that country.¹

 

But perhaps more importantly, the writings of John Locke, Edmund Burke, John Stuart Mill and Montesquieu, foundations of 'classical liberalism' (albeit Mill's was Utilitarian) became a catalytic base for more demands for liberty. When these ideas combined with the independent and industrious spirit of the Puritans, Presbyterians, Quakers and Baptists and was tempered with Enlightenment and Arminian values, along with the economic theories of Scotsman Adam Smith adding to this collage --the American Colonists were being prepared for something bigger on the horizon.

Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child

The interruption of strong direct political involvement during the Cromwell years allowed the colonial congresses to assume increasing local control, and it was not until the end of the French and Indian Wars or Seven Year's War that the reigning in of the prosperous and growing American Colonies needed tightening. The baker's dozen semi-sovereign entities had grown from a population of around quarter of a million souls in 1700 to approximately two million sixty years later.

Bad boys, Bad boys, What You Gonna do when They Come for You.

There was a growing conflict between the commercial protectionism of Britain and the increasing variety of productivity developed by predominantly non-aristocratic classed entrepreneurs. Note the Parliament's commercially minded bills like the Iron Act, (of which Franklin wrote "A wise and good mother will not do it.") the Sugar Act, and the Stamp Act as means to that end. The latter was needed to pay the bill for the Seven Year's War. But we can look at this from the view of seeing the results of 'spoiling' the kid as seen by Lawrence Henry Gipson's look at the 18th Century Great Britain:

As tokens of their common sense of security and freedom from fear, the inhabitants of the Empire in 1763 could point to the fact that they were protected not only by a victorious army but, what was of greater assurance, by the most powerful fleet that had ever sailed the seas. Their merchant marine was also vastly larger than that of any other nation, and in its bottoms they exported to foreign ports a greater surplus of cereals and meat products than was exported by all the rest of the world combined, obtaining in return a bewildering variety of commodities to add to the satisfaction of life. ...King George III's subjects enjoyed an enviable standard of living: they were, by and large, better fed, better clothed, better sheltered, better rewarded for their efforts, than any other people with the possible exception of the Dutch. This was particularly true of those freemen dwelling in the American colonies. {emphasis mine}²

 

I May be Wrong but I May be Right

Much has been written about the almost schizophrenic mindset incongruously held by Americans. Psychoanalyzing the variety of Christians: we note the Puritans, who abhorred scholasticism, yet established Harvard and Yale; and Quakers who avoided the pretense of gathering luxury, yet filled estate homes with fine furnishings; the Presbyterians too, saw Providence in action, yet elevated reason above superstition; and in the south, there were those who decried the Mother country's restrictions while they kept slaves. These wild and wide variations of philosophies had to find some mutual ground amongst the cognitive dissonance, which also included merchants versus agrarian landowners, strong men of orthodox faith compared to radicals like Thomas Paine, or liberals like Thomas Jefferson, and, of course abolitionists opposing those who traded in flesh. In this mish-mash were the 'Peace' religions of the Mennonites, Quakers and Dunkards, while Presbyterians and Congregationalists were militants. There was some intolerance abounding, unfortunately on the religious front, Jews and Catholics at one time were not welcome in 'soul freedom' Rhode Island. Even in Maryland where Catholics first settled, they later met laws for their exclusion. In Connecticut Deists and Unitarians could be arrested, while Baptists were not welcome in Virginia. There was also a sense of Christian community, however, fostered and promoted by men like Presbyterian John Winthrop where Justice and Mercy were paramount, selling all to give to the poor. This New Jerusalem mentality shaped the nations' psyche, maybe even unto this day. We can be thankful to the Baptist's strong insistence on the separation of Church and State, where even in Virginia Patrick Henry fought for those rights. One must not forget that Jews and Roman Catholics found refuge here taking advantage of liberty such as Pennsylvania charter's tolerance founded by Society of Friends' William Penn. (Two Roman Catholics would be represented in 1787's Convention.) More new denominations (for better or for worse) were developed in this new country than ever before from people of faith enjoying freedom. Even the Anglican Church thrived, even after a break from it's Royal ties, it became the americanized Episcopal version.

The common language, (if one excepts the German, Dutch and French speaking citizens), political culture, and basic "Classical-Christian Consciousness," as quipped by historian Page Smith, helped allow these diverse citizens find unity for liberty against perceived tyranny. They were helped also from two millennia of political and theological (and philosophical) influence culminating in a document provided at whose meeting is going to be discussed. That later world-view evolved in about a dozen years to what Smith calls the "Secular-Democratic Consciousness."³

I Feel Like Busting Loose

At first each state was zealous for their own individual sovereignty, in fact they competed with each other. Out of necessity different pan-colonial congresses were called up exampled by the Albany Plan of Union in 1754 -- drawn up by Ben Franklin for common protection against Indians (which was spurned by the self-minded colonies. There was James Otis and the Stamp Act Congress in 1765 in New York where nine colonies' representatives met. From the 1760's onward for approximately two score years England's Parliament passed various bills affecting the colonies. But the First Continental Congressof 1774 met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania because of the Brits worsening reprisals and because of the colonies' resistance to earlier Acts. The most famous of these 'terrorist acts' was Samuel Adams and his radicals 'Indians' who in 1770 dumped tea in the Boston Harbor. Such kinds of actions and speech were met with increasingly more punitive Coercive Acts. At this time individual colonial legislatures, like the Virginia House of Burgess, were becoming even more active, whose members were gathering valuable experience from "hands on" activity while they developed novel political and philosophical ideas. The Who's Who of that time was extensive, and included Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, Samuel and John Adams, James Otis, the Morrises, Benjamin Rush and John Jay. George Washington became the cream that rose to the top during the coming hostilities. These icons of nation building are almost like gods in one hand, and friends in the other-- as we call them Ben, and Sam and Tom. Some of these lovers of liberty would actually become detractors from the cause of making a stronger element of the 'united' in the United States as we shall see.

I Wish You'd Stop Being so Good to Me Boss.

The inconsistency of the British Government with its decentralized authorities while they attempted remedy was made worse by its increasing lack of diplomacy in spite of Benjamin Franklin's warnings. The delay in communications across the sea did not help matters, either. Regular Englishmen were not enthused about coming to blows over these issues, and inscriptions for His Majesty's Military were so down, that the 30,000 infamous Hessian mercenaries were contracted. The mercantilism started in the 1660's of King Charles II's era kept growing until King George III inherited it a century later, but now was considered Empire. But this "enlightened" monarch, (a benevolent despot?) more a Whig than a Tory, who for his first decade was actually friendly to the colonies ruled as Morrison and Commager relayed:

He did his best for the empire according to his lights; but his best was not good, and his lights were few and dim.

And, about his government:

 

George III's ministers were no gang of unprincipled villains, subservient to a royal tyrant, Lord Dartmouth, for instance, who sponsored the Coercive Acts, was a kind and pious gentleman, patron of Dartmouth College and the poet Cowper. But almost all were incompetent. The situation called for statesmanship of the highest order: and the political system which George III manipulated to his personal advantage put statesmanship as a discount, political following at a premium. In the end it was ignorance, confusion, and unresponsiveness to crying needs and issues, rather than corruption or deliberate ill will, which convinced the Americans that their liberties were no longer safe within the British Empire. ⁴

 

I See the Tire Tracks Across Your Back

As we have seen, The Intolerable Acts led to the 'extra legal' First Continental Congress in 1774 which included all the colonies save Georgia. But, moreover, following the bloodshed at Lexington, a Second Continental Congress was held, presided by John Hancock just twenty some odd days later in May 1775, at the offset of War, and on June 15th George Washington is appointed Commander-in-Chief.

Early in 1776, the colonies were informed to to write state constitutions, and Virginia's was drafted by James Madison and its Bill of Rights of June, 1776 was written by George Mason (except for Patrick Henry's 'Freedom of Religion' contribution.) Paine's Common Sense comes out in January of that year and was read by virtually all the literate throughout the colonies-- inciting the Cause. Following that, the renowned, almost sacred, Declaration of Independence was written on that most famous of American dates July 4, 1776, and though Jefferson penned the masterpiece he had borrowed some from Mason's writing. (Those German soldiers were mentioned in the Declaration of Independence as part of the case against King George.) After the Victory at Yorktown and subsequent negotiations, the Articles of Confederation, drafted by John Dickinson, ruled loosely over the newly freed nation officially in 1781. But some of the politicos, especially including James Madison, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton of New York had become increasingly leary of the weaknesses showing itself with the strong state's rights dominance over the unicameral national legislature, whose executive was a committee. John Adams and Washington corresponded with each other concerned with the inability to not only pay the debts promised in the peace Treaty of Paris in 1783, but the Continental Congress's inaction on the confusion caused by the near anarchical Shay's Rebellion. But, Jefferson from his deluxe Paris townhouse wrote his famous remarks espousing that a little revolution was necessary from time to time. Others were realizing that it was the seven year's Revolutionary War effort that had kept the assorted thirteen entities united, not the purposefully weakened Congress. But in reality, men of substance were getting nervous of another Revolution, but this time against the fledgling United States, and those same problems colonies had from England they were having from themselves: muddled lack of power where needed. Financial crisis loomed heavy, not only the debt, but as insidious was the individual state's paper money printing, demonstrated by the 'cheap money' of Rhode Island. The heady excitement of liberation, even considering how miraculously these colonials extricated themselves from the most powerful nation in the world known at that time, had passed. Another significant item was the humiliating threat of those across 'the pond' who might now mockingly say, "I told you so!" As a matter of fact Lord Sheffield successfully pushed the policy that providing exclusive shipping trade with the new nation might keep them from using competitors. He also thought that portions of the American States would come back around awed by Brittania's Naval might. The Confederation also struggled with its alliance with France, and its relationship with neighboring Canada and Colonial Spain. The honeymoon was over.

The Convention

The Calling

The concerned reformers of the day had no intention of installing pure democracy, "rule by the rabble," but preferred representational government or republicanism. In spite of the rhetoric, they were mostly interested in good conduct for business by way of law.

We are fortunate that these Patriots were men of letters, for their communications have allowed us to understand these politically evolving dynamics. This was especially true of James Madison, whose recording in minutiae of the events is invaluable, albeit not released until 1840 (six years after he died). In early 1786, Madison got Jefferson's written nod from France for a meeting with Maryland in Annapolis for addressing the 'ills of excess democracy.' Part of the motivation was Virginia and Maryland settling Potomac River boundary disputes. This was kind of a microcosmic symbol of similar disputes troubling other areas and frontiers across and beyond the seaboard. At this under-attended (five states) meeting, enough consent was bantered about concerning "a general plan of commerce and the powers relative thereto." As Destiny delighted, they made the call for another convention to be held in Philadelphia that next spring in 1787 on May 14th.

The Delegation

Opponents to the convention had a year to mobilize while state delegates were being picked. Some noted examples were Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, as well as Patrick Henry (who was an elected no show) and Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, the latter knowing of the zealous federalists warning "...others consider Congress not only the constitutional but the most eligible body to originate and propose amendments to the confederation, and others prefer state conventions for the express purpose..." This would be a harbinger of future dissents. New Hampshire's delegates were almost three months late. As a matter of fact, Rhode Island never sent delegates, and the new highly independent state of Vermont was not represented. (And it was not brought into the Union until later. Whose constitution was the only one that did not have voting limitations by property requirements.) Pierce wrote descriptions of most of the delegates, colored by his own strong opinions. Benjamin Franklin was almost only a figurehead at a gouty 82 years of age, but through the able talents of his companion, Wilson made his points known. Those were for the futile suggestion that the person holding that executive not be salaried. (Well, to this day one might consider the CEO of the strongest country in the free world is still relatively underpaid.)

It was the Thought that Counted

As brilliant and motivated as the men were, they were human, they were flawed, they had agendas. It must be stated here, that even those who wanted more direct democracy and rights for all men, like George Mason, and opposed slavery like Rufus King, John Dickinson, John Adams and Luther Martin, (those predominantly southerners, for Mammon's sake defended it), still did not promote suffrage of women. Some had to compromise their strong beliefs for obtaining this Union. And, practically all of the influential men of the time held to the property-ownership requirements of republican participation. George Mason, a slaveholder opposed it at the Convention, like, as we know, Thomas Jefferson (who did not attend because like John Adams they were abroad). What strange pressures of keeping one's standard of living and moral unrighteousness up must have been felt. That anyone could traffic in human beings (around thirty percent of the delegates) and look at themselves --perhaps powdered wig and all-- in the mirror before embarking on this majestic endeavor. But, in spite of obvious progressive shortcomings--as seen from our hind-sighted perspective-- there was a desire to establish a permanent basis for liberties and law for all citizens on a Federal level. Though these men should not be put on Mount Olympus, they should be given more respect just ascribing them as "Old, Rich, Dead, White Men." They still left a seedling framework for which more equitable freedoms to flourish in perpetuity. This, too, is observed from our modern vantage. The fact that they were of some different opinions made the document all that more flexible, yet firm in its culmination.

Those sent were, according to historian James MacGregor Burns:

...the well-bred, the well-fed, the well-read, and the well-wed. But the men of Philadelphia were neither solely defined nor wholly confined by these identities. Transcending these interests and occupations and affiliations was their sense of a compelling goal, a strategy to a achieve that goal, and a host of notions about how to make that strategy work. The delegates did not see themselves as merely landowners or merchants or lawyers. They conceived of themselves as engaged in a grand "experiment" --a word they often used --the outcome of which would shape their nation's destiny, and hence their own and their posterity's, for decades to come. They saw themselves --in a word they would never have used --as pragmatists, as men thinking their way through a thicket of problems, in pursuit of that goal.⁴

Indeed, this was an Epic Drama.

 

DRAMATIS PERSONAE
(# denotes non-signers)

• Connecticut
  

  New England; Population: 237,000^*

  • Oliver Ellsworth
  • Samuel Johnson
  • Roger Sherman


• Delaware
  

  Middle Atlantic; Population: 59,000

  • Richard Bassett
  • Gunning Bedford, Jr.
  • Jacob Broom
  • John Dickinson
  • William George Read


• Georgia
  • Abraham Baldwin
  • William Few
  • William Pierce #



South; Population: 141,000



• Massachusetts (including Maine)
  • Elbridge Gerry
  • Nathaniel Gorham
  • Rufus King
  • Caleb Strong



New England; Population: 474,000



• Maryland
  • Daniel Carroll
  • Dan of St. Thomas Jennifer
  • Luther Martin #
  • James McHenry



Middle Atlantic; Population: 319,000



• North Carolina
  • William Blount
  • Willam R. Davie #
  • Richard Dobbs Spaight
  • Hugh Williamson



South; Population: 249,000



• New Hampshire
  • Nicholas Gilman
  • John Langdon



New England: 141,000



• New Jersey
  • David Brearly
  • Jonathon Dayton
  • William Livingston
  • William Paterson



Middle Atlantic; Population: 184,000



• New York
  • Alexander Hamilton
  • John Lansing #
  • Robert Lansing #



Middle Atlantic; Population: 340,000



• Pennsylvania
  • George Clymer
  • Thomas Fitzsimons
  • Benjamin Franklin
  • Jared Ingersoll
  • Rufus King #
  • Thomas Mifflin
  • Gouvernor Morris
  • Robert Morris
  • James Wilson

Middle Atlantic; Population: 434,000



• Rhode Island
  • (none)



New England; Population: 68,000



• South Carolina
  • Pierce Butler
  • Charles Pinckney
  • Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
  • John Rutledge



South; Population: 249,000



• Virginia
  • John Blair
  • Henry "Lighthorse" Lee #
  • James Madison
  • George Mason #
  • Edmund Randolph #
  • George Washington



South; Population: 747,000




^*--1790 U.S. Census

Starring...

Certain figures stand out-- while others are not household, for sure, --as history testifies concerning that gathering. But who was to be the leading man? The consensus seems to be that it was Presbyterian Princeton trained James Madison, the one who kept the copious notes made before, during and after the event, who had this driving force within to create a state out of these United States, who was first to arrive in Philadelphia. He had devoted much reading to political philosophy, and was a lower keyed level-headed spokesman. His supporting cast was impressive: Fiesty Alexander Hamilton and larger-than-life George Washington. Although the latter, who was elected unanimously, kept the rules enforced by his imposition --the strict decorum and agreed-upon secrecy --that greeted the delegates. This idea of a Federal government was aided strongly by Hamilton, and on the wings, John Jay. These Federalists were to rise strongly to meet the adamant resistance of what came to be known as the anti-Federalists. Mr. Hamilton was well-known, but scared folks with his push for a strong central government. William Jackson was the witnessing secretary, not counted as a delegate.

Do We Agree to Disagree?

There are really no villains in this tale. Many on the outside, especially those suspicious of losing state's sovereignty at best, or lorded over by tyrants felt worse when the closed-door policy was instituted. Inside the Convention they had sympathetic minds. But, besides fear of a strong national government, there were other issues, some of which have been touched on, like slavery. As well as when abolition would take place, would they count in apportioning? Would large states have more power with representational to population voting, and conversely, would not one vote for each state (how the Federated States voted) give them disproportionate power over the bigger states? Interestingly, Virginia did not mind the unit voting by delegates in the Convention--for the sake of harmony. It was a good thing that orderly rules conducting the speaking and voting were in place, as passions and oratory were manifest. Western expansion and regional concerns hovered around too. The legality of this convention was questioned-- accused of bounding beyond its scope. One must remember that as an example England really only had three states, so something unique beyond the British Parliamentary model would be needed for these united peoples. They were all in one accord in the desire for "hard money." When things got disparaging, and in spite of the complaint that they had not budgeted in a Chaplain for these proceedings, agnostic Ben Franklin suggested that they take time to pray. Ben Franklin also had to sell this legal design work with the admonition that, thought he did not agree with everything, it was the best ever presented. At the end he made his famous comment about the painting in the room with the ambiguous sun at the horizon and its analogy to what time would say about their results. At the start one question was the "division of powers": states governments and the new federal government. The threat of delegates "taking their ball and going home" cast its pall over the proceedings. Let's look at their struggle.

The Major Controversies

• Big States Versus Small
  

  The Virginia Plan

  This plan was introduced on May, 29 by Virginia's lead delegate, Edmund Randolph, it favored populous states (and wealthier ones). The discussion went to committee of the whole where more freer debate could occur. It promoted representation in two houses based on the corresponding population of each state. Of course, the small states of Delaware and New Jersey were fiercely against this proposal, joined by the moderately sized New York, Maryland, and Connecticut delegates. The rift began to widen here between North and South, Free States and Slave-holding when discussing this plan and they calculated apportionment. Mason was strong arguing for the lower house "...be chosen by the people." One narrative wonders,

  The Virginia Plan did not get the root of the problem of maintaining a federal state. This is all the more remarkable, since both Madison and Wilson had shown a real grasp of the federal idea. ⁵

  The New Jersey Plan

  On June 9, after delegates and committees anguished on the Virginia Plan, Paterson of New Jersey brought forth his one vote for each state idea in a speech, but the Nationalists thought they were on a roll. And, on June 11 Sherman's motion for one vote each in the upper house of the Senate was defeated by one vote. Now the New Jersey Plan Introduced officially on June 15th, also called the small-state plan, basically introduced a few changes in the Articles. He was backed by Roger Sherman, Luther Martin and John Lansing. He wanted to keep one legislative house with equal representation along with armed coercion for enforcing their laws, as well as putting that federated entity supremacy over the states. Paterson was trying to be more in tune with the limits of their authority working on the Articles. The danger was looming, however, that large states would form their own confederation if they had to submit to smaller realms. Wilson rebutted citing current wimpiness of Congress, and Pinckney was ready to throw in the towel and allow New Jersey to receive an equal vote if meant the national constitution would prevail. This was is where the Nationalists, a coalition across state lines, knew what they were up against. This is where Alexander Hamilton enters the scene (who actually wanted to do away with state governments) with his famous oratorical expertise. With six hours of appeal, he reminded them of lessons to be learned from Classical and historical precedences; and he made this point:

  Two Sovereignties can not co-exist within the same limits. Giving powers to Congress must eventuate in a bad government or no Government.

  Hamilton then cites Madison about the many oppressing the few, especially when they are aroused with "popular passions, they spread like wild fire." The Virginia Plan was approved on June 19th seven to three, but more debates ensued.

  The Connecticut Plan

This was known as the Great Compromise, yet some think minds were being made up already way before the big blowout. It was just before July 16th when this proposal of a legislature consisting Senate with equal vote had also the House with the 'federal ratio' -population enumeration that also counted slaves as three-fifths of a voter as pushed by Davie. There was a compromise written on proposal to end the slave trade by 1808.

• Representation

That issue of counting all the slaves wound up compromised after Davie (and North Carolina) threatened to exit stage left.

They agreed on two houses, with the Senate's members elected by state legislatures (changed to direct vote by the XVII Amendment a 120 years later.) It was the hot issue and it was a warm day on June 25th when the terms of the Senate were bantered about. They decided on the six-year terms of the Senate for insulation from popular persuasions, but the two-year terms of the House meant to keep them close to the popular wants.

• The Executive

Sherman, Dickinson, and Martin wanted a less powerful executive leader picked by the legislature: and this was the majority view. It took the combined wits and nerve of the Nationalists, or Federalists, Madison, Wilson, G. Morris, and Hamilton to cajole others during the Virginia Plan turmoil. James Wilson's compromise is the electoral college that is used today, albeit every state now has correlation with their direct vote for those electors. They had to haggle over the terms, or whether or not what would become termed the President, could be re-elected. Finally without restrictions on re-running for that office, the independent selection not by legislature, but that indirect vote won out.

• The Judicial

The Virginia Plan called for election Federal judges, but, Federalists wanted Supreme Court judges to be appointed by the executive, but the state government experienced influenced delegates obtained the compromise we have today. The President appoints, the Congress approves. Though Butler feared losing authority to more lower Federal courts, Madison and Wilson achieved the future government ability to establish them. Madison did not want the judiciary to have preeminence over the executive concerning legal revision, or judical review. He failed to get the sharing of that power.

• The Battle for Ratification

Over, It's not over --Rambo

Though, at first, the Federalist looked strong, with a formidable team, Washington, the Morrises, Madison, Hamilton, even Franklin, but there was strong leadership on the other side, the anti-Federalists comprising a list of their own 'superstars'-- Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, Richard Henry Lee, John Hancock and others including ones like the apostate delegate Gerry. Promises had to be made of a Bill of Rights to be added to get the Convention's signatures, which occurred on September 17. Though the famous Federalist Papers were published It came down to not James Madison standing up to Patrick Henry, because he was charisma personified. It was the deciding votes of westerners, who cast their lot with a national system, over and against their love of more liberty, for the sake of protection from Indigenous people's incursions. It looked so good in December 7 when Delaware ratified it unanimously. After a bitter conflagration, Pennsylvania approved on the 12th, and New Jersey was unopposed on the 18th. (Rhode Island's popular plebiscite rejected it the next year in March: they did not come on board until late May, 1790.) It was not until the next year that almost all of the other states finally-- where Georgia voted for it 26-0, but North Carolina procrastinated to be next to the last--they ratified what has become the most valuable piece of secular paper in the Universe.

---

Footnotes:

¹ Kenneth Scott Latourette, "The Expanding Effect of Christianity," A History of Christianity, (2 vols., New York 1975), I, pp. 977-978.

² Lawrence Henry Gibson, "The British Empire in 1763," The Coming of the Revolution, 1763-1775, (New York, 1962), pp. 6-7.

³ Page Smith, "A New Frame of Government" The Shaping of America (8 vols., New York, 1980), III, p. 54

⁴ James MacGregor Burns, "Philadelphia: The Continental Caucus", The Vineyard of Liberty, (New York, 1981), p. 33.

⁵ Henry Steele Commager and Samuel Eliot Morrison, "Liberty and Empire," Growth of the American Republic, (Two vols. New York, 1962), I, pp. 152-153.

⁶Ibid., " The Federal Convention and Constitution", p. 278.

---

Bibliography

Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity; Volume II: Reformation to the Present, New York: Harpers and Row, 1975.

Lawrence Henry Gibson, The Coming of the Revolution, 1763-1775, New York: Harper and Row, 1962.

Page Smith, The Shaping of America: A People's History of the Young Republic; Volume III, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980)

Henry Steele Commager and Samuel Eliot Morrison, Growth of the American Republic, New York: Oxford University Press, 1962.

The Constitution of the United States: With Case Studies (Bicentennial Edition), ed. Edward Conrad Smith, Harold J. Spaeth, New York: Harper and Row/Barnes and Noble, 1987)

Marcia Lynn Whicker, Ruth Anne Strickland, Ramond A. Moore, The Constitution Under Pressure: A Time for a Change, New York: Praeger, 1987.

David A. Midgley, Social Studies American History: How to Prepare for College Board Achievement Tests, Woodbury: Barron's Educational Series, 1980.

William Miller, A New History of the United States, New York: George Braziller Inc., 1958.

James MacGregor Burns, The Vineyard of Liberty: The American Experiment, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1981.