Book Write-Up: Reformation Women

Rebecca VanDoodewaard.  Reformation Women: Sixteenth-Century Figures Who Shaped Christianity’s Rebirth.  Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017.  See here to purchase the book.

As the title indicates, this book is about sixteenth century Protestant women who contributed to the Protestant Reformation.  It includes chapters on Anna Reinhard, Anna Adlischweiler, Katharina Schutz, Margarethe Blauer, Maguerite de Navarre, Jeanne d’ Albret, Charlotte Arbaleste, Charlotte de Bourbon, Louise de Coligny, Katherine Willoughby, Renee of Ferrara, and Olympia Morata.

The women profiled in this book were from different countries, including France, England, and the Netherlands.  They had different backgrounds.  Some were from royalty and used their status and influence to protect persecuted Protestants.  One led armies into battle.  Some were ex-nuns.  Some were in Protestants in Catholic families, experiencing pressure to conform.  Some were wives of Protestant Reformers and provided support for their husbands, while helping others in need.  Some were writers, either in a public capacity, or in a private capacity, writing letters of encouragement.

The book has a distinct ideology.  It is sympathetic towards the Protestants, particularly the Huguenots (though the first chapter is about Zwingli’s wife).  Consequently, the Catholics in this book are usually the villains, either as persecutors or as hypocritical philanderers.  The fact that there were Protestants who persecuted people is rarely mentioned, though there is an occasional acknowledgement that some Protestants were more righteous than others.

The book also has a complementarian stance.  One of its goals is to reclaim these women from feminists, such that the Reformation women can be examples of biblical womanhood for Christian women.  This is not entirely bad.  As the author says about feminist treatments of these women, “Marriages in which husbands respected their wives’ intellectual abilities and churches that appreciated female gifts are presented as exceptions to the Reformed rule, when they are simply sample expressions of a widespread biblical complementarianism during the Reformation, as many of the marriages in this book show” (page x).  Treating the males of the past solely as male-chauvinist boors is a limited perspective, and the author does well to assert that there is more nuance than that.

That said, there are aspects of this book that many feminists may like, and there are aspects that they may not like.  The women in this book are strong women, who influence people and use their intelligence and talents.  Many of them were not defined by their roles as wives and mothers, for they had a sense of purpose and mission outside of the home, and they continued using their gifts after they ceased being wives and mothers.  They stood up to men when men were behaving in a manner that they considered unjust.  On the other hand, the author upholds women who stayed with their philandering husbands as examples for Christian women.  She also tells a story about a woman who stopped speaking at ecclesiastical meetings after John Calvin rebuked her; whether the author approves of that is not entirely clear.

The book provided a balance between large-scale historical narrative (i.e., wars, politics, persecutions, etc.) and anecdotes that humanized the women Reformers.  It painted a compelling picture of their struggles, their piety, and their deeds of charity and love towards others.  It was a little thin in describing the differences between Protestant and Catholic doctrine and what drew the women to Protestant doctrine, as well as political motivations behind the Protestant Reformation.  There were interesting side-discussions: the one about the woman who appealed to Calvin’s commentaries to justify curling her hair, against those who opposed such a practice on the basis of I Peter 3:3-4, comes to mind.  On one occasion, I wished that the author would have elaborated: John Calvin encouraged Renee of Ferrara when she was concerned that her Catholic son-in-law was in hell, but we are not told what he told her.  (How much information is available about that discussion, I do not know.)

The conclusion of the book was especially strong, as it eloquently discussed lessons that we can learn from the women’s lives.  The most powerful lessons included the importance of deriving one’s identity and mission from one’s faith rather than one’s role, how people have different gifts and should diligently use them where they are, and how people should have a cause beyond themselves.

Searching on the Internet, I found an article by Ruth Tucker on Renee of Ferrara, entitled “John Calvin and the Princess.”  It appeared in the September 2009 Christianity Today, and it presents a rather different picture than what Rebecca VanDoodewaard does.   The Renee in this article had a more contentious relationship with Calvin, criticized Protestant persecution of Catholics, and could have had more influence, if not for the societal limitations on women at the time.  VanDoodewaard’s book is more homiletical, and sometimes hagiographical, and yet it provides a different perspective, which should be considered; it is not the only perspective, though.  Perhaps her book can inspire people to learn more about the Reformation women.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher through Cross Focused Reviews.  My review is honest!

Book Write-Up: The People's Book

Jennifer Powell McNutt and David Lauber, ed.  The People’s Book: The Reformation and the Bible.  IVP Academic, 2017.  See here to purchase the book.

As the title indicates, this book is about the Protestant Reformation and the Bible.  It consists of essays from the 2016 Wheaton Theology Conference.  In this review, I will comment on each essay.

Chapter 1: “Teaching the Book: Protestant Latin Bibles and Their Readers,” by Bruce Gordon.

This essay dispels the Protestant myth that places the Roman Catholic church on the side that was against vernacular Bibles and for the Latin Bibles, and the Protestants on the side that was for vernacular Bibles and against Latin Bibles.  Not only did Catholics produce vernacular Bibles, but Protestant scholars also valued Latin Bibles because Latin was the language of biblical scholarship during the time of the Reformation.  The Roman Catholic stance on vernacular Bibles is an issue that recurs throughout this book (pp. 143, 180, and 230): another essay affirmed that the Catholic church supported vernacular Bibles (while opposing the Protestant ones), and two essays said that the Catholic church was reluctant to place Bibles in the hands of the masses.  In my opinion, the authors in this book should have attempted to integrate these different facets into a coherent picture.  This essay by Gordon was also interesting because it discussed the view of humanists and Protestants towards different versions of the Bible: the Hebrew, the Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate.

Chapter 2: “Scripture, the Priesthood of All Believers, and Application of 1 Corinthians 14,” by G. Sujin Pak.

The main argument of this excellent essay is on page 50: “In effect, while in the early 1520s early Protestant reformers called upon 1 Corinthians 14 to empower laypersons, from 1525 forward Lutheran and Reformed leaders increasingly employed 1 Corinthians 14 to consolidate Protestant clerical authority.”  You can read the essay for yourself to see how the interpretation of I Corinthians 14 played a role in that!

Chapter 3: “Learning to Read Scripture for Ourselves: The Guidance of Erasmus, Luther, and Calvin,” by Randall Zachman.

According to this excellent essay, Erasmus, Luther, and Calvin emphasized different things in their argument that people should read Scripture.  Erasmus stressed discipleship and the spiritual life, Luther emphasized being able to answer the devil’s accusations by appealing to God’s grace at the last judgment, and Calvin wanted a widespread familiarity with Scripture so that people would be able to test what their pastors were teaching, as good Bereans.

Chapter 4: “The Reformation and Vernacular Culture: Wales as a Case Study,” by D. Densil Morgan.

This chapter concerns the production of Welsh-language Bibles in sixteenth century Wales.  The pastor at a church that I attended for four years would probably appreciate this chapter, since he is Welsh and enjoys reading about Welsh religious history.  What interested me in this chapter was its description of the Protestant myth that the Elizabethan faith re-established the authentic Christianity of the Old Celtic Church, which Joseph of Arimathea allegedly instituted, and which Augustine of Canterbury allegedly corrupted.

Chapter 5: “The Reformation as Media Event,” by Read Mercer Schuchardt.

This essay provides background about Gutenberg, who initially made mirrors that were used to capture relics on pilgrimages.  (You will have to read the chapter to see what that was about!)  Schuchardt argues that the printing press not only assisted the Protestant Reformation, but also what Martin Luther opposed: the indulgences, which the printing press produced in mass numbers.  In addition, the essay interacts with Victor Hugo’s profound claim that hearing contributes to community, whereas seeing (and, by implication, reading) fosters individualism.

Chapter 6: “The Interplay of Catechesis and Liturgy in the Sixteenth Century: Examples from the Lutheran and Reformed Traditions,” by John D. Witvliet.

This essay argues against Catholic Virgil Michel’s argument that Martin Luther emphasized the catechism  and divorced it from the liturgy.  This essay includes Protestant hymns that tried to teach people the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and Christian doctrines.

Chapter 7: “Word and Sacrament: The Gordian Knot of Reformation Worship,” by Jennifer Powell McNutt.

This chapter explored different Protestant views on the sacraments and their relationship with Scripture.  It is an informative chapter: for instance, it includes critical statements by Luther of transubstantiation.  A criticism I have, however, is that the chapter said that the Catholic Church served bread but not wine to congregants at communion, without (as far as I could see) explaining its rationale for that policy.

Chapter 8: “John Calvin’s Commentary on the Council of Trent,” by Michael Horton.

This chapter provides the historical background for the Council of Trent.  According to Horton, many Protestants expected it to be a farce, even though they may have supported the existence of some council to serve as a check on the papacy.  John Calvin defended Protestant ideas such as the notion that a Christian can be assured of forgiveness, but he also appealed to history in arguing against Trent.  Calvin argued, for example, that the priority of the Roman bishop did not go back to the time of the church fathers.  From Horton’s telling, Calvin valued the fathers, and Calvin defended some of his Protestant beliefs about church tradition and the marginalization of the apocrypha in reference to them.

Chapter 9: “The Bible and the Italian Reformation,” by Christopher Castaldo.

This chapter will interest people (like me) who did not know about the Protestant Reformation in Italy during the sixteenth century.  Castaldo actually says that this “may come as a surprise” to a lot of people!  But there were Catholic reformers and Protestant vernacular translations in Italy, the “bastion of the Roman church” (page 171).  Protestants challenged doctrines and were persecuted there.  Castaldo also discusses how Protestantism may have influenced Michaelangelo’s work.

Chapter 10: “Reading the Reformers After Newman,” by Carl Trueman.

John Henry Newman was a Protestant who converted to Catholicism in the nineteenth century.  As Trueman argues, other people did that, too, but many talk about Newman because of his effectiveness in explaining his conversion.  Trueman counters some of Newman’s claims: that Protestantism devalued church history, and that Luther was an antinomian.  Trueman also observes Newman’s odd relationship with the usual conservative-liberal boundaries: Newman criticized liberalism because he stressed the importance of dogma, but his insistence that the dogma be upheld by Rome placed him on the opposite side of Protestants and evangelicals, who themselves emphasized dogma.  Moreover, Trueman contrasts trends in contemporary Protestantism with classical Protestantism: whereas prominent elements of contemporary Protestantism emphasize religious experience, classical Protestantism focused more on dogma, Luther’s tower experience notwithstanding.  This chapter was informative, but it was slightly unclear on page 198, where it discussed the question of whether “Christ is mediator according to his person, not simply according to his human nature[.]”  Trueman seemed to be saying that the Catholics believed Christ was mediator according to his person and that the Protestants challenged this position, but then he appeared to depict the Protestant argument as saying that a person, not a nature, intercedes.  But was that not the Catholic position?  Trueman could have been clearer here, but Trueman provides references to Aquinas and Calvin in a footnote, so those may provide greater clarity.

Chapter 11: “From the Spirit to the Sovereign to Sapiential Reason: A Brief History of Sola Scriptura,” by Paul C.H. Lim.

John Calvin believed that the Holy Spirit interpreted Scripture for the believer.  Would that not lead to subjectivism, as each Christian asserts that his or her interpretation is Spirit-led?  As Lim points out, Calvin was aware of this problem, for it was occurring in his time!  Lim did not thoroughly explain how Calvin got around this problem, however: Lim merely says that Calvin acknowledges that our understanding is partial right now and will be full in the eschaton (a la I Corinthians 13).  Perhaps Lim should have raised certain considerations that other essays in the books raised: the importance of scholarship and the church in biblical interpretation.  That could have improved, not only this essay, but also the book as a whole, by showing how Calvin held different concepts (i.e., scholarship, community, and Spirit-led interpretation, even by the laypersons) together.  This chapter was interesting in that it discussed how Hobbes and Locke interacted with the problem of individualistic interpretation.  Hobbes said that the sovereign should have the primary authority to interpret, like Moses, whereas Locke stressed the importance of reason in interpreting the Bible.  Lim did not really explain Hobbes’ rationale, unless that rationale was that somebody needs to give the final interpretation lest there be chaos, and that somebody had might as well be the sovereign!

Chapter 12: “Perspicuity and the People’s Book,” by Mark Lamberton.

Is Scripture perspicuous?  As Lamberton notes, Calvin affirmed that it was, and yet Calvin still felt a need to write volumes of commentaries to explain it!  Lamberon affirmed the importance of Christian community in interpreting Scripture, but, really, the chapter was more impressive in its questions than its answers.  To quote from page 232: “Is a highly trained, technical reading of…1 Corinthians 13 necessarily a better reading than an obedient and embodied, nontechnical reading?”

My critiques notwithstanding, I am still giving this book five stars.  It is informative, thoughtful, deep, and sophisticated.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher.  My review is honest!

Eerdword: Robert E. Lee, Slavery, and the Problem of Providence

http://eerdword.com/2017/05/18/robert-e-lee-slavery-and-the-problem-of-providence/

Book Write-Up: The Gods of Olympus, by Barbara Graziosi

Barbara Graziosi.  The Gods of Olympus: A History.  New York: Metropolitan Books, 2014.  See here to purchase the book.

Barbara Graziosi is a scholar in classics.  The Gods of Olympus concerns views about the Greek gods throughout history.

Here are some items:

A.  Graziosi’s prose in this book is vivid and compelling.  It was like reading an Elaine Pagels book: I am being provided with important background information for understanding the field, but with a narrative that discusses the motivations of the characters.  An example of this is Graziosi’s profile of the gods and goddesses in the Parthenon frieze (fifth century B.C.E.).  So many classics books are dry, and this book is a refreshing exception.  I thought that the sections about the Renaissance and the twentieth century were a little more elliptical, though.

B.  What interested me about Graziosi’s discussion of the fifth century B.C.E. was the theological struggles and questions that occurred in that time.  Some of them were familiar to me.  I took a class on Pagan Allegory a while back, and I learned about how Xenophanes believed that the gods in Homer behaved in ways that were beneath their divine dignity, and that contributed to the emergence of allegorical interpretations of Homer.  In Graziosi’s book, I learned that others were questioning the existence or behavior of the Greek gods in the fifth century B.C.E., in plays and histories.  Thucydides, for example, questioned the wisdom of relying on gods for assistance, for he talked about a city that was pious and did no wrong yet was conquered, notwithstanding its appeal to the gods.  There were also philosophers who promoted what they considered a higher conception of the divine than what was conveyed in Greek mythology: a pantheistic god, or a single god who was unlike humans.  (Graziosi cautions, however, that what we believe about Xenophanes’ thought is largely from later Christian sources, which portrayed him as a monotheist.)

C.  The contrast between the Greek gods and the biblical God was in my mind as I read this book.  The God of Judaism and Christianity is eternal and created the universe.  Zeus and Hera were not eternal but were the offspring of Kronos and Rhea, who themselves were the offspring of the union of heaven and earth (Ouranos and Gaia).  Hera was jealous of her husband’s multiple affairs and persecuted Zeus’ offspring; the biblical God, by contrast, did not engage in affairs.  While the Greek gods were, on some level, amoral, in apparent contrast to the biblical God, there were gods who valued wisdom (Athena) and truth (Apollo).  A lot of this is basic Greek mythology, but it was good for me to be reminded of these concepts, plus Graziosi built on them.

D.  Occasionally, Graziosi mentioned scholarly shifts in opinion.  Many of the prominent Greek gods were worshiped earlier than scholars previously assumed, in second millennium B.C.E. Mycenaean sites.  Graziosi also notes that the marginality of a god is no indication as to whether the god is early, late, or authentically Greek.  Homer marginalized Dionysus, but Dionysus was worshiped as far back as the second millennium B.C.E.; Homer’s problem with Dionysus was the god’s drunken excesses.  Apollo, by contrast, was a prominent Greek god, yet he was “a rather late addition to the Greek pantheon, had no obvious Indo-European credentials, and was at least partly Semitic in influence, identified early on with the Canaanite god Resheph” (page 20).

E.  Graziosi discusses the Roman embrace of the Greek gods, as Romans incorporated the common mythology in an attempt to enhance and preserve their power and influence.  In a number of cases, the Romans already had equivalents to the Greek gods, though there were differences between them.  The Roman gods were responsible and had the function of helping people in their tasks and responsibilities, whereas the Greeks had a colorful mythology about their gods.  Jupiter was “a rather impersonal protector of the Roman republic,” and the “other major Roman gods—-including Juno, Mars, Minerva, Venus, and Mercury—-were also invested primarily with civic responsibilities and were surrounded by a crowd of minor gods who were even more functional and faceless” (page 129).  The Roman god Mercury was respected, whereas the “Greek god Ares…was a crazed, bloodthirsty character despised even by his father Zeus” (page 133).  The Roman embrace of Greek mythology allowed the Romans to develop a more rounded portrayal of their own gods.  Some gods, such as Apollo, had no Roman equivalent and were solely an importation from the Greeks.

F.  Graziosi discusses the political use of the Greek gods.  Alexander the Great and others  conveyed that they were literally sons of a god—-that a god impregnated their mother.  The view of Euhemerus that the gods were once human beings was used by the Romans to argue that human authorities would later become gods.

G.  Graziosi discusses Christian stances towards the gods.  Constantine became a Christian, yet idols remained in his empire, and Eusebius offers the unbelievable explanation that Constantine allowed them so they would be an object of mockery.  A number of Christians regarded the Greek gods as demons.  Graziosi observes on page 177: “Written sources suggest that as statues deteriorated, the demons inside them underwent a subtle change of personality.  Initially seen as extremely dangerous, they eventually became only mildly sinister, and some of them turned out to be demonically useful.”  Such uses included serving as talismans, “averting minor calamities such as rat infestations or heat waves,” or informing writers of important current events.  This stood out to me.  Playing with the occult can be dangerous, but not everyone who worships pagan gods or participates in the occult becomes afflicted or demon-possessed.  Some do, though.

H.  On pages 151-152, Graziosi narrates the transformation of Cleopatra’s image.  Cleopatra was Greco-Macedonian, a worshiper of the gods of Olympus.  But Octavian, who was in conflict with Cleopatra, claimed that the gods were on his side and portrayed himself as “an upright officer determined to uphold traditional Roman values of duty and moderation.”  To contrast himself with Cleopatra, therefore, he depicted her as a native Egyptian, a worshiper of sensual, grotesque, and animal-like gods.  As Graziosi observes, this image has survived: “Virgil, Shakespeare, Liz Taylor, and countless others through the ages have presented Cleopatra as a ravishing Egyptian beauty, though the portraits made during her lifetime suggest a different picture: in those she looks Roman and quite bland.”

I.  On page 213, Graziosi contrasts medieval Christian art with Renaissance art: “Christian art could be emotionally demanding: it inspired worship, humility, horror, gratitude, sadness, ecstasy.  Beautiful naked nymphs dancing in the woods were much easier, not only on the eye but on the heart as well.  It was all right simply to sit back and enjoy them without asking too many questions.  Those nymphs did not matter much, after all.  Unlike suffering martyrs or the Holy Virgin, they did not even exist.”  I like relaxation, but I also like art that makes me think.  The latter kind of art makes me feel that I am not wasting my time.

Book Write-Up: The Making of American Liberal Theology (1805-1900)

Gary Dorrien.  The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion (1805-1900).  Louisville, London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.  See here to purchase the book.

Gary Dorrien taught at Kalamazoo College when he wrote this book.  This book is the first of three volumes about American liberal theology.  This first volume focuses on the years 1805-1900, but the chapter on the Social Gospel also discusses events in the early twentieth century.  On page xxiii, Dorrien attempts to identify features of liberal theology: “Specifically, liberal theology is defined by its openness to the verdicts of modern intellectual inquiry, especially the natural and social sciences; its commitment to the authority of individual reason and experience; its conception of Christianity as an ethical way of life; its favoring of moral concepts of atonement; and its commitment to make Christianity credible and socially relevant to people.”

In this Book Write-Up, I will comment on each chapter, then I will offer a general assessment of the book.  This Book Write-Up will not be comprehensive, but I will comment on details that interested me.

Chapter 1: Unitarian Beginnings: William Ellery Channing and the Divine Likeness.

The Unitarians were actually rather conservative, as many of them were as concerned that German higher-criticism of the Bible negatively challenged Christianity.  They believed that it undermined the authority of the Bible, and they did not care for the biblical stories being treated as old-wives’ tales in classes.

This chapter tells the story of William Ellery Channing, an influential Unitarian preacher.  It covers the intellectual influences on him, such as Hume, who would also influence other liberal thinkers in this book.  Some liberal thinkers would embrace German idealism (i.e., the outside world is all in one’s head, or knowledge of the outside world is inaccurate) as a justification for a personal or rational inner religion, whereas other liberal thinkers would reject it. A related issue is whether miracles can divinely-authenticate the Christian message, or if the Christian message can stand on its own weight, on rational grounds.

Although Channing was impressive in the pulpit, he was personally reclusive, and I could identify with the latter.  Channing was sympathetic towards the anti-slavery agenda of the abolitionists, yet he felt that they were uneducated and self-righteous.  I often feel the same about the Left (the self-righteous part, not the uneducated part).  My favorite passage in this book is on page 49:

“[For Channing, t]rue religion is not about trembling in terror before an inscrutable transcendent sovereign…To honor God ‘is to approach God as an inexhaustible fountain of light, power, and purity.  It is to feel the quickening and transforming energy of his perfections.  It is to thirst for the growth and invigoration of the divine principle within us.  It is to seek the very spirit of God.”

Chapter 2: Subversive Intuitions: Ralph Waldo Emerson, Theodore Parker, and the Transcendentalist Revolt.

Because the Unitarians were rather conservative and biblicist, the transcendentalists revolted against them.  Ralph Waldo Emerson would deliver his controversial Harvard Divinity School address, in which he criticized religious ritualism, encouraged people to find God by looking within, exalted nature, and treated Jesus primarily as a human being in tune with the divine rather than as a divine or exalted being.  Emerson was much more radical in his personal journal, however.  On page 72, Dorrien quotes Emerson’s critique of Jesus:

“I do not see in [Jesus] cheerfulness: I do not see in him the love of Natural Science: I see in him no kindness for Art; I see in him nothing of Socrates, of Laplace, of Shakespeare.”

Speaking for myself, I believe that I encounter wisdom when I read Jesus’ statements in the Gospels.  Still, I can somewhat empathize with Emerson.  The Gospels are rather sparse when they talk about Jesus: Jesus does and says things in the Gospels, but what was he really like personally?  Evangelicals talk about “knowing Jesus,” but there are times when I read the Gospels and wonder if they are helping me truly to know him.

Chapter 3: Imagination Wording Forth: Horace Bushnell and the Metaphors of Imagination.

Horace Bushnell treated language, especially religious language, as metaphorical for a deep religious and spiritual experience.  For Bushnell, religious language was limited, since people understand terms in different ways.  This was consistent with liberal theology’s tendency to emphasize spiritual experience or the spiritual life rather than doctrine.

Bushnell also wrote about the atonement.  He preferred a subjective model of the atonement, one that emphasized people’s moral or spiritual response to Jesus’ death, rather than seeing the atonement as a legal transaction that objectively removed guilt.  Still, Bushnell believed that Jesus’ death was vicarious, in a sense: God was assuming the burden of being human, the experiences of those who sinned (which is not to say that Jesus sinned), since that was a significant aspect of reconciliation.  Bushnell’s stance not only alienated conservatives but also fellow liberals, who thought that it reflected an anthropomorphic view of God.  Bushnell’s discussion of the atonement sheds light on liberal stances towards sin.  Whereas some might think that liberals trivialize or downplay sin, this book demonstrates that there were many liberals who did the exact opposite, and Dorrien argues that liberal emphases on subordinating the flesh was consistent with Victorian ideas.

The chapter also explores the thought of Nathaniel Taylor, who contributed to the New Haven theology.  New Haven theology sought to be a liberal Reformed theology.  Taylor believed, for instance, that humans had an inclination towards sin, yet he rejected the Reformed concept of total depravity.  For Bushnell, people still had a choice not to sin.

My favorite passage in this chapter concerned Henry James, Sr.’s negative reaction to Bushnell’s view on love.  On page 172, Dorrien states:

“…Henry James Sr. pronounced Bushnell’s construal of Christian love ridiculous.  Love is neither heedless nor essentially sacrificial, he lectured; it has nothing to do with pretending to care for bad people; it pays attention to consequences and is always proportionate to merit.  To claim that love responds to evil with self-sacrificing care was a perverse ‘outrage upon all love.  Divine as well as human.'”

James’ critique took me aback.  He had the same reservations that I do about what is commonly portrayed as “Christian love”: sacrificing oneself, pretending to like those one despises, etc.  Still, if love is to be a response to merit, does that not undermine grace, which we all need?  Wouldn’t we prefer a belief in unconditional love, even if we struggle to live up to that?

Chapter 4: Victorianism in Question: Henry Ward Beecher, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and the Religion of Reform.

Henry Ward Beecher was the brother of Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of the famous anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin.  Beecher was a renowned preacher and abolitionist in his own right, but he ran into scandal when he slept with a friend’s wife.  Beecher recovered from the scandal, whereas the friend retreated into obscurity, left Christianity, and focused on playing chess.  Sad story!

This chapter discusses the divisions between African-Americans and feminists.  Elizabeth Cady Stanton was appalled that uneducated African-Americans were getting the franchise whereas women were not, whereas Friedrich Douglas thought that African-Americans were in a worse position than women and thus needed the franchise more urgently.

Chapter 5: Progressivism Ascending: Theodore Munger, Washington Gladden, Newman Smith, the New Theology, and the Social Gospel.

This chapter covered interesting territory.

First, the chapter quotes a profound statement by liberal Anglican preacher Frederick Robertson: that “man is God’s child and the sin of man consists in perpetually living as if it were false.”

Second, the chapter summarizes Theodore Munger’s attempts to harmonize evolution with Christianity.  For Munger, evolution was consistent with monotheism, since the same natural laws apply to all natural living things; under polytheism, by contrast, different principles operate, as gods compete with each other and have their own agendas.  Munger also highlighted religious and moral progress that occurred throughout history.

Third, the chapter set forth Washington Gladden’s Social Gospel.  Gladden was skeptical of socialism.  His hope was that business-leaders could be persuaded to follow the Christian path and to share their profits more equitably with their employees.

The chapter also explored the “Manifest Destiny” attitude among many Social Gospel advocates, as they believed that Anglo culture could civilize the rest of the world.  While a number of Social Gospel advocates were initially isolationist about American entry into World War I, they came to embrace Woodrow Wilson’s professed desire to make the world safe for democracy.

Chapter 6: Enter the Academics: Charles A. Briggs, Borden Parker Browne, Biblical Criticism, and the Personalist Idea.

This chapter talked a lot about the inspiration of Scripture.  Rather than regarding the Bible as inerrant in all details, including history and science, some of the prominent liberal thinkers in this chapter had alternative conceptions of inspiration: that God inspired the authors of Scripture by elevating their religious insights and perceptivity, even though they still reflected the prejudices of their time; that the Scripture is infallible on how to be saved, not history and science; and that historical-criticism can highlight God’s activity through the vicissitudes of history.  On page 347, we see Briggs’ view that such ideas were actually more faithful to the Puritan beliefs than were the inerrantist ideas of Warfield and many Princetonians.

Chapter 7 offers a concise summary and effectively ties together the trends discussed in the book.

The book was a compelling read, especially because it described liberal thinkers’ lives and ideas.  I felt a kinship with them, as they wrestled with the same religious topics with which I wrestle (e.g., the character of God, the inspiration of Scripture, etc.).  Often, the origin or development of trends was not adequately explored or explained, but the book was effective in describing how specific people responded to the trends and participated in the discussions.  The book was rather lacking in explaining how liberal thinkers justified their views with Scripture, particularly when it came to a belief in post-mortem opportunities for salvation.  Dorrien said that Channing offered exhaustive Scriptural defenses for his positions, yet Dorrien did not share what those defenses were.

Current Events Write-Up: Premiums and Cancer Patients, Prophet Johnson on Trump, the UN, MLK on Planned Parenthood, and the Other Gettysburg Address

Time for another Current Events Write-Up, in which I link to news and opinion pieces and comment on them.

Health Care

I’d like to use as my starting-point Jason Easley’s article for PoliticusUSA, entitled “Paul Ryan’s Obamacare Replacement Is a Death Sentence for Cancer Patients.”

Paul Ryan had a town-hall meeting, and a cancer patient told him that Obamacare saved his life.  Ryan responded that he, too, believes that people with pre-existing conditions should be able to receive affordable care.  The problem with Obamacare, Ryan says, is that it drives up deductibles and premiums for people.  Is there a way to give coverage to people with costly pre-existing conditions, without driving up deductibles and premiums?  Ryan’s solution is to set up high-risk pools.  Jason Easley argues that, under this proposal, “cancer patients will be given less healthcare and lower odds of survival.”

Easley criticizes Ryan for implying that cancer patients are ruining health care for others, by driving up their deductibles and premiums.  On online discussions, commenters have expressed similar sentiments.  On the one side, there are cancer patients who fear losing their coverage under the Affordable Care Act: that would impose insurmountable financial costs on them, and perhaps even cost them their lives.  On the other side, you have people who are complaining about the Affordable Care Act on account of the high deductibles and premiums.  They wonder why they should spend hundreds of dollars each month on premiums, for insurance that they may not even use.  Many in the former group are accusing people in the latter group of being selfish: of wanting to save bucks and have a more comfortable life at the expense of the cancer patients’ very existence.  Even if people in the latter group never use their health insurance, the money that they pay into the health insurance system will cover the treatment of someone else who does need the health insurance.

I thought back to a conversation that former Governor Ed Rendell had on Charlie Rose’s show back in 2012.  Rendell was referring to Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry’s proposal for health care during his 2004 election campaign.  Rendell said that Kerry’s plan would insure that cancer patients are covered, while bringing down premiums for others.  I was curious about the details of this plan, and I found a 2004 New York Times article that summarized it.  Here is the relevant section:

“For the vast majority of Americans and most businesses as well, the chief worry is soaring premiums.  Here Mr. Kerry has proposed an innovative solution. He would have a federally funded ‘reinsurance’ program reimburse employers for 75 percent of all medical bills exceeding some catastrophic limit — say, for example, $30,000 a year. That would mean companies and group health plans would no longer have to shoulder the most costly cases that account for a huge chunk of all health expenditures. In return, the companies would have to pass the savings on in reduced premiums, cover all workers and set up disease management programs. The Kerry camp estimates this might reduce premiums by 10 percent, mostly by shifting the cost to the taxpayers.”

There are probably strengths and weaknesses to this proposal.  Still, something should be done to ensure that cancer patients receive care, while also taking into consideration the concerns of people who are burdened by monthly premiums, and may not fall into that economic niche that would get them sufficient Obamacare subsidies.

Political Figures

I’ll start with this Vox article defending Jill Stein.  Is Jill Stein against wi-fi?  Does she believe that vaccines caused autism?  This article defends her against these charges, while mildly critiquing her for failing to stick to her guns on certain issues (i.e., Brexit).

Benjamin Corey criticizes a statement by Prophet Jeremiah Johnson, which appeared in Charisma Magazine.  Johnson said the following:

“I was in a time of prayer several weeks ago when God began to speak to me concerning the destiny of Donald Trump in America. The Holy Spirit spoke to me and said, ‘Trump shall become My trumpet to the American people, for he possesses qualities that are even hard to find in My people these days. Trump does not fear man nor will he allow deception and lies to go unnoticed. I am going to use him to expose darkness and perversion in America like never before, but you must understand that he is like a bull in a china closet. Many will want to throw him away because he will disturb their sense of peace and tranquility, but you must listen through the bantering to discover the truth that I will speak through him. I will use the wealth that I have given him to expose and launch investigations searching for the truth. Just as I raised up Cyrus to fulfill My purposes and plans, so have I raised up Trump to fulfill my purposes and plans prior to the 2016 election. You must listen to the trumpet very closely for he will sound the alarm and many will be blessed because of his compassion and mercy. Though many see the outward pride and arrogance, I have given him the tender heart of a father that wants to lend a helping hand to the poor and the needy, to the foreigner and the stranger.'”

Corey makes legitimate criticisms of Johnson’s prophecy, especially when Corey wonders how Johnson’s vision of Trump helping the foreigner and stranger meshes with Trump’s stance on illegal immigration.

Still, the prophecy resonates with me.  I am not saying that I believe Johnson is expressing the opinions of Almighty God on Trump.  I am just saying that the statement resonates with me, in areas.  Trump does go against the grain.  He comes across as fearless.  People attack him, and he keeps on moving forward.  And I would like to think that there is more to him than bluster, pride, and arrogance.

In 2008, I read “prophecies” about Barack Obama, one negative and the other positive.  I talk about that in my post here.  The positive prophecy said that Barack Obama is a person who hungers for righteousness, and that resonated with my understanding of Barack Obama at the time: I saw him as a decent human being who sincerely wanted to find common ground with the other side and help find solutions to the nation’s problems.  Eight years later, my response to Obama is rather “meh.”  I don’t think he was a horrible President, or even that he is a bad human being.  But he had to contend with a lot of gridlock, to the point that he came across as a lame-duck.

There is a part of me that hopes that President Trump will be able to cut through a lot of crap and accomplish positive reforms.  Whether my optimism is misplaced or not, I cannot yet say.

The UN

Mother Jones had an article entitled, “Obama Just Took One Final Step to Fight Global Warming: And There’s Nothing Donald Trump Can Do About It.”  Here is what President Obama did: “On Tuesday, Obama transferred $500 million to the UN’s Green Climate Fund, a key program set up to finance climate change adaptation and renewable energy projects in developing countries.”

Over at Townhall, Terry Paulson has a column, “Is It Time to Defund the UN?”  He leans in the “yes” direction, saying that the UN condemns Israel while privileging Israel’s radical Islamic enemies, and that the UN ignores Nigeria’s brutal oppression of secessionists.  Interestingly, Paulson provides a quote that indicates that at least some of those secessionists are placing their hope in Donald Trump.

I do not know much about this issue, but it would not surprise me if the UN is inconsistent in applying its principles, as many institutions are.  The same is true of the US.

Will Trump care about Nigeria?  I am not too optimistic.  Unfortunately and sadly, I tend to agree with economist Bruce Bartlett when he said: “Serious question. If it wasn’t for oil and the Jewish vote, would anyone care what happens in the Middle East? It would be like Africa, where thousands of people die all the time and no one gives a rat’s ass. If it don’t affect us, materially or politically, Americans just don’t care, at all. That’s an undeniable fact.”  Maybe that compassionate father’s heart that prophet Johnson talked about will influence Trump to care, but that remains to be seen.

Historical Interest

Media Matters has an article entitled, “Reminder to Conservatives: Martin Luther King Jr. Praised Planned Parenthood.”  That does not surprise me.  MLK believed a lot of things that would not resonate with conservatives.  Rather than saying that MLK would agree with them if alive today, perhaps conservatives would do better to argue that their views, in areas, are closer to the principles that MLK defended, even if MLK himself did not apply his principles in that manner.

I was reading a book that told the usual story of the Gettysburg Address: how the person who spoke before Lincoln went on for two hours, and then Lincoln delivered his short Gettysburg Address.  I was curious about the person who spoke before Lincoln.  His name was Edward Everett, and the goal of his speech was to discuss the significance of the American Civil War in light of American history and also the history of Greece.  So says Ted Widmer in this NYT blog post.  And here is Everett’s speech, if you want to read it!  It looks rather flowery to me, but I may read it at a later time.  It is cool what the Internet provides!

Current Events Write-Up: Pharmaceuticals, Barack Obama's Departure, a Three-State Solution, Patricia Heaton, Anne Frank, Etc.

Time for another week of links to news and opinion pieces!

Pharmaceuticals

“Cory Booker and 12 Other Dems Just Stopped Bernie Sanders’ Amendment to Lower Prescription Drug Costs,” by Walter Bragman.

Bad news!  Bernie Sanders proposed an amendment that would allow importation of cheap prescription drugs into the United States, and Cory Booker and twelve Democrats helped kill it.  Of course, most of the Republicans voted against it, too.  And yet, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul voted for the amendment!  Good for them!  And is that not a conservative approach: allow competition to bring down prices?  UPDATE: See here for Cory Booker's side of the story.

Meanwhile, at the Halls of Justice!  Peter Welch is a Democratic Congressman from Vermont, and he praises Donald Trump for finding common ground with him on pharmaceuticals:

“Today, President-elect Donald J. Trump strongly endorsed an issue I have been pushing hard for in Congress – requiring the federal government to use its significant bulk purchasing power to cut the price of prescription drugs for seniors and taxpayers. Here is what he said at this morning’s press conference:  ‘We’re the largest buyer of drugs in the world. And yet we don’t bid properly. We’re going to start bidding. We’re going to save billions of dollars over a period of time.’  Music to my ears. It’s crazy that Medicare buys drugs at wholesale but pays retail prices. I’ve introduced a bill that would require price negotiations with Big Pharma. It will cut drug prices, save taxpayer dollars, and shore up the Medicare trust fund. I’m ready to get to work with President-elect Trump to pass this commonsense legislation.”

Over at the conservative web site Townhall, Devon Herrick writes on how “Congress Should Take Steps to Make Drugs More Affordable.”  He criticizes, among other things, how the FDA takes a long time to approve new drugs.  At the conservative web site, The Federalist, Margot Cleveland actually praises President Barack Obama for moving in the direction of correcting that!  Yet, as far as Herrick is concerned, there is more work to be done: “The FDA’s bias toward approving newer, first-in-class therapies has increased approvals for expensive drugs to treat rare diseases, which are at a historic high. Approvals of me-too drugs are down, however, which limits competition within drug classes, leading to higher prices, and limits patient choices.”

Jill Stein and the Russian Hacking

Jill Stein posted a link to an article by David Swanson, questioning the U.S. Government’s Russian-hacking report and defending Wikileaks against the U.S. Intelligence community.  That’s the Jill Stein I voted for, not the one who has been challenging the election results!

The Donald: A Different Kind of Republican

I enjoyed Reihan Salam’s article on Slate, entitled “Will Donald Trump Be FDR or Jimmy Carter?”  Salam is not too optimistic about the coming Donald Trump Presidency, as far as I can see.  Yet, I appreciated an observation that Salam made, and I have made the same observation myself.  In the past, many Republicans ran their campaigns by distinguishing between the makers and the takers, shaming the poor who receive assistance from the government.  Remember Mitt Romney’s 47% comment!  Trump’s campaign did not do that, as far as I can recall.  Rather, Trump’s campaign held that people are struggling economically on account of a systemic problem.  Trump blamed illegal immigrants, and many may not care for that kind of scapegoating, but Trump also criticized big corporations for sending jobs overseas.

President Barack Obama

George Stephanopoulos at ABC This Week interviewed President Barack Obama.  I especially appreciated this moment of candid self-criticism on the part of the President: “And so [Democrats ha]ve got to do a better job of showing up. And I was able to do that when I was the candidate. But I have not– I’ve not seen or– or presided over that kind of systematic outreach that I think needs to happen.”

As I read my friends’ expressions of sadness over the coming departure of Barack Obama from the Presidency, I have wondered why I have not shared their sadness.  It may be because I rarely see Barack Obama speaking to the public: it’s like he’s in hiding, so he has not made much of an impression on me.  And, when he does come out, it’s often to lecture, which comes across as rather self-righteous.  But don’t get me wrong: there have been times when I have appreciated what Barack Obama has had to say.  When he expressed openness to conservative ideas on bringing down the cost of higher education and health care, I applauded him.  That was the Barack Obama I loved in 2008: the transformative candidate!

At Townhall, Jeff Jacoby has a column, “Barack Obama’s Legacy of Failure.”  There’s not much that is new there, but the section on foreign policy got me thinking, or at least reminded me of some things that I have been thinking lately.  I have been gravitating towards the conservatism that supports isolationism, which is not to say that I embrace the domestic policy of the right, but rather than I enjoy reading conservatives who support a non-interventionist foreign policy, as opposed to the neo-cons.  That is one reason that I like Donald Trump, at least for the time being.  But Jacoby’s column criticizes President Obama for being non-interventionist on foreign policy.  And isn’t that accurate, on a certain level?  Permitting the Arab Spring.  Being reluctant to bomb Syria.  Aren’t those examples of President Obama’s non-interventionism?  Of course, one can point out the opposite, too: President Obama’s support of regime change in Libya, and his use of drones.  Still, I wonder if his non-interventionism has worked.  Yet, as a counterweight, I do not want the U.S. to go back to the disastrous interventionism of the Iraq War.

James David Audlin had a status comparing the vilification of President-elect Trump with the 2008-2009 vilification of President-elect Obama.   Of course, people are responding by saying that is a “false equivalence,” a term I have heard often over the last several months.  Okay, maybe there are differences between the criticisms of the respective Presidents-elect.  Still, I find that I am turned off by the criticisms of Trump today, as I was by the criticisms of Barack Obama in 2008: the caricatures, the mockery, the attitude that he cannot do anything right, the tendency to read a sinister motive into everything he says and does.  The criticisms of Obama in 2008 were among the factors that moved me to the left.  Today, the criticisms of Trump are not moving me to the right, so much, but they have encouraged me to read more from the right.  Actually, the reason that I liked Obama in 2008, and a reason that I like Trump now, is that both expressed openness to ideas of the other side of the spectrum.  I am not so much against constructive criticism: it may actually move Trump in a positive direction, as Trump looks for queues about what to do.  The vilification is what turns me off.

Israel

Over at Townhall, Bruce Bialosky has an interesting article entitled “The Three State Solution.”  We hear a lot about the two-state solution.  But, as Bialosky notes, there are actually two regions that have Palestinian authorities: Gaza, led by Hamas, and the West Bank, led by Fatah.  And, according to Bialosky, the West Bank under Fatah is more prosperous than Gaza under Hamas.  I appreciate that Bialosky does not lump the Palestinians together.

Entertainment

Christianity Today had an interview with actress Patricia Heaton.  Heaton has had two successful sitcoms: “Everybody Loves Raymond” and “The Middle.”  I love both shows!  Heaton talks about the insecurities that exist in the acting career, the contrasts between acting in “Everybody Loves Raymond” and acting in “The Middle,” and her own Christian faith and charity work in the Third World.

Historical Interest

“The Holocaust Survivor Who Hated Anne Frank,” by Philip Graubart. 

Basically, she thought that Anne Frank was mean and spoiled!  Graubart astutely says:
“She didn’t like Anne Frank. At first I couldn’t absorb the sentiment, couldn’t really believe my ears. It was like hearing a Catholic say she wasn’t fond of the Virgin Mary, that she was sick of all her tiresome bragging. Virgin birth – big deal. But then I realized that Trudy’s distaste for Anne Frank the person – whatever girlhood tiff set it off – returned the Holocaust to where it belongs, in prosaic human history. It’s not a myth, or a sacred narrative, with demigods and martyrs and supernatural heroines. It’s not a biblical story, a tragic moment pointing to redemption. It’s a story of girls and boys, Annes and Trudys, and their brothers and sisters and parents, murdered and tortured the way humans have murdered and tortured since time immemorial.”

Current Events Write-Up: Trump, Trump's Appointees, Star Wars, Introverts, and Nixon

Time for this week’s Current Events Write-Up, where I link to news and opinion pieces and comment about them.

Trump, Trump’s Appointees, Etc.

Christianity Today magazine had a status above its article, “Here’s Who Will Pray at Trump’s Inauguration.”  The status states: “Trump’s inauguration will be the first in decades to include Jewish and Catholic clergy.”  It’s times like this that I love that man!

Jia Jiang at Fox News Opinion had an article, “How Trump Used the Incredible Power of Rejection to Win the White House.”  Trump was rejected, yet he used rejection to his advantage and never gave up.  That has distinguished him from previous, traditional candidates.

Washington Post: “I’m a Muslim, a Woman, and an Immigrant. I Voted for Trump,” by Asra Q. Nomani.
No comment here, except “I liked this article.”  Of course, it got nitpicked.  But guess what?  I still like this article.

Polizette: “Trump Should Never Stop Tweeting: President-elect Has Hamstrung a Hostile Press by Tapping a Direct Line to the American People,” by Eddie Zipperer. 

Not only that, but Trump’s tweets get results.  For example: Republicans on the Hill plan to gut an ethics office, Trump tweets, and the Republicans abandon their plan.  Maybe Trump’s tweet was not a resounding opposition to their plan, but his tweet still got results!

Robert Reich is no fan of Trump, even in the status that I am about to quote.  Still, I liked this part of the status: “Ford has come under heavy criticism from Trump for its plan to build a $1.6 billion plant in Mexico. Today, Ford CEO Mark Fields said the company had canceled the plan and would instead invest $700 million to increase production of electric and hybrid cars at its plant in Flat Rock, Michigan.”  Reich goes on to criticize Trump, for understandable reasons, but isn’t it cool that Ford will be making more electric and hybrid cars?  Isn’t that what we want: clean energy?

Forbes: “Pickens is Right about Trump’s Energy Priorities—-and Here’s Why,” by David Blackmon.
Technically, this is advice from T. Boone Pickens to Trump.  Pickens makes good points about how the government can coordinate energy policy more effectively.

I liked this line from Clarissa’s Blog: “Trump is defending Assange and soon probably Snowden. Cognitive dissonance is awaiting many liberals.”   That’s what I like about Trump.  He doesn’t follow the party line!

Speaking of Assange, Politico had this status: “A former CIA analyst writes: ‘The next president of the United States is siding with Julian Assange…over the U.S. intelligence community – thousands of smart, patriotic people who work long hours for middling pay, some risking their lives to keep the rest of us safe.'”  Here’s a question: Why aren’t more progressives applauding Trump on this?  Haven’t they been fierce critics of the CIA and the national security state?

Moving on to Trump appointees.  Julia Hahn at Breitbart writes about Richard Lighthizer, Trump’s choice for U.S. Trade Representatives.  She looks at Lighthizer’s writings that lean towards protectionism.

Dan Rather is no fan of the President-elect, but Rather states that “the selection of retired Marine Corps General James Mattis as Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense strikes me as one of the most sober-minded choices in his cabinet” (after offering reservations about “recent military men and women heading the civilian control of the Department of Defense”).  Rather links to a New York Times article about Mattis’ opposition to torture.

Omarosa Manigault was appointed Trump’s Director of the White House Office of Public Liaison.  She is known as a contestant on The Apprentice, and, according to this article, she has worked for Gore and Clinton in the past.  But she became a Trump supporter, and she says that other African-Americans are moving towards the Republican Party.  I remember her saying on the Frontline profile of the two candidates, “The Choice: 2016,” that every critic will bow down to President Trump (see the trailer here).  I saw that before Election Day, and my reaction was “President Trump?  Dream on!”  But Trump went on to win the election!

Star Wars

Jonathan V. Last of The Weekly Standard (often associated with neoconservatism) defends the Empire.  My reaction was “Typical neocon!”, but the article was still an enjoyable read, for this Star Wars geek.

Marc Barnes at First Things has an article entitled “Rogue One and the Return of Reverence.”  Barnes praises Rogue One for having a more religious conception of the Force.

Introverts

The Atlantic had a slightly depressing article about how the teaching profession caters to extroverts, when introverts can be fine teachers.  It said academia is better for introverts.  I remember one professor saying, though, that having students do private research does not completely equip them for academia, in which they will have to interact and work with surly personalities.  He may be right.  Still, academia does involve a lot of private research.

Historical Interest

I wrote about Richard Nixon on my blog for a whole year, 2013.  I should probably mention the latest findings that seem to indicate that Nixon tried to sabotage Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam talks.

Current Events Write-Up: Maverick Cabinet Picks, School Choice, Hillary Visited Working Class States, George Orwell, Etc.

Time for another week of news stories and opinion pieces!

The Trump Cabinet

Stephen Chapman’s column appears on Townhall, and he is usually a critic of Trump.  He is praising Trump’s selection of Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State and Andrew Puzder for Secretary Labor.  According to Chapman, Puzder has actually expressed openness to some minimum wage increase, as well as “a path to legal status—-short of citizenship—-for illegal immigrants” (Puzder’s words, as quoted by Chapman).

According to this Boston Globe article, current Secretary of State John Kerry “praised as thoughtful some of Trump’s nominees, including defense secretary nominee James Mattis and Rex Tillerson, who Trump has selected to be Kerry’s successor.”

POLITICO: Mattis: Trump Cabinet’s Lone Green Hope?: James Mattis Believes Climate Change Is a Security Threat and Catalyzed the Military’s Fuel Efficiency Efforts, by Eric Wolff.

James Mattis is President-elect Trump’s choice for Secretary of Defense.  Mattis believes climate change is real, he helped move the military towards fuel efficiency, and he’s unafraid to speak his mind!

Townhall: Is Trump’s Pick for Budget Director a David Stockman Redux?, by Veronique de Rugy. 

According to Veronique de Rugy, Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s selection for Office of Management and Budget, is a budget cutter.  But he’s for fiscal restraint when it comes to the defense budget and corporate cronyism, too, and the former may not endear him to Republicans!  I am concerned about possible Republican cuts in social programs for the needy.  At the same time, I respect Mulvaney for challenging budgetary bloatedness in the programs many Republicans love.

More on Trump

Townhall: Will Trump Be the ‘Transformative’ President Obama Wanted to Be?, by Jonah Goldberg.

Barack Obama in 2008 presented himself as someone who wanted to transcend ideology and listen to ideas from the other side.  Donald Trump, similarly, is behaving in ways that may indicate that he, too, wants to transcend ideology.  I loved this part in Goldberg’s column: “Going into the GOP primaries, the conventional wisdom held that the winner of the contest would be the candidate who displayed the most ideological purity. Instead the brass ring went to the contender with the least.”

I was a conservative in 2008, and, while I voted for the McCain/Palin ticket, I respected and admired Barack Obama for transcending ideology.  Now, in 2016, my political stances are more on the liberal side, and I like that Trump is transcending ideology.

Townhall: Trump’s First 100 Days for Black America, by Harry R. Jackson, Jr. 

Jackson advocates “regulatory reform,” vouchers for school choice, and sentencing reform as measures that can help African-Americans.  This article stood out to me because Jackson addressed an argument against school choice: “Critics typically recycle two tired arguments against allowing poorer parents the right to choose where their children are educated. The first is that school choice pulls money away from public schools. It does not. This accusation is at odds with actual public data that demonstrates per-pupil spending in public schools increases after school choice programs are implemented. (For example, per-pupil spending in Milwaukee public schools rose 58 percent in the years following the implementation of its voucher program.)”  You can read the column to see what the other argument is.  On a related note, see here for a similar argument for school choice, and here for anti-school choice arguments.

The 2016 Election

Washington Examiner: Faithless Electors Less Faithful to Clinton Than Trump, by Salena Zito.

I thought that was ironic!  Not exactly the narrative people were expecting!

Ori Weisberg on Facebook: “Many of us have been operating with the assumption that the Clinton campaign neglected rust-belt communities, and this is the chief reason she lost the election. This is certainly what Trump’s supporters want us to believe, because it reinforces their depiction of the left as out of touch, echo-chamber dwelling, bubble-inhabiting, smug elitists. But it comes from the left as well. There was a recent article on Sanders staffers who claim they weren’t listened to and knew this was coming that seems to corroborate this, and has some credible claims (http://www.thedailybeast.com/…/team-bernie-hillary-fucking-…). But one metric contradicts it. Clinton certainly DID show up where she needed to. Here is her number of appearances per state in October: FL 33, OH 30, NC 28, PA 26, MI 19, NV 17, IA 16, WI 11, NH 9, NY 8, CA 6, MA 6, CO 5, MN 4, AZ 3, DC 3, IL 3, TX 3, ME 2, VA 2, GA 1, MD 1, MO 1, NJ 1 (https://hillaryspeeches.com/speech-arc…/2016-2/october-2016/).”

I am tempted to believe that stereotype about some on the left, perhaps on account of my own experiences and prejudices.  Yet, I am not surprised that Hillary Clinton showed up in those states.  But she obviously failed to make the connection with enough voters in those states to win, and her neoliberal positions and ties to the establishment probably did not help her.

On ABC This Week last Sunday, Democratic National Committee chairperson Donna Brazile was interviewed, and she was complaining about the hackings.  Yet, she acknowledged that the Democratic Party still has work to do: “You know, I’m not going to sugarcoat what happened on Election Day. We, the Democratic Party has a lot of things that we have to do. Donald Trump cracked the blue wall, OK? He cracked the blue wall. We had a blue wall. We should’ve maintained it. We should’ve kept it.”

Historical Interest

George Orwell Was a Reactionary Snitch Who Made a Blacklist of Leftists for the British Government, by Ben Norton. 

“Apologists insist Orwell simply ‘sold out’ later in life and became a cranky conservative, yet the story is more complex. Orwell had a consistent political thread throughout his life. This explains how he could go from fighting alongside a Spanish Trostkyist militia in a multi-tendency war against fascism to demonizing the Soviet Union as The Real Enemy — before returning home to imperial Britain, where he became a social democratic traitor who castigated capitalism while collaborating with the capitalist state against revolutionaries trying to create socialism.”

Current Events Write-Up: Rex Tillerson, "Fake News," the Bill of Rights, Alan Thicke, and More

I’ve got some current events and opinions links for this week!

The Trump Cabinet

President-elect Donald Trump selected Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson to be Secretary of State.

Pat Buchanan is happy with the decision, from the standpoint of supporting a more non-interventionist foreign policy: “Most businessmen are interested in doing deals, making money, and, if the terms are not met, walking away, not starting a war.  And here is the heart of the objection to Tillerson. He wants to end sanctions and partner with Putin’s Russia, as does Trump. But among many in the mainstream media, think tanks, websites, and on the Hill, this is craven appeasement. For such as these, the Cold War is never over.”

Robert Reich is concerned: “Trump’s pick for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, is the first nominee for that office whose résumé and wealth hinge on his partnerships with tyrants around the world.”

And prominent social conservative Tony Perkins lambastes Rex Tillerson, noting Tillerson’s socially liberal positions.

Moving on to the President-elect’s choice for Interior Secretary, Wes Siler of Outside has an article entitled “Trump’s Interior Pick Is the Last Hope for Our Public Lands: Former Navy SEAL Ryan Zinke Opposes the Republican Land Heist. He May Be the Best Environmental Hope We Have in This Administration.”  As you can tell, the article, overall, lauds Zinke, and what Siler says deserves just as much consideration as the anti-Trump narratives. Yet, near the end, the article briefly mentions aspects of Zinke’s stances that may be of concern to many environmentalists.

More on Trump

Bill Gates recently spoke with the President-elect, and Gates has expressed optimism: “But in the same way President Kennedy talked about the space mission and got the country behind that, I think whether it’s education or stopping epidemics … [or] in this energy space, there can be a very upbeat message that [Trump’s] administration [is] going to organize things, get rid of regulatory barriers, and have American leadership through innovation.”

Eleanor Clift was on the McLaughlin Group with Pat Buchanan for decades.  In a Daily Beast article, she talks about Buchanan’s reactions to the Trump campaign and the Trump transition.  I’m not endorsing everything Buchanan says, but I am interested in his analysis.

At the Literary Hub, Jordan Rothacker has an interview with John Reed, who wrote a parody sequel to George Orwell’s Animal Farm.  One of the lines I liked: “Do you realize that quite a few Marxists are in the upper echelons of global corporations? It’s because they understand the system.”  But here’s where Reed talks about Trump: “As much as I loathe Trump, he doesn’t like the new paradigm either. At least internationally. He’d prefer isolationism, which is not something he’ll be able to advance in slightest. This idea that we can export our power structure, and by so doing expand our economic dominance, is central to corporate strategy. I do suppose on the domestic front, Trump fits in rather precisely.”

Townhall had some articles on Trump’s trade policies.  Stephen Chapman is obviously not a fan, for his article is entitled “Trump’s Self-Defeating Trade Policy.” Chapman lucidly explains his position.  This part was especially helpful in explaining potential drawbacks to protectionism: “U.S. automakers use a multitude of imported components. Most of the cars built on our soil, in fact, contain more than 25 percent foreign parts. A lot of other products assembled here include materials or pieces made elsewhere.  As a result, any duties slapped on imports would inflate costs for American manufacturers, making it harder for them to sell both at home and abroad. It would even hurt other U.S. firms that buy and use imported goods in their operations. In an era of global supply chains, punishing foreigners amounts to punishing American companies and their workers.”

Seton Motley, on the other hand, had an article entitled “Actual Free Trade and Trump Trade Are Absolutely, Perfectly Compatible.”  At first, the article complains about GOP strategies in government.  But it had some interesting insights about trade: “Actual free trade deals – should be, like, eight pages. ‘This agreement eliminates the following tariffs, taxes and subsidies:….’ The Trans-Pacific Partnership – has reached (at least) 5,544 pages. That’s not a free trade deal – that’s a cronyism-packed, government-riddled nightmare mess.  And these ‘free trade’ deals – routinely ignore the anti-free trade practices of the nations with which we are trading. To wit: China. Trump has long and rightly pointed out how damaging to us is China’s currency manipulation. And China imposes all sorts of tariffs on all sorts of U.S. imports, which we continually, blithely ignore – in the name of one-way, America-damaging ‘free trade.'”

On ABC This Week

On ABC This Week last Sunday, Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill had thoughts about how Democrats can “win back those rural, small-town voters…they have lost” (from George Stephanopoulos’ question).  She said:

“Well, I think it’s important that we show up. I think it’s important that we communicate directly with all those working people.  You know, I was really shocked this week that, after all of this talk about coal miners and all of this talk about Buy America, the Republicans and the House of Representatives gutted health care and pension protections for coal miners and removed the Buy America provision that had been put in the bill in a bipartisan basis.  So I think we have got to call out the Republicans, where their walk doesn’t match their talk, and I think we also have to make sure that we communicate clearly that we are the party that cares deeply in our core about working people in this country.”

Fidel Castro

The controversial Richard Falk had things to say about Fidel Castro and the Western media’s response to his death:

“I have been bemused by the captious tone and condescending assessments of mainstream media in the West reacting to Fidel Castro’s death on November 25, 2016. Typical was coverage in The Economist, which while acknowledging Castro’s epic historical role, and even grudgingly admitting that he achieved world class health care and universal education in his impoverished country, reached the ‘politically correct’ conclusion that these achievements were ‘outweighed by his drab legacy. Much of the human capital was wasted by his one-party system, police state, and stagnant centrally planned economy.’…In contrast to generally condescending appraisals in the West, I call attention to two extraordinary essays of appreciation written by cherished friends. One by Sri Lanka’s lead diplomat and cultural critic, Dayan Jayatilleka, published as an opinion piece in the Colombo Telegraph beneath a suitable headline, ‘A Farewell to Fidel: The Last of Epic Heroes,’ Nov. 26, 2016. Dayan not only celebrates Castro’s heroic revolutionary achievement in transforming Cuba from its gangster state identity in the Batista period to a vital outpost of Third World progressive ideals. He also underscores the admirable ethics of liberation violence that guided Castro’s revolutionary practice in ways that exhibited disciplined respect for the innocence of civilian life. For greater detail see Jayatilleka fine appreciative study, Fidel’s Ethics of Violence: The Moral Dimension of the Political Thought of Fidel Castro (London: Pluto Press, 2007). This conception of the ethics of political violence has been essentially absent from the manner in which the struggle between terrorist groups and sovereign states has been waged in various combat zones, especially since the 9/11 attacks. Jayatilleka’s assessments have been confirmed and extended in the recently published book by Nick Hewlett entitled Blood and Progress: Violence in the Pursuit of Emancipation (Edinburgh, Scotland: University of Edinburgh Press, 2016).”

That part about “ethics of liberation violence” that respected innocent “civilian life” stood out to me.  How would one reconcile that with human rights abuses in Cuba?  Perhaps one can say that the victims were neither innocent nor civilian, in the eyes of the Castro regime, but were counter-revolutionary.  In any case, Castro’s articulation of an ethics of liberation violence does not surprise me, since Castro did think about issues, including religion.  But there are people who would probably disagree with the idea that Castro respected innocent civilian life.  Falk’s post is also interesting because it talks about different reactions to Castro’s death.

“Fake News”

Facebook is devising a new “fake news” policy, which would label and possibly marginalize “fake news” sites, on the basis of what “fact-checking” sites say (or so I understand the proposed policy).
William LaJeunesse of Fox News has an illuminating article entitled: “Facebook’s War on ‘Fake News’ Has Skeptics Asking: Who Decides?”  The article explains the concern some conservatives, and even some non-conservatives, have about Facebook’s policy, along with Mark Zuckerberg’s attempts to clarify it.

Historical Interest

It was Bill of Rights Day this last week.  Ed Feulner of Townhall had an article entitled “We Almost Didn’t Have the Bill of Rights.”


Feulner says that some people opposed the Bill of Rights because they thought people already had those rights, without the government needing to recognize them explicitly.  For the government to codify those rights would be to imply that the rights came from government, as opposed to being natural, or given by God.  If Feulner is correct, I wonder how that would correspond with the view that, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights restricted the federal government but not the state governments.  If a right is natural or given by God, would that not imply that a state should not be able to suppress it?  On a related note, see Steve Hays’ post, The Bill of Rights.

Death

Growing Pains actor Alan Thicke passed on this last week.  Thicke played the dad, Jason Seaver.    This article talked about the kind of dad he played.  I remember two episodes in particular.  On one, Mike, Jason’s oldest son (played by Kirk Cameron), saw the ghost of his uncle, jogging into the kitchen, just like the uncle did before dying.  Mike told Jason, and Jason calmly and wisely suggested that Mike find out what the ghost wants.  Jason was a psychologist, and yet he did not dismiss what Mike saw.  He listened, took Mike seriously, and was understanding.  On another episode, Mike gets a bad grade from his psychology professor, so Jason does Mike’s homework.  But that gets a bad grade, too!  So Jason has a debate with Mike’s psychology professor!

Current Events Write-Up: The Trump Cabinet, Taiwan, Etc.

I was going to post my Current Events Write-Up tomorrow, but the links are piling up, so I’ll share them today!

The Trump Cabinet, or Potential Cabinet, or Trump Advisors, or Trump Allies

ABC This Week Transcript for December 4, 2016

I tape ABC This Week while I am at church, then I watch it when I come home. I liked something David Petraeus said:

“Well, I think [Trump]’s actually quite pragmatic. In our conversation what I enjoyed most frankly was the discussion of issues, or say campaign rhetoric, if you will, and then placing that in a strategic context.  As an example, he is not anti-trade, he is against — he’s anti-unfair trade.  The wall — well, the wall would be a — an element in a comprehensive effort to shore up our security on the southern border, which, by the way, as we discussed, would include more help to Mexico for the problems that it has in the broader rule of law area, and, indeed, perhaps with its southern border, which is so challenged, as well.”

I like the part about the U.S. helping Mexico with law enforcement and border protection.  But shouldn’t something also be done to alleviate the poverty in Mexico that encourages Mexican immigrants to come here?

Vice-President-elect Mike Pence said something about Medicaid that concerns me, from a compassion-for-the-poor perspective, but I am open-minded:

“With regard to Medicaid, though, I will tell you, there’s a real opportunity, there’s a real opportunity as we repeal and replace ObamaCare to do exactly what the president-elect also said on the campaign, and that is block granting Medicaid back to the states.  Allow states to do what Indiana was able to do, in part in the last couple of years, and that is innovate.  We actually — we actually have people on Medicaid the first time in the history of the program that actually have to make a monthly contribution to a health savings account to receive full benefits. We want to give states even greater flexibility in innovating and creating the kind of health care solutions that will work for their population.”

When I heard this, I wondered: Do the poor of Indiana need to contribute to a Health Saving Account from their own pocket, as if they have the money?  It seems so, but the amount is from $1 to $28.  Anyway, this article talks about how Indiana handles Medicaid, going into what people see as the positives and negatives of its approach.

The Federalist: Kellyanne Conway Would Be a Feminist Hero If She Were a Democrat, by Julie Kelly

I like this part: “After taking the helm of the listless Trump campaign in August, Conway helped shape a more disciplined candidate, with a message focused on a stronger economy and national defense. Conway is like the pretty brainiac who tamed the school jock, got him to shut up in class, and made him carry her books. Hell, she even got him to study once in a while.”

Forbes: Tom Price’s Health Plan Doesn’t Let Insurers Impose Pre-existing Condition Exclusions—-Sort Of, by Seth Chandler

Tom Price is President-elect Trump’s selection for Secretary of Health and Human Services.  In 2015, as a congressman, Price proposed the Empowering Patients First Act of 2015.  According to this article, the Act would have exempted patients from pre-existing conditions exclusions if they had their health insurance for eighteen months.  But, as the article says, there would still be challenges: what if you don’t have health insurance, for example, and you want to buy some?  Would you have to pay more if you have a pre-existing condition, or would you be denied coverage for that condition?  This legislation, like Obamacare, is trying to navigate between two extremes.  On the one hand, we don’t want the horrors depicted on Michael Moore’s Sicko, of people paying into policies and then their health insurance doesn’t cover something because it is a “pre-existing condition.”  On the other hand, we don’t want a situation in which people lack insurance, then they suddenly buy it once they get sick.  This article offers constructive criticism of Price’s legislation.

American Conservative: Mattis on Our Way of War, by Jon Basil Utley

James Mattis is Trump’s selection for Secretary of Defense.  In the quotes of Mattis in this article, and in the wikipedia article about him, Mattis comes across as someone who is judicious, cautious, learned, and concerned about not provoking anti-American sentiment abroad.  He also supports a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, which may set him apart from some of the other Trump appointees.

Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity: Trump’s Promised ‘New Foreign Policy’ Must Abandon Regime Change for Iran, by Ron Paul

On the other hand, there may be cause for concern!  Ron Paul contrasts Trump’s reservation about regime change during his campaign, with some of the belligerent statements by his appointees.

Breitbart: How Ben Carson Can Save the Liberal Millennials Who Disdain Him, by Greg Ferenstein

Ben Carson has been selected by Trump to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.  Ferenstein talks about free-market approaches that Carson can pursue to increase housing and help alleviate economic inequality.

Yahoo Finance: Student Debtors, This Trump Ally Wants to Be Your Friend, by Shahien Nasiripour

“U.S. Representative Tom Reed this week formally endorsed a law originally proposed by House Democrats. Though a long shot, the bill would do more for America’s roughly 42 million student debtors than the one proposed two years ago by Warren, the liberal firebrand from Massachusetts.”

American Conservative: A Populist-Conservative Melting Pot, by Robert Verbruggen

I loved this article because it said what I have been thinking.  Trump’s cabinet looks like an interesting mix!  You have establishment Republicans, but also populists who diverge from the establishment.  Some of my favorite passages: “The treasury secretary will promote huge tax cuts while free-trade deals are being fed through a shredder, and everyone’s heads will explode at the Wall Street Journal.”  “A wild bit of speculation: the conservatives will have the upper hand while Republicans control Congress, but the populists will find more common ground with Democrats—who if history is any guide will gain seats in 2018.”

Other Domestic Policy and Issues 

Info Wars: Standing Rock Water Protectors vs. Globalist Agitators

Info Wars is Alex Jones’ site.  Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist and has spoken positively of Trump.  My heart is warmed that his site is speaking in favor of the protesters at Standing Rock.

ABC News: Donald Trump Meets with Climate Advocate Al Gore, by Jordyn Phelps

I am concerned about Trump’s selection of Scott Pruitt for EPA, but I am pleased that Trump met with Al Gore.

Forward: The ‘Anti-Semitism Awareness Act’ Is the Opposite of What Jews and Muslims Need Now, by Rachel Roberts

Rachel Roberts is a friend of mind.  We both attended Jewish Theological Seminary.  She expresses concerns about the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act,” which is sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League.  She is concerned that it may conflate anti-Semitism with criticisms of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.

Taiwan

I have come across a lot of articles that defend Trump’s phone conversation with the President of Taiwan, or at least that deny it’s the beginning of the apocalypse!  For a sample, see the articles about this issue in The Weekly Standard, The Ron Paul Liberty Report, The Daily Beast, The Daily Wire, and Reason.  (Just click on the links, and that will take you to the articles.)

Some of my favorite articles about the topic:

Foreign Policy: How Bad Was Trump’s Taiwan Phone Call, by Michael Green

This article argues that Reagan managed to improve relations with both Taiwan and China!  It also talks about the difference of opinion within his Administration on Taiwan, as even some of the Cold War hawks opposed outreach to Taiwan.

American Conservative: The Folly of Provoking China, by Daniel Larison

This article presents another perspective.  “Our hawks tend to overlook nationalist sentiment in other countries, and they dismiss how other states define their vital interests, and then they agitate for policies that meddle in the very issues that can trigger a nationalist reaction.”

Is Trump Calling Out Xi Jinping?, by Patrick J. Buchanan

My impression is that Buchanan wants to applaud Trump on the Taiwan phone conversation, but he has some reservations.  Buchanan also notes where China’s interests overlap with ours.

New York Times: Bob Dole Worked Behind the Scenes on Trump-Taiwan Call

So this conversation wasn’t some careless faux-pas on Trump’s part.  Bob Dole worked on it.

Off-Guardian: Red-Baiting, Putin-Scaremongering Democrats Are Now Suddenly Worried About Offending China, by Caitlin Johnstone

The title says it all!

Historical Interest

The Humanist: Ron Capshaw’s review of Richard Weikart’s Hitler’s Religion

Was Hitler a Christian?  This article argues that the public Hitler used Christian rhetoric, but the private Hitler disdained Christianity and held pantheistic beliefs.

Ron Paul Liberty Report: FDR’s Pearl Harbor Bait, by Jacob G. Hornberger

This article argues that FDR egged the Japanese on.  Some of the comments underneath the article disagree.