The Christmas Miracle

For Christmas, this novella is a fictional account of one person’s search for God, for love, as he arrives at the final moment of his life. Calvin is a middle aged husband and father dying of cancer. He is spending his last days in a hospice. The book examines his last day of life, Christmas Eve into Christmas Day. Amid the pain and suffering, Calvin experiences a recurring dream in which he is searching for truth, attempting to fill in a scroll with words of truth. In an imaginary dream town, he tries various means to uncover the truth, without success. Finally, in the late afternoon of Christmas Eve, he finds himself standing in line in an alley of the town. He converses with several people–a smoker, a knitter, a professor, and a little bald man. As they wait for the end of the line, they try to figure out what the line is for. Their conversation takes a religious turn, and the professor tries to convince everyone that Christianity is nonsense. He is skeptical and secular. The little bald man tries to counter the professor’s arguments, generally without success. As the line proceeds outside of town into a hilly environment, and as darkness falls and fog envelops them, they cease their conversations. Calvin is alone with his thoughts. He is not sure why he is in the line, where it is taking him. Eventually, at dawn, he comes to a hill on which is a ladder. Unsure why, for what purpose, he scales it anyway, and arrives at a long wooden horizontal post with a hammer and nails. There are notes hammered to the wood. Calvin reads them. They are confessions of error, pain, suffering, and sin–to whom is unclear. Meanwhile Calvin, in the hospice, goes in and out of sleep. He is experiencing horrible pain, and knows he is close to death. The dream intrigues him. As he grows closer and closer to the end, the dream reaches a culmination as well.

The book is available on Amazon:

Posted in books, Christianity | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Image of God

Many years ago I wrote this poem after the birth of my third son. It is particularly appropriate during this season of advent; the poem can easily be applied to the Christ child.

Image of God

Sheltered in warmth,

Cocooned in love,

Peaceful slumber undisturbed.

Profile of grace,

Distance between

Human and divine is blurred.

Image of God,

Where evil flees,

Sweet purity unperturbed.

Body and soul,

Unite as one,

Eternal blessings ensured.

Life fresh and new,

Content in sleep,

By angelic care secured.

Wee little babe,

Life ever new,

By this gift God’s eternal will is served.

Posted in Christianity, God's Providence | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Being a Christian Scholar in a Secular Academic World

The culture wars of our times have been centered in universities since the emergence of the Counter Culture in the 1960s. University scholars have often taken the lead in progressive stances on ethical, cultural, and religious issues. For many years I have taught at a variety of colleges and universities, including Christian-based Liberal Arts colleges. I went to universities for my undergraduate and graduate education and witnessed firsthand the growing secularism in the academic world.

My philosophy of teaching is based on my faith that God’s will, Providence, is constantly present in human events. The temptations in our materialistic, secular world not to believe in the presence of God’s will are great. In higher education, a belief in the presence of God’s will is considered foolhardy and simplistic. And yet my understanding of human history, as well as my own personal experience, tell me that God’s will is and always has been active in human affairs. One thinks of St. Paul’s statement that he is a fool for Christ. Indeed, Paul faced criticism and derision for his simple belief in God’s will. Such a belief contradicted Greek and Roman philosophy of the first century just as it contradicts science and philosophy today.

In bringing my belief in Providence to students I don’t browbeat nor proselytize, or ever state it specifically; many students would be surprised to know this is what I believe. Indeed, I encourage questioning and doubt. If God’s will is present, which I believe it is, awareness of His will in our lives will shine clearly through doubt and confusion. This happened in my own life, and I believe it will happen in the lives of students as well.

I bring my philosophy of Christian liberal arts education to bear not only in the classroom but in the conference room and world of scholarship as well. I teach courses in religion from a historical perspective and courses in history from a subtle religious perspective. Even at ostensibly Christian schools, I have discovered that it has not always been easy to promote Christian learning in the academy. As Chair of the Task Force on General Education at one college, I worked against much opposition to institute a required Christianity course in the core curriculum. Moreover, in my many books on explorers and scientists, I recognize, though never state explicitly, the role of Providence in their lives.

Thoreau advised people to march to a different drummer. The standards and philosophy of leading centers of higher education, and in academic journals and conferences and publishing, is secular. Christianity has long been removed from the halls of academe. Yet if the tradition of the liberal arts has long been associated with Christian learning, if American education was overwhelmingly Christian for centuries, why should we abandon it based on the spur of the moment, which, in terms of the history of humankind, is marked in decades and centuries, not seconds, minutes, and hours. What is popular and accepted today will not be tomorrow. One must be true to oneself, and not follow along in the arbitrary directions of the winds of change. There is an anchor to truth in the world. And, in my opinion, a person who is supposed to be involved in pursing the truth and helping others to do so as well—a professor in a liberal arts college—should not abandon this responsibility. For as Jesus said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”

I have often been asked how an older person or teacher should respond to a younger person who has embraced atheism or agnosticism. As a Christian scholar in a secular academic world, this is my response:

Atheism is a philosophy that is a figment of the imagination. It derives from a lack of satisfaction, from unhappiness, from feeling unfulfilled, from fear of the many tragedies that befall humans. How can God, if he exists, allow the many disasters that we read about, experience, on a daily basis? How can God allow the random deaths of children, cancer coming to a person who is apparently healthy and happy, tornadoes that sweep through neighborhoods, terrorist attacks, random murders of the innocent, civil wars, fires sweeping through apartment buildings, the attacks of 9/11, and so on, and so on? There are too many disasters and tragedies and chance occurrences that kill and dismember to list them all. Think of the hunger that exists, the poverty, the disease, the drug abuse, the crime. One wonders: where is God in all of this? God, why have you forsaken us?

These questions have been asked for thousands of years by thoughtful and despairing people who question God even as they realize He exists. God is so much a part of our existence that to deny Him is to deny Self, to subject oneself to never-ending anxiety about what was, what is, and what will be. Jesus on the Cross quoted Psalm 22, God why have you forsaken me?, rhetorically, for he knew that God, Self, never forsakes.

We live in times of terror, disaster, crime, racial conflict, economic woes—but of course all times are alike, never has there been a time of peace, happiness, love, plenty, unending fair skies and full stomachs. So, because each moment has sufficient cause for worry, humans–indeed all animals–fear.

Fear, timidity, cowardice, one could say, are the natural state of humankind. For how can we confront each moment of uncertainty with certain courage and faith? It is quite impossible, because the next moment of uncertainty comes, followed by the next, and the next, and the next. It doesn’t end until death. The anxiety of each passing moment convinces some people that there is absolute uncertainty in the world, that is, there is no God.

In Paul of Tarsus’s s second letter to his friend Timothy, Paul, in one sentence, summed the human dilemma, summed Christianity, and summed why atheism is a philosophy that is based on fantasy. He told Timothy that God asks us to be fearless: fearlessness derives from power, love, and self-control. The Greek word for power, dynamis, is the same word used in the Gospels to describe Jesus’ power in healing others. It is the power of love. And a person can only use this power of love by means of self-control, that is, self-awareness, to realize that love is found in oneself. And this love is God, for as John truly said, God is Love.

Love is a universal, a constant throughout time and place, found wherever there is hate, despair, tragedy, suffering. Love is the universal, the transcendent, the eternal, the infinite. The atheist proclaims there is no God, then proclaims that love exists, not realizing the inherent contradiction.

To discipline oneself, to channel love toward others, is a work of great power. It is the means by which love combats hate.

There is much noise in our society: television, movies, videos, cells, tablets, pcs, iphones, speakers, headphones—the list goes on and on. Humans are constantly talking and listening, though rarely is the communication relevant. If a person retreats to his or her own room, there he or she might find God.

Posted in Christianity, General Essays | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Understanding Divine Providence: Montaigne and the Fear of Death

The life and Essays of Michel de Montaigne, the sixteenth-century French Catholic philosopher, reveals how accepting the will of God helps a person face the overwhelming fear of mortality–in other words, to embrace death. 

Montaigne was neither saint, priest, nor monk, rather a worldly man who lived in a secular time of conflict between Protestants and Catholics. Montaigne was a landowner, a government official, and soldier. He was as well a Catholic layman who preserved his faith in light of the Protestant challenge during the sixteenth century. He struggled with the new ideas of the Renaissance, such as humanism, which placed humans as near equals to God. He questioned new scientific ideas that seemed to challenge Biblical authority. Montaigne was a thinker who penetrated self in search of answers for his faith, his heritage, and his relationship with God. His response, the Essays, have been variously interpreted as the work of a humanist, a skeptic, perhaps an atheist. Rarely are Montaigne’s Essays considered for what they are in fact, the ruminations of a Catholic layman searching for answers that are in response to his understanding of divine providence.

Montaigne faced many serious challenges in his life; the most recurrent, terrifying challenge he faced was with death. The fear of death defined him. How could it not? Montaigne and his wife Francoise de La Chassaigne had six children, all girls; all of the babies save one died within three months; the lone survivor died in childhood. Besides the melancholy of burying his six children, Montaigne lost his father to kidney stones. Michel watched his father Pierre suffer and die, anticipating his own disease and death. 

These years of anticipation were filled with self-induced trauma. Montaigne was a ruminator. He could not keep his mind from obsessing about illness and death. Each moment was potentially a singular experience of joy and wonder if it were not that the passing seconds moved one closer to the end. At the same time that he counseled himself to accept God’s “divine and inscrutable wisdom,” he was descending deeper into the unforgiving world of thought. He ironically thanked God for the constant “brooding over my own thoughts” so that “death, whenever he shall come, can bring nothing along with him I did not expect long before.” 

Montaigne wrote the course of his life into his book. He wrote Essays about his varying emotions, need for solitude, vanity, fear, and cowardice; his friendship and suffering; the importance of conquering the fear of death; about his inconsistency and contradictions; his intellectual influences; and, in his longest essay, the Apology for Raymond Sebond, he challenged the human presumption of reason, questioned what can be known, and explored the dependence of humans upon God. The thirteen essays of Book Three are introspective, intuitive essays in which Montaigne discovered the universality of his own experiences, confronted his own mortality, and discovered the means of achieving contentment. 

During this time in which Montaigne awaited the onset of disease, he began his Essays. He wanted to know why he feared death. Why did this feeling about an as yet unknown future so dominate his existence? The imagination, if not put to good use, restricted from idleness, will “run into a thousand extravagances”–fear. Yearning to understand his images of doom, “to contemplate their strangeness and absurdity, I have begun to commit them in writing, hoping in time to make [my mind] ashamed of itself.” Montaigne feared fear, which was his constant companion. The abstractions of his mind took off “like a  horse that has broke from his rider.” Death appeared to Montaigne as “so many chimaeras and fantastic monsters, one upon another, without order or design.”

Daily Montaigne reasoned with himself, preached to himself, trying to make an apparent evil good, trying to bring pleasure out of suffering. He worked to convince himself that the stone was an ultimate good that was slowly preparing him for mortality. He would not have wished it, yet it was a benefit that he acquired it. He convinced himself that he was joining the company of the ancient Stoics, through God’s will, controlling the body, elevating the mind. He rationalized his ailment. “But thou dost not die because though art sick, thou diest because thou art living. Death kills thee without the help of sickness.” His illness granted him a unique personal experience: in a single moment he could experience the joys and horrors of life: “Is there anything delightful in comparison of this sudden change, when from excessive pain, I come, by the voiding of a stone, to recover, as by a flash of lightning, the beautiful light of health, so free and full?” Montaigne discovered death’s irony that amid its universality is the uniqueness of the particular experience in countless moments of time, never again to be repeated. Human death mirrors human life, human existence, human history, as infinite unique events become the past moving toward the future. The oneness yet individual uniqueness of humans is seen most clearly through death. And if one feels terror because of death one also feels beauty and love, for without death life itself would be meaningless. Montaigne sensed that though his ruminations were beneficial, and helped him to endure uncertainty and crippling fear, that ultimately some other tactic must be relied upon. Such is the route to faith. “What is it we do not lay the fault to, right or wrong?” Some even “exceed all folly, forasmuch as impiety is joined therewith,” blaming “God Himself.” That was an option of course. God is behind all things, and Montaigne knew it. God is the ultimate source of disease, of suffering, of fear. Many have occupied their minds blaming Providence. Not Montaigne. 

“Of Prayers” reveals Montaigne’s belief that God orders reality. God is inscrutable; divine wisdom, justice, and order are unchanging. Montaigne felt total awe toward this Being, so much so that he did not agree with the common person praying to God, for prayer must be completely pious, pure, uncorrupted by human motives and desires. One must have a certain basis in religious knowledge to approach God. In the Apology for Raimond Sebond Montaigne shows how much we do not know, just how unstable human reason is. If there is absolute knowledge, and if we are so distant in our relation to knowledge, if we realize that in our instability we can rarely penetrate the inscrutability of God, yet as humans we cannot help but seek this knowledge, then we must go to that single source, knowledge of self, as the only real means of ever hoping to approach knowledge of something more than just passing temporal affairs. Who am I to know God?, Montaigne asks. How can I truly know God? By examining the self. Examine each moment, he told himself, each event in life brought about by the will of God, and his response to the challenge of time. In dying, what is the response? In suffering and death, what is the response? To live life: it “is not only the fundamental, but the most illustrious, of your occupations.” Montaigne anticipated the eighteenth-century Jesuit philosopher Jean-Pierre de Caussade’s Abandonment to Divine Providence in his comments about the simplicity of God’s providence, the simplicity of life: “We are great fools. ‘He has passed his life in idleness,’ say we: ‘I have done nothing today.’: “What! have you not lived? . . . “Have you known how to regulate your conduct, you have done a great deal more than he who has composed books.” In short, “the glorious masterpiece of man is to know how to live to purpose.” And what is it to live to purpose? To live in conformity to God’s will.

The time spent reading, contemplating, ruminating, searching, seeking the path to happiness, to knowledge, eventually appeared, Montaigne concluded at the end of his life, impious. Why should humans, should he, seek, question, ask, decide, move, plan, force, act upon those matters reserved for the will of God? What is the point to all of the rules of objective scholarship and scientific detachment if what we know or do not know, do or do not do, are in God’s hands anyway? One must accept. “I have let myself go as I came,” Montaigne confessed in Of Physiognomy; “I contend not.” Balancing knowledge is ignorance; next to will is passivity. Though reason calls, one must learn the value of faith. Mystery and miracles contradicted the well-trained philosopher’s mind of Montaigne. And yet the so-called stoic, skeptic, rationalist, atheist Montaigne, the Montaigne of the modern scholar, learned “that to condemn anything for false and impossible, is arrogantly and impiously to circumscribe and limit the will of God.” Carved in the ceiling of his library was the line from the Psalmist, “Thy judgments are like a great deep.”

Montaigne’s battle to accept himself in light of his understanding of God’s will is the story of his life’s work. The closing theme of the Essays is faith. Montaigne believed his life’s struggle with death and his duty to accept God’s providence were common to all humanity. Ultimately, as St. Augustine showed, and as other thinkers who came after Montaigne, such as Jean-Pierre Caussade, would continue to emphasize, to relinquish control to God in death is in the end a very simple act–an act of faith.

(Quotes from The Works of Montaigne, ed. W. Hazlitt, 1856)

Posted in Christianity, God's Providence, Michel de Montaigne | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Modernity and Martyrdom: Dying for Providence

One of the great challenges to a person who believes that God’s will is always present is that Providence orders a world of growing irreligiosity, violence, terrorism, and atheistic ideologies. The divine plan is clearly beyond the human ability to comprehend. For many years God demands of us belief when the majority of the population, educators, government leaders, and law enforcement disbelieve, refuse to accommodate, even fear, Divine Providence. The belief that God is in control of all things challenges the rationality and secularism of our world, and seems in social media, the academic world, modern science, and popular culture, ludicrous. Throughout most of the past five hundred years of American history Roman Catholics have faced anger, resistance, violence, discrimination, and loss of inherent rights. The most courageous, the most convinced of God’s will, were those willing to die for their beliefs—the martyrs.

Martyrs are “witnesses” to God’s Providence, so much so that they often intuitively anticipate their own death at the hands of disbelievers and oppressors. A martyr is typically a normal person, not more intelligent, not more courageous, not “better,” just more faithful, knowing that God’s will orders all things, including in their own lives.

For the first three centuries of American history after the arrival of Columbus martyrs were typically missionaries bringing the Good News to indigenous peoples, who were often receptive but sometimes not, and violence was the result. During the past two centuries, the modernity of American society, culture, and technology has resulted in a modern mentality that eschews God and His Providence in the belief that humans are the ultimate expression of the evolution of life. Modern ideologies besides Darwinism include Marxism, the belief that material forces dominate a godless world; behavioralism, that humans are inherently irrational, dominated by the subconscious mind; and relativism, that truth depends on the whims of the individual: with such secular ideologies holding sway over most of the world’s peoples, it is an easy task for government to assume the role of God and demand obedience and worship from the masses. Since such governments are often oppressive to opposition and in control of powerful armies, those who stand up for God oftentimes accept God’s will that their lives will be a witness to Providence.

What happened to Mexico during the nineteenth century in the wake of independence from Spain is illustrative. The Mexicans identified the Roman Catholic church with imperialist Spain, and the decades following independence saw increasing restrictions on the influence of the Church. Constant political conflict between liberals and conservatives in Mexico led to economic, social, and cultural instability—one of the casualties was Christian morality. Benito Juárez, leader of the Liberal faction, fought against the power and influence of the Catholic Church. Liberals had the wealthy and educated backing them against the vast numbers of uneducated peasants who retained their faith, not giving into modern ideologies. Oppression of Roman Catholics erupted into the Cristero War in the early twentieth century. Mexico’s 1917 Constitution upheld earlier governmental acts seeking to bring secularism to the Mexican people.

The Catholic Church was not silent during these years when modernity was taking over the world. Vatican I, for example, proclaimed: “Everything that God has brought into being he protects and governs by his providence, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare to his eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures.” Vatican II almost a century later provided an incisive assessment of modernity: “Never before has man had so keen an understanding of freedom, yet at the same time new forms of social and psychological slavery make their appearance.” The Encyclical of Pope Pius XI on the Persecution of the Church in Mexico accused the Mexican government of trying to rid the Church from Mexico, depriving it and its people of basic rights, such as the right to worship freely.

A wonderful, insightful portrayal of the conflict between government and religion in twentieth-century Mexico is Graham Greene’s The Power and the Glory. The book evokes the life of an unsuspected martyr, known only as the “whiskey priest,” who is a drunkard and scoundrel who accepts a hitherto unanticipated role of supporting God’s will in providing the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, for oppressed people while continually fighting against his own sense of unworthiness and his terror at being caught and executed. Facing him is the Lieutenant, a fervent atheist who supports government repression, and who is infuriated “to think that there were still people in the state who believed in a loving and merciful God. There are mystics who are said to have experienced God directly. He was a mystic, too, and what he had experienced was vacancy–a complete certainty in the existence of a dying, cooling world, of human beings who had evolved from animals for no purpose at all. He knew.” The Lieutenant stops at nothing to capture the whiskey priest and halt the sacraments from providing the Mexican people with a hope beyond the secular power of the government. The priest’s terrified acquiescence to God’s will in performing the sacraments finally leads to his capture and martyrdom. The book wonderfully assesses what happens to a society in which the rational, secular state forbids religious beliefs and functions, and the people become numb and dead inside. To prevent this martyrs sacrifice themselves.

A historical example to support’s Greene’s fictional portrayal is Jose Sabás Reyes Salazar (1883-1927). A native of Jalisco, Mexico, Sabás was ordained in Tamaulipas, a barren, harsh land where he served until government persecution forced him to flee to Tototlán, Jalisco, where he again faced persecution in delivering the sacraments to the faithful. He was priest during the presidency of Plutarcho Calles, whose administration featured oppression of Catholic worship on pain of imprisonment and death. Father Sabás realized that continuing to deliver the sacraments in secret would result in personal disaster, but he could not resist God’s call. Federal troops in 1827 entered the town searching for Catholics; Father Sabás took shelter in the home of one of the families he served. When the troops entered the home, Sabás, to prevent the family from suffering, as he was the one they were searching for, came out of hiding and made himself known—he knew that the result would be torture and death. He conformed to the will of God, praising God as the torturers and executioners slowly took his life away.

Another example of martyrdom by a priest seeking to defend the rights of the people to worship occurred in Guatemala almost half century ago. Stanley Rother (1935-1981) was a small-town Oklahoma boy turned priest and missionary to Guatemalans in a small village in the late 1960s. He served for over a decade as violence increased during the Guatemalan Civil War. He knew that his life was in danger, writing his bishop in 1980: “The reality is that we are in danger. But we don’t know when or what form the government will use to further repress the Church. . . . Given the situation, I am not ready to leave here just yet. There is a chance that the government will back off. If I get a direct threat or am told to leave, then I will go. But if it is my destiny that I should give my life here, then so be it. . . . I don’t want to desert these people.”

There is no more compelling proof of the power of faith and belief in God’s goodness and the rightness in conforming to His will than Rother’s simple statement, “so be it.” God, the supreme Being, gives life, being, and demands life, being. Who are we to deny our being to God when He calls for it?

Posted in Christianity, God's Providence | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Virgin of Guadalupe

In 1759 in the coolness of an October morning just before dawn in the forest of southern Quebec, English soldiers stealthily crept up to a sleeping Algonquin village. On a signal from their commander, Robert Rogers, his men, the Rangers, attacked the sleepers in their wigwams. The Rangers descended upon one hut, servicing as a Roman Catholic Church, with an altar decorated with silver candlesticks and a silver image of the Virgin Mary. They stole the silver and set the church on fire; the missionary serving the Algonquins was martyred, perishing in the flames. The Rangers took their loot and fled. Algonquin warriors soon pursued the fleeing Rangers, who were weighed down by the silver, so buried it. The Silver Virgin has never been found.

One might question why a silver statue of the Virgin Mary was gracing an altar of a primitive wigwam church in the forest of southern Quebec. In fact, throughout North America there were similar primitive churches in Indian villages with images of the Virgin, dedicated to the Immaculate Conception, where Indians, led by a missionary priest, said Mass, and venerated the Mother and Child. How did this come to be?

Beginning with Columbus’ first voyage in 1492, the Spanish brought with them to America a belief in the Virgin Mary. Columbus named his flagship Santa Maria de la Inmaculada Concepción. Columbus’ favorite prayer was Jesus cum Maria sit nobis in via, “may Jesus with Mary be with us on the way.” Subsequent missionaries brought Christ as well as His Mother to the indigenous people, converting them, teaching them how to pray, bringing the Sacraments to these neophytes.

Then, in December, 1531, something miraculous happened. The Virgin Mary appeared to a simple Aztec Indian named Cuauhtlatohuac.

We have all been there. It is a situation in which something occurs, some feeling or intuition or thought, some presence. We are taught to be incredulous, to doubt, to not allow the mind to see something, or hear something, or feel something out of the ordinary. Juan de Zumárraga, an educated Franciscan and bishop of Mexico in 1531, was like this. He believed in the Trinity, in the Sacraments, and had faith, but he was impatient with superstition, with storytelling of this or that miracle. Such is the reason that he was skeptical when an Aztec Indian named Juan Diego approached him with a story of an apparition that he had witnessed, a young woman dressed as an Aztec maiden speaking the indigenous language, Nahuatl, who told him: “Know, know for sure, my dearest and youngest son, that I am the perfect ever Virgin Holy Mary, mother of the one great God of truth who gives us life, the Inventor and Creator of people. . . . I want very much that they build my sacred little house here. In which I will show Him, I will exalt Him, and make Him manifest: I will give Him to the people in all my personal love, in my compassionate gaze, in my help, in my salvation.”

It is not that Bishop Zumárraga doubted the existence of the Virgin Mother of God, or that she might appear or speak to a human, but to appear on a hill outside of Mexico City dressed as an Aztec maiden speaking the indigenous language to a peasant, albeit a Roman Catholic Indian convert, was a bit too much to swallow.

Likewise we might have the same approach to a calling, a feeling, a thought that seems to be from God, and we might doubt that Christ or His Mother would approach us, an individual alone, that the divine is present now, in this moment, reaching out to you, that His will is touching you, asking you to listen and obey.

Bishop Zumárraga naturally told Juan Diego to be a bit more specific and precise, and bring some evidence besides his apparent oversized imagination, before he could seriously give credence to the story, and consider building of all things, a church on a hill.

Juan Diego obediently returned and again saw the apparition of the Virgin. He told her of the Bishop’s incredulity. He suggested that a more important person than a humble peasant approach the Bishop. She responded: “Listen, my youngest and dearest son, know for sure that I have no lack of servants, of messengers, to whom I can give the task of carrying my breath, my word, so that they carry out my will; but it is very necessary that you, personally, go and plead, that my wish, my will, become a reality, be carried out through your intercession.”

God’s providence is the great equalizer. Even a nobody might be given a divine task. Juan Diego could not but obey, so he returned to the bishop, and made the request again. The bishop was unmoved. There must be something concrete, something that Juan Diego could show, to convince the skeptical Zumárraga.

Juan Diego, embarrassed, tried to avoid the Virgin, but she found him, and realizing that her word was insufficient, that there must be had concrete proof, she asked him to gather flowers in bloom, even in December, put them inside his cloak, his tilma, and take them to the bishop. Juan Diego did, and when he opened his tilma to the bishop, replacing the flowers was the beautiful image of the Virgin of Guadalupe that still exists in Mexico City. With such proof the bishop believed.

Blessed are those who have not seen yet still believe. The Virgin had informed Juan Diego that “I am truly your compassionate mother, yours and of all the people who live together in this land.” Recognizing this proclamation regarding the Americas, bishops in the United States in 1846 proclaimed Mary as the Immaculate Conception the Patroness of America. Reading her words to Juan Diego literally, she informs us that she represents her Son, her actions in time makes Him “manifest,” a word that has a sense of urgency and truth, that calls out to us to look here and see the Lord, see the Truth, see He through Whom all things are made. Mary informed us, just thirty-nine years after the coming of Columbus to America, that this continent is Christ’s, and through Him, Her’s as well, that knowledge and worship of Him will be spread, initially in Her church on Tepeyac Hill, subsequently throughout the continents to north and south, and people will come to know the presence of God, His will, and that He reigns.

After the appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the veneration for Mary proliferated. A cult dedicated to Our Lady developed soon after. Seventeenth-century historian Fernando de Alba Ixtlilxochitl wrote that when the indigenous people “heard that the Holy Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ had appeared, and since they saw and admired her most perfect Image, which has no human art, their eyes were opened as if suddenly day had dawned for them.” An early Franciscan missionary in Texas, Fray Marcos de Niza, approached the Tejas Indians “singing the Litany of Our Lady” carrying “in front a picture on linen of the Blessed Virgin.” Seventeenth-century French missionary Gabriel Druillettes experienced a miracle when the Virgin healed his blindness. The first Ursulines arrived in America after St. Marie de L’Incarnation had a dream of the Virgin telling her, to Canada “thou must go and build there a house to Jesus and Mary.”

One of the impediments to the conversion of the first ordained priest in the United States, John Thayer, had been the veneration of the Virgin, which Protestants derided as fantastic, comparable to children believing in ghosts. But Thayer came to realize “that it was profitable to employ with the Son, the intercession of his holy Mother, and that far from doing an injury by honoring and loving her whom he had so tenderly loved himself, it was the mean[s] of honoring him the more.”

The presence of the Mother of God is now, in the moment, interceding with and for the Son, but more, enacting the will of God, an instrument of Providence—indeed, the Mother of Providence.

Posted in Christianity, God's Providence | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Joseph Ratzinger and Providence

Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, was a theologian, academic, writer, and historian of Christianity who believed in Providence, that God’s will is present throughout time and place. Providence is the theme of the Psalms, indeed the entirety of the Bible; it was the theme in St. Augustine’s historical works, Confessions and City of God; it was stubbornly recognized by the Renaissance humanist Montaigne; it became the life’s work of Jean-Pierre Caussade; it was recognized by American theologians and martyrs such as Michael Portier and Stanley Rother; it is revealed to us in the Marian apparitions such as Our Lady of Guadalupe; and even so brilliant a historian and scholar as Joseph Ratzinger never doubted God’s presence among us.

Ratzinger’s faith took him through many trying times, such as the decades in which Nazi totalitarianism dominated Europe and Ratzinger was forced to serve in the German military, and afterwards, during the terror of the Cold War and the emergence of the skeptical atheism in the European academic world. He was one of the intellectuals behind Vatican II, when the Church successfully met the challenges of the modern world and stuck to the basic beliefs of Christianity, such as the presence of God’s will even in a harrowing and confusing world. One of Ratzinger’s most succinct expressions of his historical philosophy, which includes his faith in Providence, is the book Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, published in English in 1988.

Eschatology is a book that deals with the most terrifying aspect of life and most confusing teachings of Christianity. Death is ever present among us, and although one would expect Christians to be comfortable with the idea of death, it is precisely the opposite: death continues to terrify, and in our world increasingly focused on medicine, notwithstanding that God’s will is present, people try to stave off death as long as they can. But why? Because of what death represents. For some, it is simple nothingness. For Christians, theoretically, it is either heaven or hell, or if Catholic, purgatory. But how and why? In death, does a person go straight to heaven or hell? Or does the person fall asleep awaiting Christ’s return in the Judgment? What can an understanding of providence inform us about these questions?

Ratzinger opens the book with a powerful statement of his theme: “We live because we are inscribed into God’s memory. In God’s memory we are not a shadow, a mere recollection.” Ratzinger argues that this life in God’s memory is one throughout time, not just during the waking and breathing of a human during circumscribed years. God’s will is with us throughout all time. For some, providence means right now, that God is holding our hand in each moment by moment. But Ratzinger argues that providence means an eternity of moments in which we experience the kingdom of God. Human existence in time with Christ the Son of Man, the Logos, brings us into God’s scheme of history in which “the walls separating heaven and earth, and past, present, and future, are now as glass.” In other words, the dead are not asleep, the dead are not no longer in time, not no longer in history, but the dead are still a part of time, a part of history, hence subject to divine providence. Christ is “the Son in whom the unbridgeable between already and not yet is spanned.”

Moreover, “eternity is not commensurable with time, being of a wholly other order.” Eschatology does not refer to time, rather to existence. Life eternal is life indestructible. Christianity is therefore “an ever renewed act of encounter” in a timeless moment. Life eternal is authentic, “purifying and transforming.” As so many of the ancient philosophers taught, death is an opening, suffering is an acceptance of what is to come, otherwise “man’s own truth is that he passes away, having no abiding existence in his own right. The more he takes a stand on himself, the more he finds himself suspended over nothing.”

Christ represents all time, all history, the entire Creation, the unification of body and soul. “Dying in Christ” is to be alive, a part of the whole, the entire cosmos, a part of all history, all time. Jesus, God is with us: “if the human capacity for truth and for love is the place where eternal life can break forth, then eternal life can be consciously experienced in the present.” Further, “eternal life does not isolate a person, but leads him out of isolation into true unity with his brothers and sisters and the whole of God’s creation.” What this means is that “an eternity with a beginning is no eternity at all. Someone who has lived during a definite period of time, and died at a definite point in time, cannot simply move across from the condition ‘time’ into the condition ‘eternity,’ timelessness.”

Ratzinger was heavily influenced by Augustine’s theory of time, of memory of the past, awareness of the present, and expectation of the future. Augustine, he argued, believed that our memory continues after death, hence our connection to ongoing movement of time continues, which for Ratzinger is clarified by the idea of purgatory. “The guilt which goes on because of me is a part of me. Reaching as it does deep into me, it is part of my permanent abandonment to time, whereby human beings really do continue to suffer on my account, and which, therefore, still affects me.” In addition, “love cannot . . . close itself against others or be without them so long as time, and with it suffering, is real”—hence love ties us to the present suffering of humans even after death. Purgatory then is “unresolved guilt, a suffering which continues to radiate out because of guilt. Purgatory means, then, suffering to the end what one has left behind on earth—in the certainty of being definitively accepted, yet having to bear the infinite burden of the withdrawn presence of the Beloved.”

The Body of Christ means that “every human being exists in himself and outside himself: everyone exists simultaneously in other people. What happens in one individual has an effect upon the whole of humanity, and what happens in humanity happens in the individual.”

Why pray for the dead, or ask for the prayers of the Saints, Ratzinger asked, if the dead including the Saints are asleep awaiting the Judgment? Rather, “even when they have crossed over the threshold of the world beyond, human beings can still carry each other and bear each others’ burdens.”

Ratzinger argued that after Vatican II the tendency has been to discount the soul and assume that resurrection occurs in the moment of death. But he believes that there is no interruption in life between death and the end of the world. This is because humans are anima forma corporis, an essence, an indestructible life form; human is “the creature . . . for whom the vision of God is part and parcel of his very being.”  Providence is this vision of God. Under God’s providence the dead continue to be connected with the passage of time toward the Judgment; the transition from life to death still waits upon God’s will.

Posted in Biography, Christianity, God's Providence | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Anno Domini

Humans have latched onto dating systems and chronologies as the means by which we keep track of ourselves vis a vis others in time. We keep track of where we are in terms of our own passing, our own age, and the passing of our own time, our generation, and the passing of centuries, even millennia. There have been and are many different kinds of dating systems. The one universal dating system upon which governments, business, travel, and education are based is to measure years chronologically according to centuries and millennia. We date according to Common Era (CE) and Before Common Era (BCE) to provide reference of human passing over time. But what do these mean, CE and BCE? Upon what are they based? Where do they derive? The birth of the child Jesus—the incarnation. Time as we measure it today is linked to a religious, even a supernatural, moment.

The birth of God become man, the nativity of the Son of God, the act of the Word becoming flesh, the incarnation of Christ, the Messiah, is the central moment in human history if for no other reason than that the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem two thousand years ago has made such a profound impact on human expression, thought, and institutions. This statement should go without saying, but if it does not, then consider the following most obvious example of the continuing impact of the Incarnation. The year of this writing, 2023, is a numerical symbol for a solar year, the 2023th since some important event, so important an event that clocks, calendars, cell phones, governments, security agencies, world financial institutions, and more, base their systems, their very institutional beings, on an event that happened so long ago. How did this dating system emerge, and around what event? The answer to the former question is long and complex, covering centuries of attempts to erect chronological systems around the event, which was like so many other such events that occur everyday and have occurred everyday for the past thousands of years: the birth of a child.

One might assume that an event so important to world history would have been and is well known and celebrated around the world on its anniversary—and it is. One might assume that such a significant event would likewise be so well known in all of its details that the exact time, place, setting, time, and chronology compared to other events would be well known—but not so. Strangely, arriving at a correct date for the birth of Jesus of Nazareth has long been a perplexing, unsolvable problem. Jesus could have been born during any one of a range of a dozen years two millennia ago. Of these, the least probable year for his birth is the year 1. There exist only two sources, the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke, which provide any information whatsoever about this central event in the history of humankind. Yet the two Gospels cannot be reconciled chronologically. Indeed, the four sources that purport to provide biographical portraits of Jesus–Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John–as a whole provide limited contradictory accounts of his birth. And yet the birth of Jesus of Nazareth is considered the central event in human history by the religion, Christianity, with the most adherents worldwide, and it has for centuries been the basis for the world’s most commonly accepted dating system: the linear system of Ante Christos (BC) and Anno Domini (AD), since euphemistically renamed to Before the Common Era (BCE) and Common Era (CE).

Time is so important to humans individually, collectively, personally, and institutionally. Yet what is known of time? What is it? Theologians, philosophers, and historians for centuries have tried to uncover the true nature, to comprehend, time. Is time an artificial measure, a tool by which humans trace their own existence? Or, does time have an independent existence, a phenomenon separate from human experience? Is time geologic, the earth carving a temporal path from its beginning to its end? Is time dependent upon human awareness?—hence without humans to know and trace it time is meaningless, nonexistent. Is time an absolute, a constant that can be measured with mechanical devices, a certainty that, as Newton believed, has very little fluctuation, hence allows humans the confidence to base our lives upon it? Clocks, chronometers, and calendars help us to safely trace the passing of years, days, months, which gives us meaning, helps us to know ourselves and our world. Or is time relative, as Einstein believed? Einstein argued in the theory of relativity that time depends on movement, that a person who travels at an extremely high rate of speed experiences time different than a person at rest. Since it depends upon the experience of an individual, time is inconstant and fluctuating, governed by outside forces, significant only insofar as it yields for each person a way to gauge personal movement. According to the theory of relativity, one person’s time is not the same as another person’s time. Although time appears to move quickly in the twenty-first century because humans move rapidly, coming and going, and information is quickly exchanged, seemingly in an instant, does this mean an individual perceives time any differently than someone from the past, say in first-century Rome? Does a person’s bodily movement, the movement of the mind, the aging process, change with changing technology, with rapidity of motion? Is it important to know one’s age or date of birth, to know the year, the month, the day, the hour, the minute, the second? What does it mean to regulate institutions, government, the most minute human events, according to the passage of seconds, minutes, and hours? Does an individual experience life differently by knowing the precise time according to satellites, cellular devices, computers, and atomic clocks?

The Gospel of Matthew records the birth of Jesus as occurring toward the end of the reign of Herod the Great, King of Judaea, who died in the year 4 Ante Christos/Before the Common Era. Matthew’s Gospel portrays the world as in need of a savior; then a star appeared, followed by visitors, the magi, coming from the East. Through the magi, according to Matthew, Herod learned of the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem, which led the desperate king to order the murder of all children in Bethlehem under the age of two years, according to the period during which the child was purportedly born. Matthew’s account has little precision in terms of actual events, placing several isolated episodes together into one not entirely convincing narrative. Matthew wrote in Greek, the language of learning in the Roman Empire, of which Judaea was a part.

The dating systems used at this time in the Roman Empire were Roman and Greek. According to the former, Roman system, Jesus of Nazareth was born about 749-751, a.u.c. (ab urbe condita, from the legendary founding of Rome by Romulus and Remus). According to the Greek dating system, Jesus of Nazareth was born at the end of the 193rd Olympiad or beginning of the 194th Olympiad (an Olympiad having occurred every four years since its founding almost 770 years before)–in short, 6-4, Ante Christos/Before the Common Era.

Luke, who professed at the beginning of his gospel to give his readers an accurate and complete story of the life of Jesus, provided two different accounts of Jesus’s birth that would result in two contradictory dates. Like Matthew, Luke, in chapter one, used episodic accounts, bringing into his narrative the stories of the visits of the angel Gabriel to Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, and Mary mother of Jesus. According to these stories, Jesus was born six months after the birth of John the Baptist, which occurred near the end of the reign of King Herod, which conforms with Matthew’s dating system. Unlike Matthew, however, Luke’s account, in chapters two and three, also provides chronological facts by which to date the birth of Jesus. Luke’s gospel implies simultaneity to several events: the creation of the province of Judaea by the Romans after almost a half century of rule by Herod and Herod Archelaus; Augustus Caesar’s ordering of a census; the subsequent rebellion of Judas of Galilee; and the appointment of Quirinius as Governor of Syria. Luke’s system of dating according to simultaneous public events is as sophisticated as the best Roman historians of the first century. According to Luke, Jesus was born in 760 a.u.c. or two years after the 196th Olympiad (i.e., 6 Anno Domini/Common Era).

In Luke, chapter three, the historian dated the beginning of Jesus’s ministry to several simultaneous public events: the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was Procurator of Judaea; Herod Antipas was Tetrarch of Galilee; Philip, son of Herod, was Tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis; Lysanias was Tetrarch of Abilene; and high priests of the Sanhedrin were Annas and his son Caiaphas. Luke also stated in chapter 3, verse 23, that Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. Had Luke been exact regarding Jesus’s age at this time, then it would be clear that he was born a few years after the death of King Herod, about 1 or 2 Ante Christos/Before the Common Era. Luke’s vague statement in 3:23 does not, however, accord with Matthew, or even with Luke’s earlier statements regarding the incarnation.

Subsequent chronologers who tried to date the birth of Jesus of necessity relied on Matthew and Luke supplemented by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. In his Antiquities and History of the Jewish War, Josephus provided confirmation of some of the events and rulers listed in Luke, chapter two. Josephus’ difficulties in dating events is illustrated by his chronology of the Roman destruction of the temple. Rather than relying on the Roman system of ab urbe conditia or the Greek system of Olympiads, Joseph used a Hebrew system according to significant events and the rule of kings.

The problem facing chronologers was, besides the inherent contradictions in the gospels of Matthew and Luke and the lack of an account of Jesus’s birth in the other two gospel writers Mark and John, that ancient historians and scientists disagreed upon which chronological system to use to date events. The great Athenian historian, Thucydides, relied on the reigns of Spartan ephors and Athenian archons to provide dates in his account of the Peloponnesian War. The Greek historian Polybius in his Histories used the more accurate and, from the standpoint of the Greeks, universal dating system of the Olympiads. The Roman historians Livy, writing during the reign of Augustus, and Tacitus, writing about a hundred years later during the reign of Domitian, used, besides the Olympiads, the system of dating events from the founding of the city of Rome (ab urbe conditia). In subsequent centuries, however, Christian writers, unwilling to rely on pagan dating systems, wished for a chronological system based on religious events. Eusebius of Caesarea, writing during the reign of Constantine, added to the pagan dating systems and the chronology of Josephus a hypothetical chronological scheme beginning with the birth of the Patriarch Abraham. Yet three hundred years after the incarnation, Eusebius still struggled to date the birth of Christ.

During Eusebius’ time the Church and Empire, after the conversion of Constantine, were also particularly concerned with dating the Resurrection, that is, Easter. Theologians and chronologers used Greek, Roman, and Hebrew dating systems, until Dionysius Exiguus, in the sixth century, tried to base the reckoning of the dates of Easter not according to the older systems, rather according to a new system based on the greatest event in human history, the incarnation of Christ. He used Luke 3,1 (John the Baptist appeared during the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius, 28-29 AD) combined with Luke 3:23 (Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his ministry), to estimate the year 1 (the first year or the year of our Lord, Anno Domini).

There is also the system of time developed by Aurelius Augustine, which is a method of understanding the temporal significance of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth that eschews reliance upon dating systems both ancient and modern. Augustine realized that the incarnation and resurrection cannot really be understood according to reason and logic, the stuff upon which chronologies and dating systems are based. Augustine developed another way (other than narrative, chronological history) to understand the incarnation and its significance that eschews precise dating.

In Confessions, Augustine provided a model of personal time thatprovides each person with a model of the individual experience of the life and significance of Christ that has little to do with formal chronologies and history, and public events. It depends upon the old Greek idea of the Logos as developed by Philo Judaeus of Alexandria and the Apostle John. Philo wrote of the Logos: God creates “at once, not merely by uttering a command, but by even thinking of it.” And John wrote, “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.”

Logos simply exists, all times, but by taking on flesh enters into time, interacts with time, bringing light into time, whereas before there was darkness in time. Darkness, time, yields to lightness, eternity. Ignorance yields to knowledge. Time is darkness because we cannot see what lies ahead. The future is unknown, and the past a memory. The present is a brief momentary anticipation of what might be. But if light enters darkness, if timeless enters time, then the path forward is brightened, made aware to us, lighting the way in the darkness. The future, always dark, is opened to light, and complete ignorance gives way to some knowledge of what will be. Not what might be. Because the night implies ignorance, implies that we are still guessing based on experience. No, now we know what will be thanks to the light.

All cultures have struggled to know the Logos. Polytheistic peoples conceived of a divinity that was inherent in nature, controlling all things, encompassing past, present, and future. The Hebrews identified it as Yahweh. The Greeks as the mind, the infinite, the good—the Logos. Asian philosophy called it the Way, the source, the Brahma. Christianity offers a unique perspective, of a transcendent that acts in time, subtly, upon the self, connecting the self to the transcendent—a direct physical and spiritual connection.

As for me, in my teaching and writing, I prefer to stay with Ante Christos and Anno Domini (not BCE/CE)—for how can time be truly understood without the incarnation, the Logos becoming flesh?

Posted in Christianity | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Jesus Road

In the early 1830s, physician, scientist, and neophyte missionary Jean Louis Berlandier watched as his friend, an unnamed Kickapoo Indian, lay dying. The Kickapoo gave off a fierce appearance in his dress, paint, and bearing; he was a skilled hunter; he had once exacted terrible revenge against his estranged wife and her lover. But the Kickapoo had grown tired of his indigenous religion, which had allowed him to justify murderous vengeance; he had given up those ways where “once offended” by treachery, he believed his soul “to be defiled” and sought “at any cost and at every moment to destroy those who” had injured him. Guilt engendered by a growing knowledge of Christianity and the behavior and teachings of his friend Berlandier convinced the Kickapoo to repent and to embrace. How long he believed in Christ’s redemption before he accepted baptism is not recorded; perhaps he had been coming to the belief for some time; perhaps it occurred when he realized the nearness of death. The Kickapoo had been under Berlandier’s care, indeed had resided in the physician’s house, when Berlandier encouraged his mortally ill friend to be baptized. The Kickapoo consented, and Berlandier sent for a Catholic priest, then watched as his friend “rejoiced at the sight of the priest” who was to administer the sacrament. Berlandier, who was not a proselytizer, recorded what he observed: a former “savage” of the plains had willingly accepted the sacrament that would cleanse his sins and mark him as Christ’s own. Missionaries and other commentators before, during, and after this time tended to explain Indian embracement of Christianity as superficial, even inspired by mercenary reasons. The Kickapoo, however, believed that he had nothing to gain from baptism but his eternal soul. Berlandier observed his dying friend to “invoke the Most High” when the priest sprinkled the holy water upon his head. The invocation was “in his own way,” in his own language and according to the beliefs of his youth, “indicating the sky as His place of residence.” The astonishment and change in belief that the Kickapoo experienced was an act of accommodating new beliefs with the old; the new supplants, but does not eradicate, the teachings of youth and experiences of a lifetime. Like many Christians before and since, the Kickapoo embraced Christianity while not completely abandoning his previous indigenous beliefs.

            Recent scholarship on the Christian experience of indigenous peoples has questioned whether or not conversion is an accurate, sufficiently descriptive concept of what happens when a person puts aside traditional to embrace new beliefs. Conversion implies an ethnocentric view that describes the Christian experience of the Western Tradition—but does it describe the experience of indigenous peoples as well? Scholarly emphasis has been upon the synchronistic experience of indigenous religious change. Indeed, religious change from one belief to another is neither static nor isolated, but partakes of experiences over time and in particular places. At the same time, to focus so minutely on the particular that the universal is abandoned or simply not seen does not advance thought and understanding of human religiosity. In any culture during any time individuals feel an overwhelming need for completion, sense a pull from a transcendent other, what Rudolph Otto called the numinous, which the individual seeks, senses, reaches out for, receives, and accepts.

            Historical accounts of missionary activities in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century North America often provide narratives of indigenous peoples embracing Christian beliefs, usually as recorded by the missionary. The most common are accounts by missionaries who assumed that the convert was little better than a savage who, because of the efforts of the missionary, had embraced Christianity as well as civilization. An example is Jedidiah Morse, a New England missionary to the Iroquois and Algonquians of upstate New York, the Great Lakes Region, and Ontario, who assumed that indigenous peoples lived in a primitive state and needed to be civilized and Christianized. Missionaries who provided an empathetic portrait of conversion with no apparent bias are found less often in historical documents. Many missionaries had genuinely benevolent souls and acted in love toward indigenous people who were friends rather than objects. Jeremy Belknap, who ministered to the Indians of the upper Connecticut valley and upper New York, and who was a colleague with Morse in the Scots Society for Propagating Christian Knowledge, empathized with these people whom he considered to be human, no better and no worse than himself, even if their society, culture, and technology were more primitive.

            More rare are accounts of religious change penned by the indigenous convert or dictated by the convert to an accurate transcriber or translator. Examples include autobiographical accounts of religious change, such as the personal experiences of George Copway, a nineteenth-century Ojibwa who embraced Christianity and became a missionary. Copway, who wrote an account of his experiences in 1847, argued that white missionary work among the Indians was obligatory considering that whites had “dispossessed” the Indians of their lands. Copway, who at a camp meeting in 1830 in Ontario was deeply influenced by the preaching of a missionary, wrote: “I . . . groaned and agonized over my sins. I was so agitated and alarmed that I knew not which way to turn in order to get relief. I was like a wounded bird, fluttering for its life. Presently and suddenly, I saw in my mind, something approaching; it was like a small but brilliant torch; it appeared to pass through the leaves of the trees. My poor body became so enfeebled that I fell; my heart trembled. The small brilliant light came near to me, and fell upon my head, and then ran all over and through me, just as if water had been copiously poured out upon me. I knew not how long I had lain after my fall; but when I recovered, my head was in a puddle of water, in a small ditch. I arose; and O! How happy I was. I felt as light as a feather. I clapped my hands, and exclaimed in English, ‘Glory to Jesus.’ I looked around for my father, and saw him. I told him that I had found ‘Jesus.” He embraced me, and kissed me; I threw myself into his arms. I felt as strong as a lion, yet as humble as a poor Indian boy saved by grace, by grace alone.” Another example was the Ojibwa Peter Jacobs, who after his religious change became a Methodist missionary to indigenous people in the Hudson’s Bay region. Jacobs wrote an autobiographical account of his experiences. In 1824, he wrote, “I was a heathen, and so were all the tribes of Canada West. When I was a lad, I never heard an Indian pray, as Christians pray, to the Great Being. Our people believed in the existence of a Great Being, the Maker of all things; but we thought that God was so very far away, that no human voice could reach Him; and, indeed, we all believed that God did not meddle with the affairs of the children of men.” The Indians did not fear God. They took care of affairs with the tomahawk. Whenever he prayed to the Great Spirit, it went like this: “O God, the Sun, I beseech you to hear my prayer, and to direct my steps through the woods in the direction where the deer is feeding, that I may get near him, shoot him, and kill him, and have something to eat thereby.” After listening to the Methodist missionary William Case, Jacobs realized that “the word of God had now got hold of my heart, but it made me feel very sick in my heart. I went to bed, and I could not sleep, for my thoughts troubled me very much. Then I would pray the words over and over again, and go more and more sick in my heart. I was very sorry that God could not understand my Ojibway. I thought God could only understand English; and when I was praying, tears came spontaneously from my eyes; and I could not understand this, because I had been taught from infancy never to weep. In this misery I passed three or four weeks. I then met with Peter Jones, who was converted a few months before me, and, to my surprise, I heard him return thanks, at meal, in Ojibway. This was quite enough for me. I now saw that God could understand me in my Ojibway, and therefore went far into the woods, and prayed, in the Ojibway tongue, to God, and said, “O God, I was so ignorant and blind, that I did not know that thou couldst understand my Ojibway tongue! Now, O God, I beseech thee to be gracious to me, a sinner! Take away this sickness that I now feel in my heart; for all my sins lay very heavy in my heart! Send now thy Holy Spirit to come work in my heart! Let the blood of Christ be now applied to my heart, that all my sins may depart!” Though I could now pray in this way in my native tongue, yet God did not seem to think it best to hear my prayers at this time, but left me to pass many miserable nights. And I cried out again, “O God, I will not let thee alone! I shall trouble thee with my prayers, till thou bless me!” And at last God heard my prayers, and he took away this heavy sickness of heart; but not till many tears had been shed. And when this sickness was taken away from my heart, then I experienced another feeling, which was joy in the Holy Ghost, which was indeed full of glory. My tongue could not express the joy I then felt. I could say nothing but, ‘Happy, happy!’ When I found this religion of Christ so sweet in the heart of man, I wanted all my people then to know of the great and true God; but they all said, No: that I was wrong; that I had been to the white man’s God, and not the Saviour of the Indians. But I said that God was the Saviour of all the nations of the earth; for I know in my own heart what he has done for me: and what he has done for me, he can do for you. And they began to pray for mercy and the forgiveness of their sins; and they praying in strong faith, many of them were converted; and now at this time there are hundreds that are converted among the North American Indians. I was the first fruits of the Missionary labors in my tribe.” Jacobs referred to another convert, Peter Jones, who also wrote of his experiences of religious change. Jones was influenced by the Anglican missionary Ralph Leeming. He had an initial conversion in 1831, but retained some of his Ojibwa religious beliefs. Three years later, in 1834, he “began to feel very sick in my heart, but I did not make my feelings known. Some of the sermons impressed my mind; I understood a good deal of what was said; I thought the black coats understood all that was in my heart, and that I was the person to whom they were speaking. The burden on my soul began to increase, and my heart said—what must I do to be saved? I saw myself in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. The more I understood the plan of salvation, the more I was convinced of the truth of the Christian religion, and felt my need of its blessings. In spite of my old Indian heart, tears flowed down my cheeks at the remembrance of my sins.  . . . My convictions became more deep and powerful during the preaching: I wept much; this, however, I endeavoured to conceal by holding down my head behind the shoulders of the people. I felt anxious that no one might see me weeping like an old woman, as all my countrymen say that weeping is a sign of weakness, which is beneath the dignity of an Indian brave. In the afternoon of this day my sorrow and anguish of soul greatly increased, and I felt as if I should sink down into hell for my sins. . . . I was fully convinced that if I did not find mercy from the Lord Jesus, of whom I heard so much, I certainly would be lost for ever.” Finally “at the dawning of the day I was enabled to cast myself wholly on the Lord, and to claim an interest in the atoning blood of my Saviour Jesus Christ, who bore my sins in his own body on the tree; and when I received Him unspeakable joy filled my hear, and I could say, ‘Abba Father.’ The love of God being now shed abroad in my heart, I loved him intensely, and praised Him in the midst of the people. Every thing now appeared to me in a new light, and all the works of God seemed to unite with me in uttering the praises of the Lord. There was a time when I thought that the white man’s God was never intended to be our God; that the white man’s religion was never intended to be the red man’s religion; that the Great Spirit gave us our way of worship, and that it would be wrong to put away that mode of worship and take to the white man’s mode of worship. But I and my people now found that there is but one true religion, and that the true religion is the religion of the Bible. Christianity has found us, and has lifted us up out of a horrible pit, and out of the miry clay; it has placed our feet upon a rock; it has established our goings, and has put a new song into our mouths,and ever praise unto our God.”

            These two types of conversion narratives, the more common accounts told by the missionary and the more rare accounts told by the Indian convert, are found among the hitherto unexploited manuscripts of Southern Baptist missionaries found in the archives of the American Indian Collection here at Bacone College. This collection illustrates the problems Indians of particularly western Oklahoma had in adapting to white culture and federal land allotment laws. Baptist missionaries who kept extensive diaries of their interaction with Indians, sent and received correspondence with individual Indians, and submitted detailed reports to missionary organizations, consistently recorded the chagrin, anger, and depression of indigenous individuals who were trying to conform to the beliefs, institutions, and laws of white civilization while being tugged in the different direction of their tribal past. Baptist missionaries reported on the poverty, malnutrition, sicknesses, and passivity brought about by the new way of life of the Indians that afflicted the physical and emotional well-being of the tribes. Were such social and economic problems the stimuli for seeking and questioning that resulted in religious change to Christianity? How exactly did an indigenous person come to renounce traditional tribal beliefs to embrace the religion of white missionaries? What individual experiences of loss and suffering, or joy and understanding, resulted in the desire for baptism? How did conversion impact the individual’s sense of self? What was the Indian conception of sin and redemption?

            One particularly industrious missionary, Robert Hamilton, was tireless in his proselytizing to the Indians and in writing accounts of religious change in his diary and letters. Hamilton was a missionary of the American Baptist Home Mission Society, active in western Oklahoma, engaging in particular the Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians, from the 1890s to the 1920s. Hamilton was part of a missionary movement into Indian Territory by Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Quakers, Anglicans, and other Christians during the latter half of the nineteenth century and first decades of the twentieth century. Like Christian proselytizers during the preceding centuries in America and Europe, these missionaries considered civilization and Christianity to be one in the same. Missionaries generally adopted a patronizing, condescending attitude toward indigenous people at the same time that they exhibited outstanding energy and bravery in the face of overwhelming despair, poverty, conflict, and violence.

            Hamilton, who had been ordained a Baptist missionary in 1892, was a man of tremendous drive and devotion, energy and patience, curiosity and courage. He, like other missionaries in Oklahoma before and after statehood, cared for the indigenous people, whom he considered to be like children; he was their missionary father, and indeed the Indians themselves adopted the designations of “children” and “father” when addressing him. Hamilton understood that “the Indians are by nature religious, mystical, ritualistic, reverent,” as he wrote in The Gospel Among the Red Man, a partially autobiographical account of Baptist missionary activities in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century America. “It is one of the evidences of the divine nature of the gospel, and of the efficiency of the Holy Spirit to ‘guide into all truth,’ that the missionary to a primitive people, with an unskilled interpreter, can get the message to them, and the resultant surprising grasp they have of divine truth.” In the manuscript account, Sketch of Work Among Cheyennes and Arapahos, found in Bacone’s American Indian Collection, Hamilton narrated in third person the scene when in 1892 he began to meet with the Cheyennes: “These Indians had only nineteen years before quit the warpath, and were living in the midst of a people, who if they had understood them, might have been a great blessing and help to them, but who viewed them with suspicion, and only visited their camps out of curiosity or to trade with them. For these reasons, they continued to live apart from their white neighbors, practicing the most disgusting of heathen customs in the name of religion. Mr. Hamilton attended an Indian burial, at which a woman cut gashes in her arms and legs for the dead, until the blood ran down to the ground. He saw women, who in their grief for their children, had cut off a joint of their fingers one after another until their hands were but stubs.” More astonishing was the Sun Dance ceremony “at which twenty men stripped of all their clothing, danced continuously for three days and nights without food or water. . . . Others had places cut in their breasts, and a skewer put through under a muscle, and this tied to a rope which was attached to a central pole of the dance lodge. Throwing their weight upon the rope, they would dance until the muscles were torn out.” He also witnessed the Ghost Dance, “where all night long, they formed a large circle, going round and round keeping step to the weird, plaintive music as they sang their Messianic songs. He saw a woman go inside the circle and stand for more than an hour with her hands stretched out toward the north, praying most fervently, while the tears ran down her face, pleading for the coming of the Indian Messiah. Her tone and posture expressed the most intense longing. Finally exhausted, she fell in a swoon.”

            Into this pagan environment Hamilton came preaching the Gospel, comparing himself to the Apostle Paul, who likewise brought the teachings of Christianity to a similarly polytheistic and animistic people. Although Hamilton was vain and full of himself, he nevertheless believed wholeheartedly in the Great Commission given by Christ to His disciples. Delivering the Gospel was the sole object to him, and he and his family endured privation and the environmental extremes of western Oklahoma to succeed in this self-appointed goal. The Indians of Oklahoma, like the missionaries that came among them, thought of life as a journey down a well-traveled road, as it were. The Indians knew of many roads to religious enlightenment: the peyote road, the traditional tribal road, and the “Jesus Road.” Frequently they were called upon by missionaries and their own people to make a choice among the available roads. The Cheyennes, Hamilton wrote in the manuscript, Recommendations as to the Cheyenne Field, “in the beginning received the missionaries and their message more readily, and came into the Jesus Road more quickly than any of the other tribes.” The Jesus Road, of course, was fraught with peril to the mind and soul; it was a terribly hard road to follow, and many times the Indian man or woman slipped, unable or unwilling to regain the Jesus Road, rather returning to the road of their ancestors.

            Hamilton provided many examples of this conflict and confusion over the correct path to happiness and redemption. He heard firsthand accounts from Indian men and women, a few of whom could speak English; for others, Hamilton relied on interpreters, such as the Cheyennes Philip Cook and Moore Vanhorn, the latter of whom was an early convert and enthusiastic Christian, despite having suffered many wrongs in his youth at the hands of white soldiers. In the manuscript pamphlet Christmas with the Cheyennes and Arapahoes, Hamilton described the anguish of two women, who had been through much sorrow because of personal loss of family, including their children: “One who had lost her son said that when he died, she had been tempted to throw away the Jesus Road, and take up again her old heathen religion, but that now she could see that it was better to trust in Jesus, and that she could see that His way was right, she asked the church to forgive her for her sinful thoughts, and promised to walk in the ‘Road’ more carefully.” In the manuscript Sketch of Work Among the Cheyennes and Arapahoes, Hamilton described the personal experience of “one old man,” who “told the missionary that in the olden times it was thought an honorable thing to steal from those who were not their friends, and the man who could steal the most horses and cattle, and thus make the best feasts and presents to his people, had the greatest respect. . . . How Jesus had changed his heart from that way of doing[!] Now he had learned to love his enemies, and to do good to all men, and his life bears out his testimony.” In the same manuscript, Hamilton described how some Cheyennes, “who started in the way ‘went back and walked no more with Him’,” and began to persecute those who stayed on the Jesus Road. Such antagonists rejected Christians who were to join a delegation of the tribe going to Washington because they considered the Christian Cheyenne to be too close to the white man, and therefore influenced in the wrong way by Christianity. Moreover, “Christians were told by the Ghost Dance prophets that when the Indian Messiah came and restored the Indians and the buffalo, that all the Indians, who were found in the white man’s religion, would be destroyed with the white people.” Even so, some Ghost Dancers, such as the Arapaho, Hail, in time rejected their beliefs to follow the Jesus Road. The Plains Indian “medicine man,” however, graced with the knowledge of the mystical selection of himself to influence the powers of nature, was less inclined to renounce his pagan beliefs, and was the most formidable opponent of Indian converts. Hamilton recorded the case of a Cheyenne “medicine man” who went so far as to hex a Christian Indian couple: “this medicine man had an arrow, called the arrow of jealousy or hate. When dipped in a certain preparation known only to the fraternity, and shot in the direction of his victim, though miles away, the substance would search him out, and his destruction was certain.” Hamilton rode miles to find the couple, then told them that the medicine man’s threats were the work of Satan (Eahwo), and believers in Christ could put off Satan. “After prayer they were able to cast off the delusion, and peace of mind was restored.”

            Hamilton recounted other examples of religious change among the Cheyennes of Oklahoma. One “old man . . . on being received for baptism, related the following touching incident. ‘The first religious act that impressed itself on my childish mind [the old man recounted], was when a small boy on my mother’s back. At that time my mother made an offering of two buffalo robes to the Great Spirit, and prayed for me, asking that I might live and grow up to be a good man. Later when I was a young man, I met a white man with a kind face and a soft voice, who told me that I ought to love and worship Jesus. He gave me this”–the old man drew “from his breast a crucifix, which he wore next his skin, under his shirt, attached to a string about his neck”–“and told me always to keep it. I have worn it over my heart ever since. I do not pray to it, but have kept it to remind me of the good man and his words. When the missionaries came to our reservation, I was glad to learn that they knew about this same Jesus. I never miss an opportunity to hear them tell about Him, and I was glad when I learned that I could be His friend and follower’.” At a meeting of Christian testimony among the Cheyenne, among other leaders was Chief Iron Shirt, who rose to speak, saying: “I feel as though we all being to uncover our heads, see what the Great Father has done for us. I want to thank you chiefs for the good talks you have made to the people, it makes my heart feel glad. This is all I wish to say as my heart is so full of joy I can scarcely speak.”

            The missionaries of western Oklahoma such as Robert Hamilton helped the Indians form an association of converts, called the Blanket Indian Association. They met annually in June during the first years of the twentieth century. At one meeting, held on the land of the Kiowa chief Lone Wolf near the town of Hobart, indigenous peoples of several tribes—the Kiowa, Comanche, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Osage, and Navajo—met along with Baptist missionaries for a day of testimonial. On this day former Kiowa warriors, leaders of armed bands of men who had raided white settlements and attacked military installations in Texas and Indian Territory, but who had come to embrace peace, spoke of their commitment to the Jesus Road. One of the most notorious of the Kiowa warriors, Big Tree, proclaimed: “I express my gratitude to the Father above for knowing that the Lord Jesus is here. The Almighty created the earth and no part of it has been changed by any other power. God planted his word and work and it has been going on until it reached us. At last it reached me personally. All the Kiowas know what I was—bad—but now I have eated God’s food and been filled. Thirty years ago I was arrested and sent to prison I was so wicked. Lived that way until the Bible came before my face. I didn’t go round or back, but went up to it. My wife first baptised, I follow her, so must you . . . follow missionary teaching, all good. Religion is like throwing away an old garment and getting a new clean garment. I want you head-men to start in this road, it is a good road for all of you; it is the only road which will lead you to the best place we all can think of. Lone Wolf is our only chief, he is a good work-horse, but can’t pull alone, we all must help him; if we would all do this, it would be like traveling with a fast team on a good road. Now this is for the Comanches; tell your leading men to leave off their evil ways and walk in the Jesus road, and then we will get their followers. Today speak out and tell what you will do. Kiowas pushing and fighting every day and we are getting on. The Kiowas are like an engine to a train, it go first and pull, so we start in good, we help you all we can.” One Comanche named Ninsie told his brothers and sisters: “If you want to take the road straight, put away all bad roads. Our brother Jesus is strong, he is very loving, but if Jesus and God pull you out of the fire, and you hold some of it in your hand, they can’t help you.” Lone Wolf himself, who grew up hearing about his father and grandfather’s violent raids on farms and supply trains, spoke during another meeting of the Indian Blanket Association; his comments were recorded by one of the missionaries: “Some time ago [Lone Wolf said] I went up to visit the unfriendly Osages. I found them doing all the old time things. One of their leaders is here, and I want him to know I am very sorry to see them in the old time roads. (He said this with his eyes full of tears.) The white people see me and think I am educated. My father and my grandfather taught me the warpath, and I never had a chance to learn in school. Just as the children will learn the old roads, if not taught. . . . My father should have taught me, but he did not know the Jesus road. I am man enough to know that it is a good road, and take it.”

            One of the most dramatic testimonials given at a meeting of the Blanket Indian Association was by another Kiowa convert, Sanco. “He said,” in the words of one of his hearers, that the experience of embracing Christianity and coming to know the Gospel was “like a stream of living water without sticks or stones or mud in it, ever-flowing, clear as crystal, free to all.” He added: “before the missionaries came they knew nothing about God; the Indians lived in the dark; their minds were covered just like a veil over the face, but now they can see clearly.”

            The accounts of religious change among the Plains Indians of western Oklahoma translated by Indian interpreters and transcribed and recorded by Robert Hamilton were, notwithstanding the time, place, language and events, similar in evocation of feeling and sincerity of mind to the accounts of other religious feelers and thinkers who had their sensations, thoughts, words, and deeds translated and recorded by others. Was the experience of religious change of the Kiowa Sanco any different from the dazzling light that blinded Paul of Tarsus; the child’s voice that responded to Saint Augustine’s agonizing question; the austere, universal presence of the One that so captivated Plotinus and his disciples Porphyry and Julian; the oneness that Siddhartha Gautama experienced in the rushing water of  the river of life; or the fear and awe that Moses knew when standing on holy ground before Yahweh? Common in most of the world’s great testimonies of religious change is the question of who and what exists, followed by the search for being or substance outside of yet connected to oneself, which leads to the discovery of the answer, change in belief and behavior, and finally, acceptance of what is.

            Christianity as an experience of religious change has been an ecumenical force in world history because the religious seeker finds in the scriptures, teachings, traditions, music, liturgy, and the experience of the holy their own questions and answers and their own search and discovery notwithstanding the place or time. The Plains Indians of western Oklahoma discovered in the words of the missionary explanations for human behavior, for mistakes and doubts, for unhappiness and suffering. Even the most fierce warriors sought to be embraced in overwhelming love. The closest experiences to such love that tribal beliefs offered were the promises of happiness in the next life, or the benevolence of the Great Spirit, or the means by which nature nourished, clothed, and sheltered them. The Kiowa Sanco adapted the natural theology inherent in Christianity to his own experiences of delight and satisfaction when finding a pure stream of bright, crystal water, or when coming from out of the darkness of a spring thunderstorm into the broad horizon of the plains covered by the ubiquitous rays of the sun. Not only did Christianity emphasize the importance of natural history in the scheme of redemption, but one’s personal physical and spiritual experiences were known to God, who watched to see whether or not these peripatetic people would keep to the Jesus Road, eschewing all other roads as being distractions of ignorance, hubris, and idleness.

            Baptist missionaries to the Cheyenne, Arapaho, Kiowa, and other western Oklahoma tribes were struck by how eager the indigenous people were to learn of this new religious road that they could take out of the shadows of darkness and doubt into the light of understanding. These religious converts understood what Jesus meant when he told Nicodemus that one must be born again from the mother’s womb. There was no other way, no other road. As a writer the the Baptist Mission Monthly put it:“The evidence of a genuine work of grace in the hearts of these children of the plains are so marked and varied that no one can doubt the reality of their conversion”–or, should we say, the reality of their change from one religious belief that had its own inherent validity to another belief that offered similar conceptions of salvation and redemption, of a universal deity that defied understanding, of rituals of blessing and healing, but which offered something more, a clear path undertaken originally by a man whom the Indians knew simply as Jesus. By forging a road through life and time amid distractions, temptations, suffering, and death, Jesus showed, by means of his example and by the examples of his missionaries, that his road was one for all people. Christian Indians believed that by taking the Jesus Road they shared Jesus’s experience, even if they did live in the arid plains of Indian Territory, hunting the dwindling numbers of beasts and living in mud huts or skin dwellings, impoverished but proud, willing to humble themselves to others, to the Other, for the sake of love.

Posted in Christianity, Great Commission | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Montaigne and Christianity

Michel de Montaigne, the sixteenth-century French aristocrat, was neither saint, priest, nor monk, rather a worldly man who lived in a secular time of conflict between Protestants and Catholics. Montaigne was a landowner, a government official, and soldier. He was as well a Catholic layman who struggled with his faith in light of the Protestant challenge and the sometimes violent Catholic response. He struggled with the new ideas of the Renaissance, such as humanism, which placed humans as equals to the divine. He struggled as well with the new scientific ideas of Copernicus, which seemed to challenge Biblical authority. Montaigne was a thinker who penetrated self in search of answers for his faith, his heritage, and his relationship with God. His response, the Essays, has been variously interpreted as the work of a humanist, a skeptic, perhaps an atheist. Rarely are Montaigne’s Essays considered for what they are in fact, the ruminations of a Catholic layman searching for answers that are in response to his understanding of the Son of Man.

In Montaigne’s third essay, “That Our Affections Carry Themselves Beyond Us,” he shows tremendous awareness of humans and time. The future is unknown. “Fear, desire, and hope, are still pushing us on towards the future, depriving us, in the meantime, of the sense and consideration of that which is, to amuse us with the thought of what shall be, even when we shall be no more.” He wishes to focus on the present, what he is now and what is proper for him now. If we always focus on the future, then it becomes a panacea for an unclear, uncomfortable present. The future is the means by which the imagination reaches out for what might be, rather than focusing on what is, and in the process fantasies of delight and misery overwhelm our minds, taking us from what is happening now, in the present.

But Montaigne’s present is always informed by his past. It is by means of the records and memories of the past that we can find the anchor to still our wayward present voyage into the unknown. The past, of humans in general, of the self in particular, is the one thing we can know to help us with the momentary present and the journey into the unknown future.

Montaigne’s essay, Of Prayers, reveals that Montaigne was filled with piety. He was a conservative Catholic who believed that God existed and ordered reality. But Montaigne’s god is a distant god, an inscrutable god whose wisdom and knowledge is so far beyond human reason as to be impenetrable. That Montaigne sets a limit on human reason is of course consistent with the Essays. In contrast, divine wisdom, justice, and order are unchanging. Montaigne’s words reveal that he had a sense of dutiful reverence and awe toward this unknown being, so much so that he did not agree with the common person praying to God, for prayer must be completely pious, pure, uncorrupted by human motives and desires. One must have a certain basis in religious knowledge to approach God.

In the Apology for Raimon Sebond, Montaigne shows how much we do not know, just how unstable human reason really is. If there is absolute knowledge, and if we are so distant in our relation to that knowledge, then is makes sense that Montaigne would go to the only sure source of knowledge, the only sure thing we humans might know, and that is himself. If we realize that in our instability we cannot penetrate the inscrutability of God, yet as humans we cannot help but seek knowledge, then we must go to that single source, human knowledge, as the only real means of ever hoping to approach knowledge of something more than just passing temporal affairs. If we cannot rely on human philosophers, theologians, arguments and counterarguments, etc., well at least we might be able to rely on ourselves for whatever knowledge we gain. Who am I to know God? Who am I to gain a relationship with God? Who am I but a mere human? How can I truly know God? These questions, and the doubts of the possibilities of human knowledge to ever approach the divine, reveals piety. Montaigne had tremendous awe and respect regarding the distance of God to humans, and the inconstancy of human knowledge and constancy of divine knowledge.

Montaigne during the time of the Protestant Reformation was a consistent thinker: God is inscrutable. Knowledge of God is nearly impossible. Knowledge of human affairs likewise is in general difficult for such inconstant thinkers; so by reduction we come to just ourselves—personal knowledge might just be obtainable. By relying on himself for standards and knowledge, Montaigne went to the one place where, if any kind of awareness of God can be found, it will be found, there, in the self. Luther and Calvin looked within, but along with Scripture. Montaigne looked within, joined by other introspective thinkers, seeking himself in all nakedness. Luther and Calvin on the other had spent their lives examining the relationship of God to man even though they believed He was inscrutable, Calvin, and distant, Luther. Montaigne thought that knowledge was the sine qua non of life. It is the creation of God, the Knower. Hence knowledge is the route to know God.

Montaigne declared that the life and teachings of Jesus “is not a story to tell, it is a story to revere, fear, and adore.” Montaigne went out of his way to place his Essays before the judgment of the Church, comparing himself to a child seeking “to be instructed, not to instruct.” He worried that the “sacred mysteries” of Christianity were being “bandied about a hall or a kitchen” in a “promiscuous, reckless, and indiscreet” way by the “wicked” and the “ignorant.” As Montaigne predicted, modern writers and scholars have taken it upon themselves to expose, redact, interpret, discount, doubt, reconstruct, and discard the teachings of Jesus and accounts of his life. That this is a symptom of a secular and atheistic age is shown clearly, and the point driven home forcefully, by the number of modern scholars who have laughed at Montaigne’s confession that the Essays are “always very religious,” declaring instead that Montaigne was too much the skeptic to be a sincere Christian.

I agree with Montaigne that the New Testament is beyond my power to be able to master, that it is beyond my right to be able to doubt, that it is only for me to search and to question, not to proclaim and to answer. And yet like Montaigne I feel in me a call to explore myself in light of the Son of Man. Montaigne’s Essays was, I believe, his response to the Son of Man. My response is imperfect according to the blessedness of the subject. Yet if there is a contribution here it is that of a scholar willing to sacrifice his natural arrogance and vanity to try deeply and humbly (I pray) to see how the Son of Man has been manifested throughout time.

Montaigne’s philosophy of human experience is the guide to a religious experience for all humans, coming to know the Son of Man.

(Translations from Donald Frame, Stanford University Press, 1958)

Posted in Christianity, Michel de Montaigne | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment