Remembering Abraham Lincoln and the Second Inaugural Address

Today is the birthday of two key figures: Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865). What follows are some reflections on Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address. I have enormous respect for Lincoln and in what follows I reflect on one of his most profound statements, his reflection on the American Civil War. It is a reflection that reveals Lincoln at his very best. For a reflection on Darwin, see Dr. Albert Mohler’s blog for today, “Charles Darwin and the Modern Mind.” The American Civil War (1861-1865) was the most violent experience in American history. At least 620,000 soldiers were killed in the war—2% of the American population in 1860. If the same percentage of Americans were killed in a war today, the number of American war dead would exceed five million. Moreover, an unknown number of civilians, virtually all of them in the South, died from causes such as disease, hunger or exposure brought about by the war. As a result, more Americans died in the Civil War than in all of America’s other wars combined.

One of the most remarkable statements of what God was doing in the Civil War comes from the pen of Abraham Lincoln, who does not appear to have been a Christian. It was Saturday, March 4, 1865, the day of Lincoln’s second inauguration. Preceding that day there had been weeks of wet weather that had caused Pennsylvania Avenue to become an ocean of mud. So it was that thousands of spectators stood in thick mud at the Capitol grounds to hear the President. In little more than a month, he would be assassinated.

By the date of Lincoln’s second inauguration, the tide of war had turned in favour of the Union, and the end was in sight. “The tone of the address, however, is subdued rather than triumphant, and it rises to a rare pitch of eloquence, marked by a singular combination of tenderness and determination” [“American Historical Documents, 1000–1904. The Harvard Classics. 1909–14. Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address” (http://www.bartleby.com/43/41.html)]. It is a theologically intense speech that has been widely acknowledged as one of the most remarkable documents in American history.

A journalist by the name of Noah Brooks, an eyewitness to the speech, said that as Lincoln advanced from his seat, “a roar of applause shook the air, and, again and again repeated, finally died away on the outer fringe of the throng, like a sweeping wave upon the shore. Just at that moment the sun, which had been obscured all day, burst forth in its unclouded meridian splendor, and flooded the spectacle with glory and with light.” Brooks said Lincoln later told him, ‘Did you notice that sunburst? It made my heart jump.” According to Brooks, the audience received the speech in “profound silence,” although some passages provoked cheers and applause.

In this address Lincoln gives one of profoundest theological interpretations of the Civil War:

"One eighth of the whole population were…slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.”

"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."

Notice Lincoln’s conviction about the inscrutability of God’s will, a humble agnosticism about the purposes of God. Lincoln declares this in the form of a thesis: “The Almighty has His own purposes.” He then quotes Matthew 18:7 to suggest the moral character of life under God: “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” Then he looks squarely into the abyss that almost none of his contemporaries could bear to contemplate: “If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences…” The abyss is the suggestion that responsibility for the war might be shared.

One sees clearly Lincoln’s anti-slavery position, but his final paragraph is astounding. How different from both the Northern and Southern theologians who were quite certain God was on their respective sides!

As Mark Noll, to whom the above commentary is deeply indebted [ “ ‘Both…Pray to the Same God’: The Singularity of Lincoln’s Faith in the Era of the Civil War”, Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, 18, no.1 (1997).] has rightly said: “The theological puzzle of the Civil War thus reveals a theological tragedy, both for those who retained profundity at the expense of Christianity and those who retained Christianity at the expense of profundity.”

Pondering Emerson's individualism

“Insist on yourself; never imitate.” So Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) in 1841. Before now I had read only a sermon of Emerson. But today I bought Barack Obama, The Inaugural Address (Penguin, 2009), a kind of keepsake edition. And combined with it were three addresses by Abraham Lincoln—his two inaugural addresses and The Gettysburg Address—and also Emerson’s Self-Reliance, which has the above quoted statement. It is so Western, so quintessentially Enlightenment. And in one key sense, so fundamentally non-Christian. It militates against mentoring and advocates individualism to the highest degree. Yet, for me, Christianity increasingly is learning a path from others who have gone before. Hebrews 11 is so central to my vision of what it means to be a Christian. Of course, there is a place for doing what God has called you specifically to do—but Emerson’s thought is a plea for dismantling all the authorities and carving out your own philosophical vision.

To me, the whole project is horrifying and I understand why Emerson’s contemporary John Henry Newman (1801-1890) reacted so strongly against it and ended up embracing the authority of Rome. While I do not think that is the answer, his rejection of such rank exaltation of the individual is instinctually correct.

"Stupid security and dissipation"

One of my monthly delights is to receive the monthly newsletter of The John Newton Project (www.johnnewton.org) edited by Marylynn Rouse. In the latest she has this quote, it could be describing our day to a tee: John Newton in a letter to William Wilberforce on March 19, 1795 noted: “My heart is pained by the prevalence of sin and misery, and the evidences of God’s displeasure, against a nation that has long enjoyed and long abused, more light, liberty and prosperity, than was ever vouchsafed to any people upon the face of the earth. And even now that his hand is so awfully lifted up, they will not see. Stupid security, and dissipation prevail everywhere.”

120 years ago, roughly 75% of people in Ontario sat under an evangelical ministry. What is it today? 7%? Are we not in the same situation of the inhabitants of 18th century England?

"All the Vulgarity of a Methodist Teacher" or sheer brilliance?

Not everyone in Fuller’s day regarded Andrew Fuller with a favourable eye. There were, of course, theological opponents like John Martin of London. And then there were writers like David Rivers who, in his Literary Memoirs of Living Authors of Great Britain (London: R. Faulder, 1798), I, 201-202, described Fuller as “the author of several Religious Tracts written with all the Vulgarity of a Methodist Teacher. He has written a controversial pamphlet against Socinianism, which displays a very small share, if any, of education or talent.” This blogger begs to differ and sees many of Fuller’s works as sheer brilliance.

Audio Interview with Haykin and Whitney

Dr. Haykin is involved, with Dr. Don Whitney, in the development and teaching of the first Ph.D. program in spirituality in the US in a non-Catholic school, and the first D.Min. program in spirituality in an SBC seminary. If you'd like to read about these new doctoral programs in Biblical Spirituality at Southern Seminary, click here. To hear a seven-minute interview with Drs. Haykin and Whitney on the Moody Broadcasting Network's Prime Time America radio program about Southern's new doctoral programs in Biblical Spirituality, click here. Once there, go 1:20:00 into the program where the interview starts.

Posted by Steve Weaver, Research and Administrative Assistant to the Director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies, Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin.

John Newton on Entering Pastoral Ministry

A newly transcribed and published excerpt from John Newton's diary provides a understanding of his view on the ministry. Dr. Haykin has reviewed the booklet, Ministry on my mind: John Newton on entering pastoral ministry by John Newton, transcribed by Marylynn Rouse. Dr. Haykin believes that this work deserves to go on the short list of books which every man aspiring to pastoral ministry needs to read. Read the review here. Other reviews are available here. Check back regularly as new reviews are usually added on a weekly basis.

Posted by Steve Weaver, Research and Administrative Assistant to the Director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies, Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin.

Helmuth James von Moltke, martyred January 23, 1945

On this day, in 1945, Helmuth James von Moltke (b.1906) was excuted by the Nazi regime for being a Christian and refusing to acknowledge Adolf Hitler as his supreme commander in all things. Von Moltke was the son of an English woman and a wealthy German landowner, the latter was in turn the grand nephew of a famous German Field Marshall from the First World War. Throughout the 1930s Moltke had opposed Hitler and the Nazi regime, and regarded their accession to power as a catastrophe of the first magnitude. During the war years he actively opposed Hitler, but unlike some others he came to reject the idea that assassinating Hitler was the way to correct matters within Germany. He was a Christian who refused to behave as the Nazis did. In January 1944, though, he was arrested for his active resistance to Hitler. He was put on trial in January 1945 and he rejoiced in the fact that eventually his trial boiled down to one fact, that he, as a Christian refused to accept Hitler’s demand for total and absolute obedience.

At one point in his trial, his judge, Roland Freisler, shouted at him: “Only in one respect are we [i.e. the Nazis] and Christianity alike: we demand the whole man!” Freisler then asked Moltke: “From whom do you take your orders? From the Beyond or from Adolf Hitler?” “Who commands your loyalty and your faith?” Moltke rightly saw these questions as the decisive ones of his entire trial. As he told his wife in a farewell letter, he was on trial simply as Christian and nothing else. From the point of view of the Nazis, because as a Christian he refused to give total obedience to Hitler, he had to die.

Ever since I read some of his letters to his wife Freya in the 1970s, I have found his life to be a source of tremendous inspiration.

Did the Puritans dislike Christmas pudding?

Last fall while speaking at Hespeler Baptist Church on the Puritans a friend gave me a page she had found in the catalogue of a British firm that shipped various British foods overseas. This particular page advertised Christmas pudding.

 

Part of the ad ran thus: “Christmas pudding should be so wickedly good it makes you feel like repenting. That’s the effect it had on the Puritans, who, back in Britain in 1664, banned the rich dessert as a lewd tradition. Thankfully, King George gave in to temptation and removed the ban in 1714.”

 

Pasing by the incredible statement of the first line, it seems as if this ad derived its historical data from this webpage of BBC2: “Traditional Christmas Pudding” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A660836), where we are further informed that the Puritans' argument against the pudding was that “mainly due to its rich ingredients” they deemed it “unfit for God-fearing people.” When George reintroduced it, according to this web page, the Quakers objected, calling it “the invention of the scarlet whore of Babylon.” Doing a quick check, it appears that a number of places on the Web have similar information and the same dates.

 

There are some obvious problems here. First, the Puritans, if we mean the English Puritans, had no power to be banning anything in 1664 since the Restoration in 1660 had led to their complete removal from the halls of power. Then, the Quakers are not to be confused with the Puritans. King George of the ad is presumably George I (r.1714-1727). George, who spoke virtually not a word of English—he was a Hanoverian from Germany—became king in August of 1714. And it was that December he reinstated the Christmas pudding.

 

Well, someone who loves the Puritans needs to research this and find out the truth. This would make a very good term paper!

Volume on John Broadus Reviewed

One of Dr. Haykin's many responsibilities is to serve as the series editor for a new series "Studies in Baptist Life and Thought" published by B & H Academic.  The first volume of this series was published this past year and it features a collection of essays on the life and legacy of John A. Broadus.  W. Madison Grace II, a PhD student at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, has recently reviewed this volume for their Baptist Theology website.  Be sure and check out the review as well as the many other valuable resources available on this website devoted to the study of issues related to Baptist life.

Posted by Steve Weaver, Research and Administrative Assistant to the Director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies, Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin.

The history of nonsense is...

I was in a different Barnes and Noble today—the one on Glades Road in Boca Raton. Man, some of you will think I live in Barnes and Noble! This time I noticed another great quote but failed to take note of the book it was in.

“Nonsense is nonsense; and the history of nonsense is scholarship.”

LOL! Priceless and how true at times!

Tea and the Glory of God

I was in a Barnes and Noble tonight and dipped into a book by Rebecca St. James—Sister freaks: Stories of Women who gave up everything for God (New York: Warner Faith, 2005). I didn’t get beyond the first page, where I read this quote from Watchman Nee: “Everywhere Jesus went, there was revolution. Everywhere I go, they serve tea” (p.xi). She didn’t footnote it, so I am not sure where she got this from. But two thoughts immediately came to mind. First, what a way to express the difference between us and our Lord: even as committed a disciple as Watchman Nee (though I would dissent from some of his views about discipleship) knew well the difference. The presence of Jesus was true revolution, beside which the French and Russian Revolutions, American and Industrial Revolutions, and all of the political hype of the last few weeks, pale into insignificance. Second, I thought of a remark I read this week in the Miscellaneous Works of Rev. Charles Buck (New Haven: Whitmore and Minor, 1833), which I found in the library of Knox Theological Seminary, Fort Lauderdale. I had never heard of Buck (1771-1815), who was a Congregationalist minister and who once served as the amanuensis of John Ryland, Sr (p.16-17). When I read about Buck’s connection with Ryland I was hooked and went through the entire book. Among other things, Buck published two collections of anecdotes. One of these books contained the following story—and tea is the link with the Watchman Nee quote.

According to the London Anglican evangelical William Romaine (1714-1795), the “glory of God is very seldom promoted at the tea-table” (p.486). Watchman Nee would definitely have agreed! But not so, Romaine averred, when one drank tea with fellow-Anglican James Hervey (1714-1758), who was also a close friend of both John Wesley and John Ryland. “Drinking tea with him,” Romaine observed, “was like being at an ordinance; for it was sanctified by the word of God and prayer” (p.486).

So drinking tea could be revolutionary!

Dr. Haykin's Latest Book: The Christian Lover: The Sweetness of Love and Marriage in the Letters of Believers

Dr. Haykin's latest book, The Christian Lover: The Sweetness of Love and Marriage in the Letters of Believers, has just been released by Ligonier's Reformation Trust publishing arm.  In this volume, Dr. Michael A. G. Haykin declares that “reading expressions of love from the past can be a helpful way of responding to the frangibility of Christian marriage in our day.” To that end, he brings together letters from one or both parties in twelve significant relationships from church history. The correspondents include such notables as Martin Luther (writing to his wife Katie), and John Calvin (expressing to friends his grief over the death of his wife Idelette). Lesser-known writers include Helmuth von Moltke, who wrote to his wife as he faced execution as the hands of the Nazis in 1945. The contents range from courtship communications to proposals of marriage to final words before dying, but most have to do with the events of everyday life. Dr. Haykin provides an introduction to each set of letters and draws practical applications for today’s believers based on the expressions of love made by the correspondents. In the end, The Christian Lover is a celebration of marriage, an intimate window into the thoughts of men and women in love with both God and one another. To view the Table of Contents and read a Sample Chapter click here.

The book retails for $15.00 and is available for a 20% discount ($12.00) from the publisher.

The book is available from Amazon.com for $10.20.

Westminster Bookstore is offering the volume for $9.90 (34% off).

But the best deal is available from Reformation Heritage Books, where they are offering a 50% discount ($7.50) until tomorrow afternoon at 5:00 pm.

Posted by Steve Weaver, Research and Administrative Assistant to the Director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies, Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin.

A Review of Vital Signs of a Healthy Church by Guy Chevreau

Dr. Haykin recently discovered and reviewed a book by Guy Chevreau, who had previously authored a book defending the Toronto Blessing movement, titled Vital Signs of a Healthy Church.  A Diagnostic.   To read the book review click here.  A list of other book reviews may be accessed here.

Posted by Steve Weaver, Research and Administrative Assistant to the Director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies, Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin.

Richard John Neuhaus

What a shock to read of Richard John Neuhaus' death. Like Dr. Russell Moore, I too will miss his lucid and pungent prose. And I too plead guilty to always turning to the back first when I read my monthly copy of First Things. There are four or five journals/magazines I have a subscription for—a couple of professional history journals—and then there is First Things. How often the journal has been an oasis for me. I thank God for Richard Neuhaus. And do read the quote from Neuhaus that Dr. Moore includes in his appreciation.

The Spirit of Truth, traditionalism and tradition

When revival comes, the Spirit who brings it also—and always—comes as a Spirit of Truth. He brings heart renewal to God’s people—their eyes sparkle with fire and light—and he reforms theological thinking. Semper reformanda, the Spirit reforming us ongoingly, do we not confess that? Take the revival among English and Welsh Calvinistic Baptists at the close of the “long” eighteenth century. In the wake of this dramatic renewal came a fresh evaluation of what constituted the parameters of the Calvinistic Baptist community. During the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries these parameters had been oriented around the concept of the church as a congregation of baptized believers and any missional component largely lost. Revival came to be linked to Baptist polity. This focus among Calvinistic Baptists on ecclesiological issues and their linking of spiritual vitality to church order, however, received a direct challenge from the Evangelical Revival. The participants of this revival, who knew themselves to be part of a genuine movement of the Spirit of God, were mainly interested in issues relating to salvation. Ecclesial matters often engendered unnecessary strife and, in the eyes of key individuals like George Whitefield, robbed those who disputed about them of God’s blessing.

By the end of the century many Calvinistic Baptists agreed. While they were not at all prepared to deny their commitment to Baptist polity, they were not willing to remain fettered by traditional patterns of Baptist thought about their identity. Retaining the basic structure of Baptist thinking about the church they added one critical ingredient drawn from the experience of the Evangelical Revival: the vital need for local Baptist churches to be centres of vigorous evangelism. There is no doubt that this amounted to a re-thinking of Baptist identity. From the perspective of these Baptists, Baptist congregations and their pastors were first of all Christians who needed to be concerned about the spread of the Gospel at home and abroad.

May we, the spiritual descendants of those brethren—oh what a joy to have men and women like Andrew Fuller and John Sutcliff, Samuel Pearce and Anne Steele, Benjamin Beddome and Benjamin Francis as our forebears!—not fail to learn the lessons they learned so well!

Oh to treasure the traditions these brothers and sisters have handed on to us, but a pox on traditionalism! This is not a contradiction: to love our traditions, but to want nothing to do with traditionalism. The latter loves the past becuase it is simply the past and thinks that things were always done better then. The former loves the traditions of the past for they are bearers of truth and we dare not lose that treasure.

Oh to be found faithful to the end of our days to the faith once for all delivered to the saints and which these brethren have handed on to us. But oh to avoid like the plague the aridity of traditionalism in second- and third-order theological truth, not daring to think new thoughts in these areas. Fuller and his friends were not so fearful.

May we be found faithful to their heritage. May we, like them, be found utterly passionate in our love for the Lord Jesus and his great kingdom—the only community of good and blessing that will last for all eternity—but God help us to know what must be done to be true to this passion in our day!

Nakedity, corporeality and classical Christianity

One of the deepest ironies of the Ancient World is that the Judaeo-Christian tradition, which has a manifest taboo about nakedity (outside of marriage), also has a deep respect for the body (it will be resurrected, for one), while Graeco-Roman paganism, which was shameless in its display of nudity, had a very low view of the worth of the body. The popular Greek saying sōma sēma, “the body is a tomb” well sums up this low view of the human body. In this respect, Gnosticism, with its overt hatred of bodily existence, is flat-out Hellenization. While orthodox Christianity, with its championing of corporeality, is proving its resistance to cultural accommodation on this issue.