Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln was born 200 years and a few days ago (I forgot the anniversary, because I was celebrating something else). In Lincoln's honour, here is his second inaugural address, inscribed in the Lincoln Memorial in DC:


Fellow Countrymen:

At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored 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 offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.' If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses 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 offense 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 bondsman'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.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Angels in the Architecture: a Review

I recently read Angels in the Architecture by Douglas Jones and Douglas Wilson (Canon Press, 1998), because people I respect view it positively. What did I think of it? The short answer is that (1) I strongly agree with the basic idea, (2) I strongly disagree with particular details, and (3) I don't think it goes far enough.

Angels in the Architecture is a call to "Medieval Protestantism" – that is, a conservative Protestantism that incorporates aspects of life in the Middle Ages, a time when the whole of society was based on what people believed to be Christian principles. I can agree with this. As a fan of Dante, for example, I see much in the Middle Ages that is attractive. I'm happy to put Art and Poetry on a pedestal. And I'm sure it would be good for me to sing Vespers and Compline every night. Consequently, my first reaction to Angels in the Architecture was to cheer.

However, several aspects of Angels in the Architecture seriously disturbed me, all the more so because of my initial positive reaction. First, like many conservative US Protestants, Jones and Wilson seem to place the Old Testament ahead of the New. This means, for example, that they see biblical support for slavery (an institution which, as an old-fashioned Southerner in spirit, Wilson has previously – and controversially – defended). Many Christians more focused on the New Testament, like John Newton and William Wilberforce, rather famously drew the opposite conclusion. The Old Testament focus of Jones and Wilson also leads them to a vision of life that is agrarian, as opposed to the life of Christians in Rome, Ephesus, and Corinth.

Jones and Wilson also give the impression of being opposed to Reason and to Science. Aristotle, and even more so Plato, appear as enemies, rather than as friends, of the Church. Augustine (who they approve of) would have been surprised at this, having given a partial endorsement of Neoplatonism in his City of God. As a professional scientist, I would rely rather heavily on Augustine in finding a Christian basis for my work, together with the Greek concept of Logos which appears in the Gospel of John. Reason, I believe, is part of the Logos, and therefore so are the eternal truths of Mathematics. Only because the Logos is also the Creator (John 1:10) do the mathematical patterns in Science make sense (and so both Mathematics and Science become, for me as for many scientists of the past, part of the study and worship of God).

The hostility to Science in Angels in the Architecture brings me to my final criticism: Jones and Wilson don't go far enough. Their vision is too small. As a single man, a scientist, and a Christian living in a city, they have very little to say that I can use. In spite of their stated goals, they are happy to concede most of society's territory to the Enemy: Mathematics, Science, and all the world's cities. I'm not happy with that. I want to live in an apartment block designed on Christian principles. I want to write the scientific papers that Jesus would want me to write. I want to watch movies, listen to music, and read books that strengthen and deepen my faith, and help me to become a better disciple of Christ. Put your thinking caps back on, gentlemen, and show me how.