A better story of the Holy Roman Empire

 

Most high school history books say that the Holy Roman Empire was formed by Charlemagne, then quickly quip that it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire--End of Story.  That’s half-baked.  Here’s the real story.  Charlemagne established it from a dominant Frank kingdom he inherited in 768, an empire that stretched from France to Denmark, Austria and central Italy.  As he was worshipping in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, Christmas Day, 800, he was crowned by Pope Leo III as successor to the Caesars—a new Holy Roman Emperor. But upon Charlemagne’s death in 814 his kingdom was partitioned again and again until it became 5 kingdoms by 888. It was a very short-lived empire.

            955 AD.  Pope John XII was one of the worst of the Dark Ages popes.  Otto I was a rising power in the kingdom of Germany.  Otto was greatly alarmed by the moral degradation of the papacy. Immoral popes were seated and deposed at the whim of Italian rulers and corrupt Cardinals. Many ended up in prison or assassinated.  But Otto was a wise king who made useful alliances with his neighbors, granted lands to the German church, and made it a national institution.  Despite all the tough life of the Dark Ages, the Christian faith held the people together, rich or poor.  Otto conquered the Wends, a western Slavic tribe and made them Christians somewhat by point of sword, but they then became model citizens to his delight.  In Italy, the queen Adelaide had been imprisoned wrongfully by a usurping king Berengar.  Otto marched on Italy, rescued Adelaide, and married her.  Soon after, Pope John XII enlisted Berengar to help defend himself against Otto’s criticism of his papacy.  Otto marched into Rome at the head of a massive army, deposed Berengar, and took control of Italy.  He brought Pope John to trial on charges of bribery, adultery, incest, and turning the palace into a brothel. The ecclesiastical court convicted John and replaced him with a successor that Otto chose.  The new pope, Leo VIII, was a faithful layman, unaccredited but sincere in his faith.  From this point on, the papacy would answer to Holy Roman Emperors who ruled Italy, Austria and Germany—a smaller land than Charlemagne’s original empire.  Thus began an earlier Reformation that lasted a couple hundred years. The papacy was reformed somewhat. The emperors were elected by leaders of 7 nations of the kingdom. One of the leaders was the Saxon Duke who originally ruled lands from the North Sea coast (original homeland) to the Carpathian mountains.  Later the Saxon Duke lost his lands along the North Sea, leaving the duchy as lesser landholdings of the southern 1/3 of what was once to call East Germany.  Here is where Martin Luther was born in 1483, under the rule of the Duke of Saxony, in the Holy Roman Empire.

The Slavery theorist and the anti-slavery politician

 

So how did the Southern Democrats of Andrew Jackson’s day get the idea that slavery was good?  Senator Calhoun of S. Carolina defended slavery not as a necessary evil but as good for all.  He and his Dixie brethren rejected the thinking of the founders, that slavery was opposed to “All men are created equal,” and that it should be scheduled for abolition.  Calhoun made it racist.  He saw the Declaration as, “an utterly false view of the subordinate relation of the black and white races.” But where did Calhoun get this idea?

George Fitzhugh was an author of the era who penned books and wrote regularly in pro-slavery publications. Southern cotton planters were growing fabulously rich, half the exports of the USA were cotton by the 1840s, all made possible by Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin in 1793.  A large political lobby surrounded this wealth and it went on a public relations campaign to change, among others, many Southern churches who were adamantly anti-slavery. And they used Fitzhugh’s advocacy of slavery to change opinions.  Fitzhugh was a socialist who thought of all labor as either free labor or slave labor.  Superficially, free laborers seem to have it better, but their bosses have no regard for their well-being.  They are wage-slaves.  Capitalist manufacturers are evil. Entrepreneurs are basically slave masters who have no obligation to the workers. These notions fit with populist, anti-business Democrats of the North.  On the other hand, Fitzhugh argued, slave labor is something more like family; the slave is kept from cradle to grave in security. The plantation is like a commune, “in which the master furnishes the capital and skill, and the slaves the labor, and divide the profits, not according to each one’s input, but according to each one’s wants and necessities.”  This might sound like Marx.  But Fitzhugh thought little of European socialists because they were trying to create a system based on idealized behavior, and you can’t change human nature.  Slavery was tried and true and could provide a model for all workers, white as well. Fitzhugh’s concepts would live on after the Civil War in the Democrat party.  So would the racism that rationalized slavery.

            Racism becomes justified in the minds of superiors when one race rules another for a long period of time. The squalor that slaves live in, the lack of education, the seeming lack of smarts, becomes tied to race.  The racist concept is that they live that way, not because of their treatment, but because it is natural for them, and thus the treatment is justified.  In practice, masters lived a life of leisure, sired offspring from slaves, used the whip, browbeat the slaves into thinking themselves worthless, and bought and sold them at will. 

            What opposed this exploitation?  Christianity says that all are saved, not by their own doing but by grace—undeserved favor of God.  “There are neither Jew nor Greek, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian nor Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.” (Colossians 3:11) It seems like a clear case but in practical politics, the abolitionists of the church were not successful. Other contrarians interpreted scripture in their own view. Then came Abraham Lincoln.  This lawyer who had grown up as a pioneer kid reasoned with farmers and shop owners who made up most of America.  If the Negro grows corn, he should be able to eat that corn, said Lincoln. (the contrapositive of “If a man does not work, neither shall he eat” from Thessalonians) If you think it is about skin color, then won’t you meet someone of lighter skin color somewhere?  Does he then have a right to enslave you? If you think it is intelligence, you’ll surely meet someone smarter than you.  Does he have a right to enslave you? (“If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself.” Galatians 6) And concerning the slave ownership of the founders, Lincoln counted each founder who later voted in Congress not to expand slavery—92% of them wanted it stopped.  Lincoln quoted scriptures so often that if he were to speak in today’s political world, many would label him a religious kook. Lincoln got his scripture training simply.  His step-mother Sarah home-schooled him with the only two books she possessed, the Bible and a biography of George Washington. And as a bright student, he reasoned every spiritual principle until he had logical arguments about life. Those arguments turned the views of USA around in one election in 1860.  If ever there were a lesson in the need for Christians to involve themselves politically—however they see fitting-- look to Abraham Lincoln who translated his faith into practical arguments.

Pandemics and Christianity's story

 

Pandemics occur throughout history. In the Roman world, the pagans were quick to “get out of Dodge.” Listen to an early bishop Dionysius tell about what happened in the Alexandrian Plague of 250 AD.  “They thrust aside anyone who began to be sick, and kept aloof even from their dearest friends, and cast the sufferers out upon the public roads half dead, and left them unburied, treating them with contempt until they died. (Works of Dionysius. Epistle 12) But the Christians had different ideas. “Many of our brethren…did not spare themselves, but kept by each other, and visited the sick without thought of their own peril, and ministered to them assiduously  and treated them for their healing in Christ, died from time to time most joyfully…taking over to their own persons the burden of sufferings of those around them.” And this was no isolated incident.  The plague went on from 249 to 262.  At its height 5000 people a day died in Rome. Cyprian wrote from Carthage that Christians should serve not just their own but pagans who curse them. A hundred years before, we think perhaps the first pandemic of small pox hit the empire (165-180 AD).   The famed physician Galen fled Rome for his country villa. 1/3 the people died. But the Christians ministered without regard to themselves.

            Why? They had little knowledge of disease except that it was infectious. But Jesus had said, “I was sick and you looked after me.” (Matt. 25:36) He healed repeatedly (Matt. 4) and “sent His disciples to preach the kingdom of God and heal the sick.” (Luke 9:2) Peter, Paul and Barnabus, and Stephen have examples in Acts of where they did this. And as Jesus never considered a healing complete unless it was also spiritual, so did the early Christians.  If a Christian dies, life just continues eternally. “Because I live, you too shall live.” “So then, whether we live or whether we die we are the Lord’s.” If a sick or dying person came to accept Christ’s love and forgiveness, then they had gained another brother to stand before the Son.  This had an enormous impact on the other Romans.  Fleeing the plague couldn’t compete with Hope in the face of death.  Plagues made Christianity grow and drew others to the faith.  Plagues made love and other spiritual gifts grow.  And the Christian community that survived was all the stronger from what they had gone through.

                Wittenberg, 1527, the bubonic plague struck again. It had been recurring every couple decades since 1347. Martin Luther had lost his 3 closest friends in grammar school, 20 years before, and some think grief was a contributing reason he wanted to join a monastic order.  But in 1527 he and Katarina stayed in Wittenberg to take care of the sick.  They cited Matt. 25, and wrote that “ [we and Jesus] are bound together in such a way that no one may forsake the other in his distress but is obliged to assist and help him as He Himself would like to be helped.”  Yet Luther added that there were circumstances that drive us to flee and that no one should judge another for what they have done. “We are here alone with the deacons, but Christ is present too, that we may not be alone, and he will triumph in us over that old serpent, murderer, and author of sin, however much he may bruise Christ’s heel. Pray for us, and farewell.” (Ag 19, 1527)

            I am humbled by all of this.  It makes my paltry gift of giving away an N95 mask seem tepid. (Construction guys have such things on hand.) And all my rationalization about being careful not to become infected and infect others seems rather fearful and cathartic. Wash hands and take precautions, even staying away from public meetings. But if someone needs my service, who am I to refuse to be like Christ? Who shall I refuse to pray with for His mercy? “Other people would not think this a time for festival,” Dionysius said of the epidemic in Alexandria. “Far from being a time of distress, it is a time of unimaginable joy.” Where is Jesus?  We are His Body here on earth at work.  The one who is sick is Him waiting for us to come.   

Poland and the Atlantic and the left

Right after Trump was elected he went to Poland and gave a speech that had them cheering in the streets.  He spoke not of America but of Western Civilization and the Judeo-Christain ethic that spawned it. Poles celebrated The West.   But back home the speech brought out enormous animosity on the left. Vox: “an alt-right manifesto”, Common Dreams: “An ominous current running beneath Trump’s words.” Peter Beinart in Atlantic: “racial and religious paranoia”. Beinhart saw Trump defending religious and racial exclusivity. Jack Goldsmith, also in Atlantic: Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency?”On and on it went from New Republic to New York Tiimes. What was going on? Jamelle Bouje explained in Slate: “There’s no such thing as a good Trump voter.” Atlantic’s Chris Hedges did too writing a diatribe against “Trump and the Christian Fascists”. Nehisi Coates in Atlantic explained in a long article how Trump was not the enemy, just the leader of white supremacists and Christian Nazis.  Think of this when you see the now leftist Atlantic publishing an article where evidently one or possibly 2 disgruntled former office holders claimed Trump had dissed veterans in France. Even John Bolton won’t support the story and neither would 10 others present in the meeting.  Trump has quietly taken his own time to meet the planes bringing home dead soldiers and to meet with their families over the last 4 years.  He reformed the VA to much acclaim. He went to a military High School which he is proud of.  He increased defense spending (including pay raises for soldiers) and began a new Space Force.  Doesn’t sound like someone who would slam deceased vets to me.  But as for Atlantic and the Dems, they sound like they don’t hate Trump nearly as much as they hate us. That, tragically, is the real conflict. 

Biblical dates

 

Do you have one of those Bibles that has dates on the pages? How do scholars know? 

            In the case of the New Testament, the book of Acts has events of noted rulers which we can correlate with official records. The one everybody knows is from Luke 2 about Quirinius being governor of Syria. Yet he was governor twice so the date is subject to discussion. The onset of John the Baptist’s ministry is, however, well dated by Luke. Chapter 3 verse 1: “In the 15^th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar…” That is exactly AD 29.  Nonetheless, the life of Jesus ministry is only approximately dated.  3 Jewish calendar years transpire in each gospel, or so it seems, meaning 32 or 33AD is the likely date of his death. Even dates for when the gospels were written are controversial. We possess one recopied page of papyrus from the Gospel of Mark that handwriting experts conclude was written in a style and pen-tool used by scribes from 50-68 AD. Since Mark is briefer than other gospels, it has been concluded that it was written about 56, others came later. Luke likely left Paul in Rome about 62 AD and came back to Palestine and interviewed people.  On the other hand, we know that John’s Revelation was surely written between 90 and 96 AD when Emperor Domitian persecuted Christians and banished leaders, until his successor, Nerva, rescinded all Domitian’s decrees in 96. 

            The Old Testament was harder to date. But there were two breakthroughs.  First was the discovery of Assyria’s Eponym lists which date from 842 to 648 BC.  Each year was named after the prime minister who led Assyria and a recounting of the events throughout the world was given.  They list the battles between Assyria and Israel. By knowing the years served by Israel’s kings from the 2 books of Kings, we can know the dates of reigns of the kings.  There is an eclipse the Assyrians recorded in 763 BC that modern astronomers can date precisely to June 15, 763 BC.

            The second breakthrough is a monument erected by Assyrian King Shalmaneser III in 841 BC, known as the Black Obelisk.  It was erected to celebrate several fresh victories, among which was the victory over King Jehu of Israel. The confluence of the dates of other battles and Jehu’s defeat can confidently be ascribed to 841 BC and using the lengths of reigns of the Kings in Israel from I and II Kings, we can backdate to Saul’s annointing in 1048 BC, then follow it all the way to Jehoiachim’s release from prison in Babylon in 561 BC.  Further dates such as Media’s conquering of Bablyon and Persian kings make the rest of the dating fairly certain through Malachi in 430 BC. 

            The early dates surrounding Moses and Abraham are much murkier.  There is controversy about when the Exodus took place, 1450 BC or 1275 BC. There is also disagreement on number of years noted between the Septuagint (Greek translation of OT done in 3^rd century BC) and the Hebrew Bible (which was finally agreed upon by Jews in 930 AD).  After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the Second Jewish Revolt 135 AD, there was no temple, only Rabbis in synagogues.  Rabbinical teaching was thought to supersede the Old Testament until the Scripture was restored to its rightful place by Jewish scholars in the 10^th century. Hence early Christians (who knew little Hebrew) used the Septuagint as an authoritative Old Testament.  That is why there are OT dating ambiguities.  But of course the primary reason for God’s Word is to convict hearts and win salvation through faith, then put us on a walk with the Spirit, not to record dates.

            In my days at St. John’s College, I asked their foremost historian, Dr. Gil Holstein, what it meant when a person’s name was followed by a date preceded by “b.”  Does that stand for “born”?  He nodded but then cracked a grin, and teased, “Naw, I think it stands for ‘bout.”