THE WOMB BOMBER

Books & Culture April 18, 2001

Chapter1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23

Sister Mary Sebastian drank her fifth cup of the morning at a coffee bar in the Atlanta airport. Her booth sat by the wall—really just a long glass panel looking out over the planes parked in the rain below. The planes reminded her of cartoon dogs: big dogs and little dogs, ears straight out and tails up in the air. Smooth, wet noses. Go dog, go. She had read those words to many small children over the years, the “special needs” children who came to the school as babies and lived with the nuns until someone adopted them or foster families took them in. One little boy, Danny Clift, she’d raised by herself for three years. He was four when he left her. The night before he went to live with his new family, he pushed open her bedroom door, crying.

“Did you have a bad dream, Danny?”

“Yes. There was dogs.”

“Do you want me to read you a Psalm?”

“No. Read Stop Dog, Stop.”

Later, she’d heard he died in an accident at home. “Maybe it wasn’t an accident at all,” she told Theresa in tears, but there was no way of knowing. She hated the system, like everything else she couldn’t control. She’d have preferred to keep all the children safe with the Sisters of Good Hope forever; she’d have established an old–fashioned orphanage for them, if Florida law had allowed it, or else adopted every child herself (but the order didn’t allow that). Only the most exceptional children stayed for any length of time: the lame, the crippled, the blind.

None had stayed longer than Theresa—soon to be “Sister Theresa,” if she decided to keep her own name. She had one arm, no left foot, and a mangled ear that she kept hidden under her habit. One night 26 years ago, a frightened woman in flat white shoes appeared at the back door, holding out a bundle. “A little present for you,” she’d said, slurring her words as if she’d been drinking for about an hour before she came. She disappeared quickly, her shoes making streaks through the dark. Mary brought the bundle into the light and unwrapped it on the kitchen table, trembling. The last corner of blanket fell away like withered skin: inside was a tiny newborn, horribly injured, quivering and gasping for breath.

Sister Mary wore ordinary clothes today: grey slacks and a 20–year–old green sweater. Some nuns hated the habit, but she felt stangely conspicuous without it. It let people look at you without seeing you: you could hide in a habit, like an almond in a shell. Without it, you were only yourself—the person you’d always been—no longer hidden in the armor of the church.

She smiled at herself—to make such a melodrama out of clothes!—and smoothed her hair behind her ears, noticing the heavy–set blonde woman making circles outside the bar. No need for a second look. The woman had a memorable face: weepy brown eyes, a round jaw and a small mouth. Sister Mary sipped her coffee, nervously. A plane landed. Minutes later, a crowd of travellers swarmed through the concourse. She stood up, stuffed her styrofoam cup through the flap of a trash bin, and stepped gamely out into the walking traffic. Luggage whizzed by: suitcases on wheels, all of them black and exactly the same size. How did these people manage at baggage pick–up? She felt the blond woman hovering about ten feet behind her, but still she didn’t look back.

Better to look like a follower than a leader. She chose a youngish Asian man as a pacesetter and walked after him, wheezing with the effort. He was perfect: long–legged and uncatchable. Far down the concourse he slowed and turned for a moment, maybe sensing something. She let her eyes meet his. That slight bow of the head, the one always expected of nuns—she gave him that, tipping her forehead and closed her eyes. The man frowned and flicked his hand over the front of his jacket. He looked back around and sped up. Another hundred yards and he turned off at an Internet station.

Whatever happened, she couldn’t miss her connecting flight. Twenty minutes till boarding, but she’d gone too far in the wrong direction now and she didn’t want to look hurried on the way back. She checked her watch again, turned into a hallway off the main thoroughfare, and found an empty restroom. It wouldn’t be empty long—the quicker she got this over with, the better. She sat down on a toilet at the far side of the room and waited, looking at her watch. Two and a half minutes passed, and then she heard footsteps on the tile.

The door squeaked open in the stall next to hers. She bent down and saw the woman’s stubby feet and thick ankles. She’d seen those feet before—just a few days ago, actually—but in different shoes, and from farther away, behind a baby stroller. Today the shoes were white, with rubber soles. There was no stroller. Sister Mary put her head against the metal wall, near the bottom.

“It was a good landing in Washington,” she whispered.

“Really?” said the meek voice on the other side.

“Yes. Our prayers were answered.”

“This is so hard.”

“I know, but you’ll be happy in the long run.”

“I wish I had more control. I wish I could see how she turns out. I get attached—”

“Shhh.”

“I’m sorry.” The woman sniffled. “I’m not good at this. I hate this.”

“I know you do.”

“I’m sorry.”

“You’re very brave. You can trust everything to us, OK?”

“I know—”

“Have you prayed?”

“Yes.”

“Then keep praying. God listens.”

“Isn’t there any way I could see—you know, again?”

“No. No. Now, do you have anything you wanted to pass along?”

“Is there a name you could give me? A place to write?”

“Don’t undo the good you’ve done.”

“I know this one will have unusual needs.”

“Please.”

There was a slight hesitation, and then a large, thin envelope passed between the stalls. Sister Mary noticed the other woman’s hand before it drew back: the fingers looked red and sore. Maybe eczema. She took the envelope and folded it into her purse, then stood up quickly and kicked the flush button on the wall. The toilet roared. She pulled up her tights and left the bathroom quickly, without even washing her hands. She’d forgotten not to look hurried.

* * *

Far outside the tech corridor, away from the bristling trails of cement and steel, sat Sibyl Westford’s Maryland farm. The house was 180 years old, set down in a grove of black oaks, with an apple orchard on one side and a grey clapboard chapel on the other. A small crowd of children roamed over the bright green grass like new kittens. Jenny had mentioned kids. Rose wondered about them as she parked her car near the road and crunched down the sandy driveway. Did they all live here?

She’d driven up this morning with the idea that she’d try to come across less strong today, play the sincere truth–seeker. It had been wrong to pretend to Jenny that she’d had an abortion once, but, thinking it over, she’d realized that in a way it was true. As a teenager she’d driven her sister to a clinic and waited all morning in a sterile little room that smelled like plastic furniture. She remembered sitting down in the kitchen that afternoon, trying to explain to her mom why Pat was locked up in her room, crying. Rain poured down outside. The lights flickered on and off.

“We couldn’t tell you, Mom,” she said.

Her mother crumpled up with her head in her hands, sobbing. “You should have told me. I could have helped her. I wouldn’t have stopped her.”

“But you take everything so hard. We wanted to protect you from making the decision.”

“Protect me? You’re a teenager, for God’s sake. Who the hell do you think you are?”

Rose walked past the other cars, hearing voices and laughter as she came close to the house. The front door stood open: there were people moving on the other side of the screen. A woman stepped out as she climbed the steps. “Barbara?” she called toward the children on the lawn. She looked tired and tense. Her long hair tumbled down the front of her jumper.

“Yes?” answered a little girl on the lawn.

“I need your help in the kitchen, honey.”

“But I’m looking for my ring. I losed it.”

“Well I’m sorry, but mommy needs you in the kitchen.”

The girl put her hands on her hips and burst into tears. The woman sighed and shook her head at Rose. “She’s been like this all morning.”

“I know how it is,” Rose said, thinking that she didn’t really have any idea. She wondered how obviously out–of–place she looked here. She kept one hand on the camera at her side and moved past the woman through the doorway into a large open room with a high ceiling. The room was crowded with people who seemed to know each other. They were chattering here and there in small groups: one group standing around a piano, another sitting on a short flight of steps, another seated at a long table next to an ancient wood stove. Three royal blue tapestries hung along the opposite wall, embroidered with Christian symbols: a fish, a cross, a chalice.

Jenny Lemke had been setting up chairs across the room. “Rose!” she said, holding her hand out as she came open. “You made it!”

Rose moved toward her, relieved to see the familiar face. Yet hadn’t Stannie always said she trusted people too easily? It was important to remember what she was here for—not let herself be sucked in. She felt at her side for the camera—for the cool metal, the leather strap—then dropped her eyes and looked back up at Jenny, who was smiling tensely.

“Were my directions hard to follow?”

“Not at all, but this place is way off the beaten path. What is it, anyway? It’s not just a house?”

“Yes and no.” Jenny nodded, taking a slight breath as she smiled. “Sibyl’s brother James is our main attorney. He works out of an office here and takes care of the chapel next door.”

“Takes care of it?”

“He and Sibyl. They run the church together. It’s a—” Jenny laughed. “One of those Protestant things, I don’t quite get it.”

Rose smiled, looking around.

“Make yourself at home. There’s Sibyl with my priest, Father Myers. Hey Sibyl, come over here. Have you met Rose Merriman? She’s the writer I told you about.”

Sibyl Westford left the priest and came to Jenny’s side. She was both younger and taller than Rose remembered. She towered over Jenny, bouncing a tiny tiny baby on her shoulder.

“Is she yours?” Rose reached for her camera again. “She’s beautiful.”

“Oh, dear, no,” said Sibyl quickly. A strange look came over her face. “She’s not mine, no.” She laughed, sounding almost embarrassed, and handed the baby off to the same tired–looking woman who’d been calling the little girl outside. “No, she’s just one of our precious gift babies. A committee member has her in foster care. We were getting acquainted.”

There was an awkward silence, and then Jenny said, lightly, “We do have a lot of children around here, Rose. Always. Some of our own and some foster children, too.”

Rose smiled. “That would have made a nice photograph. The light in here is beautiful. Very sharp and clean.”

Sibyl’s eyes shifted over to Jenny and back to Rose.”Well,” she said, sounding strained, but smiling, “we’re always glad for company, Rose. You’re interested in joining the League, are you? Dare I hope that you’re a lawyer?”

“No, Sibyl,” said Jenny. “I told you. She’s writing a book.”

“Oh.”

“I’m interested in the legal questions, though,” said Rose. “I’d like to hear more about that side of your work.”

“A book. So you’re a literary person?”

“Sort of. a journalist.”

“Are you interested in some literature about the Fetal Rights League?”

Rose hesitated, not sure if this was a joke. “Yes, I guess so.”

“I’ll look around in the basement and see if I can dig some pamphlets up. We’re getting started pretty soon, so there won’t be much time.”

“That’s fine—”

“She doesn’t need any literature,” said Jenny. “She just wants to meet us. She wants our stories.”

Sibyl looked uncertain. “Our stories? I don’t think I have a story. I’m very boring.”

Jenny laughed. “Don’t let Sibyl fool you, Rose. She has plenty to say if you just ask the right questions.”

“I’m looking forward to talking to all of you,” said Rose warmly, but Sibyl didn’t return her smile. She turned to Jenny: “Mind if I talk to you alone?”

Jenny nodded and the two women crossed the room, heading for the coffee pot. Rose stood quietly for a moment, wondering why Sibyl Westford hadn’t taken to her. Left alone, she was suddenly aware of everything: the priest in the corner with his long face and bald head, a very old woman in a rocking chair, a handsome white man in a tan suit talking to several smart–looking black women, a couple of mangy–looking hippies with bare feet. One of the hippies had a tattoo of a man’s face on his forearm. Jesus? Maybe. Or was it Charles Manson? The middle–aged women around the piano looked as though they’d dressed for another century. Two of them wore lace caps—maybe one of these was the very woman Rose had seen in the photo at Tops, the woman who’d given her little boy a poster of a bloody fetus to carry on his shoulder. Rose did better with men and she knew it: she took a deep breath and started toward the handsome man in the tan suit.

* * *

Across the room, Sibyl was talking to Jenny in a small, tight voice. “I know she’s pro–abortion, Jenny. I can smell it a mile away.”

“She is. But she’s interested in us.”

“I feel extremely uncomfortable having her here. I mean, why here at the retreat? Can’t we leave the media in Washington?”

“Sibyl, she’s a nice person. She wants to get to know us.”

Sibyl rolled her eyes. “You trust everybody, but I know the media.”

“She’ll humanize us in the media.”

“Don’t count on it.”

“People have such a bad image of abortion–protestors, Sibyl. They see a doctor shot or a nurse losing an eye in a bombing. People remember that. These days, you have to be a victim to get any attention, and where are the victims? On the other side.”

“You don’t remember what you used to see in those dumpsters, do you?”

“They’re not going to print pictures of the dumpsters.”

“Or in my front yard. You want me to show you the doctor’s bill for the skin grafts on Clara?”

Jenny frowned, glancing toward the door. “Sibyl, I wouldn’t even consider putting that child in front of the world. She’s suffered enough. But there are other ways of getting public sympathy on our side. We can just be ourselves and talk to them—”

“We can’t be ourselves!” Sibyl said in a shrill whisper. “It’s throwing pearls before swine, trying to make friends with them. When will you understand that? We’ve tried and tried and tried. They twist everything! I’m sick to death of the secular media.”

Jenny struggled to keep her voice calm. “OK, but I’m not ready to give up. And you’re not the boss, last time I checked, Sibyl. These days, image is everything. Everything. And image is sold through story and through pictures. A writer can kill any cause, or save any cause, according to how she chooses her words. If we had a writer who believed in our cause, she could cast us in a sympathetic light. We need her.”

Sibyl stared forward for a moment, her large eyes intense. I can’t believe it’s true that people are so easily led,” she said, after a moment.

“But so many people do hate us. You know it. They don’t think of us as the people next door—we’re the enemy. We don’t have Hollywood on our side, the celebrities. We’ve got no Susan Sarandon, no Barbra Streisand. We have no one. No one but ourselves to represent us, and we’ve done such a poor job. We’ve been labeled as uncaring—”

“But it’s all lies,” said Sibyl

“It’s not all lies.” Jenny winced, and looked back at Rose. “I hate saying it, but at least half the time, it’s true. Remember Arvin, Sibyl? And what he did? Remember how many people have been hurt or killed in our cause?”

Sibyl stared, and then she said, “Just abortionists.” She said it quietly, but with venom in her voice. Her skin looked thin and papery around her eyes.

Jenny drew back and shook her head. “Not just abortionists. And even if they had been … it’s not our right. And, frankly, you need to soften up a little, yourself, Sibyl.”

Sibyl turned quickly back around to the table, still tense, now looking hurt.

Jenny touched Sibyl’s shoulder. “I don’t mean to make this a personal thing between you and me. Have I overdone it, pulling rank?”

“No,” Sibyl mumbled.

“Are you sure?”

“This is my house, after all.”

“I know.”

“You Catholics. Your friend can hang around and do research for her book. But make no mistake about it: I have nothing but contempt for the liberal media. They’ve added to the suffering of millions of children with their selfish propaganda and their money, and when we get the laws changed, they’ll pay the price.”

Sibyl lurched forward and went out the front door, down the steps to where the children were crawling through the grass, still looking for a lost ring. Jenny watched her go, stunned and sad. Then she made her way back toward Rose, who stood talking to Sibyl’s brother James under the banner of the cross.

Copyright © 2001 by the author or Christianity Today/Books & Culture Magazine.Click here for reprint information on Books & Culture.

Pastors

The Babe in Blythe

She was gorgeous and tanned and God used her to teach me a lesson.

Leadership Journal April 18, 2001

Peter Taylor Forsyth said God is an infinite opportunist. I believe that, and here is one reason why: the Babe in Blythe.

Blythe is a desert town on the Arizona-California border. My family and I were on our way back home from vacation when we stopped at a McDonald’s in Blythe. It was packed with tired travelers like us. Lauretta, my wife, asked me to hold Mary, our eighteen-month old, while she went to the restroom and our three sons romped in the play area.

Picture me holding my daughter, a few feet from the restroom doors, as the Babe from Blythe emerged from behind those doors. She was gorgeous — tanned and dressed as, well, as young women are wont to dress in warm desert climates.

And she was looking right at me, smiling warmly! My fatigued mind was suddenly focused. I straightened up and smiled back, flush with the adolescent conceit that even though I was much older than she was, I must still be a very attractive man. Babes still take notice!

Our smiles and eyes met for longer than a mere random encounter as she walked past. Then I noticed my reflection in the mirror along the wall and saw who she was smiling at. It was me, all right, but it wasn’t Ben Patterson the Mature Hunk. It was Ben Patterson, Mary’s Daddy. He was middle aged, a little lumpy, and holding a precious child. That’s what delighted the Babe.

My first reaction was embarrassment. Silly fool, you aren’t what you thought you were!

But as I continued to look in the mirror, I decided I liked what I saw there more than I liked what I first thought the Babe saw. I like being Mary’s Daddy. I like it a lot. Ditto for Dan and Joel and Andy. It’s better to be a daddy than a stud. My deflation turned into elation.

Whether or not that is what Forsyth meant by God being an infinite opportunist, that’s what I mean. He orchestrated my lust and conceit into a blessed realization of my true glory and happiness. God was smiling at me through the smile of the Babe in Blythe.

With one deft stroke, he seized the moment, stripped me bare, and clothed me with mercy.

He’s done that my whole life. I remember the first time, as I was preaching, I made a broad gesture and several heads in the congregation turned and looked where I was pointing. The same flush I felt in Blythe came over me. They’re really listening to me! I point this way and they look this way. Feels good! I did it again, and again heads turned.

Later, when I thought about the flush and the tawdry little experiment, I was stricken with shame. A snarling zoo of false motives was exposed. I’m often shocked at all the wrong reasons I have for doing the right things.

Many times, when I am thus stripped bare, I have been tempted to resign the ministry. I have no right to be a minister of the gospel. That is, of course, correct — but in more than one way. I have no right because of my sin, and no right because of God’s mercy. The ministry is never a right, always a mercy.

The apostle Paul is clear: it is “through God’s mercy we have this ministry,” the upshot being, therefore, “we do not lose heart” (2 Cor. 4:1). We were saved by grace, we are saved by grace, and we will be saved by grace. What made me a child of God also makes me his servant. God made a bad man like Paul an apostle simply to show the world how gracious he is (1 Tim. 1:15, 16).

My friends, I could not minister another day in Christ’s name if I did not believe this was the truth.

Ben Patterson is campus pastor at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California. To reply, write Newsletter@LeadershipJournal.net.

Sign up for the Church Leader’s Newsletter and receive a new article plus useful information in your inbox every week!

Copyright © 2001 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

THE WOMB BOMBER

Books & Culture April 11, 2001

Chapter1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23

It was Thursday morning, a humid day in Seaborough. The Weather Channel showed clear skies over the Gulf of Mexico, but Jean Colfax watched a long line of grey clouds march slowly up from the horizon, casting shadows on the shallow water. She’d decided to sit out on the balcony of her bedroom this morning to wait for her sister to arrive. If Ida was surprised, she didn’t show it. She began to fish around for a dress to cover up Mrs. Colfax’s blue chiffon nightgown—”Cannot be anything too formal,” she said in her German accent, “but nothing too plain, either.” She pulled a red silk kimono from the back of a closet: it had hung there since some Christmas long ago. “This thing! It looks like a dress for an old prostitute. I’ll send it to Goodwill next week.”

“That’s what I want to wear,” said Jean. “Tie a scarf around my head so my skin won’t sag.”

“Oh no, dear, you don’t want to wear this.”

“I do.”

“No you don’t.”

“Yes I do. And don’t forget the scarf. I look like a sick elephant.”

“Nooo—your skin looks better than mine—with all my spots. See these? That’s what I deserve for not taking care of my hands, staying in this sun all year long.”

“I’ve aged too, Ida.”

“You have? I haven’t noticed it, Mrs. Colfax.”

“I have.”

Ida chuckled. “Have it your way,” she said, shaking her head. She dressed Jean and helped her outside to the balcony, wondering how long this situation would last—like getting children ready to play in the snow, knowing they might not stay out more than minutes. A glass of orange juice was brought, the usual pair of sunglasses, a sweater for the shoulders, in case the breeze was too brisk in the shade. Ah, all ready, all comfortable. Ida nodded her head, satisfied, and hurried off to make beds and iron shirts and recheck the Weather Channel.

Jean hadn’t looked at the ocean in a long time: from her seat here on the balcony, it reminded her of a painting in somebody’s living room, maybe over a piano. Far away across the choppy green waves she saw Bill’s sailboat fluttering up and down, a little corner of white paper torn from the sky. What a relief to have him out of reach, out of earshot, and yet be able to keep an eye on him! She’d have had it that way with everybody if she could have arranged it—everybody except Ida, whom she couldn’t allow out of her sight for long, and Ed Flint, who kept her fixed up. And, too, she seemed to need to talk now and then just to exercise her voice, and for that she needed her sister, at least once a week. But no more.

It was peaceful up here—just the steady beat of the wind and the static of the tide. She closed her eyes and dozed. When she woke again, she heard voices below: Linda Kate and Mary Beth chatting. This was nice. The girls always terrified her when they came up to see her (at least it didn’t happen often), but listening to them this way—well, it was like being a fly on the wall, a little beetle crawling across the ceiling, unnoticed. No worry at all.

“Who were those people who came by on Tuesday?” said Mary Beth.

Linda Kate sounded grumpy. “Just work friends of Stannie. From the magazine.”

“Did he invite them?”

“I have no idea.”

“I asked him to go shopping with me yesterday, and then he just left.”

“So?”

“Well, it was rude.”

“And that surprises you? That Stannie could be rude?”

“No. But does he hate me or something?”

“You’re asking the wrong person, Mary Beth. I have no idea who he hates and who he doesn’t.”

There was silence for a second. “I’m sorry,” said Mary Beth. “I’m just sick of this place. Everybody’s boring here. Uncle Jim stayed for ages. And all Jimbo did was drink all weekend—and that guy with him, he was so gay.”

“Don’t be a bigot.”

The younger girl sighed loudly.”Well I’d just like a chance to meet a decent–looking guy for once, you know, who’s not gay? Somebody who doesn’t just fish and hit little balls around all day, either, who can actually carry on an intelligent conversation.”

Linda Kate laughed. “It’s this weather getting to you. We should take a trip.”

“Another trip?”

“Yes.”

“But you just went to Switzerland.”

“So?”

“Well, anyway, where would we go?”

“I don’t know. I was reading about these eco–tours deals in Alaska. We could take a helicopter over the Tongass rainforest.”

“Oh. Count me out.”

“Does everything have to be mindless and expensive to please you, Mary Beth?”

“Yes. If I have to pack, I want to go to Vegas. We haven’t been there all year.”

“What if we just rented a car and drove to Vegas? Wouldn’t that be a blast? Stay in slummy little motels the whole way? We could take a movie camera and make a crazy documentary for Stannie. ‘Journey Across America with Mary Beth and Linda Kate.'”

“Why don’t we just make Stannie go with us?”

“Like he’d ever consider it. He’s going back to D.C. on Monday, anyway. He misses Rose.”

“Did you actually talk to him about her?”

“I can tell he misses her. I don’t think I could stand three whole days with him, anyway.”

“Linda Kate, don’t you wish Stannie would take us with him to Hollywood, to the awards? We could buy Oscar de la Renta gowns.”

“He’ll take Rose for sure.”

“So? We could drive up in the limousine with them, couldn’t we? We wouldn’t have to go in, we’d just hang around outside and then go find a bar or something.”

“You ask him, Mary Beth, that’s all I have to say. Just tell me what he says.”

Jean strained to hear more, but a small plane suddenly hummed over the house, flying low toward the beach. She looked up over the rim of her sunglasses, took a sip of orange juice, and watched as the plane circled over the water, then banked and headed west. By the time it was gone, the balcony below was quiet again, as if the girls had been swept away.

She felt so detached from them now: yet how she’d fretted about them as children! Worrying they’d be kidnapped by somebody who wanted Colfax money or a political deal. She’d watched them stumble across the sand behind a succession of nannies and then swimming coaches, going farther and farther out into the water, out of earshot.

She heard the bay window click open behind her. She turned. The frame was low enough to straddle. Ed Flint stepped over it.

“Well, good morning Ed,” she said softly.

He limped toward her, holding a grocery bag.

“What’s this?”

“What you asked for.”

“Oh, that’s wonderful. Is my sister here yet?”

“No Ma’am.” He hardly opened his mouth when he spoke. There was a huge white scar where his lower lip should have been—the only scar you could see when he had his hat on.

“I’ve got the worst headache,” she said. “Sit down and don’t hover over me, please.”

He pulled up a chair and lowered himself into it, one metal hand resting across his thighs. With the other hand he arranged the grocery bag between his knees and lifted out the bottle inside.

“You’re a good soul,” she said. “Pour a little in my orange juice.”

He shook his head as he did what she asked, then slipped the bottle back in the bag and set it on the floor of the balcony, against the green wrought–iron railing.

“How long has Bill been out?” she asked.

“I wouldn’t know, Ma’am. I ain’t been up ‘nere.”

“Up there?”

“I been soldering all morning. Got broke pipe down in the cellar. I had to cut the water off early, but I got it back on afore anybody waked up.”

“The cellar?” she laughed. “I didn’t even know we had a cellar.”

“Mr. Colfax calls it the half–basement.” Ed never looked at her when he talked. He kept his face tucked up under the cap—for her benefit, she thought, but she didn’t care how he looked. In a strange way it comforted her to look at ugly people. Maybe it gave her a feeling of nostalgia. Her father had been a plastic surgeon in St. Augustine.

“This house is getting old now, isn’t it?” she said. “My dear husband sure doesn’t bother to keep it up. If I had the energy, hell I swear I’d get out the tools myself.” She cackled.

“I’m real good with the tools,” said Ed. “You don’t need to worry. I done fix the burglar bell in the dockhouse, yesterday. It rung ever time Mr. Colfax opened the door. Ain’t rung for nobody else, just Mr. Colfax.”

“Probably all the steel in his chest set it off.”

“I can’t say why it done that. I played with it, though. Jimmied with it. I’m good with my tools. I’m the kind what uses a kitchen knife for screwdriver, bottle opener, most everything you can imagine, I do it with a kitchen knife.” He grinned under his hat: his toothless gums were shiny with spit.

“I’m glad we have you around, then. Especially because you bring me my booze.”

“Yes, Ma’am. I know how you needs it.”

“Would you like some cash?”

“Oh, no Ma’am.”

“Really, take what you need, Ed. You’re worth more to me than whatever Bill pays you. You know where the money is. I trust you, I promise I do. You ever need anything—”

“Yes, Ma’am, I appreciate it.”

“You want a drink?”

“I don’t tech it. There is one thing I’d like a lot, though.”

“Yes?”

He was quiet for a second, then he burst out in his heavy voice, “I do love children, Mrs. Colfax. I’d sure like to work for your sister over to that school.”

“What?” She couldn’t help laughing. “You already work here.” “It’d just be part–time, if they got something. You could talk to your sister for me.”

“Are you Catholic, Ed?”

“Oh, yes Ma’am.”

“Really? I had no idea. I always thought—well, I don’t know what I thought. Do you go to confession?” She smiled. “I hope you do.”

“No, I don’t do that.”

“Why not? Too much to confess?”

“Maybe not so much as them.”

“Not so much as who?”

“Them fathers.”

“The priests, you mean?”

“They ain’t all no saints, I reckon. A few is, most ain’t. I could be a father, but they don’t take folks look like I do.”

“That might not matter at all, I mean what you look like.”

“And one what—I mean I’ve got my hands bloody now and then. They don’t like that.”

“Hands bloody—you mean in Korea?”

“Yes, Ma’am. They’s a bunch of little girls, is what they is. I mean a soldier is a soldier, and the priest he’s a priest, and you won’t see no priest totin’ no weapons. I weren’t afraid to do what I had to do.”

“Yes, but Korea was a long time ago. You’re not much of a soldier now, Ed. Maybe you should consider a new vocation.”

“Well, I can’t be no priest. Let’s just leave it there.” Ed stood up quickly and pushed his chair back to the table. It scraped the concrete so hard that the metal frames on the awnings rattled.

“What’s the matter?” Jean asked. She looked up, shielding her eyes from the sun. “Did I offend you?”

“No, Ma’am,” he said, but he sounded hurt.

“Ed … did you have your accident in Korea? You’ve never told me about that.”

He took a deep breath and she could hear his chest rattle. “That ain’t important. What bothers me, Mrs. Colfax, I don’t like how little children can’t stand to look at me no more. I love children so much, it breaks my heart to scare a child.”

She frowned, not sure what to say.

“Could you talk to your sister for me?” he asked again, his mangled arms hanging down by his sides. They looked heavy: the right elbow twitched slightly against his hip.

“Yes, sure,” Jean said after a second. “Why not?”

“Thank you, Mrs. Colfax, I appreciate all you done. I mean to do right by your family.”

“All right, Ed.”

A door opened and closed inside the house.

“Somebody there?” said Jean.

Ed stood up straight and whirled around. One of his hands scraped the metal table and left a ringing sound in the air. He stepped back to the window.

“Hello Mother,” said Stannie, coming in sight on the other side.

“Oh, Mr. Colfax,” said Ed. He sounded nervous. “Good morning.”

“Top of the morning to you, Ed.” Stannie straddled the windowsill and stepped through. “You don’t have to go.”

“Got plenty to do,” mumbled Ed. He brushed past Stannie and disappeared with hardly a sound.

“Hmm,” said Stannie to his mother, “I hope I haven’t caught you two at an awkward moment.”

“You’re an idiot.”

“Nice to see you, too, Mother.”

“It’s been a while, I’ll say that.” She took a moment to study him. He wore a baseball cap turned backwards, a long white shirt, and baggy shorts. He had a three– or four–day–old beard which made his face look gaunt but still handsome. His dark eyes—Jean had always liked his sharp, dark eyes, the way they fixed on a person, pinned a person—they were shining.

She hadn’t seen him during this visit—now more than a week long. When had she last laid eyes on him? Christmas day maybe, up in Washington, in the other rooms? At Christmas she always loaded up on tranquilizers, just to make it through the dinner and the gifts. She really couldn’t remember much about this Christmas or any other, but she supposed Stannie had been there, because she recollected a column he’d written about it in his magazine—”Holiday in Hell.” Or maybe that was year before last. Who could blame him if he wanted to capitalize a little on the family misery? She’d have done it too, if she could have figured out a way.

“Could I talk to you a minute?” he said.

“Come on out. Pull up a chair.”

Stannie sat down on the window ledge. “I’m very comfortable here, thanks.”

“Ed and I were just chatting about the weather. I think it might rain.”

He nodded at her orange juice, half–smiling. “I know what you see in Ed.”

“Come here boy,” she said, holding out her hand. “You can get close to me, I’m not a corpse.”

“Not yet, anyway. I did ask Ida if it was OK before I came up—wanted to make sure you were still alive up here.”

“I am.”

“Yes. So it seems.” He took a cigar from his shirt pocket and lit it.

“Just like your father. That stupid habit.”

“Thank you. You think I’m like my father. That’s a compliment.”

“Even his mother smoked those things, you know. And his sisters. That’s why they both had breast cancer.”

“The rotten apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. In fact, it probably doesn’t fall at all.”

“No.” She cackled. “It gets eaten by worms or crows, right there on the branch.”

“Exactly.”

“Stanley?”

“Yes.”

“I’m feeling sleepy, and you wanted to ask me something.”

“Yes.”

“Well, what the hell is it?”

“Actually—” He smiled.”I want to know about my birth mother.”

“What?” She took a sip of orange juice. “Don’t tell me you’re getting sentimental on me!”

“Never.”

“I’ll be damned. I think you are.” She shook her head, grinning. Her teeth had a pink tint, as if you could see right through them to the pulp.

“I don’t care who my parents are,” he said flatly. “I just want to know who they’re not. There’s a woman around here claiming to be my mother. I’ve put her up at a motel for a few days—till I’m sure she’s lying. I’d hate to turn my own mother out on the street.”

She licked her teeth and laughed. “You’re so kind, Stanley. Well, now. That’s what you get for putting your life in print. I told you you should get those toes fixed, anyway. Now somebody shows up wanting something from you.”

“Maybe. What do you say, though? You know anything about my birth mother?”

“Such as?”

“Color, height, width. Anything. Was she a prostitute? I don’t care, I’d just like to know a little more than I know now.”

“What does it matter? Send the woman away. Your life is none of her business, even if she did haul you around in her uterus for nine months.” Jean took off her sunglasses and dropped them in her lap. “What is that? What’s nine months compared to a lifetime? We’ve had you all your life.”

“Where did I come from, though? What state? At least tell me that.” He flicked his cigar against the window sill and then swept the ashes away with his bare foot.

“I don’t know where you came from. It wasn’t that kind of adoption.”

“What kind was it then?”

“Very private.”

“Black market?” He cocked his head and smiled.

“No.” She leaned back in her chair and held her hand out to him again. “Come on, sit over here. Over here.”

He stood up and sat down again in the chair Ed had occupied. He took her hand—her fingers were like the fingers of a wooden puppet, cool and slender, with knobby joints. She opened his palm and began to massage it.

“Stanley,” she said, “I don’t really know where you came from. Your aunt is the only person who knows that. My sister.”

“Your sister the nun?” He snorted.

“Yes. She knows. But she won’t tell you, it’s a Catholic thing. She took a vow.”

“Any chance she’s my mother? Get knocked up by some priest or monsignor or something?”

“Hah. Your aunt is like an angel. But it was her idea for me to get you—I wouldn’t have thought of it on my own. I just couldn’t carry a baby without miscarrying. I lost five, one right after another. I was getting desperate. Every woman wants a baby, Stanley. Even Madonna wants babies. It’s a biological thing. I thought I might kill myself if I couldn’t get pregnant.”

“And? So what happened then?”

“One night my sister brought you to me and said she had you in foster care for a Catholic agency. She said that you were healthy and she was hoping I might adopt you.”

“She didn’t tell you where I came from?”

“Just that you were conceived out of wedlock. She acted like it was all a big secret. But I didn’t think much of that—she exaggerates everything. She’s as paranoid as hell. She’d have made a good spy. Anyway, I liked you. And I still do, even if you are a bastard.”

Stannie laughed.

“I talked to your father and we filed papers to adopt. I never got anything from my sister about your background. She said you were a special case and that a priest had put some kind of a blessing on you. All that Catholic hooey—that’s all I know about you.”

He sat quietly looking at her, curling his upper lip till it touched the bottom of his nose. Then he laughed again.

“You want to know anything else,” she said, “you’ll have to ask her about it. Stop giggling like an idiot. I’m expecting her this afternoon. Why don’t you come up here and play gin with us?”

“No, thank you,” he said. “I’ve got other things to do.”

“Such as?”

“None of your business.”

“But I thought you wanted to talk to your aunt.”

“I’ll call her. She has a phone at the convent, doesn’t she?”

“Stanley—” She reached out for his hand again as he stood up, but he moved out of reach.

“Stanley,” she said, putting her sunglasses on again, “do me a favor and don’t mention your adoption again in print.”

“Fine. I’ll only talk about it in cyberspace. My e–column.”

“No. Don’t mention it anywhere.”

“Oh, and may I ask why not? What have you got to lose?”

“I’ve got some dignity left, damn it.” Her voice was thick. “This is my life and I don’t want it paraded in front of the whole damn world. Just don’t do it. I don’t like it.” She frowned at him. Suddenly a gust of wind blew up from below, catching her kimono: the red silk billowed up from her thighs like a giant apple bursting out of her lap.

Stannie stood for a moment and then let out a last, sharp laugh. She heard him still laughing in the hall beyond her bedroom, then faintly on the stairs. Her hands shook as she reached down to smooth the kimono over her knees. She could no longer see Bill’s sail near the horizon. The clouds had marched by. The sky was pale and hollow, as far as she could see.

Copyright © 2001 by the author or Christianity Today/Books & Culture Magazine.Click here for reprint information on Books & Culture.

Pastors

Do You Know Your Innate Talents?

And do you build on them? A new tool from the Gallup Organization may help.

Leadership Journal April 11, 2001

Does the world really need another gifts test? This I thought as I picked up Now, Discover Your Strengths (Free Press, 2001), the new business book and strengths inventory from Gallup Organization execs Marcus Buckingham and Donald O. Clifton. We already have the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the DISC System, the Wagner-Modified Houts Spiritual Gifts Inventory, and forty or fifty competitors, cousins, and wannabes. If these haven’t improved personal and team performance, what will?

Still, I mused, the dust jacket said this new inventory—dubbed StrengthsFinder.com—was developed by the Gallup Organization, based on 25 years of research and more than 2,000,000 interviews. The test could be taken online. And, hey, I’m a sucker for diagnostic tools. So I bought the book.

To take the inventory, you go to www.StrengthsFinder.com (http://www.strengthsfinder.com/) and enter a personal code that comes with the book (thus, the free test costs the $26 price of the hardcover book). There you are given 180 “paired choices” such as “I read all of the instructions before beginning” and “I prefer to jump right into things.” For each pair, you choose which statement most strongly describes you, using a five-point scale. Each choice takes less than 20 seconds of thought, but even so, wading through 180 paired choices gets laborious.

The result: You are told your five “signature themes”—five innate talents you demonstrate spontaneously and find satisfaction in. For example, my five signature themes were:

Relator: You enjoy close relationships and build intimacy with others

Learner: You have a great desire to learn

Futuristic: You are inspired by the future

Focus: You take a direction and follow through

Responsibility: You take psychological ownership of what you say you’ll do.

Since there are 34 possible signature themes, each person’s set of 5 will differ. (There are 33,000,000 combinations of the top 5.) That’s the point, says the book: productivity comes from building on people’s unique and enduring talents.

Signature themes include Achiever, Activator, and Adaptability and continue through the alphabet to Significance, Strategic, and Woo (the ability to win others over). The theme names may be inconsistent—some are persons, some categories, some qualities—but they’re generally clear and surely more understandable than initials and quadrants.

The book takes the first 75 pages to make the case that each person holds unique strengths that should be identified and built upon, a thesis the apostle Paul makes more concisely and poetically in 1 Corinthians 12-14. Start reading Now, Discover Your Strengths on page 121, where Buckingham and Clifton challenge the common notion that to improve, you should buttress your weaknesses. Instead, they say, you should “focus on your strengths and find ways to manage your weaknesses.” Further chapters show how to manage an employee of each signature theme and, in perhaps the most helpful chapter, how to build a strengths-based organization. Still, the book struck me as basic, one better to skim than read page by page.

The genius is in the StrengthsFinder inventory. I rate an assessment tool highly if it (a) gives insight you might miss otherwise, (b) empowers you, and (c) makes you want to discuss your findings as a team.

StrengthsFinder.com succeeds at all three, and I predict it will elbow its way onto the sagging shelf of assessment tools. Now, the Gallup Organization needs to make the test available for team use—without requiring each person to buy the book.

Kevin A. Miller is executive editor of www.PreachingToday.com. To reply, write Newsletter@LeadershipJournal.net.

Sign up for the Church Leader’s Newsletter and receive a new article plus useful information in your inbox every week!

Copyright © 2001 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

THE WOMB BOMBER

Books & Culture April 4, 2001

Chapter1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23

“Ms. Lambeth, this is Tina Rice from the Academy.”

“Yes?”

“I wanted to let you to know that your client—”

“Hold, which client?”

“Brett Bordley-Young. We’re changing plans, slightly. We’d like her to present the award for Best Screen Adaptation of a Foreign-Language Novel along with Stannie Colfax.”

“Who?”

“Stannie Colfax.”

“Like I said, who?”

“I’m kind of surprised you haven’t heard of him. He’s a very popular columnist for Tops.”

“Well, that’s very nice. Are you people out of your mind? A columnist? She was supposed to present with Brad Peel.”

“Brad’s had to bow out, unfortunately. Mr. Colfax is quite well-known. He does sports and movie reviews on the Internet. You’ve heard of the thumbs down? He gives ‘the finger.’ He has a cameo in the new Mike Myers film—”

“You know, pardon me, but I’m kind of surprised they didn’t give us Mike Myers.”

“Mr. Colfax scores very high on every name-recognition index. He’s been on Letterman several times. He’s a close friend of—”

“What I’m saying is that I think my client is a big enough name to merit presenting with an actor of some stature. I know it’s too late for Cruise or Russell Crowe, but what about Tim Robbins? Cuba Gooding, Jr.? I’d even take James Garner over some damned writer.”

“If your client is concerned, we’re very agreeable to finding a replacement.”

“For him?”

“No, for her.”

“I really need to talk to somebody over there who knows what’s going on.”

“If you feel that way, I can have someone call you, but it may be after the weekend—”

“No, I want a call today. My other line’s beeping in. Goodbye.”

* * *

Across the country, Jenny Lemke stood in an upstairs bathroom of her house, putting on lipstick. She rolled it deep into the small creases of her lips, thinking that her aging skin looked more and more like art—like a mosaic, maybe: a pattern on an old church wall. How would she look in another ten years? Hag-like. She pushed her bifocals up the bridge of her nose and saw every pore magnified in the mirror to the size of a pin prick. She felt a little dizzy staring at herself. If she kept looking for a long time, she might just drift out of her body, up into the air, and watch herself from above. That would be something. To drift above and watch herself talking to a reporter, giving a speech, arguing with Sibyl about policy, cradling a baby in a car on the way to the airport.

You had to do your best with all this, even if you hated being at everybody’s mercy. This was not about you: this was about it. You were just a tool, and it was worth any amount of unctuousness you had to display. But hey, that was the activist speaking, and she really couldn’t stand the activist anymore. The activist was a tyrant. Jenny thought about the girl coming today and wished she could say to her, “I’m tired of fighting. I believe it all, but nothing ever changes, and I’m tired. They win.”

The doorbell rang. She looked out the window, glimpsed the top of Rose’s head through white dogwood blossoms, and snapped her lipstick case shut. She came down the stairs checking her clothes, looking over her bare shins to make sure the sunless tanning lotion hadn’t streaked. These pants she was wearing—they’d called them “pedal pushers” when she was a kid in the fifties: now they were “Capris” or something. She couldn’t wear this retro stuff without without having flashbacks, visions of her mother poking around this house in a sleeveless blouse and flat shoes, bored and smoking Pall Malls. “You damned ungrateful kids, I feel like a prison warden.” Forty-five years ago.

She opened the door, smiling self-consciously. The girl on the front steps smiled back, but her eyes were tense. She wore blue jean overalls and a baggy t-shirt: her hair was pulled back in one of those huge clips: it sprouted from the top of her head like a weed. Strange choice of clothes, Jenny thought, for an interview. But then, if you were beautiful you could get away with anything. “Good again to see you again, Rose. Rose, right?”

“Yes. You’re Jenny Lemke?” The girl sounded uncertain.

“Oh!” Jenny pulled off her bifocals. “I wasn’t wearing these yesterday, was I? Bet you didn’t recognize me.”

Rose shook her head. “No, I’m afraid I’m not awake yet. And I’ve been driving around, lost—what a lovely old neighborhood.”

“Thank you. Come in, please,” Jenny held out her hand but the girl moved away from her as she stepped into the hallway. How old was she, anyway? Thirty? Odd to be calling her a “girl,” but she had that girlish look.

Rose glanced around. “Have you lived here a long time?”

“A very long time,” said Jenny. “This was my mother’s house.”

“Really?”

“Yes. A lot of ghosts around. Do you take coffee, Rose?”

“Yes, but don’t go to any trouble.”

“It’s no trouble at all. Just give me a minute.”

Rose yawned. She followed the older woman into the kitchen and leaned against a wall, watching. She’d left her camera in the car. A camera could be intimidating to people. She’d get it later, after they’d talked. From the back, Jenny Lemke looked so much thinner, older. Her spine was slightly curved: knobs stuck out on her neck. She was maybe fifty-five, sixty.

The kitchen obviously dated to the fifties. Some people might have said it needed updating, but Rose liked the look of it: white cabinets with gleaming metal handles, dark wood crucifix over the breakfast table, a stained glass window on one wall with light flooding through in bright vermillion and turquoise. Everything looked cleaned and polished. A damp mop still leaned in one corner, upside down. The dishwasher gurgled and changed cycles. Rose could feel the heat coming from it, five feet away.

She smiled to herself. She’d pictured herself now and then in an old house like this—not the kind of house she’d grown up in (split-level, shag carpet), but the kind she’d seen again and again in little country towns: small kitchen, small table with plaid table cloth, big sunny windows. Probably in the back of her mind she’d pictured herself married and settled down, raising children. Lately she was figuring out that she ‘d probably never have a house of her own, probably never be married or have kids. Stannie’s bad behavior wasn’t something you’d want to bring into a marriage, especially if kids were part of the deal (and weren’t they always—didn’t just about everybody have them, eventually?). OK, so maybe she didn’t have to stay with Stannie, but she’d recognized that his bad behavior had its up side, too. It pretty much guaranteed her the right to do what she wanted, forever.

There was that hiking trip to the Canadian Rockies for instance, when he’d decided to stay with the tour group even after she broke her ankle and had to be flown out. Or the time he wouldn’t postpone their vacation, even though her mother was having surgery. Or (and this was the worst) that morning two years ago when a nasal-voiced girl answered the phone at his hotel room in Texas:

“It’s not time for the wake-up call.”

“Where’s Stannie?”

“In the shower. Who’s this?”

“Tell him his editor called. I’ll call back when he has his clothes on.”

If she’d loved Stannie Colfax—really loved him— the love ended with that phone call. The relationship didn’t end, though, because after an honest conversation with herself, she’d figured out that Stannie wasn’t such a bad deal. Not bad at all. He made her laugh, he kept things light, and he had a sweet side, not to mention money. Was he a good person? She thought he was, at heart. A good lover? Adequate. Did she deserve better? She thought she probably did. But it was easy to relax with a man who had already failed her. No need to apologize, no need to feel guilty for anything. Ever. She could always afford to be generous because she always had the upper hand. Not such a bad deal to stay with Stannie.

“To be honest,” said Jenny suddenly, “I’m a little nervous about this interview.

Rose jerked back to the present. “Pardon?”

“Just don’t ask me any questions yet. I can’t think and measure coffee at the same time.”

Rose laughed. “By all means, take your time, then. I’m only half-awake, myself.”

“Ah, but I can ask you questions. You’re working on a book, right? That’s what this is about?”

“Yes.”

“May I ask you something? Are you pro-life?”

“Well, in the general sense. It’s a matter of definition.”

“I know what that means.” Jenny turned her head. “So, are you going to persecute me in print?” She had a bony profile.

“I’ll try to tell the truth,” said Rose.

“Good. That’s all I ask.”

“I don’t know exactly what I’ll write. I’m a photographer, mainly, so I’m used to letting a story grow from the pictures.” From the corner of her eye, Rose noticed the calendar hanging by the refrigerator: “The Right to Be Born, That’s All We Ask,” it said underneath the photograph for April—a picture of a doctor holding up a newborn. She studied it for a moment, then turned and found Jenny Lemke staring at her.

“You like that calendar?” said Jenny.

“Oh, I think it’s probably effective. It’s a good picture.”

“I don’t know.” Jenny sighed. “I’m not sure there’s anything effective, not if people have their minds made up. Get a cup here and let’s sit down.”

“Thank you.” Rose took her coffee and followed Jenny through a little dining room, down a step into what looked like a study or an office. It had an antique desk by a window and a rocking chair tilted slightly forward under a wooden crucifix.

“We used to refer to this as the ‘family room,'” said Jenny. “Back when the TV was in here. The old one took up half the wall space by that window.”

“So, do you have a family?” asked Rose. She moved a quilt carefully from the seat of the rocking chair and then settled down into it. It squeaked loudly as she leaned back.

“Yes and no. Never got married. I spent a little time in a convent—but decided I didn’t have what it takes. I didn’t go through the final vows.”

“A convent.” Rose winced at the thought. “You don’t seem like the nun type.”

“There’s no one type. My parents died early and my brother’s out West. I was probably looking for a family of my own. Anyway, I didn’t find it there. Eventually I adopted two kids.” She pointed at a row of photographs: two children, one blond and the other black-headed, each pictured at various ages. The frames had obviously been matched to the children’s hair color.

“Cute,” said Rose, feeling awkward.

“That’s my daughter there—she died of spinal meningitis at twelve.” Jenny’s voice didn’t waver: she sounded as though she’d explained this many times. “And there’s my son. I got him a year after she died, when he was six. He’s grown up now and living in Boston. They never knew each other, but I like to think we were a family in our own way.”

Rose gazed at the photographs. They all seemed to be turning brown. She took a deep breath. “I’m sorry about your daughter.”

“Yes.” Jenny nodded. “Thanks. She was born with a few birth defects, so she was sick a lot of her life. I really wish I could have given her more happy years. It’s a hard world for some kids.”

Rose cleared her throat. “I certainly agree with that.”

“Do you have children?” said Jenny, after a moment.

“Oh, no. My sister has three, so I get my parenting fix that way. And I’ve done a lot of stories on kids. As a photographer, that is. I worked for UNICEF for three years.”

“How interesting. You must have seen a lot in your time.”

Rose shifted and the chair squeaked and popped. “Yes, I’ve seen a lot. But kids can affect you in dangerous ways. I guess we’re all wired that way. It’s harder to distance ourselves. They draw you in.”

Jenny let her eyes settle on Rose’s face. Did this girl understand? Maybe? Her eyes were kind, but people’s faces could fool you. You couldn’t be too careful.

“I agree with you,” she said carefully. “Children expose our vulnerability. It’s hard to turn away from their suffering. Concentrate on a child’s suffering and you experience all suffering.”

Rose looked up at the crucifix. “You’re still religious, aren’t you?”

“Yes.”

“Does religion help you understand the world?”

Jenny hesitated. “Yes, in many ways.”

“Does it inform your views on abortion, for instance?”

“Yes, of course it does. You’re not religious, yourself?”

“No,” said Rose, “not particularly. I mean of course I believe in something, but not anything structured. No organized religion”

Jenny smiled. “That’s common these days.” She started to say something else, maybe speak up for the Church, but stopped herself.

Rose shifted her legs and the chair practically shrieked this time. “So,” she said, “I’m sure abortion is a deeply personal issue for you, isn’t it?”

“Isn’t it very personal for everybody?”

“I guess so. Maybe. Do you have any experience with it?”

Jenny smiled strangely. “Are you asking me if I’ve had one?”

“No, that’s not what I meant.”

“I bet it was. A lot of people ask. I don’t mind the question.”

Rose was quiet for a moment. “Well, a lot of people do have them, you know, and the fact that you’re so violently opposed does make one wonder … but that’s not why I asked.”

“Well, anyway, it’s a fair question.” Jenny looked Rose straight in the eye. “I have a lot experience with abortion. I was a nurse for twelve years. I worked in a family planning clinic. I assisted with abortions all the time.”

Rose hesitated, trying not to show her surprise. “Really? So you once believed in the right to choose?”

“Yes.”

“And? What changed?”

“My conversion changed me. I became Catholic. Catholics believe in Christ’s presence in the Mass. We eat and drink the body of the Lord every time we take Communion. Well, it’s, somehow … after that, after taking the Lord’s body, I began to see those small bodies differently. I had seen the blood and the fetal tissue for years. Now I saw human beings. Innocents being sacrificed. And It seemed to me that someone had to become a voice for the voiceless, you know? It was a human rights issue, based on my faith.”

“So it was religious conviction that changed you.”

“That’s a limiting term. But my conviction did begin there. Everything starts somewhere. Religion just gave me a lens to see clearly.”

“Did you feel guilty about what you’d done before your conversion?”

Jenny nodded. “Oh, yes. I know some would say that this is all about my misplaced guilt.”

“Isn’t it?”

“Sometimes.” Jenny looked directly at Rose. “But that’s not at the heart of it. For me, anyway. I believe that human life is sacred. I believe that even out of terrible circumstances, good can come. I reject the idea, however expedient in the short term, that society should allow the taking of one human life in order to make another human life more bearable.”

Rose leaned forward. “That sounds high-minded. But you came to this conclusion over time. How can you, just one woman, force every other woman to live by your principles? You want to make a philosophical or theological choice for everyone.”

“Only by lawful means,” Jenny said. “The Fetal Rights League works through the law. And that’s the way the law works. People apply their convictions to it.”

Rose felt her voice rise. “But still, what I hear you saying is that might can make right. You’ll hire lobbyists and lawyers and use the courts to try to barge in on other women’s private lives.”

Jenny nodded. “We may not like it, but the law barges in on people’s lives all the time. Legislators make laws, judges make decisions every day that mean life or death, jail or freedom to the people who come through their courts. And all because of moral choices made by the few on behalf of the many. I see the argument—” Jenny paused, searching for the right words. She wanted to be honest, but she wanted to convince the girl, too. It was a delicate balance. “I see the argument that says, ‘Don’t make a law about this. Abortion is a moral matter, not a legal one.’ But I strongly believe that abortion is a moral issue worth making a law about. Good God, it’s worth making laws to protect the handicapped and the sick, or to protect endangered species or the environment, whatever the cost to human well-being in the short-term—just because it’s right, and because one day we might need protection, ourselves—we should make laws to protect the unborn, because they have no voice of their own and they need protection. The fact is that they’re here. They deserve to be preserved and protected until birth.”

Rose felt hot all over. “And does that right start at conception?”

“Let me put it this way,” said Jenny. “A person’s legal right to be preserved and protected from extreme physical harm begins as soon as we can get the courts to grant it. That’s what we’re working toward. We’ll start at late pregnancy and move back as far as we can go, saying, ‘Well what about the 21-week-old fetus? What about the 20-week-old fetus?”

“I heard you were against the incremental approach. I heard you want to take down Roe v. Wade once and for all.”

“We do.” Jenny nodded. “But these are difficult times for us.” She shook her head. “We’ll take whatever we can get.”

“These are difficult times in what way?” asked Rose. “People think you’ve made lots of inroads against legalized abortion. People are worried.”

“Who’s worried?” Jenny smiled. “You?”

“Yes.” Rose nodded. “I’m worried that there’s no end to this. I’m worried you people will intrude on my life. That if I do get pregnant one day, you’ll come after me with a court order—no drinking, smoking, or whatever. Or it’s jail. All in the name of the baby’s health.”

Jenny rubbed her palms together. “I’m not talking about a pregnant woman’s right to smoke or have a glass of wine. I’m talking about freedom from extreme and certain bodily harm before birth. Think of your body as a house.” She made a large, indefinable motion with her bony hands. “The police could never get a warrant to enter your home for the purpose of putting out a cigarette. They might, however, break in to stop you from taking a lethal overdose of drugs, or giving illegal drugs to a minor. It’s the same here. They’re intruding on your privacy in order to stop a murder.”

She put her hands down. “Yes,” she said in a tired voice, “I know that people are very worried about restrictions on abortion. If they just perceived abortion as a threat to their own well-being—but they won’t, because let’s face it, these people have already been born. What do they care? They’re here. And that’s really the problem. That’s why the pro-life movement is so unpopular. We’ve got no victims on our side.” Her face clouded for a second. “Not many, anyway. I mean, I could show you—”

“Say you can’t win in the courts,” Rose said. “What do you think about civil disobedience?” She sat back and her chair shrieked again.

“Well,” said Jenny, narrowing her eyes, “first you tell me what you think about it.”

“What I think?”

“Yes. I want to know what you think. If you felt that the Holocaust was happening right here in your own hometown, what would you do about it?”

Rose laughed lightly. “Abortion is nothing like the Holocaust.”

“Just tell me, if you felt that abortion was like the Holocaust, what would you do? Would you be passive collaborator? Or would you be a resister?”

“I hate the analogy. I can’t take it seriously.”

“One person’s criminal is another person’s hero, depending on whether the person accepts the cause. It’s the John Brown syndrome.”

Rose tried not to flinch. “If I really felt that abortion was anything like the Holocaust, maybe I’d fight it. But I don’t see abortion that way. It’s a very sad but necessary option, and above all, it’s a personal decision. Would you really want the government telling you what to do with your body?” She looked hard at Jenny. “You can’t tell me you would. A strong woman like you—a single woman capable of making your own moral choices? Would you want to give up that control to a society that doesn’t know anything about you? Doesn’t know your wants or your needs or your capabilities—?”

“Oh, I know what you’re saying,” said Jenny. “I do know what you’re saying. No, I don’t want to give up control to anyone. But I do believe this is the Holocaust. And I’ve been on the wrong side, before. So I know what I’m capable of, Rose, and I know that the law is there to protect other people from my sin. That’s why I’m willing to give society a measure of control. Don’t you think you’d be a pretty wicked, pretty selfish person if society didn’t keep you in line?”

Rose considered for a moment. “That’s such a pessimistic view of people.”

“Without the law, you’d really stay on your own side of the road all the time?”

“Maybe.”

“And you’d pay taxes out of the goodness of your heart.”

“Probably. But the law has already say that this isn’t up to you,” said Rose quietly. “It’s just not your decision to make for other people.”

Jenny felt her throat tighten. It really was impossible to convince them. All the conversation, all the sincerity, all the good will. It didn’t amount to anything.

There was a long silence, and then Rose sighed. “OK,” she said. “I get the picture. I want to meet again. When can we meet again?”

Jenny put her head in her hands, and then looked up again. “You know, I can’t turn down the press exposure, but I’d like to know ahead of time how bad this will be. Will I hate myself for this later?”

Rose licked her lips. “No.”

“No?”

“You shouldn’t be afraid.” It was dawning on her that she’d failed, here. She was supposed to be getting cozy with Jenny Lemke—getting on the inside, finding out about the Womb Bomber—yet she’d lost control and shown her hand.

“And why not?” asked Jenny. “You’re obviously critical of us.”

“Yes. But I have a lot of sympathy for your movement. I told you.”

Jenny laughed. “I missed that somehow. Maybe you said it while I was making the coffee.”

“No, really, I do have sympathy. That’s why I volunteered for this story.” Rose frowned. “I have plenty of hard questions. But I have sympathy, too.” She raised her eyes to Jenny and started to say something, but stopped. “I know what it’s like.”

“What it’s like?”

“What abortion’s like.”

Jenny sat quietly for a moment, looking at Rose. “How do you know?” she asked quietly.

“I had one,” Rose said slowly.

“I see.”

“And I do feel guilty about it now. Maybe that’s part of this.”

Jenny kept her eyes on the girl, and hurt for her, though she was already thinking about other things. She thought how many times she’d listened to hard stories like this and how difficult it was to care for so many individual human beings, listen to so many women confess, and still listen again and care again and sympathize again. It would be so much easier just to hear a few representatives of each broad category: the guilty likeable feminist type, the angry rape victim type. What if you could choose just a small sample to speak for the masses now and then, like a queen sifting out letters from her mountain of mail? Would you have more energy for good? Would you care more? Do a better job? But how dare she think this. She shuddered at herself.

“I do feel guilty,” Rose repeated, “even though I’m pro-choice. But it may be because people like you won’t let me forget it. And maybe what I do want is a judge. Maybe I want to hear the worst thing you have to say about me. It’s like a kind of punishment. I have to get this over with. Then I can go home and maybe be free of it.”

“No,” said Jenny. “You don’t need punishment.”

“You don’t think I’ve sinned?”

“Yes, you have sinned.” She sighed, lifting one skinny arm to reach for a space just above Rose’s head, as if she’d pull down an invisible hand to bless her. “But it’s not what I think. You can find another judge. I’d rather be your helper.”

“Please help me do this story, then.”

“If that’s what you want.” Jenny sat forward in her chair and folded her hands. “We could meet again tomorrow. I don’t know what you’d think about this—we’re having a committee retreat at Sibyl’s farm in Maryland. You’d come up, meet the folks who work with us.”

Rose nodded. She was thinking she’d been dating Stannie too long. To be able to lie like this—what had happened to her? What was she becoming?

Copyright © 2001 by the author or Christianity Today/Books & Culture Magazine.Click here for reprint information on Books & Culture.

Pastors

Chocolate? No, TV

Our unusual Lenten fast.

Leadership Journal April 4, 2001

“Where shall the world be found, where will the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence.” — T.S. Eliot

At my house, the TV is off. It will be until Easter. The first time this happened, it was accident, coincidence.

Some years ago, a few weeks before Easter, a burglar took some odd pieces of jewelry, a shirt my cousin gave me for Christmas, and my VCR. Worse, he took the adapter for the cable box. The antenna reception on the television was bad, so I turned it off until I could get a new adapter. I was busy with seminary and all the stuff of Easter, anyway.

Holy Week was quiet that year. And moving. We staged “The Living Last Supper” one more time, but this time it was as if I had never seen it before. Its message sank into my bones. “Is it I?” the disciples asked Jesus of his betrayer. They waited for his answer.

So did I.

I’m from a tradition that doesn’t give up things for Lent. In fact, we often pick up the vices others lay down (bar-b-ques on Friday, Cadbury parties). So when I told my wife I wanted to do a penitential exercise, one corner of her mouth creased slightly. When I told her I would watch no television for six weeks, she laughed. She knows I love television. I worked in television. I programmed television. I eagerly tack onto the busiest work day a full night’s channel surfing. My wife long ago surrendered the remote to me. But, good sport that she is, she was now willing to give up TV altogether, for my sake.

I must confess nagging doubts in the days before our first intentional media blackout. I would miss March Madness. I’d have no water cooler patter to share with the Must-see crowd. Voyager might reach home without me. Everybody loves Raymond — except me.

Nevertheless, after the late news on Mardi Gras night, we closed the doors on the TV cabinet and entered Lent in silence.

St. John of the Cross uses the phrase “my house being now all stilled.” He refers to the stillness of his spiritual house in which the soul lives without words. In my case, the stillness must come first in a literal sense. My den is stilled before my soul is stilled. In this stilling, we go to sleep a little earlier, we read more carefully, we talk more deeply — when we choose to talk.

And we listen.

The evenings are at first very long, but in the growing quiet of the passing weeks, twilight seems as a single moment with a single thought, if any thought. By Holy Week, we are ready for Christ to break our silence however he chooses:

“One of you will betray me.”

“Father, forgive them.”

“It is finished.”

If we make room by our silence, the Word will resound.

Eric Reed is editor of Leadership journal. To reply, write Newsletter@LeadershipJournal.net.

Sign up for the Church Leader’s Newsletter and receive a new article plus useful information in your inbox every week!

Copyright © 2001 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

News
Wire Story

Virginia OKs Abortion Restriction

NARAL says 43 prolife measures were passed at the state level last year.

The Virginia General Assembly has approved a 24-hour mandatory waiting period for women seeking abortions, continuing a nationwide trend of tightening access to the procedure.

Under the bill, physicians must provide counseling, including medical explanations of abortion and its alternatives, at least 24 hours before an abortion is performed. Other information, such as pictures of fetal development and information about adoption, must also be offered.

Doctors must receive a patient’s written consent, except in cases of medical emergencies, before performing an abortion. Failure to abide by the February bill could result in a $2,500 fine.

Opponents of the measure say it is a barrier to abortion access. “Forcing a woman to wait after she’s already made the decision is demeaning,” said Dayle Steinberg, a Planned Parenthood representative in Pennsylvania, where a similar law took effect in 1994. “It assumes that women haven’t already given thought to their decision.”

Meanwhile, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League reports that 43 prolife measures were passed at the state level last year, compared to 27 in support of abortion rights.

The Virginia bill now goes to Gov. James S. Gilmore. If signed, it will take effect October 1.

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere

See The Washington Post‘s coverage of the bill:

Virginia Approves Limits on Abortion | Assembly Conservatives Affirm 24-Hour Delay (Feb. 7, 2001)

Va. Senate Approves 24-Hour Abortion Delay (Feb. 6, 2001)

More Christianity Today coverage of abortion is available in our Life Ethics area.

News
Wire Story

Columbia: U.S. Demands Information About Missing Missionaries

New Tribes Mission workers abducted eight years ago

The U.S. government is demanding that Marxist rebels in Colombia release information regarding the whereabouts of three American missionaries who disappeared near the Colombian border eight years ago.

“We call upon those responsible within the [Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia] to come forth with a complete account of our missing fellow citizens,” said a State Department spokesman, Reuters news agency reported.

The announcement marked the eighth anniversary of the 1993 abduction of missionaries Dave Mankins, Rick Tenenoff, and Mark Rich. These men were working for the evangelical New Tribes Mission when they were abducted from a Panamanian village near the country’s border with Colombia.

Whether the rebel group was involved in the initial abduction is unclear, but reports from rebel defectors and others later confirmed the three were in their custody, according to New Tribes representatives. Initially the rebels demanded millions of dollars in ransom, but they later refused to negotiate with U.S. and Colombian officials and New Tribes representatives.

Conflicting reports of the missionaries’ fates have emerged since then—some say the men were murdered by rebels in 1994, while other reports claim the men were alive as recently as 1999. Washington will continue working to investigate the trio’s fate and secure their release, the State Department said.

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere

The State Department’s statement is available online. It’s not the first time the State Department has noted the anniversary in such a manner.

New Tribes Mission has devoted a section of its Web site to an area solely about the three kidnapped missionaries, with news, prayer requests, a history of the kidnapping, and information about the missionaries and their families.

World magazine also devoted its February 20, 1998 cover story to the hostage situation.

Earlier Christianity Today coverage of the missing missionaries includes:

Colombian Guerilla Offers No Clues to Missionaries’ Fate | FBI says that Medina has no information on kidnapped New Tribes missionaries. (Feb. 23, 2001)

Break in Missionary Kidnapping Case | Captured Colombian guerilla may hold key to U.S. missionaries’ fate. (Dec. 4, 2000)

Plan for Peace in Colombia Is a Plan ‘For Death,’ Say Church Activists | Will U.S. military assistance in destroying coca fields only increase violence? (Aug. 15, 2000)

Death in the Night | Colombia’s pastors endure extortion, kidnappings, and threats as they plant churches and help the poor in a war zone. (June 6, 2000)

Fate of Kidnapped Missionaries Still Unresolved | Colombia remains thought to end questions are not human after all. (Mar. 29, 2000)

Twenty-five Pastors Killed This Year (Oct. 4, 1999)

Christians Held As Hostages (July 12, 1999)

Colombia’s Bleeding Church | Despite the murders of 120 church leaders, Christians are fighting for peace in one of the world’s most violent nations. (May 18, 1998)

Cover Story

Whatever Happened to Christian History?

Evangelical historians have finally earned the respect of the secular academy. But some critics say they’ve sold out. Not really

Thirty years ago, evangelical Christians could claim perhaps one prominent American historian. Today, it's easy to name half a dozen well-known scholars. Dozens of self-consciously evangelical professors and graduate students all but guarantee that the next generation of historians will have a strong Christian presence. For Christians anxious to win respect in academia, the field of history tells a story of success. But so what? To succeed, some would ask, must you sell your soul? Must you agree not to mention God except as an abstraction?

The debate began in 1991, when Yale's Harry Stout, a prominent evangelical, published a biography of revivalist George Whitefield. Stout emphasized Whitefield's use of techniques to influence crowds, an emphasis that went exactly opposite the traditional Christian notion that Whitefield depended entirely on the work of the Holy Spirit to convert sinners. Stout's portrait scandalized some, particularly readers of the conservative Calvinist Banner of Truth magazine. Iain H. Murray, editorial director of the Banner of Truth Trust, wrote that Stout's portrait of Whitefield was "barely recognizable" and that Stout (and others of a "new approach to evangelical history") had failed to write history from "the standpoint of supernaturalism."

Stout responded to the criticism, writing in Banner of Truth that professional historians "agree to settle for something less than ultimate explanations," and that the academic "canons of evidence and interpretation" leave no room for notions of providence and the work of the Holy Spirit. Westminster Seminary historian D. G. Hart (to whom I am indebted for an account of the fracas) summed up the crime in mock horror: Stout "was guilty of saying that in good history, that is, history practiced by university professors, such questions did not seem to matter."

Banner of Truth's reaction was undoubtedly parallel to that of many a Christian exposed to historical scholarship, whether in a class on biblical studies or a course on the founding of America. Where is God in history? Historians seem resolutely skeptical whenever acts of God are mentioned, and they are nearly as doubtful of religious motivations. Historians seem determined to tell the story of the world without recourse to "the God hypothesis."

And the same questions that Christians have posed to secular historians are now being posed to the best-known evangelical historians, who have become major players in the American academy by writing history like their secular counterparts. If Christian historians write history like everyone else, what is their value?

The pioneers

I have met many scholars whose offices shamelessly display an infatuation with books, but Mark Noll may be the limit. When I interviewed him in his office at Wheaton College, he had so many books and papers stacked up that they formed a small wall across the front of his desk, making it necessary to talk to him as though through a cashier's window. Tall, cautious in demeanor, Noll seemed uncomfortable speaking about himself. Only when we began to discuss history did his energy level rise.

Noll had just completed what some would consider a revolutionary role, being the first to fill a new position at Harvard Divinity School dedicated to evangelical scholarship. The confluence of proud Harvard with devout Wheaton, best known for its famous graduate Billy Graham, suggested an unprecedented acceptance of evangelical scholarship. Noll modestly downplayed the honor. "As I tried to tell the [Harvard Divinity] dean, having a historian come in is pretty safe. When they get a biblical scholar who says two-thirds of the last century's practice of New Testament criticism is worthless, then it's going to be more interesting."

In the estimate of Alan Wolfe, the Boston University sociologist writing in the October 2000 Atlantic Monthly, "Of all America's religious traditions, evangelical Protestantism, at least in its 20th-century conservative forms, ranks dead last in intellectual stature." For reasons detailed in George Marsden's The Soul of the American University, the late 19th and early 20th centuries relegated Christianity to the fringe of university life; and evangelicals have been ambivalent about wanting back in. Christian colleges and Bible schools were built not so much to compete with mainstream universities as to provide an alternative—and, often, a refuge. Meanwhile, universities became richer, bigger, more dominant in American intellectual life, all without much Christian input.

Thirty years ago, the late Timothy Smith was one of the very few "name" historians—perhaps the only one—who unabashedly showed his evangelical colors. Smith managed the improbable combination of teaching history at Johns Hopkins while pastoring a sizable Nazarene church in Boston. No Christian tradition can be more out of synchrony with academia than Nazarene holiness, and few subjects less appealing to university scholars than revivalism, but Smith's 1957 book, Revivalism and Social Reform, became a standard work. For many of today's evangelical historians, Smith was the first role model. He showed that it was possible to succeed without losing your Christian identity or enthusiasm.

Smith was one of a kind, however, a sometimes cranky individualist. Marsden has a different temperament—patient, understated—that enabled him, more than any other single individual, to nurture a new generation of scholars. Marsden grew up in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, went to seminary at Westminster in Philadelphia, and became fascinated by the question of how his family's kind of faith had become so out of sorts with the American mainstream. He took it as his Christian vocation to answer that, and in so doing to help the church understand itself better.

The quest took him to Yale for graduate school. Though Yale was (and is) one of the preeminent places to study American church history, Marsden didn't find anyone interested in the offbeat questions he was asking. He pursued them doggedly nonetheless as he moved to Calvin College in 1965 to teach. Fifteen years later he published his seminal work, Fundamentalism and American Culture.

His choice of Calvin would turn out to be important, for Calvin was not typical of evangelical church-related schools in the Midwest. Sponsored by the ethnically Dutch Christian Reformed denomination, Calvin revered the memory of Abraham Kuyper, a Dutch neo-Calvinist theologian and statesman who led the government of Holland in the first years of the 20th century. Kuyper advocated distinctively Christian leadership in every realm, including politics. Following him, Calvin College nurtured an aggressive confidence vis-à-vis the world, and a strong interest in the life of the mind. While Marsden was there, the college managed to nurture a remarkable constellation of scholars, including Nicholas Wolterstorff and Alvin Plantinga in philosophy, and Harry Stout and Dale Van Kley in history.

Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter was elected President, and the Moral Majority emerged as a political force. Suddenly the American mainstream, which had been no more interested in fundamentalism than in snake-handling, became very interested in understanding conservative American Christianity. It would fall to Marsden to explain fundamentalism as an internally consistent tradition with deep roots in the American experience. Without particularly intending it, he found a voice in the larger world.

Adventurous young scholars

Marsden's success would not be in isolation. In the late 1970s, more than ten years into his teaching career, he took leave from Calvin College for a year at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. It happened that Noll had just started his first teaching job at the college there.

During that year Marsden sat down for coffee once a week with Noll and theologian David Wells. "I consider that my real graduate education," Noll says. "Both of them seemed at ease with being academics and Christians, yet very serious. The curse of coffee-room chitchat had not got to them."

Noll soon moved to Wheaton College, which had its own adventurous spirit toward the world—one more entrepreneurial and organizational than Calvin's. Noll had attended Wheaton as an undergraduate, and one of his former classmates was Nathan Hatch, who had gone on to do postdoctoral work with Timothy Smith and now taught history at Notre Dame.

Hatch and Noll were pursuing related topics in 18th-century American religious history, and as they reignited their friendship they found other ways to work together. Hatch was a born administrator, and he helped Noll organize a Wheaton symposium on "The Bible in America," using money from the Lilly Endowment.

Richard Mouw, provost at Fuller Seminary and one of Marsden's former colleagues at Calvin, has a theory that evangelical scholars thrived in history and philosophy because biblical and theological studies had become so polarized. The best minds looked for areas where they could work without being constantly shot at. The conference on "The Bible in America" would bear out that theory. While theologians were waging "The Battle for the Bible" over inerrancy (at Christianity Today, among other places), Marsden, Hatch, and Noll thought a great many interesting questions were being overlooked, such as "How does the Bible actually get used?" The conference was a huge success, drawing a wide cross-section of scholars from various traditions. Oxford University Press published a book based on conference presentations, and Newsweek virtually paraphrased it for a cover story, according to Stout.

Most importantly, the Lilly Endowment was so impressed that it inquired about establishing some kind of permanent venture. Noll and Hatch created the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals (ISAE), headquartered at Wheaton. They got one of Marsden's former students, Joel Carpenter, to lead it. The ISAE began to sponsor a series of conferences, most notably an annual summer event that, for more than 15 years, has served as a summer retreat for historians and their families.

They became a tight-knit group: Marsden (now at Notre Dame), Noll and Hatch (now provost of Notre Dame), Stout (Yale), Grant Wacker (Duke), Carpenter (now provost of Calvin), and the late George Rawlyk, a Canadian, among others.

"Those connections have been far and away the most important intellectual and personal connections in my life," Noll says. He found what he calls a "Reformed approach to the life of the mind, which would mean working at what you work at for its intrinsic benefit, rather than for what extrinsic uses can be made of it, such as spreading the gospel."

It was a good recipe: lively evangelical traditions, adventurous young scholars, a constant exchange of ideas through conferences, and the money to make it all possible. The Pew Charitable Trusts joined Lilly in sponsoring ISAE projects, and eventually founded the Pew Evangelical Scholars program at Notre Dame, which funds scholarly research in a variety of fields. "The group of Christian intellectuals we have now was unimaginable 50 years ago," Calvin's Ronald Wells says.

Ordinary vs. providential

But what about God? Asked about the anti-supernaturalism of history, Noll made a distinction between what he called "ordinary" and "providential" history. Ordinary history, he said, limits itself to "evidence and causes and effects that almost everyone can be convinced might have taken place." While ordinary history might look quite secular, Noll sees it as fundamentally Christian in its presuppositions and worldview. He compared it to science. Christian scientists do their work with confidence because they believe that the world will make sense, and that God has made it possible for the human mind to understand the world.

So with the historian. "If I want to study the history of the American Revolution, I'm presupposing that something real took place, that the evidence left corresponds in some way to what really took place, that I'm intelligent enough to understand that evidence, that I'm able to put together a plausible explanation of cause and effect that might get us close to the truth," Noll said. "All those enterprises I see as implicitly dependent on a Christian view of God."

Noll seemed to imply that ordinary history, while it depended on God, would never have much to say about God. For as soon as someone contended that God had acted in a particular way, the subject would be too contentious to hope for general agreement.

I asked, therefore, about what Noll called "providential" history—history that assumed God's goodness to be at work in history and attempted to trace it. Noll resisted such an approach, saying he believed good providential history could be done, but that he has yet to see good examples of it. Providential history only made sense to "people who already shared your very specific religious position. If someone said the Reformation was God's way of bringing about a reform in the church, I knew that person wasn't a Catholic."

Noll's feelings stem partly from his early research in American history, when he studied how Christian ministers justified the Revolutionary War in their preaching. Most often they spoke of the Revolution as, literally, God's work. "When I really got into it, I came to the conclusion that this was hopeless, bogus. If you use Christian standards, it is very hard to say God brought the Revolution." American patriots painted England as the ultimate in godless tyranny, and drew parallels with the biblical escape from Egypt. Such arguments were nonsense, Noll says.

Noll warns that providential history must be driven by the best possible theology, which focuses on the Cross. "Very strange reversals take place in the Christian story focused on the Cross. The Christ is crucified. Good appears to fail. The monuments of historical goodness—Roman order, Jewish morality—conspire to do unspeakable evil. Good things come out of hopeless situations. Things that are not supposed to happen—the resurrection of the dead—happen, and happen at the center of the universe. If you think Christian theology has a lot of built-in reversals in it, then interpreting events becomes more complicated and not less."

D. G. Hart carried such thoughts even further in his essay, "History in Search of Meaning."

"The development of human history has direction, purpose, and meaning. Almost everyone [writing Christian history] agrees about this," Hart wrote. "The difficulty comes in trying to identify this meaning. What does it mean to say that God was in control of the 1992 United States presidential election. … ? When you go from the sublime of the kingdom of God to the ridiculous of U.S. politics, you encounter the difficult situation of trying to make a direct connection between the two. … In fact, the doctrine of providence teaches that God is at work in everything, both good and not so good. But to determine what God intended by a particular event is another matter altogether."

The trouble with these points of view is that they seem to treat the meaning of history with a shrug. Indeed, historians are far more comfortable sticking to the mundane: what happened where and when. A Christian, though, is bound to say that God is at work in history, and that he has revealed in Scripture some of what his work is about. There is no possibility of building an airtight wall between theology and the things a historian can know.

The 'perhaps' of history

I went looking for a professional historian to defend providential history, and found that while theory is one thing, practice is another. Plenty of historians want to affirm that God is at work in history, but practically nobody wants to say exactly how.

The closest I found was Richard Lovelace, who has taken a lifelong interest in appropriating the spiritual wisdom of the Puritans. Lovelace says you need to go beyond history to fully grasp his subject. "Puritanism was a renewal movement. You can't deal with Whitefield or [Jonathan] Edwards from a purely academic standpoint," he says.

"I don't say that theological and spiritual insight is absent in Marsden. It's muted, and I would say appropriately quiet," Lovelace says. "We need people like Marsden to give us a set of snapshots of our movements that are not loaded in our favor, that are not artificially highlighted. You know yourself that you get irritated when you listen to news that is slanted. You wish for the ideal CNN in the sky that will give you 'just the facts, Ma'am.'. … I wouldn't want to criticize Marsden or Noll for being academicized. I use Marsden all the time when I'm teaching. You simply write differently if you are, on the one hand, an academic historian and on the other hand, if you are writing a historical theology of Christian experience. [A spiritual theologian] is going to have to come down and say, Was it Christian or not? Was it renewal, or was it a blind alley that led nowhere?"

But of course, such theological interpretations don't have much of an audience among historians.

Seeking further insight, I talked to N. T. Wright, who works on the borderline between theology and history. Wright's field is the New Testament, but he has insisted that the best historical methodology be brought to its study. Of course, from evangelicals' point of view, historical methodologies applied to the Bible have often proved disastrous, resulting in a gospel story stripped of the supernatural.

I reached Wright at his study in Westminster Abbey, where he is a canon. When I asked what he thought about the possibility of finding God and his work through the historical method, it was as though I had pushed the "play" button: a long, ragged, and excited commentary came out.

Wright began by pointing out that my question was a version of the long-contested discussion of natural theology, "looking at the world [apart from] specific revelation in Jesus and the Bible and seeing what you can deduce about God from that. That is notorious in theology as an absolute minefield." Catholics, Wright said, have tended to be optimistic about finding God in the world of nature and human life, while Protestants typically stress the power of sin to mar the human capacity to see clearly, and warn that "if you start looking at nature and deducing God from it, what you get is an idol."

Scripture itself indicates that God's work in history is hard to read, Wright said.

"The prophets are constantly saying from Abraham through to Jesus, 'This is what God is doing in your midst. Why are you so blind? Why can't you see?' Even within that which is revealed history, sacred history, salvation history, even there you need men and women of God, inspired by the Spirit, to point out to people what is happening. It's not assumed that anyone can go and study history and just read it off. From that, one might well say, if history is so difficult within Israel, what hope have you outside?"

Wright added that many people through the centuries have mistakenly thought they understood what God was doing. One horrible example of Christian history gone wrong: "[New Testament scholar] Gerhard Kittel lecturing in Cambridge in the 1930s wearing Nazi armbands."

Wright was not quite ready to leave history at agnosticism, though.

"One of the key words [in interpreting history] is Paul's little word perhaps, which he uses in Philemon. … 'Perhaps this is why Onesimus was parted from me for a while, so that you could have him back not just as a slave but as a brother' (Philemon 15). When Christians try to read off what God is doing even in their own situations, such claims always have to carry the word perhaps about with them as a mark of humility and of the necessary reticence of faith. That doesn't mean that such claims can't be made, but that they need to be made with a 'perhaps' which is always inviting God to come in and say, 'Well, actually, no.' "

Crisis point

The Conference on Faith and History is a mostly evangelical organization founded in 1967 with a dual purpose of fostering fellowship between Christian historians and "to encourage evangelical Christian scholars to explore the relationship of their faith to historical studies." Current president William Trollinger, a historian at the University of Dayton, told the CFH annual conference in October 2000 that the organization had reached a crisis point.

Despite the conference's robust numerical growth, the persistent question of what exactly evangelical historians do that is different from non-Christian or nonevangelical historians remained unanswered.

In looking at the organization's own journal, Fides et Historia, Trollinger noted that "when one moves from the articles that deal with the philosophy of history and historiography into the realm of historical research—into the doing of history, as it were—it would be quite logical to conclude that, according to our organization, to have a Christian perspective on history first and foremost means that one chooses religious history for one's topic." That was because nearly all the articles were, in fact, about religious topics.

Indeed, a look at the careers of the best-known evangelical historians makes the same point. Marsden is known for his work in fundamentalism and the decline of religious perspectives in the university. Hatch made his reputation with his book The Democratization of American Christianity. Noll is writing a history of American theology from Edwards to Lincoln. Stout has chronicled the life of evangelist Whitefield. Nearly all the outstanding work is in American religious history, and it is by no means clear that the same topics would be treated differently by non-Christian scholars.

Marsden, who has written extensively on the subject of Christian scholarship, most notably in The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship (1997), points out that Christians tend to be sensitive to the religious dimensions of history. By their selection of topics, they enrich history by bringing out the truly religious character of many events. "Somebody who has some religious sensibility," Marsden notes, "is in a much better position to say, 'Look, these people are driven by their religious commitment.'. … There's a tendency of reductionism in history, to reduce something to some essential cause, [an] economic or social factor. I think it's worth giving religious factors their due. You don't have to be a religious person to do that, but certainly it helps. Most American historians just don't have any antenna for recognizing that."

A case in point is Van Kley's studies of the French Revolution; he argued that both the revolution and the Enlightenment thinking that supported it were a continuation of religious arguments, not a radical departure into secularism. Would he have seen the religious dimension had he not been himself a committed believer? Perhaps not.

True, history has broadened in the last generation, becoming more attentive to factors like race, gender, technology, culture, economics, and religion. Evangelical historians have contributed to that broadening, helping to establish religious faith as an independent variable in history, a force worthy of reflection. They have also brought to light aspects of American history that were caricatured, ignored, and misunderstood—such as Christian fundamentalism.

Searching for distinctives

For all that, some evangelical historians wish for more. Westmont's Shirley Mullen suggests that "we've only begun the work of really thinking, In what sense does being a Christian historian transform our work once we move outside church history? I don't want to sound overly pietistic, but I do think it's a kingdom issue." That is to say, if Christians can't tell the story of the world in a way that's distinctive, how Christian are they?

The longing for a distinctly Christian history is implicit in Marsden's plea that Christians occupy a niche in the academy comparable to that occupied by feminist historians. Calvin's Margaret Bendroth makes the point that feminists are not content to "add women and stir" to history's story, pointing out a forgotten woman here, or adding a female perspective on events there. They seek to see the world through the lens of gender. The challenge for feminist historians, as for Christian historians, is to reach out into the wider world. "Christian scholars who are fundamentally uninterested in mill workers, army sergeants, society matrons, politicians, or policemen—any aspect of human experience—cannot expect a wide audience," Bendroth writes.

No historian I talked to would claim that such a wide Christian view of history is anything more than a rumor. Often I heard a tone of wistfulness when I raised the issues. Van Kley told me that he feels dissatisfied and constrained with the way he has been able to write history. "Certainly, I couldn't hope to present events or developments as the workings of God in history, causally linked to the will of God, and hope to get a hearing." What Van Kley says he has been able to do is to make his own field "budge."

"I have gotten people to take religion more seriously," he says. "My job has been chipping away at the metanarrative of progress, to make possible a providential view. … Progress and providence are not the same things. I see history as providence; I don't read it as progress." He admits, though, that he has not been able to articulate a providential reading of history in a compelling way.

"The nub of the issue is, how do you talk about God in history in a public university?" says Duke's Grant Wacker. "Does that kind of language have any credibility? If language is likely to repel, or to bemuse, there's no point raising it."

Whether or not they find it comfortable, all evangelical historians find themselves living between two communities. Professionally they are oriented toward the academy. All are students of a rigorous secular training, because you cannot get graduate training in history at any evangelical school. To be in dialogue with peers inevitably means speaking in a secular voice.

And yet evangelical scholars also belong to a church community in which they worship and in which many teach. That community speaks a different language.

There are two challenges here. One is to the evangelical Christian college, which bases its existence on the possibility of providing uniquely Christian learning. The word integration is supposed to describe the process that professors at Christian schools follow, bringing their faith and their learning together into a coherent whole.

The church's storytellers

In history there is little evidence that this has amounted to much. Ronald Wells told me of several well-known historians who have challenged the possibility of writing Christian history by saying, essentially, "Show me the books. … I see a lot of assertions, but I don't see much material. If you mean Marsden, if you mean Hatch, if you mean Noll, well sure, I know those guys; they're wonderful scholars, but there isn't anything uniquely or particularly Christian about them."

It remains to be seen whether evangelical Christian colleges can take the next step and offer a truly Christian historical education, if that means anything more than offering a larger-than-usual dose of church history.

Whether or not evangelical schools manage to produce Christian history, there will continue to be an evangelical cadre of historians. They face a second challenge: to communicate the value of their work to the church. Hatch is typical when he says, "If there's anything I have tried to give my life to, it's the value of Christian thinking. … The evangelical world is very dynamic, but it's a marketplace of entrepreneurs. … What's going to give it ballast over 50 or 100 years? Can the gospel hold up to people who are the leaders of society? The people who are going to go to the Ivy League, control Time magazine, and so on?" For Hatch, it's essential to have Christian thinkers who provide perspective and depth.

In the end only God is wise enough to write Christian history. Historians must write "perhaps" in tracing God's pathway. Nevertheless, history plays an important role.

Stout, who upset Banner of Truth with his unsupernatural reading of history, doesn't doubt the Christian significance of his work: "I think [my work is] indispensable. I think if the church didn't have people like me, the church would cease to exist. I've often said it; I know it sounds glib, and I don't intend it to be glib, but Christian historians are in the resurrection business. We play a unique role in the church as its collective memory. We aren't theologians or philosophers. Our specialty isn't complicated, abstract words and concepts that you have to furrow your brow and think hard and deep about to understand just what they are saying.

"We're storytellers. Through the powers of our archival skills that we learn in graduate school, how to locate sources and documents and translate and transcribe them, and through the powers of our imagination, we have the capacity to bring the dead back to life, and at some level to bring them to the table of conversation," Stout says. "In so doing we learn something about the past, to be sure, and I think we learn even more about our present. But I think, most importantly, we are reminded that we are also [the continuance of] many stories that have been part of this Creation from the beginning of time until eternity. In reconstructing those stories, we know we aren't isolated in time and space, that our community of faith isn't something that was invented by us and constructed by us, and therefore can be deconstructed by the next generation, but that it's timeless. If you don't have those storytellers around, it doesn't matter how many theologians you have, or how many philosophers, it doesn't locate us historically. And if Christianity isn't historical, it's nothing."

At its most basic level, the discipline of history provides us with a memory before birth; and it is memory, as Augustine taught, that grants us a conscious (that is to say, human) existence.

Seen this way, history is a God-given task, an inescapable part of being human. Christians might have a special role in at least two ways.

First, because they live in the community of the church, Christian historians are equipped to bring memories to life within the church.

Second, because they are sensible to the power of God, Christian historians are equipped to bring the church's memories to life in the world. They can tell religious stories that a secular culture might just as soon forget, and thus help secular people understand that they are not, in fact, creatures of time and chance.

Evangelical historians have taken a large first step forward, establishing the validity of religious memories. The second step, to tie those memories to everything else, has barely begun.

Tim Stafford is a senior writer for Christianity Today and author of Sisters: A Novel of the Woman Suffrage Movement (Nelson).

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere

See today's related article by Preston Jones, "How to Serve Time | There is a Christian way to study the past without weakening the truth."

Not only does our magazine's Web site have a special history section and a weekly history column, but our sister publication Books & Culture has another history section. In fact, another of our sister publications, Christian History, is devoted to the subject (and is planning a special issue on historiography).

Those interested in more of the history and practices of the historians profiled in this article may be interested in Maxie Burch's The Evangelical Historians: The Historiography of George Marsden, Nathan Hatch, and Mark Noll. It's now five years old and has Marsden's name misspelled on the cover, but also offers insightful personal and professional histories and analysis of these men.

The Atlantic Monthly's Web site not only offers Alan Wolfe's October 2000 cover story, "The Opening of the Evangelical Mind," but also interview transcripts with Noll, Mouw, Marsden, and literary critic Alan Jacobs.

The Conference on Faith and History site offers more information about the organization and its publication, Fides et Historia.

In one of her recent Christian History Corner columns, Christian History associate editor Elesha Coffman reported that the Conference on Faith and History was experiencing a kind of identity crisis.

Christian Reviews in History: A Journal of Historical Understanding had big plans for being "a new forum for engaging Christian historical discourse," but nothing seems to have come of it.

Mark Noll's "Traditional Christianity and the possibility of historical knowledge" is reprinted from Christian Scholar's Review at the Web site of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities.

The Graduate & Faculty Ministries of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship offers bibliographies on the integration of faith and scholarship both in general and specifically about history.

Tim Stafford's interest in historiography partly stems from his writing a series of historical novels.

Earlier Tim Stafford articles for ChristianityToday.com and Christianity Today include:

The First Black Liberation Movement | The untold story of the freed slaves who brought Christ—and liberty— to West Africa. An interview with Lamin Sanneh (July 14, 2000)

Taking Back Fresno | Working together, churches are breathing new life into a decaying California city. By Tim Stafford (Mar. 10, 2000)

CT Classic: Ron Sider's Unsettling Crusade | Why does this man irritate so many people? (originally published Apr. 27, 1992; posted online Mar. 13, 2000)

How God Won When Politics Failed | Learning from the abolitionists during a time of political discouragement. (Jan. 28, 2000)

CT Classic: Bethlehem on a Budget | Planning a church budget and the Christmas story share surprising similarities (originally published Dec. 15, 1989; posted online Dec. 23, 1999)

The Business of the Kingdom | Management guru Peter Drucker thinks the future of America is in the hands of churches (Nov. 8, 1999)

Anatomy of a Giver | American Christians are the nation's most generous givers, but we aren't exactly sacrificing. (May 19, 1997)

God's Green Acres | How DeWitt is helping Dunn, Wisconsin, reflect the glory of God's good creation. (June 15, 1998)

God Is in the Blueprints | Our deepest beliefs are reflected in the ways we construct our houses of worship. (Sept. 7, 1998)

The New Theologians | These top scholars are believers who want to speak to the church (Feb. 8, 1999)

The Criminologist Who Discovered Churches | Political scientist John DiIulio followed the data to see what would save America's urban youth. (June 14, 1999)

Stafford also writes the "Love, Sex, and Real Life" column for Campus Life magazine, another Christianity Today sister publication.

History

How to Serve Time

There is a Christian way to study the past without weakening the truth.

There are probably as many opinions about history as there are people. “History. … is a nightmare,” says Stephen in James Joyce’s Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. According to Oscar Wilde, “Anybody can make history” but only “a great man can write it.” Depending on whom you consult, history could be “the biography of great men” (Thomas Carlyle) or an “excitable and lying old lady” (Guy de Maupassant). Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that history is “the belief in falsehood.” T. S. Eliot called it “a pattern of timeless moments.” French philosopher Ernest Renan concluded that “the whole of history is incomprehensible without [Jesus].” A new claim about the nature of history isn’tneeded, and I am not interested in formulating a Christian philosophy of historiography. But as a Christian and a historian, I am concerned about history consciously written or taught from any particular perspective—”feminist,” “Marxist,” “conservative,” or “liberal.”

I’m just as concerned about history written from a “Christian” perspective.

Eager to uncover the depths of America’s Christian roots, some Christian writers have embraced the Founding Fathers’ references to God without acknowledging that the god of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Adams is one most orthodox Christians would not recognize. Similarly, Christian writers of history have sometimes failed to distinguish between civil religion and casual Christianity, on the one hand, and biblical Christianity on the other. Thus some of the same people who resist casual Christianity in contemporary America endorse it in historic America.

The Unorthodox Mr. Roosevelt

One example should suffice. “Theodore Roosevelt stood foursquare on the legacy of biblical orthodoxy,” writes George Grant in his 1997 book Carry a Big Stick: The Uncommon Heroism of Theodore Roosevelt. But late 19th- and early 20th-century American nationalists merely ransacked the Bible for verses that could justify various political causes. Grant’s claim is false; Teddy Roosevelt had little use for “biblical orthodoxy,” and to spin Roosevelt as an orthodox Christian is to get him wrong.

American Christians should want to avoid wrong historical conclusions, even when that means giving up cherished ideas about their nation’s past. Historians and history teachers will inevitably bring their personal commitments to the archives and into the classroom, but it is fundamentally corrupting to turn to the past to merely vindicate preconceived judgments. If a Christian wants to applaud Roosevelt’s manly patriotism, that is a matter of fair choice. But Christian students of history should avoid casting Roosevelt’s nationalism in strictly favorable—or Christian—terms.

To be fair, the expansionist movement Roosevelt promoted did some good: illiterate peoples in America’s colonies learned to read, people without medicine gained the advantage of Western technology, and Christianity did “uplift” many of the colonized. But Roosevelt’s brand of nationalism also made him a late 19th-century warmonger and led to a vicious conflict in the Philippines—a conflict protested by, among others, the devoutly Christian William Jennings Bryan. One long-term consequence of America’s military presence in the Philippines is the United States’ involvement in the massive and still growing market for East Asian girls and young women—a skin trade in which the U.S. military is still entangled and which in many cases amounts to modern-day slavery.

George Grant claims that Teddy Roosevelt “led the world into a remarkable epoch of peace,” but to say that is to do an injustice not only to the plain historical record but also to Roosevelt himself. Roosevelt approved of war. He reveled in battle. For him, conflict weeded out weak people who stood in the way of progress.

It isn’t that Roosevelt should be painted mainly in a bad light. He was an extraordinary and, in many ways, wonderful man; he was larger than life and is one of the most significant personalities in American history. But, like everyone, Roosevelt was a sinner, and his actions helped to set off a series of events that, for good and bad, affect us still.

Christian writers who spin history in simplistic terms to boost their favored political, cultural, or theological causes are doing nothing better than politically motivated writers who do the same. The antidote to secularist historical revisionism isn’t Christian revisionism but simply trying to get the past right, insofar as that is possible. Scholarly incompetence with a Christian face on it is still incompetence, and one who fabricates myths in the name of saving Christian kids from secularism isn’t doing anyone a service.

Through History’s Eyes

So if it is wrong for Christians to deliberately put their own spin on history, then what is there for the Christian student of history to do? For one thing, Christian interpreters of history can strive to cultivate within themselves a capacity for discernment. Of course, all students of history should do this, but Christians in particular must lead the way. To discern is to test something to see whether it is what it claims to be; it’s to be perceptive, keen, and intellectually sharp; it’s to be prudent, even-handed, and cautious in coming to judgment; as Westmont College philosopher Robert Wennberg has suggested, it’s to be judicious in how one speaks of the dead; and, even as one acknowledges that there is much that cannot be known, it’s to be determined to get things right.

The Bible clearly has a lot to say in praise of such qualities, even though the present sound-bite culture can hardly stand them. Nowadays, it seems that it is enough to say that Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and a slaveholder, was a bald-faced hypocrite, period, and that Christopher Columbus was a wanton purveyor of destruction and genocide—end of story. An inattentive population can hardly stand conclusions more complex, and more accurate, than these. (The same was true a century ago, when Jefferson and Columbus were sometimes described in almost godlike terms.) But time and again, the Scriptures admonish believers to be wise in their approach both to spiritual and worldly matters, cautious in judgment, prudent in how they conduct relationships, and discerning.

The writer of the Book of Hebrews says that the “Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (KJV). I think this description also can stand as an ideal to be pursued by every Christian who reads, writes, teaches, and thinks about history. “Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves,” the Scriptures say. “Be quick to hear and slow to speak.” “With what judgment you judge, you shall be judged.”

In the preface to his fine 1995 biography of Abraham Lincoln, David Herbert Donald writes that he asked “at every stage of [Lincoln’s] career what he knew when he had to take critical actions, how he evaluated the evidence before him, and why he reached his decisions. [This book] is then a biography written from Lincoln’s point of view, using the information and ideas that were available to him.”

Donald aspired not to impose himself on Lincoln but to be imposed upon by his subject. This is a commendable act of humility. The precise extent to which Donald succeeded is debatable, but his attempt is encouraging, for it illustrates an attitude toward history that is, I think, fundamentally Christian.

The History Lover’s Golden Rule

In a time when European travelers were exploring the New World, and knowledge of the universe was expanding rapidly, a Church of England priest named George Herbert wrote a poem titled “The Agony” (1633). In the poem, Herbert doffs his cap with admiration at recent scientific and geographic discoveries, and he compliments mankind’s capacity for uncovering knowledge. Yet despite these great advances, Herbert wrote, there remained “two vast, spacious things” the depths of which had never been truly sounded—namely, “Sin and Love.”

Since I first read Herbert’s poem—I was a new graduate student in history at the time—I have thought that in it he suggests, however curtly, an attitude toward history that I as a Christian should take. I should keep ever before me the truth that all have sinned, and that because I am part of the human community of sinners, I can’t presume myself to be superior to others—either those now living or those who have gone before. I also saw that, my own combative temperament notwithstanding, I am obliged to practice charity toward all men and women, the living and the dead.

With Herbert, Christians know that sin pervades everyone—even history scholars.

If we were among the brutish conquistadors who won New Spain in the 16th century, we may well have acted as they did. If we were Plains Indians in the late 19th century, we may have taken the lives of the children of American settlers too. And if we were the friends of a family whose child was lost to Native Americans, we probably would have been glad to read in the newspaper that somewhere in the Midwest, a few days before, a group of Indian men, women, and children had been gunned down in their tents.

It shouldn’t surprise us when sin rears its ubiquitous head in history: Thomas Jefferson, architect of freedom and slaveholder; Henry Ford, great businessman and anti-Semite; Aimee Semple McPherson, committed evangelist and scandalous icon. There’s nothing to be surprised about.

The world is warped, sin blemishes every human being, and even one’s most earnest effort to be and do one’s best is itself tainted by the Fall. Because Christian readers, writers, or teachers of history know that sin infects everything, they are able to exercise charity, compassion, and understanding toward historical figures who made vast errors.

Jesus said that his disciples should do to others as they would want others to do to them, and 50 or 100 years from now, what would we want historians to do with us?

Certainly we would want them to try to understand us on our own terms. We don’t want them to make myths of us, to pretend that we were faultless, but we hope that they won’t focus solely on our shortcomings. We hope that they won’t force us into their mold, but that they will try to shape their history by fully understanding our mold. We hope that they will not put into our mouths political and cultural agendas with which we are not concerned. We would want them to treat us fairly.

In short, we hope that they will keep in mind, as Christians must always remember, that all men and women will finally be judged by One who himself has no judge. The ultimate archives are kept in heaven, and there are no forgeries there.

Preston Jones, a contributing editor for Books & Culture and a book reviewer for the (Canada) National Post and Ottawa Citizen, teaches history at Logos Academy in Dallas.

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere

See today’s related article by Tim Stafford, “Whatever Happened to Christian History?

Not only does our magazine’s Web site have a special history section and a weekly history column, but our sister publication Books & Culture has another history section. In fact, another of our sister publications, Christian History, is devoted to the subject (and is planning a special issue on historiography).

Jones has published in Touchstone, re:generation quarterly, and myriad other publications, but one of his best works was “More Scandals of the Evangelical Mind” for the June/July 1998 issue of First Things.

Other articles by Preston Jones for Christianity Today and our sister publication Books & Culture include:

The Last Frontier? | “‘If you see a moose, make sure you don’t get between it and its calf.’ This postprandial advice was offered to me by my mother-in-law, who knows something about moose … ” (B&C, Jul/Aug 2000)

Aliens, A-Bombs, and Mastodons | Travels in Nevada and Colorado (B&C, Jan/Feb 2000)

California Haze | A review of Paradise Lost: California’s Experience, America’s Future, An Empire Wilderness: Travels Into America’s Future, and Eyewitness To the American West (B&C, Sept/Oct 1999)

Lord of the Pets (B&C, Sept/Oct 1998)

My Farrakhan Obsession (B&C, Mar/Apr. 1998)

A Canadian with an Attitude | A profile of Canadian evangelicals that contrasts them with their counterparts in the American South. (CT, Apr. 7, 1997)

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube