Saturn is the name of the Roman god of agriculture and harvest. He is associated with the goddess of plenty, Ops. The weekly time of partying, Saturday, is named for him. Between December 17 and 23, Romans honored him with a feast. Romans decorated the trees on the grounds of their villas. They ate, drank, exchanged gifts, and made merry by saying “Lo! Saturnalia.” Slaves and their owners exchanged roles. The slaveholders served and the slaves enjoyed being served. The holiday transitioned, too, into the celebration of the Sol Invictus, or Unconquerable Sun. This latter festival honored the birthday of the sun god, which fell on December 25, the date of the winter solstice according to the old Julian calendar. Disagreement exists over how early and in what form worship of the sun took place.

Meanwhile, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire. The resurrection emerged as the most important Christian festival, because of its theological importance. In addition, the Church more easily could settle on a date, since the crucifixion and resurrection coincided with the Hebrew Passover Feast. Over several decades, however, the celebration of the birth of Jesus grew in importance. But the church celebrated it on different days in different parts of the empire. The Church in Rome celebrated the day on December 25, possibly based upon calculations by Pope Julius 1. As Rome grew and achieved primacy over the rest of the church in its theology and authority, the December 25 date became standard for “Christ’s Mass.”

No direct evidence suggests that the Church authorities chose the date to obscure the pagan festivals of Saturnalia or Sol Invictus. But some church fathers noted the coincidence. Cyprian (?-258) noted “How wonderfully acted providence that on the day when that sun was born, Christ should be born.” In addition, Chrysostom wrote that “Our Lord, too, is born in the month of December. But they call it the “Birthday of the Unconquered.” But who indeed is unconquered as our Lord.”

As Christianity spread across the rest of Europe, Christmas became intermingled with additional pagan winter celebration traditions: yule logs, mistletoe, and Christmas trees. Today it offers a syncretistic something for everyone.

So, “Lo Saturnalia.” And “Merry Christmas.”

The tiger is a predatory cat native to Southeast Asia. The aggressive animal is a fit mascot for sports teams--the Cincinnati Bengals, the LSU Tigers, the Clemson Tigers, the Missouri Tigers. Maybe even the Detroit Tigers. No so much for even the greatest player in the genteel game of golf. Until now.

Eldrick Tont Woods has sported the name “Tiger” since childhood, when a friend of his father gave him that nickname. As a result of his father’s coaching from the age of two, Eldrick became a child prodigy. By age five he made his first appearance in Golf Digest. Today he leads all other professional athletes in earnings. In 2008, he brought in $110 million in winnings and endorsements.

His athletic skill , his handsome appearance, and his pleasant demeanor have brought him public admiration as well. In an age of trash talk and egotistic exhibitionism on the field, Eldrick’s public persona and image as a devoted family man has earned him that overworked and misguided appellation-- role model. Unfortunately, we all learned recently about another side of Eldrick. It appears that for two or three years he really has been a tiger--prowling promiscuously for, well-- I have to say it, white tailed doe.

And everyone asks, how could this be? Financially affluent. Publicly respected. Married to a former model. Beautiful children. Isn’t this “the good life?” How could he throw it away for some tawdry affairs with some cocktail waitresses?

Some misguided observers focused on the beautiful wife he betrayed. Fox News web page included Tiger’s wife Elin in a puff piece called Sexy Starlets Scorned: What was Tiger Thinking? The photo essay featured photos of other scorned beauties, including Fergie, Elizebeth Hurley, Christie Brinkley, and Halle Berry. Similar commentary often appears on programs titled 25 Stupid Celebrity Break-Ups or similarly titled programs on E! and VH1. The “What was he thinking?” observation is a shallow one, of course, that comes only from the jaundiced view rooted in basic lust . The motive is the use and enjoyment of the women in question without regard to their well-being. The scorned beauties are obviously pleasing to look at , they think, and no doubt provide a pleasurable experience in a moment of physical intimacy to exchange bodily secretions. So what was he thinking?

They never wonder if such scorned beauties are pleasant or interesting companions.

Aristotle likened ethics to other skills. Just as a person practices any skill to master it, so every person needs to consistently make the right ethical choices. These eventually become habits, and we eventually make the choices without even thinking about them. Aristotle calls people who habitually make the right ethical choices virtuous or excellent human beings.

Unfortunately, it appears Tiger has not practiced these skills. In fact, things may be worse. He may have developed the wrong kind of habits. So far three mistresses have been alleged. Are there more? And is there a “tiger cub” out there anywhere? The existence of multiple mistresses seems to indicate that Tiger has honed skills of a different sort. He has made a habit of making bad ethical choices. It looks like vice has become second nature. Aristotle had a name for those sort of people as well. He called them vicious.

As is his custom, Barton makes himself available only to friendly interviewers who provide a forum for his ministry and will not challenge any of his statements. Huckabee identifies himself as a fan and a friend of Barton. Huckabee then shares his reaction that first time he watched a video of one of Barton’s presentations. Huckabee describes how he felt “stunned” because Barton was telling him things he was “never taught in school.” Later I will provide a simple answer why Huckabee’s teachers never told him the things he heard on Barton’s tape.

Huckabee provides the agreed to set up for Barton with his allusion to the Declaration of Independence and the men who signed it. Barton directs the viewer’s attention to a painting of the signing of the Declaration and notes the prominent position of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Implying the existence of an academic conspiracy against Christian founders, Barton explains that “we have been trained to recognized the two least religious guys.” Barton then introduces the viewers to signers Benjamin Rush, Roger Sherman (who Barton fails to actually identify by name), Charles Thompson, Robert Treat Paine, and Stephen Hopkins.

May I suggest a few reasons--other than a secular, academic conspiracy-- why Franklin and Jefferson stand out.

Benjamin Franklin was the most well known American of the colonial and early national era. He enjoyed success as a writer, a scientist (for which he became a member of the Royal Society of London), and a diplomat. Until the formation of the new government and the election of George Washington, Franklin was the face of America to the rest of the world. His skills as a writer earned him the initial assignment to draft the Declaration of Independence. He refused because he did not like the idea of the other members of the drafting committee revising anything he might write. The committee turned to Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson, too, was an accomplished writer. He already earned a reputation for his A Summary View of the Rights of British America. He, of course, wrote the text of the Declaration of Independence. (Ironically, Franklin could not resist revising. He suggested changing Jefferson’s phrase (“We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable” to “We hold these truths to be self-evident.”) Later Jefferson became governor of Virginia and served the new national government as Secretary of State, Vice-President, and President for two terms. Later he established the University of Virginia.

Now compare Franklin’s and Jefferson’s accomplishments with those cited by Barton for Charles Thompson: “he is responsible for a famous American edition of the bible;“ for Robert Treat Pain “ a chaplain;” and for Stephen Hopkins, “a Quaker--very outspoken--he used the Christian religion as the basis for why we should separate from Great Britain . . . ”

It should be obvious, even to Huckabee, why his teachers never taught him the things shared by Barton: his teachers had better historical sense than Barton. They know what is important and what is not.

As the saying goes, politics makes strange bedfellows. But never more so than when politics is in the sack with religion.

The Jews emerged from antiquity as a group of desert savages who laid waste to much of Canaan, “devoting to destruction” the inhabitants of the land, with their children, their livestock, and their property. Over several centuries, they aspired to become a great state. A couple of @ss kickings by the Romans and their subsequent dispersion dispelled them of that notion. But their unique monotheism and the teachings of a rabbi named Yeshua spread to Europe through a Hellenized Jew named Paul and transformed that civilization. Unfortunately, the Gentile heirs of the Christian branch of Judaism lost regard for their roots. Anti-Semitism became a European tradition.

The Jewish people have found America much more welcoming. Although anti-Semitic slights and some violence have been part of their American experience,, the ghettos, pogroms, expulsions, and death camps remain a tragic story of the Old World. And now that the Jews have reconstituted themselves as an independent nation, they enjoy military and financial support from the world’s most powerful nation.

The Christian evangelical/fundamentalist community in the United States remain their strongest supporters. This support largely rests on their theological views of the future. Hal Lindsey, in his The Late, Great Planet Earth and subsequent volumes detailing the dispensationalist interpretation of prophetic scriptures, popularized among non-dispensationalists and even among non-believers the scenario of events involving Israel and the end of history. The political implications are that the United States needs to be on the same page as Jesus when it comes to Israel. Lindsay has suggested that some branches of reformed Christianity that do not concur with his dispensationalist views are not only wrong, but also are setting Israel up for another holocaust.

More recently, John Hagee has emerged at the leading Christian spokesman on behalf of Israel. He, too, has written books on Israel and prophesy, including Jerusalem Countdown and In Defense of Israel. In addition, he formed Christians United for Israel to support Israel through lobbying efforts with the U.S. Congress.

This is all very interesting because Israel is a modern, secular, socialist state. Israelis enjoy the same freedoms as citizens of other European-style democracies. And Israelis also enjoy the less savory aspects of freedom: alcohol, drugs, and pornography. Their abortion rate is only slightly lower than that of the United States. They even have the dreaded national health care, in which every Israeli must enroll. And sadly, in their fight for survival against their Arab neighbors, Israel makes no distinction between Christian and Muslim Arabs. Palestinian Christians undergo intense suffering at the hands of both Israelis and the Muslim Palestinians. The American evangelical community turns it head.

(For a appeal regarding their plight, see here)

In two previous posts, the Secular Square examined some general views of David Barton on history as expressed in his essay, God Missing in Action from American History. Barton accuses modern professional historians of deliberately removing God from any role in history and secularizing their accounts of the American past. They do this, according to Barton, in order to support their secular social and political agenda.

He really opposes professional academic history itself. Instead, he prefers older accounts that try to explain history in terms God’s Providential working of his purposes in history. (Implicit is the notion that all history is moving to the second coming of Jesus Christ. This, of course, it not history at all. It is historicism, where history is swallowed up by eschatology). He seems unaware of analytical historical accounts of Christian history that try explain the ways in which religious faith informs American culture. Instead, if his “recommended reading” page is any indication, his interest in history does not go beyond anecdotal collections he finds useful in promoting his brand of conservatism. Barton shares the conservative concern about the direction of our country. He believes it has lost its moral and spiritual bearings. Barton utilizes his largely anecdotal sources to demonstrate that the federal courts negotiated a series of wrong turns in their constitutional interpretation and severed religion from public institutions in ways unintended by our founders. Most Conservatives agree. He seeks to restore original intent. Most conservatives agree. And as evidenced in other essays posted on the Wallbuilders web page, he seems convinced that if Americans can legally display nativity scenes in town squares, erect Ten Commandment monuments in parks, reintroduce prayer at the start of each school day, replace evolution with creationism in science classes, and teach American history as “His story,” America will regain sound and steady course established by our country‘s founders. And this program sets the narrow parameters of Barton’s historical interest. Beyond his utilitarian aimsfor history, Barton seems singularly incurious.

The rich historical tradition of writings about Christianity in America is too expansive to give it complete due. For those readers who possess more inquiring minds, below is a brief "Greatest Hits" list of the Christian history Barton missed. Many of these are evangelical accounts and evangelical “friendly;” all are by professional academic historians.

Surveys:

Sydney Ahlstrom    A Religious History of the American People

Edwin Gaustad          Religious History of America

Mark Noll                   History of Christianity in the US and Canada

Mark Noll                   The Rise of Evangelicalism

Nathan Hatch             The Democratization of American Christianity

The Puritans:

Perry Miller                Orthodoxy in Massachusetts

Perry Miller                    The New England Mind (two volumes)

Edmund Morgan         The Puritan Family

Edmund Morgan          Visible Saints

Edmund Morgan          The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop

Robert Middlekauff    The Mathers

Michael Zuckerman    Peaceable Kingdoms: New England Towns in the 17^th century

Philip Gura                   A Glimpse of Sion’s Glory

Harry Stout                The New England Soul

Great Awakening:

Alan Heimert             Religion and the American Mind

Edwin Gaustad          The Great Awakening in New England

Wesley Gewehr         The Great Awakening in Virginia

Charles Maxson       The Great Awakening in the Middle Colonies

Rhys Isaac                Transformation of Virginia

Janet Lindman          Bodies of Belief: Baptist Community in Early America

William Lumpkin       Baptist Foundations in the South

Christine Heyrman    Southern Cross: The Beginning of the Bible Belt

Monica Najar             Evangelizing the South

David Barton accuses modern historians of America with turning history into a “dreary academic subject” and of deliberately misrepresenting the past in order to promote secular public policies. As he develops his charge in an essay titled “God Missing in Action from American History,” two things become clear. First, what he really opposes is not modern academic history’s alleged dreariness, but modern academic history itself. Second, he knows very little about modern academic history.

David Barton’s assertion that history should focus on biography and express a discernment of God’s Providence superintending over it all reveals the kind of history he prefers: that written before the advent of professional academic history. Barton apparently finds appeal in the sermons and journals of colonial ministers and patrician-historians of the 18^th and 19^th centuries.

The most well-known journal was that of William Bradford, the perennial governor of Plymouth colony. Later published as On Plymouth Plantation, Bradford narrates the story of the Pilgrims using biblical motifs and attributing the direction of their affairs to the providence of God. In this type of history, the Pilgrims are cast in the role of a New World Children of Israel, as God’s chosen people arriving in their own New Canaan. Through their triumphs and their tragedies, God’s hand sustains and strengthens them.

The patrician-historians were men of leisure who produced historical narratives as quality literature for a growing reading public. Some of the earliest examples include Robert Beverley‘s History and Present State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson‘s Notes on Virginia , and Thomas Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts Bay. Perhaps the best known work of this kind was George Bancroft’s History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent, published in 12 volumes between 1834 and 1882. Bancroft saw in American history not as an especially religious enterprise, but as the unfolding of God’s plan for establishing freedom and democracy in the world.

During Bancroft’s work on his last volumes, Johns Hopkins University laid the foundation for modern academic history beginning in 1876. Johns Hopkins graduate school pioneered the training of professional historians in research, analysis, and interpretation. The American Historical Association was organized in 1884. The American Historical Review began publishing in 1895. Since that time, professionally trained historians have produced the bulk of historical writing. It is their ideas that reach the classroom.

The advent of professional history did not mean an end to popular history. Freelance writers, journalists, and even some professional historians continue to publish histories for the general public. But the hard work of original research and writing for professional journals that makes these books possible is done by academically trained historians. And this is what Barton does not understand.

History is more than biography. If Barton laments the narrow focus of works on economics, or politics, or whatever, he must learn that historical research must take place within established parameters. No man or woman has enough years in lifetime to research, analyze and, write the “grand theory” of everything. (Texts for survey courses attempt this and are usually the product of several authors.) Consequently, historians narrow their research in time or a place. They may focus on economics, ideas and ideology, politics, organizational theory, demographics, ethnicity, gender, or even religion. (Barton is apparently even unaware of the rich tradition of historical writing on Christianity). It is the study of change over time that provides historical context for the era in which we live, something that biographies, however interesting, really cannot do.

And that fact has Barton stumped. He loves this country and is troubled by its crime, its vice, and its secular outlook in which Christianity plays a diminishing role. It is very different from the colonial and early national period in which he directs most of his interest. Because he lacks even basic familiarity with the conclusions of American historical writing,however,  he does not understand the era in which he lives and how our nation came to be this way. Consequently, he reaches for the latest Christian conspiracy theory -- America is more secular because historians have failed to include God in their explanatory models and that God is missing in action from American history. Modern American remains a riddle for him.

It is the contention of the Secular Square that debate in the public square should be secular in tone. This is not to suggest that religious people, particularly Christians in our western culture, have no right to engage in policy debate. No litmus test, religious or otherwise, should restrict public debate. Anyone should be able to weigh in on defense policy , economic and monetary policy , health care and health insurance, marriage licensing, abortion, or any other topic. Neither does this view suggest that Christians should not base their views on their scriptures. All insight should be welcome in the discussion of policies to enhance the happiness and prosperity of Americans. But when someone prefaces an argument with the phrase, “God says that . . . ,” it creates a whole set of problems.

First, how are Americans who do not accept the premise of the argument supposed to respond? If someone objects to that premise of that argument, important public debate can be sidetracked into a philosophical and theological discussion of the merits of the claim that the bible is God’s word to man. Such a debate is not likely to reach a satisfactory conclusion in the near future. Christians have been working to establish the truth of that claim for 2000 years and will be continuing to do so for the next 2000. Second, if everyone concedes to that claim, can meaningful debate continue? How are unbelievers supposed to contribute to debate if they are arguing against the word of God to man? Non-Christians become sort of a dhimmitude while Christians argue among themselves about appropriate policy decisions. A third option is possible but unlikely. Non-believers could assert that they, too, agree that the bible is God’s word but that they owe their allegiance to the Prince of Darkness and must to fight on. Meaningful debate can continue under that scenario, but debate is likely to be even less civil than it is already.

Second, as implied in the second point above, Christians themselves disagree on social issues. Liberal Christians and conservative Christians have disagreed on a host of public policy issues in the past and continue to do so today: alcohol, drugs, capital punishment, integration, marriage, divorce, reproductive rights, abortion, education, and religious displays and monuments on government property. Both sides claim the sanction of God’s word.

Finally, basing arguments on scriptures does not facilitate political compromise that is often necessary for government action. How can one compromise God’s revealed will? Christians could assert that compromise on personal obedience to scripture is sin and concede  that compromise on public policy is permissible. But will Christians disagree about that as well? Of course, lack of compromise is not a problem particular to Christians. Ideologues of all political persuasions are out there unwilling to compromise their views in order to reach some policy resolution. But it is debatable how much if anything they contribute to meaningful resolutions in our democracy.