Unlocking Locke, part I

In response to one of my readers who calls him- or herself Pensans (or is it Pensant, as in "thinking"?), I will here set forth my reflections on John Locke's political philosophy.

It is generally acknowledged that the English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) had a considerable influence on the American founding, as evidenced particularly in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. To be sure, other thinkers, such as Montesquieu and Adam Smith, would make their own impact, but Locke's influence is such as to warrant mention in a speech delivered by President Bush at Whitehall a little over a year ago.


The John Locke Page

Locke's most famous works are his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690, 1706) and his Two Treatises of Government (1680, 1690). The latter was written to combat Sir Robert Filmer's patriarchal theory of the origin of human government and to set forth a new theory based on consent of the governed. His refutation of Filmer is contained in the First Treatise, which is little read now, primarily because Filmer's ideas enjoy no currency today. Consequently it is Locke's Second Treatise that is the better known and more widely read of the two. Although it was apparently written before the Glorious Revolution of 1688, its publication followed it, and it is often seen as a defence of the deposition of the Stewart monarchs and the supremacy of Parliament.

Locke's political thought has sometimes been viewed as something of an amalgam of that of Thomas Hobbes and Richard Hooker, the latter of whom he quotes directly. Hobbes is a philosophical nominalist who sets forth a number of categories that were borrowed and adapted by Locke for his own purposes, which are, admittedly, different from those of Hobbes. Hooker is the author of The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, which defended the quasi-protestant Elizabethan settlement in England and whose legal theory is dependent on the mediaeval scholastics, including Thomas Aquinas. It should not be surprising that Locke's political theory brings together, in very nearly a thomistic-style synthesis, the older natural law tradition, with its recognition of intrinsic constraints on human action, and the newer liberalism, with its notion of voluntary contract.

To avoid making this post into an academic treatise, I will cover the highlights only of Locke's political thought, focussing on his principal categories and their place within what might be called the controlling narrative. This is the first part of my analysis. More will follow as I have the time to devote further to it.

Like Hobbes, Locke posits a prepolitical state of nature, which is a "State of perfect Freedom" wherein people have the liberty "to order their Actions, and dispose of their Possessions, and Persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the Will of any other Man" (II.5). While Hobbes views this prepolitical state as characterized by a "war of all against all," Locke is unwilling to go quite this far, believing that "the State of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it," which law teaches that "no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions" (II.6). Clearly, over against Hobbes, Locke cannot bring himself to admit that force and fraud are the only virtues in the state of nature. Nevertheless, given that everyone has the executive power of the law of nature to protect his or her property, and given further that there is no generally-acknowledged common court of appeal in cases where this law is violated, the enjoyment of one's life, liberty and property is precarious at best. If the state of nature is not automatically a state of general warfare, there is the ever-present danger of it degenerating into such a state.


Library of Congress

This is where the social contract enters the picture. Another category adapted from Hobbes, the social contract stands at the origin of political society and the authority that presides over it. Because the enjoyment of property is so uncertain and precarious in the state of nature, individuals have an incentive to leave that state and to enter into political society, thereby gaining "a common establish'd Law and Judicature to appeal to, with Authority to decide Controversies between them, and punish Offenders. . . " (VII.86). Consent of the governed lies at the origin of all governments, or at least of those which have been established peacefully (VIII.112). In contast to the Hobbesian contract, whereby human beings yield up all their rights, save that of self-defence, to the sovereign, the Lockean contract requires that people give up only the executive power of the law of nature, while retaining most every other right they enjoyed in the prepolitical state, especially the right to property. In short, government under the Lockean scheme is restricted to protecting life, liberty and property and ought not take on tasks much beyond this.

Why the word contract? It is not at all clear that this is a true account of the origin of human government. To be sure, the modern state, defined as a political community of citizens and government, can be traced only to the early modern era of half a millennium ago. But political authority seems always to have existed in some fashion. This is undoubtedly what Aristotle recognized in observing that the human being is a "political animal" or "political being." This ubiquity of political authority is also what St. Paul had in mind in stating that "the powers that be are ordained of God" (Romans 13:1). Political authority would appear to have its origins in both created human limitations and in the fallenness of humanity. Where then does contract enter the picture? It doesn't. Unless, that is, one uses the term to describe the commission given by an electorate to a new government of the day. But government in the general sense has been a constant in every human society. In other words, Locke's apparently proper emphasis on natural laws serving to constrain the parties to a contract cannot vindicate his use of this questionable term. Historically, the contract metaphor has taken on a life of its own, leading centuries later to unintended consequences.

Locke's focus on the possession of property is also notable, as it constitutes the principal, if not the sole, end of political society and government: "The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property" (IX.124). Elsewhere he goes so far as to argue that "Government has no other end but the preservation of Property (VII.94, emphasis mine). There are, of course, many ways to describe the central task of government, including: to do justice, to pursue the common good, to defend the innocent and punish the guilty, to enable us to live peacefully with each other despite our diverse interests, &c. Tellingly, Locke has chosen the protection of property, the possession of which is defined so as to emphasize its individual, private character. Defending the common property of the body politic, e.g., pasture lands, public buildings, forests and other Crown lands, appears to play no role in Locke. Even the acknowledgement of the diverse forms of property ownership, as related to the various responsibilities assigned to individuals and communities, does not seem to figure into Locke's approach. The public and common would seem to exist solely for the sake of the private. It is perhaps for this reason that, in his Whitehall speech, Bush (or, more likely, his speech writers) saw fit to mention Locke in tandem with Adam Smith, whose Wealth of Nations (1776) laid the groundwork for classical liberal economic theory.

Finally, it should be noted that, if government fails to live up to the terms of this contract, i.e., if it fails to protect the citizens' property, the citizens are within their rights to dissolve government, even by means of what Locke euphemistically calls an "appeal to heaven," i.e., rebellion (XIV.168). Although Hobbes would not have admitted the legitimacy of rebellion, he did admit that a king who makes war on his people does so at the risk of losing his throne. Thus Hobbes made room for what might be called a practical right to rebellion. By contrast, Locke puts the matter this way:

Whensoever, therefore, the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society, and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly, or Corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People, by this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty, and by the Establishment of a new Legislative (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own Safety and Security, which is the end for which they are in Society (XIX.222, emphasis mine).

Similarly, Locke holds that, in the event of the government's dissolution, "the People are at liberty to provide for themselves, by erecting a new Legislative", &c. This is obviously something more than the legal dissolution of a parliamentary body and the holding of new elections, such as we see in a constitutional democracy. Although there is a superficial resemblance between Locke's remedy for tyranny and that of, say, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Johannes Althusius, the latter three focus on the constitutional role played by lesser magistrates authorized to check the power of the chief magistrate. In short, they envision an authoritative office playing this role under domestic positive law. By contrast, Locke's cryptic phrases, "it devolves to the People" and "the People are at liberty," leave unanswered the central question of who these "people" are and what offices they occupy authorizing them to take such an action.

To be sure, Locke understands that human activities are inevitably bounded. He is not a partisan of sheer wilfulness or unlimited autonomy. He is not an anarchist or an advocate of the fifth stage of liberalism, which I have labelled the "choice-enhancement state." Nor can his thought be harnessed to something as potentially dangerous as Rousseau's general will. Nevertheless, for all his debt to a much older tradition that recognizes our dependence on a higher law, there is an obvious narrative structure to Locke's political theory which is difficult to square with the biblical narrative of creation, fall, redemption and renewal. The logic of this Lockean narrative tends in the direction of the choice-enhancement state, much as the logic of Marx's thought leads to the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, even if its progenitor would likely have blanched at this notion. In short, if Locke is heir in some fashion to Reformed Christianity, it is in a very much attenuated and secularized form, as Zylstra correctly saw. This Locke shares with the other ideologies, which, if they are indeed idolatrous, as I argue in my book, are precisely post-christian idolatries incompatible with a biblical worldview.

I will have more to say on the relationship between the Lockean and biblical narratives before too long.

Continued: Unlocking Locke, II: synthesizing conflicting narratives.

Ecumenism and two divisive issues

Although I usually think of myself as a catholic Christian with broad ecumenical sympathies, the following Zenit reports are indicative of two issues on which I have never been able to comprehend the Roman Catholic position: "New Plenary Indulgence to Mark Year of the Eucharist," and "Faith and Reason Aid Each Other, Says John Paul II." The very notion of an indulgence would appear to diminish the work of Jesus Christ, while the 1998 encyclical Fides et Ratio would appear to posit too extrinsic a relationship between faith and reason.

Of course, as everyone knows, the 16th-century Reformation had its beginnings with Luther's protest against the sale of indulgences. I am unaware of anything remotely similar to the doctrine of indulgences in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Perhaps someone like Gregory Daly would be able to enlighten me further on this issue from the Roman perspective.

As for faith and reason, these should be understood, not as "two wings" or two dialectically related epistemic faculties, but as what might be called the fideic and logical aspects of a single human cognitive capacity. As such, there is no such thing as faithless reasoning. All reasoning is rooted in faith of some sort -- either a true faith or a false faith, but a faith nonetheless.

Napoléon geographically confused?

Since reading Troubetzkoy's Imperial Legend, I've been looking a bit more into Napoléon's ill-fated invasion of Russia. One element of this has always puzzled me, as seen in this quote from the French emperor, apparently uttered after the invasion had begun: "If necessary, I shall go as far as Moscow, the holy city of Moscow, in quest of battle, and I shall win the battle. . . . [F]or a capital to be occupied by an enemy is equivalent to a girl losing her honour." Did someone neglect to tell Napoléon that St. Petersburg, and not Moscow, was the capital of Russia at this time? If he had pointed his army towards the city at the mouth of the Neva, or if he had sent a fleet of ships there, would history have turned out differently? Would we all be speaking French?



Russia's would-be ruler

Those reading this blog will hardly be surprised to know that I have been a longtime member of the Center for Public Justice and its predecessor organizations for about three decades. For over 20 years the organization has put out the Public Justice Report, which was at one time a monthly newsletter but now comes out on a quarterly basis. The latest development has it becoming an exclusively web-based periodical, something for which I am less than enthusiastic. All the same, I remain an enthusiast for the PJR's approach to political life.

Here is what you will find in the latest issue, as reproduced from its website:

From Re-election to Inauguration. What should we make of George W. Bush’s solid victory last November? Public Justice Report editor, James Skillen, offers his assessment, drawn from a speech he was invited to give in Beijing, China on December 8 at a conference of leading America-watchers. Skillen argues that the so-called "moral values" vote, which includes an attitude toward economic issues and foreign policy, must be understood against the backdrop of the tension between America’s Puritan and Enlightenment traditions, each struggling for dominance in our nationally weak federal system.

Faith-Based Hiring Rights. A brief review introduces a new book, published by the Center for Public Justice, that has been sent to legislators and other public officials throughout the country—at both state and federal levels. The book is The Freedom of Faith-Based Organizations to Staff on a Religious Basis, by Carl Esbeck, Stanley Carlson-Thies, and Ronald Sider. This is one of the most controversial subjects in relations between faith-based social-service organizations and the government. This book is the authority—the most complete and detailed assessment available of the law and politics on this issue.

With or Against the World?. Significant excerpts are presented here from the second chapter of James Skillen’s forthcoming book with this title. The subtitle is America’s Role among the Nations (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, due out at the end of February). This first of two installments from the book focuses on the "forgotten depths" of history that lie behind America’s response to terrorism. Americans know too little of the history of Islam and the rise of Islamic radicalism, but they also know too little about the birth of the United States as a "nation with the soul of a church."

Stars Forever. Stanley Carlson-Thies reviews a book that will surprise those who have little good to say about combative Evangelicals in American politics. The book — Like the Stars, Leading Many to Righteousness — is by an evangelical pastor, Glenn Parkinson, who calls his fellow-believers to a positive role in society rather than to a negative one. The goal of Christians should be to serve their neighbors and bless them with good things, not to try to defeat them in a culture war. Integrity and public forthrightness should go hand in hand with a generous way of life that can lead neighbors to a high regard for their fellow citizens who are Christians.

The Question of a Christian Worldview. This essay introduces and reviews two books: first, and primarily, Nancy Pearcey’s Total Truth: The Liberation of Christianity from its Cultural Captivity (Crossway Books, 2004), and second, David K. Naugle’s Worldview: The History of a Concept (Eerdmans, 2002). The first is a best-selling exploration of how Christians have become bogged down by dualistic views of life and what they need to do to become full, free, and productive Christians. Naugle’s book is more academic, but for anyone who wants to know what’s behind all of today’s "worldview talk," this is the book to read.

Education Reform to Empower the Poor. David Van Heemst is the author of Empowering the Poor, Why Justice Requires School Choice (ScarecrowEducation, 2004). Building on the work of Charles L. Glenn and others, Van Heemst makes the case for real pluralism in education, with real choices for parents, and why these reforms will do more than anything else to empower the poor in America.

Editor's Watch: Postmodern President: Second Edition. The Editor’s Watch this quarter hypothesizes that if Bill Clinton was our first postmodern president, as some have argued, then George W. Bush is our second. Bush's "social-constructivist" approach to policy making and his efforts to impose his political will reveal him to be more a man of pragmatic gusto than a man carefully attuned to principles of justice.

New year's day

A happy new year today to those Russians still following the Julian calendar.

Opposition to Roemer as Democratic Party chair

The head of the Massachusetts state Democratic Party says in effect that it would be "extremely foolish" for the national party to choose as its chairman someone who might help it to win a future presidential election. The party's seeming death wish can only cheer Republicans, who for this reason might also oppose Tim Roemer's candidacy for the position.



Tim Roemer,
pro-life Democrat

Americanism as puritanism, once again

I know that this sequel to my earlier reflections comes too late to qualify for Joe Carter's contest, but I will not let that prevent me writing further on the subject of Puritanism and Americanism. Indeed, on second thought I think there may be something to David Gelernter's assertion that, far from disappearing from the scene, Puritanism became Americanism over time. Here is where the phenomenon of secularization plays a role.

My mentor at the Institute for Christian Studies, the late Dr. Bernard Zylstra, used to argue that there is an historical connection between the variety of Christianity dominating a country and the ideology it was likely to embrace after it became secularized. A secularized Christianity does not exactly cease to be Christian, even if it no longer retains an orthodox soteriology. Many of the old features remain and mutate into something different. However, the focus on God's sovereignty and redemption in Jesus Christ come to be supplanted by the assumption that we will in some fashion save ourselves.

According to Zylstra, those countries affected by the Reformation, with its emphasis on the priesthood of all believers and individual responsibility, in their post-secularization forms come to embrace individualistic liberalism, with its focus on individual liberty and social contract. Examples of this can be seen in Great Britain, the Netherlands and the United States, where individualism and the "rights talk" that accompanies it have been taken to the furthest degree. By contrast, those countries whose christian traditions are Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox are likely after secularization to embrace a more collectivistic ideology, such as socialism or nationalism. As the hold of a strongly institutionalized and hierarchical church on the people becomes weakened, its place is taken by highly centralized, dirigiste state. Those countries exemplifying this development would include Russia, France and post-1960s Québec.

To be sure, it's not an airtight thesis and one can easily think up counter-examples. Yet it is true that a country's dominant religious tradition can hardly refrain from having an impact of some sort on its political culture. With respect to America, one might say that that country's prevailing political culture is one of secularized puritanism, which amounts to an odd amalgam of individualistic liberalism and collectivistic nationalism. The old Puritan commonwealths in New England were definitely protestant, with all this implies for ecclesiology and the direct relationship of the individual believer to God. Believers were encouraged in this faith, with its highly personal focus, while at the same time they were deemed members of a "Citty upon a hill," to quote John Winthrop. This implied a singular focus on the community and its prerogatives. Failure to conform to this community placed one outside its boundaries, as Roger Williams and others discovered. Of course, all communities exist within boundaries, but there the political community acted very much as an ecclesial community, going so far as to excommunicate perceived dissidents from its confession.

Needless to say, Puritanism in its specific christian manifestation is indeed dead. But in its secularized form it lives on in the form of Gelernter's Americanism. Americanism calls for a confessional commitment to individual liberty and liberal democracy, but it does so in a way that makes this commitment a mark of membership in the national community. A mere birth certificate or passport is not sufficient, if belief in these ideals is not also present. Americanism is thus a form of nationalism. To be sure, it is not an ethnic nationalism like that held by many Greeks, Serbs and (at one time) Italians and Germans. But it goes well beyond the legitimate requirement of loyalty to one's political community and the land it occupies by requiring adherence to ideals with a genuine spiritual provenance. In this respect, Americanism functions as a civil religion. Although it is not as obviously oppressive and intolerant as Rousseau's vaunted civil religion, it does require a certain attenuation of the particularities intrinsic to any religious orthodoxy, including its spiritual core.

Of course, Americans are still great church-goers, unlike most Europeans and (perhaps) Canadians. Secularization in the US has not led to a decline in church attendance over the past half century, as it has in other western countries. However, that does not mean that secularization has not occurred there. Secularization is not limited to the pro-abortion Democratic Party or to the urbanized "blue" states that voted for Gore and Kerry in the last two presidential elections. Where devout church-goers in the "red" states persist in believing that their country enjoys a special covenantal relationship with God and that America is a "Citty upon a hill," a biblical worldview that recognizes the larger corpus Christi as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people" (I Peter 2:9) has already been considerably weakened.

Europe's 'Meech Lake Accord'?

The European Parliament has overwhelmingly approved the European Union's new constitution. Now it must be accepted by all 25 member states. The Lithuanian and Hungarian parliaments have done so thus far. But referendums will be held in France, the Netherlands, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Poland and the United Kingdom, where its fate is far from certain. If Canadian precedents are any indication, there is a good possibility that the proposed document will find its way into the dustbin of history.

Bergonia? Where's that?

I stumbled across this website today while researching something else. Which prompts me to ask: what sorts of people spend their time creating imaginary countries? Unemployed political scientists perhaps?

Sir John, eh!


Library and Archives Canada

Happy 190th birthday to
Sir John A. Macdonald
and many happy returns of the day.

No beer merger?

There is increasing opposition amongst shareholders to the proposed merger of the Canadian Molson and the American Coors breweries. If the deal does indeed collapse, both companies might be subject to "potential takeover attempts." Here's an idea: why not a merger between Molson and, say, Heineken! Everyone would win: especially Joe Canadian.



Note: you must be 19 years or older
(or a Byzantine-rite Calvinist) to read this entry.

Ethnic Germans in Brno/Brünn

Remember the Sudeten Germans whose supposed oppression Adolf Hitler used as a pretext to annex much of Czechoslovakia in 1938? Well, it seems that a few ageing members of this minority community continue to live in the Moravian city of Brno, the second largest city in the Czech Republic. Transitions Online tells their story in this fascinating article: "Twilight of a Minority." At one time this city, more often known by its German name Brünn, was one of a number of polyglot cities that dotted the landscapes of the former Habsburg, Russian and Ottoman Empires. Among the natives of the city were the founder of genetics, Gregor Mendel, and one of my favourite composers, Leos Janácek. Like the Greeks of Constantinople, the German-speaking community in Brno has been reduced to very small numbers indeed. However, the end of communism has allowed them to come out into the open and to form the sorts of cultural associations which would have been unthinkable a short time ago.

Nationalism artificially homogenized such cities as Brno, Vilnius, Budapest, Constantinople, Alexandria, Thessaloniki and Smyrna -- and at tremendous human cost. One hesitates nowadays to express nostalgia for the empires of old. Yet I cannot help thinking that something was lost in the transition from these polyglot dynastic commonwealths to the plethora of ethnically pure nation-states that supplanted them.

Zwiep's sweep of Reformed history

One of my protégés, Michael Zwiep, has started his own blog, the first two (and thus far only) entries of which are devoted to an historical account of the various Reformed denominations in the Netherlands and in the Dutch diaspora. Michael is a researcher for The Michael Coren Show on CTS Crossroads Television System.

The benefits of olive oil

Although I have cut down my consumption of olive oil since last August, I have not cut it out entirely. Indeed it seems to play a role in preventing cancer and other diseases. Now scientists know why: "Tests found that oleic acid, which is found in olive oil, dramatically cut levels of a type of cancer-triggering gene called an oncogene." Hooray for olive oil.

Peace comes to Sudan?

This is something worth celebrating: "Sudan, Southern Rebels End 21-Year War." The peace accord allows for the possibility of a new independent state in the south after six years. But. . . what about Darfur?

Puritanism and Americanism

The Texas überblogger Joe Carter has convened the first quarterly blog symposium over the following article from the Jewish neoconservative periodical Commentary: "Americanism—and Its Enemies," by David Gelernter. Gelernter writes:

By Americanism I do not mean American tastes or style, or American culture -- that convenient target of America-haters everywhere. Nor do I mean mere patriotic devotion; many nations command patriotic devotion from their citizens (or used to). By Americanism I mean the set of beliefs that are thought to constitute America’s essence and to set it apart; the beliefs that make Americans positive that their nation is superior to all others -- morally superior, closer to God.

Not an insignificant number of scholars have noted the impact of the early American colonists' Puritanism on the development of what might be labelled American exceptionalism. Where Gelernter departs from this consensus is in his assertion that Americanism is itself a continuation of Puritanism and can thus be identified as a Judeo-Christian religion.

I believe that Puritanism did not drop out of history. It transformed itself into Americanism. This new religion was the end-stage of Puritanism: Puritanism realized among God’s self-proclaimed "new" chosen people -- or, in Abraham Lincoln’s remarkable phrase, God’s "almost chosen people."

Many thinkers have noted that Americanism is inspired by or close to or intertwined with Puritanism. One of the most impressive scholars to say so recently is Samuel Huntington, in his formidable book on American identity, Who Are We? But my thesis is that Puritanism did not merely inspire or influence Americanism; it turned into Americanism. Puritanism and Americanism are not just parallel or related developments; they are two stages of a single phenomenon.

I have little to add to Gideon Strauss' well-thought-out reflections on this article, and I am mostly in agreement with his approach. Writes Strauss:

America is a nation among the nations of the world. It is a political community subject to the same norms for the organization of administrative and military power in the service of public justice as all other states. It is not exceptional in the sense of having a special mission from a god that would elevate it in principle above the other nations in the world. It is not a "nation [...] superior to all others — morally superior, closer to God." It is exceptional in being in a position at the present moment of unequaled political and military power, with which comes certain unique responsibilities, at least for the time being.

Strauss calls for a christian anti-anti-Americanism, i.e., an approach that rejects the sort of facile anti-Americanism that lends support and comfort to international terrorists while at the same time repudiating as idolatrous the Americanism Gelernter describes and seemingly espouses. In this context I might refer readers to my own Political Visions and Illusions, especially chapter 4, "Nationalism: The Nation Deified." Although I am particularly critical of the ethnic nationalisms of 19th- and early 20th-century Greek, German and Italian irredentists, I believe one must also recognize the potential dangers of the civic nationalism associated with, among other things, the proponents of American exceptionalism. Nationalism is no less idolatrous for being attached to a successful polity with an inclusive, nonethnic notion of citizenship.

I will close with the following book alert. James W. Skillen's With Or Against The World?: America's Role Among The Nations is due out next month from Rowman & Littlefield. I've read a sample chapter and, as is typical of Skillen's work, it looks very good indeed. As I've written before in this space, I suspect it will occasion some controversy among American Christians, huge numbers of whom have come to embrace uncritically the American exceptionalism that is so thoroughly ingrained in their political culture. Perhaps Carter will see fit to hold his second blog symposium on this book.

Later: I might add to this that I wrote something just over a year ago on this theme: "A mixed legacy: evangelicalism's puritan roots." This was written in response to Skillen's Capital Commentary piece, "An American Covenant with God?"

Was Tsar Alexander I unOrthodox?

In 1721 Peter the Great of Russia effectively made the Russian Orthodox Church an arm of the state, declining to replace the deceased Patriarch of Moscow and appointing in his stead a lay procurator of the Holy Synod. Although the emperor gained no spiritual or doctrinal authority over the church, he nevertheless gained political control over it, following the pattern of the Scandinavian and English state churches.

Thus Alexander I inherited this position of effective head of the church when he came to the imperial throne. As I wrote last week, after his first years as a would-be reformer, he became increasingly devout and plunged into the study of scripture. However, might he have been less than Orthodox -- with an upper-case O -- in his beliefs? Alexis Troubetzkoy quotes something Alexander wrote in 1813:

Address your prayers to the Supreme Being, to Our Saviour and to the Holy Ghost, which emanates from them, so that they will guide me and strengthen me in the only path, which leads to salvation (Troubetzkoy, p. 68, emphasis mine).

The italicized passage above stands out, as it seems to reflect a belief in the double-procession of the Holy Spirit, as affirmed by the western church. This makes me wonder (1) whether the passage was translated into English correctly or (2) whether Alexander himself was less acquainted with the specifics of Orthodox doctrine than with the Bible itself. Either alternative would seem possible, but I cannot say which is true.

Mourning for tsunami victims

Flags across the country are flying at half-staff as Canada observes a day of national mourning for the victims of the south Asian tsunami disaster.

Girl or boy: you choose

Keith Pavlischek, fellow at the Center for Public Justice, argues in the latest Capital Commentary that arguments against allowing parents to select the sex of their unborn offspring cannot stand up to the logic of the US Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v Wade decision:

There is no obvious logical or legal inconsistency in permitting freedom of choice in sex selection before birth while outlawing sexual discrimination after birth. After all, U.S. law has permitted such discrimination before birth for a long time. Under Roe v. Wade, a woman can choose an abortion for whatever reason she wants. On those terms, there would appear to be no moral reason, including objections to sex selection, that could trump her autonomous freedom to choose an abortion, even if the abortion were for the purpose of sex selection.

If the law may not stand in the way of a woman’s choice to destroy a fetus for reasons of sex selection, it is impossible to see how the law might regulate her decision to choose the sex of her child when it does not involve the destruction of the fetus.

If you are offended by the consequences of that logic, too bad. That’s the moral and legal logic of Roe v. Wade. As long as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, you may be personally opposed to eugenic sex selection, but you simply may not impose your personal, anti-sexist, anti-gender-discrimination morality on the rest of society.

Confessional universities growing

Charlotte Allen writes that "America's religious colleges are growing in popularity and quality." This is something which we who teach at such institutions have known for some time, but only now, it seems, are the media catching up to this reality. Citing Naomi Schaefer Riley, Allen observes that

the number of students attending the 100 schools of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities -- an organization of four-year liberal-arts schools dedicated to promoting the Christian faith -- rose 60% between 1990 and 2002. In those same years the attendance at nonreligious public and private schools stayed essentially flat. The number of applications to the University of Notre Dame, the nation's premier Catholic college, has risen steadily over the past decade, with a 23% jump last year alone.

Here in Canada there are far fewer such universities, even relative to this country's much smaller population. I am happy to say that my employer, Redeemer University College, is one such institution and it is definitely growing. (In fact, from my office at the south end of the academic building I can clearly hear the noises associated with our library expansion project.) Other similar institutions include The King's University College, Trinity Western University and Atlantic Baptist University. What impact will the graduates of these institutions have on Canada as a whole? It is, of course, difficult to discern their long-term influence, but there are ample grounds for hope. Pray that God might see fit to prosper these institutions for his greater glory.

Turkey and Europe

Here is a good survey of opinion in the European press on the possibility of Turkey's admission to the European Union: "Turkey at the Gates."

Dr. David's papadam diet

This article asks: "Which diet is the best at weight loss?" One of my personal achievements during my recent sabbatical was to lose 20 pounds, which occurred between August and October of last year. A few things spurred me on to this: (1) I have a six-year-old daughter and I am pushing the half-century mark. This gave me an incentive to bring myself to a healthier weight more likely to increase longevity. (2) I was having trouble fitting into my clothes. I could not afford a new wardrobe. (3) I was suffering from bursitis which made moving around a fairly painful experience.

There were no fad diets involved in this. I simply began to exercise on our cross-country-ski machine at home and I began to eat less, cutting down in particular on the olive oil which has been a staple of my diet since I was a small child. I was aided in this by keeping a stack of papadams in the kitchen. A papadam is a kind of Indian cracker made from lentil flour. It is thus high in protein and, if toasted and not fried, low in calories. I generally eat one or two of these before retiring at night or if I am hungry in the mid-afternoon.

As a consequence of this, I now weigh slightly more than I did as an undergraduate three decades ago. I feel terrific and have more energy than I had had in years. I can play with our daughter without conking out prematurely. My bursitis is gone and I feel twenty years younger. I am inclined to think that exercise is the key to losing weight and keeping it off. That and the papadams.

'Byzantine-rite Calvinists' in Greece?

Although the vast majority of the people of Greece are at least nominal members of the Orthodox Church, there are two very much smaller denominations in that country which claim the evangelical label. The larger of the two is the Greek Evangelical Church (GEC), which is a Reformed church holding membership in both the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC) and the Reformed Ecumenical Council (REC).



Here is a description of this group from the REC's website:

The Greek Evangelical Church traces its beginnings to 1858, when a young convert began publishing a weekly newspaper and started a bible study. The newspaper, Star of the East (Astir Tis Anatolis) is still the official monthly of the GEC and is the oldest publication in Greece. In 1924 the congregations formed a synod, and adopted its present name in 1938.

The GEC divides its 29 congregations into two regional synods in Greece and one in North America. It counts about 6,000 members and regular attenders. There are currently seven preaching stations and several house meetings. With only 17 ordained pastors, several smaller rural GEC congregations are led by elders. The GEC added two new urban congrega tions in 1996, but the rural congregations are struggling with declining and aging populations. The GEC conducts a cautious, but active evangelism program and maintains a missionary outreach in Albania.

The GEC is a Reformed church, with a modified form of the Westminster Confession and the Nicene Creed as its main doctrinal standards.

The GEC, though small, is the largest Protestant church in Greece. The vast majority of Greeks are members of the Greek Orthodox Church, though few are active. One of the challenges in Greece is to witness to this secularized population without breaking the Greek laws against proselytism. They encourage personal witness by their members, but also operate two centers for drug and alcohol addicts. The GEC has an active youth movement and youth camp.

Its confessional standards include the Nicene Creed and the Confession of Faith of the Greek Evangelical Church. It is noteworthy that the GEC follows the Orthodox Church in (1) omitting the filioque clause from the Creed, and (2) making no reference to either the Apostles' Creed or the Athanasian Creed, which are unknown in the christian east. How the Greek Evangelicals worship from one sunday to the next I do not know. Whether they manifest any Orthodox influence in their liturgy I cannot say.

There is a smaller group of evangelical Christians styling themselves the Free Evangelical Churches of Greece, which are more separatistic and bear some similarity to the Plymouth Brethren and similar groups elsewhere. We had some contact with this group when we stayed at the building of the Hellenic Scripture Union near Athens ten years ago. Since such groups typically tend to dispense with written creeds and confessions, the filioque issue may lie beyond their concerns. I suspect that the Free Evangelicals have at least some connection with the Greek Bible Institute associated with the Greater Europe Mission, whose American headquarters were once located in my hometown of Wheaton, Illinois.

Hillsdale Academy

As I wrote earlier, Nancy and I visited the Hillsdale Academy in Hillsdale, Michigan, four days ago. It was started in 1990 and is associated with Hillsdale College.



We were favourably impressed by the facilities, which were built as recently as 1998 and still have something of a new feel to them. The curriculum is, however, utterly traditional, focussing on three objectives:

one, to teach children the skills to be productive citizens; two, to nurture in them the moral qualities and habits of mind to be good citizens; and three, to provide America with an educational model that can be useful nationwide.

The academy is devoted to passing down to students the best in western civilization, a commitment to which underlies the mission of the school:

The time-honored liberal arts curriculum and pedagogy direct student achievement toward mastery of the basics, exploration of the arts and sciences, and understanding of the foundational tenets of our Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman heritage. The curriculum by purpose and design is a survey of the best spiritual, intellectual, and cultural traditions of the West as they have been developed and refined over countless generations.

Notably, each classroom has a large copy of the Ten Commandments posted on the wall by the door. A chapel is held every wednesday, and its contents are christian, we were told. The Hillsdale Academy has become something of a model for similar schools which have sprung up across primarily the United States. A map in my brother-in-law's office shows hundreds of such institutions -- most seemingly in the so-called "blue" states, remarkably enough. There are even two in Canada and one in the Bahamas.

The Academy's approach certainly has much to recommend it. I rather like the fact that all children learn Latin, once a staple of a solid education. More generally, and in contrast to the contemporary focus on building self-esteem for its own sake, teachers at the school do not fear to assign low grades for poor work and to reward concrete academic achievements, however inegalitarian this may seem.

Of course, some questions might also be raised. Christianity's origins are, of course, nonwestern, although it certainly contributed to the subsequent formation of the west. Yet the worldviews underlying the "Judeo-Christian" and "Greco-Roman" elements are quite different, even if they were brought into a kind of unstable synthesis by subsequent generations. How does the Academy sort out the tensions between these two when they arise? Which heritage takes priority? Does commitment to the kingdom of God come first and order everything else? Or is the Judeo-Christian heritage a cultural artefact which is part of a larger civilizational legacy? My suspicion, based on a perusal of its website, is that the Academy leans towards the latter approach, at least in its official documents. However, as my brother-in-law and his family are serious Christians, his decisive influence over the past few years may in some fashion serve to tip the balance in the other direction. I wish him well in his work there.

The mysterious fate of Alexander I

Ever since taking a course in the subject as an undergraduate some thirty years ago, I have had a fascination with Russian history. Thus I was pleased to receive for Christmas a copy of Alexis S. Troubetzkoy's Imperial Legend: The Disappearance of Tsar Alexander I. Alexander was the grandson of the Empress Catherine the Great, who raised him to embrace the liberal reformist ideas which she so admired in the philosophers of the French enlightenment. He came to the imperial throne in 1801, after a palace coup deposed and assassinated his father, the militaristic Paul I, who had reigned for only five years. A youth of only 25, Alexander had been persuaded to co-operate with this conspiracy on condition that his father's life be spared. When it was not, the new Tsar felt he himself was culpable and spent the rest of his life trying to atone for the sin of patricide.



Alexander I

Alexander came to the throne brimming with notions of reforming a terribly antiquated autocratic political and social system, including the introduction of a constitution, the drafting of a comprehensive legal code and the abolition of serfdom. By the time he had twice fought Napoléon, these proposals had largely been forgotten and the Tsar grew more introspective and less interested in affairs of state. Alexander immersed himself in the Bible and consorted with christian mystics of various sorts, ostensibly as part of a lifelong effort to expiate his sin.

After reigning for nearly a quarter century but living for not quite fifty years, Alexander suddenly became ill at the end of 1825 in the unlikely port city of Taganrog on the Sea of Azov. He had brought his wife Elizaveta there from St. Petersburg to recover her health. The official history has it that he died there from a mysterious illness that felled an otherwise healthy man within days of its initial symptoms. But did he really?

Troubetzkoy points out the numerous discrepancies in the various accounts of his death and the extreme measures taken to prevent the vast majority of his subjects from viewing his body as it made its way back to St. Petersburg for burial. For years Alexander had spoken of wishing to retire from the throne, possibly leaving the country to do so.



Fyodor Kuzmich

In 1836, eleven years later, a certain Fyodor Kuzmich, a man who seemingly came out of nowhere, suddenly appeared near the Siberian town of Tomsk. He was a starets, an "elder" and hermit, who lived until 1864 and gained a widespread reputation for wisdom and holiness. On his wall he kept an icon of St. Alexander Nevsky, patron of the "late" emperor. He spoke at least three languages and had something of an aristocratic bearing -- unusual for a simply-living starets. Most extraordinary of all, he bore a startling physical resemblance to Alexander I, as more than one acquaintance observed. Rumours that he was Alexander surrounded Kuzmich for the rest of his life, but he did nothing to either confirm or deny them.

Troubetzkoy (descended, incidentally, from the Sergei Troubetzkoy who instigated the Decembrist rebellion in the chaotic aftermath of Alexander's sudden "death") examines the evidence surrounding the case and tentatively concludes that the two men were one and the same. Most impressive of all, the late Grand Duchess Olga, the sister of Nicholas II who lived in Toronto until her death in 1960, told the author that "we have no doubt that Feodor Kuzmich was the emperor" (p. 11).

Was it so? I personally believe the book's thesis is plausible. However, two factors give reason for doubt. First, there are quite a number of minor errors of fact throughout the book, extending even to the final paragraph. For example: Alexander II was on the throne in 1874, not Alexander III. The Times could not have carried a story on Alexander I's possible poisoning in March 1825 because the Tsar was still very much alive at the time. Grand Duke Andrei Vladimirovich was Nicholas II's cousin, not his uncle. Peter III inherited the throne from the Empress Elizaveta, who was his aunt, not his mother. Alexander's journey from St. Petersburg to Taganrog took just under two weeks, not three weeks. I could keep going, but I'll stop here. These are fairly minor points, but the cumulative effect is to make the book as a whole less persuasive for the reader knowing something of Russian history. One hopes these have been corrected in the paperback edition.

Second, the story of Alexander I's survival is by no means unusual in the larger context of his country's historical narrative. Remember the two "false Dmitris," who claimed to be the deceased son of Ivan IV the Terrible. During Catherine the Great's reign a rebellion was fomented by a certain Pugachev, who claimed to be her assassinated husband, Peter III. Then of course there are the rumours circulating after 1918 that Nicholas II's daughter Anastasia (whose name in Greek means resurrection) survived the family's murder by Bolsheviks and lived until 1984 as "Anna Anderson." Finally there has been more than one claimant to the identity of the hemophiliac tsarevich, Alexei. The fact that the remains of Alexei and one of his sisters were never found when the family's bodies were exhumed at Ekaterinburg several years ago has only served to fuel the rumours. So Troubetzkoy could be right, but there are also good reasons to doubt his conclusions.

One last thing. After reading this book I purchased the DVD version of Anatole Litvak's 1956 cinematic rendition of Anastasia, starring Ingrid Bergman and Yul Brynner. It's a great film, albeit highly fictionalized. It struck me that the story of Alexander I and Fyodor Kuzmich would also make a good film, and I am somewhat surprised no one has ever undertaken it. Perhaps someone in the film industry will come across this entry and take up the challenge one day.

'Ownership Society' Misconceived

One of the points I make in my book is that ownership is as diverse as the various manifestations of human responsibility, whether these are individual or communal in nature. Secular ideologies have a tendency to try to reduce these different forms of ownership to only one. Socialism tends to assume that a single communal form can supplant all other "private" forms of ownership. Liberalism, by contrast, conceives all ownership as individual, with community existing only to protect and advance individual ownership.

Unfortunately President Bush falls into the latter pattern, despite his professed conservatism. The Center for Public Justice's president, James W. Skillen, weighs in on the defects of Bush's approach in the latest Capital Commentary, dated 27 December 2004:

President Bush's advocacy of an "ownership society" is a half truth that may collapse under the weight of the whole truth it fails to recognize.

Who in America doesn't want to be an owner? Public encouragement of ownership is a good thing, whether by means of mortgage interest deductions, depreciation allowances, or tax-free retirement plans.

But if private ownership is the whole truth about life in society, then why should government tax citizens for any purpose other than to pay for police and military forces to protect what is privately owned? That, in essence, is the libertarian argument.

The president does not sound or act like a libertarian, however. He is not averse to spending federal dollars on more than police and military forces even when it means increasing the public debt. So, what does he intend with the idea of reforming Social Security (SS) to advance an ownership society?

This is where the half truth begins to fold. The current SS program has not prevented anyone in the modest to high income range from owning additional retirement investments. It is true that those at lower income levels who only have SS to depend on when they retire can expect a relatively small retirement income. It would be good for them to own more. President Bush contends that if part of the SS taxes people pay could be invested in higher interest-earning, personal accounts, then even poorer workers could "own" higher-earning retirement investments.

But the idea is shady. If government wants to promote private ownership, it ought to quit taxing lower income wages altogether and let workers own all of their income and put whatever amount they want in higher-earning investments. The president doesn't want that, however, because it would open the door to great insecurity for those retirees who failed to save anything or who had made poor investment choices.

No, the president, somewhat inconsistently, wants to keep the paternal hand of government operating. Government would still tax workers, would limit the choices among investment options for the part of the SS tax that workers could invest (in order to protect against unwise investments), and would still keep hold of a significant portion of the SS taxes paid.

That doesn't sound like very much of a boost for private ownership! And to top it all off, the meager reform the president wants will likely cost from one to three trillion dollars! Where will all that money come from? Either from more taxes or from a growing federal debt. More debt! Now there's a nice certificate of ownership to pass on to our children.

The mistake the president is making is to ignore the whole truth about ownership. People are not merely private owners, satisfied only if they gain personal control of everything that touches them. The other half of the truth about ownership is that we, as citizens, share in the joint ownership of the commonwealth. We are also public citizens who have an ownership stake in the commons: in the courts, the streets, the environment, and yes, the well-being of our fellow citizens whether of school age or of retirement age. The president should be using his public office to hold up a high view of the political community and of our joint responsibility for, and share in, a just and equitable republic.

Civic ownership and private ownership belong together. Our sense of responsibility for the commons needs to be strengthened as much as a sense of private ownership. Each of us has a stake in the political community we share. If there are better, safer, more equitable ways to invest SS taxes so they can deliver a bigger return for everyone at retirement, then let's strengthen the system to do that. But, Mr. President, don't undermine the already weak civic commons and our public bond as citizens by suggesting that the only ownership that counts is private ownership.

- James Skillen, President

Mars Hill interview

The new issue of the Mars Hill Audio Journal is out, and I have just now received it. Included in the current issue is an interview with yours truly on the subject of "the modern denial of objective meaning and the exaltation of individual will." At the outset interviewer Ken Myers introduces the central argument of my book, Political Visions and Illusions, and our subsequent discussion revolves largely around liberalism's origins and presuppositions, as set forth in the second chapter. I was pleased to hear at the end that he included something about my current book project on authority. If you've not yet heard the interview, feel free to order a copy.

What I did during my Christmas vacation

For the first time in several years our family drove back to the Chicago area and Michigan to spend the holidays with relatives. Here are some highlights:

• We pulled into Jackson, Michigan, on Christmas Day, entirely forgetting that we would be unable to find food virtually anywhere on a holiday. Finally found sandwiches at a variety store called Yogi's Beer Company.
  
  
• We discovered that what we in southern Ontario call "variety stores" are called "convenience stores" in Michigan. And what Michiganders (yes, that's a word!) call "variety stores" people in our neck of the woods call "dollar stores."
  
  
• We ran into an exceedingly brief but horrific snow storm at the southeastern tip of Lake Michigan. It's called lake effect snow, and I remember it well from my years living in South Bend, Indiana.
  
  
• We saw The Polar Express, based on the two-decade-old book of the same name by Chris Van Allsburg, a native of Grand Rapids, Michigan. It's definitely worth seeing, if only for the special effects.
  
  
• I read Alexis Troubetzkoy's Imperial Legend, an investigation into the supposed disappearance of Tsar Alexander I of Russia in 1825 and his subsequent reappearance as the starets Fyodor Kuzmich eleven years later. Kuzmich died in 1864, during the reign of Alexander II. I'll have more to say about this fascinating book later.
  
  
• On New Year's Day Nancy and I were given the grand tour of the Hillsdale Academy, Hillsdale, Michigan, by my brother-in-law, Ken Calvert, who is headmaster of the school.
  
  
• We got through the border at Windsor quickly and easily. The same could not be said for those travelling into the US at Detroit. Huge lines stretched across the Ambassador Bridge. We were glad not to be going in that direction.
  
  
• We were served vodka martinis by another brother-in-law near Chicago. That's the first time I had ever had one of these drinks. I didn't finish it, but I did eat the olive.

May God's blessings rest upon everyone as we enter a new calendar year.

The Nativity of our Lord


Orthodox Church of America

Yea, Lord, we greet Thee, born this happy morning;
Jesus, to Thee be glory given;
Word of the Father, now in flesh appearing.
O come, let us adore him:
Christ the Lord!

'Born again' Yanukovych?

Ahead of sunday's repeat runoff election in Ukraine, the monks of the Pecherska Lavra on the banks of the Dniepr River are praying for Viktor Yanukovych to win the presidency. “If you are a believer, you are for Yanukovich. To stand for Yanukovich is to stand for Orthodoxy. We must protect from the demons in the West,” according to Metropolitan Volodymyr Sabodan, head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate. Perhaps he and the monks should get together with the clergy in Cyprus who warned Greek Cypriots of eternal damnation if they voted for the Annan Plan to reunify the island. They would seem to have a lot in common.

US Democrats up for change?

My old Notre Dame classmate and pro-life Catholic, Tim Roemer, is considering a bid for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee. He was Representative for Indiana's third congressional district during the 1990s and was a member of the 9/11 commission. If the Democratic Party is in a frame of mind to re-evaluate its position after losing a second time to Bush, it would do well to consider Roemer's prospective leadership very seriously.

Chair appointed at ICS

This is somewhat old news, but it is worth repeating here: "The Institute for Christian Studies is pleased to announce that Dr. Jonathan Chaplin has been appointed to the Institute's Herman Dooyeweerd Chair in Social and Political Philosophy." This is a well-deserved honour for a highly esteemed colleague. Congratulations, Dr. Chaplin!

Another chance for Cyprus?

Now that accession talks for Turkey are set to begin in October of next year, Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, whose country holds the revolving presidency of the European Union, is urging a renewed effort to reunite the island nation of Cyprus. Perhaps history will record that a successful solution in Cyprus began, not with a UN secretary general, but with a neocalvinist political leader.

Second semester courses

This will be of special interest to my students. My courses for the coming semester are now posted at the political science department's website: POL 122 - Introduction to Political Ideologies, POL 221 - Canadian Government and Politics, and POL 325 - Recent Political Theory. The new term begins on wednesday, 5 January 2005.

Europe on life support?

Papal biographer George Weigel explores the implications of the Rocco Buttiglione affair for the place of orthodox Christian believers in the new Europe. Writes Weigel:

What kind of polity is it that doesn't want a man like Rocco Buttiglione looking after the administration of justice and the protection of human rights?

A polity in which too many people believe that the God of the Bible is the enemy of human freedom. A polity in which too many people believe that freedom is license. A polity in which "anti-discrimination" has become the excuse for active discrimination against Catholics and others whose moral convictions ill-fit the relativist-secularist opinion mainstream. A polity, in other words, like the new Europe.

The demographers tell us that Europe is dying, physically. The Buttiglione affair tells us that Europe is now on life-support, morally and culturally.

A green light for Turkey?

After long and difficult negotiations in Brussels, the European Union has given a tentative go ahead to accession talks to admit Turkey. The sticking point was, of course, Cyprus, one of the ten new members of the EU admitted last May. Turkey has thus far refused to recognize the government of Cyprus, which would logically entail declining to recognize its own client state in the north. A last minute compromise has allowed the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to save face by simply giving a verbal declaration of good will. However, eventually Ankara will have to swallow its pride and do the unthinkable. The earliest Turkey might be admitted is ten years from now. Much can happen between now and then to derail the effort. As a consequence, it's not clear that Turkey is that far ahead of where it was two days ago.

Judicial review comes to Britain

The United Kingdom is often, and somewhat misleadingly, said to have an unwritten constitution. What is meant by this is that that country, like New Zealand and Israel but unlike virtually every other country, does not have an entrenched constitutional document possessing superior status to ordinary statutes. The absence of such a document means that Britain's courts, unlike those of Canada and the US, do not possess the right to rule whether or not a law is constitutional. Parliament is legally sovereign and cannot be second-guessed by the judiciary.

Up until 1982 Canada had a similarly "unwritten" constitution, our principal constitutional document, the British North America Act of 1867, being no more than an act of the British Parliament. We never had parliamentary sovereignty in quite the same way as it could be said to exist across the pond, but only because this sovereignty was shared among federal and provincial legislative bodies in a federal system. However, for the last nearly 23 years our courts have become increasingly active interveners in the political process, most recently handing down a reference decision on Ottawa's proposed marriage-revision legislation. This empowerment of the courts has its positive and negative features. The positive side can be seen when a government is forced to justify its treatment of citizens protected under an entrenched bill of rights, provided the court is not in the business of inventing new rights or unilaterally changing the constitution. The negative consequences are spelled out in F. L. Morton and Rainer Knopff's The Charter Revolution & the Court Party, as well as in numerous articles in First Things and elsewhere.

Despite the absence of an entrenched British constitutional document, the courts are nevertheless finding a way to review acts of parliament. This is reflected in yesterday's important decision by the nine law lords, who are the active members of the House of Lords in its capacity as the country's highest court of appeal, declaring that the Blair government's anti-terrorism law is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the law lords cannot invalidate a law as such, they can at least put the government of the day in an uncomfortable position. Because Britain is an adherent of the treaties of the European Union, a judicial ruling that it is not living up to these treaties inevitably carries a great deal of weight. Because of Britain's membership in the EU something like an entrenched constitutional document is coming in through the back door, along with the judicial review which it implies.

Is this a good thing? Yes and no. In theory it makes sense to empower the judiciary to check both cabinet and parliament, particularly with respect to protecting the rights of citizens. However, given that constitutional documents spell out those rights in necessarily general terms, they may leave too much room for the courts to fill in the blanks, as it were, and to find rights that were never intended by the drafters. Given, furthermore, that such rights tend to be articulated in narrowly individualistic terms, the courts can rule in ways that subvert basic social institutions, such as marriage, by reducing them to mere contractual relationships. I am inclined to think that one of the failings of the drafters of most constitutional documents, including our own Constitution Acts and the United States Constitution, is that they have imposed insufficient checks on the judiciary itself.

At some point I may post my Christian Courier column from nearly a year ago concerning the courts and the constitution.

A choir story from the distant past

Some of the members of the Redeemer University College Choir recently posted accounts of their experience singing Handel's Messiah nearly two weeks ago, which they found to be deeply uplifting. Unfortunately I was unable to be there, but I can testify that there is something profoundly moving in hearing young voices blended together in praise of God.

Three decades ago I sang for one year with the Bethel College Choir in St. Paul, Minnesota. I was in the bass section and we were under the baton of an exceedingly competent conductor who would settle for little less than perfection. During the reading break that winter we went on tour to the east coast of the United States, where we sang mostly in church buildings. One of the pieces we performed was Paul Christiansen's magnificent Revelation of St. John, whose text is taken from the opening verses of the last book of the Bible. It was a primarily atonal piece which required great concentration to sing and to keep on pitch. With practice we performed it very well, as I recall.

Except for one occasion. During a concert in upstate New York, we began the Christiansen piece as planned. At the proper time the bass soloist came in, but he did so on the wrong note and managed to take the choir with him. The conductor's face went white as a sheet and a look of terror came over it. I half expected him to stop us and start over again. But soon thereafter the soprano soloist came in. As she had perfect pitch, she not only came in on the right note but succeeded in pulling the choir back to pitch. Because the conductor had his back to the audience, but mostly because the piece was so atonal, no one hearing us was any the wiser. Afterwards we mingled with the members of the audience and their praise was effusive.

European Turkey and islamic democracy?

Friday is the date when the European Union is slated to decide whether to proceed with Turkey's application for membership. At this point, however, Turkey refuses to budge on the issue of recognition of the Republic of Cyprus, which will almost certainly have an impact on that decision. Victor Davis Hanson compares Europeans to J. R. R. Tolkein's complacent but moribund Ents for even considering Turkish membership. Writes Hanson:

Turkey's proposed entry into the EU has become some weird sort of Swiftian satire on the crazy relationship between Europe and Islam. Ponder the contradictions of it all. Privately most Europeans realize that opening its borders without restraint to Turkey's millions will alter the nature of the EU, both by welcoming in a radically different citizenry, largely outside the borders of Europe, whose population will make it the largest and poorest country in the Union — and the most antithetical to Western liberalism. Yet Europe is also trapped in its own utopian race/class/gender rhetoric. It cannot openly question the wisdom of making the "other" coequal to itself, since one does not by any abstract standard judge, much less censure, customs, religions, or values.

Can Islam become democratic? Can it facilitate the development of democratic institutions or is it an obstacle to these? Mustafa Kemal Attatürk took a secularizing approach to the Turkish Republic after 1923, relegating muslim belief to the private sphere. But it may be that strongarm tactics to keep traditional religions out of the public sphere will provoke an extremist backlash. This is acknowledged by Ian Buruma in "An Islamic Democracy for Iraq?", published days ago in The New York Times. Writes Buruma:

It may be useful to reflect for a moment on how the West itself has coped with religion. The separation of church and state was indeed a necessary condition for democratic development in Europe and the United States, but the separation has never been absolute. Britain's constitutional arrangements include organized religion: the monarch is the protector of the Anglican faith. This may now be nothing more than a formality, but in continental European politics Christian democratic parties are still the mainstream. The first such party, the Anti-Revolutionary Party, was founded in 1879 by a Calvinist ex-pastor in the Netherlands named Abraham Kuyper. His aim was to restore God (not the church) as the absolute sovereign over human affairs. Only if secular government was firmly embedded in the Christian faith could its democratic institutions survive. That is what he believed and what Christian Democrats still believe.

I do not believe this. It is always tricky for an agnostic in religious affairs to argue for the importance of organized religion, but I would argue not that more people should be religious or that democracy cannot survive without God, but that the voices of religious people should be heard. The most important condition for a functional democracy is that people take part. If religious affiliations provide the necessary consensus to play by common rules, then they should be recognized. A Sharia-based Shiite theocracy, even if it were supported by a majority, would not be a democracy. Only if the rights and interests of the various ethnic and religious groups are negotiated and compromises reached could you speak of a functioning democracy.

There is, of course, that neglected phenomenon of consociationalism, which was more discussed a generation ago than today but which retains its relevance for divided polities characterized by deep social cleavages along ethnic, linguistic, religious or ideological lines. The best recipe for political stability may not after all be to suppress differences in the interest of creating an artificial majority but to allow citizens to express these differences in peaceful ways through power sharing at the centres of government. Short of this, there may be no alternative to the authoritarian régimes which have plagued so many countries outside the western world.

Charles Terpstra (1924-2004): a tribute

The Rev. Charles "Chuck" Terpstra was my pastor at South Bend Christian Reformed Church in Indiana during most of my graduate student years at Notre Dame. He served that congregation between 1982 and 1990, when he retired. He and his wife Jean became good friends of mine during that wonderful time. Chuck was born in Oak Lawn, Illinois, not too far from my own birthplace of Oak Park, both of which are communities just outside Chicago. He served in the US Army during the Second World War. He married Jean Kamp in 1948 and graduated from Calvin Seminary in 1953. He served CRC congregations in Minnesota, New Jersey, Chicago, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and finally South Bend. After retirement he and Jean moved back to Grand Rapids. They have seven children and at Chuck's death he and Jean were grandparents and great-grandparents.

Chuck had just become pastor of South Bend CRC when I became a member of that congregation in 1983. He was not a flashy orator by any means. But his preaching was heartfelt and he put his whole self into his sermons. I recall more than one occasion when tears would come to his eyes as he touched on something that was especially meaningful to him. Moreover, unlike many preachers, he would regularly treat especially difficult passages of scripture that have confounded even the best of expositors. That took some courage, but it was very like Chuck to do this. Above all, I think of him as a firm Reformed Christian with profound catholic sensibilities. He was far from the sectarianism that has plagued some manifestations of confessional protestantism.

But it's the personal side I will remember most. When I was disappointed by a failed romantic relationship, he was the one I talked with. When my grandmother died in early 1987, I went to him with the news. When I defended my dissertation in November 1986, he was one of two close friends who attended this event, crammed into a fairly small room with my examiners and me. Not long afterwards he and Jean hosted a celebrative gathering at their home in my honour, to which members of my family, including my parents, came. This obviously went far beyond the call of pastoral duty. I recall staying at their home in Grand Rapids on at least two occasions in the early 1990s. When Nancy and I were married near Chicago in 1996, Chuck and Jean made the drive down for the occasion. Finally, when they were up in Hamilton on denominational business a few years ago, I remember them sitting in our living room. Jean was entertaining our Theresa, who was an infant at the time, and succeeded in eliciting convulsive giggles from her. It was a joy to see.

Chuck had suffered from an increasing number of health problems in recent years. I believe the last time I saw him was during my visit to Calvin College two years ago for the first Henry Institute Symposium on Religion and Politics. I last spoke with him at the end of October. He was a faithful reader of this blog, and he even took the time and effort to read my book.

May God grant him rest and may we meet again at the resurrection when God's kingdom comes to fruition. May God grant Jean and the family comfort at what scripture tells us will be but a temporary loss.

Supreme Court reference

In most other countries a court cannot rule on an issue unless it hears a relevant case which has made its way through the judicial hierarchy. However, Canada is unusual in permitting its governments to refer a question to the Supreme Court for a ruling in the abstract. Two famous reference decisions were (1) the Patriation Reference of 1981 respecting the legality of Pierre Trudeau's effort to patriate the constitution without the backing of the provinces; and (2) the 1998 Reference re Secession of Quebec, in which the right of a province to secede unilaterally from confederation was at issue. Reference decisions are not strictly legally binding, but they are usually treated as if they were.

Today the Supreme Court handed down its long awaited reference decision on the federal government's same-sex marriage legislation. Here is the high court's decision in response to the federal government's four questions:

First question: Does Parliament have the exclusive legislative authority to change the legal definition of marriage?

Supreme Court's answer: Yes

Second question: Is extending the capacity to marry persons of the same sex consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Supreme Court's answer: Yes

Third question: Are religious leaders protected under the Charter of Rights from having to marry same-sex couples?

Supreme Court's answer: Yes

Fourth question: Is the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman constitutional?

Supreme Court's answer: The Court exercises its discretion not to answer this question.

From the court's ruling: "Several centuries ago, it would have been understood that marriage be available only to opposite-sex couples." Several centuries ago? Judging from this statement, the justices on the court must be very, very young indeed. I myself remember this ostensibly long-ago era, and I'm not quite at the half-century mark.

The issue will continue to be debated, most notably in the House of Commons itself.

About to hit the fan?

For a long time many of us have been tiptoeing around the increasingly yawning gap separating two institutions here in southern Ontario with roots in the same tradition. Now student journalist Albert Postma brings this out into the open with an article in the Crown which is certain to generate heated debate.

Apropos apparel?

Just once I'd love to see someone wear a t-shirt with the following motto on the front:

QUESTION AUTHORITY. . .

and on the back:

. . . BECAUSE I TOLD YOU SO!

New blogger

A heartfelt welcome to the bloggosphere is extended to Dr. Robert J. Bernhardt. Please take time to visit his new site, A Voice in the Village, subtitled "My contribution to the current Internet conversation about life and meaning in the Global Village." Dr. Bernhardt is the recently retired pastor of Chalmers Presbyterian Church here in Hamilton and a personal friend.

Ukraine: what's really going on?

Among the observers of the current turmoil in Ukraine one finds three principal interpretations:

(1) It is a struggle between a democratic reform movement and a corrupt post-soviet oligarchy. The partisans of Viktor Yushchenko are on the side of all that is right and good. Viktor Yanukovych's supporters are trying to hold back progress and are in cahoots with Vladimir "Stalin Lite" Putin's Russia. This is clearly the perspective of Discoshaman, who is writing from the centre of the action (and whose real name I should probably know but can't recall at the moment).

(2) It is a struggle between two geographic and cultural regions, with the largely Greek Catholic west pulling the country towards Europe and the largely russophone and (vestigially) Orthodox east leaning towards Russia. Westerners support Yushchenko and easterners largely favour Yanukovych.

(3) Yushchenko is the latest in a long line of western pawns put in place in countries around the world on the pretext of facilitating democracy. This third perspective is articulated by the former Indian ambassador to Turkey, K Gajendra Singh, writing for the Asia Times Online.

So who is right? Who has the handle on what is really happening in the former Soviet republic? I myself tend towards the second interpretation. In my study of politics over the decades I have long been persuaded of the tremendous impact of political culture in the functioning of political systems. The notion of political culture is roughly synonymous with what earlier generations would have labelled a constitution in the larger empirical sense. It is the intangible complex of attitudes that a community carries towards a variety of factors, such as respect for authority, the rule of law, political participation, styles of leadership, the role of government, national purpose, &c. These are intimately connected with specific arrangements of political institutions to such an extent that efforts to refashion the latter in fundamental ways can collapse if they run counter to the political culture.

With respect to Ukraine, it may well be true that the largely Greek Catholic ukrainophone (is that a word?) westerners value democracy and aspire to membership in the European Union and NATO. There may indeed be more corruption in the east, and Yanukovych may indeed have authoritarian tendencies more in keeping with the country's Soviet past. Yet efforts to portray the current struggle as one pitting the good democrat against the bad autocrat may miss the mark in at least one respect. Even if the russophone east is mired in its old Soviet ways, this is a political reality that must be taken into account in any effort to bring peace and unity to the country as a whole. If Yushchenko wins the runoff vote on 26 December and if easterners feel hard done by, any effort to move Ukraine in a more westerly direction will effectively alienate a large proportion of the population.

That is why a political system whose chief executive is elected on a winner-take-all basis may not be best for a divided country such as Ukraine. The current electoral battle is a zero-sum contest in which one of the halves of the country, in the absence of a tradition of loyal opposition, is certain to feel shut out. Western journalists who can hardly conceal their enthusiasm for Yushchenko might wish to keep this in mind as they file their reports from Kyiv and elsewhere. So by all means the election should be free and fair. Everything must be done to prevent fraud. But it may be that the electoral system itself should be reformed to better reflect the reality of a divided polity. If citizens are no longer fearful of being locked out of the political process and having their legitimate interests ignored or trampled upon, they are less likely to succumb to efforts to subvert elections.

The greatest Canadian: my nominee

Here is my nominee for the title of greatest Canadian: General Georges Vanier (1888-1967).


National Archives of Canada

Gen. Vanier is best known for having served as Governor General from 1959 until his death in Canada's centennial year, 1967. As the Queen's representative in her capacity as head of state, Vanier was the first francophone and only the second Canadian to fill the position. Prior to his residence at Rideau Hall, he had been in the diplomatic service, distinguishing himself in more than one post between 1928 and 1953. He served in the military during both world wars, losing his right leg in the first, and rising to the rank of major general in the second.

Gen. Vanier was a Christian of deep faith, as indicated in the following paragraphs taken from the government of Canada's webpages:

Although Canada was experiencing turbulent times and General Vanier suffered from a heart condition, he reacted to the news of his appointment [as Governor General] with the deep faith that was his constant companion. "If God wants me to do this job," he said, "He will give me the strength to do it." The Vaniers' strong religious beliefs led them to champion the disadvantaged, youth and the family. Their concern for the state of the family in Canada led them to organize the 'Canadian Conference of the Family' at Rideau Hall in 1964, which led to the founding of the Vanier Institute of the Family.

During General Vanier's term, the separatist cause accelerated in Quebec. General Vanier firmly believed in Canadian unity and his speeches often attempted to improve relations between Francophones and Anglophones. He possessed a masterful command of both languages and promoted a policy of bilingualism long before his tenure as Governor General. The depth of his concern for Canada is revealed in one of the last speeches of his life, where he said, "The road of unity is the road of love: love of one's country and faith in its future will give new direction and purpose to our lives, lift us above our domestic quarrels, and unite us in dedication to the common good... I pray God that we may all go forward hand in hand. We can't run the risk of this great country falling into pieces."

Due to their evident love for God and their fellow humanity, both Georges and his wife Pauline Vanier have been put forward for beatification in the Roman Catholic Church. Their son, Jean Vanier, is well known as the founder of the l'Arche communities in Toronto and elsewhere. We could use more people like the Vaniers in this country.

Ukrainian crisis, continued

A repeat of the second round in the Ukrainian presidential election has been set for 26 December. Unfortunately, the country's parliament failed to adopt a crucial reform of the electoral laws that would ensure that this new ballot is free and fair. In the meantime, might opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko have been poisoned by his political opponents? He claims this is true, and western medical specialists have noted a changed appearance, possibly due to massive exposure to dioxins.

Concerning electoral reform, here is advice from a Canadian. Please do not -- repeat: do not -- adopt a system that translates between 38 and 43 percent of the popular vote into an artificial majority and then gives it all the political power! Bad move. We're struggling mightily over here to rid ourselves at last of this travesty of democracy, with some hope for change on the horizon. Perhaps we need our own velvet revolution.

Finnish Orthodoxy and a Finnish ancestor

The vast majority of Finns are at least nominal Lutherans, but there is a small percentage of Orthodox Christian Finns, most of whom originally came from eastern Karelia, the historic territory around Lake Ladoga. Today I rediscovered in my vinyl record collection two volumes of Orthodox Church Music from Finland, published by Ikon Records. The first volume contains music sung by the Hymnodia Choir under the direction of Archbishop Paul of Karelia and All Finland, and the second includes music by the Ecumenical Quartet. Texts are sung in both Church Slavonic and Finnish. I think I purchased these at the Anglican Book Centre in Toronto close to 15 years ago, when they were selling the last of their stock of vinyl albums.

Most of my Finnish ancestors were Lutherans, but among the meticulously-kept parish records which have come into my hands one often finds someone listed as having been transferred to the Orthodox parish in Kajaani. This would appear to signify a conversion, probably due to intermarriage.

Incidentally, just yesterday I received a remarkable letter from a distant cousin in New Mexico who found my genealogical webpages. She was kind enough to send me three photographs, one of which (below) is of my great-great-grandfather, Justus Korpinen (1848-1941), who is buried in the cemetery in Oskar, Michigan, located in that state's upper peninsula.


Photo courtesy of Mary Ann Kauppila

Justus Korpinen, seated, with grandson

I was, of course, pleased to receive this, as I had never before seen a photograph of this particular forebear, although I had known of his existence since childhood. I doubt that I look much like him. We both have beards, but I myself am not bald. Then again he was apparently in his 80s when the above photo was taken. By that age I too might be bald.

Is Google taxonomically challenged?

So why does Google News categorize this story under entertainment?

New election to be held

The supporters of Viktor Yushchenko have scored a victory -- for now: "Ukraine's Supreme Court declares run-off presidential vote void." Stand by. There's more to come.

The NYT's startling discovery

The New York Times is supposed to be the arbiter of élite cultural opinion in the United States. It is thus nothing short of remarkable when one of its columnists, David Brooks, discovers something that millions of non-NYT readers have known all along. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are not, after all, the most typical representatives of North American evangelicalism; John Stott is. Writes Brooks:

It could be that you have never heard of John Stott. I don't blame you. As far as I can tell, Stott has never appeared on an important American news program. A computer search suggests that Stott's name hasn't appeared in this newspaper since April 10, 1956, and it's never appeared in many other important publications.

Yet, as Michael Cromartie of the Ethics and Public Policy Center notes, if evangelicals could elect a pope, Stott is the person they would likely choose. He was the framer of the Lausanne Covenant, a crucial organizing document for modern evangelicalism. He is the author of more than 40 books, which have been translated into over 72 languages and have sold in the millions. Now rector emeritus at All Souls, Langham Place, in London, he has traveled the world preaching and teaching.

Although I am by no means an expert in that exceedingly nebulous phenomenon called evangelicalism, I am inclined to think that Brooks is on to something. At first blush it might seem somewhat odd that a quiet Anglican priest with utterly orthodox beliefs would be an influence on particularly American evangelicalism, which is largely baptistic in orientation. Then again Wheaton College (I grew up in the city of Wheaton) is the home of the Wade Centre, which houses a host of material related to C. S. Lewis, the Anglican layman who authored Mere Christianity, the Chronicles of Narnia, and many other immensely popular writings. All of which goes to show that evangelicals are not easily pigeon-holed -- even by The New York Times.