Savoring Lincoln, Savoring Christ
The Lincoln memorial in Washington D.C. is hallowed ground in my book. I stood at this sacred spot in 2005 and was deeply moved.
Lincoln’s memorial stands at the head of a cross-shaped layout of memorials on the Washington mall. Most guides will adamantly deny any intentional symbolism. My guide was willing not only to concede the obvious, but to reference primary source documents wherein the original designers of the mall detail plans to arrange the memorials in the shape of a cross so as to pay tribute to the profound influence of Jesus Christ upon this nation.
Possessed of this insight, I stood on the steps of the Lincoln memorial looking down the length of “the cross” toward the Washington monument (at the cross’ nexus). Owing my spiritual life and joy to Jesus (whom having never seen I mysteriously love, 1 Peter 1:8), my heart surged with thanksgiving and wonder to contemplate the hand of divine providence upon this nation and upon my own life.
My near ecstasy continued as I read Lincoln’s second inaugural address etched into the wall of the north enclave of the memorial. The third column in particular held my rapt attention. Herein Lincoln explicates the doctrine of divine providence. Only a dwindling minority of Americans could define the meaning of God’s providence today. This was not the case during the Civil War. Nor was it the case for Lincoln who found in the doctrine of divine providence—God’s preserving and governing power over nature and history—essential ballast to endure those tumultuous days with hope.
I read that text as one tapping the mind of a soul-mate—connecting across the centuries with one who understood a truth so precious to my own heart. Meditating on this rich text, I was deeply moved to consider the enormity of Lincoln’s influence upon African-Americans, the union of our nation, and ultimately upon world history. My spirit soared. I was very alive.
Standing there with a lump in my throat, nearly overwhelmed by the significance of what I was experiencing, the words of an adolescent boy reached my ears. Betraying an acute case of boredom, he asked a woman who was obviously his mother: “Is this all there is to see?”
The kid’s question broke the hushed reverence that prevails at the memorial with all the effect of fingernails scratching a chalkboard. His mother wisely ignored the question, perhaps silently praying it would dissipate into thin air before anyone took notice of it. But the boy repeated his query with heightened intensity: “Is this all there is to see?”
That poor mother had undoubtedly invested no small amount of time, effort and money to provide this experience for her unappreciative progeny. But realizing he would not take her silence as a cue to hold his tongue, she cast a knowing glance at others around her and answered simply: “I love you, Honey.”
The clueless boy responded with disgust: “I knew it! We walked all this way for nothing!” It is indeed a bit of a hike to the Lincoln memorial. But some of us would make the journey with glad heart through a howling blizzard. It’s all a matter of perspective—all a matter of what is in your mind and heart.
I believe this brief episode fairly illustrates the matter of spiritual perception. Some are enraptured with the contemplation of God; others are dead to it. Some lift songs of praise to Jesus; others are bored stiff by the very same exercise. Some delight to contemplate the truth of God’s words; others find the discipline terribly dull and pointless, if not offensive. Some thrill to know Jesus personally; others are content to follow religious ritual.
The difference is not ultimately one of physical maturity. It is one of experience. While the boy at the Lincoln memorial was dead to the significance of what he saw, maturation may someday open his eyes. But no one grows out of spiritual blindness. It is a state from which we must be rescued (Eph. 2:1-3; 4:17-19).
The good news is that such rescues are God’s delight. He rejoices to reveal to spiritually blind eyes the wonders of His glories and to soften hard hearts to His truth. “No one knows the Father,” declared Jesus, “except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Matt. 11:27).
Please understand: If you are not captivated by the wonder of God, it is not because He is not wonderful. It is because you are spiritually blind. That is not something you can change on your own. Jesus must reveal the Father to you. But having claimed the sovereign right to reveal the Father to whom He chooses (Matt. 11:27), Jesus follows with this open-armed invitation: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28).
And He really will. He delights to replace anguished, spiritual blindness with the eternal rest of eyes wide open to his glories (Matt. 11:29-30). What merciful grace! What genuine delight!
Someday you will stand, not before the statue of a dead president, but before the throne of the living and reigning Christ (Phil. 2:9-11). On that day will you be filled with rapturous delight in God’s presence and feed on His every word, or will you be dead to the glories of Christ? Will you fall in adoration before the welcoming face of Jesus, or will you be anxious to leave His presence for a Christless eternity?
Finding delight in God is not a matter for this life alone. If that were the case, many would choose the delights of this world, gladly pass on the option of enjoying God, and that would be the end of the matter. But this is not how it works. If you do not find Jesus the joy of your soul in this life, you will endure the anguish of utter separation from Him in the next (Luke 16:19-31; 2 Thess. 1:5-10). In other words, your blindness to His glories will become permanent and you will realize that you walked this earth “for nothing.” And that would be the ultimate of tragedies.
Dan Miller has served as the Senior Pastor of Eden Baptist Church since 1989. He graduated from Pillsbury Baptist Bible College with a B.S. degree in 1984 and his graduate degrees include a M.A. in History from Minnesota State University, Mankato, and the M.Div. and Th.M. from Central Baptist Theological Seminary. He is nearing completion of D.Min. studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Dan is married to Beth and the Lord has blessed them with four children: Ethan, Levi, Reed and Whitney.
- 17 views
and a lot of us suffer from spiritual adhd.
but i think the “cross” may be wishful thinking
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/monument.asp
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I thouhgt you would weigh in on this. I actually liked Lincoln (being an IL transplant) but not because he was a believer. The North and the South both had Godly and ungodly people on their side. Both had their blindspots. I know you have argued well that the South was slowly getting rid of slavery anyway (and I know the War was primarily a states rights issue). But the way believers in both the North and Sough have treated race has at times been bad. But having lived in both places, its has historically been worse in the South. I had a southern Fundy pastor tell me as late as the early 90’s if a black family visited his church, it would split it. That is pretty pathetic. But I know that I have people in my church that still need to grow in this area as well.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
[Aaron Blumer] Not saying we shouldn’t, but why does everybody believe Snopes?because they usually have a decent list of sources at the bottom of the articles, they seem to be well-researched and i haven’t found one that later turned out to be wrong yet. but if you’d rather have a different site, there’s also this one:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/w/washmonument.htm
I’m not in a position to judge whether Lincoln was or wasn’t a Christian. What I do know is that he has a mixed record. His expressions of reverence for God were not exclusively public for effect. They can be found in his private correspondence as well.
See http://www.christianitytoday.com/holidays/memorial/features/33h010.html
D. James Kennedy has some thoughts here. Though not well documented. But DJK was not usually a slouch.
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/4627.htm
But more to the point, Miller’s article does not claim Lincoln was a Christian but that he believed deeply in the providence of God. In some periods of his life, at least, this was clearly the case.
We don’t have to despise the man or paint him as anti-Christian simply because he was probably not truly regenerate. I realize some believe the Civil War should never have been fought or that the south should have won, but that’s also a separate question from whether he was a man of principles and God-fearing in the end.
About Snopes… my question was little more than curiosity. I’ve seen several cite the site recently as though “Snopes says” should end all discussion. But as with anyone else, you have to look at sources and evaluate. I don’t personally believe a cross-shape was intended in the layout of the mall/memorial area.
… and about the South and religion I would argue that the South is a hotbed of both orthodoxy and Christian heterodoxy. You have some real stalwarts down there, but also lots of evangelical mush makers. It’s definitely no longer “the repository” of anything.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Then you have the narrative of South as the “backwards” defenders of orthodoxy and history battling the forces of religious, social and political “progress.” This group would include Steve Wilkins, more or less Doug Wilson, to some degree Gary DeMar’s outfit, to some degree Doug Phillips, etc.
Partisans for any historical narrative that intends to paint a certain picture are necessarily going to emphasize some points and downplay others, so the question is which narrative is the closest to the truth. Which one requires the least amount of embellishment and suppression of inconvenient truths? To me the former seems like an embarrassing display of hindsight moralizing, projection and wishful thinking. The Founders were actually all Enlightened proto-egalitarians forced to accommodate the prejudices of the day like slavery, male suffrage, property ownership requirements, etc. All that was needed was for Lincoln, the primordial authentic egalitarian, to smite those backwards knuckle-draggers in the South and redeem the Union. Of course such Enlightened behavior on the part of the North was only possible after those reactionary Puritans gave up their silly orthodox beliefs and embraced the true gospel of liberal democracy uber alles.Yeah right. That’s a credible scenario.
I do think the South was and still is the repository of orthodoxy, although we have certainly given rise to our fair share of heterodoxy. (Although I don’t think we can compete with the “Burned Over Country” of Western New York.) We are definitely the repository of what remains of political conservatism. Read this and weep. (Or cheer as I did.)
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index.php/2010/03/31/its-true-what-th…
I should have given more background. I have spent most of my life as a Northerner except for the 4 years at college and the 2 yrs on the IN/KY border. But many in my family have southern roots. My mom at her heart was southern. Many of my siblings have migrated to the South. I am quite familiar with your views. In fact, I used to hold that miscegenation was a sin (thank you for the new word). I no longer hold to that but I understand those who do very well.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
Do you categorically state that segregation was neither sinful or hateful?
State your opinions and justify them using scripture, and do so without equivocation and qualification.
“The problem is that Northerners are quick to judge, according to their own preconceived standards, the South on race and religion.”
And you don’t do the same regarding the North? Especially with comments like “I do think the South was and still is the repository of orthodoxy”
And what does this orthodoxy of yours mean? Does it include Luke 10:27’s
“And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.”
Can you honestly claim that the segregationists were doing so with regard to black citizens? That they would have ever in a million years traded places in society with black citizens?
Also, a real problem is your mentioning Lincoln’s own personal racism. That is very consistent with your position that Lincoln was not a Christian. Well, make the case that the south was this reservoir of orthodoxy while so many of its citizens either supported or participated in treating blacks - many of them also Christians I might add - in ways that they would have never accepted themselves? Orthodoxy is not just the creeds that you profess, it is also how you live. Matthew 23:1-3 says that the Pharisees were great at the former but horrible at the latter.
Now do not mistake me for a “social justice” theological liberal. Instead, I am speaking of the treatment of other human beings - again many of them Christians - by southerners who professed to be Christian. You speak of orthodoxy, this is James 2:18 and Matthew 25:31-46, and it touches the core of Christian living.
And finally, as dealing with the idea that the south was a repository of orthodoxy “Do you know what it is like growing up believing that miscegenation is sin?”
Well, since so much of the religious and social structure of the south was based on this belief - making it kind of important - in order for the south to be a repository of orthodoxy then, it had to be true. If it was false, and so many people in the south believed a lie and acted accordingly, then the south then was no repository of orthodoxy.
And now? The reverse applies. If miscegenation was sin in 1810, it is sin in 2010, which means that southern churches have departed from orthodoxy by now supporting miscegenation. It truly, honestly is a battle that cannot be won. Which is why it shouldn’t be fought in the first place, and the same can be said of Christians everywhere from Brooklyn to Burma. No matter the time or place, the road to heaven is hard and the gate is strait, and most people are on the other path, which is the broad gate and the easy path that leads to destruction. If you want to claim that a particular nation or region has a large number of its churches or percentage of its residents who profess the orthodox creeds, that is fine. But claiming that a particular nation or region is one of born again Christians living out the faith … that can’t be supported by scripture. It would make the church “the world” and the world “the church”, if even on a national, regional or local context. That wasn’t the case in Jerusalem at the close of the book of Acts, and it certainly wasn’t the case in the American south (or north, east or west) in 1860, 1950, or what have you.
There will only be a “Christian nation” until after the resurrection of the dead in New Jerusalem. Until then, we are pilgrims. We are subject to civil governments according to Romans 13 as you stated, but that is whether we are living in America, China, Indonesia, Somalia or Saudi Arabia. We are not to hold any allegiances - and especially not any chauvinistic attitudes - to any of these temporary, manmade kingdoms that will all one day come under judgment and be destroyed. We should be longing for a better country as Hebrews 11:16 instructs us to rather than reminiscing over what is gone with the wind, or more to the point holding onto what Revelation 20 says will be destroyed with fire. Lincoln, Davis, Jackson, Grant, Lee … I have no dog in that hunt.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
[RPittman] I believe that he has made a grave mistake in placing Lincoln and Christ juxtaposition in his article, Savoring Lincoln, Savoring Christ. I would seriously question comparing Christ and any man even as a vehicle of literary association.This is really not what he does—though I do not believe there is anything wrong w/using comparisons that way. We do it all the time in sermon illustrations, and there is a long tradition of it in Christian allegory.
But this is not what the article does. Rather, he draws an analogy between a child’s inability to appreciate Lincoln’s importance and human beings inability/lack of delight in Christ. The parallel is between two human deficiencies… and it’s a point well made IMO.
@Red… you made some interesting observations about the sources of Kennedy et al’s Lincoln “hagiography.” Does Kennedy cite these sources somewhere or are you concluding that these are his influences based on similarity of language in important places? I’m inclined to believe it’s more likely that DJK et al and several of the sources you mentioned arrived at somewhat similar views independently.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
But I really need to assert a final word on it here: the Bible teaches that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. That in itself is incompatible with what we have come to know as “racism” (slavery even more so). But there is more than that. There is only one race, the human race (Acts 17:26). What we usually call racism is really an odd mix of ethnism and prejudice based on skin pigmentation. Both of these attitudes are incompatible with multiple biblical principles (Gal.3:28 comes to mind).
If folks would like to continue discussion on that topic, though, please start a new thread and maybe post a link to it here.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
[JobK] I asked you to state your opinion. You refused. It is as simple as that. Just as you refused to deal with how racism and the golden rule can co-exist. (There is also the matter of Galatians 3:28). Transgress Romans 12:1-2, and you will defend the indefensible every time.JobK… you’re responding to RPittman here? Trying to sort out whom you’re answering.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion