Meta-Shakespeare

 I've got a daughter in Classical Conversations doing Challenge III this year. That means we'll be studying Shakespeare. I've got five plays lined up to study with her and am already done with Much Ado About Nothing. I had a conversation with my wife while reading Much Ado and thought it would make an interesting study. There are many instances in Shakespeare's plays when he has a line that appears to be universally true, even out of context for the play; think "All the world's a stage" As You Like It 2.7.139. This line says something that is to be understood as true outside the play as well as inside the play. He is making a reality claim, or a meta-claim, if you will. I am facinated by these lines and asked my wife if the current consensus on Shakespeare was that these were intentional not. She felt they were intentional and I like the idea of that. There are times when the poet / playwright speaks to the crowd in unobscured statements about the nature of reality and personal relationships. 

I'm going to study these moments this year with my daughter reading Much Ado About Nothing, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, Henry V, and Hamlet. I will post these Meta-Shakepeare ponderings and what I think they mean as we go. Stick around. 

Crisis of the Republic

Earlier this week I was able to go to one of the sessions of the Classical Conversations Parent Practicum. The speaker, David Lahones, introduced me to some new thoughts and helped crystallize some things I'd been trying to say for years but never been able to put into words as effectively as he did. One idea he mentioned was that of inoculation. We introduce our children to the ideas in great books to help inoculate them against the reality in life. I'll be further examining this for a while.

He also introduced me to a series of essays former presidential candidate Alan Keyes wrote during the 2008 campaign. He read from one of them to help illustrate a point about freedom and education. He said the essays were very difficult to obtain now but had a copy of them in PDF format. He posted them on his own blog, here. I downloaded the file and may, as I read them, post them or excerpts from them to this blog.

Ask Doug

Canon Wired has a video with Roy Atwood, president of New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, ID. Check it out.

http://www.canonwired.com/ask-doug/k-12-classical/

Lorenzo the Magnificent - John Haaren

The thousand years between the downfall of the Roman Empire and the Discovery of America are called the Middle Ages—which means the ages between ancient and modern times. This was a very stormy period. In the early part, the barbarians overran Europe and destroyed almost every sign of civilization. They were brought under some control through the efforts of the Church, and, as time advanced, there was progress in the arts of civilized life. Schools were established in monasteries, and here and there in large cities, but there was no general popular education as we consider it now. This is not so strange, for there were no printed books. The printing press had not been invented; all books at that time were manuscripts, that is they were written by hand, for that is what the word manuscript means. They were written on parchment, which was sheepskin specially prepared so that it would take ink. Of course books written by hand were expensive, for it took a great deal of time to write them. Most of the people in Europe, therefore, lived and died without ever having a book in their hands. In only a few of the largest cities and monasteries was it possible to find a library containing as many as five hundred volumes. When at length the printing press was invented, the desire for knowledge became widely spread. People felt that they must have books to read, and to study. They saw the necessity for schools in which their children might be taught. Of all the countries of Europe none was more thoroughly awakened than Italy; and among the places that were thus aroused to a desire for knowledge of all kinds, one of the first was the city of Florence. Florence early became the home of many learned men, and no city did more for the enlightenment of Europe than she. Here lived the famous family of the Medici. For several generations the Medici had been engaged in what was then almost the only commerce of the world. This was trade with India. Caravans of camels brought silks and shawls, spices and precious stones from the far East to the shores of the Mediterranean. Ships transported them to Florence. Trains of pack horses and mules carried them from Florence across the passes of the Alps to the cities of northern and western Europe. This traffic had made the Medici very wealthy; and not only wealthy but powerful. For three hundred years the family ruled the city and people of Florence. But it was not their wealth alone that gave them their power. Their political influence based on industrial conditions was great also. The city was, like ancient Athens, a state. It made its own laws, and had the right to coin its own money; it made war or peace with foreign countries. The government of the state was republican. But Florence was one of the strangest little republics that ever existed. It had this peculiar law, that no man should hold the office of chief magistrate, unless he belonged to one of the guilds, or "arts" as they were called. These were about the same as our modern trades unions. But the Florentines had even more such unions than we have. Not only were there unions of carpenters and masons and others who worked with their hands, the people who worked with their heads were also united. There were "arts" or unions of the bankers, the merchants, the doctors, and the lawyers. From the members of the "arts" the Florentines chose their officers. The government of the city was vested in the "Great Council of Nine." These Nine consisted of seven who were head workers, and two who were hand workers. This arrangement brought those who worked with their heads and those who worked with their hands very close together. It caused the lawyers and merchants and bankers to have a friendly feeling for the carpenters and masons and others who made their living by "the sweat of their brows;" and no man could long be ruler in Florence who did not love the working people.
The Medici family were famed for doing good with their money among the people of Florence. And therefore one after another of them found it easy either to be made the "standard-bearer" as the president of the republic was called; or to have men put into office who would carry out his wishes. In 1449, just about the time when Europe was preparing to enter upon a period of renewed activity, one of the Medici line was born who was named Lorenzo. He died in 1492, the very year in which Columbus discovered America. His grandfather, Cosimo de Medici had given many fine buildings to Florence, among which was its famous cathedral. Lorenzo's father had also spent immense sums of money for the benefit of Florence. He had been really the ruler of the city for many years, although he very seldom held the office of standard-bearer, or had any official title. When he died the people of Florence desired that another Medici should manage the republic, and therefore they invited Lorenzo to do for them as his father had done. He accepted their invitation, and became their ruler. He proved to be much like the famous Athenian, Pisistratus—a tyrant who was not tyrannical. He ruled for the welfare of the people. He did not think that the first duty of a good ruler was to make his people soldiers. He saw that the best thing to be done for the Florentines was to enlighten them—to furnish them with books and schools. But where were books to be procured? There were monasteries in various parts of Europe in which were large numbers of books; and among these were manuscripts of many works of the old Greeks and Romans. But the principal hiding-place of manuscripts, especially those of Greek writers, was Constantinople. And it happened in a very strange way that the books of Constantinople were at that very time being brought to Western Europe. The inhabitants of Constantinople were Greeks. They read the writings of Homer and Plato, and the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament, in the original Greek. The Turks who had long been menacing the city cared nothing for Homer and Plato; and they hated the books of the New Testament. They thought that men needed no book but the Koran of Mohammed. Many of them believed that no one ought to read any other book. At length, in 1453, Constantinople was actually taken by the Turks, and a great number of its people escaped and went forth to seek new and peaceful homes in Western Europe. Many went to Italy; and of these, several found their way to Florence. Some of these men brought manuscripts with them; and they told their new Italian friends that others might be obtained in Constantinople. After this the Medici, and men like them, carried on for years a diligent search for books. They sent men to the monasteries of Italy, Germany, and England, and to Constantinople to purchase whatever ancient manuscripts they could find. One of those who went to the old Eastern capital brought back two hundred and thirty-eight, among which were the writings of Plato and Xenophon, who lived in Athens four hundred years before Christ. Lorenzo caused many of the old manuscripts to be copied; and, what was better, he had them printed. For just before Lorenzo's birth, Gutenberg had perfected his printing press; and, three years after Lorenzo was born, the first book printed in Florence had made its appearance. It was an edition of Vergil, the great Latin poet; and very likely Lorenzo used a copy of it when he studied Latin. He lived to see books wonderfully multiplied. By the time he was thirty years old, Vergil and Horace, Homer and Xenophon could be printed so cheaply that they were bought for school boys. Like other merchant princes of the time, Lorenzo established a famous school in Florence. It was a Greek high school. So many learned men graduated from it and became celebrated teachers, that the people said it was like the wooden horse at the siege of Troy, out of which came so many Greek warriors fully armed for the fight. Although Lorenzo was called "The Magnificent" by the people of Florence, and was apparently so generous toward them, yet Florence was not really enriched by him. He only made it grander and more famous by his administration, but he completed that subversion of the Florentine republic for which his father and his grandfather had well prepared the way. Florence, although so splendid, was full of corruption, her rulers violating oaths, betraying trusts, and living only for pleasure. From the days of Lorenzo de Medici her power has steadily declined.

From Famous Men of Modern Times, by John Haaren. This text is in the public domain.

Verizon employees fail at math - or, what good is math in real life

Integration in Classical Curriculum

As people have spoken to me about classical education and the school at which I teach, to get a better understanding of our approach one of the things that often sets them back is our focus on integration of subjects. Why would we put history and literature in the same category? A glance through our book list for a grade or two will make anyone see immediately what I am referring to. We have third grade students read about the Trojan War and our sixth graders read about Winston Churchill. I thought it might be appropriate to give a brief defense of the integration of subjects such as history, literature, and theology.
Every book is a work of history, literature and theology. Any printed material that you pick up can be mined successfully for all three of these disciplines. Some are going to lean heavily in one area over the others, but they will always say something in each area. All books have a history and are written in a particular time and place. This can affect the position the book takes upon particular events or ideologies. There are American history books written when Richard Nixon was in office but before the Watergate scandal that paint a very different picture of that man than those appearing just a couple of years later. Novels written prior to the 20th century will praise the glory of mankind’s increasingly benevolent spirit; a quality that most readers now don’t have as much trust in.
Every book must be written with a degree of style and structure. This quality of making information readable gives it a place in literature. Is it well organized and well written? Does it have grammatical or structural flaws? Is the argument developed just as carefully as the plot of a good novel would be? These things make any book a work of literature. It does not matter that it is not Oedipus Rex or Pride and Prejudice. Literature has a definite structure and style. A novel, a good novel anyway, will follow a basic pattern in its story. The author will make an introduction of characters and setting. Then the plot will take over as some need or want will motivate the characters. A similar pattern could be duplicated by a theological or philosophical treatise or a study in the Peloponnesian or Vietnam war.
Finally every book, regardless of its audience or content, is a work of theology. Every author has a worldview that governs their relationship to and with the world God has made. A worldview is a combination of elementary assumptions about reality, knowledge, and ethics that governs the way information is processed and acted upon. Every person has a worldview and attempts to live according to it. However, what we will find is that most authors strive for consistency in written works even if they fail in their day-to-day lives. A worldview is a very theological thing. A person’s thoughts about God will ultimately be determined by their presuppositions. Hence, what worldview a person holds will have a direct relationship to how they present information concerning God. Imagine an avowed Atheist writing a science textbook and including a chapter on Creationism. While this author may get facts, numbers, equations, and the basic narrative correct, their presentation of what God did at creation is going to be affected by the fact that they don’t believe in God. A children’s book written by a homosexual will likely present a less-than-true model of marriage or heterosexual realtionships. These examples are extremes and sometimes you have to look pretty hard for the influence of a competing worldview, but it is always there.
So Classical Education integrates these subjects to teach all of these skills and tasks at one time. It is the best way I know of to introduce our students into the real world. After all, no one on the evening news begins their report with “I am a Darwinist and a Socialist, so bear that in mind as I report on the happenings of the day.” And yet, we must be prepared to see that in everything we come in contact with that we might take “every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).

Wishing I could go back to school

I am a student. I have known that about myself for some time. My wife jokes about it, until I start thinking of actually going to school again. I remember when I started going to graduate classes at Clemson. I thought, "Wow, I wish I could have done my B.A. here." Not that I was unhappy with the University of Tennessee in Chattanooga, I just loved being on campus and going to classes. They had a bigger and better library and the sorts of classes were more inspiring than some I had taken for my B.A. But then again, I had changed so much by then that I probably would not have majored in the same subjects as I did for my B.A. Nonetheless, whenever I am on a college campus or visiting a school I wish I could be there as a student. I wish I could learn from the men and women I see teaching young students at Christian and Classical schools I visit. I wish I could be a student in a classroom perpetually. Alas, such is not my fate.
That is a large part of why I teach at a Christian and Classical school and homeschool my own children. I feel very much the failure of modern education in my own life. I cry out with Dr. George Grant, "I've been robbed!"
For those of you who feel you've been robbed of a decent education and have the ability to correct that, I have some suggestions for you. New Saint Andrews college is in Moscow, Idaho and seems to be an offshoot of Logos school there, headed by Douglas Wilson. I've met several folks who have either gone to school there or graduated from NSA and I can attest to the high quality education they get there. It's a place I'd love to do another graduate degree. Another is Gutenberg College in Eugene, Oregon. Gutenberg, like NSA focuses on the Great Books. It is a liberal arts college and I've personally talked to the President at ACCS conferences in the past. I know what they are trying to do there and it is solid. A new recommendation is New College Franklin, otherwise known as Bannockburn Fellowship in Franklin, TN.
Bannockburn has been around for a while but now it is a degree granting, accredited institution. Dr. Geroge Grant began giving homeschool tutorials in Moral Philosophy and Humanities in 1992 and that eventually grew into Franklin Classical School. I don't know this for sure, but from what I've heard, students who wanted more of Dr. Grant's teaching after graduating from high school were allowed, or invited, to stick around for another round of non-accredited Moral Philosophy seminars and tutorials that became known as the Bannockburn Fellowship. King's Meadow Study Center used to have a reading list of the three years of Bannockburn at their website. It was pretty impressive. I wish they'd re post it or something. Nevertheless, eventually Dr. Grant decided to convert the Fellowship into an accredited institution with authority to grant a degree that would be recognized in the state of Tennessee and elsewhere. It took them a long time because the red tape in Tennessee is a mile thick and as long as the state but they were finally able to meet the requirements of the state. The name, New College Franklin was put on the back burner for the accreditation process so the college is operating its inaugural year under the older Bannockburn Fellowship title. Boy, I'd really love to go there and take the classes.
Like many others, I've realized that while my education in Tennessee and South Carolina taught me a lot of stuff, it failed at teaching me how to think about stuff. A Classical education is a little lighter on the stuff, but not much (ask my children who memorized over 500 different things this year [grades 3, 1, and pre-K]). The real goal of a classical education is to instruct in thinking. This is done through a systematic interaction with the languages of creation. Mathematics reveal God's order in creation. Science reveals God's intricate design and precision. History reveals God's providential purpose for mankind and creation as it unfolds across time and space. Literature reveals God's word to mankind, both through the written Scriptures (which alone are absolute truth) and those things men have written under common grace that reflect the truth of God's economy in things. Each of these "subjects" as we often call them are studied for the tools they give us, not necessarily for the information they give. In other words, the tools are the goal, not the information. The information is valuable, but only for the training of the tool. Subjects, taught the right way, give the tools of Grammar, Logic (Dialectic), and Rhetoric. Put another way, students learn what there is to think about in creation, how to think about those things, and then finally how to communicate what they think about those things to others.
With that in mind, I am always seeking and searching for new ways to regain some of that education I missed. I have many people to thank for what little progress I have made. Among them are Douglas Wilson and George Grant. I have listened to more lectures, speeches, and sermons of these two gentlemen than almost any other person, save my own pastor and friend, Carl Robbins. Wilson and Grant both seek to give us ways to "repair the ruins" of our own shattered and mangled education, in part by taking responsibility for our children's education. I realized a while back that my children are going to be smarter than I am. This is not because they will know more stuff (which they probably will in some sense) but because they will be able to think better. My task there is to help them, and pray the Spirit to help them, not become arrogant about this knowledge but to submit it to Christ, as we do all things.
If you are at the stage where college options are open to you and you are looking for something more than just a job that will get you lots of money, you should look into the three schools I have mentioned. There are others I have not mentioned because I know less about them, not because they are inferior institutions. Perhaps they'd like to send me some information or invite me up for a tour (hint, hint). I'd be happy to mention them here if I had more information with which to work.

Ron Paul on Homeschooling

Ron Paul gave the commencement address to a group of 14 homeschooled students recently. A nice write-up about it and what Ron Paul said about homeschooling can be found at "The Facts." Essentially, Paul reiterated the reason thinking homeschoolers homeschool, because they are passionate about their children and know that they are the ones in charge, not the state.

“It’s very important we encourage home-schooling and make sure it’s always legal, and our governments never decide they know best,” Paul said. “Too often, our government would like to be the parent. Home-schoolers know exactly who’s responsible for education, and that’s the parent.”

A big thanks to Representative Paul for taking the hard stand, as he usually does, on what matters.

This Day in History-The Beginning of Philosophy

Today, May 28 is one of the beginning dates offered for the beginnings of philosophy in Ancient Greece. The reason is quite simple really. A solar eclipse happened, as predicted by Thales of Miletus on this day in 586 BC. This solar eclipse happened to lead to truce between the Lydians and the Medes, a truce that would be in effect until Croesus of Lydia was conquered by Cyrus the Great of Persia in 546 BC. But that is another story.
Why would a solar eclipse begin philosophy? Because under the paradigm of Greek mythology, the religion of the Greeks, he should not have been able to do it. Under Greek mythology every event takes place because of the gods. Consider the cause of the plague in Homer's Iliad that is distressing the Greeks as the epic opens. "Apollo, who in anger at the king drove the foul pestilence along the host, and the people perished, since Atreus' son had dishonoured Chryses, priest of Apollo" (Il. i.9-11). Typically, as in Homer, events have an immediate course in the wrath of the gods. Thales usurps the possibility of the gods by predicting something. Prediction implies one of two things for the Greek worldview. Either the gods to not exist or Thales is a prophet with the mind of the gods.
This involves just a just brief foray into causality. In human experience (shut up Hume), causes always precede events. In Greek mythology, all events had supernatural causes with immediate causes. By predicting an event, Thales called into question the immediate supernatural causes of this event, and thus all events. If Thales can predict the effect, the cause is known or knowable. But Greek mythology held that the causes of storms, plagues, even the seasons are known only to the gods. The consequences of Thales prediction are obvious. Either the gods did not really control events like the eclipse Thales predicted or they planned the event do far beforehand that Thales was able to deduce it or discover it. But either of these negates the traditional understanding of causality according to the worldview of the Greek mind.
Thus Thales, by using reason and science, began philosophy by predicting an event that the gods did not cause.

How to Change a Culture

The other night my wife and I were flipping through channels in hopeless attempt to find something to watch. For one thing, we don't have cable, by design. We have decided that we already watch too much television with only the over-the-air broadcast channels we receive. For another thing, we can't justify spending the money. But the first reason is more important.
Nonetheless, we were flipping the channels and lighted upon NBC for a few moments. I could tell it was one of the incarnations of Law and Order. I have enjoyed some of these, especially the way they take a story currently in the news and twist it a little to make a fictional story. However, what I saw that night was nothing to be amused about.
The version I caught was SVU (Special Victims Unit). I rarely like these because of their attention to children and sexual crimes. I didn't like this one either, but for different reasons. I caught the story most of the way through, but I got the gist of it pretty quickly. A child had died and the evidence had led the investigators to a mother whose own child was known to play at the same public park as the victim. What happened next left me dumbfounded. The woman was arrested for murder because she had refused to vaccinate her own child and that child had spread a mild disease to the victim.
I actually didn't even finish the episode. I had seen everything I needed to see in those few moments. The characters provided the commentary that was necessary to change or establish public opinion on the issue at stake.
The people who make Law and Order and most of the other shows like it are at the forefront of culture change in our day. They are the George Eliot's of today, making it seem reasonable to think in ways that are actually quite contrary to biblical attitudes. Eliot, as I've posted here before, used the subtlety of her novel to slowly change attitudes toward aristocracy and wealth. Law and Order and the shows like them do the same thing for sexual preference, socialism, abortion, and the whole host of social actions in the news today.
The longer we watch shows like this without questioning them and their assumptions, the easier we make it to change the very foundations of our culture. The people who make these shows know this. This is the big game now. We are having our attitudes of culture and society changed around us without our even knowing it. These new thoughts are presented as matters of justice and common sense. Only really uptight and bigoted folks would reject the premises presented by the show. Only prudes would maintain sexual purity in the modern world. Only over-protective religious freaks would homeschool their children in the modern world (also seen lambasted in a Law and Order show).
This is the world we inherit if we watch carelessly and without thinking.

Teaching children to speak boldly

I was in a teacher interview today and was reminded about the importance of teaching our children to speak boldly. That means, for practical example, not looking down when you speak, speaking in a strong, clear voice, and meaning what you say. This is of great importance in our schools and homeschools because we, of all people, have something to say. When we speak, we are to speak the truth. The truth should not be spoken apologetically, but loudly. We should not worry whether our speech will bring ridicule upon us, but should expect this. Since we are speaking the truth, we should be clear and bold in our proclamation.
I reapplied this immediately in family worship tonight, requiring my children to answer their catechism questions with clear, bold answers. I also required them to use their voices to praise God in song this way.
I had basically forgotten this principle until speaking with this teacher candidate who was very precise on this point in her own speaking. I have had a vague notion that I didn't like my children or students speaking like wimps, but couldn't put my finger on a principle to correct it. Now I have remembered the principle.

The End of the War

Henry V invaded France in 1415, taking advantage of the volatile state of the French monarchy. The civil strife between the duke of Burgundy and the duke of Valois had sunk France into anarchy and left the question of national defense a real issue. Henry’s invasion was fast and deliberate. He captured much of Normandy and moved with great speed throughout France. However, he soon found himself low on supplies and cornered near the village of Agincourt. The French army engaged him there, and in a terrific battle, Henry emerged victorious with the French army in ruins. Henry followed up this victory by ransacking much of northern France and demanding peace with Charles VI.
The resulting peace treaty, the Treaty of Troyes (1420) disinherited the dauphin, Charles VII, from the throne and arranged the marriage of Henry V to Charles VI’s daughter Catherine. This effectively made Henry V the ruler of France. Because not all of the French nobles recognized Henry’s claim to the throne, he continues military campaigns in France until he died in 1422. Henry VI was immediately crowned king of France. Charles VI died the same year.
By 1428 the English were fighting in France again. The siege of Orléans began in that year but was not able to fully take the city. It is at this point that the events of the Hundred Years’ War become popular. In 1429 a peasant girl from Domrémy convinced the dauphin that God had sent her visions of French victory if she led the forces against the English. For some reason he allowed this to take place and her presence was, in fact, able to break the siege of Orleans and begin a surge of French military victories that opened Rheims and Paris again to the French. The dauphin was crowned Charles VII in Oct. 1422 amid great fanfare.
Joan was captured by the Burgundians, who were not happy at the resurgence of French monarchial power, and sold to the English in 1430. Joan was tried for heresy and condemned to be burned at the stake. She was an extremely popular figure in France and continued to be so after the war was over. In 1920 she was canonized as an official saint in the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, at the time she was viewed as a heretic by most officials in the church. How much this has to do with her execution, as opposed to her surprising victories in turning the French tide of the war against the English, remains a matter of historical debate. All we can say is that Joan rallied the French to victory and changed the course of the war.
Not long after Joan was captured, the Burgundians made a separate peace with and returned to the French side of the war. This allowed a more unified defense of France from this point forward. From 1435 to the end of the war in 1453, France was able to mount sure resistance and recovered town after town that had been in English hands.
When the war was finally over, the English had lost nearly all of their holdings in France. When the final battle was fought at Castillon in 1453, the roles were decidedly reversed. The French fought a calm and deliberate battle, whereas the English were frantic and foolish in their maneuvering. When the dust settled nothing remained of the English territory in France but the city of Calais and an empty claim to the throne of France.
The significance of the war is more important than its actual course and battles. The Hundred Years’ War was an experiment in evolution. Military tactics, traditional understandings about chivalry and its place on the battlefield, politics and popular conceptions of monarchy and nobility all came under fire during the course of this 116 year conflict. In many ways it signals the final collapse of the medieval world and bridges the gap to the developments of the next century. Like a wave breaking on the shore, the medieval world collapsed under the pressure of its own weight and the Hundred Years’ War is the greatest effect that collapse has to present.
During the 1420’s and 1430’s Prince Henry began making annual voyages into the Atlantic Ocean that would change the shape of the world drastically. Less than fifty years after the war ended Christopher Columbus had landed on the Caribbean Islands of North America. Within a hundred years the Renaissance and the Reformation were sweeping across Europe. The medieval world gasped for life during the Hundred Years’ War and eventually gave up its spirit to renewal and reformation of its cardinal beliefs.

Conduct and Course of the Hundred Years' War (1337 - 1360)

Once underway, the Hundred Years’ War was conducted in a series of phases that were often interrupted by truce or other reason to stop hostilities. Edward III made the first strike, hoping to secure the Flemish lands. He invaded the region of Flanders with a naval campaign that shocked contemporaries, not because of the amount of ships he used, but at the way he won the battle. Jean Froissart records that upon reaching Sluys, Edward saw “such a huge number of ships that their masts resembled a forest.” Edward redeployed his ships so that his archers could have the greatest effect. The French had no experience with the relatively new innovation of English archery: the longbow. Standing about six feet tall and boasting arrows of three feet in length, the longbow could shoot accurately up to 200 yards, which was more powerful even than the crossbow. The English decimated the French in the fight and took the port of Sluys easily. This impressive first victory led to a truce in 1342. The English held the port of Sluys and had a decent foothold in Flanders.
The truce of 1342 was broken in 1345 by the French and the English prepared to fight again. This second phase lasted only a year but created havoc among the French. The English landed at Normandy and began a long march down the Seine toward Paris. Philip VI had been stung, but not defeated when he lost Flanders. He gathered a large force of men and followed the English army at a safe distance until they could find a place to fight. In the course of events, they were brought to the town of Crećy in August of 1346. Unfortunately for the French, the English got the better ground in the battle. The English chose the higher ground and simply waited for the French to begin the assault. When they did, it was an absolute slaughter. At the end of the battle more than 4,000 French knights lay dead. The English chose to capitalize on their victory by laying siege to the port city of Calais, the closest point between England and France. It took the English almost a year to subdue Calais, but when they did in 1347 a truce was forced. The truce lasted five years, and held off hostilities during the period of the Black Death in Europe.
After the Black Death abated, both English and French were still willing to fight. The truce signed in 1347 expired in 1351 with no continuance. When it did, two English armies were ready to move on French lands. They were held up only by Pope Innocent VI who desperately wanted to stop the fighting in Europe. When the treaty designed by the Pope fell through the Prince of Wales, known to history as the Black Prince, sailed to Bordeaux in 1355 and was ready to make war. Edward III was already prepared to cross the English Channel and fight in Normandy.
In 1350 Philip VI had died and had been succeeded by his son Jean II. Jean had alienated many of his nobles in the first year of his reign and could not count on them for support as much as he needed. In light of this, it is easier to understand how the Black Prince ravaged Aquitaine and other areas of France for the better part of a year. Known by the French as “the proudest man ever born of woman,” he raided towns, murdered peasants, and burned mills over a 250 mile stretch of French countryside. The fascinating thing is that the French nobility in the region did little to stop this disaster.
In 1355 Edward III was able to make his crossing, although he had to settle for the port of Calais rather than Normandy. Hoping to bring the coastal region of Brittany under his control, Edward fought his way south into France. As he did so, followed by a French army, it became clear that a major battle was at hand. When Edward and the Black Prince met and joined near Poitiers, the result was inevitable. The Battle of Poitiers remains one of the greatest losses the French have ever seen on their own soil. In the aftermath, not only was the King himself captured, but also “one fighting arch-bishop, 13 counts, 5 viscounts, 21 barons and bannerets, and some 2,000 knights, squires, and men-at-arms of the gentry.” The result was a France without a king and without a great part of its noble class.
King Jean II was eventually ransomed, after a third estate uprising known as the Jacquerie, for the price of three million écus , as well as complete cession of Aquitaine and Calais to English control. Jean II returned to France and the war stopped. Edward rescinded his claim to the throne of France.
However, after Jean II died in 1364 and Charles V ascended the throne, the war began to take shape once again. Charles was very unhappy about the settlement and began strategically retaking English possession in France and in 1369 declared the Treaty of Bretigny to have been broken by the English. Between 1369 and 1389 the English tried to reassert control over territory ceded to them by Bretigny and establish control over Brittany. The main battle of the period, the Battle of Auray ended well for the English but had no lasting effects. The dukes of Brittany reconciled with the French crown and in the course of the period Edward III, the Black Prince, and many of England’s best generals died. By 1389, the war had wound down to a stalemate and another truce was called. This truce lasted until 1415, but hardly meant a peaceful condition for either France or England. The medieval world continued to unravel around the great conflict.
England faced revolts from Scotland and Ireland under the brief reign of Henry IV (1399-1413) and was unable to make any serious moves in France. The reign of Henry IV is featured in two plays by Shakespeare (Henry IV Part One and Two) and mentioned in Richard II. Shakespeare characterized Henry’s reign as one of constant defense from plots, assassination attempts and rebellions. While Shakespeare obviously dramatizes the situation for his audience, this was not far from the truth. Henry IV was succeeded in 1413 by Henry V who was finally able to resume tactics in France.
France also faced internal problems. With the death of Charles V, his twelve-year old son became Charles VI and ruled from 1380 until 1422. However, very early in his reign madness was detected and the regency was assumed by the duke of Burgundy creating a civil war in France between the Burgundians and the Valois. The feud brought anarchy to France and led to the invasion by Henry V in 1415 AD that began the final and most harrowing portion of the war.

Background and Causes of the Hundred Years' War

Historian Barbara Tuchman has claimed that the fourteenth century was “calamitous,” by which she means that great calamity attended the years 1300 AD to 1450 AD. Of course, it is not so neat as that, but in general it is true that the world changed dramatically in that century. We have already witnessed one major aspect of that change: the Black Death. In the five years of the plague’s major activity, it wiped out more than 70 million people, roughly one-third of Europe’s population. The plague was not over in 1351. It returned from time to time, although with less disastrous effects. Another major event of Tuchman’s calamitous fourteenth century is the Hundred Years’ War.
The Hundred Years’ War was a massive conflict that began in 1337. It mostly involved the countries of England and France, but the region of Flanders was involved somewhat as well. With some respite while under various truces, France and England fought for 116 years, until 1453. The causes of the Hundred Year’s war are varied and form a major plank in understanding what would bring these two countries to fight for such a long period of time. In order to fully understand the causes, the background should be reviewed.
The French had long been concerned with the English feudal holdings in Aquitaine. For two hundred years French kings had been seeking ways to remove the English presence there. Since the days of King John Aquitaine had slowly been reduced in size and would never reach the expanse it had under the Angevin Empire (except during rare moments of the coming conflict). The French also permitted the subjects of Aquitaine to bring any complaints against their lord directly to the French crown. This was a violation of the English lord’s rights in practice, but one which the French subjects repeatedly took advantage of. It was a constant source of friction between the English and the French and had conflict written all over it.
Another major piece of background information is the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. The relationship between papacy and monarchy had always been difficult as events like the Investiture controversy proved. The issue of church and state was a constant, some would say defining, problem during the Middle Ages. The period surrounding the Hundred Years’ War stands as the high point of the medieval world. Under the weight of so many conflicting relationships, the medieval world began to collapse in on itself and the Babylonian Captivity of the Church was but one effect of that collapse.
One of the defining struggles leading up to the Babylonian Captivity was the right to tax clergy members. Traditionally, the clergy were exempt from all local and state taxes. This did not mean they were not taxed; they were not taxed by secular authorities. Clergy were taxed by their superiors. Priests paid taxes (a portion of the tithe) to bishops, who paid taxes to arch-bishops, and so on until the papacy received its portion of ecclesiastical revenues. This system was so standardized that parishes and bishoprics were said to allow a certain income to the priest or bishop who oversaw it. Nonetheless, Philip IV wanted a share of the clerical coffers and insisted he had a right to it. This insistence prompted the Papal Bull called Clericis Laicos. This important letter, issued in 1296 AD proclaimed that no clergy “pay nothing under pretext of any obligation” to secular authorities.
Philip was not happy and the typical game of excommunication and force ensued. With such an unrepentant king on his hands, Boniface VIII issued another Papal Bull that made the most sweeping statement of any regarding papal authority. The Bull of Unam Sanctum claimed “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Te die had been cast. Even as Boniface prepared to excommunicate Philip IV, Philip prepared a physical response to the bull. Philip kidnapped Boniface and held him for three days at a castle in Anagni near Rome. Though he was released, the event had traumatic consequences for Boniface, who died about a month later.
Philip then saw to the election of a new pope who was French. Clement V mot only became, as most historians and theologians have viewed him, a puppet pope for the French king, but also moved the center of papal authority from Rome to the French city of Avignon. Six popes ruled the papacy from Avignon in France for about seventy years. This period has been called the Babylonian Captivity of the Church for a number of reasons. The humanist Petrarch (see chapter twenty-six) once called Avignon the “Babylon of the West.” Every office and permission for any crime or sin was able to be bought and sold in Avignon. The corruption already present in the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church took on heinous dimensions that were immortalized in works like Dante Aligheri’s Divine Comedy. Tuchman describes the general corruption of the church. “When bishops purchased benefices at the price of year’s income, they passed the cost down, so that corruption spread through the hierarchy from canons and priors to priesthood and cloistered clergy, down to mendicant friars and pardoners. It was at this level that the common people met the materialism of the Church, and none were more crass than the sellers of pardons.”
All of this was apparently done to satisfy the French kings lust for power and wealth. The Babylonian Captivity eroded, to a great extent, the last real power that the Roman Catholic Church possessed in Europe. As the years waned on, reformers became more and more numerous, facing the corruption of the papacy with doctrinal and practical changes. Within two hundred years Martin Luther would set the final nail in the coffin of the strangle hold Roman Catholicism had on the European mind.
A final piece of background information necessary to understand the causes of the Hundred Years’ War is the obliteration of the Knights Templar. The Knights Templar had been formed as a multi-national organization for knights to participate in the crusades. After the crusading period they found themselves in possession of a great deal of wealth. This attracted the eyes of Philip IV of France. Using his puppet pope, Clement V, Philip had the Knights arraigned on charges of devil-worship, witchcraft and sorcery and other heretical beliefs and practices. The papacy confiscated all property and wealth and gave it to a rival organization, the Hospitallars of St. John, who very soon gave a large donation to Philip IV of France.
A final piece of background information review is the unique place that chivalry had in medieval society. Chivalry, as we have discussed, was an ideal that wedded Germanic warrior customs, Roman legal customs, and Christian ethics and morality into a complicated framework of behavior and duty for the medieval knight. We have already seen how the code of chivalry has developed from a mere attitude between two knights to a more complicated system of courtly love and romance. Chivalry deserves a place in the background of the Hundred Years’ War because it was the knights that fought the conflict. Their behavior, as captured by chroniclers like Jean Froissart, shows the darker side of chivalry that the external coverings of Christian morality over a diseased heart can never totally hide. Knights who were not converted men with their hope and trust in Christ could be fiendishly evil and perpetrators of inhuman suffering. Many knights in Europe were itching for a fight. They loved to perform at tournaments and gain popularity. The crusades had siphoned off some of this spirit, but they had been over now for a hundred years. Chivalry, at this time, meant that there were warriors who wanted a war.
With this background information in place, it is time to consider the causes of the Hundred Years’ War, that crowning event of the High Middle Ages that signaled the end of the medieval way of life. There are generally four causes of the Hundred Years’ War given by historical accounts. They come in no particular order, but some are weightier than others.
The first cause is typically listed as the English claims in Aquitaine. This contest mentioned earlier fueled a great conflict of interest that was bound to boil over eventually. The second cause is Anglo-Frankish competition over the region of Flanders. Flanders, on the northern border of France and sharing the English Channel was strategically located both for military matters and economic matters. The third cause is the very aspects of chivalry we have just mentioned. The fourth, and possibly most direct cause of the Hundred Years’ War, has to do with the succession to the French throne in 1328.
In 1328 Charles IV died without a male heir. He had three possible claimants to the throne. Philip IV’s daughter had married the king of England and their son, Edward III, had a possible claim to the throne. The other two claimants were sons of a brother and half-brother of the deceased king. Philip of Valois was the favored candidate and Philip of Evreux was unlikely to gain recognition. The dispute over the crown seemed settled on Philip of Valois until the control of Flanders came into question. Edward III used the dispute over the French crown to justify a full-scale invasion and the Hundred Years’ War began in 1337 AD.

Reactions to the Plague and Other Events

When examining the reactions of the Black Death in Europe, we must remember the amount of death involved. Europe’s population was reduced by over 70 million people in the space of five years. Reactions to this onslaught were varied and unpredictable. There was no enemy to fight against. There was no one to take vengeance upon for the disease. Europe was completely helpless in the face of this faceless killer that had no respect for class, station, birth, or religion. In light of this, it should not surprise us to find that reactions included explanations from religious experience, a denial of traditional mores and social customs, and scapegoating.
“See how England mourns, drenched in tears. The people stained by sin, quake with grief. Plague is killing men and beasts. Why? Because vices rule unchallenged here.”[1] Reactions like this were fueled by traditional understandings of God and the universe; medieval understandings. The people of the medieval world, more so than we, tended to think of every event as part of God’s unfolding plan for His universe. Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic theology of the High and Later Middle Ages caused them to see themselves as perpetually under the divine wrath of God and that He was just looking for a good excuse to pour that wrath out on humanity. Religious interpretation of the plagues cause also sparked reactions like the flagellants: people who went about with whips (flagella) with which they “beat and whipped their bare skin until their bodies were bruised and swollen and blood rained down, spattering their walls nearby.”[2] They did this as an act of public penance for the sins that brought about the plague. As can be imagined, the amount of death present in Europe brought concerns about the end of the world. There was no lack of millennialism to account for the events surrounding the bubonic plague. There were rumors in 1349 that Antichrist had appeared and was even then a boy about ten years old.[3]
Many abandoned the traditional religious interpretation and the social structure established by Christianity in light of the plague. Looking around at the death around them and the powerlessness of established authority (ecclesiastical or secular) to control the plague, many began living for the moment, considering they could die at any moment. They completely gave themselves over to hedonism, forgetting that the trials of this life are used to purify the soul. They indulged in alcohol and sexual immorality.
Scientific reactions ranged from astrological explanations concerning the positions of all the planets at the time the plague broke out to theories about the content of the air being poisonous. Germ theory and basic sanitation to avoid infectious disease were a long way off at this point. We must admire these people for attempting an explanation even as we snicker at the absurd things they came up with.
Other reactions included flight from the heavily populated cities. The fourteenth-century writer Giovanni Boccacio captured much of this in his great work the Decameron. The Decameron is a frame narrative, like the Canterbury Tales, where a situation gives rise to the setting of the story. In Boccacio’s tale, ten people flee from Floerence to escape the ravages of the plague and tell stories to each other to pass the time. Once again, the reaction of flight is the setting of Edgar Allen Poe’s short story, The Masque of the Red Death.
There were a host of social reactions as well. One of the most hateful was that of scapegoating. As already noted, there was no enemy with the plague. There was no person responsible for the death that each and every town in Europe felt. Mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, husbands, wives, sins, daughters; all were affected by the death rampant between 1347 and 1351 ad. Human nature desires to blame someone or something for our misfortunes. We see this from the beginning of our sorry state, the Garden of Eden. As soon as God called Adam’s attention to his sin, Adam pointed to his scapegoat to avoid punishment himself. The medieval world was no different. They looked for any possible scapegoat to deliver them from their pain. Oftentimes the Jews were made the scapegoat of the anger flowing out of Europe. Pogroms, organized massacres of Jews, were frequent in towns and cities with Jewish populations. Many Christians still held Jews responsible for the death of Christ and the Jewish populations of Europe were often persecuted in various ways. At the time of the Black Death, they were made the scapegoat; beaten and killed as a way of venting anger or placing blame. Many Jews fled western Europe to eastern Europe and Russia at this time. This made for a large Jewish population in Russia, Poland, Prussia, and other developing countries there. An increase in witchcraft accusations and trials also seems to be due to the sense of helplessness many people felt in the face of the Black Death.
[1] From “On the Pestilence” anonymous English poem in Rosemary Horrox, The Black Death (New York: Manchester University Press, 1994), 126.
[2] From “Chronicon Henrici de Hervordia” The Black Death, 150.
[3] Robert E. Lerner, “The Black Death and Western European Eschatological Mentalities, ” American Historical Review LXXXVI, 1981: 552.

The Black Death

The Bubonic plague, better known as the Black Death, broke out in Europe around 1347 in the port cities of Sicily and Merseilles. It came from Asia. It is thought that Mongol warriors brought it out of central China during their occupation of the region. The disease spread through rats and the fleas on them. It spread quickly to the port cities of Asia. Since trade was stronger now than it had been it easily spread to Europe. Once in Europe it spread quickly, devastating the population in European countries.
The Bubonic plague was a version of the bacterium Yersinia pestis and was carried by fleas and rats into the ships of merchants bound for European port cities. Its spread in Europe was vast and with amazing speed. The traditional dates of the Black Death, the name given to the plague by Europeans, are from 1347 – 1351 AD. It is often said that the Black Death wiped out one to two-thirds of the European population, or 70 million people. Such a massive reduction in the population of Europe cannot but have had radical consequences as we will see later.
The plague first arrived in Europe through the ports of Sicily and later Marseilles in 1347. The new trade networks that had been established since the end of the crusading period guaranteed that goods were being traded between Asia and Europe. The plague spread like wildfire. In the five years of the plagues main activity it spread throughout most of Europe. By June of 1348 the plague had penetrated deep into France and had consumed Italy and the Balkans. Spain was also affected on its Mediterranean coast. By December of 1348 the plague had spread to portions of England and had almost completely engulfed most of southern Europe. In the next six months it spread further into England and began to infiltrate Germany and Russia. By December of 1349 almost all of England was affected as well as the North Sea region. Throughout 1350 and 1351 the plague continued to spread into Russia and other northern lands. As we can see in the map, very little of Europe was spared the devastation of the plague. There are a few places that seemed little touched by the disease and death of the plague. It is unknown why this is the case, except that they were low population areas and had less contact with the broader European community than most other areas.
The Black Death is of three varieties. The bubonic plague, the pneumonic plague, and the septicemic plague, but all have the same bacteria and initial transmission. Distinctions are made to acknowledge the different ways the plague was spread from carrier to host. The bubonic plague was spread through the fleas on black rats from Asia. The bacteria multiplied in the fleas’ stomach, making it ravenous. It ate constantly, trying to satisfy its hunger, but eventually died of starvation because the bacteria consumed everything. Its eating, however, allowed the bacteria to transmit to new hosts: rats, cats, and humans. From there pneumonic and septicemic plague took over to transmit the bacteria among the human population of Europe. Pneumonic plague was spread through saliva coughed out of infected hosts. Septicemic plague was spread through contact with the infected blood of a host.
The close living conditions of medieval cities made the plague spread all the faster and the limited knowledge of physicians at the time did not help anything. Physicians knew nothing about the scientific causes of the spread of infectious disease. The field of medicine was still dominated by the Greek physicians Galen and Hippocrates. Hippocrates, often called the father of modern medicine, thought that disease was caused by an imbalance in one of the four fluids, or humours, of the body. When this imbalance took place the humors must be brought back into balance. This was often done by bleeding or resting and waiting. Both of these methods of dealing with the plague in Europe proved disastrous. Bleeding brought others in contact with infected blood and waiting simply gave the disease more time to develop.
The symptoms of the black plague were obvious and quick. An infected person would develop large red blotches of infected blood and these would ooze pus and blood. The red blotches gave rise to the term Red Death in some literature dealing with the plague, notably the short story Masque of the Red Death by American writer Edgar Allen Poe.
The death rates for Europe during this period changed everything about society at the time. Most cities could not keep up with the death rate and mass graves were inaugurated to deal with the great amount of death. In the next section we will see how individual people and institutions dealt with the pandemic on social, ethical, and psychological levels.

Famine and Population

Many historians have commented that one of the most important factors in the history of any civilization is population. This would seem obvious once stated, but is often overlooked in historical accounts. When we say population is important, we mean the fact that there are people, not the more social issues of whether those people are of a particular class or not. Every civilization has to deal with the problem of either having too many people or not having enough. Sometimes God, in His providence, handles the issue for us. Beginning in 1347 ad, a plague ripped across Europe and devastated the population. We will take the story of that particular event up in a moment. There are other ways that population can be affected without reference to an apocalyptic plague.
The Bible tells us that life is a vapor, and that we are like flowers in a field. These images are meant to remind us of the fragility of life. As we consider the forces of history; the wars, the social changes, and the theology of various periods, we must remember that we are dealing with actual people, like you and I, not abstract characters in a play or novel. Population is nothing but a fancy word for thinking about how many people are in a given place at a given time. The reason population is so important is that, as we mentioned already, without it, there is no civilization.
The fragility of life is affected by weather and food. Weather can be too hot or too cold. Food can be plentiful or in low supply. These two broad factors are often influenced by each other or influence each other. Good weather may produce an abundant supply of food. An abundance of food means people eat better, are stronger, and are more productive. There is also more food to go around. Poor weather can have the opposite effect. A lack of food, often called a famine, will tend to be evidenced by falling population figures for a given time period or region.
Around the end of the thirteenth century (the 1200’s) Europe entered what historians and other scholars call a “little ice age.” A small shift in temperature patterns caused the growing season to be shorter, thus affecting food production. This “little ice age” also affected other weather conditions, causing storms and heavy rain for many areas. These events precipitated what has been called the Great Famine of 1315. It lasted for two years in northern Europe and killed as much as ten percent of the population there. Ten percent doesn’t sound like a high figure. However, prior to this change in conditions, Europe had been experiencing a growth in population. Population figures in countries are often expressed in millions. If there were one million people in Europe, we are talking about the death of 100,000 individuals. The population figures are actually much higher than that. Sometimes individual cities reported deaths of that magnitude. The pattern established in northern Europe continued in southern Europe. The 1330’s and 1340’s saw hunger become a real problem for many cities.
One reason why the change in harvest levels had such a dramatic effect in Europe was that by the 1300’s Europe had reached what some scholars refer to as “the upper limit of its population.”[1] This meant that given the agricultural and technological factors, no more people could be supported. Unless some factor changed, such as an increase in productive land or an advance in technology, the maximum population had been reached. With the changes in temperature that this “little ice age” brought about, the same amount of land was being farmed, but the production level had declined. This meant there was less food for a level population.
A common reaction to this was migration. Many cities grew in size about this time as people moved from the rural areas to the more urban areas. This took place on a grand scale and often accompanies a shift of this magnitude. All across history, severe changes resulting in famine have caused migrations to more populated areas. While this seems counterproductive to us, the idea was that a city has more opportunities to succeed than a small town. We see this paradigm played out in the classical and biblical world over and over again (cf. Ruth) and in more modern times as well. The American novelist, John Steinbeck, based The Grapes of Wrath, on the migration of people from Oklahoma to California during the Great Depression of the 19930’s. This reaction to famine is not new, nor has it been replaced in our history.
Many cities saw increases of up to 18% in the years of the famines. This obviously meant that the rural areas saw a marked decrease in their population. Nonetheless, all this marks an overall decrease in population throughout Europe during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Famine was a major contributor to this population decline. Famine led to malnutrition which caused higher infant death rates and lower births in general. However famine was not the only factor. The other major factor in the population decline on the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was the bubonic plague, otherwise known as the Black Death.
[1] Jackson Spielvogel. Western Civilization, 4th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1999), 297.

Angels in the Architecture "The Font of Laughter"

How important is laughter to the Christian life? According to Wilson and Jones, it is central. Why, then, are so many Christians found to be dour, stern looking folks? Wilson and Jones suggest it may be because they do not understand Christianity.
We must state at the outset that Wilson and Jones are, as I am, reformed in their soteriology and therefore in their view of the Christian worldview. Much of this essay derives its chief argument from a reformed understanding of the doctrines of predestination and total depravity.
As Christians, we often think our total depravity or predestination are difficult things to be resigned to. You mean, I am really that bad? Huh. You mean to say I can't do anything to save myself? Huh. What a drag.
On the contrary, argue Wilson and Jones. What a cause for rejoicing. "Congratulations Mr. Sisk, you just survived a fall of three hundred feet because someone put this inflated thing-a-ma-bob under you." "I was that high up! Man, I'll spend the rest of my life being downcast about how high up I was and what would have happened to me."
Wrong! Spend the rest of your life rejoicing that the inflated thing-a-ma-bob was put under you for your salvation. Laugh about it for heaven's sake.
Laughter is the proper response to our salvation because of predestination and total depravity, not in spite of those things.

Angels in the Architecture "Where Righteousness and Mercy Kiss"

It has been awhile since I blogged a essay in Angels in the Architecture, but I'm going to try to get back into this. I am teaching through the book in my Humanities class right now, so I'm having to read the essays again.
In this essay, Doug Jones discusses the doctrine of Justification. No real shock there, since when do Protestants not talk about Justification? But Jones comes at this from a slightly different angle. Jones rehashes the issues separating Protestant Justification from Roman catholic Justification. He argues, however, that Roman Catholic Justification, aside from being Scripturally wrong, is philosophically wrong as well. Only the Protestant vision of Justification keeps God's attributes of Righteousness (Justice) and Mercy from warring against each other. Any system that elevates either of these two over the other makes for a lop-sided Justification and fails to do God justice, so-to-speak.
To simply forgive sin without punishment would indeed be merciful, but would leave justice unsatisfied. To punish sin wholly and immediately would be just, but would lack mercy. Roman Catholicism keeps these two at odds while the Protestant doctrine of Substitionary Atonement and Vicarious Sacrifice leading to Justification by Faith satisfies both requirements.
Why must God be just, you may ask? Because it is a self-proclaimed attribute of His holiness (cf. Neh. 9:32-33). Why must God then be merciful? God, Himself, declares this to be an attribute as well (cf. Ex. 34:6-7). Righteousness and Mercy must kiss for true Justification to happen. Only the Protestant vision of this Justification satisfies the demands of a holy and merciful God.

YouTube and visiting other blogs

Sometimes I feel like I have no original thoughts or content for this blog, but it does serve as a dumping ground for other stuff. I tend to watch YouTube and post videos I find there. I also tend to visit a group of other blogs (seen to the right) and occasionally just say what they have said (with due credit, of course). That is the case today. I just visited Andrew Kern's blog (Quiddity) and found a hilarious math video he mentioned. It is all the funnier because I have a student this year who, in jest, tried to get me with this same Math gag.
Enjoy.