I've thought about Jesus' proclamation in Matt. 12:25 and Luke 11:17 several times and been troubled by it. I am not sure I get the logic of it. Perhaps I am too modern for my own good, but in the age of James Bond and Jack Bauer, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that Satan might place a double agent on Earth to influence some people by casting out a few demons.
But then I have Jesus saying that it is impossible. A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. It is in my Bible, therefore it is true.
Which leads me to question the issue from a different perspective. The inevitable result of a divided kingdom, in this case one demon casting out other demons, is destruction. If that is true, what does it say about our world in modernity? We have used secret agents and double agents for most of modernity.
In reading Greenmantle with my Humanities class, I have been forced to reevaluate this issue again. The main character in the novel is a secret agent sent behind enemy lines to discover some secret plot to generate a jihad among Muslim Turks during the Great War. The narrative borrows much from typical British "Great Game" language and the terms and phrases are used often.
If we use agents and spies and such, are we doomed to destruction? What real benefit have they given us? Is the use of such tactics in peacetime and warfare a foray into national violations of the 9th commandment.
I still have much to consider here.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Star Trek
I have the feeling that nostalgia is going to get the best of me...again. I am planning on going to see the new Star Trek movie when it comes out. I have hopes for it, but they are mediated by similar situations in recent years. I am a little excited and very concerned to see what J.J. Abrams will do with Star Trek. I liked Alias for a little while, then it got weird and imploded. We didn't even bother watching the last season or two. I am still watching Lost, but know that it has gotten past the possibility of making sense. I want to see what he does with it, not much more.
He has a habit of beginning something on a really clever idea and then letting it roll. I get no indication that he knows where his plots need to end up. I am hoping he can do better with a simple 2 hour timeframe, but we'll see.
The other thing that concerns me is his very postmodern worldview. I have seen it writ large on both Alias and Lost, very Matrix-esque with lots of symbolism borrowed or stolen from other contexts, and am a little concerned about how it will affect something as modernist as Star Trek. I watched Quantum of Solace recently and was amazed at how postmodern Bond has become. Gone are the modernist toys of Q as well as other basic Bond standbys. It was eerie to watch it.
I half-expect the new Star Trek to be this way as well, to some extent. It is sci-fi after all, a typically modernist genre anyway.
He has a habit of beginning something on a really clever idea and then letting it roll. I get no indication that he knows where his plots need to end up. I am hoping he can do better with a simple 2 hour timeframe, but we'll see.
The other thing that concerns me is his very postmodern worldview. I have seen it writ large on both Alias and Lost, very Matrix-esque with lots of symbolism borrowed or stolen from other contexts, and am a little concerned about how it will affect something as modernist as Star Trek. I watched Quantum of Solace recently and was amazed at how postmodern Bond has become. Gone are the modernist toys of Q as well as other basic Bond standbys. It was eerie to watch it.
I half-expect the new Star Trek to be this way as well, to some extent. It is sci-fi after all, a typically modernist genre anyway.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Socialism in Silas Marner
While reading Silas Marner with my students, I have been struck by the very subtle leanings of its author, George Eliot (aka, Mary Ann Evans). The Darwinism and anti-religious statements were expected, but somehow I missed that Evans (Eliot) had been influenced by Marx as well.
Eliot published Silas Marner in 1861, a good thirteen years after Marx and Engels hit the bookshelves with The Communist Manifesto. I had been reading various statements about class without very little recognition of what Eliot was subtly trying to suggest. Then, all of a sudden, she came out and said it.
The socialism is subtle, and undeveloped, which actually makes it more dangerous. If Eliot threw it out there very obviously, the novel might be dismissed as extremist ranting. However, if Eliot simply subtly suggests the ideas and lets them develop in the mind of her reader, then eventually the fruit will come. Socialism won't look so bad once we think about how nice it would be if everyone could eat all they wanted.
No one initiating something as dangerous as Socialism goes around talking about the bad parts of the plan. That would be dumb. They use the strategy of Eliot and suggest what might be better if things were done just a little differently. Who could argue against wasted fruits and vegetables, after all?
Remember this the next time our leaders suggest Smart Meters so that everyone will have enough electricity to heat them and keep them cool.
Eliot published Silas Marner in 1861, a good thirteen years after Marx and Engels hit the bookshelves with The Communist Manifesto. I had been reading various statements about class without very little recognition of what Eliot was subtly trying to suggest. Then, all of a sudden, she came out and said it.
...there's never a garden in all the parish but what there's endless waste in it for want o' somebody as could use everything up. It's what I think to myself sometimes, as there need nobody run short o' victuals if the land was made the most on, and there was never a morsel but what could find its way to a mouth. It sets one thinking o' that—gardening does.Aaron's comment on the possibility of finding pretty much anything Eppie wants for her new garden betrays Eliot's thinking about the haves and have nots of England in the nineteenth century. If only those who have so much would give to those who have very little, there would surely be plenty to go around.
The socialism is subtle, and undeveloped, which actually makes it more dangerous. If Eliot threw it out there very obviously, the novel might be dismissed as extremist ranting. However, if Eliot simply subtly suggests the ideas and lets them develop in the mind of her reader, then eventually the fruit will come. Socialism won't look so bad once we think about how nice it would be if everyone could eat all they wanted.
No one initiating something as dangerous as Socialism goes around talking about the bad parts of the plan. That would be dumb. They use the strategy of Eliot and suggest what might be better if things were done just a little differently. Who could argue against wasted fruits and vegetables, after all?
Remember this the next time our leaders suggest Smart Meters so that everyone will have enough electricity to heat them and keep them cool.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
The Gibeonite Famine (2 Samuel 21:1-14)
A three year famine hit Israel shortly after the revolt of Absalom had been finished. David did some asking and learned from God that this famine was the result of a broken covenant with the Gibeonites. Saul had apparently slaughtered many of them and now God was taking vengeance on the perpetrators of the crime, Israel. Now, to understand how odd this is, we must remember who the Gibeonites were. Back in Joshua 9, shortly after the fall of Jericho and Ai, many of the Canaanites decided to amass a great army and stand against Israel. The Gibeonites decided upon a different strategy. They dressed in ragged clothing, took old, moldy bread, and worn-out waterskins and approached the camp of Joshua. They claimed to be from a far-off land and were seeking the protection of such a mighty army as Israel. They fooled Joshua and the elders of Israel into making an everlasting covenant with them.
The ruse didn't last forever. Eventually Joshua and the Israelites realized they'd been had. They had made a poor decision and now had to live with the consequences, however bad they might be. After all, Psalm 15 tells us it is the mark of a godly man to be constant even when we have sworn to our own hurt. And these might be terrible consequences. God had given strict instructions to not leave any of the Canaanites alive. The children of Israel were to make no covenant with any of the peoples in the land. And here, Joshua had done just that.
So, did the fact that Joshua had been deceived by the Gibeonites invalidate the covenant made with them? No! This sounds strange to our ears, but it is true. The people of Israel were quite upset about this as well. They complained to Joshua and the elders of Israel. But the elders replied, "We have sworn to them by the Lord God of Israel; now therefore, we may not touch them. This we will do to them: We will let them live, lest wrath be upon us because of the oath which we swore to them” (Josh. 9:19-20). They did have some recourse to alter the relationship between Israel and the Gibeonites, and this they did. They decreed that Gibeonites would be woodworkers. Be this as it may, they honored their covenant with the Gibeonites.
That is, until Saul came along. Saul did not honor the covenant with the Gibeonites and the entire land paid dearly for it. Even after Saul was dead, the stench of the broken covenant made God nauseous. He sent a famine among His own people to remind them how injurious it was to break a covenant oath. David learned of the details and made things right with the Gibeonites. The author of Samuel says that he entreated the Gibeonites, "What shall I do for you? And with what shall I make atonement, that you may bless the inheritance of the Lord?" (2 Sam. 21:3) David wrote the Gibeonites a blank check. He made it clear that having the Gibeonites affirm the Lord's covenant and know the Israelites to be covenant keepers was of more importance to him than gold, silver, or any other precious thing.
We should learn much from David in this event. If we make a covenant, we must keep it. This is the way the Lord works on our behalf and it is the way we must work with others.
The ruse didn't last forever. Eventually Joshua and the Israelites realized they'd been had. They had made a poor decision and now had to live with the consequences, however bad they might be. After all, Psalm 15 tells us it is the mark of a godly man to be constant even when we have sworn to our own hurt. And these might be terrible consequences. God had given strict instructions to not leave any of the Canaanites alive. The children of Israel were to make no covenant with any of the peoples in the land. And here, Joshua had done just that.
So, did the fact that Joshua had been deceived by the Gibeonites invalidate the covenant made with them? No! This sounds strange to our ears, but it is true. The people of Israel were quite upset about this as well. They complained to Joshua and the elders of Israel. But the elders replied, "We have sworn to them by the Lord God of Israel; now therefore, we may not touch them. This we will do to them: We will let them live, lest wrath be upon us because of the oath which we swore to them” (Josh. 9:19-20). They did have some recourse to alter the relationship between Israel and the Gibeonites, and this they did. They decreed that Gibeonites would be woodworkers. Be this as it may, they honored their covenant with the Gibeonites.
That is, until Saul came along. Saul did not honor the covenant with the Gibeonites and the entire land paid dearly for it. Even after Saul was dead, the stench of the broken covenant made God nauseous. He sent a famine among His own people to remind them how injurious it was to break a covenant oath. David learned of the details and made things right with the Gibeonites. The author of Samuel says that he entreated the Gibeonites, "What shall I do for you? And with what shall I make atonement, that you may bless the inheritance of the Lord?" (2 Sam. 21:3) David wrote the Gibeonites a blank check. He made it clear that having the Gibeonites affirm the Lord's covenant and know the Israelites to be covenant keepers was of more importance to him than gold, silver, or any other precious thing.
We should learn much from David in this event. If we make a covenant, we must keep it. This is the way the Lord works on our behalf and it is the way we must work with others.
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.
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.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
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.
“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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)