The Early American Republic Was Always Unstable 

Let’s start with John Calhoun. Calhoun represents a bridge between the American founding and the Civil War. He was born after the Revolutionary War and died before the Civil War, and he was actively involved in American politics from 1812-1850. Calhoun was a complicated character. He was a Southern Agrarian, and yet he was also a Unitarian. He was a Jeffersonian “Democratic-Republican” who went on to serve as Andrew Jackson’s Vice-President, feud with him over some central points of political theory, especially states rights, and end his career with some fairly rigid and provocative ideas, namely a very strict notion of states rights, the legitimacy of both nullification and secession, the concept of concurrent-majority and a full-throated defense of slavery. Some of Calhoun’s thought is quite genius, though in that sense also creative rather than traditional, and some of it is morally repugnant. But what he shows us is that the interval between the American Founding and the Civil War was a combustible one. There were no halcyon days which were later assaulted. No, neither the North nor the South represented some invasion of rogue ideology which ruined the American project. The American project was always one with multiple and competing interests which never made explicit some of its most basic transcendental commitments. And so, in that way, it was always unstable.

Slavery was the big issue during Calhoun’s day because it touched all of the other big issues. Slavery accounted for about half of the country’s entire way of existence. It made up an enormous part of the economy, and it was a major player in the world economy. You could compare it to the role that oil plays in today’s world, and you wouldn’t be far off. But it was domestic and so impossible to hide from sight. Slavery was also relevant to westward expansion, since the addition of new states would always raise the question as to whether they would be free states or slave states. And that question was relevant, not only to the new states, but also to the old states, since it would determine the future political influence and power those old states would have. If more slave states were added, then the free states would lose out in Washington, and if more free states were added, then the slave states would lose out in Washington. Thus slavery was not “the only issue,” but it was the issue that touched all other issues and was therefore the main point of contention.

The South’s Contribution to the Slavery Issue: A Positive Good and Political-Economic Necessity  

Now, slavery was not original to the South. It predated the United States as a nation, and so the Southerners would always call out the Northerners as hypocrites on this point. We should also add that a large portion of the North was more or less economically bound up in slavery, even if no slaves were actually present on their own land. Banks, lending, markets, and the rest were not limited to any one “section,” and the clash between Jackson and Calhoun shows how even two Southerners, men largely sharing the same region and culture, could disagree over other political issues. But what does make slavery a distinctively Southern problem is that the founding fathers largely admitted that slavery was an evil which,while not being able to be removed in their own day, would need to be done away with in the future. The leading Southern political thinkers would come to reject this point of view, arguing instead that slavery was a positive good and even a part of the natural law and divine hierarchy of human society.

Calhoun and Slavery

Calhoun, again, is an important representative of this shift. He said this in 1837:

Abolition and the Union cannot coexist. As the friend of the Union I openly proclaim it–and the sooner it is known the better. The former may now be controlled, but in a short time it will be beyond the power of man to arrest the course of events. We of the South will not, cannot, surrender our institutions. To maintain the existing relations between the two races, inhabiting that section of the Union, is indispensable to the peace and happiness of both. It cannot be subverted without drenching the country in blood, and extirpating one or the other of the races. Be it good or bad, [slavery] has grown up with our society and institutions, and is so interwoven with them that to destroy it would be to destroy us as a people. But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding States is an evil:–far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both, and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually.

In the meantime, the white or European race, has not degenerated. It has kept pace with its brethren in other sections of the Union where slavery does not exist. It is odious to make comparison; but I appeal to all sides whether the South is not equal in virtue, intelligence, patriotism, courage, disinterestedness, and all the high qualities which adorn our nature.

But I take higher ground. I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good–a positive good.

Now, what’s really interesting in this speech is something that no one has yet brought up in the popular conversation. Calhoun makes slavery the solution to the problem of capitalism:

I hold then, that there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other. Broad and general as is this assertion, it is fully borne out by history. This is not the proper occasion, but, if it were, it would not be difficult to trace the various devices by which the wealth of all civilized communities has been so unequally divided, and to show by what means so small a share has been allotted to those by whose labor it was produced, and so large a share given to the non-producing classes. The devices are almost innumerable, from the brute force and gross superstition of ancient times, to the subtle and artful fiscal contrivances of modern. I might well challenge a comparison between them and the more direct, simple, and patriarchal mode by which the labor of the African race is, among us, commanded by the European. I may say with truth, that in few countries so much is left to the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or where there is more kind attention paid to him in sickness or infirmities of age. Compare his condition with the tenants of the poor houses in the more civilized portions of Europe–look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poorhouse… There is and always has been in an advanced stage of wealth and civilization, a conflict between labor and capital. The condition of society in the South exempts us from the disorders and dangers resulting from this conflict; and which explains why it is that the political condition of the slaveholding States has been so much more stable and quiet than that of the North.

This shows us that the issue was much more than “hate” or “prejudice.” Slavery was a key part in political and economic theory. It was the perceived solution to the problem of the unemployed and those who could not otherwise support themselves. It also helped to support workers’ rights in that it removed the most burdensome labor from free workers and placed it on slaves. The slaves were a sort of property, to be sure, but they also received a sort of full patronage (harsh and brutal as it was) from their masters. Calhoun believed this was an inescapable feature of economics and that slavery was preferable to laissez-faire capitalism.

Jefferson Davis, the Future President

Jefferson Davis, writing 21 years later and on the eve of the Civil War, made this same point about slavery’s relationship to capitalism:

The same dangerously powerful man describes the institution of slavery as degrading to labor, as intolerant and inhuman, and says the white laborer among us is not enslaved only because he cannot yet be reduced to bondage. Where he learned his lesson, I am at a loss to imagine; certainly not by observation, for you all know that by interest, if not by higher motive, slave labor bears to capital as kind a relation as can exist between them anywhere; that it removes from us all that controversy between the laborer and the capitalist, which has filled Europe with starving millions and made their poorhouses an onerous charge. You too know, that among us, white men have an equality resulting form a presence of a lower caste, which cannot exist where white men fill the position here occupied by the servile race. The mechanic who comes among us, employing the less intellectual labor of the African, takes the position which only a master-workman occupies where all the mechanics are white, and therefore it is that our mechanics hold their position of absolute equality among us.

Davis argues that slavery actually creates equality, and it does so by a sort of caste system. Now even the poor whites are ennobled, since they are preserved from servitude.

This shows us that there is a combination of ideas at work in modern American slavery. It was racial, but it was also exploiting race in order to address other systemic problems. Slavery could solve workers” rights, and it could bring unity and equality to all white people. Indeed, an argument could be made that the modern concept of a unified “White” identity was an invention of this period of history. Instead of a hierarchy of whites, there can be an equality of “whiteness” over and against “the servile race.” It’s hard to imagine a late-antique Greek or Roman identifying as “one race” with a Gaul or a Goth, and European history is full of a sort of racism internal to “white” people. America was supposed to overcome such divisions, and the Southern solution was to reduce the matter to black and white.

There was also a sort of old-world aristocratic view of manual labor. Certain occupations were deemed either inappropriate or impossible for gentlemen to engage in, and so slavery would help to supplement this remainder. But this was only partly “old-world.” It was also directly related to the modern issue of labor cost and wages. Large-scale agriculture came with major expenses, as it still does today. Slavery was not, contrary to some popular assumptions, on an inevitable decline in the 19th century. It was being offered up as a great solution to persistent economic dilemmas and competing market forces. This fact will resurface in several of the secession documents.

Alexander Stephens and the Cornerstone of the Confederacy

The last piece of evidence I want to highlight in order to show that slavery in the 19th century was not merely a relic of a common past but a dynamic component of contemporary political theory is Alexander Stephen’s infamous Cornerstone Speech. Stephens was the Vice President of the Confederacy, and this speech was his attempt to explain the causes for Southern secession and also the key features of their new constitution and political theory. He mentions states rights and the role of the tariff, but he is clear that the “cornerstone” of the confederate political philosophy is negro slavery and white supremacy. In addition to this, he also admits that this is an advancement from a past instability, showing that the Confederacy understood itself to be a step forward in historical progress and not simply a preservation of an earlier unified tradition.

Stephens says this:

All the essentials of the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated. Some changes have been made. Some of these I should have preferred not to have seen made; but other important changes do meet my cordial approbation. They form great improvements upon the old constitution. So, taking the whole new constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decidedly better than the old.

He then goes on to explain what is “new” about the confederate constitution. He begins with the equality of industry, noting how the tariff was used in the past to favor some occupations and economic interests over others. This has been abolished by the new constitution. Stephens next notes that “internal improvements” (the building of roads, the development of land, railways, etc.) would no longer be under the jurisdiction of a central or federal government but rather the individual states. He then moves to the added role of cabinet members in congress and the longer presidential term. But finally he gets to the most important principle and indeed the very cornerstone of the new government: slavery and negro subordination.

Stephens, sounding very much like a believer in manifest-destiny and even the unstoppable march of progress says that the American founders were largely mistaken on slavery and that subsequent historical developments have led to the Southern position:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Now that really is an incredible argument, and it is not very “traditional.” Stephens says that founders were wrong to say that slavery was a necessary evil, and he says that their confusion came from the fact that they believed in the equality of the races. This was “fundamentally” wrong in Stephens’s understanding, and therefore the new Southern political theory would be entirely built upon the the notions of racial inequality and that slavery was “natural and normal.”

Stephens unpacks this argument in some detail. He says that the anti-slavery “fanatics” actually form right conclusions from their premises but that their premises are “fancied or erroneous.” The “principle” which comes to the front of this debate is that of racial inequality:

They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

Stephens is here saying that racial hierarchy is a natural law instituted by God Himself. The Confederacy, then, becomes “the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society.” Its newness is in its perception that the problem with previous class-systems was that they admitted inequality within the same race. What the Confederacy had discovered was that the equality which classical liberalism was looking for was indeed attainable, but only within a system of racial hierarchy. Stephens explains:

Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.” The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders “is become the chief of the corner” the real “corner-stone” in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.

This is civic religion of the grossest variety, and Stephens is clearly making racial hierarchy and negro slavery a matter of divine law. He goes on to show that this was not something which should be limited to the American South, but, being a fact of nature and a divine precept, would eventually spread throughout all the world:

Thousands of people who begin to understand these truths are not yet completely out of the shell; they do not see them in their length and breadth. We hear much of the civilization and Christianization of the barbarous tribes of Africa. In my judgment, those ends will never be attained, but by first teaching them the lesson taught to Adam, that “in the sweat of his brow he should eat his bread,” and teaching them to work, and feed, and clothe themselves.

Understood in the context of its own thinkers and statesmen, the Confederacy then was progressive rather than traditional. It was based on economic and racial views which constituted a unique political philosophy. This was a correction to and perfection of the original American founding, and it was thought to be a bold step forward along the historical march of progress. The central principle of it all was racial inequality, and negro slavery was its cornerstone.

Secession Documents and Justifications

In addition to the matter of political theory and grand philosophical ideals, the Southern states also made practical arguments. These are what they would appeal to in order to justify secession. Constitutional and procedural grievances do appear in these statements, but the central topic is consistently slavery.

South Carolina was the first state to secede, and its declaration of secession is long and complex. It certainly does push “states rights” to the forefront, arguing, after the legacy of Calhoun, that the other states of the Union had violated the Constitution and thus broken the political pact, thus leaving the Southern states justified to secede. The specifics of this constitutional breach, however, all had to do with slavery. The declaration begins by arguing that the United States Constitution “established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted.” This then leads to the contemporary matter, that the US government has itself become “destructive of the ends for which it was instituted” and thus dissolved the binding nature of the compact:

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

What have these fourteen states done? They have violated the 4th article of the Constitution by aiding and abetting runaway slaves. They have attacked the property of the Southern states by allowing the slaves to be taken away from their owners (thus a form of theft), and they have overthrown the political logic of the three-fifths compromise, thus violating article 2.1.3 of the Constitution. The final stated offense is that some states have even granted citizenship to slaves, “persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens.” This last issue has thus overturned the balance of political power and created an existential crisis for the South.

Mississippi’s was the second state to secede, and its declaration of secession places slavery and its economic significance at the very beginning:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Here we see a combination of global market interests and a supposed natural law which made blacks the only appropriate agricultural workers. Southern slavery is said to be essential for world “commerce and civilization.”

Georgia’s declaration of secession also centers around slavery, and it makes a direct connection to westward expansion:

We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections – of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.

Notice that the Georgians are not opposed to conquest and the annexation of new territory. To the contrary, they claimed responsibility and joint ownership over this new territory. Thus there was no anti-imperial South. The Georgia declaration concludes with the observation that the South is essentially being robbed of three billion dollars worth of property.

The Texas declaration of secession repeats many of the themes already stated, and it highlights racial inequality as a natural law:

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color – a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

The declaration concludes by stating its belief in white supremacy and that the current status of negro slavery was a part of the “revealed will of the Almighty Creator”:

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

The Commissioner from the state of Louisiana wrote to the Texas secession convention at around this same time, and he revealed Louisiana’s commitment to negro slavery as an essential feature of their economy and political existence:

Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, be­queathed to their posterity. As her neighbor and sister State, she desires the hearty co-operation of Texas in the formation of a Southern Confederacy. She congratulates herself on the recent disposi­tion evinced by your honorable body to meet this wish, by the elec­tion of delegates to the Montgomery convention. Louisiana and Texas have the same language, laws and institutions. They grow the same great staples—sugar and cotton. Between the citizens of each exists the most cordial social and commercial intercourse. The Red river and the Sabine form common highways for the transpor­tation of their produce to the markets of the world. Texas affords to the commerce of Louisiana a large portion of her products, and in exchange the banks of New Orleans furnish Texas with her only paper circulating medium. Louisiana supplies to Texas a market for her surplus wheat, grain and stock; both States have large areas of fer­tile, uncultivated lands, peculiarly adapted to slave labor; and they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity.

The Commissioner virtually identifies slavery and the Confederacy, speaking about slavery as the primary goal of the new political entity. It also argues the seceding states must not remain independent, but rather band together for one another’s continued existence:

The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy…The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and deter­mination to preserve African slavery. The isolation of any one of them from the others would make her the theatre for abolition emisa­ries from the North and from Europe. Her existence would be one of constant peril to herself and of imminent danger to other neighboring slave-holding communities…She is unwill­ing that her action should depend on the border States. Her inter­ests are identical with Texas and the seceding States. With them she will at present co-operate, hoping and believing in his own good time God will awaken the people of the border States to the vanity of ask­ing for; or depending upon, guarantees or compromises wrung from a people whose consciences are too sublimated to be bound by that sacred compact, the constitution the of the late United States. That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual.

Slavery is clearly the primary interest, and so the slave-holding states should not make themselves dependent on states which do not share that interest. Slavery is said to be a “social balance wheel,” and thus the hope was for a new “perpetual” government.

Concluding Thoughts 

Civil War history is thick, and there is much more we could say about all of this. I have not presented anything which professional historians have not rehearsed many times before and in better detail. But what I do hope is clear is that the Confederacy really was distinguished by its commitment to slavery. The concept of states rights was certainly relevant to the conversation, but this was never merely an abstract interest in anti-federalism but rather a commitment to preserve the right for states to possess slaves. Therefore when terms like “Southern rights,” “minority rights,” “liberty,” and “tyranny” are used, they are always in direct connection to the debate over slavery. And when leaders of the Confederacy had the opportunity to explain what was new and special about their government, they went right to the question of slavery.

Southern slavery was not a continuation of ancient slavery. Western Europe had done away with that system, and the new system of slavery only came about with the new exploration of the Americas. The institution of slavery in the South was “peculiar,” as they called it, and it was totally bound up in early modern political developments, the emerging agrarian markets, and a new sort of racial theory which the Southerners saw as a new chapter in  history. All of this, taken as a whole, is what makes up the identity of the Confederacy. There was certainly a commitment to chivalrous protocol, Christian orthodoxy, and early American heritage among the peoples and communities of the South. However, none of those things managed to feature in the leading identity markers of the Confederate States of America. They were not unique to the mid-19th century South and were therefore not distinguishing characteristics. The distinguishing marks were racial inequality and an agrarian economy built on slavery.

Having laid all of this out then, the question that usually arises is whether we must then reject the South and Southern heritage as a whole and declaim it as villainous. The answer to this questions depends upon two other questions. “Do you believe that the distinguishing marks of white supremacy and slavery are immoral and worthy of rejection?” and “Are you willing to make efforts to clearly distinguish between the inheritance of Southern culture and the legacy of the Confederacy?”

My own answer to both of those questions is yes.

Even though I was born in South Mississippi, attended a Southern Baptist Church for 20 years, and went to the University of Southern Mississippi, I had no confederate heritage. The Confederacy was an absolute non-factor in the stories my family told, the music we listened to, and the way that we passed along our identity, values, or culture. The “Rebel Flag” (which is what most everyone called it where I was from) held no special place in our eyes. I had to learn how to be “Old South” after I grew up.

How did I become interested in Southern partisanship? It was an act of intellectual rebellion. As a young twenty-something, I was in the habit of challenging all sorts of authorities. I listened to punk rock and heavy metal. I read Dada poets and a fair amount of Nietzsche. And, bizarrely, I talked about Stonewall Jackson all the time. I had heard, from here and there, that he was a good guy, and so I looked around for some books or articles about him as well as other Confederate personalities. I found most of the stuff online. I was still a very incoherent person, but the common thread was a desire to challenge the received narratives, all of them.

I distinctly remember one occasion after class where one of the grad students in the poetry department, a secular Jewish guy with an armful of tattoos, heard me talking about the Old South and said, “Man, how is it that I’m friends with you?” And I immediately replied, “Because we both like the idea of mayhem.” He laughed, and we stayed friends.

At this point (circa 2002) I was in no way a hardcore devotee of the South. It was just one curiosity among many that I would spend a little time on and then move on to something else. But I was becoming theologically “Reformed” at this time (also an act of rebellion, I should say), and so I did begin to learn more, and it was usually intertwined with serious topics. 1^st Presbyterian Church in Hattiesburg, MS had Harry Reeder come speak on “Christian Manhood,” and two of his three models were Confederate soldiers. This was interesting to me because it put one of my “rebellious” interests into a very, in my mind, straight-laced context. I got to be a little bit “bad” while still being mostly “good.” In the big picture, this was a shift for the better in my life, but it is still more than a little odd.

I did end up meeting one minister at 1^st Pres. who was big into the Old South, and he invited me to hear him speak at a Sons of Confederate Veterans banquet. I rode with him, actually, and we got lost, so I remember the night pretty well. Now, I should be honest here. Even at the time I thought the SCV was pretty lame. It was mostly a civic club for older folks, and I would rather have been at a rock concert. I was no kind of “genuine” Southerner, even while I was shopping around its various ideas and identities. It’s still pretty funny to think about the folks who were at the meeting. There were definitely some intentionally gnarly dudes who I have often wondered about, but there was also some other folks not so different from me, very confused or at least trying to figure out what in the world they were doing there. There was at least one quasi-Kellerite pastor there, whose reputation I will spare.

My theology studies continued, and I stumbled on the real tough guys, the Christian Reconstructionists. The Reconstructionists, ironically, managed to be unreconstructed Southerners, and at that time they still easily coexisted with the so-called TRs and “Southern Presbyterians” of the PCA. I would later learn that their glory days were already over, but they still managed to hang out together at this time. That same group is also what introduced me to “the Federal Vision,” and so of course I listened to and read Wilkins and Wilson on all of this. Through that combined mixed influence, I managed to go to those League of the South meetings.

Now, the League of the South was every bit as lame as the SCV. It met in this odd little community center just off Highway 49 in Medenhall, MS. There were probably about 9 folks there, and I remember that the women all wore denim jumpers and white Keds. But they actually did have something kind of interesting to say. The main speaker read an essay from Dr. Francis Nigel Lee. Its primary argument was how the “Gaelic” culture could be traced through Gaul to Galatia, and that this meant that the Scots-Irish had played an important role in the glories of late-Antique Greco-Roman culture. I doubt anyone in the room was “Gaelic” in any meaningful way, but Southerners like to claim both Scottish and Irish heritage, so it went over well. I’m sure that if I were to reread this essay I would find it difficult to swallow, but it did have a bit of historical rigor that impressed me.

The Nigel Lee stuff was good enough to have me give the LOS a second shot. I went again, at the invitation of a friend, but this time the speaker was not as interesting. Once I got back home, my dad told me that one of the men associated with it was a notorious Klan lawyer, and so I decided I probably should give it a wide berth. Plus, I was still playing guitar and hanging out with a very different crowd in most of my life, and so I didn’t really have to worry about it. It was all still intellectual and cultural sampling.

As my personal development continued, I ended up going to seminary, and the president of the Seminary had pictures of Jackson and Lee hanging in his living room. One of my Korean roommates asked me about this, since he had been taught that the South was bad. Oh no, I said, the southern sections of national splits are always the good guys. Just like with Israel and Korea. He laughed, and we got to explain “states rights” to him.

The Old South seemed to be pretty normal among “Reformed” folks in the South. I didn’t grow up Reformed though, and so this was all a kind of exciting and subversive move to me, but it never got very dangerous. However, I think a lot of the “Reformed” folks, even in MS, became Reformed because of the Calvinistic revival of the 1960s, and so very few of them “grew up that way” either. They were also revising the narrative. I read a good bit more on all of this and developed the typical talking points. Looking back, I think I was trying to find a sort of utopian world which was better than the real one we all had to live in. The ideology wasn’t the big thing. It was the cultural longing for something else.

The theological landscape was changing at this time though, and those Reconstructionists ended up splitting six ways to Sunday. When I finally did meet Steve Wilkins in person, I learned that he had basically dropped out of the League of the South and wasn’t all that interested in talking about Southern heritage. He never renounced it outright, as far as I know, but his priorities changed pretty dramatically. Now, I suspect, he reads more Eugene Peterson than Rushdoony. Things are funny that way. For my part, the Federal Vision sent me back to the 16^th and 17^th century, and that historical pursuit eventually lead me back to a more traditional Reformation identity. Again, things are funny.

I kind of let the Old South thing drop off. I didn’t renounce it either, but it just wasn’t as interesting any more. I moved on. Like I said, it wasn’t serious. I began to teach at a classical school, and this caused me to have to study the Middle Ages and the ancient world, and not just from a theological point of view. I had to teach history. So that meant I had to learn about history. And what I learned was that there was a whole lot of stuff that I had no idea about. I ended up receiving a pretty major re-education through all my class prep and other duties at the time, and while I didn’t need to “rebel” or “break out” of my intellectual world, I definitely broadened my horizons and settled down personally. Eventually I had to teach American history, and this caused me to look at the Civil War stuff again.

Here are a few things that I found which made me go “Hmm…” For starters, the Articles of Confederation called for a “perpetual union.” That’s not what I was expecting. Secondly, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 already gave “the Federal Government” a sort of priority in defining the United States as a nation. This means that the Civil War could not actually be the place in history where things “went wrong” (as viewed from a states’ rights perspective). Andrew Jackson’s presidency was also eye-opening. Though a supposedly paradigmatic Southerner, he definitely subordinated states’ rights to the federal government. To complicate any sort of sacred history, Calhoun, a hero for Southerners, was mostly a Unitarian and therefore not someone to theo-politically sympathize with. By the time the Civil War finally rolls around, slavery as an economic power, particularly for westward expansion, is clearly the dominant and overwhelming issue. While there were radicals who called for outright abolition, the majority position of anti-slavery advocates was a gradualism which began by simply not adding slave states to the Union. This was one of the primary areas where the South actually took on a belligerent posture. It wanted to add more slave powers. In fact, as history draws closer to the Civil War, the Deep South had begun to wholly embrace slavery as essential to its being, and they didn’t hide it. Mississippi expressed how slavery was necessary for its own ability to succeed in the international marketplace:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

There are a few interesting points made there. Obviously slavery cannot be made a side issue. It is the issue. Secondly, it had to be Negro slavery, because “an imperious law of nature” had determined that they were the only ones who could work out in the Mississippi sun. And then, finally, states’ rights did not imply minding one’s one business or simply preserving a local culture. States’ rights, for Mississippi, was all about the right to have a certain kind of economy which would make the state an international trade power. Within this sort of state’s right paradigm, however, a great deal of power could be ceded to the government. Mississippi has never approximated a libertarian view of politics.

Outside of Mississippi, things don’t get any better. The Vice President of the Confederacy explicitly stated what he believed to be the true genius of the Confederacy’s political contribution:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

Slavery and even Black subjugation was no longer some sort of necessary evil, an unfortunate economic need or a problem with no good solution. No, it had become a positive good, a metaphysical commitment for the Confederates. This was an immutable divine hierarchy.

I also came to find out how the Southern states were firmly in favor of empire. They had no problem with Manifest Destiny, so long as the new acquisitions would be slave states. Some slavery proponents even wanted to create a slave empire across the Caribbean. The Lost Cause had apparently not been invented yet. None of this means that the typical “Union” historical narrative is without its own prejudice and hagiography, but I came to see that the historical revisionism which promoted the Old South was itself in need of major revision. In my desire to not accept a naïve and hagiographic historical narrative, I had embraced something much more fictional and fantastic. Real history was indeed complicated and challenging, but it did not at all vindicate the South.

So, if I couldn’t continue to believe in the mythical Confederacy of chivalry and localism, for the very relevant fact that it never existed, I was left with that older old South, the one I grew up in. It wasn’t all bad, but it was what it was. There was a great deal of nasty and malicious evil which surfaced all over the South during the late 1950s and into the 1960s, and there’s just no credible way to say that you don’t have to deal with it. Fast-forward to the current day, and about the least helpful thing I can think of for addressing the problems of the South is for the White people to try to tell their tall-tales of glory days of yore.

I am writing all of this because the tragedy in Charleston has given occasion for more rethinking of the Confederate battle flag’s place in public institutions but also churches and civil society. But I don’t really care about the flag. I care about the reason that people seem to care about the flag. The anti-flag case is pretty easy. It is a corrupted symbol. Whatever it used to mean, or whatever its constituent parts mean, is irrelevant. It means something now, and it means resistance to the 20^th century Civil Rights movement. The pro-flag cause, however, is much less clear and much less defensible. Basically, the pro-flag cause says that the flag doesn’t have to mean that. The flag might just mean mom and apple pie, only with a Southern drawl. Make that mamaw and collards. But do we really need “mamaw and collards” as a public symbol? It seems a bit hokey. But if we do want something like that then why not make an actual mamaw-and-collards kind of icon? It wouldn’t be historical, people say. It would lack heritage. But isn’t that where the rub is? It would lack the relevant bit of history and heritage under discussion, the heritage of racial strife and cultural warfare. It would lack all the stuff that the anti-flag people say the flag stands for.

The real truth to the “heritage” thing is that the Rebel Flag, along with most Confederate iconography, was either done away with or dramatically reinterpreted after the Civil War. The United Daughters of the Confederacy went about the country building monuments and telling the Lost Cause narrative which strangely allowed Rebels to become symbols of American patriotism and even national unity in the face of foreign enemies. There was no emphasis on an agrarian slave empire. It was all about “freedom,” interpreted along nationalistic lines. Soon enough this could be merged with a general anti-Marxist political philosophy, and by the time you get to the Civil Rights era, the Confederate imagery is firmly and decidedly used to defend “the American way of life” against the forces of international communism. If you read any pro-segregation material from the 1950s and 60s, you’ll see an identification of Black rights and Marxism. This wasn’t all false, of course. Marxism was a real thing. But this does show how the “heritage” had mutated into something completely new. The true Old South was about half “American founding” and half a criticism and supposed-perfection of the American project. The rebels of the 20^th century, on the other hand, had largely made their peace with “the new South.” Almost all of them were Democrats, and this is not simply an anachronistic point. No, the Southern Democrats were mostly pro-labor and populist, critics of big business and the like, and they were not actually moral activists of the right-wing Christian sort, though a good many of them were Teetotalers. They were not the old Confederate South, and they were not the partially neo-Confederates that one can find among right-wing Christians today. The heritage snaked and turned and became something new, as it has done again and again since then.

I would ask people to be honest with themselves. Flag or no flag, what is Southern heritage? It’s not all bad. Not at all. But a lot of it is. A lot of it is really bad. And a lot of the good stuff is not an intentional product of the old Southern architects (no Southern “worldview”) but instead an organic outgrowing of people just being people over time. The best of Southern literature? It comes after the Civil War and has always been self-critical of Southern culture and identity. The best of Southern music? It was all written by Black folks or poor Whites struggling with the challenges of a depressed Southern economy. The best of Southern food? Well, who can say which parts of that are Black or White? I sure can’t.

And it seems to me that this means that the real Southern heritage, the one we should be proud of, is the struggle through our dark and challenging history towards some sort of imperfect but very real cross-pollination of people, place, and thing. My real tradition is not those years in college when I was angsty and looking to find “the truth.” It isn’t the utopian historical fiction that I tried to find but never quite could. No, my real Southern heritage is when Mr. RC, the neighborhood handyman and gravedigger—who was Black—drove me around on his tractor, smoking his pipe and setting our pasture on fire in order to clear the brush. It’s also the country catfish house which didn’t care about much besides high cholesterol and shooting the breeze. It’s the highschool football games which, oddly, played “Eye of the Tiger” and “Welcome to the Jungle” for fight songs. It’s a lot of contradictions, terrible mistakes, great times, warm hospitality, and real people.

And so I find myself to be unreconstructed no more. Perhaps I am post-reconstruction or post-unreconstruction. Whatever the name, I am confident that I am now more traditional than I ever was before. Let’s admit it. The desire to defend and reclaim the Old South was never who we were. It was an odd side-show, a hobby that we got into somewhere along the way. It was always something created rather than inherited. Is it really important? Is it really prudent, much less historically true?

We don’t have to self-flagellate and concede to every demand of contemporary progressivism. I think the center-Left has its own historical mythology, the one of “progress” where we were always essentially “equal” and “modern” and simply had to prune away the prejudices and irrational commitments of the past. But we shouldn’t fight one false narrative by creating another. That’s a sure way to lose (again).

Let’s be who we are. Let’s not try to be who we never were.

Again, there’s the case of my grandfather still voting Democrat late into the 20th century and even until the start of the 21st century, and he was hardly a progressive-minded man, at least when it came to social issues. And most Southerners are not just Blue-Dog Democrats or Dixiecrats, opposing the Civil Rights’ issues but still retaining older Democratic values of labor protection, agrarian values, and suspicion towards unchecked corporate power. Not at all. The Republican transition is mostly complete, especially on the fiscal matters. And yet, Mississippi still manages to bring in more Federal subsidies than any other state (at least I think it’s still #1 in that category). As I said, it’s a very strange world. The moral issues probably have as much to do with the transition as anything, as the Democrats did kind of become the party of revolutionary morality, but even here there are a lot of questions that could be asked.

Abortion is another case where things don’t actually make sense. In fact, it is much weirder. On the surface, it seems easy enough to explain. In the eyes of the traditionalist, it is a symptom of moral degeneracy and cultural decadence: consequence-free sex. And in the eyes of the more bleeding-heart type of liberal, abortion is a necessary “medical” procedure in order to defend a victim or oppressed member of an underclass. But these are both pretty superficial explanations, even if both have some measure of truth to them. Consider, by contrast, the famous “privacy” justification.

The fact that abortion is a “private” matter, between a woman and her doctor, is often offered as why it ought not be regulated. This is actually the legal foundation which Roe v Wade uses, by the way. But who, I ask you, normally uses privacy as an argument against government regulation? It’s not the liberals!

Additionally, just think about what abortion is in the most basic terms. It is a violent procedure which dramatically alters the natural course of things by use of technology. It’s totally Bacon’s conquest over nature, even to the point of turning a production into a termination. Why would “green” or “environmental” people support it? And why wouldn’t those titans of industry support it? Wendell Berry-types should all be pro-life, whereas Uncle Pennybags should be volunteering for Planned Parenthood.

No, it doesn’t work that way, you say. Abortion only appears that way if you try to hitch it to a moral ontology. I would dispute that, actually, since I tried to keep my above language fairly generic, but let’s examine that objection for a minute. Again, what kind of political thinker typically wants to remove morality or justice from discussions of human liberty? And who are we typically told that it is who wants to dehumanize, depersonalize, and deny basic rights to other weaker entities in an effort to maximize efficiency and production? Again, the teams are all topsy turvy here.

But what about abortion as women’s rights and even worker’s rights? Isn’t it a means to allow full participation in our society? Well yes, but again, consider what’s involved and what it is that is actually being participated in. Abortion says that a woman can be “equal” so long as the natural things which come about from female sexuality are restricted or obstructed completely. And the thing which they are then allowed to participate in is, more often than not, a nearly exhaustive industrial-capitalist system which claims the majority of their time, interest, and loyalty. I’m reminded of that line from Chesterton, “women are free when they serve their employers but slaves when they help their husbands.” One woman’s equality is another man’s wage-slavery. Who benefits from women being able to separate themselves from their womanhood, and what is the nature of that benefit? It would seem to me that it’s a perfect fit in a kind of totalizing economic system which succeeds only at the expense of competing interest groups.

And, indeed, treating abortion solely as a “medical” issue is just a perfect example of what Michel Foucault criticized in The Birth of the Clinic. It’s the medical gaze to a t, only it’s not only the doctors who get to dehumanize. We now make the dehumanization a key feature of the legal code. Someone wants to stop and ask if maybe there is a danger here? Silence that man.

Now I know on one level this is all a bit of over-complication for abstract purposes. For most people, abortion is a more or less “practical” response to a concrete situation. And I don’t dispute that on the individual level. But when it comes to the structural level, the political and legal culture which is always informing our biases, these observations seem relevant. Indeed, I don’t know why they haven’t been more obvious for a long time. But as I said, politics is weird, and people have mixed motivations.

What asking these kinds of questions does help clarify, however, is that our political theory needs improving. Christians will need to broaden their imaginations, and they need to be willing to criticize some of their own favored social and political tendencies. We need more or better categories. We need to challenge the narratives.

I grew up in a politically moderate household. I won’t tell you how everyone voted, but I was raised to believe that abortion was a pretty tragic situation which women would only ever consider if all other options had been exhausted. I was taught that we needed to be careful not to berate them, judge them harshly, or fail to show them compassion. Based on my experience attempting to follow precisely that advice, however, I have to say that the narrative is all wrong. Abortion, at least today, in the Southern states, is not some sort of last ditch effort to preserve one life, which would be legitimately threatened, at the tragic but necessary expense of another. Instead it is a projection of strength on the part of the would-be mother. 

What do I mean? Abortion is today a way, not to get help in a difficult situation, but to avoid needing help. It is a way to “take control” of one’s life and prove self-sufficiency. This is why it is pitched as a form of “women’s equality.” Abortion is what it takes to see to it that a woman is not inferior or weak. It prevents her from being at someone else’s mercy. This is also why it is quickly becoming a sort of “human right,” something which must be provided by all just governments. To not provide it for women is basically framed as an injustice, a lack of fairness and equality. In short, it is a legal device to prevent the need for charity or other concessions to a weak situation.

The times that I have spoken with women at the clinics, I have been soft-spoken and polite. I have asked permission to speak to them. I have never called them names or waved a sign. And the response by them has always been to shut me down, sometimes loudly and angrily, before any kind of actual conversation could take place.

Today, for instance, I drove by the local abortion clinic and saw a young couple standing by their car in the parking lot reading on their smartphones. The clinic was not open yet, and so they were waiting. I felt the impulse to stop, and so I parked my car in a neighboring parking lot and walked over. I slowly and calmly spoke to the couple. “Can I talk with you guys?” They were immediately angry, shot up straight, and walked aggressively towards me. I never got closer than 20 ft from them. “Can I talk about babies and what you guys are dealing with? I was just driving by, and I saw you and thought ‘Hey those people look like me.’ I have two little kids of my own, and …” They began shouting “No. Go away. Anything you say to us will be considered harassment.” Their body language was assertive and threatening, and it was clear that there was no interest in hearing about other options, meeting someone who might want to help, or even discussing differing opinions. They were saying, in effect, “Leave me alone or I will make sure you get in trouble.” Who knows if they really would have done anything? The point was that they resorted to a sort of rhetoric of force to end the conversation.

Now, I don’t know what the right thing to do in that situation is. I did basically stop and walk away. I prayed about it and was very sad, and I committed myself to go more often. But for those folks in that situation, I couldn’t think of any way to make a connection.

I also understand that these people are making all kinds of assumptions about me. They think that I’m just waiting for the right time to be mean or nasty. They think that I’m going to judge them. They associate me with all the images that they have been fed. But the fact remains, they judge me and don’t ever extend a chance to get to know an “other” or interact with a potentially differing-viewpoint.

The point that I was left with was that they wanted to make sure they “defended themselves” by intimidating me and projecting strength. And this is what the whole abortion thing is about for a great many people. They don’t want other options. Maybe they have looked into them and maybe they haven’t, but abortion is attractive because it is more or less private, the individuals can stay in control, and they don’t have to deal with other people and their nosy opinions and intrusive good intentions. They get to take care of themselves.

And this, it seems to me, is right at the root of the whole problem. I’ve written in the past about how abortion is a perfect fit for certain American values. It pairs a sort of rugged individualism with the ability to maximize freedom and still pursue one’s own desires, even at the expense of other weaker people. It’s a sort of manifest destiny of interpersonal relationships. It’s about doing what you want and not allowing anyone else to get in the way.

Now, saying it like that might seem like I’m suggesting that people who get abortions are just egotistical jerks who step on the heads of the little man. That’s not really the case, at least not in any explicit and unique way. They are really just like the successful businessman who has to play “hardball,” the “sharks” in the investment world, or the crafty politician who has to cut corners to get ahead. They are doing “what it takes” to look out for number one. It’s just that the question of abortion has also been infused with notions of sacred human rights and female equality. Thus they have a leg up. They can be aggressive and even violent while still assuming the role of victim and weaker person. It makes for a fairly impenetrable defense, especially in today’s media-climate.

I’m not a pacifist, but I think that there is a certain Christian virtue in weakness. My not bowing up and trying to “meet their challenge” today seemed then and still seems now to be the most appropriate response. I was there. I offered. I wasn’t ugly. I prayed. I was sad. Their consciences will at least have to process it all.

Pro-life Christians need to know the reality that they face. Don’t believe the narrative that pro-lifers are the angry bullies who harass people. Much closer to actual harassment is being met with a threat when you ask to speak and have not even violated a request to leave, a sort of “preemptive” call for protective services to come squash you. Christians need to keep their mind on abortion. They need to know that it still goes on and that it goes on with very “normal” and “ordinary” Americans who are behaving in very predictable and American ways. Abortion is much more like colonialism or exploitative capitalism than are pro-life alternatives like charities, adoptions, and communities of people willing to help shoulder a difficult burden. And if someone replies, “Those alternatives don’t really exist!”, then that just shows us all the more reason we need to make them visible and known to the world.

The Church must set a contrary example. This doesn’t just mean more demonstrations or activism, though I am not actually opposed to either of those things. But it means modeling a distinct and contrary culture to the one of assertive and strong self-sufficiency. It means acknowledging weakness, offering to help those who are in need, and crying out to God for His grace.

This is not a call to quietude or passivity. We have to actually cross paths with real people and engage them in dialogue. We need to be out and about. We need to be noticed. But we should be noticed precisely for our denial of strength-projection, of rugged individualism and of angry and violent self-sufficiency. We need to look different from the world. We need to really work to make the beatitudes applicable to us as individuals and civic communities.

Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

And we need to know that all of this is normative for the Christian experience. It is precisely what we have been called to do.

Today marks the first Sunday in Lent, and many Christians who did not grow up practicing the liturgical calendar are now becoming very interested in it. Some are madly in love with all things liturgical, seeing Lent as one way to rediscover lost roots. Others are critical of it as faddishness, a sort of picking and choosing of one’s piety according to whatever seems interesting. And then there’s always the perpetual fear of subtle Romanizing. Lent can be abused in a legalistic way. I would be more than happy to talk about each of those concerns at another time, but it is my belief that each of those conversations actually distract us from the real point of what Lent is supposed to be. Like all forms of liturgy, Lent is meant to be an aid in worship, a way of assisting our thoughts and devotions in focusing on God’s majesty, our sinfulness, and the salvation we have in Jesus Christ.

What would you think if you saw a man staring at his own glasses? He might be adjusting them or fixing something that had broken. That would make sense. But what if he never seemed to finish? What if he just kept staring and commenting on his glasses, asking other folks to admire his glasses, but never got around to actually wearing them? You’d think he probably didn’t know what glasses were for in the first place or that he had some other serious disorder. You certainly wouldn’t be inspired by wonderful blessing of cured vision! Liturgy works the same way as a pair of glasses. You are not supposed to look at it. Instead you are supposed to look through it to see something else, namely Jesus. Lent is a waste of time and spiritual failure unless it points us to Jesus. How should it do that? During Lent, we ought to remember the significance of our sin, the guilt which we bear before God, and the great price paid by Jesus on our behalf. We have no thought of atoning for own sins at this time. That would be insane, an impossibility that would only leave us in perpetual despair. No, instead we remember the death of Christ, the curse which he bore for us, and, in response to that saving act, we put to death the remaining sin within us in order to show our gratitude towards Jesus.

Psalm 51 is particularly fitting in this light. You will recall that it is King David’s prayer of repentance after Nathan the prophet convicted him of his sin with Bathsheba. It teaches us about true repentance and forgiveness. Notice that David does not believe that the offering of bulls and goats washes away sin. In fact, they are not even “true sacrifices.” They are only symbols of the sacrifice of praise coming from the human heart. “Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts, And in the hidden part You will make me to know wisdom” (vs. 6). “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me” (vs. 10). “For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, A broken and a contrite heart—These, O God, You will not despise” (vs. 16-17).

Those last lines about brokenness are what I wish to focus on. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit and a contrite heart. This is how we must approach God. And it might sound strange to you, but we have to learn how to be broken and contrite. It does not come naturally. We must cultivate a sense of brokenness in order to worship God in the only way that He finds acceptable, with true sacrifices.

What is brokenness?

The first thing we need to do is identify the broken heart and spirit. This is especially necessary because the modern church has, in many ways, lost its brokenness. Our churches have turned to an ever grinning sort of false piety that is actually a barrier to the knowledge of God. The predominant religion of America in our day is a form of prosperity preaching, even if it manages to avoid money. This promise of having “your best life now” and “realizing” all of your inner “potential” is what we might call the Oprahfication of American Christianity, and we need to speak plainly about it. It is idolatry. When personal happiness, the realization of life goals, and fulfillment become our chief goals, then they become replacements for the cross. They become idols. And if a broken heart is necessary for offering true sacrifices to God, then any life philosophy which prevents brokenness prevents the true worship of God.

What is this brokenness which we need? “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart.” Textually, there’s not much to it. It’s all quite plain. “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and crushed heart.” Broken, broken, and crushed. The term for “contrite” is an amplification for the word broken. The words for spirit and heart are used interchangeably to signify the inner man. It all means to bring low and to crush. And so true sacrifices are broken and contrite people. We must be humble. We must think of ourselves as lowly and in need of help. We must be dependent. And during those times when we are none of these things—when we are proud, content with ourselves, independent and carefree—during those times God Himself breaks us in order to bring us back to Him. Brokenness produces the true sacrifices of God, the sacrificed person.

That the true man of God must be broken is a teaching emphasized throughout both the Old and New Testament. Psalm 34:18 states, “The Lord is near to those who have a broken heart, And saves such as have a contrite spirit.” Isaiah writes, “on this one will I look: on him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My word” (Is. 66:2). Jesus himself says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit… blessed are those who mourn.” (Matt. 5:3-4). It would be impossible for any sincere reading of the Scriptures to miss this point. But we do miss it, and that is because we are often looking for something other than what God has to say on this matter. Jesus himself was a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief (Is. 53:3). When we seek a Christianity without these markers, we seek a Christianity without Christ.

Three Sides to the Broken Spirit

Guilt

Now, in the immediate context of Psalm 51, this idea of brokenness is connected to a sense of guilt and repentance. This comes from being confronted with one’s sins. John Calvin puts it this way, “The man of broken spirit is one who has been emptied of all vain-glorious confidence, and brought to acknowledge that he is nothing.”

This sense of guilt breaks a person precisely because he knows that it is true and just. He understands that sin is wrong and that because of his actions a horrible thing has happened. In Psalm 51, David has realized that he was responsible for the death of Uriah, and that, due to his lust, he had wronged his own countrymen and shown himself to be selfish and unfaithful.

The Knowledge of God

But truly understanding the guilt of sin can only happen when one also contemplates a second thing, the holiness of God. This is what David means when he says, “Against You, You only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Your sight.” There is a rather obvious way in which David sinned against Uriah and Bathsheba, as well as their families, but that’s not his point. Instead, he means that when he considers his sin deeply, he knows what it really means. He has wronged the perfectly-holy God Who had appointed him king. He has sinned against the holiness of God, and that was greatest injustice of all. In order to properly repent, we too must understand this holiness of God. And we shouldn’t make any mistakes about this point. We are sinners, and that means that for us, knowing God will necessarily result in broken hearts.

Solidarity with the Broken

A third point in defining brokenness is an important qualification. True brokenness is not just individual sadness or introspection. It includes those things, but it does not end with them. The broken spirit is broken because it understands the larger problem of brokenness. It knows that we all live in a fallen world and that things are not as they should be. The broken spirit finds solidarity with the world, which means solidarity with others who are broken.

The entire book of Isaiah contains a sustained critique of religious externalism. Going through the motions, as it were, without the actual faith and repentance is an abomination to God. Chapter 58 makes this very point with regards to the broken and humble affectation:

Is it a fast that I have chosen, a day for a man to afflict his soul? Is it to bow down his head like a bulrush, and to spread out sackcloth and ashes? Would you call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the Lord? Is this not the fast that I have chosen: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and that you break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and that you bring to your house the poor who are cast out; when you see the naked, that you cover him, and not hide yourself from your own flesh? Then your light shall break forth like the morning, your healing shall spring forth speedily, and your righteousness shall go before you; the glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard. (5-8)

And so we see that it is not personal fastidiousness or a severe countenance that God is interested in. God does not want us to strengthen our self-righteousness by self-affliction and abasement. No, he wants our humility to lead us to an understanding of mercy, forgiveness, and love. He wants us to have compassion on others. We must be broken in order to know others who are broken and to extend our souls to them.

In fact, this brokenness is necessary if we are ever going to “reach out” to the world. Brokenness is necessary for us to understand others and to give counsel and comfort to those who are broken, the only ones, by the way, who need comforting. The 20^th century devotional writer Henri Nouwen explains this very point, saying:

When we think about the people who have given us hope and have increased the strength of our soul, we might discover that they were not the advice givers, warners or moralists, but the few who were able to articulate in word and actions the human condition in which we participate and who encourage us to face the realities of life… Not because of any solution they offered but because of the courage to enter so deeply into human suffering and speak from there… Those who do not run away from our pains but touch them with compassion bring healing and new strength. The paradox indeed is that the beginning of healing is in the solidarity with the pain. In our solution-oriented society it is more important than ever to realize that wanting to alleviate pain without sharing it is like wanting to save a child from a burning house without the risk of being hurt. It is in solitude that this compassionate solidarity takes its shape (Henri Nouwen, Reaching Out 60-61).

And so, ultimately, we must be broken if we are ever to share the gospel.

How to be broken?

Now, here comes the practical application. You must be broken. But how? The good news is that if you really desire to be broken, all you need to do is wait. Live your life trusting God, and brokenness will come to you. The world will hate you, the curse of the Fall will continue to afflict you, and your own heart will be betray you. You will be broken.

Barriers to Brokenness

But you can miss your chance to be broken, even when all of these things happen. Self-justification, moralism, and legalism are all ways which we naturally shield ourselves from being broken. Let’s consider this for just a moment. The purpose of affliction is to bring us closer to God and make us more like Him. It is to bring us face to face with our holy creator and to teach us about our true selves in the process. But when we respond to affliction with resentment, bitterness, and anger, then we miss our chance to be broken.

The self-righteous person sees pain and wrong, not primarily as an offense against God, but instead as an affront to themselves. It is an injustice because they have been wronged. It’s not fair. They are the victim, and other people are the bad guys. Sometimes, even God is the bad guy. This is the way of self-righteousness and bitterness.

Another way to miss your chance to be broken is to explain it away. Some people do this with a sort of care-free appeal to cynicism or even randomness. Others do it with theology. Since we are supposed to expect a general sort of depravity, then we cannot be surprised when sin happens, they say. Or perhaps they appeal to divine sovereignty. Since God is bringing about all things for your good, there’s no point in being sad. But this also misses the reality of brokenness. Even though we know why it happens, and even though we must trust God throughout it, we must still be broken and laid low. The broken heart and contrite spirit are not the sorts of things to “rise above” the fray. No, they go directly through it.

A side-effect of false explanations is the problem of pious self-denial. Since we do not believe that we are supposed to be broken, we deny that we are struggling with pain or doubt. We put on a false smile or a stiff upper lip. But this is also a form of self-justification, a variety of works righteousness. During these times we are not called to show how strong we are. Rather, it is precisely as Christians that we are to be broken. We must be humbled, see our need for God, and admit our weakness.

Brokenness and “Law”

One way of understanding brokenness is to see it as a form of the law. Brokenness tells us the truth. It tells us the truth about our sin and the resultant suffering which comes from all sin. And just like the law, brokenness convicts us. It does this not merely to leave us broken, but to drive us to the cross of Christ. Brokenness teaches about our need, namely our need for God’s grace through salvation in His Son.

Now, this teaching is easier to accept in the case of those who have wandered and now come back to God. It is much more difficult for the person who grows up in the faith to understand, and it is often challenging for the mature Christian who still struggles with pride and humility. Is it ok to continue to be broken, even as someone who goes to church, professes faith, and more or less lives a Christian life? For this, let us listen to the Apostle Paul:

And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong. (2 Cor. 12:7-10)

The Knowledge of God and the Knowledge of Self

This sense of brokenness is not a one-time thing. While we will have various crises in our lives, the true broken spirit we need should not be identified with any one crisis, but our continual response to encountering God throughout all of our lives. The more we grow in grace, the more we ought to understand our weakness. The more we come to know God, the more we come to know ourselves, truly.

This is important for our understanding of childrearing as well. A common question that is asked is whether our children need to be converted? The Biblical answer to that question is yes, but this need not mean that they come to a singular crisis moment at some distinct point. Instead, what they need is to know themselves, and that means they must see their own sins truthfully. They must know their weakness. They must meet God on their own, but they must do so on His terms and not theirs. And this means that they must be humbled. They too must be broken.

Conclusion

In coming to accept Christian brokenness, we need to always keep in mind its purpose. It is not simply that God wants us to be miserable. There’s no virtue in mere depression or anxiety. But what we need to understand is that he who loves his life must lose it. We have to give up all our claims to strength, to self-sufficiency, and to self-reliance. Instead, we must learn how to be vulnerable, to open up to God about who we are, what we have done, and what we need, which is His grace. And the good news is that God has given us this grace in Christ.

Brokenness is a way for God to draw us to Himself. He humbles us so that we can believe, so that we can believe the truth about ourselves and about Him. “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me. Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts, and in the hidden part You will make me to know wisdom” (Ps. 51:5-6) God is peeling away the skin of our old Adam so that we can better see Jesus. That’s what a continual broken heart understands. We are always breaking with our old self in order to be more at one with God in Christ. And we should take comfort in this. Sorrow over our sins is itself a gift of grace. The broken and contrite heart, He does not despise. God restores our joy, but it is always the joy of salvation, the joy of being saved from our sins and our sorrows. And so when you bring your sacrifices, offer yourself to God in humility. Don’t make excuses or try to clean yourself up. Just bear your broken spirit. That is a true sacrifice and acceptable worship.

And so for this season of Lent, take the opportunity to be broken. Remember your sins. Be honest with yourself. And then repent with a broken spirit and a contrite heart. These offerings are acceptable to God, and through the love of Christ, He will reveal His grace to you.

Let us pray.

Today we are discussing the baptism of Jesus. We’ll set the scene, explaining what lead up to this event as well as the baptism itself. After that, we’ll explain what Christ’s baptism means—what it meant for Him, what it meant for those around Him at the time, and what it means for us today. And lastly we will discuss our own baptisms and what we learn about them from Christ’s baptism.

The Scene

“John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. Now John was clothed with camel’s hair and with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. And he preached, saying, ‘There comes One after me who is mightier than I, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to stoop down and loose. I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.’” (Mark 1:4-8)

We preached about John’s ministry during Advent. We should notice that, in Mark’s gospel, the ministry of John and the baptism of Jesus are placed together. As John’s ministry ended, Jesus’ began. Notice also how Mark mentions that “all the land of Judea” went out to be baptized by John. This description is important. John had a huge public ministry, and, specifically, he publicly preached and prophesied about the coming of the messiah. This means that when Jesus came to him, it was in that big public context. All of Judea saw it, and all of Judea could see what happened at the baptism.

Jesus’ Baptism

“It came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove. Then a voice came from heaven, ‘You are My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’” (Mark 1:10-11)

It’s amazing how much material is condensed into these few verses. Mark simply and quickly lays it all out, but there is a lot going on here. We see that Jesus was Himself baptized. This in itself is kind of a surprise. Matthew’s gospel account explains that John didn’t want to baptize Jesus, because of what it might imply for Jesus to be baptized for repentance. Matthew also explains that this was to “fulfill all righteousness.” Jesus did it to fulfill all of the prophecies, to reveal Himself, and but to give us an example that Christian discipleship begins with baptism.

Secondly, we see in this scene the Trinity in one of its clearest displays in all of the Scriptures. There is Jesus, the man standing in the river. Then the Holy Spirit comes down from heaven and descends upon Jesus. The Spirit looks like a dove, but it is indeed the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. And then we do not see but rather hear the Father, speaking from heaven. The three are one God, and yet we can see them clearly distinct from one another.

What is the point of this showing? Viewed from one perspective, this event is for Jesus’ own sake. The Father directs His speech to Him, after all. “You are My beloved Son.” This is Jesus’ public initiation into His messianic office. The descent of the Spirit is His anointing, wherein He was “christened.” This is a fulfillment of Isaiah 61 which says:

The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me,
Because the Lord has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,
And the day of vengeance of our God;
To comfort all who mourn,
To console those who mourn in Zion,
To give them beauty for ashes,
The oil of joy for mourning,
The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness;
That they may be called trees of righteousness,
The planting of the Lord, that He may be glorified.

(Is. 61:1-3)

(This is, by the way, one good reason why we baptize by sprinkling. Even though Jesus did go down to the river, and he very likely was immersed in the river, the real anointing comes in the descent of the Spirit from above. We wouldn’t insist that any one mode was essential and all others invalid, but we do here see a foundation for a baptism coming from above and descending upon the person being baptized.)

But more than being simply for Jesus, this manifestation of the Trinity and the announcement of Jesus’ identity is for the sake of those people watching. It is proof that Jesus is God’s son. This was proof for John. We are given his response in the Gospel of John, “I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God” (John 1:33-34). After this baptism, he had no more questions about who Jesus was or what He was doing.

Remember all those people there with John. They saw and heard this as well. It was a public miracle. Jesus was not making claims about Himself that were dependent upon secrets. Everywhere in the gospels His identity and office are obvious. Even when He tells people to keep quiet about it, they cannot. At Jesus’ baptism, God Himself speaks to name Jesus as His Son, the one in whom He is well-pleased.

And this revelation is for us. It shows us today who Jesus is. Jesus is God’s Son. In addition to that, He is the one in Whom God is well-pleased. So if we would be sons of God, if we would be pleasing to God, then we must follow Christ and become one with Him. Eph. 1:4-6 states:

He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.

This begins in our baptisms, and the same sorts of words are said about us, but they are realized and fully applied to us by our faith, when and as we believe them. And so we must believe these words. So believe them.

Our Baptism

Now we have said what Jesus’ baptism says about Him, and what that means for us and our relationship to Him. But I’d like to add to this an additional layer, what Jesus’ baptism says about our baptisms. The first thing we need to establish is that it does indeed say something about our baptisms. Jesus’ baptism was unique. A visible and audible miracle occurred at that time, designed specifically to reveal Jesus’ identity in history. And yet, this miracle occurred at a baptism. We ought to ask a few more questions about the fact that Christians baptize. Why do we do that, and what does baptism itself mean?

Baptism, certainly in the ministry of John, marked the transition from the Old Covenant to the New. John saw his baptisms as preparation of the coming-kingdom. But then Jesus instructs His disciples to baptize, assuming that they are already acquainted with the practice, and in doing so, he draws an inescapable continuity to the previously-existing baptisms. Our act of baptizing is different in some ways from John’s action, but it is still the same general thing, a ritual action in connection with the ministry of the messiah. Our baptisms show repentance and discipleship, and our baptisms show the kingdom of Christ.

Our baptisms are also Trinitarian, “baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19) and they are into Christ (see Rom. 6:3-11;). “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). Thus baptism is one of those many expressions of our union with Christ. If we are united with Christ, then we are united to the events in Christ’s life and the blessings He received.

And so, while we want to make the appropriate distinctions between ourselves and Jesus, we still want to say that the same kind of thing happens at our baptism that happened at His. When we are baptized, the Father speaks a word of acceptance about us. He says, “This is my beloved son, in whom I am well-pleased.” Baptism is the sacramental moment of our acceptance by God.

Now let me explain. God doesn’t say this about us because of us or anything we bring to the table. He does not even say it because of our baptism considered in itself. There’s nothing about the water or even the ritual considered from the temporal perspective which makes baptism a moment of divine acceptance. The reason baptism is a moment of acceptance with God is because of what God said about Jesus. It is because of what Jesus did and the fact that He did it for us. The gospel is that same word which God said about Jesus, and baptism repeats that word and directs it specifically to each of us. When we are baptized, God says, “I am your Father. You are my Son.” When we are baptized, Jesus say, “For you.” When we are baptized, we hear the word of the gospel.

This is, by the way, the position of the major Reformed statements of faith. For instance, the Westminster Larger Catechism says, “Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life” (WLC 165). There’s also the Heidelberg Catechism, of which we have been working through in our Sunday School time, and it says this, “that by this divine pledge and sign [God] assure[s] us, that we are spiritually cleansed from our sins as really, as we are externally washed with water” (HC Q73). If baptism is a sign, a seal, a pledge, and a promise instituted by God, then we ought to believe it.

Baptism is also our initiation into the Christian life. It marks the beginning of our discipleship and our life of repentance. It’s very important that we first have the gospel message in baptism and then the response of a life of fidelity. If the faithfulness came first, then the implication would be that Christian discipleship comes after preparation and good works. But the truth is that Christian discipleship occurs as a response to the message that God accepts you in spite of all your sins and solely because of the grace found in Jesus. We pledge our lives to living morally as a response to the message that we are loved by God. And so it is right and fitting for baptism to happen at the beginning of our Christian lives.

Conclusion

And so to conclude, the baptism of Christ shows us who Christ is and what His calling is for. It shows us the Trinity, unity and distinction, and it shows us that Jesus is both the son of God and the accepted and beloved one. And it also shows us what our own baptisms mean, as that same word which was spoken of Christ is now spoken of us. Lastly, our baptisms begin our initiation into the messianic people, living as prophets, priests, and kings for the world. And so let us remember our baptisms today, let us remember what they mean for us, and let us remember what they call us to do. As we remember our baptisms, we also resolve to improve upon them and carry them with us for the rest of our lives, speaking and living the gospel of Christ. Let us pray.

Do you remember why, in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the White Witch is constantly on the lookout for humans? If you’ve read the book or seen the movie, you remember that she is actually afraid and has an order for any of the creatures of Narnia to immediately alert her if any humans show up. The reason is because she knows that their arrival signals the end of her reign. According to ancient prophecy, they would take over the rule of Narnia, and so she has to put a stop to that. Nearly the same thing is going on with King Herod when Jesus was born. Whether he knew to be on the look out for the birth of the messiah beforehand, once the Wise Men showed up from the East, he was on high alert. As we learn from our text today, their visit signaled the birth of the King of the Jews, and this was a direct threat to Herod. It was something he had to fight against with all his might.

While Herod may have misunderstood a great many things about Jesus, he was not wrong about the basic fact that Jesus was a king. The Wise Men were looking for an earthly king, and Herod, after consorting with the priests and scribes, believed that the messiah was this king, someone who would put him out of business. And while there is much to say about this topic, the bottom line is that both the Wise Men and Herod were correct. Jesus was a king, and he had come to bring a kingdom.

The Wise Men

“Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem…” (vs. 1). Matthew’s text does not tell us a great deal about these men, but the word he uses is Magi, a term which referred to court-astrologers, men who watched the stars and advised the king. The text also simply says “the East,” but given what we know of world history at this time, the most likely candidates are Babylon or Persia.

The thing that stands out about the Wise Men’s interpretation of this star is that it signified the birth of a king. When they got to Herod they said, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.” (vs. 2). The fact that they came to worship Jesus may have meant nothing more than the Persian custom of worshiping an earthly king. But they may have also had an understanding of Jesus’ divine presence. When they do find Jesus, they offer him “treasures… gold, frankincense, and myrrh” (vs. 11). This was an act of tribute-paying. They wanted to honor the new king and to show their fealty towards him.

Herod’s Reaction

Herod’s reaction also teaches us something important about who Jesus is. “When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him” (vs. 3). This reaction of panic is because the news of a “King of the Jews” was a direct threat to Herod’s rule. The whole city of Jerusalem was troubled, as well. This may have been because of Herod’s reaction. He may have given them cause to worry through his own behavior or even political response. It may have also been the case that the arrival of the Wise Men was a great public spectacle and their announcement was also public. In that case, Herod would have had quite the problem indeed! The possibility of a popular uprising and civil revolt was very real.

Herod calls for the chief priests and scribes to find out more about the messiah, what this star could possibly mean, and the implications of his kingdom. Herod had some knowledge about the Jewish scriptures, of course, and he seems to know what the concept of the messiah was all about. He asks the priests and scribes to tell him where this messiah would be born, and they respond by quoting from Micah 5 which identifies Bethlehem as the city. It’s interesting to read that portion to get the full effect. There is a slight translation variation between the Greek version of the Old Testament and the Hebrew which we use, but it has no effect on substance of the prophecy. It says:

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.”

Therefore He shall give them up,
Until the time that she who is in labor has given birth;
Then the remnant of His brethren
Shall return to the children of Israel.
And He shall stand and feed His flock
In the strength of the Lord,
In the majesty of the name of the Lord His God;
And they shall abide,
For now He shall be great
To the ends of the earth;
And this One shall be peace.

Notice that not only would the messiah come from Bethlehem, but that he would go on to become the ruler of Israel. His arrival would signify the end of one time of judgment and the beginning of the reign of Yahweh Himself. Thus Herod knew that this was more than normal politics. This was a fulfillment of Scripture. And yet he still tries to stop it.

You know how it goes. Herod tells the Wise Men to go find the baby and then return to tell him where it is so that he too can visit and pay tribute. But Herod never really wanted to do this at all. He wanted to kill the child and prevent the reign of the new king. But this is really quite amazing when we consider what Herod knew and what his court priests and scribes knew. This king was not just any king, but God’s special king who would rule over Israel eternally. This was a threat to Herod politically, to be sure, but it was also a threat to him personally. He couldn’t stand the idea of giving up power, not even to God.

Jesus is King

The big point which arises from both reactions, the Wise Men’s and Herod’s, to the news of the birth of Jesus is that He is a king. Jesus is not just a spiritual-emotional king, some sort of “king of my heart.” He was a sovereign and ruler to whom neighboring courts wanted to pay tribute and rival magistrates sought to kill. In the 1^st century, His birth was interpreted as an earthly ruler and an earthly kingdom, with the blessings and dangers that come with that.

And this interpretation was perfectly reasonable. If you read the Old Testament prophecies about the messiah, they are all very clear that he would be a king. Psalm 2, Psalm 45, Psalm 80, Psalm 99, and Psalm 110 are a few clear examples. “The Lord reigns; Let the peoples tremble!” (Psalm 99:1). “Ask of Me, and I will give You The nations for Your inheritance, And the ends of the earth for Your possession” (Psalm 2:8)

Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of Your enemies! … The Lord is at Your right hand; He shall execute kings in the day of His wrath. He shall judge among the nations, He shall fill the places with dead bodies, He shall execute the heads of many countries. He shall drink of the brook by the wayside; Therefore He shall lift up the head. (Psalm 110:1-2, 5-7)

No wonder this made a political splash! The messiah was to sit on a throne, inherit the nations, and slay his enemies. This means that Jesus, if He is the messiah, must be obeyed. His word is law. All other earthly kings are subordinated to Him. Indeed, their rule is limited. And we need to be clear that these prophecies are still true. Jesus will reign on a throne in His kingdom and in a public way. This is all part of the role of the messiah, our Christ. Jesus is Lord.

Two Kingdoms

But as we have mentioned before, if all of this is more than just pious language, if it is really and literally true, some immediate questions arise. Where is this kingdom now? Jesus did not actually do many of the things associated with kingly rule. He didn’t take up arms and start a war. He named no direct successors to sit on His throne. The Church today doesn’t really look like a kingdom at all. So what gives?

The first thing we need to know is that the New Testament and Jesus Himself comment on this question. They do not try to sneak anything by, subtly redefining all the terms. Jesus is clear that He is a king and does have a kingdom, and yet He also says that it currently has a certain form, something we call spiritual or interior, and that it will take on a different form, the more public and cosmic at a later point in history. For instance, listen to these verses:

Whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you. And heal the sick there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ But whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, ‘The very dust of your city which clings to us we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near you.’  (Luke 10:8-11)

Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:20-21)

Then Pilate entered the Praetorium again, called Jesus, and said to Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered him, “Are you speaking for yourself about this, or did others tell you this concerning Me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered You to me. What have You done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” (John 18:33-37)

All of those passages show the otherness of the kingdom, that it is an otherwordly kingdom which has a spiritual presence now, “within you,” and it goes wherever the preaching of the gospel goes. And yet, Jesus also teaches that He will come again to set up His throne in a more temporal way:

“When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. (Matt. 25:31-32)

That’s a sort of judgment that goes beyond the internal and “spiritual” judgment. And we see that Christians will also participate in this too. The Apostle Paul says in 1 Cor. 6, “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world” (1 Cor. 6:2). In the book of the Revelation we also read:

And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. (Rev. 20:4)

And so when Jesus comes again at the end of history, He will literally sit on a throne, literally judge the earth, and His people will reign with Him. Prior to that time, the kingdom is also present, but it is present as a spiritual reality, within the hearts and consciences of believers, and it manifests itself through the preaching of the gospel and the good works of the Christian as they point others to Jesus.

Conclusion

What does all of this mean? You may be thinking that I’ve gotten a bit abstract since the beginning. We went from Herod and the Wise Men to the spirituality of Christ’s kingdom and the future Second Coming. But this is all very important, because as we said earlier, Christ’s reign is that of a king and it sent shockwaves throughout the Earth when He appeared. Our following Him continues to do this, it continues to spread His kingdom and to undermine the sinful powers of this world. And so we need to view our Christian discipleship as life in the kingdom of the messiah. Our relationship to Jesus is certainly that of a saved people relating to their Savior, but it is also the relationship of a people to their king. And they are then going out spreading the message and teaching obedience to that king, to King Jesus.

And so, Jesus must be obeyed. Our obedience to Him is an act of loyalty, even political loyalty. And we must teach others to obey Him. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20). And while this is, in the present age, a teaching ministry, not a violent or revolutionary one, it is still a teaching ministry which teaches all men, in every position in life, to obey the teachings of Christ. The kingship of Christ is relevant to all men and to every calling.

The kingship of Christ limits all earthly politics. It does not require us to be rebels and to fight against our government. The 1^st century was full of very bad rulers, and yet the New Testament says that we are to submit to them. And yet, the kingship of Christ does limit all earthly rulers, puts them in perspective, says that they are not ultimate and that they too must obey Jesus.

And finally the kingship of Christ teaches us that Jesus is fighting for us. He will defend us from all of our enemies and His, and He will triumph over the powers of sin and the Devil. Jesus is not a mere bureaucrat giving orders from long distance. No, He is our king, and He rides into battle before us. He promises to be “in our midst” and through the agency of the Holy Spirit and the power of His Word, He continues to slay every foe. The kingship of Christ gives us great confidence and great hope. The battle is the Lord’s, and He fights to win.

And so this Christmas season and beyond, let us go forth and proclaim the birth of a king. Let us live lives of faithfulness and obedience to that king. And let us begin living the kingdom life now, through our faithful worship of Him, our truthful speech about Him, and our good works done in obedience to Him. Through the spread of the gospel, converted people, and deeds of piety, the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ.

Let us pray.

This morning we will be looking at the narrative of Simeon and his recognition of the young Jesus as the messiah. This text should sound familiar, or at least part of it should, because we sing “the Song of Simeon” at the end of our service each week. In the original context, it was about the end of Simeon’s life. He was giving a sort of doxology and thanksgiving to God for being able to see the messiah before he died. Christian tradition has used modified it just slightly for the liturgy, singing it at the conclusion of the worship service, and that is our practice. This morning, however, we will look at the original context, learning who Simeon was, what he said, and what he predicted about the future of Jesus and His work.

Simeon

Simeon is an interesting character in large part because we know so little about him. He seems to come out of nowhere, and he does not reappear anywhere else but here. All we know is that he was an old man who had received a promise from God that he would see the messiah before he died. In a sense, he only existed to point to Christ, and that is just what he does. But we can also see that he is not alone. Just a few verses after Simeon, we read about Anna, a prophetess who was also waiting for the messiah. And so we can conclude from this pairing that there were several, even if still only a small minority, who were expecting the messiah to show up in Israel just at this time, and they were eagerly keeping watch in the temple for signs of his arrival.

We know a few things about Simeon. We know that he was “just and devout” (vs. 25). And we know that he was “waiting for the Consolation of Israel,” which is an interesting phrase. It literally reads “expecting to receive the encouragement or comfort of Israel.” The word translated “consolation” is a variant of the term paracaleo, from which we also get the word paraclete. Most basically, it means “comfort,” but it had also been given a religious definition by the ancient Jews, and so in religious contexts it meant the work that the messiah would do. Simeon was waiting for the kingdom, and he had reason to believe that the messiah would show up soon. He was right.

We are also told that Simeon was a prophet. “The Holy Spirit was upon him” (vs. 25). “It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ” (vs. 26). And “He came by the Spirit into the temple” on that day (vs. 27). This meeting of Simeon, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph was no accident. It was all divinely orchestrated to fulfill God’s promise to Simeon and to give Simeon the occasion to identify Jesus and proclaim His office.

What Simeon Says

We don’t know exactly how Simeon explained himself to Mary and Joseph, or if he even bothered to stop to explain. The text just says that he took the young Jesus “up in his arms and blessed God” (vs. 28). This is an excited and inspired moment. Simeon immediately gives his “song,” blessing God.

This song is a doxology, a giving of praise to God, and it is one of several such songs to appear in the opening chapters of Luke. Chapter 1 has the song of Mary, the prophesy of Zacharias (which has the same sort of literary structure as the various “songs”), and then Chapter 2 has the song of the angels and this one from Simeon. All of these songs are ascriptions of praise and glory to God for the mighty work He is doing through this little babe, though Jesus Christ.

Simeon says, “Master, at this time you are setting your slave free in peace, according to your word” (vs. 29). It is unfortunate that most English translations simply go with “Lord” here, because the text uses the specific terms for master and slave. Simeon has been the Lord’s servant, it is true, but he has been His bondservant, His slave, doing His will and waiting on His timing. This is metaphorical language, but it signifies a spiritual truth. Now, at the time, he is being set free, which is to say, he is about to die. And this is all in accordance with the divine prophecy. Simeon had literally been living his life for Jesus, and now he is receiving his reward.

Next, Simeon explains what it is that he is seeing. “My eyes have seen Your salvation” (vs. 30). The name Jesus means savior, of course, but here Simeon is simply identifying the baby with salvation. Simeon has seen the baby Jesus, and so Simeon has seen the salvation sent from God. This announcement is a part of a prayer, but it is also a public announcement, something that Mary, Joseph, and the rest can here, and the text goes on to say that they marveled at it (vs. 33).

Then Simeon says that this salvation has been long-promised to Israel but that it is not limited to Israel. No, this salvation has been “prepared before the face of all peoples” (vs. 31). It is “a light of revelation to the Gentiles” (vs. 32), their scriptures or torah which they can now read and in whom they can find God’s word. And this salvation is the glory of Israel (vs. 32). Simeon is announcing that this baby Jesus is the promised messiah, the savior of the whole world, the fulfillment of all prophecy and Scripture.

A Bittersweet Prediction

But of course, Simeon’s words are not all niceties and comfort. No, in fact, he goes on to give a rather dark prediction. The messiah’s work will involve much conflict and sorrow. Simeon says that “this child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel” (34). We could even translate it “the downfall” of many Israel. And this is true. Jesus comes to bring the mighty down low, just as Mary had sung a chapter earlier, and He will lift up the lowly to new heights. This is also why Christians must be humble. Our raising up is still in the future. Beyond this, however, it is also true that the messiah will judge evildoers and destroy all of those who oppose him. We cannot leave this part out of the story. Jesus is the savior of the world, but he saves the world from the bad guys.

Simeon also says that Jesus will be “a sign which will be spoken against” (vs. 34). This reminds us of the prophecy from Isaiah 8, the LORD will be “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, as a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (Is. 8:14). Those who ought to have recognized and received the messiah actually rejected Him. Jesus isn’t just a pointer to God. He is a pointer from God against sin.

Why did the people reject Jesus? For one thing, they simply did not like what He said. Contrary to the popular picture of Jesus that is around today, a kind and gentle spirit who was beloved by all but the most-wicked, the Jesus of the Bible is a confrontational character. He preaches against the sins of the powerful, it is true. He is a harsh critic of the wrong use of money and of religious hypocrisy. But he also preaches against all those ordinary sins as well. He preaches against anger. He preaches against lust. He preaches against false worship. Jesus started a violent scene in the temple, turning over tables and throwing out money changers. Jesus also brought the message that the kingdom of God limits the pretentions of men. He said that we must all make ourselves low and humble and place our trust in the saving power of God. And people did not like this message in the 1^st century. They do not like it in the 21^st either.

Another reason for rejecting Jesus is simple resentment and jealousy. The people knew that He was the king, and they did not want to bow the knee and serve Him. We are told this in Psalm 2:

Why do the nations rage,
And the people plot a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying,
“Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.” (Ps. 2:1-3)

People don’t want to be ruled. They don’t want to be bound. They don’t want to be limited. And so they fight authority, even God’s own authority.

But the reason that Simeon especially points to for Jesus’ rejection is the fact that He would reveal the thoughts of many hearts (Luke 2:35). Jesus knew what was in the heart of man (John 2:25), and He was going to expose all of those secrets. This is part of the messianic task, after all. It is the judgment of all mankind. The messiah would make a public judgment of every action, whether good or evil, whether public or private, and he would render to everyone what their works deserved. And this is a terrifying thought.

Having your secrets exposed is scary for a number of reasons. They are secret, after all. You don’t want people to know about them. And why don’t you want people to know about them? Perhaps they are silly. You have hopes and dreams that won’t come true or which are embarrassing because of what it is that you are hoping for. But, there is also the problem of having selfish and even sinful desires. Lust immediately spring to mind. But what about all of those times you have wished for you own success at someone else’s expense? It would be pretty bad if other people knew about that. And what about those occasionally really bad, really selfish, really mean, and just plain scary thoughts that you have? We shouldn’t deny that we have them. We do. Instead, we should ask ourselves what God would think if He knew about them. And then we should remind ourselves about reality. God already knows our secrets.

When God points out our secret sins, the only thing to do is repent. We shouldn’t hide or make excuses. We must confess our sins, admit that they are wrong, and put them behind us. This process will require humility, and it will instill more humility. And that’s exactly what the messiah is all about. And it is exactly why people hate him.

Jesus also says that we will be judged on a weighted scale. Those who have more are expected to do more with it, and those with the word of God will be judged more severely if they fail to obey. I usually quote from Spiderman at this point, “With great power comes great responsibility,” but the Biblical quote is actually more pointed:

Also He said to them, “Is a lamp brought to be put under a basket or under a bed? Is it not to be set on a lampstand? For there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed, nor has anything been kept secret but that it should come to light. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.” Then He said to them, “Take heed what you hear. With the same measure you use, it will be measured to you; and to you who hear, more will be given. For whoever has, to him more will be given; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.” (Mark 4:21-25)

And so another part of our secrets being judged is that God will judge us on what we really had. He knows what resources and what opportunities were in our power, and He knows when we used them for God and God’s service. God also knows what we know. He knows what we can understand and when we conveniently pretend not to know or not to understand. You can’t fool God. No excuses are going to work. So you might as well get real and live in the light now.

Don’t hide who you are, not even your sins. Confess them to God and fall down on your knees. Having the secrets of your heart exposed ought to lead you to worship (1 Cor. 14:24-25).

Conclusion

The final note sorrow is for Mary herself, “yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul also” (Luke 2:35), and this is most certainly a reference to the grief she will feel at the cross. This child who is salvation is also destined for a heartbreaking death. As the Christmas carol puts it, “Nails, spears shall pierce him through, the cross he bore for me, for you. Hail, hail the Word made flesh, the Babe, the Son of Mary.”

And yet in this grief also comes our joy. Those secret sins which will be made known would also condemn us. Once our hearts are laid bare, we will have defense. Except for the defense of the gospel, that Jesus died for us, to forgive our sins. And this is the final reversal in His work. He dies so that we might live. He bears our guilt and punishment so that we can receive His reward. The sword which pierces Mary’s soul will also save it, as it saves us all. This little child came to defeat the powers of sin and death, and He came to die. He come to do all of this so that we might saved.

Let us pray.

ALMIGHTY God, who hast given us thy only-begotten Son to take our nature upon him, and as at this time to be born of a pure Virgin; Grant that we being regenerate, and made thy children by adoption and grace, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit; through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the same Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.