A lengthy post - on a lengthier article
I ask for your forgiveness, as I post this commentary in response to an essay that was posted over on the "Harper’s Magazine" website. The title of the article is “How the Christian right is reimagining U.S. history” by Jeff Sharlet, and it appears to be taking Christians to task for their Biblically influenced historical views and perspectives. I leave it up to you to read the
entire piece, and judge it’s conclusions for yourself. And if you’re not into this subject, please feel free to scroll down for some lighter-material.
My interest in this article is solely found in the single-section that so eloquently “criticizes” those of us who sit in reverence and awe of the Christian character of Confederate General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, (a man and a subject that is both near and dear to my heart). Therefore, I am responding ONLY to this portion, and do not feel qualified to comment on any of the other sections - only to say that I believe the article to be a tad “stereotypical” in it’s portrayal of politically-active Christians. I also invite the author to feel free to respond to my post, and I will be more than happy to share his comments with you.
Please let me preface this by saying that I am not at all familiar with "Harper’s Magazine", nor am I familiar with the target-demographic of the publication. The ONLY reason that I am even aware of this piece is that it was referenced on a popular blog that specializes in the debate over controversial political issues as they are relevant to our times. Also, I would like to add that although I do not agree with much of this piece (as I feel that it paints all Christians with the same “dirty” brush), it does pose some intelligent points that even I cannot argue with.
For instance, unlike some of the Christian fundamentalists that are cited in this article, I, as an active-practicing protestant, cannot (and will not) aggressively force my religious views on anyone. Yes, as evangelicals, we are all called to spread the Good News of the Gospel, but we are not to willfully coerce non-believers in an effort to indoctrinate them into a religion that they do not ascribe to. Our job is to study the Word of God, live by example, and be ready for those who want to come to know Christ. We cannot “make” anyone believe anything. In other words, there is a distinct difference between professing one’s faith, and intimidating others to practice like-doctrine. And as much as I hate to admit it, you cannot legislate morality, or spirituality. That doesn’t work in America.
That said I would like to share my own insights on Mr. Sharlet’s presentation, specifically in regards to his portrayal of the good General. In fact, I would first like to PRAISE HIM for penning perhaps one of most clear and concise pieces that I have ever read in reference to “why I do what I do”. It appears that in an effort to criticize those of us who publicly celebrate the character of Thomas Jonathan Jackson, he has also provided us with a great “definition” from which to explain ourselves. Regardless if the writer "agrees" with us, he did an outstanding job in researching this topic, and communicating OUR perspectives. Well done Sir. Well done.
As a result, if someone asked me today why I choose to focus my creative energies on the role of religion in the Civil War, and the inspirational stories that can be gleaned from one of the darkest periods in our nation’s history, I may point them to this article (at least the part on Jackson). Here are some excerpts from this brilliantly written piece w/ a few of my own comments – added in for some flavor. After all, he’s writing about ME (whether he knows it or not).
SHARLET: In the pantheon of fundamentalist history, the man revered above all others is General “Stonewall” Jackson of the Confederacy, perhaps the most brilliant military commander in American history and certainly the most pious. “United States History for Christian Schools” devotes more space to Jackson, "Soldier of the Cross," and the revivals he led among his troops in the midst of the Civil War, than to either Robert E. Lee or Ulysses S. Grant; “Practical Home-schooling” magazine offers instructions for making Stonewall costumes out of gray sweat suits with which one can celebrate his birthday, a home-schooling "fun day." “The Vision Forum” catalogue offers for men a military biography and for the ladies a collection of Jackson's letters to his wife; both books extol his strategic and romantic achievements as corollaries to his unparalleled love of God.
ME: This is 100% true, and I am very thankful that my books are also included in this list of home-schooling resources. In fact, “Onward Christian Soldier: The Spiritual Journey of Stonewall” is now included in the school libraries of several Christian Academies. An adult curriculum (in the form of a Men’s Ministry Bible Study) has also been developed, and is available over on my website. Why do I mention this? BECAUSE Mr. Sharlet forgot to!
Also, the materials that he is referencing are primarily used by children who are already Christian and either enrolled in religious institutions or home-schooled. Regardless if you object to the “subject matter”, it is being used by parents and tutors who are NOT in the public school system – usually because they are devout believers – who have intentionally removed themselves from it. In other words, it makes total sense that a private, Christian-based curriculum would focus more on a pious commander like Thomas Jackson over others. Why is that difficult to understand? We are not talking about the secular classroom here. And why is this so objectionable?
SHARLET: Fundamentalists even celebrate the Confederate hero as an early civil rights visionary, dedicated to teaching slaves to read so that they could learn their Bible lessons. For fundamentalist admirers, that is enough; this fall saw the publication of “Stonewall Jackson: The Black Man's Friend”, by Richard G. Williams, a regular contributor to the conservative “Washington Times”. Jackson fought not to defend slavery, argues another biographer, but for religious freedom; he believed the North had usurped the moral jurisdiction of God. "The North seemed to be striving to alter basic American structures," writes James I. Robertson Jr. “Such activity flew in the face of God’s preordained notion of what America should be.”
ME: Once again, Jeff is right-on with his facts, but I fear that he too has fallen victim to the recent surge of “politically correct” progressive historians who refuse to believe that any of this is true. BTW: If I could get half of the press that my friend Richard gets, my books would be selling like hot-cakes. I’ve mentioned his work here before, and I even reviewed this title for “The Free Lance-Star” and “Civil War Interactive”. Richard’s book and it’s validation by Dr. Robertson, speak for themselves. Moving on…
SHARLET: Jackson's popularity with fundamentalists represents the triumph of the Christian history that Rousas John Rushdoony dreamed of when he discovered, during the early 1960s, the forgotten works of the theologian Robert Lewis Dabney, including “Life and Campaigns of Lieut.- Gen. Thomas J. Jackson (Stonewall Jackson)”. Dabney had served under Jackson, but, more important, he was a theologian in the tradition of John Calvin-that is, he believed deeply in a God who worked through chosen individuals-and he wrote the general's life in biblical terms. Rushdoony imagined the story as transcending its Confederate origins, and so helped make it a founding text of the nascent home-schooling movement. In 2003, “Vision Forum” sponsored a national essay contest and awarded first prize to a pretty, freckle-faced young woman named Amanda Freeborn for her essay, “How Stonewall Jackson Demonstrated a Biblical Vision of Manhood.” “There is a name,” writes Freeborn, “that casts upon the screen of our imaginations the image of the personification of godly manhood. That name is Stonewall Jackson. . . . His life was a testimony to the world of what God can do through a man consecrated to his purposes.”
ME: I am familiar with “Vision Forum’s” winning essay, and it is a magnificent piece of work, especially for one as young as Ms. Freeborn. The quote above is so perfect in my own interpretation of Jackson’s legacy that I wish I had penned it myself. In the essay, Freeborn (like me) goes on to admire Jackson’s reverence for authority and his commitment to prayer-in battle. She also presents “Stonewall’s” courage and tenacity, as well as the Old-Testament warrior’s ferocity on the battlefield. She closes with what life-lessons and inspirations can be gleaned from Jackson’s example. “Today," writes Freeborn, “Mr. Jackson's life stands as a witness to a new generation of what God can and desires to do in each of His children. Let us rise up and follow the shining example of this stern soldier, loving husband, devoted church officer, and Christ-like man.” I cannot think of a better way to exemplify what it means to be a Christian soldier.
SHARLET: Absent enemy fire, he did not know how to take a stand. He watched John Brown hang with his own eyes and marveled at the strength of the man's Christian conviction. And yet when his own time to fight came, he proved just as devoted. "Draw the sword," he told his students at the Virginia Military Institute, "and throw away the scabbard." In "All Things for Good: The Steadfast Fidelity of Stonewall Jackson", fundamentalist historian J. Steven Wilkins opens a chapter on Jackson's belief in the "black flag" of no quarter for the enemy with a quotation: "Shoot them all, I do not wish them to be brave." The only path to peace, he believed, was total war.
ME: War is unpleasant. Killing is unpleasant. Jackson was well aware of this, but as any military commander knows, the prime directive is victory – often at all costs. Jackson spoke fervently about the use of the bayonet and its psychological effects on the enemy. Passion however, could not hide his obvious distaste for war and regardless of victory; he remained committed to ending the conflict as soon as possible. Preaching a harsh philosophy of swift and total destruction, Thomas believed adamantly in the “Machiavellian Theories” of combat. Jackson explained to his officers that although war is a wretched thing, under the circumstances of tyranny and defense, it is justified. He added that in battle, one must not hesitate. He must set out to destroy the enemy. In the first conflict, one must strike with everything at his disposal and render his opponent defenseless. The first battle should always be fought with the intention of it being the last. No quarter must be given. To kill them all is to end all killing. He also explained that when this principle was applied effectively, their foe would be unable to fight on, due to extreme loss or fear. Ultimately, the more devastating the attack, the more lives (on both sides) would be saved in the end. He referred to this action as “the black flag” and reminded his officers that regardless of their orders, “Duty was theirs. Consequences were God’s.” This is not anything revolutionary in the annals of war. To critically judge Jackson in this regard is to be both unrealistic and ignorant of the harsh realities of combat.
This is sound, tactical strategy. Religion (IMO) has nothing to do with it. I still don’t understand why so many critics cite Jackson’s aggressiveness on the battlefield as a spiritual character flaw, and somehow believe that it negates all of his religious virtues. According to Mr. Sharlet’s logic, it is therefore impossible to be BOTH a Christian and a soldier? Does that mean that all participants, in all conflicts, are no longer righteous? The Bible is filled with wars, and in the Book of Romans it clearly states that “There is a time for peace and a time for war.” No one favors war as a solution – MOST OF ALL the men who have to fight it.
SHARLET: To put it in political terms, the contradictory legend of Stonewall Jackson-rebellion and reverence, rage and order-results in the synthesis of self-destructive patriotism embraced by contemporary fundamentalism.
ME: This is where Jeff loses me completely. The Christian legacy of Thomas Jackson is not what he refers to as “self-destructive patriotism embraced by contemporary fundamentalism.” This is simply the story of a man who suffered greatly, but chose to embrace the Will of his Savior as the foundation for a legendary life. Thomas Jackson was a true believer, who lived everyday for the glory of God. Yes, he was eccentric. Yes, he was a warrior. But he was also a compassionate man who loved his God, his country, his family and his men.
Why this subject continues to be fodder for debate I may never know. However, I do know that there is a huge audience out there who understands the life-lessons that can be learned by studying the spiritual lives of men like Thomas Jackson. It is an audience of intelligent, rational believers, who can distinguish the positive lessons of one’s life from the tragic realities that befell them as men. None of them are perfect, just as none of us are. Yet to criticize them, even to the point of rejecting them, is a travesty. And it is not like "we" are inventing a brand new lifestory for this gentleman. These recollections are based on fact. Now IF we were taking a "less-desirable" character and then creatively "painting" him as a saint, I would understand the concern. Yes Jeff, you are correct, "Stonewall" Jackson was a Bible-thumping Christian, who destroyed his enemies in battle.
You're a very good writer Mr. Sharlet, but I think that you missed the point. The irony is that your own words may make a better case for "our side" than my own. Jackson was everything that you said (and more.)
