Book Review: Flight of the Eagle by Conrad Black

Virtually all of my reading was put on hold as I worked to finish another 800 page tome--this one on the rise of American self-identity, from our founding until the present day.

(An interesting tidbit: Black wrote this book while in prison, perhaps unjustly. What a great use of a prison term!)

In Flight of the Eagle, the author reveals himself as more of a storyteller than historian, which makes this book a great place to start a young person's intellectual curiosity about American history. Black shows how US presidents and other cabinet members left their mark, positively or negatively, upon the growth of America and her self-identity as a growing guardian of freedom and democracy. If there is a particular lasting impression of the book, it is this: Indispensible figures rose at the most critical of occasions to guide America into her present role as the world's lone super power.

The lack of a historian's desire for objectivity allows Black to make critical judgments and assessments about key figures, which enables the reader to wrestle with Black's assessments. At the same time, this book does not take a political hatchet to America's history in order to defend or attack a given ideology. It celebrates great figures in American history, whatever their political persuasion. Each assessment is critical as well, showing every figure's flaws as well as his virtues.

The complexities of our founding are put on full display, but it is clear from the outset that in spite of the massive ideological battles surrounding the founding, there was a clear conception of the exceptional nature of our country and its potentialities. Sober realists and blurry-eyed idealists would often do battle, as would the federalists (strong centralized state) and anti-federalists (more dispersed power), but Franklin and others planned for a future of worldly dominance, and Washington embodied the moderate tendencies of a revolution bound by laws, not men, setting the stage for a future of ordered liberty.

The Francophilia of Jefferson is exposed (he supported the immoral French Revolution) and shown to be the cause of the War of 1812 and the devastation of DC. While Jefferson and Madison were both substantial intellects and chief craftsmen in the making of the Constitution, they caused economic disaster and war (that we didn't win) with economic embargoes and an inept foreign policy against the most free nation in the world besides our own (Britain). Of course, Jefferson did engineer the Louisiana Purchase, which was one of the greatest American gains in her history.

The most substantial president between the early presidencies and the Civil War was that of Andrew Jackson, but I was more intrigued by the lesser-known presidencies, both pre and post-Civil War. We don't often hear of the very effective presidency of James Polk or the incompetencies of Zachary Taylor. The author makes a compelling case that a number of these presidents, led by Jackson and assisted by the great congressmen of American history--Henry Clay and Daniel Webster--effected compromises that delayed an inevitable war over slavery until the Union was strong enough to subdue the successionists.

One also gets the impression that South Carolina was really the only state that truly wanted to secede, but the others eventually followed due to a desire to maintain the immoral institution of slavery and to preserve state rights against an always-dangerous centralized government. Minus South Carolina, I wonder if a series of legislative compromises, popular will, and moral suason (a la Wilberforce in England) would've brought down slavery, without any of the deep wounds that continue into the present day.

Like Washington at our founding (who could've been king, but remained a humble citizen-politician), Lincoln proved to be the indispensible man at our nation's next great crisis. He surely made mistakes, but he did not lead the nation into war. He hated slavery, but was willing to tolerate it until it was destroyed through other means (as mentioned above). If South Carolina did not secede, there would be no war. Lincoln wasn't fighting to defeat slavery, but the notion that state's rights were supreme with regard to the Constitution. As much as I yearn for greater state's rights and a retrieval of a more federalist system of government, there was no legal or moral justification for using state's rights as a cover to deny individual rights or usurp the Consitution, to which we are all bound.

While not given great play in the book, the prominence of William Jennings Bryan in post-Civil War history deserves mention. He was a fundamentalist Presbyterian who spent much of his life crusading for a "Christian America." His crusade did not conflict with the fact that he ran on the Progressive ticket for president a number of times. This theologically-conservative Christian was likely the forefather of the progressivism of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and a generation of politicians who wanted to repeal the Constitution as an outdated document and construct a French-like society built upon the supposed goodness of man. How did Bryan lead to these men? On the one hand, I think he gave greater sanction to government meddling in social affairs and the human conscience. On the other hand, I think someone needs to write a doctoral dissertation on this question.

I have long held both Roosevelts and Wilson in little regard, but the author helped me appreciate their virtues anew, even if I deplored their deploration of the Constitution. Teddy Roosevelt's "big stick" and "white Navy" brought prestige to America and opened the door of to her entrance on the international stage. Wilson's desire to make America a vehicle for freedom and justice in the aftermath of WWI, not vengeance (like France), helped make America a moral agent on the international scene. Had he not gone crazy in his final months in office, Wilson might have accomplished more in that regard, rather the vindictive Treaty of Versailles and the ineffective proto-League of Nations.

The author's veneration for FDR constrasted greatly with my revulsion (for a good revisionist history of the Depression, read Amity Shlaes' The Forgotten Man). I am an ardent believer that FDR's "throw a policy-pickle at the window and let it stick" New Deal prolonged the Depression. But his concept of "workfare" was far superior to modern welfare, as he helped the poor with work, rather than simply money. He also helped maintain and promote hope in the American experiment (a hope maintained and promoted through the better policy maker, Calvin Coolidge). And in preparing and bringing America into WWII, FDR proved to be a titan of modern world history.

Of modern American presidents, Truman was shown to be quite competent, Eisenhower strong and effective but somewhat unexceptional, Kennedy a brave but naive policy-maker (especially on the foreign stage), LBJ to be a crusader for civil rights but ignoramous on foreign policy, and Nixon to be the best of the lot--largely beloved and supported by American until the tragic Watergate scandal. One gets the impression that Carter may have been the worst president in US history--constantly changing his mind on important issues and having no conception of the realities of a broken world (brutally taken advantage of by Iran and by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan).

Reagan rightly gets praised as the greatest modern American president, following FDR in restoring hope in the American experiment. I would add that unlike FDR, he also restored the credibility of a free market. Like Wilson and FDR, he restored a realist morality back to American foreign policy (not one rooted in idealistic illusions, like Carter). He stopped playing chicken with the Soviets, correctly labeled them the "Evil Empire," and brilliant employed an effective arsenal of moral condemnation, an impossible to match arms build-up, and the promise of a future space-based missile defense to run the Soviet experiment in controlled chaos into the ground (assisted by Lady Thatcher, the Pope, and later on, with the help of Gorbachev). He also generated a 30-year economic boom with his tax cuts, which drastically cut unemployment and inflation.

None of the presidents since Reagan have carried his mantle. Some have been stronger than others, but unlike the author, I am not quite willing to make historical assessment of their presidencies.

At many points through this panoramic history of American growth in the world, the author argues that items A, B, and C would've changed a given outcome for the better. His arguments were often convincing, sometimes disputable, and always intriguing. He would argue that in preserving and guiding the American experiment, Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan were the greatest presidents. I wouldn't necessarily disagree. I gained a newfound respect for Nixon (demonized in modern education), which made his downfall all the more tragic. I can see how, alongside LBJ's inherited but personally-mismanaged war in Vietnam, American over-optimism was dashed upon the rocks of modern postmodernism. That said, in thawing the relationship with the Chinese, leveraging it against the Soviets, and along with the brilliant Kissinger, almost winning the previously-conceded Vietnam War, he deserves an immense amount of credit.

While I disagree with some of his final assessments, Black's questions regarding the health of the American experiment are certainly thought-provoking. Is American still the exceptional nation that she was founded as and guided along to become? And, if not, and if many of the present trendlines continue in a downward direction, will another leader with a claimed "rendezvous with destiny" (a la FDR and Reagan) fill the void between growth and catastrophe? Time will only tell.

But I am not bent out of shape about it. America is an island of freedom in an historical sea of tyranny. Her Constitution is likely the greatest founding political document in world history. But if she perishes at some point in the indefinite future (and highly unlikely anytime in our lifetimes), the world will go on, God will continue to reign on His throne over history, and His eternal island of freedom and peace in Christ for His people will make every man-made system pale in comparison.

Baby Boom or Bust

I paced a soldier for his PT test before dawn this morning. He is getting past a very rough couple of months, which included what looked like a tumor on his unborn baby's head that was considered so dangerous that he went home on emergency leave. The baby, thankfully, is currently in the clear.

By the grace of God, this soldier made it across the line in time this morning. He almost needed a medic afterward due to his smoking, the poor air quality, and the early winter chill--but he made it.

I have at least five soldiers whose wives are expecting. I'm not sure there is a harder thing for a soldier and his wife than to miss the birth of their baby. I'll try to do something for these soldiers on these occassions--perhaps smoke a cigar with them.

I find more and more soldiers talking about having more children when they get home. Some of them were content with the number they previously had, but there's something about a theater of war that makes one eager to produce life.

I think many of the soldiers' wives are of the same mind, even though they're going out of their minds with their kids while their husbands are gone. We all want more life and more family.

The shadow of death casts the peaks of life in greater relief. Talk of travel and dining out begins to feel cheap and wearisome. There is nothing so enjoyable as holding your child in your arms. Nothing so meaningful as raising that child in the love and nurture of the Lord (though many don't view child-rearing in such terms).

And what of money? People often talk about financial security as a top priority, but when are you ever financially secure? What number do you have to reach? And what about finances truly makes you secure? In the matter of a day, a job can be lost, savings can be wiped out by an economic crash, or a house can burn down. While one must be a wise steward with their God-given money, doesn't it provide more of an illusion of security rather than its substance?

In His providence, God provided my deployment in time for my wife to cede her role as primary breadwinner, assume her world-changing role as mother, and allowed me to provide for our family's needs. But what of my return? The belt will be tightened and the knee will remain bowed.

And, regardless of our circumstances, I look forward to taking part in the post-war baby boom. I look forward to arms full of children, bunk beds, passed down clothing, and endless noise. I look forward to dividing food between my babies' mouths and the kitchen floor. I look forward to giving my wife a breather, popping the kids in the running stroller, and going for a jog or taking them to the park. I look forward to teaching my kids the Bible, catechism, philosophy, history and ancient languages. I look forward to reading books, praying, and singing with them. I look forward to teaching my boys how to respect and protect girls and teaching my girls how to guard their hearts. I look forward to telling them about Jesus, who is worthy of all of their love and devotion.

I have not often traveled to the far-flung fringes of the present conflict. But even in a more safe and stable area, with smoke rising across the horizon from an incident we'll probably learn about tomorrow, the spectre of war and death brings home the preciousness of life. Some people say they don't have time for kids. I don't have time to not have kids. I don't have time for a bachelor-like life, or a life with my dear wife that excludes children. I don't have time for the illusion of security that finances and self-help books offer.

Though the Spirit will lessen the grip of selfishness on my sin-twisted heart, that grasp will never be relinquished in this life. But by God's grace, may I lose myself more in His glory and enjoying Him forever, and cultivate that same driving purpose and animating passion in my family.

Sharpening My Dull Point

The strength of my stream-of-consciousness thinking is that I am able to write everday. The weakness is that my thinking sometimes lacks precision or clarity. So, to sharpen a dull point...

Basic concern: A tendency to blur the lines between Church and state and muddy the distinct purposes of each in the providence of God.

Biblical basis: In the New Testament, the Church and state are both given distinct roles and prerogatives in a broken world. The Church's fundamental mission to proclaim the Gospel through Word and sacrament (Rom. 10; Acts 2; 1 Cor. 11, etc.). It's primary ethic is that of mercy (Matt. 5). The state's fundamental mission and ethic is that of justice (Rom. 13).

When the two are confused, chaos ensues. This is shown in Nebuchadnezzar's spirituality of the state in Daniel 3, where believers are cast into the flames for not abiding by a worldly lord of the conscience. The state, when charged with promotion of any religion (including Christianity), will inevitably become bloody and tyrannical. One can coerce behavior, not the conscience. Christendom was largely in itself one horrible example of this unacceptable merger and the ensuing bloodshed.

The confusion of the two is also devastating to the spirituality of the Church and the clarity of the truth she proclaims. Much of the anger directed against Jesus (aside from hatred of God) was directed because of His refusal to conform to the civic-political messiah expected by a blinded Judaism. He would not take a horse into Jerusalem, but a humble colt. He would not bear a crown of worldly glory (though offered Him by Satan), but bore a crown of thorns before assuming His throne in heaven. There is no other Gospel but that of Christ crucified for sinners--neither circumcision, the law, cultural renewal, or political reforms have any place within this divine message (though each of these certainly have their use!).

Bringing this to bear on a particular issue: Be careful what you wish for when identifying the cross with the uniform of the U.S. soldier.

The greatest danger to the chaplaincy, and in particular, the fidelity of Christian chaplains to the cross, is not found in the ramblings of rhetorical grenade-throwers with conspiritorial dilusions (like Mikey Weinstein). It is the pressure exerted by a country and a military that wants the benefits of the chaplaincy (morals, morale, etc.) without the particular claims of a given faith.

The great fundamentalist, William Jennings Bryan, foolishly turned the Church into a means to an end--restoring "Christian America" (by which he meant a moral society--nothing redemptive). Many fundamentalists thus ultimately fell into the same trap of the religion of Liberalism, which sought to make the Church an incubator for utopianism built on innate human goodness. Both of these movements were incredibly destructive to the Church, though the former at least believed the Gospel.

In the chaplaincy, Pro Deo et Patria (for God and country) will always tend toward Deo pro Patria (God for country). My uniform does not represent my faith, but the culture in which I bring my faith to bear, by God's grace. When I wear the uniform, I represent my Commander in Chief, our Constitution, and our ideals. But within the military context, identified with its culture, I share the Gospel of Jesus Christ--not man's sacrifice for country, but God's sacrifice for man and a better country that awaits those who believe in Jesus.

The Army Uniform is not the Christian Uniform

Someone once suggested to me that I wear my uniform when I preach. While on occasion, out of necessity (moving from Army responsibilities to church responsibilities or vice-versa), I may don the uniform, it will never be my preference.

Why? Because the Army uniform is not the Christian uniform. When I wear the uniform, I am representing my country and her prerogatives, which consist of securing justice, peace, and liberty for her citizens. Christianity can never, and will never, be promoted with guns--only tarnished.

In fact, to blur the lines between the two institutions is to do a great disservice to the faith. There has been pressure within the chaplaincy, since its inception, to neuter various belief systems of their core teachings (i.e., the deity and exclusive claims of Christ). This is not a new problem. For those who deify our founding, it should be mentioned that George Washington highly favored chaplains who preached good, civic-minded sermons that appealed to all faiths.

Such a sentiment is antithetical to the Christian faith. A Christian sermon is only to be considered "Christian" if it centers on Jesus Christ and salvation through Him alone.

And this tendency to exploit the chaplaincy for pragmatic usefulness has persisted to this day. There is relentless pressure, not to deny one's faith, but to trivialize it in service of a "greater" good of morals and morale. Such an exploitation is more in line with theological Liberalism than with the Christian religion.

Christianity (particularly, the work of the Holy Spirit) informs the conscience--it doesn't coerce the conscience. It should be noted that the fundamentalists were just as bad as the liberals in the early 20th century in seeking to make Christianity a means to a greater societal end (liberals-->social utopia built on  human goodness; fundamentalists-->moral America built on human goodness).

There is no such thing as a Christian country. A moral country does not a Christian country make, and a government will never be able propagate the Gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone in accordance with Scripture alone to the glory of God alone. That is the role of the Church.

The Christian government we look forward to will be found in the new heavens and earth, when Christ descends and ends all warfare against the living God and brings a universal peace to all tribes, tongues, peoples, and languages who confess His name and gather before His throne in song.

Random Tidbits

I am thankful that peripheral issues are truly peripheral issues--otherwise, my beloved Redskins falling to the dreaded Cowboys would be a huge blow. :)

My chaplain assistant will be joining a small group of our soldiers who will be returning home by the end of the fall. While it was fun having his around, it probably took more time and energy finding work for him and entertaining him than it did operating without him. This is not his fault. Please pray that I would compassionately share the Gospel with him, not act like a crotchety old man (give off that Smartphone and go play outside!).

Speaking of the Gospel, I've continued to develop a solid friendship with my Reformed buddy out here. We're going through a good book, Dangerous Calling, together. It is good to have a friend out here who doesn't simply regard me as the chaplain!

This friend, an engineer, recently completed a 25k project to build a tower at a high point in a given locale in order for us to gain greater advantage over the enemy. Soon after completing the project, and before our native counterparts occupied it, the enemy came, cut the locks, and occupied the building. This has led to a lot of dark humor on our part--you'd cry if you didn't laugh. We either just built a tower for the enemy, or a deathtrap. I suggested that we send someone over to knock on the door and politely ask for the building back. Something along the lines of "C'mon, buddy. You know that building isn't yours. Why don't you give it back?" Don't think that will work.

A soldier visited me last night. He is black, enlisted, a dock worker on the civilian side, and quiet. He visited because he knows I like politics, and he was interested in talking politics. We talked the JFK assassination, conspiracy theories (and their absurdity), the prevalence of political corruption (or lack thereof), the vital role of a free press, and why we don't need to think the worst of politicians of either political party (we can condemn their policies without denigrating the person). Toward the end, he said "Some people think I'm dumb because I don't talk." He showed me why they are wrong.

It looks like I'll be able to coordinate and lead a shadow Ragnar Relay out here in the next month. We'll probably have two teams running 200 miles over the course of about 30 hours--teams composed of Americans, Canadians, officers, enlisted soldiers, men, and women. If all goes according to plan, it should be a source of pride for all soldiers on this post.

My plan to pursue a D.Min. at Liberty U fell through because it turns out that Army tuition assistance doesn't support doctorates. Not sure whether I should look in other directions or whether God is just closing the door of further education for the time being. The wonderful thing about God's providence is that I am required to trust more than I am to know.

Random Stat: I have conducted sixty six counseling appointments since we arrived in country. May God use such precious opportunities for His glory!

Security

I had a soldier come to me a few days ago, seeking advice for her sleep trouble.

Before investigating, the facts of the case must be established: How long have you had trouble sleeping? What are you thinking of during these times? What are you feeling? What cirumstances have recently changed in your life?

In this case, the soldier has struggled to sleep for a couple of weeks. She is thinking obsessively about action plans for prospective attacks against her team at their work site. There seems to be an anxiety and unease accompanying these thoughts. Both these thoughts and feelings are relatively new. The only significant change in circumstances she could think of was an additional stress that her government was placing on potential threats and protective measures.

Next, we need to start investigating the "Why's." The only circumstance to seemingly change is the renewed emphasis by her government on threats and safety.

What was life like before this circumstance changed? Work stayed at work--it didn't carry over into her free time or her sleep. She trusted her training and fellow soldiers and believed that she was prepared for all contingencies. She also knew that with some potential threats, there just frankly wasn't much she could do.

So what changed? What fear/insecurity did this circumstance expose?

Fear of death? Apparently not. She seems to have a pretty fatalistic view of death--it will happen when it will happen. No regrets. I believe her, even though I am skeptical that someone can remain so blase about death without an extraordinary amount of supression of thoughts and feelings.

Sense of helplessness? Nope. She still trusted her training and fellow soldiers. Her country is much more merit-based and less self-esteem based than our country, which enables her to trust that the soldier next to her is where he/she is supposed to be, rather than a possible charity case.

Advice for her sleep trouble--there are behavior changes (short-term fixes) and heart/thought changes. Possible behavior change:

Replacements of destructive thoughts, not mere repression. Often times, when we seek to combat a destructive thought pattern, we actually give it greater attention and mental energy. The person fighting lustful thoughts gives them safe harbor when he/she is thinking about not entertaining them. The person who struggles to have sex with his/her spouse does not find it gets easier by willing himself/herself to become more interested. In these cases and as a general rule, one must replace the thoughts entirely. For example, the non-sexual spouse should think about the virtues and beauties of their partner, rather than the act of sex itself.

In this case, I suggested replacing anxiety-producing thoughts with happy or positively-obsessive thoughts. What are this soldier's "happy places" or experiences and relationships that bring her joy? Also, what are "positive" obsessions for her--things that draw her into deep thought without harming her in any regard? For example, I get obsessive with running times. If I am going to run a 10k tomorrow, I will think about what I want my goal time to be and will spend a good amount of time thinking through what pace I want to run for what mile to get to my goal, while also enabling me to avoid crashing on the way there.

But my friend was one step ahead of me. She had tried replacing thought patterns, but to no avail. The current destructive thoughts were entrenched to deeply.

So we went back to the fears/insecurities, as the behavior solutions were not proving helpful, nor can we rely on a circumstance change. But we were reaching the same sorts of answers.

Finally, a small breakthrough--a variable she hadn't thought of before--several soldiers from her team had recently left and been replaced by new soldiers. A new circumstance. She realized quite quickly that she didn't trust these soldiers. A new line of thinking and feeling. But she could alter this circumstances. She could get to know these soldiers better and develop the bonds of trust, which seemed to be the real issue. Off she went.

I am thankful that this soldier was an ideal partner (not patient) in this investigative process. She wasn't apathetic (shoulder shrug..."I don't know"), nor was she antagonistic, defensive, or taking things personally. A counselor desires partners like these because nobody is more valuable in investigating a person's thoughts and feelings than that person. It also helped that she was an extravert, which meant that she externalized her thoughts as she considered each course, so that I not only saw the product of her thinking, but the process as well.

I have found in my counseling that if often not helpful to bring the conversation back to the Gospel during the first meeting (unless the partner is a Believer). One, it can be off-putting, as if counseling is just a pretext to proselytization and the soldier could come away feeling used and exploited. Two, it encourages easy-answer evangelism, where "Jesus" is quickly stapled onto a conversation in order to close discussion and make the problems seem easier than they actually are. I am oft-reminded of God's Word through James about being quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry. I will listen intently in the early going, but keep in mind future avenues for the Gospel.

But, as a final note, no problem involving security and trust can truly be resolved with addressing the matter of eternal security. If one is merely flotsam on the seas of changing circumstances, then a changed circumstance will simply mean a new wave of uncertainly to rise. Ultimately, the soul need be anchored to Jesus Christ, who offers unconditional love and security through His life and death. Only in humbling coming to the heart of this profound truth will we find the rest we truly need.