Stay at the Manger of Christ the Man

Christmas inevitably brings out the Lutheran in me, for while my adoptive Episcopal Church has its own wonderful traditions, my Danish and German forebears took special delight in the annual celebration of Christ’s birth.  “The happy Christmas comes once more,” begins a beloved hymn by the Danish theologian N. F. S. Grundtvig, and those words always come to mind as I am stringing Danish flags on the Christmas tree, in keeping with family custom.

This year, though, perhaps because of the pandemic, I have more solemn words ringing in my ears.  As an undergraduate, I first encountered Martin Luther’s Lectures on Genesis, where he distinguishes between God’s absolute nature, which is unknowable, and the incarnate God in Christ.  He then advises the reader in terms that have always stuck with me:

I follow this general rule: to avoid as much as possible any questions that carry us to the throne of the Supreme Majesty.  It is better and safer to stay at the manger of Christ the Man.  For there is very great danger in involving oneself in the mazes of the Divine Being.

Luther’s “flight to the manger,” as B. A. Gerrish put it, was an antidote to the terror of predestination, or the hidden intentions of God’s inscrutable will. Luther seems strangely prescient in our own time as we confront the terror of a pitiless Nature in the form of a microscopic virus.  What is our own place in nature, to say nothing of God’s?

Modern people, Gerrish noted in a classic 1973 essay, experience Pascal’s fear that humans are “lost in this remote corner of nature.”  As Gerrish wrote: “Here, in the anxiety of finitude and insignificance, modern man experiences the hiddenness of God.  And faith can only mean that in the revealed God he finds the possibility of affirming the meaning of life in spite of this anxiety.”

Luther’s flight to the manger is therefore a conscious decision to embrace life and hope even in the face of agonizing unknowns.  For me as a scholar of religion, staying at the manger of Christ the Man also means resting in the peculiarity of religious traditions even as we recognize that no religion can possibly contain the sum total of ultimate truth.

To be sure, my scholarly doubts about the finality of any single tradition go far beyond Luther’s pious reticence about God’s hidden will.  Even so, like Luther, I find comfort at the manger. I can therefore sing with my Danish ancestors, “The happy Christmas comes once more, / The heavenly Guest is at the door, / The blessed words the shepherds thrill, / The joyous tidings: Peace, good-will.”

© 2020 by Peter J. Thuesen. All rights reserved

Further Reading

B. A. Gerrish, “‘To the Unknown God’: Luther and Calvin on the Hiddenness of God,” Journal of Religion 53 (1973): 263-92; reprinted in The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982).

Hymnal for Church and Home, 2nd ed. (Blair, Neb.: Danish Lutheran Publishing House, 1928).

Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis, in Luther’s Works, vol. 2, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Daniel E. Poellot (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1960).

Take the “Elect” Out of U.S. Elections

When the Puritans of colonial New England went to church, they heard a stark message from the clergy: God predestines only a few people for salvation; pray that you’re among the chosen. Massachusetts pastor Thomas Shepard put a person’s odds of being among the elect at one in a thousand. Increase Mather told his flock that the Lord’s chosen were the “fewest of all people,” quoting Deuteronomy 7:7.

Later generations rebelled against this notion, fueling an explosion of upstart groups, from Methodists to Mormons, who taught that salvation was open to anybody who freely responded to God’s offer. They couldn’t stomach the thought that election was beyond a person’s control.

Why, then, do Americans passively accept in politics what they widely rejected in religion? As the past two decades have shown, American elections are irrational and undemocratic, favoring certain states and populations, often for arbitrary reasons.

The problem begins with the illogical system of presidential primaries, which, like a religious ritual whose origins are forgotten in the mists of time, privileges the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. Every four years, presidential hopefuls beat a path to those states, lavishing attention for months on voters who, demographically at least, are hardly representative of the country at large.

Iowa, which constitutes just under one percent of the total U.S. population, is 90.3 percent white, 5.9 percent Hispanic, and 3.5 Black, according to 2018 estimates from the American Community Survey. New Hampshire is even whiter, at 93 percent. Compare the figures for the United States as a whole: 72.7 percent white, 17.8 percent Hispanic, and 12.7 percent Black. I have nothing against Iowans (my dad is an Iowa native) or people from New Hampshire, but why should we allow these states to vet presidential candidates for the whole nation?

Even more absurd than the primary system is the Electoral College, which twice since 2000 has handed the presidency to the popular vote loser. In 2016, though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 2.9 million, Donald Trump carried the Electoral College by a margin of 306 to 232. Fortunately, such a mismatched outcome did not happen in 2020, but we must not lose sight of how easily it could have been otherwise.

Like the primary system, the Electoral College is biased toward the few over the many, in this case states with small populations. In 2016, California (the most populous state) had one electoral vote per 712,000 residents, while in Wyoming (the least populous state), the ratio was one to 195,000. Because the size of the Electoral College is capped at 538 (the number of senators and representatives in Congress, plus three electoral votes for the District of Columbia), the value of each state’s votes constantly fluctuates relative to others’ based on population growth or decline. Even with the decennial congressional reapportionment (a process rife with the corruption of state-level gerrymandering) maintaining fairness in such a convoluted electoral system is virtually impossible.

On top of this instability, the Electoral College focuses all the candidates’ attention on a few swing states. Candidates have little incentive to campaign in safe red or blue states, effectively ignoring voters’ concerns in those areas. Thus, Wisconsin and Michigan were “elect” states this time (given that they narrowly flipped for the Republicans in 2016) but neighboring Indiana, where I live, was mostly bypassed. California, with its 39 million people, was even more ignored.

Finally, there’s the problem of big money in U.S. elections. The Center for Responsive Politics recently reported that the 2020 election smashed spending records, with more than $6 billion expended on the presidential contest. Roughly a fifth of that money came from the super PACs made possible by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010). In the month of October alone, spending by super PACs and other big-money groups totaled almost 1.2 billion. The unfettered arms race allowed by current campaign finance law enables wealthy corporations to exert disproportionate influence over candidates, further disenfranchising the average citizen.

In his last book, published just four months before his death, Senator John McCain, one of the chief architects of the 2002 campaign finance reform gutted by Citizens United, condemned the court’s decision as “an invitation to corruption” that led to an “explosion of unlimited and dark money in campaigns.”

The bottom line is that the people who count in U.S. elections are increasingly an elect few, favored by money, geography, or bad policy. How long will we put up with this travesty? If the United States has a distinctive theology or civil religion, surely it includes the principle that we are not acted upon by arbitrary forces, monarchial or otherwise, but rather are free to choose for ourselves. Every American who cherishes democracy ought to rebel against the undemocratic rot in our elections.

© 2020 by Peter J. Thuesen. All rights reserved

Further Reading

“2020 Election to Cost $14 Billion, Blowing Away Records,” Center for Responsive Politics, October 28, 2020.

John McCain and Mark Salter, The Restless Wave: Good Times, Just Causes, Great Fights, and Other Appreciations (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2018).

Peter J. Thuesen, Predestination: The American Career of a Contentious Doctrine (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).

Elizabeth Warren, “It’s Time to Get Rid of the Electoral College,” March 19, 2019.

Jesse Wegman, “The Electoral College Will Destroy America,” New York Times, September 8, 2020.

Jesse Wegman, Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College (New York: St. Martin’s, 2020).

Keep the Mail and the Weather Above Politics

The James A. Farley Post Office Building in New York City. Inscribed above the columns is the postal creed: “Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.” (Photo: Creativ…

The James A. Farley Post Office Building in New York City. Inscribed above the columns is the postal creed: “Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.” (Photo: Creative Commons)

When I was boy, I picked up two habits from my father: watching for the mail, and watching the weather.

We lived at the end of a street, so on a Saturday, when we heard the postal truck doing a U-turn in front of our house, we knew it was time to fetch the mail.  “Never let it get cold in the mailbox,” my dad used to say, only half jokingly.

After I became a stamp collector and a shortwave radio listener, the two hobbies fed each other.  I would write to radio stations I had heard and request their verification cards.  Then I would eagerly watch the mail for the postcards and stamps from faraway countries.

Mail delivery was one of life’s sacred constants during my childhood in the 1970s and 1980s.  I can’t remember a time when the weather ever interfered with it.  The Postal Service creed rang true: “Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.”

Government weather forecasting was another constant.  As a boy, I tuned in to NOAA Weather Radio for the latest watches and warnings.  There was something comforting about the thought that National Weather Service meteorologists were monitoring the skies for hazards 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

Sadly, the idea that mail delivery and weather forecasting are sacred public trusts has come under sustained assault in the Trump Administration.

The latest allegations against Postmaster General Lo­uis DeJoy—that as CEO of New Breed Logistics he reimbursed employees to make political donations to Republican candidates—have only heightened the stench of an appointment that reeked of conflict of interest from the start.

According to an investigation by the New York Times, DeJoy still holds at least a $30 million stake in XPO Logistics, which acquired New Breed in 2014.  That’s despite the fact that XPO benefits from contracts with the Postal Service.

President Trump’s motivations in appointing DeJoy apparently included political patronage (Trump attended a high-dollar fund-raiser at DeJoy’s home in North Carolina in 2017) and the G.O.P. idea that private-sector executives know better how to get things done than career public servants.

But far from creating efficiencies, DeJoy’s cost-cutting, including the removal of hundreds of letter-sorting machines, has slowed delivery times, raising the suspicion that he is starving the agency he was hired to lead.  Though recent public outcry led him to reverse some of the measures until after the election, he may already have inflicted long-term damage.

The choice of DeJoy as postmaster general is remarkably similar to Trump’s nomination in 2017 of Barry Lee Myers, CEO of AccuWeather, as NOAA administrator.  Three of the agency’s former heads opposed Myers, who had lobbied for legislation that would have limited NOAA’s ability to compete with AccuWeather’s for-profit forecasting products.

Ironically, as journalist Michael Lewis pointed out, AccuWeather’s predictions depended heavily on raw data gathered by NOAA.  Yet in a hearing before Congress in 2013 on the nation’s forecasting infrastructure, Myers downplayed the federal role. “The [private] weather industry has innovated in ways the government could not nor should be expected to do,” he said.

Myers’s lauding of private sector innovation ignored a fundamental ethical question: Should vital weather information be anything other than public property, freely available to all?  A similar question can be asked about mail delivery.  Though the Postal Service receives no tax dollars for its operating expenses, Congress regulates postal rate increases—and with good reason.  Affordable, reliable mail service is a public good.  Many Americans in rural areas depend on the Postal Service for delivery of medicine and other essentials because commercial shippers don’t deliver to post office boxes or remote addresses.  And in rural areas without broadband, residents count on NOAA Weather Radio, rather than AccuWeather’s premium forecasting products, for storm warnings.

In the end, Congress balked at Myers’s nomination, which stalled in the Senate for more than two years.  President Trump withdrew the nomination at Myers’s request in December 2019.  Congress should again assert its oversight authority and keep up the pressure on DeJoy until he resigns.

On a more basic level, it’s time to reclaim the idea that mail delivery and weather forecasts should be the common property of citizens in our republic.  For starters, this will require new federal support.  Congress may also need to curb the president’s freedom to appoint administrators with no experience in the agencies they seek to lead.  Myers, had he been confirmed, would have been only the second NOAA administrator in the agency’s four-decade history who lacked a science degree.  DeJoy is one of just five postmasters general to come from the private sector since the Postal Service became an independent federal agency (rather than a cabinet department) in 1971.

To be sure, agencies such as the Postal Service have suffered from political entanglements before, though past controversies look quaint compared to the blatant politicization we see today.  President Franklin Roosevelt was a lifelong stamp collector, and after he died in 1945, it came out that his collection included some rare die proofs of stamps that he had received as “gifts” from postal employees.  Critics charged that the proofs were government property.  The flap followed a 1935 controversy in which Postmaster General James Farley, an FDR appointee, had issued a small number of imperforate stamps, later known as “Farley’s Follies,” which he purchased and then gave as gifts to FDR, knowing that their value would rapidly appreciate.  After Congress began looking into the matter, “the petty graft was stopped,” as the Chicago Tribune later put it.

Oddly enough, it was FDR’s own reverence for stamps that got him into hot water.  Tending his stamp collection was one of his favorite ways to unwind in the White House.  A 1933 newspaper article reported that stamps had “a sacred quality” for him.

If only we could bottle that reverence and administer it to our current president.  The mail, like weather forecasting, ought to be above politics.  President Trump’s sordid effort to undermine both has struck a blow to services that all Americans should be able to take for granted.

© 2020 by Peter J. Thuesen. All rights reserved

Further Reading

Catie Edmondson, Jessica Silver-Greenberg, and Luke Broadwater, “DeJoy Pressured Workers to Donate to G.O.P. Candidates, Former Employees Say,” New York Times, September 6, 2020; Luke Broadwater and Catie Edmondson, “Postal Service Has Paid DeJoy’s Former Company $286 Million Since 2013,” New York Times, September 2, 2020; and Lucy Tompkins, “Who Is Postmaster General Louis DeJoy?” New York Times, September 2, 2020.  On Barry Lee Myers, see Peter J. Thuesen, Tornado God: American Religion and Violent Weather (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020), 165-66; and Michael Lewis, The Fifth Risk (New York: W. W. Norton, 2018), 170-72.

Sing an American Tune

In this summer of our discontent, is there a song that expresses our national predicament?  I nominate Paul Simon’s “American Tune” (1973), especially the version from Simon and Garfunkel’s Concert in Central Park album, recorded live in 1981.

Simon’s beautiful, melancholy anthem gives voice to the dashed hopes—the sense of unfulfilled promise—that I’m feeling as I consider the state of this great republic.

I’m a romantic at heart on the promise of America, which is why I was drawn to the study of American religion in the first place.  But as a historian, I’m also aware of how often the United States of America has failed to live up to its promise.  The realization of falling short as a society is overwhelming this summer, which is why I find the second stanza of “American Tune” so haunting:

And I don’t know a soul who’s not been battered
I don’t have a friend who feels at ease
I don’t know a dream that’s not been shattered
or driven to its knees
But it’s all right, it’s all right
We’ve lived so well so long
Still, when I think of the road
we're traveling on
I wonder what went wrong
I can’t help it, I wonder what went wrong.

The music haunts me as much as the words.  To my knowledge, it’s the only modern hit based on an old Lutheran chorale, “O Sacred Head Now Wounded,” by Hans Leo Hassler.  That tune resonates with something deep in my Lutheran psyche.  (Though I’m now an Episcopalian, my DNA is 100 percent Lutheran; my father, grandfather, and two uncles were Lutheran pastors, and my parents met while working at a Lutheran college.)

“American Tune” is a secular version of the old Lutheran Passion hymn.  In part, it’s a lament for the suffering we’ve visited upon each other, whether through complacency, callousness, or indifference.  The pandemic has cast a harsh light on societal inequities, on the disproportionate burden carried by the sort of weary worker who narrates Simon’s song.

“American Tune” can also be heard as a lament for political folly (“I can’t help it, I wonder what went wrong”).  How did we as a nation manage to elect a president who seems incapable of empathy, incapable even of smiling?  Rather than uniting us behind a sense of common destiny, our president seeks only to divide and conquer.

Yet “American Tune” isn’t all lament but ends on a hopeful note.  The last stanza reminds us again of the promise of America, the quest for a better life that has persisted through great challenges and hardships:

We come on the ship they call the Mayflower
We come on the ship that sailed the moon
We come in the age’s most uncertain hour
and sing an American tune.

In this uncertain hour, I pray that we’ll learn anew the American tune—the sacred anthem of our recommitment to each other.

© 2020 by Peter J. Thuesen. All rights reserved

Rethinking “Acts of God”: The Legacy of Georgia Harkness

One of the twentieth century’s unsung theologians is receiving new attention, thanks to an online archive recently launched by Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois.

Georgia Harkness (1891-1974) was the first woman to hold a full-time chair in theological studies at a Protestant seminary in the United States when she was appointed professor of applied theology at what was then Garrett Biblical Institute in 1939.

Owing to the labors of librarian Daniel Smith and his colleagues, the Styberg Library at Garrett now hosts the Georgia Harkness Digital Collection, which includes 648 letters, sermons, speeches, and other unpublished items. The documents are available in scanned copies (downloadable PDFs) and in transcript and are fully searchable.

I write about Harkness in Tornado God, so I sat down last week to browse the collection. It’s a treasure trove that includes gems beyond those revealed in Rosemary Skinner Keller’s landmark biography, Georgia Harkness: For Such a Time as This (1992).

First, the backstory. Harkness factors into my narrative because of her book The Providence of God (1960), published after she had moved from Garrett to the Pacific School of Religion. Hers was one of a trio of American works on providence that appeared in rapid succession at midcentury. The others were Roger Hazelton’s God’s Way with Man (1956) and William G. Pollard’s Chance and Providence (1958). The books spoke to an anxious age. The 1950s were the era of the Red Scare and Cold War, civil defense drills, polio epidemics, and the emerging fight over civil rights. The decade was also meteorologically violent, with particularly deadly tornadoes in 1953 in Worcester, Massachusetts, and Waco, Texas.

In The Providence of God, Harkness wrote that by a “curious twist of legal language, invading the province of theology,” severe storms are called “acts of God.” Is this description true? In an “ultimate sense,” she concluded, it must be; otherwise, something other than God controls the world. At the same time, “we cannot suppose that when the floods and the tornadoes come, God deliberately sends them to smite their victims with the wrath of His displeasure.” We must therefore distinguish between God’s power and God’s purpose. Tornadoes happen by the former but not necessarily by the latter. The world is not a tightly controlled system. God allows for “spontaneity or flexibility or simply the possibility of alternatives.”

In arguing against rigid divine control, Harkness was building on the Boston Personalism of her doctoral mentor Edgar Sheffield Brightman (1884-1953). Both explained natural evils (the theologian’s term for destructive natural forces) by appeal to limitations in God, but whereas Brightman saw these limitations as part of God’s inherent nature, Harkness saw them as self-imposed. She made this clear in an earlier work, The Recovery of Ideals (1937), in which she maintained that God is voluntarily limited by inertia and chance in the natural world, by human freedom (which wrongly exercised leads to sin), and by the system of predictable natural laws (which, though good as a whole, produces some outcomes that neither God nor humans may desire).

Today, the idea that God is self-limited has gained popular attention, if not wide acceptance, in the minority evangelical movement known as Open Theism. But in 1960, few American readers had entertained the possibility of divine limitations. Even fewer expected to read a “serious” work of theology by a woman.

These factors contributed to a disappointing reception for Harkness’s Providence of God, as the Garrett digital collection reveals.  On November 4, 1960, Harkness wrote to her editor at Abingdon Press, Emory Stephens Bucke, asking why only a handful of reviews had appeared. She was especially incensed that the Christian Century had not reviewed the book (it apparently never did). She wondered if her theological position had put off potential reviewers: “I should not have been surprised to receive bad reviews from the neo-orthodox and the existentialists, since it is not in their mood. But so nearly none, after all these months, is a mystery to me.”

Another reason for the near silence was probably Harkness’s semi-popular writing style. I have long suspected that theologians attain academic prestige in inverse proportion to the accessibility of their prose. Harkness had dedicated her whole career to writing books that were understandable to her fellow Methodists and other laypeople. But this wasn’t the fast track to eminence among the theological cognoscenti. (Though Harkness’s style was more accessible than either Hazelton’s or Pollard’s, all of them were evidently too popular to be cited by the University of Chicago’s Langdon Gilkey in a 1963 article surveying the state of providence in contemporary theology. He instead invoked Europeans like Aulén, Barth, Berdyaev, Brunner, and Bultmann.)

I hope the digital collection at Garrett will begin to give Harkness her due. She deserves an honored place among a minority of twentieth-century Christian thinkers who tried to convey to laypeople what many academic theologians already assumed: that explaining humans’ relationship to the natural world is not a matter of simple biblical proof-texting. The world is more complicated than that.

To bring it back to tornadoes, the legal phrase “act of God” is too ill-defined to capture the complexity, or the mystery, of divine involvement. Harkness was adamant on this point when one of the anonymous reviewers of her Providence of God manuscript commented that she had failed to answer the question, “Why did the tornado hit my house?” Harkness confessed her frustration to her editor: “This query indicates a predestinarian view which the whole book is written to try to refute.”

Harkness was not only a trailblazer for women in theology or a questioner of inherited orthodoxies. She also had enough faith in her lay audience to believe that they too might rethink old assumptions.

Further Reading

Georgia Harkness Papers, Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary.  (Quoted above are letters to Emory Stephens Bucke, 8 May 1959, Series 15, Box 20, Folder 71; and to Emory Stephens Bucke, 4 November 1960, Series 15, Box 20, Folder 124.)

Georgia Harkness, The Providence of God (New York: Abingdon Press, 1960).

Georgia Harkness, The Recovery of Ideals (New York: Scribner’s, 1937).

Rosemary Skinner Keller, Georgia Harkness: For Such a Time as This (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1992).

Rebekah Miles, ed., Georgia Harkness: The Remaking of a Liberal Theologian (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010).

Peter J. Thuesen, Tornado God: American Religion and Violent Weather (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020).  (Harkness appears in chapters 4 and 5.)

Photo of Harkness (above) courtesy of the Pacific School of Religion.

© 2020 by Peter J. Thuesen. All rights reserved

Cousin Max in Mayberry

In my family, the study of sociology skipped a generation—mine.  My father left Lutheran parish ministry to become a sociology professor, and my son recently graduated from Indiana University with a major in sociology. (That I’m able to understand some of their language I owe in part to sociologist Robert Wuthnow, whose weekly Religion and Culture Workshop I was privileged to attend while I was a graduate student in religious studies.)

So on this hundredth anniversary of the death of Max Weber, I pay tribute to the sociologists in my life by recalling the unlikely story of Weber’s sojourn in my native North Carolina.

Maximilian Karl Emil Weber died in Munich on June 14, 1920, at age 56, of complications from the 1918 pandemic flu.  Weber needs no introduction as a canonical theorist, but his travel to North Carolina is not as widely known.

In August 1904, Weber and his wife, Marianne, sailed to the United States to attend a scholarly congress held in conjunction with the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis.  After the meeting, they toured other regions of the country, including rural locales in Oklahoma and North Carolina, where Weber witnessed the “inner-worldly asceticism” made famous by his Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, which he was then writing.  Weber defined inner-worldly ascetics as the self-scrutinizing, hyper-industrious Protestants of the stricter sects—Baptists, Quakers, Pietists, and Methodists, among others.

Weber observed these sectarian Protestants up close in Mount Airy, North Carolina—later the birthplace of Andy Griffith and the inspiration for the town of Mayberry in The Andy Griffith Show—where he and Marianne visited several cousins on his mother’s side.

With one of the relatives serving as their translator, the Webers attended what Marianne called a “Baptist christening”—a service of believers’ baptism, in which a number of people were baptized by immersion in an ice-cold mountain stream.  One of the persons being baptized was a businessman who was planning to open a bank in Mount Airy.  Recounting the incident in a later essay, Weber cited the man’s baptism as evidence of acetic Protestantism’s legitimating function in the community.  The thorough scrutiny required for admission to the Baptist sect certified the businessman’s probity in the eyes of prospective clients.

This “ruthlessly rigorous control over the conduct of their members,” as Weber put it, was a hallmark of inner-worldly asceticism.  In such austere conventicles, Weber maintained, the real strength of Protestantism was apparent, in contrast to what he regarded as the decadence of Europe’s established churches.  He concluded: “One only has to look at the Berlin Cathedral to know that it is certainly not in this grandiose Caesaro-Papist showpiece but rather in the small meeting halls of the Quakers and Baptists, where there is no such mystical adornment, that the ‘spirit’ of Protestantism is most truly manifested.”

It was a romanticized view, to be sure, and not entirely new.  As I’ve argued in another essay (see citation below), the “Weber Thesis” (his claim that Protestantism fueled the rise of capitalism) bears striking resemblance to ideas expressed earlier by the novelist Harriet Beecher Stowe.  Weber didn’t plagiarize Stowe, but both were writing from a similarly ingrained confessional stereotype that equated Protestantism with dynamism and progress and Catholicism with passivity and retrogression.

Scholars now recognize the cultural chauvinism of this aspect of Weber’s work.  The debate over what’s still salvageable from his corpus will continue.

But on Weber’s hundredth Todestag, I’m content to remember his Mount Airy connection.  As a North Carolinian, I’d like to think that besides giving us Andy Griffith and Mayberry, Mount Airy gave us the Weber Thesis.

Further Reading

Larry G. Keeter, “Max Weber’s Visit to North Carolina,” Journal of the History of Sociology 3, no. 2 (1981): 108-14.

Paul Münch, “The Thesis Before Weber: An Archaeology.” In Weber’s Protestant Ethic: Origins, Evidence, Contexts, edited by Hartmut Lehmann and Guenther Roth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

James L. Peacock and Ruel W. Tyson, Jr., Pilgrims of Paradox: Calvinism and Experience Among the Primitive Baptists of the Blue Ridge (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989).

Lawrence A. Scaff, Max Weber in America (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2011).

Peter J. Thuesen, “Geneva’s Crystalline Clarity: Harriet Beecher Stowe and Max Weber on Calvinism and the American Character.”  In John Calvin’s American Legacy, edited by Thomas J. Davis (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).

© 2020 by Peter J. Thuesen. All rights reserved

Marked Spots: Worcester, 67 Years On

Front page of the Boston Globe, June 10, 1953

Front page of the Boston Globe, June 10, 1953

Today is the 67th anniversary of the 1953 Worcester, Massachusetts, tornado.  The deadliest tornado ever to hit New England, it stayed on the ground for 84 minutes, killing 94 people, injuring hundreds more, and destroying some 4,000 homes.

“Bodies were lying alongside the road,” reported the Boston Globe. “They had been thrown from cars or hurled against buildings.”

The casualty count was undoubtedly higher because the storm caught most people by surprise.  Of 50 survivors interviewed for one government study, none received any official warning; 22 saw the tornado approaching but only 14 recognized it for what it was.  Despite the fact that the Globe and other newspapers had run front-page stories that morning on a tornado that had killed more 100 people in Michigan and Ohio the day before, the possibility of a tornado in Massachusetts simply did not enter the minds of most residents.

Today, Worcester lives in the annals of meteorology as one of those places singled out by nature’s destructive forces.  Each year, residents of the city still remember June 9 with online exhibits and other commemorations.

Tornadoes scar the American landscape but also hallow the ground they touch, much like the spots struck by lightning in ancient Greece.  The Greeks believed that lightning, as Zeus’s divine form, marked a spot as abaton, inviolable or inaccessible, forever given over to Zeus Kataibates (“he who comes down”).

But in the aftermath of the Worcester disaster, Massachusetts residents were divided over whether God had come down in the form of a whirlwind.

Berkshire Eagle columnist Clarence Crandall, known as a religious freethinker, questioned what he called the “orthodox” theory that God sent the storm, suggesting instead that it was an “inherent part of a universe of energy and matter that has always existed,” quite apart from any deity.

Robert Whitman, rector of Trinity Episcopal Church, Lenox, wrote a lengthy rebuttal bristling at the notion that the world is governed by purely material forces or that all Christians regard tornadoes as divine punishments.  “However many unexplainable evils may exist in the world, through Jesus Christ [we] know that God is goodness and love and mercy,” he insisted.

The Catholic bishop of Worcester, meanwhile, urged a devotional resignation to divine providence.  John Wright, who later became a curial cardinal, announced a day-long exposition of the Blessed Sacrament at the Cathedral of Saint Paul to show the diocese’s “complete submission to the will of God.”

The religious debate helped form the career of a young anthropologist, Anthony F. C. Wallace (1923-2015), whom the federal government commissioned to write the aforementioned study of individual and community behavior in the wake of the tornado.  Wallace’s government report did not deal with religious questions, but 13 years later, he published a classic theoretical work, Religion: An Anthropological View (1966), in which he advanced a version of the evolutionary view of religion that had been current among anthropologists since the nineteenth century.

He predicted that scientific advances would eventually make supernatural explanations of natural phenomena so implausible that religion itself would become extinct unless it could develop “nontheistic” theology and rituals.  Though Wallace recognized social value in ritual, he essentially echoed the Freudian and Marxist view that belief in God was an infantile projection—a personification of the forces of nature—that humanity would eventually outgrow.

But the debate over divine involvement in nature has never died.  It resurfaces every time a tornado or other natural calamity marks a new spot on the American landscape.

The tale of those marked spots (recounted here) is a story of nature forcing Americans to reflect on their own vulnerability and to confront the same religious questions that have haunted people since ancient times.

© 2020 by Peter J. Thuesen. All rights reserved

Mr. Tornado and Mr. Whirlwind

They died on the same date—November 19—six years apart.  Both were renowned professors at the University of Chicago.  Both were formed in the crucible of World War II: the one, an aspiring Japanese scientist who saw firsthand the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the other, a young American teaching English in China who spent two-and-a-half years in a Japanese internment camp.

They also shared a deep fascination with the natural world, and their names are forever linked with the Whirlwind.

Tetsuya Theodore “Ted” Fujita (1920-1998), known as “Mr. Tornado,” invented the Fujita scale for rating tornado intensity.  Langdon Brown Gilkey (1919-2004) was a leading theologian whose works included Naming the Whirlwind (1969) and Reaping the Whirlwind (1976).

Fujita is the subject of a new documentary in the PBS American Experience series premiering May 19.

He once told an interviewer, “anything that moves I am interested in.”  After earning his doctorate at Tokyo University with a thesis on typhoons, he was recruited to the University of Chicago in 1953 by Horace Byers, chair of Meteorology, which at that time was a stand-alone department.

By 1965, Fujita had ascended to the rank of Professor.  That same year, he made one of his most important meteorological discoveries.

On April 11, 1965, the Palm Sunday tornado outbreak killed more than 250 people across six states.  Fujita flew 7,500 miles in a Cessna aircraft to conduct aerial surveys of the damage patterns.  Comparing his photographs to film of radar echoes taken during the storm, he compiled detailed plots of the various tornadoes.  He found that some tornadoes spawn multiple vortices (suction vortices or suction spots), which partially account for the bizarre randomness of storm damage.

Ten years later, he discovered another type of wind, a violent downdraft he called a “microburst,” which caused the crash of Eastern Airlines Flight 66 on approach to Kennedy Airport in New York.  That event led the FAA to install the first low-level windshear alert systems in American airports.

Just as Fujita helped show that winds are more complex than they first appear, Gilkey devoted much of his career to arguing that the traditional doctrine of providence—God’s control over creation—is too simple to capture the complexities of an evolving world.

In a 1963 article published just as he was joining the faculty of the University of Chicago Divinity School, Gilkey declared the doctrine of providence all but dead—“a rootless, disembodied ghost, flitting from footnote to footnote” in academic theology.

Part of the reason, he contended, was modern empirical science, which assumed that “a storm, a flood, an earthquake” have purely natural causes.  In trying to balance natural causation with the biblical tradition of divine control over all things, modern theologians ended up taking the logically contorted position that God can somehow “bring good out of these evils he has not caused,” as Gilkey put it.  This was unacceptable, in his view.  He called for a radical rethinking of how theologians speak of God’s action in the world.

Drawing in part on the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (a focus of his doctoral dissertation), Gilkey proposed that God is not static but changing and becoming through interaction with the world.

Gilkey’s Reaping the Whirlwind was dense enough that even his Harvard classmate and fellow theologian Avery Dulles, S.J., who later became a cardinal, found it a bit daunting.  Laypersons, Dulles added, certainly lacked the “leisure to follow all the ins and outs of Gilkey’s laborious argument.”

As a professor, Gilkey was more approachable, even guru-like, with interests extending beyond Christian theology to tantric yoga, Sikhism, and Buddhism. “He was a magnificent teacher,” said his former student and colleague Richard Rosengarten, in a press release announcing Gilkey’s death in 2004.

I don’t know whether Gilkey and Fujita ever met. (They likely did, Rosengarten told me, since Fujita spoke on more than one occasion at the Divinity School’s Wednesday Lunch.) In any case, I’m guessing they would have appreciated each other, even though they spoke very different disciplinary languages.

Their careers testify to the irresistible mysteries of the Whirlwind—the sometimes violent natural world that dares the researcher to probe its secrets.

© 2020 by Peter J. Thuesen. All rights reserved
Photos of Fujita and Gilkey courtesy of the University of Chicago

In conjunction with the new PBS documentary, “Mr. Tornado,” about Fujita, see the related article by Rebecca Onion, “The Thrill of the Chase,” that quotes Tornado God: American Religion and Violent Weather.

“So Teach Us to Number Our Days”: Prayer in Time of Pandemic

A beginning-of-the-year fair at IUPUI, circa 1978, with a biblical reminder of mortality—Psalm 90:12—faintly visible in the inscription above the entrance of the Union Building. (Indiana University photograph by Ed Lacey, Jr., courtesy of University…

A beginning-of-the-year fair at IUPUI, circa 1978, with a biblical reminder of mortality—Psalm 90:12—faintly visible in the inscription above the entrance of the Union Building. (Indiana University photograph by Ed Lacey, Jr., courtesy of University Library, IUPUI, Special Collections and Archives)

For words of lament and solace amid affliction, the Book of Common Prayer is a liturgical source of uncommon depth.  I wondered what resources it offers in time of pandemic.  The search took me back into the convoluted history of the Prayer Book tradition—and into the annals of the IUPUI campus.

The 1662 BCP (still official in the Church of England) contains a collect for use “in the time of any common Plague or Sickness.”  The prayer alludes to two biblical instances where God punishes the Israelites with plague: Numbers 16 (in which 14,700 people die) and 2 Samuel 24 (in which 70,000 people die):

O Almighty God, who in thy wrath didst send a plague upon thine own people in the wilderness, for their obstinate rebellion against Moses and Aaron; and also, in the time of king David, didst slay with the plague of Pestilence threescore and ten thousand, and yet remembering thy mercy didst save the rest; Have pity upon us miserable sinners, who now are visited with great sickness and mortality; that like as thou didst then accept of an atonement, and didst command the destroying Angel to cease from punishing, so it may now please thee to withdraw from us this plague and grievous sickness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The collect, with its clear message that epidemics are a divine judgment, first entered the liturgy with the 1552 Prayer Book, published a year after a still-mysterious contagion known as the “Sweating Sickness” ravaged London.  The prayer’s relevance had scarcely diminished by the time of the 1662 BCP.  Just three years later, an outbreak of bubonic plague—the Great Plague of London—killed an estimated 100,000 people, or nearly a quarter of the city’s population.

When the Episcopal Church in the United States approved the first American BCP in Philadelphia in 1789, the volume included a similar prayer for use “in time of great Sickness and Mortality.”  Again, it reflected the assumption that sickness is sometimes a punishment for human sin:

O Almighty God, the Lord of life and death, of sickness and health; regard our supplications, we humbly beseech thee; and, as thou hast thought fit to visit us for our sins with great sickness and mortality, in the midst of thy judgment, O Lord, remember mercy.  Have pity upon us miserable sinners, and withdraw from us the grievous sickness with which we are afflicted.  May this thy fatherly correction have its due influence upon us, by leading us to consider how frail and uncertain our life is; that we may apply our hearts unto that heavenly wisdom, which in the end will bring us to everlasting life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The new element in this collect was its emphasis on the fragility of human life, expressed in the concluding allusion to Psalm 90:12 (“So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom”).  The prayer would have seemed all too apt to Philadelphia residents just a few years later when a yellow fever epidemic killed some 5,000.  (On this epidemic in relation to popular views of divine providence, see the excellent study by Philippa Koch, Persistent Providence: Healing Body and Soul in Early America, under contract with New York University Press.)

The Episcopal Church retained the 1789 prayer unaltered in the BCP of 1892, but by the next revision 1928, Episcopalians had apparently become uncomfortable with the idea that epidemics were a scourge inflicted by God on sinners.  The 1928 BCP included a revised form of the collect with all implication of divine judgment removed:

O Most mighty and merciful God, in this time of grievous sickness, we flee unto thee for succour.  Deliver us, we beseech thee, from our peril; give strength and skill to all those who minister to the sick; prosper the means made use of for their cure; and grant that, perceiving how frail and uncertain our life is, we may apply our hearts unto that heavenly wisdom which leadeth to eternal life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

This is a beautiful collect, and theologically preferable to the version of 1789, because it looks to God chiefly as a source of help (“we flee unto thee for succour”) and remembers caregivers and those who work for a cure.  It also preserves the best part of the 1789 prayer—the allusion to Psalm 90:12.

This collect dropped out of the 1979 BCP, the edition currently in use in the Episcopal Church.  (On the broader history of Prayer Book revision, I recommend the studies by Alan Jacobs and Brian Cummings.)  Perhaps it was assumed that a prayer “in time of Great Sickness and Mortality” (as the 1928 collect is titled) was a relic of a primitive age.  Sadly, this conclusion was premature, as COVID-19 has shown.

Psalm 90:12 does appear elsewhere in the 1979 BCP as part of the recommended scriptural texts for the burial rites.  It’s a verse that has long stuck with me, partly because of an unexpected encounter sixteen years ago.

When I joined the IUPUI faculty in 2004, I had to visit the old Student Union Building, on the western edge of campus, to get my faculty ID.  As I approached the building, I was startled to discover Psalm 90:12 inscribed over the east entrance: “So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.”

Didn’t this violate the separation of church and state to have a Bible verse etched into a building at a state university?  But the more I thought about it, the more appropriate it seemed.  The Union Building was constructed in the 1950s to serve students in Indiana University’s schools of medicine and nursing.  Doctors and nurses confront human mortality on a daily basis.  The message of Psalm 90:12, which transcends any particular religion, is that the inescapable reality of our numbered days should spur us to seek wisdom in the present.

The Union Building was razed in 2012.  I regret that I never took a photo of the biblical inscription.  But I write about it now, and about lost collects in bygone editions of the BCP, to remind myself of the useful lessons they still have to teach us.

© 2020 by Peter J. Thuesen. All rights reserved

Three Lessons from the 1920 Tornadoes in the Age of Coronavirus

Front page of the Chicago Tribune, March 29, 1920

Front page of the Chicago Tribune, March 29, 1920

As Americans reel from the COVID-19 pandemic, a now-forgotten pair of natural disasters exactly a century ago may hold lessons for the present.

In the spring of 1920, Nature unleashed its fury on the United States in two massive tornado outbreaks.

The first came on Palm Sunday, March 28, as worship services were concluding in the Chicago suburbs.  At First Congregational Church in Elgin, Pastor J. W. Welch had just admonished his congregation, “Be prepared, for you know not when you will be called,” when heavy rain and high winds commenced.  Most parishioners sheltered in place within the building.  Minutes later, they heard a “terrific roar,” and the church’s tower fell through the roof, killing two adults and one child.  A similar scenario played out at Elgin’s First Baptist Church, where one person died.

Outside the churches, other Passion dramas ensued.  In the storm’s aftermath in Melrose Park, photographers congregated around an elderly woman, her head wrapped in a bloody towel, who refused to leave the spot where her house once stood.  She “rocked continuously to and fro, mumbling incoherent words,” according to the New-York Tribune.

The storms in the Chicago area were part of a wider outbreak of at least 37 tornadoes, which left more than 200 dead and at least 1,000 injured across seven states.  The day after the storms, the Brooklyn Times Union compared their effect to that “of the war in certain sections of France.”

But Nature was not done ravaging the nation.  Three weeks later, on April 19-20, another rash of tornadoes killed more than 200 people across the South.  One twister traveled for 130 miles, destroying multiple communities within its path.  In Alabama, the Tuscaloosa News reported that most of the dead were “terribly mangled,” with arms and legs blown off.

By then, the public was becoming aware that tornadoes often came in “flocks,” as James H. Scarr, head of the U.S. Weather Bureau office in New York, put it after the Palm Sunday outbreak.  A similar “flock” had killed upwards of 380 people just three years before in a weeklong sequence in May 1917.  That outbreak included a half-mile-wide twister that obliterated much of the town of Mattoon, Illinois, causing such incredible destruction that even some residents cowering in storm cellars were crushed by the weight of debris.

Did Americans learn anything from these spasms of atmospheric violence?  The meaning of events is always clearer in hindsight, but the 1920 tornadoes suggest three lessons that remain relevant for public officials today as they face the much greater crisis of COVID-19.

First, don’t shrink from the truth.  In 1920, the U.S. Weather Bureau was still operating under an official ban, adopted in 1885, on using the word “tornado” in forecasts.  The logic was to avoid causing panic, especially since tornado forecasting was unreliable by today’s standards.  Amazingly, the 1920 tornadoes and even the 1925 Tri-State Tornado (the worst in American history, causing 695 deaths) were not enough to persuade officials to abandon the ban, which the government maintained until 1938.  As Harry C. Frankenfield, chief forecaster at the Weather Bureau’s Washington headquarters put it in 1920, “if we predicted tornadoes, people in several states would quit work.”

At the same time, Frankenfield spoke of the tornado risk with a new candor that anticipated the more organized warning systems of later years.  “The tornado menace is becoming more serious because of the rapid increase in population,” he said, referring to the growth of cities in the Mississippi Valley.  Even as Americans welcome springtime, he advised, they should be on guard for deadly storms.

Sadly, scientific truth-telling and calls for preparedness have often gone unheeded, just as warnings about global pandemics in our own day were ignored by many of our leaders.

Second, don’t encourage complacency.  While Frankenfield seemed to appreciate this, some members of the press did not.  The day after the Palm Sunday tornadoes in 1920, the Daily Eagle of Wichita, Kansas—smack in the middle of Tornado Alley—downplayed the severe weather risk in an apparent effort to reassure its readers.  Without any hard data, the paper claimed that a person’s chances of being killed by a tornado were “far less” than the odds of being killed by lightning.  “The individual in any given Kansas town,” the Eagle added, “runs about the same risk of being killed by a tornado as he does of being taken up alive to heaven in a chariot of fire.”  (Researchers now know that calculating such odds is notoriously difficult and affected by local geography, climatology, and the like.)

Similarly, the Chicago Tribune was too quick to generalize without evidence, claiming that the April 1920 outbreak was unusual in striking wooded regions.  “Tornadoes prefer flat, deforested areas,” the paper noted.

It’s of course easy to debunk such myths with today’s greater understanding of tornadoes.  But the examples suggest that we should always be cautious about offering reassurance unsupported by the facts.  Again, the parallels to the present coronavirus crisis are clear, from President Trump’s peddling of malaria medication as an unsubstantiated cure, to his and some local leaders’ overly optimistic timetables of when Americans can return to business.

Third, never assume that Nature is on our side.  American exceptionalism has often tempted Americans into thinking that the United States is “Nature’s nation” (to borrow a phrase from the great Puritanism scholar Perry Miller) and that Nature shines on American destiny.  But tornadoes shake that assumption.

A striking recognition of this lesson came from the “Oracle of Optimism,” Dr. Frank Crane, who was famous in the 1920s for his “Four Minute Essays” and other syndicated columns.  Ordained a Methodist minister, he later served a Congregational church before becoming a full-time writer.  Mocked by journalist H. L. Mencken for his “canned sagacity,” Crane boasted five million daily readers who were drawn to his aphoristic and affirming style.

In the wake of the 1920 outbreaks, however, Crane tempered his usual sunny tone.  The tornado reveals the same message as the biblical Book of Job, Crane wrote, that events in the world are unjust and “nature is pitiless.”  Humankind “insists that the Creator is good, not because this is proved by events, but because it is contradicted by events,” he explained. “Morality in man is his eternal protest.”

Crane’s conclusion that Nature is unforgiving speaks across a century to our own day.  The coronavirus crisis has reminded us how vulnerable we are to natural forces, especially when coupled with human negligence.  The pandemic has also made clear our moral obligations to speak the truth and not breed complacency with false hope.  May it not take another whirlwind—whether meteorological or epidemiological—for us to learn these lessons.

© 2020 by Peter J. Thuesen. All rights reserved