Populist Christianity: Part 4

Preface Note:

This post, unlike the others, is meant to provide a staging ground for the more philosophical debate surrounding theology and the existence and manner of God. First, some assumptions. #1: God exists #2: God is One – obviously held in the Christian Trinitarian view. Lastly, this post is meant to challenge current “systems of Divinity” concerning the nature of God. This post is not to say that I am not a true believer, but meant to rather open one’s mind up to what, and why, they truly believe concerning the nature of the Godhead. As before, all previous preface notes apply. Any Scripture used, if any, will be taken from the NRSV.

Populist Christianity, Part 4

Classical Theism, True or False?

What does Classical Theism have to do with modern Christianity? Everything… Most devotees of Christianity, even some pastors, avoid the discussion on Theism. Why is this? Is it because with Classical Theism certain logical conclusions must be reached, or is that in truth, Classical Theism has failed. So, since I have posed to questions, what does Classical Theism (from now on CT) have to say about God.

1. God is One
2. God is a creator (and The Creator)
3. God is Omnipotent
4. God is Omniscient
5. God is Omnibenevolent
6. God is Omnipresent
7. God is Ultimate and Absolute
8. God is Impassable and Immutable
9. God is Ultimately necessary

First, my personal believe is that God transcends space and time, as well as human reason and understanding. To say this, completely negates the previous nine statements the CT claims are attributes of God, but even so, it does allow for some to be affirmed through Scripture. The problem arises when one tries to affirm all nine with Scripture, and when does, that person discovers that not all of what the Classical Theist believes can be found or based upon Scripture, at least through human reason and understanding. Now saying all of that, I will grant that these nine “articles” are not the only articles or statements related to CT, but to me, these are the basic core principles related to, and concerning CT.

To the ones that can be affirmed through Scripture:
1. God is One
2. God is a creator (and The Creator)
3. God is Omnipotent
4. God is Omniscient

- Knowing all possibilities
6. God is Omnipresent
7. God is Ultimate and Absolute
9. God is Ultimately necessary

Now, obviously the ones left out are the ones I would say cannot be logically understood, or completely agree with the Scriptures.

5. God is Omnibenevolent
8. God is Impassable and Immutable

Now, this will probably get me in trouble, but here is my “reasoning”

First, Omnibenevolent, or “All-good.” The first problem with this is the fact that one is attributing a quality to God that one cannot fully understand himself, nor exists outside of the mindset of human reason. Good and evil, for a Jew, Christian, or Muslim, only exists, at least in the mind of man, due to sin. Therefore, it seems even more unreasonable to attribute a concept to God that man only knows because of sin. Granted, Scripture states that, first by the serpent, and then by God Himself, that “man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:22a), but what truly is that knowledge. Also, if God, being the Creator, and being All-powerful, knows both “good and evil,” does that necessarily attribute one, or even both qualities to the Godhead? I would argue that the “knowledge” of good and evil would be attributed to aspects of creation, and therefore not able to transfer to the Godhead, since God is not created, or creatable, therefore God can neither be all-good, or even all-evil, or even “half-and-half.” Mankind is created in the image of God, but did not have the knowledge of God, and even with the “eating from the tree,” still did not have the full knowledge of God, man only gained the knowledge of good and evil, and this, not because God choose to give it to him, but because man choose to rebel against the commandment of God, and sin.

Secondly, with the knowledge of “good and evil,” man therefore knows the difference between “right and wrong,” or more correctly, the difference between the Will of God and the Will of Man, or rather, in Adam’s case, the will of the serpent. Throughout the scriptures, men die, men kill, whole peoples are destroyed, and so forth and so on, many times by the commandment of God Himself. The “moral” man of the modern world would argue that this proves that God is not All-good. I would agree, but for different reasoning. God cannot be described as all-good in our understanding, and as before, the term good ro evil cannot even reasonably be applied to God, but, God functions in His Will, and therefore even further transcends the nature of good or evil.

My conclusion on the benevolence of God then reaches my only conclusion. To attribute the term “good” to God, though nonsensical in trying to describe the “attributes” of God, does make sense in the matter of devotion. For if man desires to completely follow the Will of God, and as long as one does so, no matter what happens, it is good, for it is the Will of God. Yet, as humans, in our one reasoning, one would never conclude that a massacre, or a fire, or a hurricane, or anything else one would say is “evil,” could be “good,” if it falls inside the Will of God, then the “goodness” of the action transcends human understanding, and therefore is good to God, no matter the consequences in the realm of human understanding. Therefore, in a twisted form of nature, based upon the ultimate Will of God, one can claim that God is Omnibenevolent, yet one cannot base it soley on human understanding and reasoning.

Lastly, God is Impassible and Immutable. To say this, one would have to claim that God cannot change, nor can God feel remorse, or be sorry. This does not reconcile with the Old Testament. Amos 7 clearly shows God “relenting” and changing His decision to destroying Israel. Also, if God can not “change” or “feel” then there would be no need for God to create humans to worship Him, nor would there be any need to pray. For, if God already knew what He was going to do, and already knows what is going to happen, and God cannot “change,” or “relent,” then prayer, or even repentance would not be necessary, in fact, it would, at least to human reasoning, be fruitless and a waste of time.

I will grant, the Will of God remains the same – yesterday, today, and forever, and yet, the Scriptures allow for God to have compassion, have wrath, and even show His love for the world by sending His Son. If God cannot feel pain or anguish, then God would have never had wrath, for why would God be angry if He is incapable of feeling? Also, if God cannot feel pain, then the giving of the Son by the Father would have no significant sacrifice for the Father, for He would not be able to feel the loss of His Son.

The giving of Christ also brings another problem with the inability for God to change. For if God cannot change, then the Godhead did not become humanity, for humanity would have always been apart of the Godhead, therefore the Incarnation would have no true significance, for if Christ, as the Son of the Father, and apart of the Godhead, was always fully human, then humanity, in its purest sense, then one could claim the divinity of all humanity. Now granted, one can argue that since man was created in the image of God, i.e. the Godhead, then the human element would have been eternally existent, yet, if this is the case, why would Christ need to be born, if he was already fully human.

If God cannot change, or feel, why would God care? Even further, why would God even create? What would be the point? Why would God even need Will? Why would God desire to be worshipped – for if He cannot change, nor feel, then what would be the point? Personally, for me, I’d rather serve a God with the ability to change and feel, then serve one who cannot. Granted, the “changing” or the “feeling” that God experiences may not be able to be described by human logic or reason, but based upon Scripture, I believe it is safe to assume and believe that God has the ability.

My final argument for God having the ability to change, is, if He cannot, then He is not All-powerful. Man is certainly not all-powerful, yet, man can change – man can feel sorry, repent, feel love, feel joy, and so forth and so on, so, for God to be All-powerful, he must have the ability to change, for if He does not, and He is bound by not being able to change, then God is not All-powerful. Again, The Will of God is a constant, but as mentioned before, what is that Will? That Will is the desire for all of mankind to be saved and to experience the Presence of God – to live in that presence. Again, this argument debunks predestination, and therefore gives God the attribute of being All-powerful, and the ability to change.

JZ Holloway

The Salzburgers Come to Georgia – Historiographical Essay

Salzburgers Come to Georgia

In 1733, Salzburgers, from what is now Salzburg, Austria, began their journey to the New World in search of freedom from religious persecution from the hands of the Roman Catholic Church their. Their journey was a long one, from the beginnings of the Reformation, to setting sail to Savannah, Georgia, but it is also one of the least written about historical migrations. Two authors, The Rev. P. A. Strobel and George Fenwick Jones stand out in their tails about the settling of Georgia by the Salzburgers. Strobel, in 1855, published “The Salzburgers and their Descendants” as a historical reference specifically for the use of the Lutherans in Georgia and South Carolina. George Fenwick Jones, published in 1984 by the University of Georgia Press, wrote “The Salzburger Saga.” Lastly, Jones wrote, published in 1994 also by the University of Georgia Press, “The Georgia Dutch.” These three book chronicle both the struggles and triumphs of the Lutheran refugees who hailed from Salzburg, Austria.
Strobel, in his book, begins by stating the nature of religious persecution of all who have come to the Americas[1]. He then narrates the struggles of the Salzburgers, which he states had been “victims of religious persecution,[2]” and of their willingness to simply “depart[3]” their homeland to have the ability to worship as they desired. He goes on to say, that after religious trial, even their children were taken from them, no “less then six hundred[4]” of them. Finally, he explains that how, after the Archbishopric of Salzburg[5] had noticed that many had renounced the Catholic faith, even greater persecution began.
Next, he moves to the chartering of the Colony of Georgia by King George II[6], and the fact that it included a provision of “refuge for the distressed Salzburgers[7].” Although, he explains that there was not any immediate funds and effort to relinquish the Salzburgers from the plight, the “Society for the Propogation of Christian Knowledge” was able to convince the “Trustees” to feel the need to help, and a “liberal grant of money” was soon dispensed in their cause[8].The invitation was given for fifty families to move to Georgia in December of 1732[9]. The Salzburgers were promised fifty acres of land to them and their “heirs forever,” as long as they obeyed orders of the Trustees and became citizens of Georgia[10]. Once this order came forth, preparations were begun immediately; the first wave of emigrant Salzburgers began on their journey in 1733[11]. As they journeyed from town to town, they met both excited supporters as well as those who shut their doors to them, but they carried on[12]. The total number that set out on the journey was “seventy-eight persons,” including “forty-two men[13].” On November 27, 1733, they were met in the city of Rotterdam by, as Strobel says, “by their chosen teachers, the Rev. John Martin Bolzius, and Rev. Israel Christian Gronau[14].” These men would be the spiritual fathers of the Salzburgers as they made their trip to the colony of Georgia. He then further mentions that, upon reaching England in December of 1733, they would soon debark to their new home[15]. Finally, on December 28, 1733, after an “appropriate sermon,” and “singing a hymn,” the sails were set upon the ship, and they were off to their “distant,” new home[16].
Just as Strobel ends the previous chapter with a note of the religious ceremony, he also begins the next one. He explains that no Salzburger knew anything of the oceans, and while they were thrust into “its bosom,” they continuously sprang forth with Psalms[17] while the two “pious teachers” conducted worship daily[18]. He goes on that, “after a perilous passage of one hundred and four days, they reached Charleston, S.C., early in March, 1794[19].” Once they arrived, they met with James Oglethorpe, and after a couple of days, they “entered the Savannah River[20].” On March 12, 1734, the Salzburgers reached Savannah[21] and soon began to search for a location for their new home[22]. The “corps of observation” was sent out, and went thirty miles into the frontier and found a place on “the banks of a river of clear water[23],” with “valleys of rich cane land[24].” Strobel once again points out, by stating how the Salzburgers who accompanied this group, bowed there head in solemn blessing and then sprung forth in songs of thanksgiving to God, just how devout and religious these German people were[25]. After they had given praise, they “set up a rock” and named the place Ebenezer, and the foundation was laid for the “COLONY OF SALZBURGERS[26].”
For Strobel, as a Lutheran minister, the religious background of the Salzburgers is most important. For him, every event is met by thanksgiving and praise, even in these people’s afflictions and persecution. First, while still in Europe, the seeds are sown for the migration to Georgia by two men, who, under great duress and pain, simply would not bow the knee to their Roman Catholic oppressors. (30) For Strobel, the fact that these people, being the first Lutherans and the first Germans, brings to Georgia a new religious community, were, even with trials, tribulations, and uncertainties ahead, will eventually become a hallmark in the history of Georgia. Yet, even beyond that, it enabled Georgia to be seen as a place of refuge for those suffering from religious persecution.
In “The Salzburger Saga,” by George Fenwick Jones, he immediately praises Rev. Strobel’s book, “Salzburgers and their Descendants,” yet maintains, due to the era it was written in, it is “woefully obsolete” in the face of the newer historical records[27]. He also notes that Strobel’s book is lacking true historical sources, and backs up the claim that his viewpoint had mainly a “religious message[28].” For Jones, instead of playing good versus evil, he brings in the necessary historical context from a more critical view. He begins, in his chapter titled “The Expulsion[29]” by giving a simple, yet necessary background of Salzburg. He backs up the claims of Roman Catholic persecution of the Protestants[30], but explains this becomes possible because of the lack of central government to back up the deal agreed upon. This was because the German states, although seemingly united, were also very independent under the rule of their respective pronces. Although Emperor Charles VI agreed with the Roman Catholic position, he needed the support of the Protestant princes to maintain what fragile authority and power he had[31]. Jones elaborates that, after the Lutherans showed great resilience for their faith, the Roman Catholic resolve against them was strengthened[32], and thus the great persecutions, as mentioned by Strobel, began to occur[33].
He explains that the “emigration of the Salzburg martyrs was a triumphal march[34]” that enraptured all of the Protestants of Germany. The British, as champions of Protestantism[35], attempted to help all groups of Protestants who were being persecuted; therefore, organizations had been founded within the British Empire to do so. First among these, Jones explains, was the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, which was founded to “bring the gospel to the poor of Britain and her colonies[36].” Not only did this society affect England and her colonies, but it also touched lives throughout Europe. Samuel Urlsperger, a Lutheran minister in Augsburg who was concerned about the fate of the Salzburg Lutherans, greatly influenced the Society to help the Salzburgers[37]. The Society both worked closely and shared members with the Trustees who established the colony of Georgia[38]. This body, as Jones explains, was a philanthropic group of men, whose aim was to create a colony beyond South Carolina to house the poorer people of England and to be a place of refuge for the Protestants who were being persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church. He explains that many donations were given for the cause of the Salzburgers, and in 1732 the Trustees commissioned Urlsperger to get three hundred Salzburgers for the new colony of Georgia[39].
While the Salzburgers made their way to England, and eventually to Georgia, Jones says that they were put under the charge of a man named Philipp George Friedrich von Reck, who was a young noble man[40]. This was done while they were in Augsburg, and he remained with them throughout their journey. On October 31, 1733 the Salzburgers leave Augsburg and head on what is called the “Romantic Way[41].” Once they reached Rotterdam, the Salzburgers were met by their ministers Bolzius and Gronau. Jones explains that these two ministers not only traveled with the Salzburgers, but ministered to them for the rest of their lives, therefore becoming cemented into the history of these Salzburg emigrants[42]. At Dover, the Salzburgers were met by a Georgia Trustee, Thomas Coram as well as Henry Alard Butienter, who was a Court Chaplain. While they were there, the German emigrants swore allegiance to King George, earning the rights of native born Englishmen[43].
After having both Christmas and New Years celebrations, the Salzburgers boarded the ship Purysburg and headed their way to their new home in Georgia[44]. Jones expounds upon the fact that the voyage across the Atlantic Ocean was full of troubles and trials. The ship sat sail on January 8, 1734 in bad seas, which caused sea sickness. The Salzburgers were tightly packed on the ship, many times five to a single bunk. Their food became bad, and the water also, being stagnant, became spoiled[45]. Jones mentions also that, the good reports in Bolzius’s travel log are due to his optimistic behavior[46]. This being the case, it explains Strobel’s lack of information concerning the conditions of the Salzburgers while they were aboard ship. Jones, having clear historical accounts, can make the case of the conditions, while Strobel, with only the diary of the Lutheran minister, can only account for what was written down by him. Beyond the historical ramifications, concerning Strobel’s account of the emigration of the Salzburgers, Jones points out that the accounts of the journey, written by both ministers, were heavily edited by Urlsperger. He did this for both promotional and inspirational purposes[47]. Knowing this, this backs up Jones’s claim that the sources that Strobel had were not completely accurate.
Finally, on March 5, 1734, the Salzburgers sight South Carolina[48]. Jones explains however, though they had reached the New World, they had to remain on board while Bolzius, Gronau, and von Reck went ashore[49]. While in Charleston, they met both the governor of South Carolina, Robert Johnson, and James Edward Oglethorpe, who was the founder of Georgia. Oglethorpe was on a return trip to England, but because of the arrival of the Salzburgers, he decided to delay his trip so that he could “conduct the Salzburgers to Georgia[50].” One March 12, 1734, the Salzburgers were welcomed into Savannah. Interestingly enough, Jones makes reference to the fact that they were fed breakfast by a Jew from Frankfurt, who had arrived in Georgia when it was founded[51]. Jones remarks that the Salzburgers were free to select a place to live, but that in the end, by “leading them to an area about twenty-five miles northwest of Savannah,” Oglethorpe made the choice. He also points out that he did this due to military considerations[52].
Jones says that the Salzburgers were thrilled with the site of their new homeland[53]. The new settlers named their new homeland Ebenezer, meaning “Stone of Help[54].” Jones goes on to explain that Strobel’s assertion that a stone was raised at the site is implausible. He cites this do to the fact the Ebenezer, which is located on the coastal plain of Georgia, has no stones.
In his book, “The Georgia Dutch,” Jones repeats the same as in his previous book. However, he further more proves his more humanist approach, by using the term “Neanderthal[55],” as well as being strictly historical. This again is distinctly different from Strobel’s religious approach.
Again, he begins by giving the historical background of Salzburg, but even more broadly, he gives the historical background of Europe in general. His book not only talks about the Salzburgers, but the Germans who came to Georgia in general, to include the Palatines and the Wurttembergers.
He explains how Martin Luther’s reforms “quickly” reached the citizens of Salzburg and many became converts.[56] Although the city remained Roman Catholic, the people outside of the city, such as the miners, retained their Protestant faith in secret[57]. Eventually, however, in October of 1731, the Archbishop of Salzburg, Anton Leopold Eleutherius, signed what Jones called his “notorious Edict of Expulsion[58].” This edict required all Protestants who did not have property to leave within three weeks, and those who did have property to leave within three months[59]. This, as he explains, went against the Treaty of Westphalia, which was signed after the Thirty Years War, which gave a ruler the right to expel the Protestants, but gave the Protestants the right to stay in their location for three years[60].

James Oglethorpe, along with other gentlemen, decided, because of the “sad state of the urban underclass” in England, to create the “Trustees for Establishing a Colony in Georgia.” Once Georgia was established, due to the Spanish, and thus Roman Catholic, neighbors to the south in Florida, it was decided that all emigrants to Georgia must be Protestant[61]. Eventually, on October 12, 1732, the Trustees were advised by James Vernon and Dr. Bundy that the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge wanted the Salzburgers to be granted “asylum” in Georgia[62].
Because of this petition from the two gentlemen, the Trustee’s made several resolutions in favor of the Salzburgers.[63] Unlike in his previous book, “The Salzburger Saga,” Jones recounts all of these resolutions in full. First, they acknowledge the “deplorable state” of the Salzburgers, and then draft seven articles on their behalf[64]. These articles enabled payment for the Salzburgers, gave seed allotments, allotted three lots for each man, ordered them to obey the orders of the Trustees, made them citizens when they arrived and settled[65], and lastly gave them protection to freely exercise their religion[66].
Once the articles had been issued, the Trustees worked closely with the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge to raise funds for the migration of the Salzburgers[67]. By May of 1733, Jones points out that the Society was in contact with Urlsperger, who would become the man responsible for the Salzburgers. By the end of April, 1733, they had collected “between three and four thousand pounds,” and Urlsperger was vigorously campaigning to the Salzburgers to come to Georgia[68]. However, Jones also mentions that by 1733 the main “expulsion” had already ended, but even so, there were still some Salzburgers left in southern Germany[69]. He had mentioned before that the majority of the people thrown out had gone to Prussia[70]. By August of 1733, Jones writes that Urlsperger was able to convince seventy eight Salzburgers to go to Georgia, yet only fifty seven in the end were willing to go. Once they set out, they remained at Augsburg until von Reck was given charge of them, and then he marched the Salzburgers towards Britain[71]. Again, as before in his previous book, he notes that at Rotterdam they met their Lutheran ministers, Bolzius and Gronau, and he elaborates that Bolzius would serve the Salzburgers for the “next thirty years[72].” He points out that the cost of traveling from Augsburg to Rotterdam was paid by the “Society”, while the remaining costs were paid by the Trustees[73].
Unlike his previous book, Jones does not give a detailed account of the Salzburgers’ voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. He picks up when the transport carrying the Germans reached Savannah on March 12, 1734.  Again, he mentions they were met by the Jew, Benjamin Sheftall, and he explains this because “good German[74].” Also, he makes mention that Sheftall promised to continually help the Salzburgers[75].
The Salzburgers stayed briefly in Savannah while members of the Salzburgers and the colony of Georgia searched for a place for them to reside. Again, he mentions that “theoretically” the Salzburgers could have chosen to live anywhere they wished, but because of military purposes, Oglethorpe led them to their future home[76]. Once they had arrived, the Salzburgers named the place Ebenezer. He mentions the legend of them setting up a stone, but again mentions that this is impossible because there are no stones on the coastal plains on Georgia[77]. Lastly, he mentions that, once they arrived and settled, they began to clear the forests and build houses, and once this occurred, von Reck returned to Europe, “convinced that Ebenezer was a true paradise[78].”
Contrary to Strobel’s reckoning of the history of the Salzburgers, Jones’s books are more historical in their nature and form. Where as Strobel continually mentions the religious qualities of the Lutherans from Salzburg, Jones mentions them only in the context of their historical record. Also, for Strobel, the Roman Catholic Church was pure evil, and persecuted the Salzburgers simply because of this fact. For Jones, he recognizes that for the Roman Catholic Church, the newly converted Protestants, in both Germany and throughout Europe, were a threat, both politically and economically.
Historically speaking, it is obvious, due to the amount of sources available, that Jones’s books are more credible. Strobel is left to “hand me down” accounts from the Salzburgers themselves, as well as church records, and minister diaries. On the contrary, Jones has access to the records of Georgia, as well as other types of records. However, this does not diminish the importance of Strobel’s work, for it was the first major publication concerning the Salzburg peoples who came to Georgia.
If I would have written these books, it would be very difficult to have written them any different then they have been presented. As a Salzburger myself, I found all three books, and their accounts of the Salzburgers, to be fascinating. Many of these histories are still passed on today by word of mouth, and it is amazing how accurately they correspond with these three books. However, if I were to rewrite these books, I would condense them into one volume, and take the religious fervor of Strobel, and the empirical nature of Jones, and clash them. By doing this, I believe it would be possible to not only capture the historical importance of the emigration of the Salzburgers, but also the religious fire that burned within them.

In conclusion, it is important, for both authors, that the accounts of the Salzburgers be recorded. For Strobel, it was both because was a minister to possible descendants of the Salzburgers, as well as an inspirational message. For Jones, the story is important because the Salzburgers were one of the first settlers in Georgia, and established one of the oldest remaining settlements at Ebenezer. As they both go into great detail, the migration on the Salzburgers was a long and trying journey, but in the end, they made it, and helped shape Georgia in to what she is today.

---

[1] P. A. Strobel, The Salzburgers and Their Descendants (University of Georgia Press, 1953), 19.

[2] Ibid., 23.

[3] Ibid., 31.

[4] Ibid., 33.

[5] Ibid., 41.

[6] Ibid., 44.

[7] Ibid., 45.

[8] Ibid., 46.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid., 47.

[11] Ibid., 49.

[12] Ibid., 53, 53.

[13] Ibid., 51.

[14] Ibid., 54.

[15] Ibid., 55.

[16] Ibid., 56.

[17] Ibid., 58.

[18] Ibid., 59.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid., 60.

[22] Ibid., 62.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid., 63.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] George Fenwick Jones, The Salzburger Saga (University of Georgia Press, 1984), ix.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid., 1.

[30] Ibid., 5.

[31] Ibid., 6.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Ibid., 7.

[34] Ibid., 8.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid., 9.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid., 10.

[41] Ibid., 11.

[42] Ibid., 12

[43] Ibid., 13.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Ibid., 14.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Ibid.

[52] Ibid.

[53] Ibid., 15.

[54] Ibid.

[55] George Fenwick Jones, The Georgia Dutch: From the Rhine and Danube to the Savannah, 1733-1783 (University of Georgia Press, 1992), 1.

[56] Ibid., 14.

[57] Ibid.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Ibid.

[61] Ibid., 18.

[62] Ibid.

[63] Ibid., 19.

[64] Ibid.

[65] Ibid.

[66] Ibid., 20.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Ibid.

[69] Ibid., 21.

[70] Ibid., 14.

[71] Ibid., 21.

[72] Ibid.

[73] Ibid.

[74] Ibid., 35.

[75] Ibid.

[76] Ibid.

[77] Ibid., 37.

[78] Ibid.

Bibliography

Jones, George Fenwick. The Georgia Dutch: From the Rhine and Danube to the
Savannah, 1733-1783. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1992.

Jones, George Fenwick. The Salzburger Saga. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia
Press, 1984.

Strobel, P. A. The Salzburgers and Their Descendants. Athens, Georgia: University of
Georgia Press, 1953

From the Qur’an…

Here is an idea I received while in a religion class. Lets study, and question, other books or scriptures that are considered holy to other religions. To me, the obvious choice is the Holy Qur’an, holy to those of the Muslim faith.

First, before the verse, or Ayat (note: I cannot for the life of me figure out how to do Arabic symbols on here!), of the “day,” some notes of practice and explanation.

#1: The english, or any other language, “version” of the Qur’an that you may read, is not the Holy Qur’an, but an explanation of its meaning. The reason for this is, Muslims believe that the Qur’an, which means recitation, is the literal words of God (Allah). Not the inspired words, but the LITERAL words, which were spoken to the Prophet Muhammad, by the angel Gabriel. Therefore, only in Arabic.

#2: The Koran is arranged in “Chapters” known as Sura’s, each Sura differs in length, and excluding the first Sura, the follow in order from the most words to the last Sura having the least words. The Sura’s are not in any historical or chronological order. Hence the difficulty for western scholars, as well as Christian thinkers, etc, to read and understand what is going on.

Now, for the verse:

Surah 2: Al Baqarah
Section 8
Verse 62.

Those who believe (in the Qur’an);
And those who follow the Jewish (scriptures),
And the Christians and the Sabians-
Any who believe in Allah
And the Last Day
And work righteousness,
Shall have their reward
With their Lord: on them
Shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Thats the verse. Just wondering some thoughts of you all out there on this statement. I will grant, history has not been kind between Christians and Jews, Jews and Muslims, nor Christians and Muslims. Nor has history been kind between Christians and other Christians (East vs. West, Rome vs. Protestants), nor Muslims and other Muslims (Sunni vs. Shiite). However, within all three religions, at least with Christianity and Islam, peace is at the center. Not only peace, but harmony with “people of the book.”

Obviously, the difference is that, in the teachings of Christ, He would turn the other cheek, but by the example of Muhammad, he would in turn take his enemies out. It is interesting to me that, two religions which sprang out of the Abrahamic (sp?) Monotheistic tradition, could be so closely in line, and yet be total opposites. Especially considering the influences on Muhammad during his early life with the nomadic tribes. Then again, the ruthlessness of that life almost explains the automatic selection of violence rather then peace, and yet, at the same time, the Qur’an, at least in this one verse, “guarantees” the “salvation” and peace of all three groups.

Granted, one can claim the Crusades, which ended Muslim hospitality to Christian and Jewish pilgrims – for obvious reasons, or even one could look at the European invasion of Africa and the Middle East, which obviously strained relations. But, in these cases, truly, I would have to say that the Islamic world had a right to resist, and even fight back. Now however, instead of being on the defensive, it seems that many on the radical right (sounds familiar to Christianity… hmmm) would rather fight for the sake of fighting.

Now I’m not claiming to know the Qur’an inside and out… I do not read or speak Arabic at all. And I have only read the english explanation of it through twice completely, and it is a very hard read for my western oriented mind. And though, there is depictions and reasons for violence given, it seems that the Muslim, to me, should look at the same of their religion – Islam – and take the base meaning of the word SLM, meaning peace.

JZ Holloway

Populist Christianity: Part 3

Preface Note:

All previous preface notes apply, and all Scriptures are still taken from the New Revised Standard.

Populist Christianity, part 3

Predestination, part 2

Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Zechariah 1:2-4: The LORD was very angry with your ancestors. Therefore say to them, Thus says the LORD of hosts: Return to me, says the LORD of hosts, and I will return to you, says the LORD of hosts. Do not be like your ancestors, to whom the former prophets proclaimed, “Thus says the LORD of hosts, Return from your evil ways and from your evil deeds.” But they did not hear or heed me.

Amos 7:3: The LORD relented concerning this [his judgment]; “It shall not be,” said the LORD.

Before the fall of man, as mentioned in the previous article, it would seem that mankind was destined to live in the presence of God, while remaining in the Garden. Again, God gave mankind free will, but He also gave mankind a destiny, and that destiny was to live in His Presence.

The Fall is called the Fall for a reason – mankind fell from the presence of God, mankind changed the course of his destiny, and therefore, fell from the grace of God. After the fall however, man’s destiny did not change. God’s desire for mankind did not change, only the nature of man changed. That nature, as described by St. Paul as “the flesh,” also has a “destiny. That destiny is to lust after its own desires, and therefore, through these desires, sin. In away, with the Fall of man, the course of human nature shifts to being predestined to sin, not due to the desires of God, but due to the original sin in the Garden.

Christ, as the new Adam, had the same opportunity as Adam to sin, and to “fall.” This, obviously, for theologians and Christians alike is not a topic of typical back porch discussion, but it is true nonetheless. Christ was tempted by Satan, and Christ was tempted by His flesh. Likewise, Eve was tempted by Satan in the Garden, and likewise Adam was tempted by his flesh – Eve was the flesh of Adam, she came out of him. The difference is a simple, yet extremely important one. Adam fell, Christ rose. Where Adam sinned, Christ redeemed Himself. Where Adam disobeyed, Christ obeyed.

Christ, in being tempted by Satan, was offered the “whole universe,” if He would simply bow down and worship him. Christ, as God, of course knew Satan had no such power, but as Man, the offer did tempt Christ. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ’s own flesh… His own human free will, tempted Him, but in the end, He sacrificed His will to obey the Father.

Because of the Sacrifice of Christ, the course of the destiny of mankind once again shifts. No longer are we condemned, but salvation belongs to the world. Once again, the original destiny, the original predestination that God intended for mankind, can now be obtained. No longer to the faithful remain in the Bosom of Abraham, but they now sit enthroned with Christ and the Father.

The predestination of mankind is not that some are meant to be saved, and some are meant to be damned. The predestination of mankind is that all might be saved, that all may experience the Presence of God.

The question then is, in what does this destiny hinge on. Again, simple, “Seek the Lord while he may be found, call upon him while he is near.” (Isaiah 55:6) Granted, mankind’s salvation hinges on more then that, but on an individual level – for those of us who already believe, and for those of us who are evangelizing, this message is the clearest way to the truth. To seek the Lord is to seek one’s destiny in Christ. Every living soul has that destiny, and agreed, not all attain it, but we all share in that same destiny, the destiny to be in the Presence of God.

Why are some saved and others not? They refused to seek the Lord. They refused to know the name of Christ as John write in his Gospel, chapter three. How about those who did not hear the Gospel of Christ? Who am I to judge? I know not the heart of God concerning those who did not hear the Gospel of Christ while on earth, and though I cannot be sure of their salvation, I will dare not say because they lived in North America or South America at the time of Christ, that they were predestined for damnation. Only God knows the heart, in this, Calvin was one hundred percent correct, but unless we seek the Lord, we will never know the heart of the Father.

JZ Holloway

Populist Christianity: Part 2

Preface Note: Again, Preface from the previous post applies. Also, all Biblical Scripture is taken from the New Revised Standard. This, in partly because I like this version, and lastly because it is considered the most scholarly version by the majority of Academia.

Populist Christianity, part 2

Predestination

Genesis 1:27: So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

John 3:14-18: And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe in him are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

Romans 5:18: Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.

Matthew 28:18-20: And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

St. Paul, in his latter to the Romans said, “…all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.” This simple statement, for early Christians, and modern Christians alike, resounds the essence of our faith. Christ was sent to the world by the Father to live, die, and be rose again, as a Sacrifice and as a King, to redeem the world.

The idea of predestination begins with St. Augustine of Hippo. For him, his sinfulness was so great, he believed, due to original sin, he was pre-destined to live a life of sin. This agrees with the Scripture. Paul makes it clear, because of the sin of one man, Adam, the entire world was lost to sin, but, he goes one step further, because of the righteousness of one man, Christ, the entire world may be justified and saved.

Not until the Protestant Reformation, with people such as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc, did the idea of pre-destination take a hard right. For Luther, who struggled with his own sinful nature, he felt that there must be some outside force that tempts him to sin, and that force for him was a sense of pre-election. He believed that, in the little things, mankind had a free will of sorts, but when it came to moral decisions, mankind was pre-destined to make the choices that he did. Here, the seeds of the modern doctrine of predestination are formed.

Continued by other reformers, this idea hits it pinnacle with Calvin. Like Augustine, who began as a Manichean, and then later converted to Christianity, Calvin began as a French Humanist. Both of these are “philosophical religions,” and for both, left them a little short on answers. So both eventually converted to Christianity. Calvin converts to Protestantism, and immediately sets out to Switzerland, were he happens upon Zürich, where Zwingli had been the minister. Upon his arrival, he was commissioned to be there new pastor, but he refused. However, the city elders came to him, and said that it was the will of God that he be there minister, and in the end, he accepted. It should be mentioned, Calvin had no formal training concerning the Bible, Theology, or anything concerning Christianity. Of course, to the people of the day, this was all the better, since most early Protestants rejected the idea of “man-made theology.” Upon his becoming the town pastor, he went to work creating rigid laws and so forth, got himself kicked out, and then was later asked to return, and he did. It was during this time that Calvin wrote his works and formulated his ideas concerning predestination.

John Calvin is what is called a “double predestinationalist.” This means simply that, God, before the creation of the world, choose some to be saved, and choose the rest to be condemned. This of course, is the logical conclusion for Classical Theist, which, unknown to many, is the basis of modern Protestant theology. This means that, God, is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, all-good, etc. Of course, logically, for God to be all-knowing, then He must know he will be saved, and who wont, and yet, this seems to run contrary to both the Old and New Testaments. For, if this is the case, Adam and Eve were pre-destined to sin, but again, this makes no sense whatsoever. As mentioned in the Scriptures posted before this article, God created mankind in His image. For God, it is impossible to sin, however, included in His image is free will. Knowing this, God gave instructions to man, and in doing so, God made it available to listen and obey, or to rebel. However, until man actually sinned, he was not predestined to sin, but predestined to live in the Garden with God. Once man sinned, as Paul wrote in Romans, he brought condemnation to the world. Not before, but after, but also as Paul writes in the same passage, one man also brought the opportunity for the world world to be justified and saved.

First, if all of mankind is predestined to either salvation or damnation, then the world would not need to be saved. Even more, if mankind is predestined either way, there is no need for Christ, for then, He is not truly saving anyone. Also, John’s passage claims that “God loved the whole world,” and that He sent “His Son so that the world might be saved.” Lastly, in Matthew, Christ commands the newly appointed Apostles to “go out through out the world teaching and baptizing.” Again, if mankind is predestined to either Heaven or Hell, there is no point in any of this.

One cannot make the argument that it is necessary, for it it is, then those predestined to be saved, if they do not hear the Gospel of Christ, will still be saved. Nor can the argument be made that those who are predestined will hear the message of the Gospel. Israel, according to both the Old Testament, and Paul in the New Testament, were the chosen people of God, the “Elect.” Yet, even being “predestined” as Paul calls them in Romans 8:30, they still rejected the message of Christ, and therefore not saved. However, he does say that Israel may still find salvation.

In a modern since, all predestination is, is an excuse for the sinful behavior of man, as well as the ability for man to reject the Gospel of Christ. It is also an excuse for ministers to sit back and comfort themselves when they could not reach out and help someone. For Calvin, it was an excuse for his own struggles with his own salvation – one minute (and writing) he would be totally convinced, the next minute (writing) he would be unsure. Also, it was a way to counter the Roman Catholic use of guilt to control the people into there own way to use guilt to control the people. Ironic, Luther hated the ways that the Roman Catholic Church was using guilt to raise money and maintain control, and not too long after his Reformation, the Protestant Church and her leaders began doing the same thing.

Predestination is not an excuse, its just bad theology. As a Religion professor once said, “its just a little bit dumb.” It is just another tool available to enact condemnation on others. Today, as mentioned in the last article, there are so many churches spewing condemnation. Whether it is against other Christian bodies, other Christians, sinners, politicians, world leader, celebrities, and the list goes on. Then again, maybe predestination is true. For without Christ we are all predestined for Hell, but with Christ, our destiny in God can be fulfilled. Instead of using the seeds of sin and guilt to control, I call on the Church to use the message of Christ’s Love to save.

JZ Holloway

Abortion and the Democratic Party

Clinton, asked whether she believed life begins at conception, replied that “the potential for life begins at conception,” adding that the Methodist church, her denomination, had “struggled with this issue.”

“…And as some of you’ve heard me discuss before, I think abortion should remain legal — but it needs to be safe and rare,” she said.

Obama — who had sparked controversy several weeks ago when he said he would not want to see his daughters “burdened” with an unwanted child — said it was important to “acknowledge that there is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tap down.”

Cited: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/13/forum/index.html

Interestingly enough, though it is a “woman’s right to choose,” Hillary Clinton (D – NY) comes out as a stark contrast to Barak Obama (D – IL)

To me, as a more simpler issue, it is clear that, who ever is the Democratic nominee, they will be in favor of “woman’s rights,” therefore in favor of abortion. However, I will applaud Sen. Clinton for at least saying it should be rare. In stark contrast, Sen. Obama makes it clear, he will advise his daughters to have an abortion if they do not want the child. The question I raise is this… If she is married, but does not want to be “burdened” with a child, is it still okay to have an abortion? If she decides to sleep with one man, or many, and gets pregnant, but doesn’t want to have a child, is it okay to have an abortion? Granted, many people agree with the rape clause, but please, come on, if you do not want to get pregnant, in other words, if you do not want to have a child, do not copulate! For those who do not know what that means, engage in intercourse, or rather, have sex. If you are willing to have sex, whether “on the pill,” or using a condom, or not even using anything (the Biblical way BTW), then you should be prepared to suffer the consequences, and beyond that, take responsibility. If not, then do not engage in the before mentioned activity. Whether or not you believe it to be sin or not, no matter what we do, as human beings, we must be able and willing to take responsibilities for our actions. The inability to take responsibility for our actions, to me, is far worse then the sin itself. Therefore, abortion as a solution is a way out, an excuse. Not unforgivable, but still, a way of escape from responsibility. I would encourage Sen. Obama, instead of advocating abortion for his daughters, be a loving Grandfather… much like his Grandmother has continued to be to him.

Moon with Canon EOS DSLR – 040408

Moon – 040808

The Judas Factor

Thanks to James Carville’s, a political adviser to President Bill Clinton, analogy of Bill Richardson’s “betrayal” of Hillary Clinton in favor of Barak Obama’s Presidential campaign to the betrayal of Jesus by Judas, Judas’s name has been in the spotlight as of late. I have heard many preachers and teachers teach on Judas, and almost unanimously they have said that Judas must be in Hell. But is this truly the case?

First, the known facts from the Gospel are three things. 1) Judas was one of the twelve disciples of Christ. 2) Judas received 30 pieces of silver in exchange for pointing Jesus out. 3) Judas committed suicide by hanging himself before the Resurrection.

Judas was a zealot, period. His how ideological mindset was running the Romans out of Jerusalem and Judea. The period in which Christ came to the world was a very apocalyptic time, and many saw the Romans as the final enemy of God and the sign of the end times. Therefore, it is safe to assume that Judas saw Christ as the Messiah, the one who would rid God’s Chosen People of the Romans, rid them of their persecutions, and bring the Jews to prominence in the world. In other words, The Kingdom of god was at hand, etc.

In the mind fo Judas, he would see Jesus as the conquering king, but unlike we view Christ today, this would have a very physical and present application. We all believe that Judas betrayed Christ because he thought that if he did, Christ would be forced to enact vengeance against the Romans, and Bring the Kingdom of god to rest on earth. Obviously, this is contrary to the current “understanding” of the Kingdom of God, but to the Jews at the time, the belief was that it was a very physical place that would be brought to earth. Also, the Jews regarded God as a God of interference. Either for or against them. God got angry, he judged the kingdoms of the world, and he did so in a very physical and destructive way. Clouded by this, Judas would not be able to fully understand that the true Kingdom of God was a kingdom of love, grace and mercy. True salvation was not brought about by destruction, but by sacrifice and love.

Concerning the betrayal, as mentioned before, he Judas would have viewed this as almost, in a way, necassary for the purposes of God. Of course, for Scripture to be fulfilled, it was, but at the same time, the question is raised, why would the Pharisees need Jesus to be identified? It is obvious, from the Gospels, that they new, not only his teachings and his miracles, but also who he was, and what he looked like. Also, it is also apparent from the Gospels that the only one of the thirteen – Christ and the twelve – with any air of confidence, was Christ. Was it Judas’s destiny to give Christ the kiss of betrayal? It obviously, for the sake of Scripture as well as Christ’s on statement that one would betray him, was at least the destiny of one of them. Many could argue that Peter’s denial could have served as this betrayal, but I find this highly unlikely, due to the Statement of Christ at the Last Supper.

Now, to my final point, and the crux of this article. Judas died before the resurrection of Christ. Why is this important? Simple, Judas would have entered the grave – i.e. the Bosom of Abraham, while Christ was still down there. Still, why is this important? Simple again, Judas would have had the chance to repent, and not only in prayer, but to Christ directly. Given this, it is possible to assume that he would have done so, and therefore, if he did, he would have received salvation.

I’m not saying that it is a fact that Judas is in Heaven, seated with Christ. But, I do believe it is unfair that we, as mere mortals, pass judgment of him and condemn him to Hell. Didn’t Christ say judge not, lest you be judged? I think He did, could be wrong. But on any account, let us pray that, as we should for all persons in history, the present, and the future, he found salvation and grace through the ministry and love of Christ. Many argue for the case of Plato – who, for those who don’t know, died before Christ was even born, that because he recognized monotheism, recognized a central truth and an ultimate good (which he called God), that it is possible that he found salvation, let us also keep open the possibility for Judas.

 JZ Holloway

Sunspots – March, 2008

Sunspots from March, 2008. Not the greatest pics, but at least its something!