Ancient history

Thoughts on human sacrifice

Leave a comment

Human sacrifice in Europe has been in the news lately. The following two stories are representative examples, one from the National Geographic news service, the other from LiveScience. AOL picked up the LiveScience story and included it on its sign-on screens for part of one day this week. 

Human Sacrifice Clues Found in European Stone Age Burials

Common Stone Age graves in Europe that include the remains of physically disabled people hint at ritual human sacrifice there, a new study says.

Early Europeans Practiced Human Sacrifice

Europe’s prehistoric hunter-gatherers may have practiced human sacrifice, a new study claims.

[. . .] The diversity of the individuals buried together and the special treatment they received could be a sign of ritual killing, said Vincenzo Formicola of the University of Pisa, Italy.

“These findings point to the possibility that human sacrifices were part of the ritual activity of these populations,” Formicola wrote in a recent edition of the journal Current Anthropology.

The news is neither shocking nor surprising. Human sacrifice has been widespread across cultures and through the ages. The prevalence of the practice points to a widespread shared belief that our alienation from God is deep and serious, and that our guilt before God (God’s righteous anger and judgement) cannot be easily assuaged. This widespread, shared belief is not easily dismissed as simply a primitive supersitition.

In fact, most human cultures have practiced human sacrifice. It is not, unfortunately, a thing of the past. It is reappearing in the new millenium. It was the coming of Christianity which put an end to human sacrifice. And it is the waning of Christian influence in the west, which is allowing it to re-emerge.

The evangelion of Christianity is that God himself provided the uiltimate, voluntary human sacrifice – that God himself became incarnate as a man, and offered himself as a subsitute for us, so that we might be reconciled.

Apparently the writers of these stories are without a trace of irony when they solemnly intone that “The new findings could mean the hunter-gatherers were more advanced than once thought.”

The findings are only surprising if you share the modern prejudice that we, of the current age, are obviously much more sophisticated, advanced, and evolved than all who have gone before us.

The truth is, human nature has only ever changed dramatically once – when Adam and Eve ate the apple and acquired a knowledge of good AND evil. Since then we have all shared the same nature. Our technological abilities have waxed and waned (The Ancient Egyptians and the Romans were quite advanced in many ways), but human nature has not changed. Man is still both noble and cruel. He bears the image of God, yet is a slave to sin.

And the solution to man’s predicament has not changed either – we cannot change ourselves. We cannot please God with our own offerings, not even a human sacrifice – for no human is spotless and perfect. We cannot save our selves. We can only be saved.

And that is why Christians for 2,000 years have sung and recited the following: 

Agnus Dei, qui tolis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.

Lamb of God, who takes away sins of world, have mercy on us.

– Rob Shearer
   Director, Schaeffer Study Center
 

Uncategorized

Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall!

1 Comment

Twenty years ago today – June 12, 1987.

Take a moment to give thanks for President Ronald Reagan, the man most responsible for freeing eastern Europe from totalitarian rule.

Powerline has an excellent post, including video of the key moment in the speech. Worth your time to read the memories of the speechwriter, Peter Robinson. Robinson visited Berlin a month before Reagan’s planned visit and spoke with Berliners. He was surprised to discover how passionately they still hated the wall – 26 years after it had been built.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OcVEvG4L9Y]

Listen carefully to the speech. The same themes were articulated by President Bush in his speech in Prague last week. Here’s a transcript of the full “Tear Down This Wall” speech if you prefer to read it.

Peter Robinson (the speechwriter responsible for the “Tear Down This Wall” speech) wrote a memoir seven years ago, titled It’s My Party: A Republican’s Messy Love Affair with the GOP. Christopher Buckley reviewed it in The Washington Monthly. (Most anything written by Christopher Buckley is worthy reading, btw!)

Here’s Buckley’s summary of what Robinson had to go through to keep the speech’s most famous line from being cut from the speech:

You’ll already have anticipated what happened: the Berlin diplomat, the State Department, the National Security Council, the White House staff all went bananas. Was Peter Robinson crazy? Take it out! Out, out! But he would not take it out. Among other reasons, the Leader of the Free World kind of liked the line.

The incident escalated, with 30-year-old Robinson going toe-to-toe with, among others, National Security Council Director Colin Powell. (It was disappointing to read this.) Finally, Reagan had to say to his chief of staff, Kenneth Duberstein, with a trace of Reaganesque irony, Look here, old shoe, who’s President here? Even skilled White House-hand Duberstein had to back down. Reagan went on to deliver the line. The rest is history.

Thank God for men like Robinson with the patient stubbornness to insist on writing the truth. And thank God for a man like Ronald Reagan who had the courage to speak the truth.

-Rob Shearer
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center

Uncategorized

Who is Natan Sharansky?

2 Comments

FearNoEviland why is he important?

Last week, I wrote about President Bush’s speech in Prague at the invitation of José María Aznar of Spain, Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic, and Natan Sharansky of Israel (formerly the USSR). The President’s speech was magnificent. He made specific reference to the “defiance of Sakharov and Sharansky.” The events he was referencing occured almost thirty years ago. There are, undoubtedly, many who don’t know anything about the men the President was referring to – or anything about their “defiance.”

 Bear with me. This is a tale worth telling.

Anatoly Sharansky was a mathematics prodigy from the Ukraine. Because of his outstanding talent and ability, he was admitted to the Moscow Physical Technical Institute, where he studied mathematics and computer science. Upon graduation in 1972 he took a position as a computer scientist at the state-run Oil and Gas Research Institute. Shortly afterwards, at the age of 25, he and his future wife Natalia Stieglitz (Avital) decided to emigrate to Israel and requested exit visas. Sharansky’s family had never forgotten their jewish heritage, and Anatoly was increasingly disenchanted with the failures of the Soviet Union. But emmigation from the Soviet Union was strictly controlled. Only a few hundred Jews were allowed to leave each year. 

Avital’s request was approved, but Sharansky was denied permission to leave. The Soviet government informed him that he knew too many state secrets from his work at the Oil and Gas Research Institute. In 1974, the day before Avital left forever for Israel, she and Anatoly got married. Anatoly promised he would join her in Israel.

In 1975, the Soviet Union signed the Helsinki Accords. The Soviet Union signed it, because it guaranteed the current borders of all the states of Europe. But one of the ten points also committed all signatory nations to “Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief.” This clause, the Soviet Union had no intention of honoring.

In 1976, Andrei Sakharov and Yuri Orlov announced the foundation of a group called the Moscow Helsinki Watch Group. Along with them, among the eleven founders, was the 28 year old computer programmer, Anatoly Sharansky. The group’s purpose was to independently monitor the Soviet Union’s compliance with Article VII of the Helsinki Accords.

Sakharov and Orlov were famous scientists in Russia. Sakharov was known as the “father of the Russian atomic bomb.”

Because Sharansky was fluent in english, he quickly became the spokesman for the group.

The Soviet Union reacted immediately to crush the dissidents. Sakharov was too famous to be imprisoned immediately. He was eventually arrested and sent into internal exile, far away from Moscow, in the city of Gorky – which was closed to all foreign visitors and thus served the purpose of isolating Sakharov from contract with the western press.

Some of the other members of the Helsinki Watch Group were incarcerated for psychiatric evaluation and treatment. Orlov and Sharansky were arrested and charged with treason. Orlov received a ten year sentence. Sharansky was sentenced to 13 years.

 In his final statement to the court in 1978, Sharansky said:

“Five years ago, I submitted my application for exit to Israel. Now I am further than ever from my dream. It would seem to be cause for regret. But it is absolutely the other way around. I am happy. I am happy that I lived honorably, at peace with my conscience. I never compromised my soul, even under the threat of death.

“I am happy that I helped people. I am proud that I knew and worked with such honorable, brave and courageous people as Sakharov, Orlov, Ginzburg, who are carrying on the traditions of the Russian intelligentsia [in defending human rights in the Soviet Union]. I am fortunate to have been witness to the process of the liberation of Jews of the USSR.

“I hope that the absurd accusation against me and the entire Jewish emigration movement will not hinder the liberation of my people. My near ones and friends know how I wanted to exchange activity in the emigration movement for a life with my wife Avital, in Israel.

“For more that two thousand years the Jewish people, my people, have been dispersed. But wherever they are, wherever Jews are found, every year they have repeated,‘Next year in Jerusalem.‘ Now, when I am further than ever from my people, from Avital, facing many arduous years of imprisonment, I say, turning to my people, my Avital, ‘Next year in Jerusalem.’

Due to the persecution of its members by the Soviet government, the Moscow Helsinki Group was silenced. It announced its own dissolution in September of 1982

Sharansky was to serve almost ten years in the gulag under terrible conditions. He was freed in 1986, due to the tireless efforts of his wife to organize support around the world and keep the pressure on the Soviet government. In the United States a large number of scientists voiced their support for Sharansky by joining a boycott of Soviet scientific exchanges and conferences. SOS (Scientists for Sakharov, Orlov, Sharansky), founded by Andrew Sessler and Morris Pripstein of the Lawrence Livermore labs eventually recruited 10,000 scientists who pledged to join the boycott.

In 1985, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev met for the first time in Geneva, Switzerland. Following that meeting, the Soviets agreed to release Sharansky, although they insisted that he be included as part of an exchange of convicted spies. On February 11, 1986 Sharansky walked across a bridge from East Berlin and West Berlin. He was met by the Israeli ambassador and immediately handed an Israeli passport. When he reached Israel later that day, (after apologizing for being late!), he and his wife spoke by telephone with President Reagan and thanked him for interceding on their behalf.

Sharansky went on to become active in Israeli politics. He was elected to the Israeli parliament and served in the cabinets of both Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Ehud Barak.

And of course, in 1989 – three years after Reagan secured the release of Sharansky – the Soviet Union collapsed.

In 2006, Sharansky wrote an eloquent endorsement of President Bush for the Wall Street Journal, calling Bush the “Dissident President.”

I’ll indulge myself by referring readers to one final anecdote that reveals much about Sharansky’s character – both his integrity and his faith. Sharansky insisted on celebrating Hannakuh, even in the Gulag. When the camp commandant confiscated his menorrah and candles, he declared a hunger strike – which was only resolved when the commandment allowed him to finish his celebration in the commandant’s office – with Sharansky insisting that the commandant join in by saying “amen” at the conclusion of the prayers. Read the full account here.

For a reasonably complete biography of Sharansky, those interested can start with the entry at Answers.com.

FearNoEvilAnd for those who want to read a stirring account of perserverance and courage in the face of persecution, I highly recommend Sharansky’s memoir of his time in the gulag, called Fear No Evil: The Classic Memoir of One Man’s Triumph over a Police State.

-Rob Shearer
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center

Uncategorized

President Bush gave an important speech this week.

3 Comments

And, predictably, its being ignored by the mainstream media. Before he went to the G8 summit, he spoke to a conference in Prague organized by President Havel and Natan Scharansky (more on them in another post).

One blogger, at the Jewish Review, named Bush our most eloquent president ever, based on this speech.

That blog entry is worth reading.

And so is Bush’s speech, which you will find in full on the White House web site.

Commit an act of rebellion. Read Bush’s speech for yourself.

Read it slowly.

Imagine it being delivered out loud. Imagine how it must have reverberated with men and women who had been imprisoned and tortured for years in the cause of freedom.

And then, give thanks to God that he appointed George Bush to be president for eight years.

-Rob Shearer
   Director, Schaeffer Study Center

“Freedom is the non-negotiable right of every man, woman, and child, and the path to lasting peace in our world is liberty.” – George W. Bush

PS: Do I detect the hand of Tony Snow in the text of the president’s speech?

book reviews, Civil War

Team of Rivals – a review by Rob Shearer

Leave a comment

Team of Rivalsby Doris Kearns Goodwin

I just completed the book this month. Took longer than I had thought to finish it, NOT because it lacked interest – just because I had too many distractions over the past six months.

Its a magnificent book. Very well written, and with the focus right where it should be – on the individuals who played major roles in Lincoln’s administration. The book is actually an exercise in multiple biography and it works extremely well.

In 1860, there were four candidates for the Republican nomination for President. The front-runner, who everyone expected would be nominated, was Senator Seward from New York. Also in the running was Governor Chase from Ohio, Judge Bates from Missouri, and a relatively unknown lawyer from Illinois, who had served a single term in Congress fourteen years before – Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln was nominated on the 3rd ballot at the Republican convention of 1860 and went on to win the presidency. Then he did something extraordinary. He appointed all three of the men who had been his rivals to his cabinet. Senator Seward became his Secretary of State. His other cabinet appointments were made with what seemed to his friends as a careless disregard for his own political fortunes.

Goodwin shows how Lincoln suceeded in managing his “team of rivals,” when everyone expected him to be a weak president who would be dominated by the stronger, more experienced politicians he had appointed.

Perhaps the most startling appointment Lincoln made was Edwin Stanton to be Secretary of War after scandal forced his first Secretary of War to resign. Stanton was a high-powered Washington attorney who had served briefly in the Buchannon administration. More significantly, he had been the lead attorney on a famous patent case (the McCormick reaper case) in 1855. Lincoln had been retained as a local attorney when it looked like the case would be tried in Illinois, but when venue was changed to Ohio, Stanton contemptuously dismissed Lincoln from the defense team and then snubbed him. Any attorney other than Lincoln would have held a grudge for life. But Lincoln set aside any resentment he might have harbored and appointed Stanton as his Secretary of War – and over time the two became friends and Stanton completely reversed his opinion of Lincoln.

Goodwin also does an excellent job of explaining the political context, intent, and effect of the Emancipation Proclamation. The Emancipation Proclamation is usually either elevated to a status alongside the Declaration of Indpendence and the Constitution (if your sympathies are with the Union) or dismissed as a crude and calculated political ploy that freed not a single slave because it was simply a public relations trick (if your sympathies are with the South). Goodwin explains at length Lincoln’s reasoning for the details of the Proclamation and the timing of its signing. It WAS designed for a political purpose – Lincoln hoped it might persuade at least some of the Confederate states to return to the Union. But, it was also a consistent extension of Lincoln’s evolving policy to deal with the issue of slavery.

Goodwin’s book is excellent biography (not just Lincoln, but also Seward, Chase, Bates, and Stanton) with its focus and tone on the human and personal dimensions of Lincoln’s presidency. Its also a study in political wisdom. Lincoln’s magnanimity is what eventually led to his nomination and election as president – and successful conduct of the war. Finally, it is a study in management principles with applications even now to how leaders should choose key lieutenants and manage them.

Highly recommended.

-Rob Shearer
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center

Ancient history

News from Ancient Egypt

1 Comment

You wouldn’t think that there would be much left to discover of Ancient Egypt. But, you’d be wrong. New discoveries are added every year. And old theories often have to be revised – or even abandoned.

News from EgyptEgyptian civilization flourished from about 2500BC until about the time of the close of the Old Testament in 500BC. It was overrun by the Assyrians about 600BC, Alexander the Great in about 300BC and finally the Romans in about 40BC.

When the Arabs displaced the Romans in about 600AD, Egyptian culture disappeared from the radar of western civilization.

The language of the Ancient Egyptians was completely lost and many of the cities of the Nile valley were abandoned and then covered by drifting sands.

Today, I noticed the story associated with the picture above. My point in linking to it is to remind everyone that what we know of ancient Egypt is, in many respects still incomplete and based on conjecture. Hieroglyphs were deciphered only about 170 years ago. Many of the archives are still being recovered, transcribed, and translated. There are clearly still lots of sites unexplored.

In particular, the chronology of Ancient Egypt is still very much a speculative exercise. The evidence that establishes firm dates in the history of Israel is much more complete than it is for Egypt.

Those who subscribe to a biblical world-view need not be threatened by new discoveries from Ancient Egypt. Indeed, we should be excited. Its likely, indeed probable, that evidence of the Patriarchs and the sojourn of Israel in Egypt is still there – waiting to be discovered. There have been tantalizing hints over the past 40 years. Who knows what the next 40 might bring?

You might start with this wikipedia article, if you’re interested in Egyptian chronology.

Here’s another interesting article, with the provocative title, Unsolved Problems in Egyptology. Students of history should know that there are lots of opportunities out there for anyone interested in pursuing a career.

For those who really want to delve into this, I highly recommend the research of Egyptologist David Rohl. A pretty good place to start on Rohl and his new chronology, would be this article. Be forewarned, Rohl is a maverick, and controversial.

While one must always be cautious in reading a wikipedia article, they are often a valuable overview of a topic and provide both links to further information and often some assesment of the pros and cons associated with any controversial issue.

-Rob Shearer
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center

Uncategorized

[ding, ding] You are now free to blog about . . .

2 Comments

For a variety of reasons, I have held myself back from the blogging phenomenon which took off over the past six years (see especially Instapundit).

From November of 2000 to May of 2007, I was the City Manager of Mt. Juliet, TN. Because of my obligations as City Manager, I chose not to start a blog and refrained from making political, cultural, and religious comments on the internet.

But, its now June of 2007, and I’ve been set free.

Since 2004, I have also been the Director of the Francis Schaeffer Study Center in Mt. Juliet. For the past three years, the primary work of FSSC has been to co-ordinate a high school program for homeschooled students that, over four years, gives them a chronological overview of the History, Literature, & Art of western civilization from ancient times to modern. We graduated 16 seniors last month, and will start our fourth year of classes in August.

My intent with this blog is to provide my $.02 worth on the issues of the day. I’m inspired primarily by three people: C.S.Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, and Ronald Reagan. It’s in the intersection of those three that I think I may have a few things to offer.

-Rob Shearer
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center

book reviews, children's books

Gandalf vs. Harry Potter

Leave a comment

[from 2004]

For those of you who’re not familiar with my literary preferences, I’m a huge fan of Tolkien & Lewis, and especially of Tolkien’s epic, The Lord of the Rings.

The Lord of the Rings is NOTHING like the Harry Potter series. While I would have serious reservations about allowing my children to read Harry Potter, I have read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings out loud to them several times.

I know that many Christian parents have quite legitimate concerns about anything which might engender an interest in the occult among their children. I share their concerns. I am VERY uneasy with many of the elements of the Harry Potter series. Harry is in many ways an admirable figure. He’s a nice kid. He values friendship and loyalty. And he struggles to defeat/thwart enemies who are clearly evil. BUT, I am very uncomfortable with the presentation of Harry’s magic powers as neutral and the school he attends to master magic skills as just another school for gifted and talented kids.

The most troubling aspect of Harry Potter is the confused way in which the author plays with traditional western symbolism of good and evil. It is very dangerous to present witches (with brooms & familiar spirits) as not necessarily evil just misunderstood. The unspoken (but powerful) message is a sort of literary moral relativism. The idea that nothing is inherently evil is morally pernicious. And very confusing and potentially dangerous for children.

By contrast, Tolkien’s epic has an entirely different approach to magic – especially the central symbol of magical power, the ring. The ring is very powerful and dangerous. Over and over again we are reminded (and shown) that it is perilous to attempt to use the ring and that anyone who did attempt to do so would inevitably be corrupted by it. Frodo wins, not by mastering the ring, but by resisting the temptation to use it. He must struggle using his natural abilities.

Gandalf is a much less troubling figure for me than ANY of the figures in the Potter series. Gandalf is much different from the wizards in Potter’s world. The most important difference is that Gandalf NEVER attempts to recruit or train anyone in how to use magic or spells. There is no possibility for any of the hobbits (or any of the men) to become wizards. In Tolkien’s world, Wizards are a small, chosen, race – set apart – more akin to guardian angels than to mortal men, though they do have bodies, and they can die.

Gandalf is the chief advisor who cautions against the use of the ring or of ANY of the tools of the enemy. Gandalf actually reminds me of the Prophet Samuel – or of Moses.

These are important distinctions. And it is important that we talk about these things with our children. Our kids have not read the Potter books, not because we’ve had to forbid them, but because there are so many other, better books available to them. I WOULD forbid any of my younger kids from reading Potter if they asked. One or more of our older kids (16 & up) may read some of the Potter books in order to be able to intelligently critique them (as have I). I wish there were a simple rule for selecting books for our children. Its not simple. One can’t simply say that all books with witches in them are bad , There’s a witch who figures prominently in the book of Samuel. So there must be other, more subtle criteria. Anything which awakes a fascination with magical powers is dangerous. I think Harry Potter potentially does. I think Tolkien’s tales warn against the inherent, inevitable danger in dealing with magic. There are many other virtues taught and portrayed in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings as well. Courage, perseverance, self-sacrifice, loyalty, etc. Plus it’s a marvelous story with an incredibly rich and delightful level of detail.

– Rob Shearer, Publisher
Greenleaf Press

 

 

The Director's Blog – Rob Shearer, Francis Schaeffer Study Center, Mt. Juliet, TN