Blog on the Lillypad
Saturday, December 27, 2003
 | Jack Hyles and Friedrich Nietzsche
3. Nietzsche was concerned far more with the individual (the Superman) setting himself apart from society and reaching his own potential than he was in establishing a social order. I think he was wrong on all counts, but it's the application of his philosophy to social structure that is the worst and most dangerous (and most inhumane) application of Nietszsche. He may never have intended a rigorously enforced Nietzschien society. Nevertheless, his is what you get when his philosophy becomes a reality: In the Nietzschien social hierarchy, two distinct moralities are necessary to govern people: morality of the Superman, which comes from the Superman himself; and morality for the masses, which comes from the elite class of Supermen to keep the masses content and focused. |
3a. Stories abound and many are documented in WIZARD OF GOD that Hyles, apparently without conscience, told of soul winning but did not go; spoke of daily prayer but was never observed doing so for any length of time; described a prayer altar for praying for our country but did not appear to have one. He exhorted his people to have intelligent discussions with friends about books and ideas, yet he did not have such discussions. He like football and sports. He gave directions on how to rear children, yet Paula, the first wife of his son David, declares that Hyles never did anything in rearing David the he told others to do. David, according to her, did exactly as he liked.
3b. The morality that Hyles preached was austere to the point of repressive: moral strictness for the sake of moral strictness. Yet the former husband of Jenny Nischik alleges that Hyles continued a relationship with her for years, and the doorway that connected her office to his has been seen by too many people to hush up. The excesses of Dave Hyles are legendary to this day, will allegations of pornography, advertising for group sex, and breaking up a marriage (as well as ruining his own) laid at his door. He was expelled from a church for his rampant adultery with the women he culled from the congregation (a truly Nietzschien method of using the “herd” in genuine Superman fashion). Evidently, Hyles never considered himself under the rules of morality that he preached to others. Those who could get around the repression succeeded as Supermen by their own cunning and ability. Those who lived under the repression and followed it were the herd stock. Those whom it destroyed fell into the nifty Darwin-ish category of being unable to compete in rigorous conditions. In the Hyles-based hierarchy, morality changes depending on the person who has committed an infraction. If the person was a Superman, then often there infraction was not considered at all.
| 3c. In the Hyles-Nietzschien moral system, remorse, contrition, and regret have no place. These mindsets hinder the Superman from reaching his objectives. Many graduates/ alumni of Hyles-Anderson testify of being humiliated over sins when they sought counsel, or being dismissed outright for their flaws. Accusations, berating, and reviling are rife in the Hyles culture. Those perceived to be Supermen are alleged to receive favor, while members of the herd are forced back into their secondary place. All of this is contrary to the way of Christ, who would not break a bruised reed or quench smoking flax. At Hyles-Anderson College, it has been alleged that certain people could get away with anything, and others would find themselves in trouble over nothing. My opinion from the e-mails and accounts I have read was that the real rule at HAC was that if you had the strength and cunning to get away with something, you did. Exactly as if you were living in a Nietzschien state. |  |
4. In the Nietzschien morality, Sex for the superman is a thing of joy and domination, not ruled by commitment. He is entitled to take what he wants simply by virtue of him being superman. That which is weaker must yield to the stronger (stated), so the superman can take what he wants from women, young girls, and little boys (implied).
4a.Because the morality of the Superman springs from the Superman, intuitively, (according to Nietzsche), he is his own guide to what is right and wrong. And because survival and progress are his ultimate aims in transforming himself (and his offspring) to the next highest level of development, the Superman is not obligated to respect the bonds of marriage in others. In other words, the Superman is morally free to take another man’s wife. In the Nietzschien morality, the Superman is justified in taking another man’s wife simply because he is able to do so. To have the strength and cunning to get what he wants *is* his justification.
4b.If we look at the Hyles situation with Jenny Nischik, (documented in PREYING FROM THE PULPIT*) we see that Hyles, on the air in a television program, evaded the question as to whether he had taken another man’s wife by stating that the only woman in his life was the mother of his children. But Hyles then used the utmost contempt to describe Jenny Nischik’s husband as a “wimp” for losing the affection of his wife. Hyles gave an almost perfect Nietzschien defense---the man who cannot effectively combat the Superman to preserve his marriage deserves to lose his wife. In stark contrast to the Law of God, which makes marriage bonds sacred, Hyles seemed to be saying that the sanctity of the marriage depends upon the male’s ability to “defend his territory.” The interview came perilously close to showing a complete disregard for Biblical Law regarding the sacrosanctity of marriage, and an almost nakedly Nietzschien outlook in Hyles regarding right and wrong: the stronger man is entitled to take what he wants; those who are not as strong and wiley deserve to lose what was theirs.
 | 4c.We have seen the Nietzschien philosophy of sexual behavior demonstrated in the scandals that have been traced back to First Baptist of Hammond and Hyles-Anderson College. Joe Combs, former HAC Bible teacher and the notorious IFB-KJVO pastor who repeatedly raped his adopted daughter, allegedly told her that God had provided her as his concubine, a quasi- Nietzschien way of saying that because she served as his concubine, that being a concubine was her fate, her divine appointment. It was not abnormal in the HAC/FBCH environment for women to be cautioned that if they did not sexually please their husbands, their husbands would find satisfaction elsewhere---a teaching that amounts to justifying adultery on the basis that the man is entitled to seize what he wants, regardless of God’s Law. |
4d.In the Hyles-Nietzschien environment, sex has been viewed entirely as a male prerogative and right. And sex is referred to as a purely physical pleasure for men. Women were to serve the needs of men. This cultural more stands in opposition to the teachings of Scripture, where a husband and wife come together for both intimacy and pleasure, and neither is to defraud the other. Both are responsible to remain faithful, and adultery in the Bible is to be disciplined regardless of the gender of the offender.
4e.Of course, the Hyles-Nietzschien system that allows gross sexual sinners to return to the pulpit is an ongoing controversy and scandal. Even those who support some of the Hyles pulpiteering style have been shocked to discover rampant fornicators and abusers of others to still be in the ministry or to be training for it. This system of readmitting fornicators to the pulpit is consistent with the Hyles-Nietzschien view of the preacher as Superman. The Superman is not judged by the morality that governs the herd or the masses. The Superman is above conventional morality. Therefore in the thinking that has characterized so many churches molded after the Hyles’ model, a fallen man is his own judge. So when he decides to go back into the pulpit, he is not stopped, regardless of the fact that the Bible claims that he is disqualified from church office.
Friday, December 26, 2003
 | Christmas with a Friend
I spent Christmas Day with a friend I've had for 30 years--a fellow who lived across the street from me when we were kids. All the way through our early twenties, we helped each other through a lot of hellish times. So now his wife is leaving him to have an affair with some guy who has already told her he's not going to marry her. My friend has been through one awful year. He's the greatest guy in the world, in my opinion. Does not know Christ, though I have witnessed to him often. But the best witness is to be his friend at a time like this. So after a decade of being somewhat mothballed, we've pulled out the friendship and found it still in perfect working order. |
He and I formally became friends when I was 12 and he was 11. My dad used to fly into rages and start swearing at me and my siblings, hitting us, etc. We flew into rages right back. I was a horrible kid. But my friend taught me to be composed and kind. I've always been a better person for having his friendship. He used to look out for me.
So we met at a Denny's in Virginia and had breakfast, and exchanged gifts. Then we went to the theater to see RETURN OF THE KING. But even though it had advertised being open on Christmas day, it was closed.
So we took long walks in the sunny cold morning and talked with each other about everything. Then we'd go back to the car to sit and get warm. Then we drove to an empty Cracker Barrell parking lot, and I taught him how to punch, in case he ought to punch the guy who's fooling around with his wife. (I'm a fourth degree black belt.) I have mixed feelings about him punching this guy, but if he's going to punch him I want him to get it right, and I think if he *can* punch him, that might actually stop him from trying it.
Then as we sat in his car and talked again, his cell phone rang. I heard a piping voice say, "Daddy, we're trying to sing the 12 days of Christmas, and we can't remember number six!" So he told his 9 year old daughter number six. The kids are with his wife, visiting her parents. A couple minutes later, the cell phone beeped again. The piping voice spoke up in earnestness: "Daddy, do you know 8, 9, and 10?" Snd my friend, who is always gentle and kind with his children, told her 8, 9, and 10. By now we knew to just wait. Within a minute, the phone rang again. It was his 11 year old son. "She forgot to ask you 11 and 12," he said. So my friend told him 11 and 12.
| By then it was noon, so we drank scotch together in the car and made toasts. We drank to our deceased childhood friend Chuck. And then because I had asked for scotch for Christmas because Brigadier Lethbridge Stewart of Doctor Who fame likes scotch, we drank to the Brigadier, and then of course, the Doctor. Then he offered a toast to the friend who saved his life, and I offered right back to the friend who saved my life. |  |
Then we talked about Nietzsche and other topics. We had a late lunch at the Denny's at about 3:00 and said goodbye at 3:30. There was a touch of sadness to everything, and yet it was a great Christmas. You never get what you think you're going to get in this life. But if you take what comes, you have a lot to be thankful for, even in sorrows.
Thursday, December 25, 2003
 | More misogyny from Hyles followers
I'm not sure why this issue took on such huge proportions. I've actually been called worse on the FFF, but on Dec 23, the smarting IFB-er, put up a post in which he alleged I look like a horse. Well, I've been called far worse things by these clowns. In fact, I didn't even read the post until I saw browsing make a response in the thread, and then I read it to see what was up with browsing. |
| Even then, I wasn't alarmed or concerned. Being called ugly by a fundamentalist man, is like being called ugly by Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel on the Simpsons. You just don't take it seriously. Especially when your accuser is a person you have personally defeated in electronic format every time he's challenged you to accept one more of his unbiblical arguments. Anyway, I assumed nobody would even notice the slam, as these clowns always resort to insult when they have been soundly rebuked for their bad doctrine and bad practices. |  |
Pastor Marty Braemer was a lot more cautious about jumping in on this one. Perhaps---the last time this came up---the large round of censure that came down on whoever posted a personal attack showed that it just wasn't worth it. BAPTIST, (who says he is a preacher, but I maintain he is a teenager), posted a line to defend the insult against me by saying, "If she doesn't want us making comments, she shouldn't have put her pic up." I take that as a de facto acknowledgement that these guys expect to use whatever means they can in their "ends justifies the means" method of defending their culture of ignorance and legalism against the genuine teachings of the Bible that demand knowledge of Christ and grace for God's people. Such a statement indicates no inclination of obeying Christ's commands.
If they can get a picture of you, they'll call you ugly. If they can get you in a weak moment, they'll call you a coward, etc., etc. The law of Christ means nothing to them, at least not to BAPTIST, not as far as I can see from his references to issues of right and wrong. But if you've been reading the FFF, you probably knew that already.
 | After a day, Marty posted to the effect that I'm being treated only as I've treated Dr. Hyles (except my claims about the abuses at Hyles-Anderson and FBCH are based on documentation, ethics, biblical law for church government, and witness accounts. The claims against me are based on being really angry over my posts). It's pretty clear that these guys, two of whom style themselves as pastors, believe that revenge is a legitimate reason to stoop to personal attack. |
But what has really surprised me has been the avalanche of censure against them. You never know on the internet. I've been blasted before, accused, called names (far worse than "ugly"), and not many people have said anything. Suddenly it's an issue. I chalk it up to the mutable nature of the web boards. Maybe with it being Christmas week, there were fewer posts to read, so more people had time to read the blather posted by the people who call me names because they cannot rebut my claims either from Scripture or from fact. Anyway, I've provided links here if you want to read the insults live on the FFF. The highlighted lines above from each person will take you to their posts.
But so far nearly a dozen people have posted to censure this personal attack on me: Some have posted on the principle of not stooping to personal attack. Some have posted to say that no, I am not ugly. And a few (much to my amusement) have posted to tell these guys just to grow up and get over what I say, warning them that they are making worse fools of themselves than I could ever make of them. (And this assessment is true.)
I'm grateful for all of these posts. The ethical question is the largest point to make, in my opinion. Personal attack has long been a sword in the sheath of many fundies, and I am really glad to see that several fundies are disgusted by these tactics and simply won't accept them, (even when they may not agree with me on the Hyles issue). It's nice to see people demand facts and objective argument. But it's also really nice to have personal supportiveness against petty and angry men. And it's funny (and welcome) to see one or two men just tell them the facts of life: they are making fools of themselves. Some fundy preachers think it is their prerogative to hand out insults, and they do need a decent man or two to just tell them such behavior is unmanly.
Wednesday, December 24, 2003
 | Jack Hyles and Friedrich Nietzsche
0. Nietzsche was a German philosopher who lived during the Victorian era. Charles Dickens had already published several books when Nietzsche was born. He read and comprehended Darwin. Nietzsche was one of several philosophers who came out of Germany in that era, whose works soon got away from their master and were used to unleash the barbarities that the twentieth century saw in such abundance. In reviewing Nietzsche’s teachings, I see that Nietzsche and Jack Hyles had a lot in common. |
1. Nietzsche: Christianity has failed because it has emasculated the progress of man towards his own propagation and survival. Traditional Christianity teaches weakness and restricts manhood.
1a. Nietzsche both praised and blamed the Apostle Paul for teaching that the meaning of our lives on earth is found outside of life on earth. He praises Paul’s genius in stitching together doctrine to form a theology that would last for centuries. But he blames Paul for those very doctrines. For the doctrines of Christianity, according to Nietzsche, take man away from living in the here and now, restrict him from exercising strength (violence/shrewdness) to get what he wants, and keep him subservient to an outdated form of himself. Christianity, Nietzsche asserted, has halted man’s progress because it emphasizes contemplation, compassion, monogamy, forgiveness, and thus it enables the weakest members of society to restrain the strongest members of society. The morally upright man in reality, Nietzsche argued, is a man of action who works change in society by courage, strength, intelligence, and his own vision of what he decides is good. The good man of the modern age, according to Nietzsche, is a “Superman” who dispenses with compassion, allows the weak to be destroyed if necessary, survives suffering because he is capable of surviving it, and does what he freely chooses to do.
| 1b. Now translate this to Jack Hyles. His teachings share a lot that Nietzsche taught. Hyles discredits those “limp wristed, pink lemonade drinking, panty waist preachers” who he viewed as being too passive, too agreeable. Hyles brought robust masculinity right into his church as a Christian virtue. (And we see an even more exaggerated version of the Hyles Christianity of the masculine in Jim Vineyard’s church and school in Oklahoma.) Hyles mocked “deeper life” thinking from the pulpit. He made the earnest searching and exploring of Scripture a joke. | |
1c. For Jack Hyles, the good Christian is a Man of Action. The good Christian is not good because he reads, or thinks, or turns the other cheek but he’s a good Christian because he goes out soul winning. He keeps his women in line. He’s the head of his home and nobody is allowed to question him. Above all else, the good Christian according to Hyles does two things: he builds the numbers in his church and he maintains order. The good Christian in the Hyles sense does not differ all that much in morality or outlook from Nietzsche’s superman. Because he is excellent above his peers, he enforces a strict discipline onto them. Those who excel under it are destined to be supermen. Those who survive it and endure are meant to be a part of the “masses” (or herd) that will support the elite. Those who are broken under it are the weak who are designed to suffer and be destroyed. To berate people from the pulpit is normal and good in Hyles theology: the strong will flourish and overcome such rebukes. The herd will become more compliant and work harder. The weak will be pared away.
1d. For Jack Hyles, the Christian Superman is a MAN. In this respect, Hyles is most strongly like Nietzsche in asserting that progress can be achieved only by men. And like Nietzsche, Hyles asserts that aggressiveness, ambition, quick wittedness, and the ability to adapt are the primary qualities of leadership. Hyles paid lip service to fear of God, compassion, and forgiveness. But what you find when you listen to his sermons over time is the exaltation of masculinity (and not all men qualify in his book for that distinction) , and the promotion of a powerful drive to get things done, the ability to work through hardship, a stalwart tenacity, and undiminished courage. Just like Nietzsche. As for Bible reading and prayer, Hyles gave them lip service, too. But they became events toted up to show energy and devotion, not increasing skill and wisdom. Hyles berated his people to read their Bibles more and to pray more. He did not address methods of Bible study, nor did he discuss excellent tools of Bible study, nor did he explore lexicons or advise the further study of Greek.
1e. In the Hyles-Nietzschien church, reading the Bible and praying are like running laps. You do them to build up endurance and power. You also do them to demonstrate to your peers that you can do more than they can do. To soberly and humbly beseech God for wisdom from His Word, or to acknowledge that your lot is blindness unless the Lord opens your eyes is not part of the Hyles-Nietzschien order of things. The Superman benefits God by serving God, not vice-versa. In the Hyles view, the Superman-pastor is the indispensable member of God’s creation who gets the job done for God, and if he did not get the job done for God, the job would not be done.
1f. The Superman remakes the church into something useful, jettisoning the teachings and practices of the past that emasculated men. In the Hyles-Nietzschien church order, men don’t read the Scripture intentively to find out deeper meaning or ponder the depths of mystery, grace, and salvation. Men read the Bible to pump up themselves and prove that they are God’s men (and better than you). What men are REALLY supposed to do is build the numbers of the church so that the church---like the individual Superman---is a place that towers over other churches, outnumbering them, outdoing them, progressing towards the destiny it has set for itself. The church of the Hyles- Nietzschien Superman is the social change, the Hyles-Nietzschien social order that proves that this is the place where Supermen rule.
2. Nietzsche equates compassion, the inability to see pain suffered by others, and the willingness to take a secondary role as feminine in some instances and dangerous to society in other instances. When Nietzsche expressly calls something feminine, it’s in the context of that behavior being contrary to the forward progress of the Superman. The Superman is, by definition, masculine. And in Nietzsche thought, the feminine is not only opposite the masculine, it can diminish the masculine. Therefore, women are the tools, playthings, and servants of supermen. (Not stated by Nietzsche, but implied.) I don't think that Nietzsche brutalized women, but Nietzsche’s writings have been used to teach that if a woman is brutalized, enslaved, or degraded, eventually her instincts will teach her to accept such treatment. In playing around with social Darwinism, Nietzsche left a lot open to interpretation in his writings, and women----as creatures in a secondary slot in man's progress forward---are not given a status that protects and honors them.
 | 2a. The Hyles-Nietzschien outlook views women in much the same way. The Hyles Christian Superman is always male. The role of the female is to admire the male and support him. Lower level females do drudge work. The hierarchy of female superiority is determined based on selection by the Christian Supermen, and the basis of selection is beauty and agreeability---the power to offer consolation and pleasure to the Christian Superman. |
2b. Therefore, the relationship between men and women in the Hyles-Nietzschien model is always sexual and/or domination-subjugation but nothing outside of these two parameters. Single young men and single young women are brow beaten not to so much as touch each other, however innocently. Because in Hyles-Nietzschien philosophy, there is no such thing as innocence (or it is purely feminine, and no Christian Superman would stoop to it). There can also be nothing egalitarian in any relationship between a man and a woman. She is not to argue, not to reproach, not to rebuke.
2c. Biblically, of course, Hyles sidesteps the prominence of Deborah, who judged Israel and was a prophetess (“God couldn’t find a man,” according to one of the preachers of that ilk. As though God could not call forth exactly what He needed in whatever form He required. But this is another example as well of the Hyles view that God is helpless unless the Superman saves Him.). Hyles also misses that the coming of Christ was first announced to women; the true mission of Christ was first revealed to a woman (who humbly but specifically made the declaration of what she knew in anointing his feet for burial), and women stayed by Him at the Cross when His disciples has fled. He was also first received by women when He had arisen. Hyles also neglects that in the dispensation of gifts, women were represented. The long pageant of women Christian martyrs is ignored by him. (It helps that he promoted ignorance of church history, so that names like Anne Askew who died by fire for reading the Scripture and professing Christ as salvation and not the sacraments; or the much more recent Edith Cavell, who was killed simply for doing the right thing as a nurse in the field of battle.
| 2d. In the Hyles-Nietzschien model, the virtue of the man is aggression and domination, so rape, child molesting, and sodomizing of little boys is cast in a very different light than that shed by the Bible. Nietzsche didi not expressly teach deviance in sexual behavior (as far as I know), but his mandate that sex is for the pleasure (joy) of the Superman and rests on the exercise of his instincts leaves the protection of the innocent and vulnerable unaddressed. The Nietzschien Superman takes what he wants, and he has the right to take it because he has the strength to take it. If that which is victimized has been designed by Nature to be subjugated, then there is no wrongness in the suffering inflicted upon the victim of rape, sodomy, or molestation. A strong child or woman will overcome the victimization and progress; the weak victim will die, and Nature’s only pronouncement is that the strong will survive and weak perish.
Therefore, when allegations of the abuse of children reached Hyles, he made one of the suspects (A.V. Balinger, later indicted and jailed for molesting a little girl) a hero in the church. As for other allegations concerning graduates and alumni of his school, he hid behind a smokescreen of declaring he was always for the accused (both puzzling and anti-biblical). The onlooker recognizes that in all cases the Hyles-Nietzschien machine expressed more support for the perpetrators and did not extend Christian justice to the victims. And such behavior is consistent with the Nietzschien world view. For a man to seize what he wants, whatever that desire is, is what he is entitled to do, provided he has the strength to do it. To accord legal protection to the weak is to restrict the progress of the Superman. To all appearances, Hyles’ behavior was exactly consistent with Nietzschien policy. |  |
2e. In the Hyles-Nietzschien view, the social structure does not admit the work of God in women in terms of knowledge, wisdom, and fellowship with God. They are not extensively protected; nor are they given honor; nor are they respected. Women fall into one of two classes, the elite, who are dressed and coiffed to express honor and status for the men; and the drudges, who do the bus work, Sunday School work, and other tasks.
Tuesday, December 23, 2003
 | Chocolate, Christmas, and self indulgence
So far, I have tried three times in the last week to buy Scharffen Berger chocolates for my cronies at work, and every time I've eaten the chocolates before I could give them away. This destructive cycle has GOT to stop. I've eaten more chocolate in the last week than I've eaten in the last year. But today is the real thing. Tomorrow is Christmas Eve, so I am buying another batch tonight. I will lock them in the trunk of my car and leave them there until I get to work tomorrow! |
Sunday, December 21, 2003
That Hyles-Anderson College Education Demonstrates Itself Again
 | Here's a gem, posted by a graduate of Hyles-Anderson college who also styles himself a pastor:
Does anyone know... Posted by Pastor Marty Braemer on Dec-21-03 11:34am |
I received a card that contained an interesting story about the song: The 12 Days of Christmas as actually being a Christian song. The partrige in the pear tree is Jesus on the cross and so on. Each item had a "biblical" meaning. Is this acurate or is someone simply putting their interpretation to it?
I really would like to know because it would make a wonderful illustration. The account records that in England during the period that the public display of Christianity was illegal that songs like this were sung with hidden meaning.
 | Re: Does anyone know...
Posted by BASSENCO on Dec-21-03 12:26pm (In reply to: Does anyone know... posted by Pastor Marty Braemer on Dec-21-03 11:34am) |
>>>during the period that the public display of Christianity
>>>was illegal
When, oh when was that period, Marty?
BASSENCO
| Re: Does anyone know...
Posted by Pastor Marty Braemer on Dec-21-03 2:44pm (In reply to: Re: Does anyone know... posted by BASSENCO on Dec-21-03 12:26pm) |
Middle Ages, Bass. In proper perspective we should note that any public form of Christianity contrary first to the Catholic Church was outlawed. Henry VIII broke away and established the Anglican church. Then you could not practice contrary to the Church of England.
John Bunyan was imprisoned for public preaching/witnessing w/out a license. Queen Mary wouldn't allow people to own the Bible. It was chained to the pulpit and became known as the Chain Bible. English translators of early Bibles were hunted as outlaws and became martyrs.
It was a sivel question that got the typical Bassenco arrogant answer. You are puffed up with knowledge and self righteousness.
| Neither HenryVIII/Bunyan lived during MiddleAges
Posted by BASSENCO on Dec-21-03 3:15pm (In reply to: Re: Does anyone know... posted by Pastor Marty Braemer on Dec-21-03 2:44pm) |
Whatever bubble gum wrapper you snatched that lesson from was a little too brief and incorrect, Marty. Henry VIII lived during the Early Renaissance period. Michelangelo was already sculpting his great works, and Lorenzo was already turning Florence into a bastion of art, education, and culture by the time Henry ascended the throne in 1509. Colet had already preached a series from the Book of Romans with literal exegesis at St. Paul's (1506) when Henry took the throne.
And Bunyan lived over a hundred years later, during the Later Renaissance and Commonwealth (and Restoration).
Christianity made inroads into England in the 500's AD and was established by the next century. (And no, "The Twelve Days of Christmas" does not pre-date Alfred the Great.) And though the nation was papist (Roman Catholic, if you like) and then Protestant (with a generous portion of the 1500's given to a period when both sides were struggling for supremacy), *Christian symbols* were never illegal during festivals of Christian reference, such as Christmas, Easter, etc.
During Henry's reign, Erasmus made the first Greek text of early manuscripts that he could find into a single text. Henry never forbad him. Later, that text became illegal to translate into English (and thus Tyndale was strangled at the stake for having done so). But none of that happened in the Middle Ages, and Henry never banned public displays of Christian symbols. He persecuted papists who said the King was not the head of the English church, and he persecuted Protestants who published, preached, or professed doctrines that minimized the authority of the state church to declare truth. But the singing of religious carols that told the story of the nativity were never banned, nor were basic facts of the faith ever banned, such as Christ's nativity, His death, and His resurrection.
Yes, people who espoused the right to read the Bible were imprisoned, tortured, and killed under Mary, (and it was truly horrible). But she never banned all public displays of Christian symbols such as the Cross, the displays of angelic heralds, the nativity, etc.
As to where the song comes from: From Medieval England and onward, Christmas has been followed by a twelve day period that culminates in the Feast of the Epiphany, also called Twelfth Night. Historically, Twelfth Night celebrations were focused on enthroning foolishness and declaring a "Lord of Fools" or "Lord of the Feast." It was a wild celebration, marked by drinking, dancing, contests of wittiness, humor, and silliness, and riddles and jests. As time passed and Twelfth Night became more tame and family oriented, the custom of serving a cake or pudding with a lucky coin inside was the way of finding the king of the feast. Whoever got the coin in his cake (or plum pudding), got to be the king.
But "Twelve Days of Christmas" is a harmless, albeit secular song that commemorates the rising foolishness and silliness that was emphasized as Twelfth Night approached. It gets sillier as it progresses, but most of the images are of feasting, dancing, preparing food and a sense of everything needed for a party being in abundance. That's all. The earliest date of the song puts in back during the reign of Charles I. It was not written in the Middle Ages at all, but two full centuries afterward. Your statement is like saying you think a Beatles song carries messages about why we should resist the Boston Tea Tax.
Like so many IFB-KJVO preachers, you are easily taken in by a modern urban myth because you have no depth of knowledge of history. Henry VIII and Mary lived during the Renaissance, not the Middle Ages. They both pre-dated Bunyan by more than a century. Go buy Schaaf's HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH or JA Wylie's HISTORY OF PROTESTANTISM. Both works, in fact, are probably available online as they have passed into public domain.
BASSENCO
| Re: Neither HenryVIII/Bunyan lived during MiddleAg
Posted by Pastor Marty Braemer on Dec-21-03 6:30pm (In reply to: Neither HenryVIII/Bunyan lived during MiddleAges posted by BASSENCO on Dec-21-03 4:22pm) |
Those examples were only meant to serve as snip its to illustrate England's progressive position not to be taken as a chronologically complete historical time line. So when are you coming out with the Bassenco Encylopedia?
Too bad your tact wasn't quick as your response.
| Re: Neither HenryVIII/Bunyan lived during MiddleAg
Posted by BASSENCO on Dec-21-03 8:58pm (In reply to: Re: Neither HenryVIII/Bunyan lived during MiddleAg posted by Pastor Marty Braemer on Dec-21-03 6:30pm) |
Marty, here's the truth: the cure for ignorance is information. You don't know enough about church history to be credible. Go get one of the books I mentioned and read it. It's how scores of people have gotten educated. They read books by reputable authors. That's how I did it. It's the cure for ignorance. If you think I'm arrogant, show me the integrity of your desire to be a good preacher by educating yourself.
BASSENCO
