THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY OF HISTORY

 As I mentioned in an earlier essay, Douglas Murray is one of my favorite social critics. He possesses a sharp intellect, dry writ, a mischievous smile, and the ability to get to the heart of the matter at hand. Just recently I came across on YouTube a series he hosts called “Uncensored History.” Each episode of the series deals with one historical figure or group as Murray interviews a historian as they attempt, quite successfully I believe, to put that person or persons in a proper historical perspective. Therefore, I highly recommend “Uncensored History” to any serious student of history.

To date, I have watched two episodes- Winston Churchill in which Murray interviews Churchill biographer Andrew Roberts and Robert E. Lee in which Murray interviews Lee biographer Jonathan Horn. Rather than attempt to “whitewash” their subjects, Murray and the biographers analyze their subjects into a prism of what I call “the good, the bad, and the ugly” of history. Simply put, all historical figures are a rich and complex blend of good and bad characteristics, motives, and actions with all-too-often ugly outcomes. But such historical analysis must be based on facts, not myths.

For example, sustained criticisms of Churchill are fueled by two myths- his supposedly highhanded putdown of a Welsh miners strike in 1912 while he was British Home Secretary and three decades later, his supposed inaction during a famine in India while Prime Minister. In Lee’s case he did little to help restore the Union following the Civil War. I will direct the astute reader to Roberts’s and Horn’s biographies respectively for full discussions dispelling these myths.

Rather than dive into a sustained study of both Churchill and Lee, I will now identify and described albeit briefly several ideas I pulled from these two episodes. These ideas are-

o   BEWARE OF IDEOLOGY- All of us have biases and if we are not careful, our biases in the study of history will lead us to confirm “what we already know” about the past rather than opening us into new vistas of learning. In my own case, I had a negative view of Ronald Reagan. I had thought of Reagan as a kind of “simpleton.” I held that view all through Reagan’s presidency until I read Lou Cannon’s masterful Reagan: Role of a Lifetime and then his Governor Reagan. I now consider Reagan to be one of our top ten presidents.

 

o   EDUCATE YOURSELF BROADLY NOT NARROWLY- Andrew Roberts during the Churchill episode particularly lamented the demise of the general reader and the rise of over-specialization. This situation is directly related to the hedgehog/fox dichotomy I have described in previous essays. We can be focused on a career without being overly narrowly devoted to one’s career to the exclusion of all other interests.  Churchill was not only a politician he also authored about three dozen books and was awarded a Nobel Prize in Literature. And in 1947, he recorded a conversation he had with his then decreased father. At the end of their meeting Churchill realized that his father departed thinking his son was only a painter (which he was). In Lee’s case he began as a military engineer, then became an army commander, and when he died was a college president expanding the curriculum to fit the needs of the students.

 

o   THERE ARE INDEED GREAT MEN (AND WOMEN) IN HISTORY- Historical events are not always driven by impersonal forces that rarely are adequately explained. These situations are usually the products of deterministic and scientific theories of history that speak with a Marxist twang. Great men and women do exist and assist in historic change in human events. Assist is the operative word here. Even Churchill and Lincoln, for example, had essential help in the great crusades they led, free the world of Nazi tyranny and preserve the Federal Union and end slavery, respectively.

 

o   HISTORY IS NOT JUST ABOUT OUR SUCCESSES, BUT ALSO OUR MISTAKES AND WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED- History is not a dream land filled with fairies and unicorns (bad humor aside); it is nuanced, contradictory, and messy. Humans are all flawed and are described as essentially sinful through Christian theology. So, all our heroes are imperfect and often accomplish great feats with mixed motives. Lee was wrong in the side he chose in the Civil War but was not entirely evil, and it is wrong for us supposedly “enlightened” persons to eradicate all memories of him and others we nitpick in our objections to them and their actions and policies. Edmund Burke was correct in his warning to his contemporaries in the 18^th century and future generations- “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.”

 

History is indeed the canvas on which our lives are richly portrayed. Some of the events are portrayed by “etch-n-sketch”, others through “paint-by-the-numbers”, while some are painted by the masters. Nevertheless, all blend together to help us walk into the future with both confidence and humility.

 

 

 

ON MARRYING WELL

 My grandson’s recent wedding reminded me of the importance of marrying well, a subject I am afraid does not receive much coverage. Let’s examine first some barriers to a superb marriage.

The identification of the first barrier to a superb marriage I owe to social and literary commentator William Deresiewicz from his book A Jane Austen Education in which he examines six of Austen’s novels highlighting lessons in love, friendship, and the “things that really matter.” My wife’s favorite Jane Austen novel is Pride and Prejudice and in particular the 1995 BBC production which dramatizes the storied romance between Elizabeth Bennet and Mister Darcy, which she watches several times a year.

Deresiewicz criticizes one of the characters form Pride and Prejudice on the subject of marriage. It was not the libertine George Wickham who married one of Elizabeth’s younger sisters nor the social pandering William Collins who sought to marry Elizabeth before settling on her best friend who earned Deresiewicz’s ire. Rather, it was Mister Bennet, Elizabeth’s father, who was heavily criticized. Why? Because he purposely married ‘beneath himself” and thus lacked respect for Mrs. Bennet.

Mrs. Bennet was an anxious and insecure woman who loudly shared her daily frustrations to whomever who was within earshot. Mr. Bennet, in contrast, remained calm, cool, and collected in the midst of his wife’s routine outbursts. And he used these occasions to talk down to her as if her concerns were not worth his time. The bottom line to Deresiewicz’s criticisms is that our fictional Mr. Bennet did not marry well because he married a woman he could easily ridicule.

The second barrier also derives from fictional literature. In Herman Wouk’s The Winds of War and War and Remembrance, the reader is introduced to Victor and Rhoda Henry, and their troubled marriage which was a submerged theme in both novels. Victor was a serious-minded naval officer and Rhoda a dissatfied, bored, and often frivolous wife. While Victor rose to increased responsibilities due to World War II, Rhoda became a functional alcoholic and engaged in several affairs during her husband’s often absences. They finally divorced towards the end of the war.

Despite Rhoda’s numerous character defects, I hold Victor as the primary antagonist in their marriage. I believe Rhoda was as dissatisfied and bored with her life, and often engaged in frivolous pursuits when she and Victor first met as she was three decades later. Victor lacked the self-awareness that he could not be the best husband for Rhoda throughout the remainder of their lives. Rhoda lacked the capacity for personal growth without much encouragement and lavished attention that Victor could not bestow upon her due to his naval responsibilities. In addition, Victor indulged Rhoda’s weaknesses. In other words, he did not marry well because he married a woman who could not be his lifelong partner.

Putting aside some barriers to marrying well, we will now examine some positives to look for in our spouses. The first characteristic is physical attraction. Men and women contemplating marriage should have a chemistry between them and that chemistry should include sexual attraction. Yes, marital sex should be good for both partners or at least tolerable, for one of them.  But beware- the flowers fade and the grass withers so to speak and age catches up with all of us. While sexual activity diminishes for a variety of reasons, a sexual spark can continue between two partners who married well regardless of age or circumstance.

The next characteristic is to marry someone of the opposite gender who possesses a strong personality. In other words, a spouse should be confident and skilled enough not to be absorbed into the otter’s personality. A goal of mature marriage is mutual interdependence, not independence or dependence. A corollary characteristic to a strong personality is to marry someone who has a complimentary temperament. For example, my wife and I are both introverts, but we differ elsewhere in our temperaments, I am a stoic in outlook while my wife is more open with her emotions. And, while my wife is detail-oriented I possess more of a big-picture orientation.  Granted, our differences have opened us up to interesting conversations. Nevertheless, our love and respect for each other has enabled us to overcome these differences to reach our common goals.

I have saved the characteristic of love for the last to discuss. Marital love can be vastly misunderstood by many who think of love as primarily romantic and is built on feelings. This error leads too many adults to abandon their marriages when their relationships with their spouses did a rough spot and they claim they had “fallen out of love” with their current spouse and are now in love with a new potential partner. This condition, paradoxically, may be true to some extent. Our global population is so large there are perhaps dozens of others with whom we may be compatible in marriage. Yet, marriage from a Christian perspective is a covenant and not merely a legal arrangement. As such Saint Paul explains covenatal love in the thirteenth chapter of his first letter to the Corinthians as found in the Christian New Testament\-

           Love is patient, love is kind, it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

           (Love) does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered.

           (Love) keeps no record of wrongs, does not delight in evil, but rejoices with truth.

           (Love) always protects. Always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

 

Therefore, love is primarily a way of thinking and doing with each spouse self-sacrificially looking out for the needs of the other and doing their best to fulfill those needs through sickness and health, through poverty and wealth, through good times and bad,

When respect, partnership, physical attraction, strong personalities, compatible temperaments, and self-sacrificing covenantal love are combined and mixed well trust ensues. Trust is the social glue which holds relationships, especially marriages, together. Trust permits spouses who married well to develop their own hobbies and interests, have their own friends, and create their own personal private spaces. Without such trust, jealousy ensues and string marriages crumble as life-long commitments are broken.

In closing, adults who marry well are a blessing to themselves and others and are a foundation to a vibrant civil society. Marrying well contributes to our own health and well-being while also raising the possibilities that our children will grow up to be healthy functional adults who can also marry well.

GOD'S VOICE: A DEVOTIONAL

 

Acts 10:9-16

Martin Sheen has had a distinguished career as an actor. Besides playing a fictional President Josiah Bartlett in “The West Wing” Sheen also had a major part in the epic movie “Gettysburg” as General Robert E. Lee. He recounted to an interviewer several years ago that he was in the theater audience as “Gettysburg” premiered in Atlanta Georgia.

According to Sheen, as the film progressed he began to hear a voice several rows behind him telling those around that person the plot twists and turns of the actual battle. Although the unsolicited commentary was quite accurate, Sheen found it to be unwelcomed and bothersome. Since the long movie had an intermission, he silently vowed to confront that person during that time to get him to stop talking. Once intermission arrived Sheen turned around and to his surprise that former President Jimmy Carter was the fellow making the comments.

One afternoon Peter was praying, resting and enjoying the hospitality of Simon the Tanner when he saw a vision and heard God’s voice teaching him that Gentiles were not unclean to prohibit them from entering the covenantal community of faith. Peter’s lunch was interrupted but God was beginning the process of leading the Church to go beyond the traditional tribal, ethnic and cultural boundaries to embrace the whole world.

God’s voice also may be unwelcomed and bothersome to us at the moment of our hearing. It may prove to be a silent voice rather than a loud one heard by many. It may occur in a movie theater or at prayer. Nevertheless, God’s voice will always be accurate directing us through the twists and turns of our own lives- a character flaw needing correcting, a relationship needing restoring, a mission needing accomplishing- which are more hazardous than a horrific battlefield. And as Sheen had discovered that the initially unwelcomed voice belonged to a man he highly respected, Christians will always find the divine voice, unwelcomed or not, belongs to the One worthy of our worship, praise, and obedience.