Reading: "Washington's God"

My reading selection for January is "Washington's God: Religion, Liberty, and the Father of Our Country" by Michael and Jana Novak, about the religious faith of our most well-known Founding Father. The authors' central thesis is that George Washington, contrary to the popular perception that he was a deist and one of the more secular-minded Founders, was a Bible-believing Christian and sincere Episcopalian throughout his life, as evidenced by both his public proclamations and speeches and the consistency of these with his private words and actions.

In keeping with how I normally write my book reviews, I will run through some thoughts on the book, and its thesis and message.

1) Probably the best thing about this book was the combination of my two favorite subjects: history and theology. To illustrate the intersection between the two fields, Part I of the book, entitled "The Man," went through Washington's life, and the specific trials he faced along the way to becoming our first president. The first section that stood out to me was "The Protection of Providence: Heroism on the Monongahela," detailing Washington's survival as a young officer in the Virginia militia during the French and Indian War.

Although I had read about Washington's experiences in the war while in school, and in other accounts of his life, the authors did a superb job of relating Washington's experiences to that with which he would be faced later in life. For example, as the colonel of the Virginia militia, Washington attacked a French column in the area around the Monongahela valley (today the area around Pittsburgh), killing ten men, including Sieur de Jumonville, a French diplomat. The French later took their revenge, attacking "Fort Necessity," Washington's hastily-erected fortification, and decimating his small force. However, under banner of truce, the French offered to let Washington go if he and his men surrendered, which is surprising, considering they could easily have executed Washington and his men in retaliation for Jumonville's death.

Another example from Washington's experiences on the frontier comes from his later expedition to the area with General Edward Braddock, the British commander. Washington wrote that at least four bullets pierced his coat, two horses were shot out from under him, and one Indian chief later recalled that he had at least "seventeen fair fires" at the young officer, none of which (thankfully) found its mark. One could attribute this to extraordinary good fortune or blind chance, but the authors note that with the accuracy with which the attackers' bullets found their marks that day (Braddock and virtually all other officers on horseback were killed), it appears that God had greater things in store for Washington.

Part II of the book, entitled "The Faith," delves more directly into the tenets of Washington's faith, and shows, at least based on his personal words, actions, and writings, that his beliefs appear to have been incompatible with the "deist" school of thought pervasive in many Enlightenment circles at the time. For example, even though Washington often eschewed any public proclamation of his personal beliefs, the authors point to evidence that this was not unusual for someone of Washington's Anglican faith.

As the authors point out, it is important to put Washington's words and actions into their historical context. The eighteenth century was a time in which a divide was growing between newer evangelical churches (such as Baptists and Methodists) and the more traditional Puritan and Episcopalian churches of New England and many areas of the South, including Virginia. Evangelicals of the time tended toward a "warmer," more emotional view of the Lord, stressing a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and the intense feelings following worship and conversion. On the other hand, as Novak and Novak point out, Washington belonged to the Anglican faith, which tended toward less explicit mentions of Jesus Christ, and one's personal relationship with the Savior, in favor of an increased role of reason, drawing upon a long-standing classical and theological tradition. It is too complex to do justice in a blog post, but I would recommend this section of the book for its background into the complex cultural and religious factors that influenced Washington as a man and national leader.

Overall, the book does a wonderful job of providing a historical background that helps explain why Washington may have been less open about his faith than many today would find necessary or comfortable.

2) Aside from the binding together of the theological and historical connotations of the debate over Washington's God, I was struck by the lessons for Christian living in Part III, entitled "The Fruit." Here, the authors present, through his writings and public prayers and proclamations, the lessons learned from Washington's life and travails as a soldier, statesman, and follower of Christ. These are timeless truths, still as relevant today as they were over two hundred years ago, told from the point of view of a man who had lived, and at times suffered greatly, in his role in history. A Christian at any stage of his or her walk with the Lord, or anyone seeking to know more about Christian life and theology, can benefit from these readings from the father of our country.

One of these that stood out as relevant to my life was the notion that God acts through, not in spite of, our strengths and weaknesses as human beings. Beginning in college, and especially in law school, I have been troubled by the idea that somehow, what I say or do will stand in the way of God's plan for my life. But while reading this book, I remembered that God often works not through miracles, or in contravention of free will, but through it-and that this is a sign of the artistry and intelligence He brings to a universe that is at all times under His control. Of course, it is easy to misread this as a license to fail and decrease one's efforts, but God expects our best, and in return, His plan for our lives will be accomplished. This passage underlined for me the importance of faith. I shouldn't panic in the face of a rejection letter or a grade that was lower than I expected, but instead should rejoice that God is using these apparent shortcomings to augment His glory. This is the most important lesson I face in law school, more so than anything found in a casebook.

The other main point I found relevant to my life at this juncture was Washington's firm belief that God's ways are "inscrutable," beyond human knowledge or interpretation. What I came to realize after reading this is that the inscrutability of God's will is something which I still struggle to accept, even after witnessing and going through events that don't fit into some logical framework. Early in high school, like many people my age, I developed a basic schema for how my life was supposed to turn out. Even though many of my ambitions so far have come to pass, I am just now beginning to see that God "winks" in my direction, and may take me in a direction I never anticipated, something grander, more exciting, and far beyond the limits of my capacity to devise or even imagine.

In the end, it comes back to whether I am willing to surrender my dreams, my ambitions, and my life to accomplish God's purpose for putting me on this earth. I am not so naive as to think that this is a passing phase, and that I will "get over it" and completely overcome my pride by age 30, but I am starting to realize that spiritual growth is an ongoing struggle against the forces of darkness in my own heart. This book served for me as a reminder to continue to work to trust God and place Him first in directing my life.

Overall, I recommend this book for its insights into the contrasts between Christianity and deism, as the authors spend a great deal of time explaining the differences, and why Washington belongs to the former. Also, it is an insightful look into the spiritual lessons and growth encountered throughout Washington's lifetime.

Reading: "When People Are Big and God Is Small"

Edward Welch's "When People Are Big and God Is Small" attempts to get at the root of a problem we all face at one time or another: what do we do when we encounter situations where we fear people more than God? This book caught my eye at the CLS conference, and I decided to read this one first-I am currently reading J. Kent Hughes' "Disciplines of a Godly Man," and hopefully will have a review for that soon.

The first part of Welch's book looks at different manifestations of the same problem-the fear of man. According to Welch, this takes on different names, such as "codependency" and "peer pleasure," but the result is the same-we order our lives around what other people think of us. To get at different aspects of the problem, Part I looks at the fear of being seen (the problems of sin-shame and victimization-shame), the fear of being rejected (where people become an idol that replaces the fear of God), the fear of being physically hurt (situations such as past physical abuse), and the idea that the world encourages the fear of man (through its emphasis on self-esteem and radical individualism). Part II runs through the solutions to this spiritual and emotional problem, such as growing in the fear of the Lord, knowing your real needs, and loving enemies and neighbors. Some thoughts on the book in general:

1) One of the passages that had the most impact on me is the section dealing with the difference between faith and feelings, on page 83. Welch points out that "[t]oo often, if our faith is weak, we don't see it as a serious problem. It is only when our feelings are distressing that we decide to ask others for help and prayer."

Reading this made me realize that perhaps sometimes, we stop too soon in seeking out God. Perhaps we are satisfied only with feeling faithful, instead of actually being faithful. I know that many times, it is easy to get discouraged when I pray and seek out God, only to be missing that "feeling" I get when I experience the presence of the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure how many other believers struggle with this same issue, but it gets to the heart of what Welch is saying-we are using the wrong barometer, the wrong scale, to measure God's presence in our lives. Even though we often experience a feeling of His presence and calm during times of prayer, it is important not to commit the Pavlovian error of salivating for food based on the ringing bell.

The deeper spiritual issue behind confusing faith and feelings is that it really boils down to trusting ourselves, not the promises of the Word, for when God is moving in our lives. The Scriptural principle of "ask and ye shall receive" from John 16:24 has been boiled down to "ask and you have received if you feel like it." Our feelings, like our thoughts, are inevitably tainted by our own sinful nature, and thus cannot be reliable in comparison to Scripture. When we base our perceived spiritual well-being upon them, we do so at our own peril.

2) Of the solutions the author discusses to overcome the codependency problem, I was most struck by his call to "delight in the God who fills us." Of all of the stories in Scripture the author could have chosen to illustrate this point, to show the lengths to which God will go to pursue us in His great love, the story of Hosea stands out as one of the best. God commanded Hosea to marry Gomer, an adulteress. Before and during the marriage, she continued her adulterous ways, eventually leaving the marriage to continue her life of prostitution. But Hosea continued to provide her with provisions, never giving up on his commitment to his bride. Eventually, after a nightmarish life of adultery and abuse, Gomer was sold into slavery. But Hosea remained faithful, purchasing her out of slavery and reaffirming the marriage covenant. It is an amazing story reflecting the love God has for us-how He was willing to purchase us from the dead, even at the cost of his Son, because of His love for us.

What stood out to me here is the simple reminder that God is the only One who can fill our need for love and acceptance. Like Gomer, we will stray, and try and find it in a hundred other places, but eventually we will be in bondage to our wayward passions. Yet God is always there, waiting to buy our freedom from what enslaves us, whether it's a physical addiction or a mental pattern of sin in trying too hard to please other people. It was a real encouragement to read the story of Hosea, and be reminded of the sufficiency of God's love and grace.

Overall...I would recommend this book as a practical guide if you are struggling with any issues of being too dependent on others for love, acceptance, and support. It was easy to read because it ran through a list of specific solutions, depending on the form of the problem you are facing. This is especially relevant for us Christians who are in law school, because of the minefield we face in trying to get ahead without trying too hard to please others at God's expense.

Reading: "Alexander Hamilton: American"

I am going to have to go back on what I said in an earlier post. I originally planned to read Richard Brookhiser’s and Ron Chernow’s biographies and review them in one post. Unfortunately, tonight is my last night in Cincinnati, with my copy of Brookhiser’s book. So I will review them separately.

Brookhiser’s “Alexander Hamilton, American” is a detailed portrait of the Founding Father, bringing together each of the stages of his life-his childhood in St. Croix, his arrival in America and service in the Continental Army, and his political (and often legal) conflicts-in psychological and philosophical terms. Brookhiser has an interesting way of putting the biography together, by linking together the various influences on his life to paint a picture of someone whom one might say was an intellectual more than a politician, and a Platonic philosopher-king more than a general. In this way, I believe that Brookhiser’s biography stands not just as a portrait of Hamilton, but of American society itself at the time. Many of those same ideas, those same patterns of thinking, influence us as much as they did our forefathers over 200 years ago. Some thoughts I had about one specific passage:

“The inspired leader can tell a man something he did not know about himself: that he is brave, that he is willing to die. The flatterer tells him what he has already heard, and wants to hear again. Inspiration stimulates virtue; flattery induces contentment.”(p. 167)

How far you go in life depends on what you say to yourself mentally. Different experts call it different things, but in the end, it’s simply how you view yourself, what you are willing to tell yourself to keep going, and how you relate to others. I believe that what the author says here about the difference between inspiration and flattery is relevant to what’s on your mind, and not just what’s on your ballot. It’s a simple distinction: if you are willing to tell yourself the things you need to hear-that you are strong, that you are confident, etc.-then you are going to get ahead in life, at least of the people who don’t. But if you are a self-flatterer, meaning that you tell yourself what you want to hear just to silence the part of you wanting something else, this will keep you in neutral.

How do you know whether you flatter or inspire yourself through your thoughts? I believe it all depends on how comfortable you are with your assumptions, biases, and preconceived notions. If you run through the “inspiring” things that we say-that we are strong, we can get through this difficulty, we know better than to do what we’re doing-most of them are things we usually don’t want to hear. None of us want to hear that we are strong enough to get through a problem; the sinful, human side wants the mountain to go away, rather than for us to have the strength to climb over it. This is even more true when we act in opposition to what we know is right, or in indulging what we know is wrong. The “inspired” side of you tells you what is on your heart-guard your loved one’s heart with your words, take care of the people around, stay away from that addiction. We can implicitly recognize that there is something affirmatively good about the “inspiring” things of life, even when we don’t understand why.


Inspiration is the conscience, and self-flattery is the enemy of the soul.

I recognize that in the end, all of this is circular. We have traveled from the demise of the Roman Republic (Cato “resisted” the people with inspiration to a higher good, as Hamilton put it, while Caesar destroyed the Republic as he resorted to flattery) to the Founding, to today’s inner battle against darkness, and back to the days of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates, some of the first men to recognize the moral implications of politics and rhetoric. I made this journey to stress two points that I think Brookhiser touched on succinctly. One, that there is a critical link between what we perceive as just and good, secular and sacred, public and private, because the normative study of political rhetoric is indistinguishable from study of the antithesis, the conflict within the soul. Two, that even though they are linked, they are apart. Our politics and our civil government can bring peace and prosperity, but they can never solve the problem of sin and bridge the gap between God’s holiness and our own depravity. Maybe this is why Jesus told us to render unto Caesar-that even though our role in public life is to externalize God’s redeeming love, that our ultimate focus should be to place ourselves at the foot of the Cross.

Overall, a decent read if you are interested in biographies on the Founders. I may comment some more after I have read another of Hamilton’s biographies, by Ron Chernow.

Summer of 2006, pt. 8

Two more weeks in Cincinnati, a week in Phoenix, and then back to Columbus:

- I got to do some sight-seeing today, and went to Newport-on-the-Levee on the Kentucky side of the river. It's a nice area, with a shopping mall, all kinds of restaurants and hangout spots, and a huge movie theater. I spent an hour or two just walking through the mall, and especially through the Barnes and Noble that was there. Probably the nicest part of the trip was just sitting on the balcony outside the bookstore, a cup of coffee in hand, watching the Ohio River go by. It was one of those lazy Sunday afternoon kind of moments you wish would last just a little bit longer.




I also went to the Newport Aquarium, which was really nice. I got to see all kinds of fish, including piranhas, jellyfish, and huge sharks. They also had other kinds of animals, including birds, baby alligators, and penguins. At one point, there was an exhibit where you could walk through an aviary with a cup of nectar, and birds would come down and drink right out of your hand. One bird landed on my arm and drank almost the whole cup. There were a lot of bird "accidents" though, including one right on my arm from a bird on a high branch.

Two of the best exhibits were near the end. One room was full of penguins, standing in the dark, probably asleep. The last room was called "Shark Central", and it had a tank where you could pet the sharks and rays that were swimming through, kind of like the exhibit at the Cleveland Zoo we went to a month or two ago. It's amazing how smooth the skin is on sharks, and especially on the ray-the closest thing I would compare it to is probably seaweed.

I also got to do a little bit of sightseeing outside the mall. Two places I got to see in the short time I was there were the birthplace of the inventor of the Thompson submachine gun, and the home of Captain Parker. I also got some nice pictures of the Cincinnati skyline from on the other side of the river.



Overall, a very nice trip to take for the afternoon, even though the place (and especially the aquarium) was crowded. I still have two more places to go see before I head for home a week from Thursday: the Cincinnati Zoo and the Taft Museum. Also, if I have time in the fall, I would like to go watch oral arguments at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals here in town.

I will be adding pictures from Newport soon.

- Reading wise, I am going to try and start adding fiction to my reading lists, probably starting with the Chronicles of Narnia coming this fall. Right now, I have almost finished reading "The Truth About Same-Sex Marriage" by Erwin Lutzer, and I also read "The Lamb and the Fuhrer" by Ravi Zacarias, a very thought-provoking book about what a conversation would look like between Jesus and Hitler. Both were very good books, especially Zacarias', because it gives an analysis of not only the magnitude of Hitler's evil, but also shows how we are all capable of the same sins as the most evil man in history-maybe not to where we would commit the same acts, but it shows that we are yet sinners in God's eyes nonetheless.

Next, I plan to read "Alexander Hamilton: American" by Richard Brookhiser. After that, I plan to read "Alexander Hamilton" by Ron Chernow, and then do sort of a double review, comparing both books in a sort of general post about Hamilton and his legacy. This might be my last non-fiction reading post for a while, though-I would like to read different kinds of books, so after that I may try and get to "The Chronicles of Narnia" for something more fun and easy to read.

Reading: "Original Intent"

On Saturday, I finished reading "Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion" by David Barton. It is based on a simple question, backed up by an incredible amount of historical and primary source material-what were the attitudes of the Founders toward religion, and more specifically, its expressions in public life that are so controversial today?

Barton’s thesis is that based on their public and private writings, the Founders wished to encourage, and not discourage, religious expression in the public square. Rather than being deists, agnostics, or atheists, nearly all were members of some Christian denomination. These men viewed religion, especially Christianity, as a force for good and vital to a free and prosperous society.

To help demonstrate where the Founders stood, and address some popularly held views on the subject, Barton has assembled a tremendous amount of data. Here are some thoughts I had after reading:

One of the reasons I highly recommend this book is for its use of primary sources. Each of the 18 chapters is packed with hundreds of quotes from the Founding Fathers’ statements, letters, public proclamations, judicial opinions, and other sources. “Original Intent,” in my opinion, really stands out as a historical work because of this attention to the original sources. Barton clearly lets the Founders speak for themselves, and does not devote excessive time to his own analysis. It allows the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.

Not only is the primary source material top-notch (the only change is to modernize spellings to make materials easier to read), this book will also serve as a way to learn about many of the Founders who are not included in your average public school curriculum today. Just to name a few:

(Also, note that any quotes or material used in this post comes from David Barton’s “Original Intent,” and its citations. The full citation, if you want to find it at the library, is: Barton, David. Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion. Aledo, TX: WallBuilder Press, 2000.)

1) Justice Joseph Story: referred to as one of the “Fathers of American Jurisprudence” along with Chancellor James Kent; founded Harvard Law School and authored 286 opinions in his 34 years on the Supreme Court. “Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?” Vidal v. Girard’s Executors, 43 U.S. 126, 200 (1844).
2) James Wilson: one of only six men who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He was one of the six original Supreme Court Justices, appointed by President Washington, and along with Thomas McKean, co-authored the first “Commentaries on the Constitution” in 1792. “Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” Elliot’s Debates, Vol. II, p. 413, July 26, 1788.
3) Chancellor James Kent: wrote the four-volume Commentaries on American Law, which became the standard for lawyers-in-training in America throughout the nineteenth century. “[E]very citizen might freely speak, write, and print, on any subject, [but is] responsible for the abuse of that liberty.” Commentaries on American Law (New York: O. Halsted, 1827), Vol. II, pp. 17-18, Lecture XXIV. “Of the Rights of Persons,” quoting the Louisiana constitution, Article VI, §21.

There are scores, maybe hundreds of individuals, and thousands of quotations such as those above, to which the author cites, and he could probably have cited more. At the back of the book, he gives a complete list of biographies of all the individuals discussed in preceding chapters. For purposes of study, on page 8, he defines a “Founding Father” as “one who exerted significant influence in, provided prominent leadership for, or had a substantial impact upon the birth, development, and establishment of America as an independent, self-governing nation.” According to Barton, this encompasses a) the signers of the Declaration of Independence; b) Presidents of Congress during the Revolution; c) prominent Revolutionary generals; d) delegates to the Constitutional Convention; e) early state governors who played a role in the ratification and adoption process; f) members of the First Congress, Supreme Court, and early Executive Branch.

I think that the magnitude of the impact this is likely to have on one’s intellectual approach to that time period underscores how narrow our view of the Founders has become over time. With television, Internet, and our hectic schedules, it is easy to take a quote or two out of context, or gather secondary or even tertiary material, and make a generalization as to the group who wrote the Constitution. I am guilty of this thought pattern to some extent-before I read this, and heard Mr. Barton speak at Phase I of the Blackstone, I believed that the Founders were divided between secularist and more traditionally Christian attitudes on matters of religion. Now, even though I am still forming my own opinions, it appears as though they spoke with a more unified voice than I realized, one that sounds radically different from those calling for “separation of church and state” today.

One other feature of this book to check out is the last three chapters, or any other part of the book that deals with many of the misconceptions people hold about what the Founders believed. One chapter, entitled “Revisionism: A Willing Accomplice,” deals not only with the historical inaccuracies that are out there regarding the Founding generation (i.e. Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists meant to assure them that the federal government would not interfere with their free exercise rights, not that it must intervene to prevent them in public), but with personal attacks designed to discredit them in their role in history (i.e. the slavery issue is discussed at some length). This is a strong resource for re-examining much of the “conventional wisdom” and historical knowledge that is in the public arena today.

Overall…a very fulfilling read, and well worth your time if you have an interest in law, particularly constitutional law, American history, and its implications for public policy issues. It may take about 10-12 hours to read, since it is about 350 pages plus appendices. I recommend it to help get the historical context for the culture war being waged in our country today.

The Reading List

Now that I have attended Phase I of the Blackstone, I plan to greatly increase my extracurricular reading, either for learning or entertainment. Right now, I am reading David Barton's "Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion," about the Founding Fathers and their attitudes on the role of Christianity and religious principles as applied to the First Amendment and civic government. I am about 60% of the way through it, and will have a post about it soon.

Also, any new posts about "Reading" will just have the name of the book, instead of "part 3," "part 4," and so on. This is so I can balance my learning between history, law, Christian apologetics, fiction, and other related fields.

It is difficult to keep up with all of the books I want to read, particularly those that were recommended to us during Phase I. It seemed as though after every speaker gave his or her presentation, I had about 3 or 4 new books to add to the list. But even if it takes the rest of law school, I plan to read them all. For now, though, here are some of the books I plan to make a priority to read before the end of the year:

Blackstone's "Commentaries."

"Christianity and the American Commonwealth" by Charles Galloway.

"Christianity and Culture" by J. Gresham Machen.

"Rhetoric" by Aristotle.

"Prince Caspian" and any other entries in the "Narnia" series, by C.S. Lewis.

Reading, pt. 2

Yesterday, I finished the second of two books I have read on my own this semester.

This is compared to 6-8 I would have had time to read during my undergraduate years. One of those expressions people like to repeat is that "the law is a jealous mistress". I definitely understand now what those people were talking about, because my free time to devote to reading and personal enrichment has been about a third of what it used to be. If you are in undergrad and reading this, and thinking about law school, be prepared to work your tail off, because that's what you'll be doing in law school, and in your career as well.

But getting back to reading:

1) The first book I read this semester was Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond. He is a professor at UCLA, officially teaching geology, but has a broad range of knowledge in ornithology and environmental history, among other things. The basic premise of his book was that some societies in the past failed, and others succeeded, because of environmental factors. Some of these factors were induced by the population, and some occurred naturally, but different societies responded either successfully or unsuccessfully, thus "choosing" to fail or succeed.

The book is basically structured as a case study of past and present societies, such as the Greenland Norse and Easter Islanders (past), and China and Australia (present). Before each case study, Diamond included a chapter that listed the factors he would consider for each; these were things such as cultural traditions, the way the society made decisions (passed down from chiefs or decided by individuals), and the amount of contact with other cultures or societies, such as through trade. Then for each case study, he ran through the factors to determine what caused the society to collapse, or succeed and survive to the present day. The Greenland Norse and Easter Islanders died out because they depleted their natural resources and lived in almost total isolation from other societies; Tokugawa Japan succeeded because the shoguns regulated deforestation several hundred years ago, and preserved the country's environment.

The last part of the book talked about environmental conditions today-how companies are adopting new, more environmentally-friendly policies, for example, or factors that will either preserve the environment or destroy it.

When I first got into the book and found out it was all about environmental history, my first impression was that it would be another Silent Spring-type book written by another alarmist professor, talking about the proverbial sky was falling unless we began living like cave people and gave up all luxuries or vestiges of modern life. But Diamond's approach was actually pretty reasonable, and I thought he made some good points. One was that it is actually in many corporations' best interests to adopt environmentally sound policies, since it helps with securing contracts in developed and developing countries. Another was that societies have to have the courage and foresight to adapt their behavior to environmental realities, instead of holding on to their cultural traditions at any cost. For example, one Pacific island thrived after the islanders killed their pigs, which were a status symbol even though they harmed the environment, yet the Greenland Norse held on to cows until the very end, which factored into their collapse by starvation in the 13th and 14th centuries.

Overall....a good read, although it took me a long time to read (about 2 months) because of the dense material, and since I only spent about 10-15 minutes a day on it. I would recommend it if you want to learn more about how environmental conditions affect the course of history. It is also a good companion to one of Diamond's other books, Guns, Germs, and Steel.

2) The other book was 1776 by David McCullough, the Pulitzer-Prize winning historian (I will get around to reading his book John Adams soon). 1776 talks about this pivotal year of the Revolutionary War from the British and American perspectives, starting with the political tumult in England over the war, and covering the siege of Boston, the battle for New York, and finishing with Washington's attack on Trenton and crossing of the Delaware.

Instead of having a specific thesis like Diamond, McCullough's book takes the form of a narrative, focusing on the generals (Washington, Henry Knox, and Nathanael Greene for the Americans and William Howe, Henry Clinton, and Charles Cornwallis for the British) and the "regular people" in both armies. It was a spectacular read and I thought it was very entertaining-I read this one in three days over spring break.

I actually had a few thoughts and reflections on the book, that might apply to the Christian experience, law school, or life in general:

A) If there was ever a lesson on confidence you could get from the history books, look to George Washington. Whatever his other failings were, a lack of leadership was definitely not one of them. Washington was the American Revolution. At one point (p. 43), McCullough quotes the patriot Benjamin Rush as saying that he "has so much martial dignity in his deportment that you would distinguish him to be a general and a soldier from among 10,000 people."

Not that I come from a military background, but this is the kind of confidence I need to project that I lack too many times. Why? Who knows. All I know is that I need to start acting more confident, then maybe I will be more confident. One of the book's recurring themes was that Washington was miserable and down in his spirits about the war, from all the hardships he faced as commander, but he always kept his chin up and inspired respect when the Glorious Cause was in its darkest days. If you need to exude confidence, there is no better example than that.

B) As a Christian, reading 1776, I was impressed by how God used people like Henry Knox and Nathanael Greene to lead the American army, one of the most important causes in all of human history. Neither was born into wealth or an aristocracy. Knox was an overweight bookseller before the war, who became a highly decorated artillery commander. Greene had a limp from a previous accident, and was not even considered fit to drill with a militia company, yet he ended up being Washington's right-hand man and commanding Continental troops in the South later in the war.

The amazing thing is, the world had written these guys off. Who were they next to William Howe and Lord Cornwallis, rich noblemen who were some of the best military minds in the world? But we all know how the story ends. I believe it was God's hand that gave America its independence, and He used these two men, and so many others, so that we could be free today. This is a lesson too-no matter what your circumstances, no matter what you did before, just put your trust in the Lord and He will make a way. "With God, all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26 KJV).

C) No way to prove this, but there were so many miraculous twists and turns in the story of the American Revolution, that I truly believe God had a hand in it all. Just one example: when Washington's army was surrounded by the British on the edge of Long Island in New York, they were severely outnumbered and had to escape. On land, they were surrounded by the British army, and they had their backs to the East River, where the British fleet could come at any time and trap the army, thus the war would be over and the British would have won. Yet amazingly, the wind blew out of the northeast and kept the British fleet at bay, and shifted to blowing out of the southwest just long enough, and at the exact time, to allow the American army to escape across the river. Not only that, but when not all of the troops got across before dawn, a thick fog settled over the area, preventing an all-out British attack. Coincidence? I don't think it was.

I know this has been a long post, but I will be reading more books in the coming weeks, and posting on them again. Collapse and 1776 were both great, and I hope my schedule allows me to read more again soon.

Reading, pt. 1

For the past six weeks or so, I've been reading a book called "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. Basically, it talks about a half dozen or so classical societies, including the Greenland Norse, Maya, and inhabitants of Polynesia-and how their societies folded due to environmental factors. I'll talk about it if I ever decide to I finish it. It's taking a long time, because the only time I get to read is for 10-15 minutes when I go to bed.

Not the most interesting book for me. Even though it sort of deals with history, I'm more into military/political/economic history than environmental. The next book I read is going to be something more along the lines of the Civil War, Founding Fathers, etc.