As I enter this debate/discussion, I ask that you please read all
if you read any, because my missive has a point.  It's just that I tend to
utilize the verbose method of discussion.  For this I apologize and commit
to you that I am seeking brevity as a skill and a habit.
         I think David has made a valid point.  The USA was not founded as
a Christian nation, but I do believe it was a nation founded primarily by
Christians and by those who believed in the wisdom and moral values apart
from the miraculous claims of Christ (e.g. Deists) in the Bible.  My study
of the history of our nation from older sources, as well as some
Reconstructionists, is that the majority so believed in the validity of the
Bible in terms of wisdom and morals that they found no need to define the
nation as a theocracy (i.e. Israel of the Old Testament) but rather held
assumptions that in our current cultural pluralistic context are now being
challenged.  For example, I have never read of anyone debating when life
began; it was assumed that "everyone" accepted the definition of life as
beginning at conception, although they may not have respected the right to
life.  Therefore, logically, no definition in the US Constitution or
subsequent amendments (e.g. the Bill of Rights) would even be discussed.
         Secondly, I think David is right in that he indicates that we
should not look at what Christians have done but rather at the person and
teachings of Christ.  As a Christian I never back away from the fact that
some horrible things have done in the name of our Savior.  This has been a
sad thing to admit but one that we must admit.  Certainly the near-genocide
of native Americans and slavery are two of the worst examples.   I do find
in most discussions that I have had anywhere though that people continue to
look at Christians, not Christ.  He actually is the only one who has been
perfect; we, who follow Him, do fall short of that.  Some who name His
name, have not known Him but have used His name for their own selfish
agendas.  But as the saying goes, "We're not perfect, just forgiven."
         Now what moves me to write is the characterization of my
Savior.  I do not agree with David's portrayal in toto.  Most individuals
with whom I talked have told me that they have only read of Christ in
secondary sources.  I think many of us tend to read secondary sources about
things that seem too involved, too long, too whatever.  Please understand
that I am not saying David has used only secondary sources; I am simply
making a generalization based on my experiences.
          I have found that the only way to really understand Jesus, and
thus God, is through what I consider His primary source, the Bible.  I
believe the reading of the Book of John in the New Testament gives you a
clear but succinct picture of the Savior, when we put aside preconceived
notions of secondary sources.  I am not trying to persuade anyone to put
their trust in the Savior.  I am simply saying that objective accuracy in
each individual's mind demands that we read primary sources in the
historical context of its writing (i.e. first century AD, Israel).  And
while I know that no original manuscripts are extant, the number of copies
without critical changes are huge when compared to Caesar's Gaelic Wars and
other writings of antiquity.
         I find the debate very stimulating.  One might ask why.  I think
the issues upon which we have touched, have significant bearing on our work
as leaders in education and in our national discourse on the future of our
great nation.  I am an idealist who believes that there is ultimate truth
which matters and that our actions based upon our acceptance or rejection
of ultimate truth have consequences, good and bad.  Choosing not to believe
in gravity does not make it ineffectual if I jump off the Empire State
Building without a parachute, hang-glider, etc.
         Let us continue the debate on our campus.  Let us enlarge it
without rancor or pejorative remarks.  Let us learn from each other both in
our presentations and in our criticism.  May our honest seeking bring out
the truth of our positions, our assumptions and our conclusions so that we
can examine them carefully and present them rationally and let our students
choose as we have chosen...as Americans with choice, not always to act, but
at least to believe.

Bill Henry
Project Manager
WesTech CTC
423-634-0175



>X-Auth-No:
>X-Sender: [log in to unmask]
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
>Approved-By:  David Garrison <[log in to unmask]>
>Date:         Fri, 22 Aug 2003 13:23:49 -0400
>Reply-To:     David Garrison <[log in to unmask]>
>Sender:       UTC Staff E-Mail List <[log in to unmask]>
>From:         David Garrison <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject:      [UTCSTAFF] Jesus
>To:           [log in to unmask]
>
>Colleagues,
>
>The current raven discussion about whether the US is a Christian nation is
>silly. Entering this discussion is equally silly. I do it with head bowed.
>The US is not, nor has it ever been, anything close to Christian. Never.
>Please, please, please, folks, notwithstanding Prof. Geevarghese's lovely
>paean to protestantism (though it occurs to me now it might have been
>tongue-in-cheek, or, at least, I hope it was), let's please divorce
>Christianity from US citizenship. This is not to say that among our
>citizenry there are those who attempt Christian lives, just as among the
>citizenry of almost every country, there are those who make that attempt.
>However, the political boundaries that define the US are not related to
>institutional manifestations of Christianity, except through certain
>accidents of history--the same "accidents" of history, by-the-by, that led
>to the near-genocide of native peoples on the continent, to slavery, to
>capital punishment, to the making of war, and on and on and on. What does
>"thou shalt not kill" mean after all if it doesn't mean thou shalt not drop
>bombs on people? It may be in the national interest for our government to
>attack a foreign country. It is not, however, in a Christian interest to do
>so. The political entity that is the United States is not Christian, except
>in the minds (or purses) of those who wish to use that delusion for
>personal or institutional gain. Jesus had little or no interest in
>fatherland or motherland. He was not a builder of nations but a fisher of
>men, not a politico but a humanist, not a capitalist but a socialist, maybe
>even a communist, determined to keep our eyes focused on the other side, on
>the dark side of the sparrow's wing. He was certainly not a man of greed or
>ownership, interest, stocks and bonds, arms shipments, invasions into the
>lands of other people, slavery, or generally nasty national arrogance.
>Aargh. Individual Americans may attempt to be Christian (or Buddhist or
>Muslim or whatever). But, God bless 'em, America is not.
>
>
>David Garrison
>Professor and Head
>Department of English (2703)
>University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
>615 McCallie Ave
>Chattanooga, TN 37403
>423 425 4238
>423 425 2282 (fax)
>mailto:[log in to unmask]