One Fine Day - Part I

As stated previously one of my goals in retirement is to do a lot of reading thereby making up a lot of lost time over the past few years. Since we got back from England in March, I have been doing just that - I have probably read more books in six months than in the past six years combined. A subset of the goal to read more was (and is) to work my way through the books I already have - at some point I will write about my issues with buying books, but for the moment suffice it to say that I own far books than I have read.

So the idea was to focus on reading what I already have as opposed to buying or borrowing other books, new or otherwise. While I have certainly made progress there too, it gets subverted frequently as I learn about authors and books that are new to me. Case in point is two posts by Elaine over at Random Jottings of a Book and Opera Lover (http://randomjottings.typepad.com/) about books set in English villages which contained the names of a number of authors who are new to me.

Of particular note was a book called "One Fine Day" by Mollie Panter-Downes, Elaine quoted a passage from the book that by itself made me want to read it. So while down at the Rutgers library last week doing baseball history research, I checked the stacks and was able to find a copy of this short novel (184 pages) about one day in an English village in 1946. Due to its short length I was able to finish it in just a few days. I think it is an extraordinary book, one that I am confident that I didn't fully understand and will both want and need to read again.


At the heart of the book is the Marshall family, Laura, Stephen and their daughter Victoria. They are presented as a middle class family that before the war enjoyed a life where most of the manual type labor was done by servants. Now in this new post war world, servants are no longer available and Laura and Stephen are having a hard time adjusting. They are now having to do work to maintain a home and household that they are not used to doing, haven't been trained to do - in some cases things that they were trained not to do or at least not to think about.


My initial reaction to their difficulties was fairly negative, sort of a reverse snobbism. Life without servants - get used to it, grow up - that kind of thing. But the more I think about it, that initial reaction feels like a kind of literary "presentism" - judging the past by the present - a more typical problem in history. I have written a lot about my sense that the Civil War generation in the U.S. doesn't get sufficient credit today for ending slavery because today the very idea is so unthinkable.

The life the Marshalls lived in before the war was the life they were prepared for, the life they inherited. It is unfair, therefore, to think that they should easily accept the end of that way of life. Especially after enduring the risks and deprivations of war for five to six years - it is hard not to understand their asking, "What was the purpose of these sacrifices,?" "What did we ultimately win by winning the war?" It reminds me in some ways of the famous American movie, "The Best Years of Our Lives," the story of the difficulties faced by three American servicemen adjusting to civilian life.


Looking at it this way, it seems to me that the bulk of the story is about how Stephen and Laura, especially Laura, work through these issues. What is tested then in large measure is their devotion to England now that it is a very different England that to paraphrase Arthur Conan Doyle's words, "lies in the sunshine once the storm has past." How they see the enduring good in England is something I will try to address in my next post, addressed, of course, from an American point of view.

Civil War 150th Anniversary - New Jersey Style

The main reason there was no post yesterday was that I was out most of the day first doing research for the base ball pioneer project, but more importantly attending a meeting about the 150th anniversary of the American Civil War which will begin in 2011. Earlier this year I had reached out to a small group of the New Jersey Civil War community to see if there was interest in convening a group of interested parties to start discussing how New Jersey might observe this anniversary.

We had our first meeting yesterday and there was a high level of interest, commitment and belief that it is important that New Jersey observe this anniversary and do so in an appropriate way. Perhaps not surprisingly there was unanimity that the Civil War is one of the most important events in American history and that New Jersey's role is not adequately studied, taught and known. Given those in attendance none of this was a surprise, but we went on to have a good discussion about how to organize this effort with some discussion of the content. We are going to keep meeting and I am excited about being part of this effort.

As is obvious from my posts about books about Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln I have been doing a lot of thinking about the Civil War. What has become clearer to me is how much of a turning point the Civil War was in our history. Clearly before the war the United States was a nation committed to high principles, but with a cancer eating at its core - the cancer of slavery. As I wrote the other day it seems hard to believe that there was any peaceable way to end slavery which, if true, means that in this case war was the only answer and who won that war was crucial to the nation's future.

Had the south prevailed there would have been two nations, one with an economic system based on slavery and buttressed by a philosophy of racism. There might not have been slaves in the north, but as time passed it seems likely that economic relations between the two nations would have been rebuilt so that much of the north's economy would have been tied into this same system. And with an adjoining nation built on the belief of the inferiority of blacks, it is very questionable how much real progress blacks would have seen in the north even if they weren't slaves. It is also worth nothing Major Henry Hitchcock's comment after taking part in both the March to the Sea and the Carolina campaign - "Talk about negro slavery! - if we haven't seen white slaves from Atlanta to Goldsboro, I don't know what the word means." Perhaps the whole nation needed - "a new birth of freedom."

This is what makes the war so important, makes it important it is studied and remembered, and makes it important New Jersey observe this anniversary and use it as an opportunity to do something about past failures to teach this important aspect of our history. The photo that accompanies this post is one of the battle flags of the 33rd New Jersey taken shortly after the war. It became tattered in a good cause, we need to make sure that its memory is not tattered because we forgot.

Emma

Last week I finished "Emma" so I have now read four of Jane Austen's full length novels with only "Persuasion" and "Northanger Abbey" to go. The latter two appear to be quite short perhaps not much longer combined than "Emma" or "Mansfield Park" alone. In the introduction to "Emma" (which I always read after I have read the book) there was something about the importance of reading Austen's novels more than once since you look for other things once you are not focused on how the story will come out. This may be something I need to do, at least with "Mansfield Park" and "Emma."

One thing that stood out for me in "Emma" was a number of the subsidiary characters who are very well drawn. In writing about "Mansfield Park" I suggested that these two novels may represent Austen's moving to another level as a novelist - after the success of her first two books and before her declining health impaired her ability to work. Of special note to me in "Emma" are Mr. Woodhouse and Miss Bates, one a chronic hypochondriac and worse, the other a chronic talker. While these habits are not necessarily endearing, Austen's portrayal of them makes them both funny and to some degree endearing.

Perhaps the only unsympathetic character in "Emma" is the local vicar - Mr. Elton. This is interesting because it represents the second time (Mr. Collins in "Pride and Prejudice" being the first) where an Anglican minister is presented in something less than glowing terms. Interesting because, of course, Austen's father was an Anglican minister. One would guess that Austen probably knew Anglican clergy fairly well, raised by one, no doubt hearing stories of countless others and also probably meeting a number of them at different times. After working for almost 25 years in the Episcopal church, I am well aware of the many issues facing clergy children - enough to make me wonder about Austen's motivation for at least twice presenting pictures of unattractive behavior of men of the cloth.

My reading of two Austen novels this year has closely followed reading about five Trollope novels. Reading them in contrast like that made one thing about Austen's world especially clear - the difficulty of travel and how sheltered one's existence was away from major cities. In Trollope travel is almost always by railroad, neither simple nor easy, but it pales in comparison to Austen's world where horseback and stage were the only means of any kind of distance travel. Witness how in "Mansfield Park" Fanny is really stranded at Bristol until someone (ie. a protective male) can come and bring her back to Mansfield Park. George Eliot's novel, "Adam Bede" has been described as being about life in England before the railroad - Austen's novels are even more so.

One complaint about "Emma." As in "Mansfield Park," Austen sets up a two/one romantic situation creatring drama about who will be married and who will be left out. While in "Mansfield Park" the problem was resolved by someone giving into their bad side, in "Emma" it is resolved by one person falling in love with someone else. The latter relationship is present throughout the book, but no explanation is given for the one of the two giving up the one and marrying someone else. Indeed, the book ends without Emma herself understanding how this happens - it seems too easy a way out of someone being disappointed. But this complaint should not be seen as being anti-Jane. I am enjoying myself, looking forward to the last two and then on to "The Jane Austen Book Club."

Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union

This past week I finally finished Robert Remini's almost 800 page biography of Henry Clay, long time Senator from Kentucky, Secretary of State under JQ Adams, and three time unsuccessful presidential candidate. This makes the third of Remini's biographies of major American political leaders of the first half of the 19th century that I have read, the others being his three volume biography of Andrew Jackson and a one volume biography of Daniel Webster. Remini is a distinguished professor and scholar who I have seen many times on CSpan. At the same time I have to say that I always seem to find his biographies somewhat disappointing.

There is no question that they are exhaustively researched, comprehensive and then some, and the writing is certainly accessible. I think it is more that to me they tend to be long detailed accounts of the subject's live with only limited amounts of analysis and explanation. I may be mistaken in that, but it sure feels that way. The Clay biography is an example. One of the reasons I read it was that I wanted to get some understanding of Whig principles. After all the Whigs were one of the two major political parties in the 1830's and 40's and elected two presidents in that time frame.

Yet after all that reading I still don't have a real good sense of what was at the heart of the Whig party. As for Clay for most of the book all that I really took away was that he was charming and a mesmerizing speaker, but not much of a real sense of why he is an important person in American history. I finally got that sense at the end of the book when Remini discusses Clay's role as the driving force behind the Compromise of 1850. Clay had previously played similar roles in the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise tariff of 1833.

As a rule compromisers are not usually people that I admire and that would especially be true of situations where the compromise helped the continuation of slavery which was the case in both 1820 and 1850. However, in Remini's portrayal of Clay's role, it is possible to see Clay as a positive force. Clay comes across as someone who was committed to the Union at a time when many on both sides were not. This made Clay's role important as he was articulating a value system that was certainly not the norm.

Remini repeats the oft made claim that the Compromise of 1850 was key to the ultimate Union victory in the Civil War as it gave the north ten more years to strengthen itself and to find Abraham Lincoln as its war leader. He also speculates that had Clay been elected president in 1844 that the Civil War might well have been avoided. Unlike Polk the ultimate winner, Clay was opposed to war with Mexico making it at least possible that the nation could have avoided war and the huge acquisition of territory that helped put the issue of slavery on the front burner. Given Clay's skills at compromise, the author also thinks it possible that he would have helped find a way to peaceful solution on the slavery issue.

Clay himself was an outspoken opponent of slavery while at the same time owning slaves. Although opposed to slavery, Clay clearly held racist views about the inferiority of blacks which would make a multi-racial society untenable. Like many of his time, Clay supported the colonization of freed slaves back to Africa. Also like many of his time, Clay had no solution except for the vague hope that the white population would increase to the point that it flood the country with such much free labor that there would be no economic basis for slavery,an idea that seems far fetched at best.

All of this reminds me of something I wrote last month about a form of presentism - evaluating the past by modern standards. To us today the very idea of slavery is so horrifying that a system based on it seems almost unimaginable. But the truth is that from before the nation's founding through its first 90 or so years, it not only existed, but it was built upon the pillars of racial prejudice and economic interest. No wonder that Clay opposed it, but had no solution - to come right down to it, no one had a peaceful solution. Only when we understand this, can we begin to understand the depth of the challenge taken on by those who not only opposed slavery, but tried to do something about it.

And only then can we properly appreciate the complexity, difficulty and indeed heroic nature of what they did whether they be John Quincy Adams, William Lloyd Garrison or most important of all, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln not only had to get himself into a position where he could do something about slavery, but then try to lead those who remained in the union - many of whom would ultimately have to overcome their economic self interest and/or their racial prejudices. I started out reading about Henry Clay to understand more about Whip principles, I came away with a greater understanding of the U. S. before the Civil War - not an attractive place to visit (even in the mind) if one believes in the values of the American Revolution

Mansfield Park

Since I last posted about Jane Austen I have finished both "Mansfield Park" and "Emma." What follows is written without doing any real research, just my reactions and observations. To me it seemed that Austen after enjoying some success with her first two books, was now moving or trying to move into the next level of her writing career. Both books are significantly longer than what came before and my sense is that she was trying for more fully developed plots and characters.

What held my attention about "Mansfield Park" was what I saw to be the drama in who Fanny would ultimately marry. Although the Edmund/Fanny possibilities are made clear throughout the book and certainly seem to be written to attract our sympathy, Austen also gradually starts to make Henry Crawford more sympathetic. I found this especially true when he visits Fanny and her family in Bristol, the last place where Fanny would want anyone from her life at Mansfield Park to visit. During those scenes Austen makes Crawford appear to be growing/improving so that if continued it seemed possible that a Crawford/Fanny marriage might be the outcome.

All of this breaks down, of course, when Crawford reverts to the bad Henry, running away with Maria the older of the two Bertram daughters. It felt to me that Austen used this much in the same way she used the Lydia/Wickham elopement in "Pride and Prejudice" as a sort of Deus Ex Machina to move the story to a final solution. The Crawford/Maria relationship had been very strongly suggested earlier in the book, but still the whole thing seemed a little contrived to me.

Austen had created a situation with two possible outcomes (marriages) for her heroine. Her decision to have the one give into the worst angels of his nature also seems too neat and clean. Those who sin are punished for their sins, those who don't are rewarded. This is also the case with the Mary Crawford/Edmund relationship, Henry's sins set the stage for Mary's inappropriate reactions leading Edmund to turn away from that possibility and ultimately turn to Fanny who is, of course, even more available before. An outcome where someone is disappointed even though they did nothing wrong would be more ambiguous, but to me, at least on first thought, more satisfying.

I enjoyed "Mansfield Park," as I said Austen's development of William Crawford to be an almost eligible (from Fanny's perspective) suitor created drama that more than held my attention. There seems to be a pattern in her endings, however, that I find to be disappointing. I will write more about this when I write about "Emma" which will come after I post something about the Henry Clay biography. I should also say that I am thinking a lot about Austen overall which I will probably write about once I have had more time to think about it.

"It's All Stewardship"

Earlier today I posted the stewardship sermon that I preached at St. Paul's in Paterson this past Sunday. Stewardship has been an interest of mine a long time. While some may consider it another word for fundraising to me stewardship is best defined as "What I do after I say I believe" and "Everything that I do with everything I have all of the time" - both well know stewardship definitions.

This year at St. Paul's we have broadened our focus somewhat to look more at our stewardship of everything we have - thus the connection to the parable of the talents. So far I have had interesting conversations with a number of parishioners about both the importance and the difficulty of good financial management. It seems clear that as a church we need to spend more time on this. If so one thing that I think that is essential is that we teach that good financial management begins with giving - only if we give away enough (whatever that is for us) can we expect to manage all of our finances well.

One thing that was unusual about this year's sermon was that I preached it three times, twice in English and once in Spanish. I have preached in English twice in one day many times and also have preached in Spanish before, but never all three in one day. In fact it was the first time I had ever been to three church services in one day which was exhausting by itself. I think it went all right, the primary goal was to have the same message at all three services - I still think that is a good idea.

The experience once again made me reflect on the fact that I am bi-lingual, able to communicate effectively in both English and Spanish - listening in Spanish is still a challenge. I took four years of Spanish in High School and two more in college. The reason I took Spanish (for some reason I wanted to take French) was that my father had supposedly studied Spanish and he could help me with the language. Looking backward I don't know why anyone thought that was a good idea, but it certainly never materialized.

While I studied Spanish for six years, I really hadn't used much from 1966 until about 2000. it is amazing how much of it I retained which is due to my memory - I am both blessed and cursed with an exceptional memory. It is a gift, certainly not something that I earned. This experience was different because this was the first time that I had to practice the same sermon in two different languages. For obvious reasons, I had to spend more time on the Spanish, but I found that when I turned to the English version I really didn't have to practice it that much - practicing it in Spanish helped me with the English version.

My parents made the decision that I would study Spanish almost 50 years ago without having any way of knowing how it would be useful to me a half century later. Who would have known I would have ended up in an urban church in a predominantly Latino city. This reminded me of a similar decision that my parents made. They decided that I would take typing in high school so that I could type my papers in college - a sound decision that certainly helped me in college and graduate school. Who could have foreseen, however, the development of the personal computer utilizing the same key board as those old manual typewriters. It has certainly aided my computer skills immeasurably.

It underscores for me how important the decisions are that we make about our children's education. Sometimes like my parents case in ways that we can never foresee. Other decisions such as picking a private high school or college can have clear cut and immediate impacts. How we work with our children on their education may be one of our most important contributions to their lives. In this, as in so many things, there are no easy answers, but one thing I do know committing the time and energy to it increases dramatically the chances of making a crucial difference. How parents are stewards of their time to this end can help our children to steward their time to great benefit.

Sermon Preached at St. Paul's Church, Paterson, New Jersey - 9/28/2008

Knowing What We Don’t Know

This year’s stewardship program is somewhat different from the past. In most years the role of the congregation is sort of reactive. The congregation listens closely to the sermons (we hope) carefully reads the written material (we hope), and then makes intentional stewardship decisions (we also hope). This year, however, we are asking the congregation to take a more active role. Specifically everyone in the congregation asked to do three things:

1. Write down five things that are priorities and values in our life.

2. Keep track of our expenses for the month of September, both the money we spend by check and how we spend the cash that we take out of the bank.

3. Finally compare our expenses with our values and priorities. This is very important because our expenses say a lot about our values and priorities no matter what we may think our priorities are.

The stewardship committee recommended this approach to the vestry. In agreeing to this idea, the vestry believed that they should lead by example. So the vestry has already done this exercise for the month of August. At our September vestry meeting, we spent at least a half-hour talking about what we had learned. Everyone agreed that it was worthwhile and that everyone in the congregation should do it as well.

One thing that came out of our discussion that the vestry especially wanted me to pass on is that it is very important to know how we spend our cash. Since it is already the end of September, if we haven’t kept a record it is possible that we don’t have that information. If not the suggestion is to do that for October or November so as to have the full benefit of the process.

So the vestry would like us to do this. Of course we will all do it then – correct? After all what more reason could we need to comply. I have been an Episcopalian too long to believe that it could be that simple. I think we need to believe that there will be some real benefit to us in doing this work, I would like to talk about what I think that benefit is.

I believe that when we do this exercise all of us will find some area where our expenses do not match our priorities. I also believe that we will be surprised by at least one way that this is true. This means that we will understand something that we didn’t understand before or in other words, we will know what we don’t know.

Knowing what we don’t know is some of the most valuable information we can have. Let me share an example. About two years ago I was tutoring an adolescent, a friend of mine’s son in American history. We were studying the American Revolution and he didn’t understand why the colonists wanted to be independent of Great Britain. I tried a number of different approaches and he still didn’t understand. Finally I asked him if he knew what a colony is and he said know he didn’t.

Once I knew what he didn’t know it became easy to solve the problem. I asked him if there were ever times when he thought he could make his own decisions, but his parents didn’t agree with him. He is an adolescent so of course, he said yes. I explained to him that it is the same thing with people living in a colony, they think they can make their own decisions without the help of the mother country. I hope I didn’t start a revolution in that family, but the point is that when I knew what he didn’t know I could help him change from not knowing to knowing.

This same principle applies to our money. Once we know what we don’t know about spending and priorities, we can change. If we are talking about change, we are also talking about choices – at the heart of stewardship is making good choices. Look at today’s Gospel reading – what is important is not the amount of money each man has, but the choices they make. The third man’s error is his choice especially a choice to do nothing.

I am not trying to suggest that we all have the same choices, but stewardship is not about what we do in relationship to anyone else – it is about our choices. How much money we have is not important, whether we have more or less money than others is not important, whether we have more or less expenses is not important, what is important are the choices that we make with the money we do have. At the heart of the Gospel’s message about stewardship is that we make good choices. We have a much better chance of doing that when we know what we don’t know.