Jake Burt. Greetings from Witness Protection. Scholastic, 2017.

We have been reviewing some pretty serious, even heavy, books lately: a few theological works about heady topics like the Book of Job and a couple on the American Civil War. I needed to lighten up a bit. Greetings from Witness Protection did the trick. It is funny but with a page-turning plot. If you like Gordon Korman—our favorite popular young adult (YA) writer—you will like this book.

Nicki Demere is turning thirteen. She is essentially an orphan. Her mother is dead, and her father has been in prison. She writes him, but he does not reply. She lived with her grandmother until she was nine when her grandmother died. Since then she has been in and out of foster homes, otherwise marking time at an orphanage in New York City.

When, once again, she is called to the supervisor’s office to meet a prospective fostering family, she steels herself for disappointment. None of the families have worked out. Why should this be any different?

Well, it is different. It turns out that the man and woman in the office are not a married couple looking to foster or adopt. They are Federal Marshals. They are looking for a child around her age that physically resembles a family they are placing in the Witness Protection Program. The idea is that even if a criminal or criminal organization is looking for the family, they would be less likely to suspect a family with a different number of children in it.

She is shown a picture of a woman. Nicki realizes the woman looks a lot like her. The lady could pass as her older sister. That is why the marshals have picked Nicki. If Nicki is interested, it means a completely new start with a completely new identity. She will no longer be Nicolette Demere from New York, but she will be someone else from somewhere else.

She and her whole new family will have to do things to not stand out. Nicki, for example, will be in seventh grade. Even though she loves to read and gets good grades in most of her classes, she must earn a B-minus in all her subjects. She is to participate in one sport, but not stand out in it. She must have one other extracurricular activity, but not one that has any kind of interscholastic competitions or special awards. She and her family are to blend in. And no photographs or social media postings.

After a week of training in Georgia, she meets her family. She does not know their real story or why they are in witness protection. She understands that one of them must have testified in a serious criminal trial. Their made-up backstory is that they have recently moved from Cincinnati to Durham, North Carolina. This is where a lot of the humor comes in. The principal of her new school, for example, attended Xavier, so when he starts talking about Ohio, she has to fake it on her feet.

She, her new parents, and new sixth-grade brother have all come from the North. Some of the slang terms and practices in the South are new to them. The neighbors have a “pig-picking” picnic for them a few days after they move in so that they can meet everyone in the neighborhood. At one point a neighbor says her brother is “showing his butt” online. As a Yankee, I could guess what pig picking was, but I had no idea what it meant to show one’s butt.

Nicki, now called Charlotte, makes friends with Britney. “Brit” did fine until sixth grade when she suddenly became a social outcast. Welcome to middle school! She is convinced no one can like her. At the same time she has become a whiz at an online role-playing game. In other words, she is a nerd. To Brit’s mother, online gaming is a community activity, a modern quilting bee.

To give an idea of how “ordinary” her family is supposed to look, at first the marshals tell them not to put up any Christmas decorations when Christmas season arrives. Except that they are the only family with no decorations—which makes them stand out. So the marshals look at satellite photos of the neighborhood from previous years. They figure out the average number of lights, decorations, and yard displays the houses have. They are to have so many strings of lights, so many decorations, one wreath on the door, not too religious, not too garish; in other words, a B-minus in Christmas decorations. Anything not to stand out.

Now Nicki/Charlotte has one particular skill. Her grandmother also had had a criminal career in her day. She had taught Nicki how to pick pockets. Her grandmother would praise her when she came back from a mall visit with money and jewelry she had purloined. When Nicki flew to Georgia, for example, she had never been in an airport. What a place for picking pockets! She saw all kinds of potential.

That skill provides humor as she outwits people in a number of situations. When she first meets the marshals, she starts rattling off facts about Eric, the male marshal—where he lived, that he has a son, and a few other details. How did she know those things? She had lifted his wallet and read his drivers’ license and marshal ID, and she saw a family picture.

Later when she and Brit encounter the class “mean girls” in the nearby shopping mall, she has fun with their purses and ultimately keeps them girls from teasing Brit. While in neither of those cases does she actually steal anything, she does have some difficulty with kleptomania. She steals things not because she needs them or sells them, but just because she can and she likes to. Her skill at theft was one thing she used to be complimented about.

While nearly all the book is written from Nicki/Charlotte’s point of view, there are some pages, usually a single page, between chapters that document other things that are going on. We begin to see the reason her new family is in witness protection. One of them testified against a major New York crime family. When Nicki hears the name, she realizes how serious their situation is.

Of course, in our day and age it is almost impossible to stay hidden. Sooner or later their past will catch up with them. Yes, there is a lot of humor, but like of some Korman’s books, the main plot is deadly serious.

I had a friend who was an admissions officer at an Ivy League college. He said that as soon as the admissions letters were sent out in April, the head of the admissions department would take a week’s vacation. He told no one where he was going. A week later when he returned to the school, a lot of the people who were upset about the decisions had cooled down and had taken steps to move on.

One year, a leader of an organized criminal network was trying to get his son admitted to the school. Like the vast majority of applicants, the son was turned down. The father tried calling the admissions office only to be told that the admissions director was out of town, and no, they did not know where he was. Anyway, at an airport over 800 miles from the school where the director of admissions was changing planes, a representative of the criminal family accosted him to ask why his boss’s son had been turned down. Such enterprises can be well connected.

To say much more would amount to spoiling things. I will drop one hint, though. Readers may have heard of the term Chekhov’s Gun, or Chekhov’s Rifle. The great Russian author and playwright Anton Chekhov once wrote, “One must never place a loaded rifle on the stage if it isn’t going to go off.” There is a very clever use of Chekhov’s Gun in the story. I say no more. Greetings from Witness Protection is Jake Burt’s first book, If he can keep this up, we may have another Gordon Korman waiting in the wings. Enjoy!

Andrew Murray. Divine Healing. 1900; Edited by Katie Stewart, What Saith the Scripture, 2009.

Andrew Murray was a profound Christian thinker and expositor. Many of his sermons were turned into books. We have reviewed one of his other books recently. Divine Healing has some of the same themes as Abide in Christ. If we abide in Christ, we will experience His healing.

I confess being a little surprised at Murray’s approach. He generally is acknowledged as teaching from a Reformed perspective, but Divine Healing could have been written by someone in the so-called Faith movement such as Oral Roberts or Kenneth Hagin.

First of all, Murray emphasizes that the Bible teaches physical healing as a gift to believers from God Himself through Jesus by the Holy Spirit. He says that there is no indication in Scripture that the gift was only limited to certain time periods. He gives a few testimonies of people he knew who were healed from serious illnesses by divine intervention. It is easy summarize his argument.

The Bible promises in James 5:15 that “the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up.” What is needed? Faith. What is often lacking? Faith. Much of Divine Healing presents Scriptures and discussions to encourage and increase faith in the reader. In other words, it is like the faith teaching of the twentieth century.

What else is needed? A right relationship with God. Sin is a hindrance to the answering of any prayer. So the second half of that verse from James declares, “And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.” Or as Isaiah 59:1-2 puts it:

Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save,
or his ear dull, that it cannot hear;
but your iniquities have made a separation
between you and your God,
and your sins have hidden his face from you
so that he does not hear.

Sometimes we do need to confess sin. We may have to ask the Lord to help us with that as the Psalmist prays in Psalm 139:23-24:

Search me, O God, and know my heart!
Try me and know my thoughts!
And see if there be any grievous way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting!

Murray explains, “God’s pardon brings with it a divine life which acts powerfully on him who receives it.” (854)

But Murray spends most of his time really persuading the readers to increase their faith. Divine Healing quotes numerous verses describing God’s promises to His people. It tells how the readers can understand and apply those promises.

Interestingly, it comes back to the main theme of the other book by Murray reviewed on these pages: abiding. One of the greatest promises in the Bible is this: “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you” (John 15:7). Jesus compares the process of abiding to branches connected to a vine.

I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. (John 15:5)

Think of this relationship, what it means.

The branch has nothing: It just depends on the vine for everything. (1619)

The sap does not flow for a time, and then stop, and then flow again, but from moment to moment the sap flows from the vine to branches. (1627)

If there was anything in the grapes not good, the owner never blamed the branch; the blame was always on the vine. (1640)

No one who learns to rest on the living Christ can become slothful, for the closer your contact with Christ the more of the Spirit of His zeal and love will be borne in upon you. (1642)

“He is my Vine, and I am His branch; I want nothing more—now I have the everlasting Vine…It is enough, my soul is satisfied.” (1727)

Ah, Let it be. And let Murray’s witness speak to you and persuade you and heal you.

This particular edition is a free download from the publisher. The editor has made a few annotations—as if the reader could not distinguish the context when the book was speaking of sin as a specific sin or the sin nature or between belief meaning “trust” and belief meaning “historical knowledge.” However, these are few and are easily accounted for. The editor also includes the full text of any verses cited in the text. That is very helpful and even more faith-building! After all, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17).

N.B.: Parenthetical references are Kindle locations, not page numbers.

Matthew Donnelly. Capturing Heaven. Word and Spirit Publishing, 2023.

Capturing Heaven is subtitled Why You Don’t Have to Suffer. The subtitle sounds hopeful but perhaps unrealistic. The author makes it clear that he is talking about healing and sickness, not suffering at the hands of people. Ironically, the book is based on the Book of Job, a book about someone who clearly did suffer painfully. There are some great books out there about Job, I have read a few including Why Bad Things Happen to God’s People, The Remarkable Record of Job, and Moby-Dick.

The first has been reviewed on these pages. The second emphasizes the marvels of God’s creation as described in the closing chapters of Job. The third tells a fictional story of a sea captain who is an anti-Job, who suffers, curses God, and tries to get even with Him. Capturing Heaven is different. Its basic thesis is simple: What happened to Job ought not to happen under the New Covenant.

Donnelly presents a close reading of the dynamics of the book of Job. His emphasis is that things have changed since then. He gives us some perspectives such as Job lived at the time of Abraham.¹ His trial lasted no longer than six months, probably less. Also, perhaps most important, “Job had no mediator.” This is the complaint in Job 9:33. At least Abraham had the priest Melchizidek. Job, living in Uz, had no one.

That last observation obviously brings in the Gospel. Jesus is the high priest of the world. He is the mediator for anyone who calls on Him. Now, God calls Job his servant, but Donnelly says that under the New Covenant, believers in Jesus are meant to be more than servants. Jesus called his disciples His friends (John 15:15). Speaking of the Book of Job, we are told, “The entire book was written to show man’s plight without God as his Father” (151).

Capturing Heaven expresses one theme in some detail: “The apostles did not view Job’s tragedies as a blueprint for God’s will concerning sickness and loss” (151). The only mention of Job in the New Testament is where he is commended for his patience in James 5:10-18.

If we look at the whole context, James commends Job for enduring through suffering, suffering which the Bible tells us came from the devil. Job is named as a prophet who suffered, and most prophets suffered at the hands of people—no doubt many of their persecutors were tempted by the devil. “James relates Job’s experience as something more related to persecution than to God’s will for our bodies and our health” (163).

In fact, in the same context James speaks what to Donnelly are contrasting ideas. If suffering, pray; if sick, call for prayers so that “The prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will restore him to health…” (James 5:15). For the “prayer of faith,” James uses Elijah as his example, not Job (James 5:17-18). Donnelly does remind us, too, that Job was restored to health after he prayed for his friends (Job 42:10).

Perhaps the most significant point made in this book is about the confrontations in the beginning between God and the devil. Many translations make it sound like God is tempting the devil, but Donnelly tell us:

Job 1:8 in Young’s Literal Translation brings out the full flavor of what was really said about Job, from God to Satan:

And Jehovah saith unto the Adversary, “Hast thou set thy heart against my servant Job because there is none like him in the land, a man perfect and upright, fearing God, and turning aside from evil?”
—Job 1:8 emphasis mine [i.e., Donnelly’s]

God did not sic the devil against Job, but rather he called out the plan that had already formed in Satan’s heart. God was pointing out the irony of the devil’s crazy scheme. It was as if God was saying, “Of all the people in the world, you want Job? He is the most righteous man on the planet. Why him?” (547)

Donnelly spends a long time explaining how Adam, when he sinned, gave authority to the devil and how the devil used that to accuse Job. Job’s biggest problem was simply that there was no New Covenant yet.

So Donnelly then presents one of the most detailed analyses of the Gospel message. First, “Man started it, so man had to fix it” (646). So Jesus would “stoop so low” to become a human. And die. After all, “Death was the prescribed payment for Adam’s sin” (663). And,

The “Son of God” clause is in effect. Adam was a son of God [see Luke 3:38], and that gave him the right to rule creation like God intended…A son of God gave it all away, and it would have to be the Son of God who restored it.

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body has thou prepared for me.
—Hebrews 10:4-5 KJV (669-673, emphasis Donnelly’s)

The author, of course, notes that the sacrifice had to be “spotless.” Jesus had to be without sin. He was. But there is a warning. The Law tells us how to behave but also shows us when we fail and do sin. However, the Law also can produce self-righteousness. It is still sometimes a mystery to me how people could hate Jesus and want him crucified when all he did was heal people and teach what the Hebrew Scriptures taught.

The opposite of righteousness is not sin; it is self-righteousness. Sinners loved Jesus because Jesus was “made” for them. In other words, Jesus is a Savior to sinners. He was born to do that very thing. Sinners were drawn to the Master, and they followed Him because He had what they needed; He was the thing they needed…But self-righteousness is, at its core, anti-righteousness. It stands against everything God loves while also striving to serve God and imitate His holy nature. It is the original fruit that hung from the tree that killed Adam and Eve. (791-794)

Man, disconnected from God, willing himself to be good, stimulates certain self-righteous elements in his nature that drive him to kill anything truly like God. (812)

Paul sums it up:

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. (Galatians 2:20-21)

Eve and Adam’s sin was that they thought they could be like God apart from God. It has been that way with self-righteousness ever since. Interestingly, Derek Prince noted the same thing about Adam and Eve and self-righteous people when he wrote about Job in When Bad Things Happen to God’s People.

So was Job self-righteous? No, because God declared him righteous. He complained. He was looking for a sin that could accuse him, but found none.

Donnelly does claim, then, that while Job’s exact situation no longer applies, we can learn from it. If we understand the Gospel—if we understand God’s righteousness through Jesus, then there is no longer any accusation that can stand against us.

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. (Romans 8:1-3)

He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. (Romans 8:32-34)

“All things” mean all things. Creation is the “all things” that is being spoken about here. The universe is the “all things” that is now starting to work for our good instead of the hijacked version that was constantly against us. (1216, italics in the original)

When Job repented near the end of the story in the Book of Job, “Job was not repenting of some broken commandment, but from living out of his own self-generated knowledge” (1284). “Satan was silenced when Job met God.” (1345)

Not only is the New Covenant of Christ a better covenant than any that preceded it, but the person declared righteous because of faith in the Son of God and His blood has authority in the kingdom of God. Such a person does not have to endure sickness the way Job did. He or she can have faith, and “the prayer of faith will raise him up” as James says. Very hopeful. Very positive. Lord, let it be true for your people (including me…)!

Notes
¹ The Bible is not clear which Uz Job’s homeland was named for, but they all were around the time of Abraham. One was a grandson of Shem (Genesis 10:23), one a son of Abraham’s brother Nahor (Genesis 22:20-21), and one was the grandson of Seir, namesake of the land where Esau settled (Genesis 36:28 cf. Genesis 36:8). All, anyhow, would have been either a contemporary of Abraham or alive not too long after he lived. Presumably, Job would have been not too long after whichever Uz his country was named for.

N.B.: Parenthetical references are Kindle locations, not page numbers.

Charles Colson and Harold Fickett. The Faith. Zondervan, 2008.

Chuck Colson (1931-2012) was one of the most effective and courageous Christian leaders in the United States of his generation. Best known for founding the very effective prison ministry Prison Fellowship, he understood Western culture and American politics as few have. The Faith, co-authored with the experienced Christian author Harold Fickett, appears as Colson’s Summa for this generation.

The authors divide The Faith into two parts. The first part, as many readers could guess from the title, describes the basics of the Christian faith. In some ways it could be compared to a catechism or an apologetics work like Lewis’s Mere Christianity. However, it written for our times.

The chapter titles of the first part give a hint of the book’s direction and logic: “Everywhere, Always, by All,” “God Is,” “He Has Spoken,” “Truth,” “What Went Right, What Went Wrong,” “The Invasion,” and “God Above, God Beside, God Within.”

The first chapter title reminds us of the passage in Romans 1:19-20:

For what can be known about God is plain to them [all people], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Colson presents the idea that nature itself suggests or reveals a creator. So the second chapter gets into God’s eternal nature; the third, on the inspiration of Scripture; and the fourth, the idea that truth exists. His discussion on truth is very effective since it seems so many today in the West deny the existence of truth or, at best, believe it is subjective.

The last three chapters of the first part deal with the problem of sin—like truth, another word that seems to have little meaning to many today—the coming of Jesus, and the coming of the Holy Spirit. Anyone familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity can understand the gist of the last chapter’s title. These topics are all presented in a clear and careful way that make sense.

So the first part of The Faith deals with what the faith is, what Christians believe about God, life, and the world. The second part, then, tells the reader how the faith is lived out, or perhaps more precisely, how it is meant to be lived out. The first part is written for a general audience, the second part is written for the believer or for one thinking about becoming a believer.

No part of the book is mere dry doctrine or theology. Colson shares many personal observations and experiences, some from his life in politics, many from testimonies of prisoners and observations from his prison ministry.

It does sometimes make nonbelievers sound foolish. For example, a program that Prison Fellowship began in some American prisons has had a recidivism rate of 8%. That compares favorably to rehab or re-entry programs’ general rate of 24% and an overall recidivism rate (most of whom did not participate or finish any re-entry program) of 67%. Instead of being excited or grateful for such a program, the courts canceled it because it was “religious.” Ironically, the word penitentiary was coined and that type of prison promoted precisely because of instead of merely executing criminals of all types, such prison terms gave the perpetrators a chance to be penitent and regain a place in society.

Christians often hear today about the need for people who talk about Jesus to others to be winsome. Colson and Fickett understand that. The second part does make the Christian walk sound appealing—not easy, not simplistic, but honest and appealing. God is good. His plan for mankind through Jesus is good. Much of what we consider scientific and technological came from a Christian culture. The book winsomely takes on the two main challenges to Christianity in our culture: the Enlightenment and Islam.

The problem with the Enlightenment thinking which pervades much of Western worldview is that it took the scientific method, which was “discovered” and established by Christian believers, and separated it from morality and behavior. Islam, like Christianity, is monotheistic and has its roots in the Near East, but it all willful. There is no room for freedom and little for the creative variety among people that is manifested in God’s own creation.

A very moving story illustrates the problems of both. A popular Dutch filmmaker named Van Gogh (a distant cousin of the painter) typified the amoral but logic-based worldview of the Enlightenment and much of our postmodern culture. He was assassinated by a Muslim radical. As he was dying, he asked, “Can we talk?” He wanted to find out why he was being stabbed to death and if it were not possible to discuss their issues. The terrorist then cut off his head. No discussion. Neither logic alone not will alone are enough to give us hope. Only Jesus, as proven by His resurrection, can redeem both our reasoning and our wills. The Faith illustrates how in a most appealing and winsome way.

Jeff Shaara. Gods and Generals. Ballantine, 1996.

I obtained a copy of Gods and Generals a few years ago, but never got around to reading it until now when I rediscovered it on a bookshelf. I have enjoyed the film based on the novel, but I can honestly say that reading the novel was a different experience—neither better nor worse, just different.

The film mostly focuses on two Civil War battles, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. The film centers around Stonewall Jackson, though sharing some of the background of two of the other key characters in the story, Lee and Chamberlain. In the film, we see those three only at the beginning of the war with Jackson teaching at the Virginia Military Institute, Lee being recruited by both sides, and Chamberlain deciding to leave his teaching job and his family to join the army.

The book adds a fourth main character, Winfield Scott Hancock. The book also begins with the Mexican War, showing how Lee, Jackson, and Hancock served on the same side in that war. We then get some biography of each of the four between 1846 and 1861. We are reminded in the book that in 1859, while a colonel in the U.S. Army, led the troops that rescued the armory at Harper’s Ferry from John Brown and arrested Brown and his cohorts.

Shaara spends quite a bit of time in California, where Hancock was stationed when the war broke out. We see a contrast where Dvaid Twiggs, the officer in charge of all the troops in Texas, surrendered to the Confederacy and would join their army, turning over many important supplies. The officer in charge of the troops in California Albert Sidney Johnston, who also would join the Confederacy, let all his men make their own choices. Personal politics was involved as Twiggs hated Winfield Scott, the Commanding General of the Army at the beginning of the war.

There is a very moving scene, based on historical memoirs, of a farewell party in California where a number of the officers who had served together in Mexico and in the West are going their separate ways. The somewhat impromptu soiree is hosted by Hancock and his wife Almira and includes Johnston and Hancock’s best friend, Louis Armistead. Armistead, a Virginia native, would join the Confederacy, and the Pennsylvanian Hancock would join the Union army.

Hancock’s observation at the time secession begins perhaps sums up not only the problem in 1860 and 1861, but the problem whenever wars begin:

“There’s been too much loud talk, I think. Too many loud voices. If someone disagrees with you, you shout back a little louder, and so he does the same. The words get nastier, the threats grow…and that’s how wars start.” (88, cf. James 4:1-2 KJV)

Shaara presents Lee’s observation about the causes of war in a similar vein as he walks unrecognized through an elite hotel in Richmond where he was to meet the governor to offer his services after turning down Winfield Scott:

Lee walked slowly through the hurried clatter of the lobby, saw groups of men, some huddled in intense conversation, others waving big cigars, broad-chested men with loud voices, proclaiming their opinions with the mindless flourish of those who share no responsibility for the consequences of their grand ideas. Lee stopped briefly, listened to one such speech, felt uncomfortable and began to wonder what reckless policies and self-indulgent planning was going on elsewhere. (112-113)

While most men in the U. S. Army prior to 1861 would join the army of their home state, not all did. We meet, for example, George “Pap” Thomas a Virginia native who would stay with the United States. Gods and Generals does not tell much of his story in the war since he was in the Western theater in Kentucky and Tennessee for much of the time, and Gods and Generals tells about the Eastern theater, Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia versus the Army of the Potomac. Of course, the leadership of that Union group changed a number of times. In God’s and Generals we read about McClellan, Hooker, and Burnside. Interestingly, we mostly see them from Hancock’s frustrated perspective, so we see the inability of all three to truly grasp their army’s situation.

We are well over a hundred pages before the fighting—other than Fort Sumter—begins. Since novels can cover a lot more material than movies, we get details of all the major battles in the East from 1862 to spring of 1863. We read then of First Bull Run (briefly), Williamsburg, Second Bull Run, Antietam, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville, with some descriptions of actions around Harper’s Ferry and Winchester, Virginia.

We note that all of these except for Williamsburg and Antietam were Confederate victories. The two that were not are probably best considered draws. As a result, some critics have claimed that Gods and Generals was pro-Confederacy and even promoting the “Lost Cause.” However, if one reads the book, that is hardly the case, it is simply that until Gettysburg in July 1863, the Confederate army in the East had the upper hand in the fighting. Its purpose is to get the reader to see the fighting and have a sense of what it was like to be a soldier in that war.

Especially as we see Hancock’s perspective, we see the tragedy of any civil war, sundering friendships and families. But we also see that the Army of the Potomac, at least until Meade took over, was cautious and hesitant, and missed some significant opportunities. It seemed that no commanding general of the Union army there understood the importance of ground, i.e., taking an advantageous and defensible position. In contrast, that was the strength of Lee and Jackson. In the case of Antietam, which did a lot of damage to the rebel troops, McClellan did take advantage of the fact that he had obtained a copy of Lee’s orders for deployment.

Gods and Generals does have a few fictional characters, but it is largely based on history. Even a lot of the dialogue is based on written accounts. (Heros von Borcke appears on three or four pages, for example.) There are some helpful maps, and the story really shares much of the strategy or lack thereof of the battles, focusing on the men involved. We are reminded that a civil war is the worst kind of war there is. I read The Killer Angels and The Last Full Measure many years ago, but reading this has perhaps tempted me to take another look at those. Shaara understands both people and war.

[Johann Heinrich August] Heros von Borcke. Memoirs of the Confederate War for Independence. 2 vol., Blackwood, 1866; Google Books, 2006.

I came across the name of Heros von Borcke, as he was known in America, in Gettysburg, the novel I recently reviewed. It turned out he wrote a memoir which is a very useful primary source for the story of the cavalry of the Army of Northern Virginia during the American Civil War. He was a Prussian officer who immigrated to North America to join the war in 1862. Unlike the English memoirist Fremantle, he was not a mere observer. He joined the Confederate Army to fight in J.E.B. Stuart’s cavalry and became his adjutant.

Perhaps the most striking thing about Memoirs of the Confederate War for Independence compared to most accounts of the Civil War is that the cavalry was busy almost every day during “the time when kings go out to battle” (II Samuel 11:1), i.e., when it was not winter weather. Most histories as well as fictional accounts like those of Shaara, Reasoner, or Bacon, focus on the main battles fought by infantry and artillery. Meanwhile, the cavalry is tracking the enemy, trying to disrupt movements, or scouting. In each of those cases, they frequently have clashes or skirmishes. As a result, there is lots of action in this memoir.

There are four Confederate military leaders Borcke especially admires: Longstreet, Jackson, Lee, and Stuart. He noted that Lee called Longstreet his “war-horse.”

Longstreet’s soldiers were perfectly devoted to him, and I have frequently heard friendly contentions between officers and men of his corps, and those of Stonewall Jackson’s, as to which of the two was the most meritorious and valuable officer. (1.32-33)

He credits Jackson, as do many historians, for his effective use of artillery. More than nearly anyone at the time, Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson understood the strategy of modern artillery. Like so many other weapon systems, artillery had undergone some great technological changes since the Napoleonic wars half a century before, the last time there was a major war in the West. After the Battle of Malvern Hill, the last of the Seven Days Battles in July 1862, Von Borcke would write:

The effect was more disastrous than had been before produced by artillery. In this battle our losses were very heavy, and I may say that the victory was ours only from the ignorance of our position on the part of the enemy, who retreated exactly when he had gained the most important success. (1.71)

Indeed, most histories call the campaign a Union victory; however, McClellan withdrew his forces, so the South considered it a victory as well. Von Borcke notes the reason why. We know also from history that McClellan consistently overestimated the Confederate strength and acted very cautiously. It seems that Jackson and the Confederates would learn more from this experience, whether it was a victory or not.

As is well known, Von Borcke tells us that Jackson was badly injured at Chancellorsville by friendly fire and died of pneumonia, probably exacerbated by the injury and subsequent amputation of an arm. However, he adds an interesting detail. Jackson also observed some idiosyncratic beliefs about health and hygiene. He often rode with one hand raised because he said it helped his circulation (though some said he was praying). He also had a habit of sucking lemons. In addition, Von Borcke tells us that Jackson believed that resting and sleeping under wet blankets would help him recover. However, Jackson’s doctor admitted that such a chill added to the pneumonia and “aggravated its severity” so that it “became fatal” (2.259n).

While Von Borcke does offer a few criticisms of Lee in certain situations, overall he gives Lee much credit for understanding strategies and using his forces effectively. Even when he had to withdraw, as after Antietam, he gives Lee credit for making the right move. Von Borcke took the position, as some even do today, that in spite of what Northern newspapers reported, that Antietam was a rebel victory.

He especially praised Lee for understanding and taking the good ground before fighting. He believed that made all the difference, especially at the First Battle of Bull Run. Ironically, when Lee did not take the high position at Gettysburg, it resulted in probably his most ignominious defeat. Von Borcke would not himself be present at Gettysburg. He was badly wounded at Middleburg two weeks before, and many thought he would not survive. Though he would attempt to rejoin the army in 1864, Middleburg did put an end to his active participation in fighting in the war.

We read also about Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, and Brandy Station. Brandy Station is still “the greatest cavalry battle every fought on the American continent” (2.279).

He notes that nearly all the residents of Virginia supported the rebel cause. He appreciated the support the people there gave the army. Many times he tells of being hosted for meals and even parties by locals. If Von Borcke is to be believed, we understand that all the young women of Virginia were attractive without exception, and nearly all its citizens were hospitable.

One incident makes it clear that Von Borcke did not understand the effect slavery had on its victims. As an officer, he was given a slave as a kind of orderly. At one point, the major gave his slave permission to do some personal errands, and thw slave never returned. Von Borcke claims it reflected his slave’s “treachery and ingratitude,” never considering what it would be like to live under the constraints of chattel slavery for life.

He does have a certain self-deprecating humor. Through much of his experience, he was trying to learn the English language. At one point he was trying express his complimentary view of Jackson’s military intelligence. He meant to say that Jackson’s observations warmed his heart, but said “It gave me heartburn to hear Jackson talk” (2.37). Naturally, this received a lot of laughs from his listeners, but he seems to have taken it in good humor.

Some of his other observations make the reader chuckle. He describes “egg-nogg” as a popular holiday drink.

It is very agreeable to the taste, and has the dangerous property of concealing its strength under the guise of an innocent softness of savor, thus exerting its intoxicating influence on the inexperienced before the least suspicion is aroused. (2.159n)

He notes, as many observers have, that the Confederate soldiers were not especially well equipped. Many had no shoes, and their clothing was often not much more than rags. Von Borcke observed that even his own uniform had “large holes for ventilation” and his “riding-boots were soleless” (2.67). Food was often a problem. On a number of occasions the cavalry would be the corps that provided sustenance when they would capture a lightly protected Union supply train. This reader lost track of the number of horses the narrator went through in his two years on the march. Once he had to resort to riding a mule.

Von Borcke also commends Lee for the way he fought at Fredericksburg, another example of Lee understanding the better ground for battle. When some criticized Lee for not following up after the victory there, Von Borcke defends him by saying that the Union could easily recruit more “Germans and Irishmen” to replace 20,000 or 30,000 casualties. In contrast, “how valuable each individual life in that army [Lee’s army] must have been considered,” so Lee took more care (2.132).

Von Borcke does admit that Stuart took more risks than he would have, but commends his bravery and intelligence, especially at Brandy Station. Indeed, he frequently uses the words gallant and heroic to describe many of the Confederate soldiers. On a few occasions he even uses the terms to describe Union fighters, though he is skeptical that any of the top Union generals were really doing a good job. Of course, he never personally encountered Meade or Grant, though he recognizes how someone could effectively defeat the Army of Northern Virginia. He in fact is describing what Grant actually would do.

Although he saw little action himself after his incapacitating injury, he would continue as best he could serve as an aide to Stuart. He records Stuart’s last words as he was with him after he received his mortal wound at Yellow Tavern. He did not remain in North America until the bitter end.

Anyone who reads this will understand that virtually anyone writing about the Civil War including those mentioned at the beginning would use this as a valuable first-person primary source for the fighting in Virginia.

Of the four generals whom Von Borcke observed the most, three have traditionally been held in high esteem as leaders by anyone studying military history. That is not the case with Longstreet. While Von Borcke may have respected him more than any of the other three, that esteem did not carry over. I suspect that is because of the so-called Lost Cause, which became a standard interpretation of the Civil War for a century or more—think Gone with the Wind or even Forrest Gump.

Of course, Stuart and Jackson died in the war, so no one knows how they would have responded to the ultimate surrender of the South. Longstreet simply acknowledged that the South had tried and lost and accepted the outcome. He would actually serve President Grant as an ambassador. He also staunchly supported the rights of free blacks. To the Lost Cause types that meant going over to the “enemy.” I am reminded of what Tony Horwitz wrote in Confederates in the Attic about the Sons of the Confederacy:

I began to hear echoes of defeated peoples I’d encountered overseas: Kurds, Armenians, Palestinians, Catholics in Northern Ireland. Like them, Southerners had kept fighting the war by other means. (Horwitz 38)

Perhaps it was even from Von Borcke’s influence that books like The Killer Angels and Gods and Generals began to put Longstreet in a more favorable light.¹ At any rate, Memoirs of the Confederate War for Independence still is a significant primary source.

Note
¹ To show how things have changed, in 1994 The Longstreet Society was formed in Georgia to study and recognize the General. That would not have happened a hundred years ago.

Thomas Fretwell. Why Israel? Ezra Foundation, 2021.
———. Why the Jewish People? Ezra Foundation, 2021.

These two short companion books deal with some thorny questions of Bible interpretation and history.

Why Israel? is subtitled Understanding God’s Plan for Israel and the Nations. Basically, the author says that God is not done with the Jewish people in history and the existence of the modern state of Israel demonstrates this. The book is five chapters, each chapter based on a verse or part of a verse from Romans 11:25-29.

These verses summarize the apostolic view of the Jewish nation after their rejection of Jesus, though written before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70. Romans 11:25 warns his Gentile readers in Rome not to misunderstand God’s purposes. That is the theme of the books’ first chapter.

The second chapter reminds us that God’s purpose will be fulfilled through the Jews, that their rejection of Jesus is only temporary “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (also Romans 11:25).

The third chapter reminds us that in the next two verses of Romans we are told that God will rescue Zion. He has a plan that Israel will experience a national regeneration. As with the other chapters, Fretwell uses many Bible prophecies to support these statements in Romans. We note, for example, that most of Zechariah 12, 13, and 14 prophesy such a regeneration.

Chapter four says that “unbelieving Israel is still beloved for the sake of the fathers” (68). There are few places in the Old Testament where the Lord specifically said that He has helped Israel or Judah, not because of their own righteousness but because He remembers his promise to Abraham and other ancient patriarchs. Four is the shortest chapter with the fewest quotations from the Bible, but this reviewer was reminded of Ezekiel 36:22-24, among other Scriptures:

Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land.

Referring to Romans 11:11, Fretwell says the purpose of letting the Gentiles know about the God of the Bible and His Messiah is to “provoke the Jews to jealousy.” No, Gentiles are not Jews, but many have learned about the God of the Jews and worship Him, though perhaps in a different manner.

Finally, the last chapter notes that “the promises of God are irrevocable” as Romans 11:29 says. Therefore, when God said as He did in Ezekiel 36 as quoted above as well as many other places, that God will have the Jews, who were scattered all over the world, return to their Judean homeland, He meant it. He did not change His mind.

This then leads into the theme of the second book in the series, Why the Jewish People? The subtitle reads Understanding Replacement Theology and Antisemitism. Technically, the subtitle should specify Western Antisemitism since there is nothing about Islam or the Far East or Africa. Still, it makes a case that so-called Replacement Theology or Supersessionism has its roots in Antisemitism.

Replacement Theology promotes the idea that since the Apostolic Age God is finished with the Jewish people in terms of prophetic significance or promises. Any such promises made to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob now apply to Christians or the church and no longer apply to the Jews. In other words, the church has replaced Israel in God’s economy or the church has superseded the Jews in God’s plan for the ages.

While the book does deal with the idea that the Jewish people are still part of God’s plan, it attempts to show that, at least among Christians, Replacement Theology has its roots in Antisemitism. It notes that the big break between Christians and Jews took place in A.D. 135 during the Bar Kochba revolt against Rome. Jewish leaders were saying that Bar Kochba was the Messiah. Christians, many of whom were Jewish, denied this since they already had a Messiah. Along with their warning about Jesus’ prophecies concerning Jerusalem that were fulfilled in A.D. 70 with the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans, their denial of Bar Kochba made the Jews consider Christians traitors and not true believers.

By the year 300 or so, a number of Christian writers and preachers were denouncing Jewish teachings and characterizing Jews in very strong language. I had noted elsewhere that by the fourth century the church was celebrating Easter according to the Roman solar calendar rather than the Jewish lunar calendar. Even today that is why some years Easter corresponds to Passover but in other years they vary. That is simple and logical understanding. Why not use the calendar that most of the world is using? In America we celebrate George Washington’s birthday on February 22, although he was born on February 11, 1731, because in those days England and its colonies were still using the Julian Calendar. But that becomes February 22, 1732, in the Gregorian Calendar we use today.¹

However, Why the Jewish People? also quotes church leaders from the time period to show that it was more than just a choice of calendars. There were some claiming that they could never imitate the Jews for a variety of reasons, most of them derogatory. So most of the book goes through Western history quoting Luther and Calvin among others to show their anti-Jewish bias. It includes well poisoning, blood libel, and other slanders.

It does note that beginning in the 1600s some Christian leaders started to change. Cromwell, for example, welcomed Jews to England as Washington did to America. Jonathan Edwards and other theologians began to speak of the necessity of Jews returning to the Holy Land and re-establishing their own nation-state. By then, though, the enlightenment picked up where the church left off. Darwinism, for example. spoke of favored and inferior races. The Jews in such an arrangement were always among the inferiors.

I do have one minor quibble. The author claims Augustine was Antisemitic. Perhaps he was, but the quotations from Augustine that the author uses simply remind us that the Jewish Diaspora was a result of their falling away from God as prophesied in many places in the Old Testament, e.g. Deuteronomy 28:64. Indeed, that passage from Ezekiel quoted earlier warns of a time when the Jews will be spread over the whole world among the Gentiles and outside their own country. Regardless of how we interpret Augustine, Fretwell does make a case that Antisemitism has had a shameful history among many Christians.

The question then becomes this: While Replacement Theology may be rooted somewhat in Antisemitism, there are verses in the Bible which suggest it may be true. What about Supersessionists who are not Antisemitic? The last chapter deals with some of the verses that may be talking about it and tries to show that such verses are taken out of context or mean something else.

I personally only know a few Supersessionists, and some of them are motivated by concern for Palestinians. However, the one section of the New Testament that I have seen used to support it is Acts 28:23-29 where Paul quotes from Isaiah 6:9-10. That is not included in this book. I would have been interested in how they handle that one. Perhaps they would simply go back to Romans 11:25-29 which Paul also wrote and forms the basis of Why Israel?

One of the most moving examples of someone who did not believe in Replacement Theology was Hudson Taylor, the famous missionary to China. Every year he gave some of the money his ministry received to a mission agency that specialized in witnessing to the Jews. With this donation, he would include the note “To the Jew first” (see Romans 1:16). That ministry would turn around and send a donation to Taylor’s work with the note “and also to the Gentile” (Why Israel? 73).

Perhaps we should all meditate more on Galatians 3:28-29:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

God did create nations, but there is only one race (Acts 17:26). And God’s ultimate plan is described in Revelation 7:9-10:

After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”

Amen.

Note
¹ For more on this see https://englishplus.com/grammar/00000141.htm.

Ellery Queen. The Scarlet Letters. Little Brown, 1953.

I happened to come across The Scarlet Letters in the local library and thought it looked interesting. Ellery Queen was the pen name of two cousins who were prolific mystery writers. For many years they also edited the Ellery Queen Mystery Magazine, which my father subscribed to back in the 1950s or 1960s. As a kid, I recall reading an “Ellery Queen, Jr.,” mystery from the Scholastic Book Club. This was, then, an impulse in nostalgia to see whether Ellery Queen still made the grade.

It does. The Scarlet Letters is a clever mystery, very much in the vein of Agatha Christie. When Billy Wilder was directing Witness for the Prosecution, he did not pass out the last ten pages of the script to the cast until right before it was shot because there was such a surprise ending. If I were directing a film of the The Scarlet Letters, I would do the same thing. There is wild and clever ending. Nevertheless, an alert reader might have picked up a few clues along the way.

Ellery Queen is the main character in this novel, as well as the author. While the story is told in the third person, it is told from his point of view. He is a mystery writer and editor—we are told more than once that he has been working on an issue of the Ellery Queen magazine. He is single and lives with his widower father who is an inspector for the New York City Police. He also does occasional private detective work with his father as a helpful ally.

Queen’s secretary is Nikki Porter, an attractive redhead. Queen and Porter appear sweet on each other, but in this story they are both too caught up in the mystery to act on any personal matters. Nikki’s good friend Martha Lawrence has become increasingly afraid of her husband, Dirk. They have been married five years, and the honeymoon has worn off. Dirk has even gotten violent and says he suspects her of being unfaithful. Martha goes to Nikki for help, knowing her connection with Ellery Queen.

Martha has inherited a sizeable sum of money and has been using some of her inheritance to produce and direct plays. The first one only lasted a week, but she is trying again. This means that she is working much of the day with others, especially the playwright, and then with the actors and stage manager. Dirk works at home as a writer, so her absences seem to fuel his jealousy. He will call the various people and places she says she is visiting to check up on her. The novel soon establishes that Mr. Lawrence is what today we would call a control freak.

For Martha’s safety and perhaps to see if there is any truth to Dirk’s suspicions, Nikki moves in with the Lawrences to keep an eye on things and report back to Ellery. (They have a spare bedroom in their New York apartment.) Soon she discovers what become known as the scarlet letters. She finds a brief note, fallen out of a much larger envelope, that said “Thursday, 4 P.M., A.” The note is typed in red ink. Typewriters often used ribbon that was half black and half red. The typist could toggle between the two colors.

After much more sleuthing and some tailing of Martha, Nikki and Ellery figure out that “A” is not a person, but a place. Then they find a guidebook to the city in Martha’s apartment that has different locations circled in red ink. They realize that a different letter stands for each place in the book, and they make an alphabetical list. It appears that these short notes that come in the mail each simply have a day, a time, and the next letter in the alphabet. So A turns out to be the A—— Hotel, B the Bowery Follies, C the Chinese Rathskeller, and so on all the way through Xochitl (a Mexican restaurant), Yankee Stadium, and the Bronx Zoo.

Ellery trails Martha or waits for her at the different places and observes that she is meeting up with Van Harrison, a former matinee idol, now in his fifties but still retaining some good looks and charm. It does appear that the classic scarlet letter is involved, that she is meeting this actor for an extramarital affair.

D is a popular night club. Ellery gets a table there and sees Harrison enter. Martha never shows up, but at one point a well-known gossip columnist comes to Harrison’s table and talks to him. The conversation gets heated, and the two men step outside to start a fight. Ellery tries to break it up and all three get beaten somewhat. Ellery manages to leave the scene before the police show up, but his father recognizes him from a photo on the front page of the newspaper the next day showing Harrison and two other men going at it in an alley next to the club. Ellery is otherwise unidentified; his father seems to be the only one who recognizes him.

Before Ellery has a chance to talk to him, the gossip columnist leaves town for over a month. If I go much further, I am giving up too much of the tale. Needless to say, the gossip columnist has some helpful information about Van Harrison. However, Ellery spends quite a bit of time putting pressure on Harrison and some others connected with him with no luck to either stop things or expose the truth. Naturally, Nikki and Ellery fear that if Dirk discovers the affair he may get really violent…

Nikki has known Martha for some time and cannot believe she would be unfaithful. She was already in her thirties when she married, and Dirk was her one and only. Still, the evidence clearly tells us that there is something going on between Martha and the once-handsome actor.

The various events and various rendezvous are coming to an inevitable head. There is not just the scarlet letter associated with adultery, the letters circled in red in the guide book, and the red ink used in the typed notes. There is blood.

A few years ago I directed Witness for the Prosecution at my school. The ending was such a surprise that an audience member told me that she felt like she had to take notes to keep all the drama straight. Readers may feel that way after reading The Scarlet Letters, but they will have fun. Ellery Queen, the detective, was one bright guy. Ellery Queen, the writers, were two bright guys.