“The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Ten, titled Hyper-Calvinism.

  

I think it is appropriate for someone who has spent as long in the gospel ministry as I have, with approaching 50 years of what I hope will be appreciated as conscientious observation of the theological and ministerial landscape, to make three initial observations.

Observation number one. For almost a half-century, I have witnessed many opinions about Calvinism coming from men who have not studied Calvinism. Instead, they have formed opinions about Calvinism based upon hearsay or the personality of someone they knew who claimed to be a Calvinist. Because the person had not himself studied the issues related to Calvinism, he was not in a position to recognize whether the supposed Calvinist he did not like was indeed someone whose positions and practices reflected Calvinism. That isn’t very ethical, in my opinion. I remember several Bible college classmates who claimed to be Calvinists, who were uninformed, misinformed, and arrogant. In my many years since sharing several classes with them, my conclusion is that, despite them claiming to be Calvinists, they knew nothing about Calvinism. They sought the attention that young, brash men sometimes seek by being controversialists and contrarians.

Observation number two. The founder and, for many years, the editor of The Sword of the Lord was John R. Rice.[pictured]

Almost every gospel minister in the latter half of the 20^th century would agree that John R. Rice’s opposition to Hyper-Calvinism was legendary. He taught against, preached against, and wrote against Hyper-Calvinism as much as any other issue he opposed. I have heard it said that he blamed his father’s deviation from Christian orthodoxy and declension into spiritual lethargy on his father’s adoption of the tenants of Calvinism. I have also heard that he blamed his father’s deviation from Christian orthodoxy and declension into spiritual lethargy on his father’s embrace of Freemasonry. I do know this. In the days that I read The Sword of the Lord, John R. Rice most usually printed sermons in his periodical that were the sermon manuscripts of Calvinists! However, John R. Rice never informed his readers that the men whose sermons they were reading were Calvinists. He also severely edited those sermons to remove any comments he deemed inappropriate. He did so without informing his readers of his decision to censor the material he offered. How is this different from CNN, MSNBC, Facebook, or Twitter censoring content? At least the mainstream media sometimes informs their audience that they are censoring material. I do not doubt that John R. Rice was a wonderful Christian man, profoundly spiritual, and a legendary prayer warrior. However, the practice of criticizing Calvinists while printing their heavily (secretly) edited sermons does not sit well with me as being ethical or intellectually honest.

Observation number three. Still dealing with the legacy of John R. Rice, he redefined Hyper-Calvinism as embracing T-U-L-I-P. In his view, all five-point Calvinists were Hyper-Calvinists. This is most interesting because it is not valid. It is demonstrably, not true. Most of the pastors who led what is today the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London were five-point Calvinists. Included were Benjamin Keach, John Gill, John Rippon, Charles Spurgeon, and the current pastor Peter Masters. Few would deny that John Gill was a Hyper-Calvinist, but were the other men Hyper-Calvinists? No.

True, they embraced all five points of Calvinism. Yet, how could a five-point Calvinist be honestly described as a Hyper-Calvinist when the famous Charles Spurgeon, a self-proclaimed five-point Calvinist, campaigned against Hyper-Calvinism the first decade of his ministry in London? A five-point Calvinist is not a Hyper-Calvinist except in the mind of John R. Rice and those who have subscribed to his definition of the term. No one in the 19^th century believed that five-point Calvinists were Hyper-Calvinists. No one. Why John R. Rice decided to mislabel Benjamin Keach, John Rippon, Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, Hudson Taylor, David Brainerd, and so many other profoundly influential gospel ministers Hyper-Calvinists, I do not pretend to know.

Imagine my surprise upon learning that Iain H. Murray,[pictured with me] a wonderful Christian gentleman, scholar, and author, who I have met and whose company I enjoyed, wrote “Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching.”[pictured] One cannot be a Hyper-Calvinist while attempting to eradicate Hyper-Calvinism as a detriment to Christ’s cause.

Thank you for putting up with these personal comments and observations, which I believe to be an appropriate backdrop for my review of the chapter titled Hyper-Calvinism.

The chapter is subdivided into Background, Eighteenth-Century Hyper-Calvinism, Nineteenth-Century Hyper-Calvinism, Twentieth-Century Hyper-Calvinism, The Issues, and Conclusion. It is interesting to note at this point that the author’s Ph.D. dissertation for the University of Edinburgh, in 1983, is titled “Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill.” He is knowledgeable on the subject. In the first paragraph of the chapter, he acknowledges that Hyper-Calvinism is a term that is often misunderstood.

Background. Five paragraphs are devoted to the history of Hyper-Calvinism, including the names of notable opponents of Hyper-Calvinism, including Richard Baxter (1615-1691).[pictured]

Eighteenth-Century Hyper-Calvinism. One of the distinguishing features of Hyper-Calvinism is the belief that the gospel offer should not be delivered indiscriminately. John Gill was the undisputed leader of both the Baptists and the hyper-Calvinists during his 51 years of pastoral ministry. “Toward the end of the century, five pro-offer English Particular Baptists came to the rescue: Andrew Fuller (1754–1815), William Carey (1761–1834), John Rippon (1751–1836), John Ryland Jr. (1753–1825), and Samuel Pearce (1766–99). Fuller’s The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation defended free offers and Duty Faith, which the hypers had denied. His friend William Carey produced what many consider the mandate for the Great Missionary movement, An Inquiry into the Obligation of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens. They were influenced by Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening in America and the Evangelical Awakening in England, which the Hyper-Calvinists usually ignored or opposed test.[pictured]

Nineteenth-Century Hyper-Calvinism. In this chapter, the author introduces a group known as Strict and Particular Baptists without explaining their position. Strict refers to a closed communion ecclesiology. Particular refers to five-point Calvinism. The author wraps up this section with a paragraph addressing American Primitive Baptists and their approach to Hyper-Calvinism. Though he was by no means a Hyper-Calvinist, some who read this review will recognize the name of my late friend Kenneth Connolly. [pictured]

Though his name does not appear in this book. He was most certainly not a Hyper-Calvinist. He and his father, Peter Connolly, embraced the Strict and Particular Baptist persuasion, meaning they advocated closed communion and five-point Calvinism while offering the gospel freely to one all. [pictured]

Twentieth-Century Hyper-Calvinism. This portion of the chapter deals with men who lived on both sides of the Atlantic. Abraham Kuyper, Louis Berkhof, Herman Hoeksema, Gordon H. Clarke, John H. Gerstner, and Arthur W. Pink are recognizable names. Pink usually opposed Hyperism.[pictured]

The Issues. The author spends about 3½ pages discussing the main issues, which I will merely list. First, all Hyper-Calvinists reject the idea of the free offer of the gospel, grace, and/or Christ. Five-point Calvinists disagree. Second, Hyper-Calvinists deny that God desires all men to be saved. Five-point Calvinists disagree with Hyper-Calvinists. Third, the issue of Duty Faith, the belief that saving faith is both a duty and a gift. Hyper-Calvinists disagree that faith to trust Christ is a duty for all sinners. Fourth, the matter of common grace is in dispute. Hyper Calvinists do not believe God loves all men. Five-point Calvinists believe God mercifully restrains all sinners to some degree, enables the unconverted to do outwardly good things, and has a general love for mankind.

Conclusion. The author points out that Hyper-Calvinists are firmly evangelical, even if not very evangelistic. They are sound on the five sola doctrines, the five “fundamentals,” and the five points. They strongly endorse biblical infallibility, the Trinity, the deity and resurrection of Christ, and other vital truths. They worship the same God and love the same Christ as do all Christians. Hyper-Calvinism upsets the beautiful balance of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, minimizes or opposes evangelism and missions, usually denies that Arminians are saved, and has been a thorn in the side of mainline Calvinism.

“A Day That Will Live In Infamy”

 

Seventy-nine years ago today, the Imperial Japanese Navy launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and other US military installations on Oahu island in Hawaii. At roughly the same time, US military installations in the Philippines were also attacked. However, since the Philippines are on the other side of the international dateline, their history of the attack is dated December 8, 1941.

Most Americans of my generation have grown up with the memories of JFK, RFK, and MLK’s assassinations. Of course, my generation was forever changed by the Vietnam War. Our parents, however, grew up with the impressions of World War II firmly lodged in their national and generational identity. And what began World War II for us? The attack on Pearl Harbor, without question.

My attitude toward the attack on Pearl Harbor and the war that it sparked is somewhat different than most of my generation because of two important men in my life who were in uniform and came under attack on that fateful day. Rex Bray, our next-door neighbor when I was in high school and the man I worked for as a summer higher for two summers, was an enlisted man in the Army Air Corps at Clark Field in the Philippines. Leon Waldrip [pictured], my favorite uncle as a teenager and my father’s favorite older sibling, was serving in the coastal artillery as an enlisted man in the United States Army, stationed at Corregidor.

Twenty years after World War II, Rex Bray and Leon Waldrip saw each other for the first time after the war in front of our house in Warm Springs, Oregon. They had never known each other’s names before, but each recognized the other as a comrade who had survived the brutality of a Japanese prison camp on the Bataan Peninsula. That night I learned from my uncle Leon about the bravery of Rex Bray, risking his life to keep fellow prisoners of war alive. Over the days following my uncle’s return home, I learned from Rex Bray about the bravery of my uncle Leon, risking his life to keep fellow prisoners of war alive.

I also had an uncle in the European theater of operations. I had several uncles who served in the South Pacific. But it was these two men who I knew and looked up to who were in uniform, on the scene, when the war began. Because of them, I have always had a keen interest in the attack on Pearl Harbor, the attack on the Philippines, and just about everything about World War II.

I could not have predicted my emotional response when a former church member and US Navy veteran reminded me, on December 5, that two days later would be the 79^th anniversary of Pearl Harbor. His in-laws (I suspect) were living on the island of Guam when, at least for the United States, it all began.

Victor Davis Hanson {pictured] is a classicist and military historian who has grown in popularity over the last few years because he is one of the few academicians who unreservedly supports President Donald J. Trump. My interest in VDH is partly due to his recognition that World War II was a series of wars that began at different times but merged into one giant conflict.

War had gone on for years in Europe before our country’s involvement began. In the Far East, Japan had occupied the Korean Peninsula for years and had pushed into Manchuria, establishing a puppet state known as Manchukuo. Of course, the USA was involved, especially in the European war, by a program called Lend-Lease, whereby FDR “lent” ships, trucks, and vast quantities of other necessities to not only Great Britain, but in the main and somewhat concealed from the American public to the Soviet Union.

Then, for some reason, the Imperial Japanese Navy attacked the military facilities in two locations of the United States. The question that begs for an answer is why the most significant industrial power in the world was attacked? Why drag the United States of America into the war, isolated from the fighting in two theaters of operation by huge oceans?

Some historians point out the provocations of FDR directed at the Empire of Japan. Others make mention of the threats to Japanese sources for raw materials. However, some other considerations are almost never mentioned by those supplying answers to the questions that are asked. Japan already had access to sources of petroleum to its south. As well, Japan already occupied Manchuria with its abundance of coal and other materials that they mined.

Why would Japan forgo striking to the north against the Soviet Union? After all, they had already decisively defeated the Russians at the Battle of Tsushima Strait in 1905.[1] Since Germany had attacked the Soviet Union’s Western front in June 1941, a Japanese attack of the Soviet Union would create a two-front war against the Soviet Union. The Eastern front being at the edge of the far distant Siberia would have been an easy win for the Japanese.

Yet Japan attacked the most formidable industrial power on the planet, located on the other side of the Pacific Ocean. The USA possessed no vital interests on their side of the Pacific. Why would they do that? Why did they launch an attack against the Armed Forces in which my uncle Leon and my boss Rex Bray served? Why did they launch an attack that resulted in these two much-admired young men spending 3 ½ years in a brutal prison camp environment?

I think Diana West has the answer pictured]. She began her writing career as an investigative journalist and commentator but has also written a couple of incredibly insightful histories. I find her such an interesting writer that I was reading three of her books at the same time. I am not a neutral observer when it comes to Diana West’s books.

I believe the answer to the question of why Japan attacked the United States and not the Soviet Union can be found on the pages of her 2013 book, “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character.” A meticulous researcher, West has pulled together threads from readily accessible sources. Each of her works is thoroughly sourced.

I was reminded in her book of a Soviet spy serving in Tokyo, a German national. Posing as a Nazi, and moving in the inner circles of Japan’s shakers and movers, this Soviet spy’s communications with Moscow were retrieved after the fall of the Soviet Union, thanks to Boris Yeltsin. The Soviet Union used their Tokyo spy with significant effect. Even using him to persuade the Japanese high command to attack the United States and pushed can be found, rather than attack a far more vulnerable Soviet union’s eastern flank.

There is a second reason why the Soviet Union influenced Japan to attack the USA. Stalin wanted  Germany to fight a two-front war, knowing that Great Britain was not strong enough to fight the German war machine without help. But Stalin did not want the war to be won too quickly. Evidence suggests he delayed the prosecution of the war long enough for the Russian front to push the Germans out of the Soviet Union and into Germany. Once Stalin had pushed the front into the non-Russian territory, knowing that he would never give up territory his soldiers had occupied, he was ready for the war to be won.

Not only was the United States dragged into a war that they didn’t need to be involved in because of the Soviet influence of the Japanese high command, but millions of people died in Europe who didn’t need to die, all because Josef Stalin prolonged the war so he could gain occupied territory. While Uncle Joe and Winston Churchill were playing chess, FDR played checkers and ended up being played.

FDR was right when he claimed that the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, would be a day that would live in infamy. That infamy, however, would be far greater than he could ever imagine.

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima

“The History & Theology of Calvinism” by Curt Daniel, Chapter Nine, titled Amyraldism.

  

This chapter of the book presents itself as somewhat obscure at first glance but comes together at the end with two characters and a position you are likely to have some familiarity with. 

The chapter is divided into eight subheadings, Roots of the Controversy, Moyse Amyraut, Other Amyraldians, The Anti-Amyraldians, The Issues, The Response, Further History, and Conclusions.

Amyraldism is a subgroup of Reformed theology that has variously been called hypothetical universalism, Low Calvinism, four-point Calvinism, Moderate Calvinism, or more precisely, Amyraldism. In this chapter, the author concentrates on the 17^th-century controversy surrounding Moyse Amyraut (1596–1664) [pictured].

 Roots of the Controversy. Reference is made to the French Calvinists known as Huguenots and their response to the Wars of Religion in France between the Catholics and the Protestants. A Scotsman named John Cameron (1579–1625) taught for a short time at the Theological Academy at Saumur, where he promoted what may be termed “Low Calvinism,” though he was no fan of Arminianism. 

Moyse Amyraut. This man, not known to me before reading this book, was a prolific author, influencing the French Protestants through more than 100 publications, including a six-volume Christian Ethics (over 4,600 pages). His most controversial work was A Brief Treatise on Predestination. Displeased with the theological drift taking place in his circle, he wanted a return to Calvin’s more biblically-balanced approach. He was also concerned about the drift of Lutheranism to Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism. 

Other Amyraldians. The first paragraph deals with other French-speaking scholars who agreed with him. In the second paragraph, the author addresses developments in Britain at the same time. The original English Reformers were moderate and not given to extremes, but some Puritans became too scholastic and supralapsarian. Among those who rejected “High Calvinism” in the 17^th century in Britain included James Ussher (of Ussher’s Chronology fame), and Richard Baxter [pictured] (the author of The Reformed Pastor, the best pastoral theology ever written according to C. H. Spurgeon). To this day, there is a debate whether British Low Calvinism was Amyraldian or mainstream Moderate Calvinism. 

The Anti-Amyraldians. Opposition arose in France, Switzerland, and England, where the issues were debated at the Westminster Assembly. However, most of the controversy was between the French and the Swiss, centered around the academies in Saumur and Geneva. 

The Issues. This portion of the chapter contains four paragraphs. The controversy dealt with in the first paragraph is original sin. The second paragraph deals with hypothetical universalism. The third paragraph deals with Amyraut’s system of salvation through three covenants. The fourth paragraph treats his belief that Christ died equally for all men to provide the universal aspect of the covenant of grace. He viewed the atonement as unlimited, but its application was limited to the elect. This was an early stage of the “Calvin versus Calvinism” debate. 

The Response. Those opposed to his view responded by teaching the federal theory of the transmission of original sin, denying that any of the divine decrees were conditional, and recoiling at the idea of the hypothetical salvation of heathens who never heard the gospel. 

Further History. Amyraut appeared before several French synods to answer charges against him, though he was never condemned. With the situation deteriorating, many Huguenots fled France for religious freedom in England, Holland, and America. 

Conclusions. The issues are still debated to this day. Laxness in terminology has resulted in this meaning “four point Calvinism,” in which a person rejects limited atonement but does not necessarily accept the other four points. The author mentions the late Roger Nicole, a Swiss Baptist theologian who spent most of his adult life in the USA, as the foremost authority on the subject [pictured].

“In the 20^th century, several leading American dispensationalist theologians such as Lewis Sperry Chafer [pictured] have advocated a theology akin to Amyraldism.

Others such as Norman Geisler [pictured] have defended what they consider moderate Calvinism but in reality is more similar to Arminianism.”

Questioning Authority Figures

 

I am wonderfully blessed to be the firstborn son of a man who was an authority figure to others throughout my life. As a newborn, my father was a schoolteacher on an Indian reservation. As a preschooler, my father was a high school teacher on another Indian reservation. On yet another Indian reservation during my grade school years, my father was the administrative officer, with all of the government employees on that reservation reporting to my dad. On yet another Indian reservation, my dad was the superintendent of an Indian reservation in my high school years. During his career in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, I enjoyed observing my father functioning as a respected authority figure. I also enjoyed watching my father, sometimes questioning authority figures in situations where he was not the man in charge. All of this contributed to my approach to authority.

I have been the pastor of two churches since 1978, exercising some measure of scriptural authority in the lives of other people. I take this very seriously and am very careful not to Lord it over God’s heritage. Since I am my father’s son, I have enjoyed situations in which I have encountered authority figures of some sort who misused their position and misunderstood their function. Allow me to share with you six such experiences.

First. When my daughter was five years old, I took her and my wife on vacation to visit all of the places I had lived growing up, except for Florida, which was too far out of the way to see on that vacation. We left Monrovia, California, and went to Brawley, California. After Brawley, we went to Albuquerque, New Mexico, to show my daughter where my paternal grandparents had lived. We then went to Wheeler, Texas, to visit my maternal grandparents’ farm outside the little town where I was born. Heading north, we went to Cherry Creek, South Dakota, where my father taught in a one-room schoolhouse for several years and became acquainted with the last living survivor of the Battle of the Little Big Horn and the last living survivor of the massacre at Wounded Knee. We then went to Mount Rushmore on our way to Cheyenne Agency, South Dakota, and then to Fort Totten, North Dakota.

My first clash with an authority figure took place at Mount Rushmore [pictured] when a park ranger spoke to our group of tourists and sarcastically criticized the “environmental catastrophe” that resulted from carving the faces of four American presidents on the side of a mountain. Her bitterness was undeniable. At that point, I spoke up, saying, “None of us came here to hear you say that. We came here to admire Mount Rushmore and to glory in the blessing of four great presidents. Yet you have chosen to misuse your position and subject us to your political slant, your radical environmentalism, in an attempt to destroy our experience. How dare you. You are misusing your position.” The park ranger took great offense at my comments, while several of the tourists congratulated me and expressed their appreciation that I had spoken up.

Second. Years later, I was standing in line to go through passenger Security at Heathrow Airport outside London. On the walls, I noticed that stickers warned travelers not to criticize uniformed personnel, with any criticism of the uniformed personnel to be treated as criminal assault. I thought such signage was unusual, but I took little note of it as I stepped into line behind approximately fifty South Asian travelers. I noticed three things about them. They were very small in stature, very dark in complexion, and extraordinarily well-mannered and pleasant to me and everyone else.

As the line of passengers advanced, I could hear a uniformed security officer shriek at the first of the South Asians she encountered. “Can’t any of you read?” she asked. “Why is it always the same with you people?” she continued. Her tirade continued, a racist rant against each South Asian in the line in front of me. I was horrified.

I tried to figure out what her issue was with each of them. I could not detect that they had done or said anything wrong. When the line advanced to the point where she spoke to me, suddenly her countenance changed, her expression changed from a scowl to a smile, and the tone of her voice was unexpectedly charming. I asked her, “Are we having a bad day?” She looked up at me and said, “What did you say?” I repeated, “Are we having a bad day?” I was smiling, my tone of voice was pleasant, and my question was genuine. She did not take it that way. “Security! Security!” she shouted. When two male uniformed officers arrived, she handed me off to them, and they took me into an interrogation room.

They subjected me to about five minutes of examination, asking me a dozen or so questions. My answers to their questions were very calm, unhurried, and reassuring. “I simply asked her if she was having a bad day.” Eventually, they turned me out of the room. Since I still had a couple of hours before my connecting flight, I decided to deal with her problem.

I looked around to find out which door the uniformed personnel went through when they went on break. I continued to observe that door until a “suit” exited the door. If ever you have a problem and have the opportunity to deal with the problem, I learned from my father’s example that you should always talk to one of the “suits.” I walked up to the “suit” and very politely asked him if he could spare me a minute or two. He was very kind and responsive.

Rather than accuse the woman of wrongdoing, I chose a different approach. She had spoken so harshly to the South Asians and had reacted so negatively to my question that I knew the “suit” would disapprove of her conduct. I asked the “suit” to review the tape at her workstation from the time she spoke to me, backing up about 10 minutes to observe how she dealt with the people in front of me. He assured me that he would do that after I pointed out that I did not think Heathrow airport wanted any of their travelers subjected to a racist rant. He agreed. He also thanked me. I assume he dealt with the problem, and it would not soon be repeated.

Third. On yet another occasion, my wife and daughter, and I were in Sitka, Alaska. We decided to visit the birds of prey sanctuary, one of two facilities in North America where injured birds of prey worked on by very skilled veterinarians [pictured]. As a ranger was taking us on a tour through their facility, she indicated to my group as she pointed out a huge golden eagle, “This bird will never be introduced into the wild. It is a casualty of the intrusion of man.”

What? The intrusion of man? What does that mean? So, I asked her. She said something about the intrusion of man being mankind intruding into the environment. I thought, “Here we go again, pushing a political agenda.”

“Can you tell me precisely how that bird was injured?” I asked her. She paused for a bit and then said, “The bird flew into a powerline tower.” I sought clarification. “The bird flew into a stationary structure?” I asked. “Yes,” she answered. I then said, “The intrusion of man did not cause that bird’s injury, but its stupidity.” Needless to say, while she was furious with me, I received several congratulatory remarks from the other tourists in the group.

Fourth. A situation unfolded some years ago as I led a group of teenagers on an annual tour of Washington, DC and New England to cultivate their appreciation of our nation’s history and the arrival of the Pilgrims. We were touring the Plymouth Plantation, a place where actors reenact life as it was lived by those who arrived on the Mayflower, as well as the Native Americans they encountered. However, one Native American actor chose the opportunity to go on a racist rant against white Europeans for daring to come to North America.

Growing up in Indian reservations, I am quite familiar with Native American history. I could not allow the Native American actor to proceed with such an error in front of my teens without responding. I pointed out to him that the place the Pilgrims arrived was uninhabited since those who previously had lived in the region had been decimated by some plague, which was not the fault of the Pilgrims.

I further pointed out that the Native Americans who moved back into the area generally had excellent relations with the Pilgrims, and they interacted with each other very well. Of course, problems later developed with later arrivals into the area from both groups who sought only to stir up trouble.

When there is a 7000-year technological disparity between one culture and another, there will be severe problems in the best of circumstances. It is unavoidable. However, for the most part, the Pilgrims and later Puritans sought the conversion of the Native Americans to Christ. That is a good thing. I don’t think he agreed with me, but it needed to be said to benefit my teens.

Fifth. I recall an occasion when I was in Washington, DC, alone. With a bit of spare time on my hands, I decided to ride the tram around Arlington National Cemetery and across the river to the Vietnam Memorial site [pictured]. There were very few people on the tram, so I decided to sit at the very back, where there was only one other younger man, who by the kind of glasses he wore and his hairstyle was very obviously military. For those of you who are not familiar, the tram driver is a tour guide who wears a microphone and makes comments while driving the tram by historical landmarks.

Only this tram driver was a vitriolic hater, who spewed venom as we passed by the wall memorializing our nation’s dead in Vietnam, referring to them as “baby killers.” I did not like what I heard. I turned to the man sitting to my right on the other side of the aisle and said, “What she says offends me. Does it offend you, as well?” “Yes, sir,” he said. “I am very offended.” I said to him, “You are obviously military. What is your service?” He responded, “Sir, I am a major in the United States Army, and I serve as a tank commander. What she said, I find very offensive.”

I then told the much younger than me major, “I am not going to let this go. I’m gonna deal with this.” He then asked me if he could accompany me on my mission to deal with that problem, and I said, “Yes.” We stayed on the tram until it returned to its point of origin near the Arlington National Cemetery entrance. I then began to check out where the drivers went when they left the tram, figuring that would be where the “suits” can be found. You always want to talk to the “suits.”

You can imagine, at this point, what I did. A man walked out the door wearing a very nice suit. The major and I approached him and asked him if he had time to speak to us. I related to the “suit” what the tram driver had said, and the major backed me up all the way. The “suit” assured me he would deal with the issue because “That is not the kind of experience we want anyone writing our tram to have.” He then thanked me and headed back to the office through the door our tram driver had walked through. I feel confident that tram driver/guide would be unlikely to disparage our Vietnam War dead again soon. As we parted company, the young major was very appreciative.

Sixth. My final anecdote took place in the Capitol rotunda, yet another trip with our Christian high school students to develop an appreciation for our nation’s history. The tour guide (these problems frequently arise with tour guides for some reason) leading our group said, “The Capitol rotunda was built during the presidency of George Washington.”

I could not allow that misstatement to go by without correction. The students in our Christian school are taught accurate US history. My teens knew that the presidency of George Washington took place in the temporary capital of New York City, not Washington, DC. The Capitol rotunda [pictured] was built after George Washington had died. I said to her when she paused, “Excuse me, but that is not true.”

She took offense, of course, and insisted that the Capitol rotunda was built during the presidency of George Washington. I said to her, “I mean no offense. I have no desire to embarrass you in front of other people. But most of the people in the group you are leading know that you are mistaken. I spoke up only because these are rather important historical facts to know, and it is surprising that since you do this for a living, you don’t know the facts.” Once more, members of the group thanked me for insisting on accuracy.

I try to be nice. I don’t want to offend anybody. I want to get along with people, if at all possible. However, I am my father’s son, and I cannot stand by while those who occupy positions of authority or who officially dispense information misuse their position to misinform, disparage, or belittle others.

I am wondering if we Americans ought to cultivate our willingness to speak up when it is appropriate to do so.