American Originals vs. The Uneasy Center: Religion in American Life

Although he takes a different tack with each work, Paul Conkin addresses similar broad issues in American Originals: Homemade Varieties of Christianity and The Uneasy Center: Reformed Christianity in Antebellum America.  Both texts examine the role of religion in the development of American society.  Where they differ is in focus: The Uneasy Center focuses on the dominant role of what Conkin calls “Reformed Christianity” in creating American cultural and political institutions, while American Originals focuses on what Conkin considers uniquely American religions and their impact.

Neither text claims to analyze the full spectrum of religious belief in America, but limits itself to a relatively narrow focus.  In the case of The Uneasy Center, Conkin defines “Reformed Christianity” as the religious denominations that traced their origins to the reforms of “Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, Martin Bucer, John Knox, Thomas Cranmer, and dozens of other architects of national churches on the European continent and in Britain.”  This definition opens Conkin up to criticism for using a definition so broad that Howard Miller complains that it is unusable for precise analysis, and John Mulder wonders at the inclusion of Anglicans and Methodists as part of “Reformed Christianity.”  In contrast, American Originals draws criticism from R. Lawrence Moore for being too restrictive because it does not accept American Methodism or African-American denominations as uniquely American, and rejects variations based on race or ethnicity as theologically significant.

In many ways, The Uneasy Center provides the necessary historical and theological base for American Originals, although there is no indication that the two volumes are intended to be used together.  The Uneasy Center begins with a brief analysis of the growth of Christianity beyond its ancient roots as an offshoot of Judaism through the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, and then turns to reform efforts in England and the North American Colonies.  Because Conkin focuses on Protestant sects that generally developed from Calvinism, not the teachings of Martin Luther, this first section is critical to understanding the development of Conkin’s “Reformed Christianity”.  Reform in the Church of England flowed on Calvinist lines based officially on the Westminster confession, although in the long run only Presbyterian and a conservative minority in the Church of England used the Westminster documents to resolve questions of doctrine.  The Church of England itself would ultimately turn to the Arminian doctrine espoused by most of the American sects that fall under the heading of his “Reformed Christianity”.

After examining the reform movement in England, Conkin briefly discusses the dominant sects in Colonial America.  From Conkin’s perspective the most important items to understand are that the Anglican Church was unable to prosper primarily due to a lack of a Bishop to perform some important sacraments, lack of effective ministers and church leadership, the Anglican inability to provide a “warm” evangelical religion for worshippers, and a church doctrine that was excessively inclusive; that New England Congregationalists maintained a strict and exclusive Calvinist theology in which God’s sovereignty over creation was absolute and irresistible, that over time Puritans moved from a hot, evangelical-style religion to a cold, legalistic religion, that some liberal Puritan ministers began a slow move toward Arminianism, and that in New England there was a strict separation of the ministry from civil functions like marriage; and that Presbyterian ministers were largely responsible for the revival culture of the Great Awakening, that the move toward an evangelical style and emphasis of moral discipline over doctrinal discipline caused a schism in American Presbyterianism.

The Uneasy Center places a large emphasis on Methodism because it provides a clear and early example of evangelical thought during the 18^th century and beyond.  Conkin identifies four key components that contribute to the meaning of the word “evangelical”: emphasis on the conversion experience, the effort to continue a “Spirit-filled devotional life”, responsibility to gain converts, and a strict personal moral standard.  Methodism’s founder, John Wesley, also held strong Arminian beliefs that influenced the development of both Methodism and other American sects.

Although Conkin also provides discussion of worship in Reformed congregations, and of sects outside his Reformed Christian mainstream, the real meat of The Uneasy Center is his analysis of “evangelical hegemony” and Reform theology.  Conkin argues that by the 1820s the four Reformed Christian denominations held so much power that they were able to set standards of belief and behavior for most of society, even to the point that some states had strict laws favoring theistic belief, protecting the Sabbath, and condemning blasphemy.  The large number of prominent, successful and politically involved evangelical Christians were able to control legislators so that their agendas became law, and were able to sway non-evangelical family members and associates to support them.  That evangelicals could generally win public battles when they agreed on policies does not mean that they were able to completely dominate society, as the issue of slavery illustrates.  Because they were also technically a minority, evangelicals sometimes faced stiff opposition when they proposed controversial measures such as prohibition on alcohol.  Evangelicals also never formed their own political party, which Conkin attributes to non-religious issues that were important to the varying levels of society that made up the evangelical denominations.

Two uniquely 19^th century occurrences assisted in the development of evangelical hegemony: the revivalism of the Second Great Awakening, and the dislocations caused by the Civil War.  Not only did revivals witness the emergence of the professional evangelist, but they also served to swell the ranks of various denominations and to familiarize those who did not join with their beliefs.  This increased the cultural influence of evangelicals in 19^th century America.  The Second Great awakening was not the only time revivals swept the nation, as Methodists and Presbyterians maintained a revival culture, but the cycle of revival among denominations never coincided again.  Revivals also continued to emphasize the ecstatic conversion experience, and to move such conversions from private events to public ones. The Civil War spread evangelical beliefs even further, particularly among soldiers who witnessed the death and destruction of the war and experienced revivals in POW camps.

When turning toward uniquely American religions in American Originals, Conkin automatically rejects all of the non-Christian options because they did not gain sufficiently large followings to be of interest.  He also does not address the smaller Christian sects that developed in the new world, preferring to concentrate on the six largest categories of uniquely American religions: Restoration Christianity, Humanistic Christianity, Apocalyptic Christianity, Mormon Christianity, Spiritual Christianity, and Ecstatic Christianity.  Conkin chose the denominations included because they were fundamentally different in terms of doctrine from mainstream Christian denominations, and therefore more important to an increased understanding of both religion and America than the small sects that splintered off from large denominations.

Restoration Christianity, comprised mostly of the Christians and Disciples of Christ, is the earliest major sub-group of American originals Conkin deals with.  These groups had the goal of restoring the early Christian churches based on a reading of the New Testament.  What makes the Restoration movement different from earlier church reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, is that Restoration Christians rejected the doctrines of the first four centuries of Christian history.  Conkin notes that there are problems even with the Restorationists desire to use the New Testament as a guide for proper worship because Jesus left no guidelines for establishing churches.  This meant that early Christians had no guides but Paul and the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.  Because neither Paul nor the unknown author of Luke and Acts personally knew Jesus, ardent Restorationists could reject the authority of these documents as an appropriate base for worship. Conkin does not seem to follow this line of reasoning through to its logical conclusion:  because the New Testament canon was not fully written or accepted for at least two hundred years after Christ’s death, it is impossible to know which of the books have not been corrupted through the course of time.

Conkin identifies the general doctrines of early Christian congregations: Arminianism and the doctrine of annihilationism.  However, it is important to understand that this movement did not espouse specific creeds, and the Christians would accept others with a wide variety of beliefs.  The Christians were also the first sect other than the Shakers to accept women as ministers, which was a source of friction between them and Orthodox Christians.

The second section of American Originals addresses what Conkin calls “Humanistic Christianity”, which encompasses the Unitarian and Universalist movements, which reject the divinity of Jesus and the concept of universal salvation.  Conkin’s inclusion of Unitarians and Universalists might raise eyebrows for some due to their European origins, despite his claim that they were “largely indigenous, rooted originally in New England Puritanism and shaped doctrinally and institutionally by American religious innovators.  However, the problem with this claim is that although Conkin provides a lengthy discussion of European and American origins, he does not provide citations for his claim.  This issue extends throughout the entire text.  What Conkin provides instead are recommended reading lists at the end of each chapter in the manner of an encyclopedia article.  The determination of whether this is sufficient documentation is left to the reader.

The base doctrine of Unitarianism is that God is a single and unified divine entity, and that Jesus was a fully human messiah.  This belief was probably also that of early Judaic Christians who adopted only the Gospel of Matthew.  Faustus Socinus expanded this core by expanding it to include the idea that only a human Jesus could serve as a moderator between God and man, and that only a human could die and rise from the grave to provide salvation for humanity.  These philosophies spread to England and then America, where a variety of groups of rational Christians moved toward Unitarianism and even endorsed Arian views.  Conkin writes that eventually “liberal” Puritans became the first Unitarian congregations in North America.

After discussing the Humanist Christianity embodied by Unitarians, Conkin turns to the apocalyptic vision of Adventists and Jehovah’s witnesses, but again he fails to show Apocalyptic Christianity in North America originated on these shores.  Not only does Conkin identify early Christians as Adventists due to their belief in everlasting life in the Kingdom of God after the return of Jesus, but he traces Adventist thought in North America to Edward Irving’s Adventist movement in England, which even anticipated American Adventist’s date of Christ’s return in 1843.  The Irvinites also provided Americans with tested church institutions to ground their faith in.  Conkin does succeed in providing a coherent and interesting account of Biblical apocalyptic writing, and links the Book of Daniel on the Old Testament with the Book of Revelations in the New Testament.

With Mormonism, Conkin finally addresses a denomination that truly began in the United States.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints grew from an obscure sect to what is now the sixth largest denomination in the United States.  If it were not for Mormonism’s newer revelation detailing ancient events in the New World at the time of, the doctrines it shares with apocalyptic sects would group it with them.  In addition to the revelations professed by Joseph Smith, Mormons believe in “an early advent, corporealism, Jewish continuities, and a sense of apostasy of orthodox churches.”  Conkin notes in passing that some religious scholars classify Mormonism as its own separate religion, not a denomination of Christianity, but Conkin does not specify why he disagrees with this assessment.  It is obvious that he does, because he states in the preface that he excluded non-Christian sects as not having enough adherents to make them worthy of inclusion.  Inferring that because Mormons believe in Jesus and the resurrection is not enough, if only because Conkin went to the trouble to report that not all analysis classifies them as Christians.

Conkin continues through the remainder of the text discussing Christian Science and Pentacostalism, providing descriptions of their base theology and its development, followed by their practices of worship.  All of this is rendered in highly readable prose, but it continues to suffer from the absence of any documentation whatsoever.  Not only does Conkin not provide textual citations or footnotes, he does not provide a bibliography of any sort.  The only documentation he provides is the previously mentioned options for additional reading.  Because these items do not refer directly to the assertions Conklin makes in the text, they cannot be counted as an adequate source of documentation.

Religion, Press Freedom, and Equal Protection on Campus

Establishment of Religion

Viewpoint neutrality extends beyond political speech on campus, and into what may be an even more contentious area – religious freedom. The courts have ruled that colleges cannot treat individuals or groups espousing a religious belief in away that is less favorable than other religious or secular groups on campus. The courts have struck down rules that prohibited religious groups from using campus facilities or being awarded funding. If secular groups receive access to funding or facilities at a public institution of higher learning, then religious groups must also receive funding and access to facilities under the same criteria as secular groups seeking services from the school.

At the same time, in order to remain viewpoint neutral in the eyes of the courts may not take actions that establish a specific religious tradition or practice at a public institution. Because this is a contentious issue, the Supreme Court has developed a three-pronged approach known as the Lemon test to assess the policies colleges set. Essentially, programs must have a secular purpose, must not hinder or promote religion, and does create government entanglement. One effect of the Lemon test is to make fora on campus that secular groups can access also open to religious groups. The most obvious result on some campuses is that student affairs administrators end being required to allow members of religions to preach in public for a on campus unless they cause a significant disturbance to the educational mission. When I was a student at the University of Alabama, this meant that students, especially female students, found themselves the targets of the harangues of an individual calling himself “Brother Micah” as they went to the student center on campus.

Freedom of the Press

Student organizations have levels of press freedom at colleges and universities far beyond that found in the K-12 setting as a result of the 1973 Papish ruling by the Supreme Court, which affirmed that student organizations in higher education have the same press freedoms as regular media. Both content censorship and prior restrain of student media are generally held to be unconstitutional. This means that campus newspapers are subject to the same standards as other publications in regard to defamation and copyright. Electronic student media have the same levels of protections, although, student affairs administrators can still impose limits on Internet access  or other limited public for a or nonfora – analysis of appropriate time, place, and manner still apply to campus media organizations. In an area that is potentially less obvious, the courts have ruled that media generated as part of a class assignment for grades or other evaluation, may be more closely regulated in regards to academic standards. In the teaching role, colleges can use grades to assert that articles do not meet academic standards for quality. In another caveat for administrators and faculty, though, even when a campus newspaper is produced in class, the college still cannot exercise censorship over the content.

Right to Privacy

The issue of student rights to privacy seems one of the more challenging of the civil rights that student affairs administrators must navigate. In some regards a right to privacy is implied in the First Amendment to the Constitution in the rights to free speech or association, as students cannot be forced to speak or join organizations outside the context of the classroom. In addition, although campus administrators are not law enforcement, the Fourth Amendment’s protections against illegal search and seizure apply at public colleges. In practice, it seems that student affairs administrators need to be more aware of the restraints and requirements of Federal and state privacy laws on student privacy. FERPA, for example allows students access to their records, and allows employees of an institution of higher education to discuss a student if there is a legitimate educational reason to do so, but it also prevents them from releasing information about a student’s grades or class performance without written permission unless health and safety are at stake. As in other parts of life, individual privacy rights tend to be less if safety is an issue, so student affairs administrators are advised to err on the side of caution when privacy is an issue – if there is a legitimate reason to know that students are a danger to themselves or others, it is best to contact appropriate authorities and face potential privacy litigation than to risk that people be harmed by their inaction.

Equal Protection

Federal law and Supreme Court rulings have established that institutions of higher education may not discriminate based on race or gender. The Court’s ruling in Brown v the Board of Education in 1954 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ban discrimination based on race, while Title IX bars discrimination based on gender. There are some important exceptions for Greek organizations, religious schools, and military academies, but in general, at public institutions of higher education, may not discriminate based on either of these categories. In addition, the Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Acts prohibit discrimination based on disability.

When it comes to race-based discrimination, the issue that seems the largest challenge for student affairs administrators in the 21st century is the issue of Affirmative Action in admissions or access to limited programs. The courts have ruled that quotas and systems that treat students as groups based on race or ethnicity are not acceptable ways to promote diversity. Student affairs administrators are encouraged to evaluate each student as an individual, and can use race only as a bonus on a student’s side when considering them for admission if it can be shown that doing so to enhance diversity is a benefit to the educational mission.

Disability seems another area in which student affairs administrators face a very difficult task in acting appropriately, serving student needs, and following legislation. Part of the problem is that because higher education is not legally defined as a right, when students leave the K-12 environment for college, they face a radically different methodology when it comes to accommodation. In colleges, students needing accommodation must self-identify in order to receive evaluation and accommodation. Student affairs administrators also face the challenge of not having established competencies to guide admissions to disciplines, which makes it more difficult to determine whether a student with a disability could succeed regardless of their disability. Once again, treating students as individuals, and evaluating each case on its own is really the watchword for student affairs administrators. Disability law is so highly specialized that administrators to seek help from specialists when dealing with this area of responsibility.


References

Lake, Peter F, Foundations of higher education law & policy: Basic legal rules, concepts, and principles for student affairs. Washington, DC: NASPA.

Freedom of Speech on Campus

In light of recent controversies over free speech on college campuses, I thought I would share some insights from my Higher Education Law class, which is a requirement for the Graduate Certificate in Title IX that I've been working on recently. All stages of this have been an eye-opener, but the ideas here seem relevant. I'm focusing entirely on the legal aspects of speech on campus because the question of whether students should protest speakers invited to campus is not a legal issue, but a cultural, political, and social one. The idea that colleges, or states, should prevent protests or punish students for law-abiding protests is ludicrous for the reasons below. Violence and destruction of property are different issues entirely.

Freedom of speech

Students in the educational context do not give up their First Amendment rights, including those of free speech. The Supreme Court has recognized that protected forms of expression are not limited to speaking, but also include symbols. Whiles there are limits to free speech - it doesn't cover obscenity or threats, or speech that is disruptive to the educational missions of colleges. Despite that, protected speech includes many things that students and faculty might find distasteful. That means that colleges cannot punish hate speech, and can only adopt viewpoint neutral regulations that restrict conduct if they can legitimately foresee that the conduct, including speech, might disrupt education on campus. Student affairs administrators don't have to wait until a riot erupts to disperse a protest or other gathering on campus.

However, at the same time, student affairs administrators cannot ban speech or other activities simply because they fear that there might be a disruption. The Supreme Court holds that colleges and universities must tolerate a modicum of incivility and disruption as part of campus life as long as it does not rise to the level of "material and substantial" disruption of educational activities. In order to take proactive measures to restrict speech, student affairs administrators must have a reasonable basis for doing so - mere concern of what might happen is not sufficient. There must be legitimate cause to foresee a significant disturbance of campus activities (Lake, 2011, p. 198-204).

Time, place, and manner

Because the Supreme Court has also held that organizations and institutions also have free speech rights, and that it has recognized the rights of colleges to restrict speech that interferes with their educational mission, they can insist that speech be limited to reasonable times, places, and manners. In recent years, the Court has been interpreting these restrictions in ways that tend to favor government institutions, which may give student affairs administrators a bit of leeway in implementing these restrictions on campus, especially when narrowly tailored to promote a significant interest that would not be achieved if there were no limits. However, student affairs administrators must also be aware that any restrictions must be reasonable, and selecting an option to restrict speech that essentially closes it off, does not meet the standard of being reasonable. Restrictions of time, place, and manner of speech must also be viewpoint neutral.

Free speech zones, which are becoming increasingly popular, fit into the category of time and place restrictions, and they pose some special challenges for student affairs administrators. They must ensure that they are not using free speech zones to close of speech in areas of the campus that are traditionally open public fora. In addition, administrators must takes steps to ensure that they are restricting certain types of speech based on the potential to disrupt education, rather than on the content of the speech. Student affairs administrators must also ensure that while restricting speech to free speech zones, they are not preventing "ample" opportunities for communication - free speech zones that no one goes near do not really provide a chance to communicate ideas (Lake, 2011, p. 204-205).

Chill, overbreadth, and vagueness

First Amendment rights extend beyond direct restrictions, but are also concerned with the issue of "chilling" of expression. If students worry that their speech may result in some kind of punishment due to campus rules. They do not have to actually be punished for campus limits to violate the First Amendment, but merely the threat rules pose might be enough. One of the ways in which this can happen is if rules are so vague or broad that they can be made to cover just about anything. Broadly written rules intended to restrict speech that would not normally be protected may end up restricting protected speech unintentionally. What this means for student affairs administrators is that they should try to be specific when creating rules and regulations related to speech. Assertions that rules are overly broad, or are too vague often appear in litigation on First Amendment matters, so administrators need to be aware of these potential problems (Lake, 2011, p. 206).

Public fora

Colleges have multiple types of spaces, and each type of space allows varying levels of free speech, including (among others) a traditional public forum and a limited public forum. Although institutions have a bit of control over which places on campus are designated as what type of fora, student affairs administrators are unable to simply dictate which spaces will develop into which type of forum. As is common in public places in American society, the use of various fora on campus evolves over time. Colleges and universities cannot simply attempt to claim that there are no fora on campus, and while they can create preferred locations for speech, they cannot wipe out all nonconforming speech on campus.

Traditional public fora are generally seen as neutral public spaces in which no perspective is privileged above others. Spaces normally open to the public fall into this category - parks are one example. Other spaces that were not originally intended to be public fora may also develop into them over time. What is important for student affairs administrators to understand is that in traditional public fora they generally may only apply restrictions on the time and manner of speech. Content may only be regulated in traditional public fora if it serves “a compelling” interest of the state, which means that speech the administrators do not like often cannot be regulated.

Limited public fora present different challenges for student affairs administrators. These are areas that the university has created as different from other fora, and they may have features that allow administrators to limit speech in these locations because they are created for certain purposes. Student newspapers and student organizations, areas for signs and notices, and some types of Internet use fall into the category of limited public fora, as these areas are created specifically to further the educational mission of the institution. Student affairs administrators have more latitude in regulated limited public fora, but they still must obey the rules that their own institutions have created. However, they still cannot regulate points of view expressed(Lake, 2011, p. 207-217).

Nonfora

Some places that are generally not open to the public are not fora at all. In these places the college’s First Amendment rights of freedom of association or speech are likely at stake. Board meetings or administrative meetings fall into this category, as the administrators must have the ability to determine time, place, and content of the meeting in order to conduct the university’s business. Student advising appointments might also fall into this category.

In addition, although it may seem that private institutions of higher learning should have greater leeway in determining what type of speech occurs on campus, some parts of even private schools are so similar to traditional public fora that legislation and judicial rulings often treat fora at private colleges in ways similar to those at public institutions of higher education. As a result, student affairs administrators at private colleges should consult with legal experts in their jurisdiction to determine how local laws treat regulation of speech on their campuses (Lake, 2011, p. 218).

References

Lake, Peter F, Foundations of higher education law & policy: Basic legal rules, concepts, and principles for student affairs. Washington, DC: NASPA.

Contrasting Approaches to Faith: Roger Williams and John Winthop

Gaustad, Edwin S. Liberty of Conscience: Roger Williams in America.

Morgan, Edmund S. The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop.

Understanding the comparative roles of Church and State in the development of England’s American colonies is crucial to understanding the modern United States and the cultural and political setting of the 21st century.  Religious differences and the proper role of religion in government create fissures in modern American society, just as those issues caused divisions in England and the Massachusetts Bay Colony.  In their biographies of Roger Williams and John Winthrop, Edwin Gaustad and Edmund Morgan take up the difficult task of navigating the mists of time to not only discuss two key figures instrumental in Early America, but to examine the larger issue of the proper place of religion in society.

Although both Roger Williams and John Winthrop were Puritans, it would be difficult to find two men whose views on religion and government were more disparate.  On the one hand, Roger Williams held the view that civil governments should have no role in enforcing “the rules of the first table”, or the first four of the Ten Commandments, which relate to worshiping only the God of Moses, not creating images of the deity, and keeping the Sabbath holy (Gaustad, 81).  On the other, John Winthrop and the majority of Puritans believed that it was the responsibility of rational governments to absolutely enforce the requirements of the first table Morgan, 125).  The protagonists chosen by Gaustad and Morgan also held very different views on whether individuals and congregations should be allowed to hold divergent religious beliefs within the same society.  Williams believed that people should be allowed to worship according to his own conscience, whether they were Anglicans, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, or chose to believe in no deity at all (Gaustad, 89).  In contrast, Winthrop held that to avoid internal strife, societies must agree to homogenous religious beliefs (Morgan, 132)

Both texts cover much of the same material, albeit from radically different perspectives.  Using biography as the vehicle for this discussion has some unique pitfalls: judging the subject by the ethical standards of the modern era, identifying with the subject to the extent that the narrative is no longer objective, selecting anecdotes merely for shock value, or expanding available facts to fill in the gaps.  Unfortunately, it seems that both Gaustad and Winthrop fall into at least some of these traps.  However, by choosing biography as the medium for approaching this important stage of American development, Gaustad and Morgan are able to lend an air of immediacy to their subjects, which is frequently not the case is traditional histories.  The reason for this is simple: by choosing a protagonist for the story, they allow readers to become absorbed into the material.

It is easier to find areas for criticism in Morgan’s The Puritan Dilemma than in Gaustad’s Liberty of Conscience, if only because John Winthrop’s views on the proper relation between Church and State offend modern American sensibilities.  Winthrop’s early life reads like every Americans expectation of Puritan migrants to the New World, and in this respect he is a likable figure.  Focusing on the Puritanism’s difficult path, which dictated that the adherent “devote his life to seeking salvation but told him that he was helpless to do anything but evil,” (Morgan, 7), Morgan shows how the young Winthrop struggled with the requirements of his new faith.  In addition to the quest for salvation, which was a predetermined fate, Puritanism required that Winthrop live in the world, but not be part of it.  This meant that he could not withdraw to a strictly religious life focused on God, but had to live to the best of his ability as part of his devotions.  This meant walking the fine line between enjoying the pleasures God provided and not becoming so absorbed in them that he lost sight of God (Morgan, 8).  Attaining this balance was as difficult for John Winthrop as it would be for modern Americans and Britons, and Morgan’s depiction of him staggering between the pleasures of the good life and complete abstinence from fine living paints a picture of a real man that counters the modern caricature of Puritans as strict, unbending, humorless folk (Morgan, 10).  This picture of Puritan humanity allows Morgan to create sympathy for Winthrop as he leaves for New England.

The Puritan Dilemma shines when it shows the depth and sources of Puritan belief, as well as their connection to how Puritans conducted their affairs.  This is particularly true when it comes to Puritan flight from England to America in the 1620s.  Rather than simply reiterating the tired textbook answer that “religious persecution” cause Puritan migration to the New World, Morgan casts it as an attempt to save England from the punitive hand of God.  Winthrop and his associates believed that “every nation or people…existed by virtue of a covenant with God, and agreement whereby they promised to abide by His laws, and He in turn agreed to treat them well,” (Morgan, 19).  This led them to the conclusion that governments were instituted to enforce God’s laws in order to hold His wrath at bay, and that as long as the government fulfilled this task it was the responsibility of the people to assist it.  However, when a government failed to enforce God’s law, they believed it was the duty of the people to replace the corrupt government with one that was up to the task of leading the nation away from sin (Morgan, 19).  Late 16th and early 17th century England presented the Puritans with a government that frequently seemed to lead the nation to damnation on Earth.

The oscillations of England’s rulers between Catholicism and Protestantism under Mary Tudor, Elizabeth I, James I, and Charles I presented Winthrop with a dilemma: when was a government corrupt enough to warrant its overthrow?  Simply fleeing the scene to more agreeable shores seemed to fly in the face of his belief that God required him to live in the world while doing His work.  During the reigns of Elizabeth and James, Parliament and Puritans had some measure of influence to move England toward their vision of a righteous society, but when Charles I ascended the throne everything changed (Morgan, 27).  Charles dissolved Parliament and moved the Anglican Church in a theological direction that Winthrop considered heresy.  Charles and his followers advocated the belief that people could achieve faith and salvation on their own, without the predestination which Puritans believed in.  When they tried to fight this doctrine in Parliament, he dissolved it (Morgan, 27).

In this setting, along with Catholic victories in France and Central Europe, Winthrop faced a decision: accept Charles’s Arminianism, withdraw from the Church of England to become a separatist, or flee England.  Because becoming a separatist would mean turning his back on England and the Church, which he believed could be saved, he chose to migrate to New England with the King’s approval (Morgan, 31).  This would allow him to create the Kingdom of God on Earth, and hopefully save England from God’s wrath.

Winthrop’s life in New England is both what most concerns American audiences and the area in which Morgan seems to become too close to his subject.  A first example of this comes in his discussion of Winthrop’s acts as Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in establishing a government for the colony.  Acknowledging that Winthrop and the other members of the Massachusetts Bay Company were not required to extend participation in governing the colony (Morgan, 93), Morgan seems to praise Winthrop for not keeping an oligarchic control, along with his deputy and seven assistants over all aspects of life (Morgan, 89).  Winthrop decided to extend the franchise to all of the “freemen” in the colony, which would allow them to vote in annual elections for the Governor and assistants.  The problem was that Winthrop restricted membership in this group to male members of the colony’s churches, which only admitted those people that they deemed were “saved” (Morgan, 95).  Morgan writes that this extended opportunities to participate in government to more people than in England, as way of justification, but the fact of the matter is that Winthrop believed that democracy was dangerous and biblically unwarranted (Morgan, 94).  He did this to protect the colony’s “special commission” from God, which he saw as creating a righteous society.

Morgan seems to want to justify the autocratic nature of both religious and civil rule under Winthrop and other early colonial governors.  In addition to their role in combating heresy within Massachusetts churches, which was used against separatists and those deemed merely in error, (Morgan 100) the General Court levied taxes for public works and otherwise performed the functions of civil government.  When some colonists protested against taxation on the basis that they had no representation, Winthrop replied that because they could elect new autocrats every year, they were indeed represented (Morgan, 109).  This is used as a sop by Winthrop (to the colonists) and Morgan (to the readers) to justify the efficiency of the despotism created in Massachusetts Bay, which Morgan writes was due to the simplicity and lack of pre-existing rules in the structure (Morgan, 101). He does admit that the kind of despotism found in Massachusetts was incredibly susceptible to the whims and abilities of the Governor.

The largest issue with The Puritan Dilemma is the way it deals with the issue of religious separatism.  While it is possible that he is simply attempting to make the issue more immediate for the reader, Morgan appears to side with Winthrop in his attempts to suppress dissension or drive it out.  The one exception being the case of Anne Hutchinson, which Morgan calls “an unsavory triumph of arbitrary power,” (Morgan 153) which he excuses by saying that “it represented more than the mere crushing of a helpless woman,” (Morgan, 153).  Both Morgan and Winthrop seem to feel that the abuse of power was justified because it restored the unity of the Boston church (Morgan, 153)

A key case Morgan uses to illustrate is that of Roger Williams, the subject of Gaustad’s work.  Morgan portrays Williams just as Winthrop did, with no clear separation between his opinion and Winthrop’s, writing that not only was he an avowed separatist, but that he “expressed the dangerous opinion that civil magistrates had no authority in any religious matter, that they could not even require people to keep the Sabbath,” (Morgan, 118).  Morgan makes absolutely no mention that this doctrine would eventually rule England, but the United States as well, instead he continues to show Williams and his beliefs (which were admittedly peculiar for the time) as so strange as to be beyond the pale, including “that a regenerate man ought not to pray in company with an unregenerate one, not even with his wife and children, and that he ought not give thanks after the sacrament or after meals,” (Morgan, 125).  Williams also proclaimed that the practicing of forcing witnesses to swear oaths to God could put a regenerate magistrate in communion with an unregenerate person, thus corrupting them.  Morgan portrays these beliefs as not only abominable to Winthrop, but possibly to himself (Morgan, 124).

Gaustad’s treatment of Roger Williams seems more balanced, although it seems to include a fair tinge a hero worship.  The first two paragraphs of Liberty of Conscience tell us why Gaustad believes Roger Williams is worthy of study: he was the founder of Rhode Island, and he was the originator of the modern ideal of religious freedom one hundred fifty years before Jefferson (Gaustad, ix).  Because little information regarding Roger Williams’s early life exists, Gaustad supplements it with an overview of the development of the Anglican Church, the reign’s of Elizabeth I, James I, and Charles I, and the development of the Puritan and Baptist movements in England and Holland.  Although he generally is able to successfully maintain his distance from the object of his biography he does make at least one stretch for which he provides no evidence when he writes that “Certainly by the time he was in college, if not well before, Williams came to see Christianity as more than a commitment of faith, though it had to be that above all else.  It was also, however, a religion of wondrous complexity and some contradiction,” (Gaustad, 8).  This train of thought appears to be based on Williams’s 1673 comments that he became religious at an early age (Morgan, 6)

Gaustad’s stylistic differences from Morgan are clear almost immediately.  Where Morgan wrote in a fashion that makes it appear that he agrees with the assertions of John Winthrop, Gaustad endeavors to make it crystal that Roger Williams’s opinions belong to Williams.  A single sentence is evidence enough: “Their idealism was high, their motivation clear, their method – for Williams – suspect,” (Gaustad, 25).  In this it seems that Gaustad avoids overly identifying with his subject.

Gaustad also treats Williams’s charge that the patent of the King of England was not enough justification for the colonists to seize land in New England.  Williams based his argument regarding the King’s right to give away the land of others on his observation of Indian behavior regarding land boundaries and their methods of bargaining for rights to even small plots (Gaustad, 29).  Morgan includes this episode in his litany of Williams’s offenses against the Massachusetts Bay Colony, writing that the alternatives that Williams suggested “were ridiculous”, (Morgan, 123) without ever mentioning why Williams claimed that the King’s land grants were invalid.

What Gaustad and Morgan really set out to do with their biographies of Roger Williams and John Winthrop is to shed some light on how the United States developed its religious and governmental structures.  Both illustrate the depth of religious belief of many early colonists, as well as their attitudes toward the proper relations between Church and State.  Edmund Morgan’s The Puritan Dilemma clearly shows how intertwined church and state were in both Old and New England during the early 17th century, while Liberty of Conscience shows the long road toward religious tolerance among Christian denominations and other religious groups.  Both texts show how difficult it was for people to accept the idea that a polity could be the home of a variety of religious beliefs without constant discord, even if those people had migrated primarily so they could worship according to their own beliefs.

It is interesting to note that some of the issues examined in both texts are still with us today.  The proper role of religion, particularly Christianity, in government continues to be a major issue in American politics.  The current Supreme Court docket contains multiple cases regarding the public display of the Ten Commandments, with the First Table continuing to represent the key argument.  At the same time Constitutional Amendments have appeared in Congress that attempt to further identify civil marriages according to religious dictates found in the Old Testament book Leviticus.  Congress is also involved in a national debate over whether the courts should be allowed to rule on the phrase “under God” being included in the Pledge of Allegiance – passing legislation that would prevent the United States Supreme Court from even hearing cases on this issue.  Even at the start of the 21st century religious issues remain at the forefront of American public discourse.

Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity

Mark A. Noll, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity.

Three major themes grace Mark Noll’s Turning Points in the History of Christianity: the development of a cohesive doctrine of faith, the relationship of church and state, and the spread of Christianity from the Middle East to Europe and the rest of the world.  The themes overlap in many ways, which Noll also illustrates.  However, these themes may not be the message that Noll is attempting to deliver to readers.  In the introduction he sets out four reasons, which he specifically aims at fellow believers, that church history is an important topic (Noll, 15).  Noll believes that it is important to recognize that Christianity is more than “simply a set of dogmas, a moral code, or a picture of the universe,” (Noll, 15) but that it is also “the acts of God in time and space, centrally the acts of God in Christ,” (Noll, 15).  This means that to “study the history of Christianity is continually to remember the historical character of the Christian faith,” (Noll, 15).  The remaining three reasons Noll believes it is important to study the history of Christianity: to place the study of scripture into historical perspective, to examine how Christians interact with various cultures, and to separate what is truly an aspect of genuine Christian Faith from things that are not core beliefs (Noll, 18), illustrate that this is not the typical historical work.   Rather, it is primarily designed for the laity and new students, not scholars (Noll, 13).  Turning Points is specifically written for an audience that is mostly composed of Christians of certain denominations, and Noll accepts this bias, while at the same time pledging to be as fair as possible within those limits.

The development of a cohesive and standard doctrine of faith dominated both the early history of Christianity and the beginning chapters of Turning Points with good reason.  It was as necessary for early Christians to define what they believed in, as it is to start a discussion of church history with the beginnings of the church.  Noll traces the adoption of the books of the New Testament by examining their content, the earliest dates they are referred to, and the Jewish tradition of consulting sacred texts for understanding the divine, as well as the social environment of the first and second centuries.  Noll’s attributes the necessity of developing a canon of accepted writing to what the Second Epistle of Peter calls the errors of “ignorant and unstable people,” (Noll, 35).  An example of the challenge posed by different interpretations of the New Testament is the canon provided by Marcion, who heavily edited the Gospels and other writings to support his belief that the loving God of the New Testament was at war with an evil and restrictive God of the Old Testament (Noll, 35).

The doctrinal result of the Marcionite heresy was for early church leaders to develop their own cannon, so that by 200 A.D. a familiar canon of New Testament writings appeared, which included writing believed divinely inspired, as well as writings that should be read and understood.  The New Testament as modern civilization understands it was largely in place by 367 A.D.  The canon was only the first tool the church used to develop official doctrine.  Other tools were the development of a church hierarchy, the use of creeds to teach and affirm what believers stood for, and the use of councils for resolving disputes over matters of faith.

Creeds hold a special place both in religious services and in Turning Points, because they represent a concrete and coherent synopsis of the foundations of Christianity.  Examining differences between chronologically divergent creeds allows us to understand the issues that previous generations struggled with, or that were central enough to their belief system to necessitate spelling out.  They were also used to protect believers from outside heresy (Noll, 44).

Turning Point’s second theme, the relationship of church and state takes center stage with the Council of Nicaea in 325, which also shows the commingling of the three main themes of the work.  Nicaea was the result of both a need for 4th century Christians to establish the nature of the Trinity and divinity of Christ, but it also provided the Emperor Constantine an opportunity to use the church to enhance the stability of the Roman Empire (Noll, 51).  Constantine’s main goal in calling the council was not so much to resolve the Arian heresy, as it was to remove a potential source of stress in the Empire.  Other than the previous Roman persecution of Christians, this represents the first official involvement of Christianity with the state.  This is where Noll turns to the obvious issue: what is the proper relationship between the church and the state?

The Emperors obviously thought that they should be in charge, after all, that was why they became Emperors.  The leaders of the church, predictably, believed otherwise, which comes into clear focus when Ambrose refused communion to Theodosius saying “the Emperor is in the church, not above it,” (Noll, 60).  This debate continued to flare between rulers and church leaders: Holy Roman Emperors challenged the authority of the Pope, Henry VII of England separated from Rome and was declared the head of his church, and modern Roman Catholic Bishops threaten to refuse communion to Democratic Party candidates who support abortion.

The marriage of church and state is not always a happy one, which Noll tends to gloss over.  The carnage of the Crusades is largely absent from Turning Points, as are the torture and death of the Inquisition, and the suppression of the Templar Order.  This could be overlooked if it were not for the selection of the French Revolution and its attempt to dechristianize France (Noll, 252).  Noll introduces this topic as part of the greater discussion of the end of Christendom, but it is difficult to see how such an emphasis on assaults on Christians by atheists is justifiable in the absence of discussions of the assaults by Christians on others.  The neglect of these issues can hardly be covered by his statement that “Throughout the entire history of Christianity, problems have constantly arisen when believers equate the acts of the church with the acts of God, when Christians assume that using the name of God to justify their actions in space and time is the same as God himself acting,” (Noll, 15).  To be fair, Turning Points acknowledges the horror of the Latin sack of Byzantium as the endgame of the Great Schism, and that the capture of Jerusalem saw the slaughter of all of its inhabitants (Noll, 141).  However, it depicts them as mere aberrations of behavior without further examination.

The final theme of Noll’s work is the spread of Christianity from the Middle East to Europe and beyond.  This concept is pervasive throughout, and Noll attributes it primarily to the forced separation of Christianity from its Jewish roots after the destruction of the Temple of Solomon by the Romans (Noll, 26).  Noll finds the destruction of the Temple particularly important as it transformed Christianity from a mere offshoot of Judaism “toward universal significance in the broader reaches of the Mediterranean world, and then beyond,” (Noll, 27).

At first the spread of Christianity was encouraged by the pax Romana, which allowed easy travel and communication within the broad reaches of the Roman Empire.  Noll believes that it was also aided by what he calls “ a widespread dissatisfaction with the inherited religions of the Mediterranean,” (Noll, 29).  However, he does not back this last claim up with any evidence, either assuming that it is already general knowledge, or that it should be taking it as an article of faith.  The spread of Christianity continued throughout the Roman Empire, sometimes sporadically, but rapidly enough that Constantine the Great made it the official religion of the state in the 4th century.  Strangely, Noll makes no mention of the contributions of European pagan traditions to the practice of Christianity: no mention of changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, of the placement of Christmas at Yuletide, the use of fertility symbolism at Easter, or the connection between Samhain and All Saint’s Day.  Is this an example of the bias that Noll admits he brings to the Project, an oversight, or does he truly believe that none of these items have any relation to the success of Christianity in Northern Europe and the Roman Empire?  Similarly, Noll makes no mention to the resistance of some female Scandinavian rulers to Christianity because they believed that they would lose status in a Christian system as James Reston suggests in The Last Apocalypse: Europe in 1000 A.D.

The real meat of the growth of Christianity beyond the Mediterranean world comes in the discussion of missionary work by Catholics and Protestants after the 15th century.  Although missionaries traveled to the New World shortly after Columbus’ first voyage, Noll believes that most important and pioneering missionary work began with the Society of Jesus, or the Jesuits, in the 16th century.  The Jesuits early missions took them to India, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Japan (Noll, 202).  The problems they experienced, Noll claims, are important because it directly relates to missionary issues of the 20th century.  The central debate was how to appropriately deliver the message of Christianity to radically different cultures.

This debate came about after Francis Xavier began missionary work in Japan, but adopted Japanese modes of dress that violated the spirit of Jesuit principles.  Xavier wore expensive clothes to impress Japanese rulers and used the patronage of Portuguese traders to gain influence and protection.  These steps not only violated his vows of poverty, but also the Jesuit tradition of independence from everyone but the Pope (Noll, 216).  The debate over how to proselytize to other cultures intensified when Matteo Ricci wore the clothing of China’s literati and worked to include Confucian ancestor worship into a Christian metaphor (Noll, 216)

By 1659 the Catholic Church was makings strides to work out the problems of cultural adaptation by sending a document to missionaries in what is now Vietnam, which said that they should not try to change any of the customs of the Vietnamese unless they were inherently immoral (Noll, 218).  However, it is difficult to reconcile this document, which says, “What would be sillier than to import France, Spain, Italy, or any other country of Europe into China?  Don’t import these, but the faith.  The faith does not reject or crush the rites and custom of any race, as long as these are not evil. Rather, it wants to preserve them,” (Noll, 218) with practices in the Americas, where missionaries attempted to change all aspects of Native American life without respecting those cultures.  The same was largely true of the Polynesian experience.  Again, Noll seems to provide the most agreeable view of missionary efforts without acknowledging abuses against other cultures.

Turning Points is a valuable work, in that it lays out the development of Christianity in an easily understandable form and includes a large amount of documentation related to the subject matter, including hymns and prayers from the eras and traditions discussed.  It provides great historical context for the development of Christian tradition and thought, so that readers understand the cultural and political environments Christians experienced in different ages.  However, the reader must be prepared to either accept a rosy picture of the development and spread of Christianity, or be willing to supplement Turning Points with outside sources that specifically deal with the issues that Noll avoids.

Leadership Styles and Sino-American Relations

The impact of both key figures and lesser personages on U.S. foreign policy toward China, both Chinese and American, cannot be overemphasized.  This extends from leaders like Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, and Deng Xiaoping, to bureaucrats like Paul Wolfowitz operating at lower levels.  As in every other human endeavor the people involved brought their own goals and prejudices to their role in Sino-American relations, and even those not in high-profile positions were able to dramatically impact the course of Sino-American relations.

The biases and goals of the Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong had the longest enduring impact because of his virulent early anti-American stances.  Mao’s anti-American strategy took the form of his “lean to one side” policy of aligning with the Soviet Union, and was part of a concerted effort to exclude Western influences from China.  Sino-American disputes over Taiwan and during the Korean War solidified Mao’s anti-American policies, as did American efforts to exclude China from the United Nations.  Only the failure of the Sino-Soviet Alliance pushed Mao toward better relations with the United States, particularly after border disputes led to armed clashes between Soviet and Chinese troops.

Mao’s virulent anti-Americanism also meant that during his lifetime, only he could truly push for reconciliation with the United States, just as Nixon was one of the few Americans with the anti-Communist credentials to reestablish relations with China.  This is particularly true on the issue of Taiwan, where Mao brushed aside the question of reunification by saying that he could wait one hundred years to resolve that issue.  Taiwan continued to be a disruptive factor in Sino-American relations: issues of diplomatic recognition, American arms sales, and the Mutual Defense Treaty remained, but Mao was able to brush away a major obstacle in Sino-American reconciliation by indicating that it could wait a long time for resolution.

On the American side, President Richard Nixon and his National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger were pivotal in reestablishing relations between China and the United States.  Nixon came to office with the goal of enhancing relations with China, which Kissinger agreed with as a ploy to counter the Soviet Union.  Further, Nixon saw better relations with China as a means to withdraw American forces from Vietnam without embarrassing the United States.  His long record of active anti-Communist activities immunized Nixon from any claims that pursuing reconciliation with China was “soft” on Communism, which allowed him to make moves in this arena that would be difficult for Democrats. Nixon’s anti-Communist record also allowed him to partially deflect outcry from Taiwan when he pulled the 7^th Fleet out of the Taiwan Strait in order to assist negotiations with China.  He was also able to tell Taiwanese leaders that he would sell them out, and then announce his trip to China without providing his opponents an opening to attack him politically – or prevent the trip.

Nixon’s distrust of the State Department and its career Foreign Service Officers also colored reconciliation efforts during his Administration.  His belief that the State Department never contributed new ideas, combined with his desire to run Foreign Policy from the White House, served to cut the department’s China specialists out of the loop.  American ambassadors also felt the impact of Nixon’s hands-on approach to foreign policy, as they were excluded from meetings between the President and foreign leaders.  Running his own foreign policy, and the exclusion of the State Department from the policy process, also allowed Nixon to hold negotiations with China in secret, avoiding disruptions from Congress.

If anything Henry Kissinger was even more concerned with controlling foreign policy than Nixon, especially in his role as National Security Adviser.  When Nixon met with foreign leaders, Kissinger only provided the State Department the information he thought they needed, and generally kept the ambassadors and China specialists out of the negotiation loop.  This also tied into Kissinger’s desire to control access to the President, which prevented both full use of the available resources and airing of opinions contrary to his.  Kissinger did not even allow the National Security Council staff to attend meetings with Nixon.

The Nixon-Kissinger penchant for secrecy was also designed to keep negotiations with China from becoming negotiations with the American press, and to keep American allies from attempting to insert their own policy goals into the process.  However, Kissinger’s need to keep information to himself also extended to not informing individuals the President wanted involved in the process of what was going on, as in the case of William Rogers and Kissinger’s first trip to China (Tucker, 246).  Kissinger’s reaction is only partially due to a fear of information leaks, but also due to insecurity about his role and arrogance regarding his particular knowledge of the situation.

Kissinger also brought the attitude that geopolitical advantage should triumph all other concerns in foreign affairs.  This led him to convince Chinese leaders that the American alliance with Japan was for the benefit of both nations.  Not only did it assist in isolating the Soviet Union, but also it prevented Japanese remilitarization.  As long as Japan was comfortable with the security provided by American forces, it would not attempt to create powerful armed forces or develop nuclear weapons.  Kissinger also promoted his favored concept of balance of power with Chinese leaders as a method to contain Japan, and prevent Japanese hegemony in Asia.  Kissinger also placed geopolitical concerns far above human rights issues, which led him to urge President Bush not to damage relations with China over the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989.

American President Jimmy Carter pushed normalization of relations with China further than either Nixon or Ford, and came into office with this as a policy goal.  Unlike earlier, or even later, Administrations, Carter accepted the idea that the United States had to accept Chinese demands to achieve normalization.  As a result he virtually abandoned Taiwan and revoked the Mutual Defense Treaty, stopped development efforts for the Taiwan liaison office, and failed to insist on Chinese renunciation of force as a means to reunite with Taiwan (Tucker, 284).  When Congress forced passage of the Taiwan Relations Act, Carter told Chinese leaders that he would interpret TRA in a manner compatible with the Sino-American normalization agreements.  Most of these developments regarding China arose from Carter’s desire to radically alter American relations with Asia in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.

Post-Mao Chinese leaders also had a significant impact on Sino-American relations, but none more that Deng Xiaoping.  During the Carter Administration, Deng acted to further improve relations based on his pragmatic view of the world.  Not only was he pragmatic on issues important to Americans like free emigration, but also he made Zhou Enlai’s four modernizations top priorities for the CCP.  He also moved to rid China of the last remains of the Cultural revolution, introduced pro-capitalism economic reforms, and tried to develop closer ties with the West in order to gain trade opportunities and access to technology (Tucker, 283).  Deng’s plans to modernize China forced him to develop much closer ties to the United States.

Deng and Carter’s efforts did not ensure good relations between the United States and China.  After the Tiananmen Square Massacre in June 1989, Congress pushed for a larger role in determining American foreign policy.  This was largely a result of President George Herbert Walker Bush’s attempt to preserve ties with China at all costs, which made him seem weak when confronting dictators.  Bush continued to show that he was generally weak on human rights issues when he blamed Winston Lord and the Beijing embassy staff for Chinese displeasure over Fang Lizhi’s invitation to a Presidential dinner in China.  When Bill Clinton criticized President Bush for being weak on dictators during the 1992 Presidential Election, Bush broke an agreement with China regarding the capabilities and numbers of weapons sold to Taiwan and damaged Sino-American relations to score domestic political points.

Bill Clinton’s record regarding China was no better than Bush’s.  Clinton created strains in relations during the election by attacking Bush as soft on China after Tiananmen.  Clinton further damaged relations by trying to tie Most Favored Nation trade status to Chinese improvements on human rights, and then reversed the decision after Chinese leaders refused to make any changes.  Winston Lord blamed Clinton’s policy problems on a lack of true focus on China or foreign policy during the Clinton years.

Finally, at least one sub-cabinet official had a dramatic negative impact on Sino-American relations during the Reagan Administration.  As Assistant Secretary of State, Paul Wolfowitz claimed to prefer a “more pragmatic approach” to relations with China than the methods of the Carter Administration, which included a willingness to offend the Chinese.  However, Wolfowitz’s claimed pragmatism was really a cover for his negative and ideologically based view of China, which caused him to pander to the extreme right wing of the Republican Party for personal benefit.  His ideology drove Wolfowitz to actively work to prevent a meeting between North Korea, South Korea, China, and the United States, even altering memos containing offers from Deng Xiaoping to Caspar Weinberger and George Shulz that China host talks.  The results of Wolfowitz’s tampering with the process remained evident in tensions in Northeast Asia during the George W. Bush administration, and were also evident in his role in promoting the United States’ invasion of Iraq from 1998 – 2003.