Immediately after General George Washington’s victory at Harlem Heights on September 16, 1776, he and the Continental Army remained at the northern end of York Island (Manhattan).[1]
Twenty-six days later (October 12th) General William Howe made his next move. He had 90 British flat-boats with 4,000 troops row up the East River to Throggs Neck, a narrow peninsula that demarcates the passage between that River and Long Island Sound. There the troops disembarked with the objective of establishing a line across the island to the Hudson River and thereby encircling the Continental Army and preventing their escaping from York Island. The British inland advance, however, was blocked by swamps and some Continental troops.
Howe responded by having his troops return to the boats and go three miles north to Pell’s Point (or Pelham). There on October 18th, the British troops again disembarked with the same objective. Inland were 750 Continental Army men under the command of Col. John Glover, who positioned his troops behind a series of stone walls and attacked the British advance units. As the British overran each position, the American troops fell back and reorganized behind the next wall. After several such attacks, the British broke off, and the Americans retreated.
This battle or skirmish delayed British movements long enough for Washington to move the main Continental army 18 miles north to White Plains, thereby avoiding being surrounded on Manhattan.
In White Plains by October 22nd Washington established a defensive line near the village anchored by Purdy Hill on one end and Hatfield Hill at the other end. Across the line and the Bronx River was Chatterton’s Hill, which was left undefended.
White Plains Battle mapBattle of White PlainsBritish soldiers, White Plains (reinactment)Continental Army soldiers, White Plains (reinactment)
When General Howe and the British troops arrived in White Plains on October 28th, Howe immediately recognized the importance of Chatterton’s Hill and made it the focus of their attack.
Washington’s attempt to mount a defense of that Hill failed, and the British won the battle with 300 Americans killed, wounded and captured. One of those killed on the battlefield was my maternal fifth great-grandfather, Perley Brown.[2]
The two sides remained in their positions for the next two days. On October 31st General Howe planned to attack the Americans, but heavy rain prevented this move. That night, under the protection of t he rain, Washington withdrew his troops to the north. The next day, November 1st, Howe again found that Washington had eluded his grasp.
Washington continued his retreat to the north and then west over the Hudson River into New Jersey for their further retreat to Pennsylvania in late December. The British returned to Manhattan.
[1] In addition to the hyperlinked sources in this post, it also draws from Arthur Merrill, The Battle of White Plains (Analysis Press; Chappaqua, NY, 1975); David McCullough, 1776 at 229-34(New York; Simon & Schuster 2005); T. Harry Williams, Richard N. Current & Frank Freidel, A History of the United States [To 1876], at 151 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1959); Henry Steele Commager & Richard B. Morris, The Spirit of ‘Seventy-Six: The Story of the American Revolution as Told by Participants, Ch. Eleven (New York: Harper & Row, 1967). From 1969 through early 1970, I was a lawyer for a Wall Street law firm working for IBM on the IBM antitrust cases and spent a lot of time at a special office for the cases in White Plains. Unfortunately I did not scout out the sites of this battle.
[2] Carol Willits Brown, William Brown–English Immigrant of Hatfield and Leicester, Massachusetts, and His Descendants c. 1669-1994 at 17 (Gateway Press; Baltimore, MD 1994).
On the morning of August 30, 1776, it was apparent that the British had totally routed the colonists in the Battle of Brooklyn (Long Island). But the British commander, General Howe, did not press their advantage and immediately attack the American forces on the southern end of York Island (now Manhattan).
General Washington at his New York City headquarters obviously knew that the British would be attacking the City and the Island, but did not know where or when.
The Battle of Brooklyn was mentioned in a September 3rd letter from my maternal fifth great-grandfather, Perley Brown, to his wife from New York City. He also said that British ships were now “within ear shot” of the City and that he and the others “expect the [British] Regulars will try to take the City.” Another such letter from him on September 9th said “the Enemy have got a Brestwork [sic] about seven miles above the City [in Brooklyn Heights] on long island and they fire actrost [sic] to a foart [sic] of ours [sic] and our men at them.” He added, “they have wounded two men and kild [sic] one.”[1]
On September 12th (the day after the unsuccessful Staten Island Peace Conference), Washington decided to abandon New York City and ordered the main part of the Continental Army to move north on the island as soon as possible to King’s Bridge connecting the island with what is now the Bronx.[2]
Harlem Heights map
By September 14th most of this American force had reached the Harlem Heights[3] on the west side of the island and King’s Bridge at the northern end of the island. The balance of the forces remained at the southern end of the island.
British ships at Kips Bay
On the morning of the 15th five British frigates sailed up the East River and near Kips Bay (on the east side of Manhattan and just south of the present-day U.N. Headquarters) started a cannon bombardment of the island. Thereafter 13,000 British troops left the ships and invaded the island from the east in flat-boats. Some of the British soldiers immediately marched south to occupy New York City.
Simultaneously the last of the American troops marched north from New York City on the west side of the island to reach their colleagues at Harlem Heights. Perley Brown was in this contingent, and in an October 4th letter to his wife said, “on the 15 of September we left new York and Before we could get out the [British] Regulars Landed on the island and intended to stop our retreat.” Perley continued, “they fired their cannon from there [sic] ships [on the Hudson River] which came very [near] to us.”
Harlem Heights BattleHarlem Heights Battle
On September 16th 5,000 British troops reached the 1,800 American soldiers on Harlem Heights. The British attacked, and their bunglers sounded a fox-hunting call know as “gone away,” meaning that the fox is in full flight from the hounds. The Continentals, who had been in orderly retreat, were infuriated by this insult. They halted and counter-attacked. The British retreated and withdrew.
This battle was mentioned in Perley Brown’s October 4th letter to his wife from “Harlom [sic] Camp.” He reported, “on the 16 they came up to our lines at the upper end of the island at harlom [sic] where our Camp is now.” He added, “we had a sharp ingagement [sic] which lasted about two [h]ours” and had “about 20 kild [sic] and about 70 wounded.”
The British suffered 14 to 90 killed and 78 to 300 wounded. The Americans had 30 killed and 100 wounded.
Troop movements for Battle of Harlem HeightsThe map of Long Island and Manhattan Island shows the troop movements leading up to this Battle.
The map to the right of Long Island and Manhattan Island shows the movement of troops leading up to the Battle of Harlem Heights.
This victory, minor though it was, was the first victory of the War for General Washington and bolstered American morale.
[1] Carol Willits Brown, William Brown–English Immigrant of Hatfield and Leicester, Massachusetts, and His Descendants c. 1669-1994 at 17-25 (Gateway Press; Baltimore, MD 1994).
[2] In addition to the hyperlinked sources in this post, it also draws from David McCullough, 1776 at 208-219 (New York; Simon & Schuster 2005); T. Harry Williams, Richard N. Current & Frank Freidel, A History of the United States [To 1876], at 151 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1959); Henry Steele Commager & Richard B. Morris, The Spirit of ‘Seventy-Six: The Story of the American Revolution as Told by Participants, Ch. Eleven (New York: Harper & Row, 1967).
[3] This area is now known as Morningside Heights, 110th to 125th Streets from Riverside Drive on the west to Morningside Drive on the east. It is the home today of such institutions as Columbia University, Barnard College, Grant’s Tomb, the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, Union Theological Seminary and St. Luke’s Hospital.
During the summer of 1776, a British military force of 32,000 troops and 10,000 sailors on more than 400 ships assembled in Staten Island and the New York Harbor. They were obviously preparing for an attack on New York City at the southern end of York Island (now Manhattan).
General George Washington at his headquarters in the City obviously knew of the assembling adversary forces and of the approaching battle. But he did not know when or where the attack would come. Therefore, Washington split the Continental Army of 19,000 troops into fortified positions in the City and in Long Island across the East River from the City.
In further preparations for the forthcoming battles, the colonial forces that Spring and Summer constructed Fort Stirling on present-day Brooklyn Heights (Long Island) overlooking New York City and four other nearby forts.
British boats, Staten Island to Long Island
On August 22nd, the British made their offensive, tactical decision. They sent 15,000 troops on boats over three miles of water from Staten Island to Long Island. They landed unopposed on the shore of Gravesend Bay. (The red area in the photo to the right is the Narrows which the boats transversed.)
Brooklyn map, 1776
The troops then marched six miles inland to establish camp at the village of Flatbush. (Two days later these forces were augmented by the arrival of 5,000 Hessian troops from Staten Island.)[1]
Washington was aware of the initial British movement into Long Island, but was told it only involved 8,000 to 9,000 troops. Therefore, he thought this was a diversionary move and that the main attack would be on York Island (Manhattan). As a result, Washington only sent an additional 1,500 troops to Long Island to bring the total colonial force to 6,000 at that location.
Battle of Brooklyn Map
Five days later, August 27th, the British launched their attack. Its apparent major focus was the center of the American fortifications on the Guanus hills southeast of Brooklyn Heights. Despite the heavy colonial fortifications, the British met with little resistance at this site. In fact, however, the main British contingent advanced on the unguarded Jamaica Pass, which was the eastern-most passage through the Guana Heights.
Washington and his exhausted men fell back that day to their fortifications on Brooklyn Heights, waiting as night fell for a final British assault. Most of the American soldiers were in a trap, facing 20,000 British regulars at their front, and a mile-wide river at their backs. All the British navy had to do was to move a few warships up the East River to prevent Washington’s escape, and the war would be over, the revolution defeated.
But British General Howe did not press the British victory with an immediate pursuit of the retreating colonial forces. Instead, he halted the attack and started preparations for a siege of the American fortifications in Brooklyn Heights and Cobble Hill.
On August 29th, the temperature dropped sharply and the rain came in torrents on the unsheltered American army. This storm prevented five British warships from advancing up the East River to encircle the Americans in Brooklyn Heights. That same day Washington ordered his troops to withdraw in the dead of night across the river to Manhattan. The storm threatened this evacuation, but at about 11:00 p.m. the wind shifted and facilitated the evacuation. John Glover’s Massachusetts sailors and fishermen with every kind of small craft started over the river from New York City to rescue Washington’s army.
Early the next morning of the 30th, many of Washington’s men were still on Long Island. But a fog appeared on the Long Island side of the East River that concealed the final movement of the American troops to Manhattan. The entire maneuver was completed by 7:00 a.m. that morning, having taken 13 hours to ferry 9,000 men, their horses and their equipment across the East River.
Later that morning the British were surprised to discover the colonial forces had escaped. After that discovery, the British occupied the American fortifications on Brooklyn Heights.
When the last shot was fired, 1,200 Americans were dead and another 1,500 wounded, captured or missing. The British suffered a mere 60 dead and 300 wounded or missing. This was the first major battle of the War and what turned out to be the largest battle of the entire War, and it was a disastrous one for the Americans.
My maternal fifth great-grandfather, Perley Brown, from Leicester (Worcester County), Massachusetts was stationed in New York City at this time and thus did not fight in this battle.[2]
[1] In addition to the hyperlinked sources in this post, it also draws from David McCullough, 1776 at 122-197 (New York; Simon & Schuster 2005); T. Harry Williams, Richard N. Current & Frank Freidel, A History of the United States [To 1876], at 151 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1959); Henry Steele Commager & Richard B. Morris, The Spirit of ‘Seventy-Six: The Story of the American Revolution as Told by Participants, Ch. Eleven (New York: Harper & Row, 1967). From July 1966 through March 1970, my family and I lived in Brooklyn Heights where some of the Battle of Brooklyn (Long Island) occurred. As a result, I frequently walked around this area, but unfortunately I did not scout out these historical sites.
[2] Carol Willits Brown, William Brown–English Immigrant of Hatfield and Leicester, Massachusetts, and His Descendants c. 1669-1994 at 17-23(Gateway Press; Baltimore, MD 1994).
On October 1, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court heard re-arguments in an important human rights case, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch PetroleumCo. (Sup. Ct. No. 10-1491).[1]
This case involves claims by a putative class of Nigerians against Netherlands/United Kingdom corporations (Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. and Shell Transport and Trading Company PLC (Shell)) for allegedly assisting in certain human rights violations in Nigeria in 1993-1995.
The claims in this case were asserted under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) that provides that U.S. federal district courts have “jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”[2]
The order for rehearing asked the parties to address the following issue:
Whether and under what circumstances the [ATS] . . . allows courts to recognize a cause of action for violations of the law of nations occurring within the territory of a sovereign other than the United States.”
This issue was addressed in the Petitioners’ Supplemental Opening Brief; the Supplemental Brief for Respondents; the Supplemental Reply Brief for Petitioners; 31 amici curiae briefs supporting the petitioners; 14 amici curiae briefs supporting respondents; and 7 amici curiae briefs supporting neither party. One of those not supporting either party was the U.S. Government.[3]
During the hour-long hearing the Court heard from lawyers representing the plaintiffs-petitioners, the defendants-respondents and the U.S. Government. They all were actively questioned by eight of the Justices with only Justice Thomas not participating. Those eight Justices all seemed to be searching for a way to limit the reach of the ATS, especially when such cases adversely affected U.S. foreign policy.[4]
I will not attempt to predict how the Court will resolve the case. Instead I will set forth how I think the Court should do so.
First, Corporations are not immune from lawsuits under the ATS.
Second, As the Court held in Sosa v. Alverez-Machain in 2004, the ATS is a jurisdictional statute.[5] The Court’s presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S. statutes (unless Congress specifically states otherwise), applies to statutes that impose substantive U.S. regulatory measures, not to jurisdictional statutes.[6] Therefore, there is no issue of extraterritoriality with respect to the ATS.
Third, there are various existing legal doctrines and jurisprudence that federal courts have used and should use, in appropriate cases, to dismiss ATS cases at the outset upon a motion by the defendant asserting such affirmative defenses. They include the following:
The court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant because it does not have sufficient contacts with the forum to make litigation consistent with U.S. notions of fair play and substantial justice as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ due process clauses.[7]
The case is not brought within 10 years after the acts in question under the statute of limitations borrowed from the Torture Victims Protection Act unless under established principles of equity the statute of limitations should be tolled or stayed.[8]
The plaintiff has failed to exhaust remedies in the country where the acts occurred unless those remedies are unavailable or futile.[9]
A foreign court is the more appropriate and convenient forum than an U.S. courts under the established principles of forum non conveniens.[10]
An individual defendant is entitled to official immunity according to the U.S. Department of State.[11]
A non-individual defendant is entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.[12]
The “act of state” doctrine protects the conduct in question.[13]
The case presents a “political question” that is inappropriate for judicial resolution.[14]
The case should be rejected because of concerns about its impact on U.S. foreign relations or because of “international comity.”[15]
The case presents an issue of U.S. state secrets that prevent adjudication of the case.[16]
Fourth, the affirmative defenses just mentioned were not raised by the defendants-respondents in their appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and, therefore, are not before the Supreme Court for decision.
Fifth, the Second Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Within the next four months the Court should issue its opinion(s) in this case.
[1] Prior posts reviewed the procedural background of this case, the Second Circuit decision rejecting such liability, the initial Supreme Court argument in this case regarding whether corporations could be held liable under the ATS, and the Supreme Court’s order for rehearing in this case.
[3] All of the briefs in Kiobel are available on the website of the Center for Justice and Accountability, a human rights organization, along with its summary of 18 of the 52 amici curiae briefs.
[4] The transcript of that hearing is available online. Reports about the hearing are available in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journaland the widely followed U.S. Supreme Court blog. In an editorial the New York Times supported sustaining the ATS in this case; the Wall Street Journal did not.
[7] In one of the most recent Supreme Court cases on personal jurisdiction in another context, the Court unanimously determined, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, that the South Carolina courts did not have personal jurisdiction over three corporations that were organized and operating in France, Luxembourg and Turkey, but were not registered to do business in South Carolina, had no place of business, employees or bank accounts in the state, did not design, manufacture or advertise its products in the state and did not solicit business in the state or sell or ship products to customers in the state. (Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, No. 10-76 (Sup. Ct. June 27, 2011). This defense has ended ATS cases for some foreign corporate defendants. (E.g., Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 930-31 (9th Cir. 2001) (French corporation).) However, Shell and the other defendants in the Kiobel case did not raise this defense and thereby waived it under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12 (h)(1); another defendant (a Nigerian subsidiary) was dismissed from this case on this ground.
[8]E.g.,Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F. Supp. 2d 424, 462 (D.N.J. 1999); Doe v. Saravia, 348 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1146-48 (E.D.. Cal. 2005)(10-year period tolled or stayed because plaintiff could not have obtained justice due to legitimate fear of being killed for making a claim).
[9] This defense was suggested by the Supreme Court in Sosa, 542 U.S. at 733 n.21, and the lower courts are split as to whether it is appropriate in ATS cases. (E.g., Lizarbe v. Rondon, 642 F. Supp. 2d 473 (D. Md. 2009)(civil remedy in Peru inadequate because it is contingent on conclusion of criminal charges that can take years and because civil damages are ineffective).)
[10] Here are two examples of dismissal of ATS cases on the forum non conveniens ground. (Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., 578 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2009), cert.denied, 549 U.S. 1032 (2010) (litigation in Guatemala, but with the proviso that the motion would be reconsidered if plaintiffs had to return to Guatemala where they feared for their safety); Turedi v. Coca-Cola Co., 343 Fed. Appx. 623 (2d Cir. 2009) (litigation in Turkey).) But such a dismissal was rejected in Licea v. Curacao Drydock Co., 537 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 1274 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (Cuban plaintiffs would be in danger if forced to litigate in Curaco where they had been subjected to slavery-like conditions). In Kiobel, Shell did not assert the forum non conveniens defense and, therefore, waived it. Shell did do so in a parallel case, but the court rejected the defense. (Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Pet. Co., 226 F.3d 88, 108 (2d Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 941 (2001).)
[11] For example, the issue of official immunity for former government officials of Somalia and Mexico has been examined in prior posts.
[12] A prior post looked at some of the basic provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act while another post discussed the Supreme Court case that decided that his statute did not protect former foreign government officials.
[13] This defense was suggested by the Supreme Court in Sosa, 542 U.S. at 733 n.21, and it has been used in ATS cases. E.g., Doe v. Israel, 400 F. Supp. 2d 86, 114 (D.D.C. 2005) (acts of Israeli government).
[14] This defense was suggested by the Supreme Court in Sosa, 542 U.S. at 733 n.21, and it has been used in ATS cases. E.g., Corrie v. Caterpiller, 503 f. 3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal of ATS claim for selling bulldozers to Israeli Defense Force); Schneider v. Kissinger, 412 F.3d 190 (D.C. Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1069 (2006) (dismissal on political question ground of ATS case against former U.S. National Security Advisor over killing of Chilean general in 1970 coup d’etat).
[15]E.g., Ungaro-Benages v. Dresdner Bank AG, 379 F. 3d 1227, 1237-39 (11th Cir. 2004).
[16] Foreigners sued an U.S. corporation under the ATS and TVPA for allegedly aiding and abetting the CIA’s extraordinary rendition of five foreign nationals to other countries for torture and interrogation when the corporation provided flight training and logistical and support services to the aircraft and crew. Before the defendant answered the complaint, the U.S. Government intervened and moved to dismiss the complaint under the state secrets doctrine. The district court granted the motion, which the Ninth Circuit, en banc, ultimately affirmed, 6 to 5. The court held that the state secret privilege established by United States v. Reynolds, 348 U.S. 1 (1953), required dismissal because “there is no feasible way to litigate [the defendant’s] alleged liability without creating un unjustifiable risk of divulging state secrets.” (Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 614 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).)
Two unusual preludes opened the September 16, 2012, worship service at Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church. Joining Westminster’s Organist and pianist, Melanie Ohnstad, for the preludes was percussionist Jeffrey Gram.
Concertino for Marimba
The first prelude was Movement II of Concertino for Marimba by Paul Creston, an Italian-American composer (1906-1985) whose works have a strong rhythmic element. This work originally was written for marimba and orchestra. Its second movement is marked “Calm.” After an introductory theme first presented by the piano (solo flute in the orchestral version), the main theme (in chordal structure) is played by the marimba with four mallets. The general mood of tranquility persists except for the middle part.
Jeffrey Gram says that “this movement is written in ABA form. The A section that begins and ends the movement has the marimba’s rolled melodic lines flowing over the piano’s subtle rhythmic pulse. The B section is a cadenza or an ornamental passage in a free rhythmic style, and it increases in tempo and crescendos to a climax.”
Praise
The second prelude was Praise for steel drum and organ by Carol Barnett. With the steel drum, I was expecting to hear Caribbean rhythms. Instead there was a continuation of the mood of tranquility with a true blending of the sounds of the two instruments.
The Barnett piece, according to Gram, “begins calmly enough to evoke tranquility, with the steel drum providing some rhythmic interest over the organ’s low notes, but the piece develops much more active and rhythmic themes throughout and builds to an exciting finish. The organ provides much of the driving force of the piece. I hear the steel drum almost as hand bells or chimes (an appropriate allusion for a performance in the church) with repetitive rhythms and punctuating melodic lines here and there. The work’s mixed meters and rhythmic patterns require the performer to be on his or her toes.”
Gram said that Praise is scored for organ and steel drum, vibraphone, or marimba, and he learned the percussion part on both marimba and steel drum and decided to play it on steel drum to add another instrumental voice to the preludes.
Another reason, he acknowledged, for using the steel drum is that “it was much easier for me to play accurately on that instrument. The part contains several lines of melody consisting of unison double-stops (two notes played simultaneously) where the two notes are up to a couple octaves apart from each other. On the steel drum, these notes are very near to each other all around the circular drum and thus are relatively simple to execute accurately. On the marimba, notes are laid out linearly like a piano such that notes a couple octaves apart are actually a few feet apart and the performer must reach in opposite directions to strike each note. In the grand scheme of marimba literature, this is a fairly common and not necessarily a difficult task for a performer. But for this part-time percussionist, it can be difficult to perform the part accurately with any measure of consistency. Plus, the steel drum is just plain fun to play and to play it along with organ is a truly unique and rewarding experience.”
The composer of Praise, Carol Barnett, is a charter member of the American Composers Forum and a graduate of the University of Minnesota, where she studied composition with Dominick Argento and Paul Fetler, piano with Bernard Weiser, and flute with Emil J. Niosi. Barnett now is a Studio Artist (Composition) at Minneapolis’ Augsburg College in addition to being a composer and performer. She enjoys the challenge of using instruments in unusual combinations, and certainly the organ with steel drum is such a combination.
The Musicians
Melanie Ohnstad
Melanie Ohnstad has served Westminster as organist since November 1995. She received the Doctor of Musical Arts degree from the University of Minnesota. She also holds the Master of Music in Organ Performance degree from Arizona State University and the Bachelor of Music degree from St. Olaf College.
Jeffrey Gram
Jeffrey Gram is a performer and advocate of new music. His performance experience includes solo and ensemble work with several new music ensembles across the U.S., an appearance at the International Gaudeamus Interpreters Competition in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, and premier performances of percussion works by Thomas DeLio, Roger Zahab, and Stuart Saunders Smith. He performs on a CD of new music.
Jeffrey earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in percussion performance from Northwestern University and the University of Akron and taught percussion at the University of Pittsburgh and Muskingum College.
Jeffrey has since earned a Juris Doctor degree and practiced law. He now is a Gift Planner with Minnesota Philanthropy Partners, a network of foundations, funds and organizations that share knowledge and services to have the greatest possible impact through charitable giving. He specializes in connecting individuals, families and businesses with giving opportunities that match their values and meet their personal goals.
Gram is a Westminster member.
Conclusion
Following these two preludes was the moving Processional Hymn, “O Holy One and Nameless,” that was discussed in a prior post. The sermon that day–“What Do Our Hearts Treasure?”–was also excerpted in another post. A video of the entire service is on the web.
Rev. Dr. Henry William Andersen, a retired Presbyterian minister, died in Portland, Oregon on Sept. 3rd, surrounded by his beloved family.
Born on Jan. 16, 1925, in Omaha, Nebraska, he studied at the University of Nebraska before serving in the Army in WWII.
Hank was an infantry squad leader, and on Christmas Eve, 1944, he was on the troopship S.S. Leopoldville in the English Channel on the way to Cherbourg, France to fight in the Battle of the Bulge. He led a group of 15 or 20 soldiers to go up on the open deck to sing Christmas carols. A German torpedo struck the ship, killing many troops below deck before it sunk. A British destroyer pulled along the sinking ship. Andersen leapt across the gap, and his carol-singing comrades followed. Later on shore, an all-black unit fed and comforted the survivors. One of the carolers and thus saved from death was a Jewish man. This event is commemorated in a Dec. 23, 2011, PBS News Hour report.
This experience along with battle scars; a Purple Heart; and other citations changed the direction of his life from law to the ministry.
After the war, he returned to University of Nebraska, where he finished his undergraduate degree and met and married Mary Esther Dunkin, who survives him. He then went to McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago, where he graduated with honors. Later Hank was on the Board of Trustees at McCormick, which established two annual Henry W. Andersen Awards in Pastoral Ministry and in Preaching. He did post-graduate study at Yale Divinity School and at Mansfield College, Oxford, England. He was awarded an honorary Doctor of Divinity Degree by Buena Vista College and received the University of Nebraska and McCormick Seminary Distinguished Alumnus awards.
Over the 40 years following seminary, Hank served four Presbyterian churches as pastor and head of staff: in Ellsworth and Wichita, Kan., LaGrange, Ill. and Cleveland Heights, Ohio. In every church he advocated for racial, economic and social justice. He believed that love and justice were inseparable, that love of God and love of one’s neighbor were necessary to establish a just world, and was committed to working for social change to create a world in which the poor would have justice, not mere charity. He held numerous local, national and international church positions and was active in the greater community.
He inspired international religious, medical and business leaders to work on concrete solutions to problems facing the developing world, and in 1982, he delivered the keynote address at a United Nations conference on developing nations. From 1982 until 1991, he served on the Nestle Infant Formula Commission, chaired by former Senator and Secretary of State Edmund Muskie. In service to this Commission, he engaged in on-site inspections of Nestle’s practices around the world. The Commission’s work led to a lasting change in Nestle’s practices.
Hank wrote many articles for religious journals and wrote and spoke on the German theologian and WWII martyr, Dietrich Bonheoffer, a personal hero. I was privileged to hear one such presentation in Minneapolis.
I got to know Hank and his wife, Mary, when they lived in Minneapolis and attended Westminster Presbyterian Church, where their son, Rev. Dr. Timothy Hart-Andersen, was the Senior Pastor.
I can attest that an obituary accurately said, “Hank loved life and sought to engage it fully and faithfully in every role he assumed. His sense of humor and wonderful laugh endeared him to everyone. He was present with each person he met and made each one feel special. He was sweet, kind, and gentle, but powerful for the greater good and for social justice. He was down-to-earth yet filled with an inner light which unceasingly radiated to all. His impact is lasting.”
He is survived by Mary, his wife of 65 years; children Jennifer (Rhys) of Vancouver, B.C.; Henry Thomas (Jessica) of Salem, Oregon; Timothy Dunkin (Elizabeth) of Minneapolis; and Barbara (John) of San Antonio, Texas; nine grandchildren; and three great-grandchildren.
A memorial worship service was held at Westminster Presbyterian Church, Portland, on September 15th. Other memorial services will be held at Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church on Saturday, October 13 at 10 A.M. and on Saturday, October 20, time to be announced, at Fairmount Presbyterian Church, 2757 Fairmount Boulevard, Cleveland Heights, Ohio.
Memorial gifts may be sent to the Henry W. and Mary E. Andersen Global Awareness Fund at McCormick Theological Seminary, 5460 S. University Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60615. This fund helps the seminary increase opportunities for international students and provide all students with opportunities for cross-cultural experiences across the globe.
This obituary is drawn from others in Oregonlive, the Cleveland Plain Dealer and the McCormick seminary website.
Two weeks ago we answered that question by looking at the story of Creation found in Genesis 1 [: 1-25]. The beauty and majesty and wonder of the natural world and its inhabitants, the creatures – all of that, we concluded, introduces us to the Creator. . . .
But the ancient Hebrew account of Creation doesn’t stop there, with the mountains and rivers, with the birds in the air and the creeping things on the earth and the fish of the sea. The old stories take us, eventually, to the creation of humankind.
There are two accounts of creation in the Hebrew Scriptures.
One of them, the better-known seven-day version in Genesis 1 [:1-25], ends with humankind being created in the image of God – ‘male and female, God created them,’ . . . – and that happens after . . . the heavens and the earth, next the waters and the dry land, then the plants and animals [are created]. . . .
[This passage in Genesis 1: 27-28 goes on to say that “God told them to ‘be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth [and subdue it] . . . . ‘ [This passage is often used to argue that] “the very design of humanity . . . revealed God’s intention for male and female to procreate [and, therefore, that gay marriage was against God’s will.] . . . [Rev. Hart-Andersen agreed that] giving birth is a wonderful and necessary part of life, but there’s more to the biblical story of creation.
The second account [of creation], from Genesis 2, puts the human being on the earth before the plants and animals, and humanity does not come in a pair this time, but, rather, as a singular, non-gendered person. [As Genesis 2:7 puts it, ‘the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground.’]
[In other words,] God bends down and scoops up the dust of the earth – the Hebrew word for the dust of the ground is ha adamah – and, like an artist working with clay, God forms a new creature. Arms and legs and head, hands and feet, each little toe, every joint, eyes and mouth, ears and nose. Then God blows breath into the nostrils of the mud-creature – and ha adam, the earthling, the one made from the adamah, the dust of the river bank, stirs to life. God then uses the same soil to form the creatures of the earth, to whom the earthling, gives names. There is no gender identity to the earthling at this point. That enters later in the story, when the Hebrew changes to ish, man, and isha, woman. It’s simply not correct to use the English term man as the translation of adamah. . . .
I think it’s best to hear these texts not as technical descriptions but, rather, as stories told around the campfires of desert dwellers, repeated during rituals, shared by parents with their children. They’re narratives of profound and lasting significance, telling us who our God is and how God has been with us since before the beginning of time.
It’s not a question of which version is correct; there’s wisdom in both stories. Both accounts contain deep and ancient truth about God and our relationship to God. From my vantage point each of the old stories holds at least one deep truth.
First, in Genesis 1, when God decides to create the human being, the big news is who they look like. God says, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness.” (Genesis 1:26)
The chief point of this account is not the business about being fruitful and multiplying – it’s the astonishing claim that every human being, male and female, is made in the image of God. That’s a breath-taking, life-altering declaration.
How do we know God?
Take a look around. Look into the face of another, look into a mirror, and you will see something of God. That claim revolutionizes religion: the God we worship and serve is as close to us as the next person. No one – not our enemies, not those who hate us, not those ‘on the other side,’ not those we despise or fear or view with revulsion – no one is excluded from the image of God. Everyone bears it alike and is, therefore, worthy of respect and honor. . . .
We may be introduced to God by the dazzling wonder of the natural world, but we know God most completely in our fellow human beings. That, above all else, should compel us to strive for fullness of life for all people. The pursuit of justice is not simply some vague prophetic imperative – it is how we come to know God.
If the linking of the divine image with every human life is the salient point of the first version of creation, the second account yields another great theological truth. When God has formed the one earthling and placed that creature in the garden, God is not satisfied. Everything else in creation up to then had been deemed good, but when God sees that the human creature lacks a companion, God says, “It is not good that the earthling should be alone; I will make the earthling a partner as a helper.” (Genesis 2:18)
The human creature needs a companion. God throws everything at the earthling as a possible partner – birds, beasts, fish of the sea, and nothing sticks. The earthling needs a companion of its own kind. The human creature is not meant to be alone. Human beings need community. Do we not all understand that, from our own experience?
Three weeks ago today, in the early morning darkness, I was in my father’s room on the skilled nursing floor of the retirement community where my parents live. I was alone with him, and lonely, as he was moving toward death. All was quiet, save for his raspy breathing. It was 1:30 in the morning in Portland, [Oregon,] but I needed to be in touch with someone.
It is not good for the earthling to be alone.
I decided to send a text message to my colleagues on staff, to tell them my dad was nearing the end. I knew they would be waking in a few hours to prepare for worship at Westminster and I wanted this community to include us in prayer that day.
[Tim immediately received a response that he had sent it to a wrong number, but the recipient also said that he was sorry to hear about Tim’s father.] We continued our texting back and forth, this stranger and I, for some time [until after his father’s death on September 5th].[1]
Whoever it was sensed I needed someone by my side, and he or she was willing to stand with me through those lonely hours. We were created to be in community, and I needed it that night. The stranger mediated for me the divine presence. How do we know God? We know God in human community, in the love that binds us to one another, even when we may not know each other. . . .
It is not good for the earthling to be alone.
The Sunday after my father’s death I received an email from our partner church in Matanzas, Cuba. . . . It was a very long email, with a string of personal messages from every member of the congregation who was there that day. Very few of them have access to email, and regular mail service to the U.S. is not reliable, so they patiently lined up in the church office and one by one typed in their words of love and support on that old, slow computer.
We come to know God through the love of others. . . .
It was a summary of the truth found in the two accounts of creation: we bear God’s image – because of God we are – and we are given each other – because of God we are one.
We cannot exist, God realizes in this account of Genesis, apart from one another. Here we see an early indication of God’s own Trinitarian nature – even the divine being exists only in community. Remember the Word that was in the beginning with God? The Spirit that brooded over the dark waters was there, too. “Let us make the human being in our image,” God says, “according to our likeness.”
Relationships matter; in them God looks back at us.”
The full text of the sermon is available online as is a video of the service.
[1] A subsequent post will set forth an obituary for Tim’s father, Rev. Dr. Henry William Andersen.
The text often differs, but the essential elements do not. They are confessing our individual and collective failures to do what we should do and our doing what we should not be doing and then asking for God’s forgiveness.
The Prayer of Confession on September 23rd was from the United Church of Christ, USA (1986). Here it is:
“God of all mercy, we confess before you and each other that we have been unfaithful to you. We lack love for neighbors, we waste opportunities to do good, and we look the other way when you cry out to us in the suffering of our brothers and sisters in need. We are sincerely sorry for our sins, both those we commit deliberately and those we allow to overtake us. We ask your forgiveness and pray for strength that we may follow in your way and love all your people with that perfect love which casts our all fear; through Jesus Christ our Redeemer. Amen.”
The Prayer of Confession then continues with silent personal prayers by the members of the congregation.
In response to these prayers, one of the ministers leads the congregation in the Declaration of God’s Forgiveness (from the New Testament‘s Romans 8:34; 2 Cor. 5:17):
One: Anyone who is in Christ is a new creation. The old life has gone; a new life has begun. Friends, hear the good news:
All: In Jesus Christ we are forgiven. Alleluia! Amen.
This was the title of the sermon by Rev. Dr. James Gertmenian of Minneapolis’ Plymouth Congregational Church at Westminster Presbyterian Church on September 16, 2012. A prior post examined the Processional Hymn that day–“O Holy One and Nameless”–which was written by Rev. Gertmenian. A video of this service is on the web.
The sermon was based upon two passages from the New Testament of the Holy Bible.
The first, Luke 10: 25-28, says: “Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus.’Teacher,’ he said, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ [Jesus] said to him, ‘What is written in the law? What do you read there?’ [The lawyer] answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind’ and your neighbor as yourself.’ And [Jesus] said to [the lawyer], ‘You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.'”
Rev. Gertmenian said the lawyer, at least on the surface, wanted to know how he might gain eternal life. “It is what we all want, I think, though we use different languages to describe it. Not length of life, really, not just simple persistence into some imagined future heaven, but something that endures by virtue of its depth, by virtue of a quality that transcends time. Our faith tells us that God, the eternal one, has somehow touched us with that quality, that the life spark in us means that we partake of or are connected to the enduring, the unquenchable, the forever.”
The second Scriptural text for the day, II Corinthinians 4: 16-18, states: “So we do not lose heart. Even though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day. For this momentary slight affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all measure, because we look not at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen; for what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.”
Yes, said Gertmenian, ”but what are those unseen things? What lasts?”
He said, “Our lives . . . are over in a flash; we burst forth, sparkle, glimmer, grow dim, and then are gone. In the cosmic scheme of things, flesh is practically as ephemeral and evanescent as vapor or gas; only rocks, ice, dust, and space endure.”
“What lasts? What do our hearts treasure? What is eternal? More specifically, what have been the eternal moments in your life? I don’t mean the big moments, or even the most memorable ones, but the deepest ones which, by virtue of their depth, make the passing of time – and even memory – irrelevant?”
Gertmenian offered two moments in his own life that upon reflection he regarded as eternal.
One was spending time with his eight-year-old daughter having ice cream after watching Halley’s Comet. “I know that for the momentary gift of [my daughter’s] hand in mine, for the frivolous pleasure of tasting ice cream, for this odd adventure on a warm evening, I will gladly, willingly, joyfully embrace the limits of my life: its brevity, its fragility, its impermanence. It is rich – this life – rich like found treasure and meant, I think, to be spent extravagantly and with exuberant gratitude to God.”
“Eternal life consists in this: in taking even one moment and living it so prodigally, with such abandon, that we do not grudge its going. One moment lived like that is eternal. One moment, lived like that, is heaven. Jesus draws this truth to its deepest level when he says: ‘Whoever seeks to save their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will save it.'” (Matthew 10:39.)
“Think about your own life, your own self. What lasts? What [does your heart] . . . treasure? What is eternal?”
“Maybe you’ll take a few moments . . . to think about these things. And as you mull them, remember how Jesus replied to the man who wanted eternal life. Ultimately, he said, after obedience to the core commandments, the way to eternal life is in giving up what you have, in opening your hands and releasing the things you cling to. Not just possessions, but everything. Even time.”
I have pondered the question posed by Rev. Gertmenian and will share those reflections in a subsequent post.
“O Holy One and Nameless” was the beautiful and moving Processional Hymn at the September 16, 2012, worship service at Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church.
Rev. Dr. James Gertmenian
The lyrics were written by Rev. Dr. James Gertmenian, Senior Minister of Minneapolis’ Plymouth Congregational Church, and are set to the “Munich” hymn tune by Felix Mendelssohn.[1] Rev. Gertmenian said in writing this hymn he “wanted to use images and themes which, while rooted in the Christian tradition, spoke of a more universalistic vision. All religions are not the same, and we need not adopt a goal of amalgamating the great families of faith, but humanity’s future depends on our ability to see that the taproots of religion are sunk in common soil and draw from the same nutrients of spirit and truth.” Here are the hymn’s lyrics:
O holy One and Nameless Who wears a thousand names,
Throughout the ages changing, yet steadfastly the same;
We gather here to worship in hopefulness and praise,
Recalling all your mercies that magnify our days.
==============================
In awe we humbly witness that your are greater still
Than any human language could compass or fulfill.
We praise your for the myst’ry in which your truth is sealed.
We praise you for the story that is your truth revealed.
===============================
That story’s long unfolding from temple, mosque, and church,
Grows ever wide and deeper and sanctifies the search
That leads to your dwelling within the common place,
Where all the world is holy and radiates your grace.
================================
And yet this wider story is told a thousand ways,
With each a matchless vision with each a certain praise
So ev’ry human family and ev’ry human soul
May know you in their language and, knowing, made whole.
================================
For wisdom free from doctrine, for faith transcending creed,
For simple, true compassion, for love enshrined in deed:
We offer up our bodies, our hearts, our hands, our minds
To find our truest worship in serving humankind.
================================
This hymn was especially appropriate at this time in light of the recent Muslim rage about the trailer for an outrageous movie about the Prophet Mohamed that apparently was created by individuals who said they were Christians.
I believe that all religions and all religious institutions, leaders and followers are human and, therefore, imperfect or flawed. They all have their positive qualities, and they all have their negative or sinful qualities. We have been seeing too much recently of the latter for Islam and Christianity. This hymn reminds us of their positive and common qualities.
Rev. Gertmenian also delivered the sermon that day, “”What Do Our Hearts Treasure?,” that will be covered in a subsequent post. The entire service, including the Processional Hymn and the sermon are available in streaming video on the web.
————————————————–
[1] This hymn was written on commission for the 300th anniversary in June 2011 of Green’s Farms Congregational Church of Westport, Connecticut. The most well-known lyrics for the “Munich” tune are “O Word of God Incarnate.”
