Semester's ending here and I'm working hard but let me share one of the thoughts I've been having on Church History. The thought is that schisms and division between churches is good for the Church as a whole and church unity is bad (gasp!).

            This is certainly a controversial position but it is supported by the evidence of history, human nature and economics.  For much of British history, there as been one dominant church and when you lived determined what you believed. The church depended on the State for sanction, support and even appointment of churches officials. Eventually this made the church an entity subject to the state and nothing more than a nice career for well-learned second sons. Should we then be surprised if we find corruption in the Catholic Church before the reformation? We should be surprised only if we did not expect to find corruption in the government of which the Church became part of.

Also, it is not within human nature to agree on any issues. God has blessed us not with one group mind but with an individual mind, and rational people will come to disagreement over any issue they feel is important enough to argue about. Where there is a move towards unity within churches, it is a sign of apathy because the Churches no longer care about the matters that make them unique.

I'm starting the process of my Oxford application now and this has returned my thoughts to British History. I'm thinking of taking the History of the British Isles 1042-1330 Tutorial and the History of the British Isles 1500-1700 Tutorial, two of my favorite time periods. If you're perceptive, you'll notice that this completely cuts out the War of the Roses which is one of the more headache inducing parts of British history.

Anyway, I was thinking, what makes a good king? Is it a virtuous life? No, some of the most virtuous kings (such as Charles I) were the worst to govern. Is the ability? No, the most successful tyrants were the most capable. After a careful study of the kings of England and deciding which ones were best for her, I have come to the conclusion that the best kings were the ones who were good at fighting and leading armies.