-
The Methods and Effects of the Oxford Movement on Missions in Victorian England — North American Anglican
This is an excellent post and I commend it to my readers. The way Anglo-Catholicism has gone–especially on this side of the Atlantic–one wouldn’t normally associate it with missions but here we are. I have a couple of comments to make:
It was not enough, Pusey argued, based on Romans 10:14, for Bibles to be simply translated and distributed around the globe without a teacher of the faith to proclaim the message of the gospel.
I attend a Bible study at my church led by Dr. R. Lamar Vest, former president of the American Bible Society. One of his objectives as president of that organisation was to get it past just translating and distributing Bibles and facilitate the reading and studying of the Bible as well. Obviously sending “boots on the ground” was beyond the Society’s mission but the recognition that it’s necessary to do more than just get the Bible out the door goes back a long way in Christian missions, and still needs to be emphasised.
Since Protestant churches overall did not seem to be earnest for missions, Stephen Neill notes that this was the era of “voluntary societies, dependent on the initiative of consecrated individuals, and relying for financial support on the voluntary gifts of interested Christians.”
I got in a lot of trouble for pointing this out based on another source, and you can see the online food fight that followed in my post The Reformation and Missions: Theology and Doctrine. The tricky part has been how to integrate the churches founded outside of the home country with those within, and that issue is very much with us today, as I pointed out for my own church in Some Thoughts on the General Council Agenda for the 2026 Church of God General Assembly. There are numerous solutions with uneven success (the Anglican Communion is a prime example of that) but I think that, for all its difficulties, Modern Pentecost has finally matched Roman Catholicism’s ability to expand Christianity outside of a “home base.” That, in turn, was laid out by none other than Roland Allen, who was mentioned at the end of the piece and whose work is linked to in my post Modern Pentecost’s Use of an Anglican’s Missionary Method.
-
Some Thoughts on the General Council Agenda for the 2026 Church of God General Assembly
Well, it’s that time again: at the end of the month the Church of God (at least some of it) meets in Orlando for our General Assembly. From a formal procedural standpoint it’s a two stage process: first the General Council of ordained bishops meet to debate and pass on appointments and resolutions/changes to the minutes and then the General Assembly (consisting of everyone) makes final approval or disapproval of what the Council has voted on. It’s not a delegate system but a “whosoever shows up” system.
It took me a little longer than usual to get the General Council agenda for this year but it’s here. Thanks to an odd (and fairly recent) quirk in our elected officials’ terms, the General Council/Assembly doesn’t vote this year on the Executive Committee (Presiding Bishop, the three Assistants and the Secretary-General) but other elective positions are up for a vote. I don’t get into handicapping these elections; I stick with the agenda, and it’s an interesting one this year.
One thing that isn’t on the agenda this year is WO. Given the way the ACNA and the SBC have heated up their politics on this issue, it’s probably for the best, although there are some other items that should have likewise stayed off of the agenda. So with that in mind here goes: I won’t reproduce the agenda itself, you can see the whole thing by downloading it here.
Global Harvest
This is one of those “mother, apple pie and the flag” resolutions that nevertheless should be restated from time to time. It is the core mission of the Church of God. One good addition is the commitment “To engage in advocating for religious freedom around the world,” something the Church of God has not been very proactive doing (unlike the ACNA, for example.) One thing that really needs discussion is putting the Church of God internationally on a “even footing,” instead of the implied home/mission field dichotomy, in its governance.
Ordinances of the Church
I hate to be the fly in the ointment, but I don’t think that giving people a blanket indult that those who are at the Lord’s Supper to be “allowed to participate.” We need to consider the following:
23 For I myself received from the Lord the account which I have in turn given to you-how the Lord Jesus, on the very night of his betrayal, took some bread, 24 And, after saying the thanksgiving, broke it and said “This is my own body given on your behalf. Do this in memory of me.” 25 And in the same way with the cup, after supper, saying “This cup is the new Covenant made by my blood. Do this, whenever you drink it, in memory of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death-till he comes. 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread, or drinks the Lord’s cup, in an irreverent spirit, will have to answer for an offence against the Lord’s body 28 and blood. Let each man look into his own heart, and only then eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For the man who eats and drinks brings a judgement upon himself by his eating and drinking, when he does not discern the body. 30 That is why so many among you are weak and ill, and why some are sleeping. 31 But, if we judged ourselves rightly, we should not be judged. (1 Cor 11:23-31)
The lack of a penitential rite of any kind preceding the Holy Communion is a major fault of the way it’s done in Evangelical and Evangelical-Adjacent churches in general and ours in particular. In the past our people were exhorted to examine themselves, but in some cases that’s gone by the wayside. Any call to “come to the table” should be done with either of these approaches as a part of that, this resolution doesn’t address that important Biblical issue. Personally I think we need to work on losing Bill Clinton’s Eucharistic Theology: It Depends on What ‘Is’ Is, but that’s another uphill battle…
Elected Officials
My wife was speaking with a friend who was comparing the salaries of some leaders of parachurch ministries with our Executive Committee, and was surprised that our EC people were paid much less than the parachurch people. Being the International Offices veteran that I am, I was handed the phone and assured her that our people were doing just fine because of the honoraria and other outside income they were allowed to have.
That loose attitude towards outside income goes back to the beginning of the church, when our church people and their ministers were very poor and preachers were “pounded” (with pounds of food.) I’ll be honest: I collected a few of those honoraria myself while working for the church, most unexpected and grateful for all of them. I never thought until I spoke with my wife’s friend that there was a real upside for the church in our “loose” policy!
But let’s get real: you can only have one full time job. This kind of “double dipping” goes too far. The one thing I would change is the time to make the transition. I would do ninety (90) days at the most. The one hundred eighty (180) days is too long, it spans a quarter of a two-year term.
Filling the Vacancy of the Secretary-General
This is a technical correction, and I think it’s fine.
Youth and Discipleship Board, Boards and Committees
We did some “house cleaning” in 2010 that we shouldn’t have, and getting rid of this board–of a large and important part of our International Offices–was one of them, and bringing it back is a good idea.
Full disclosure: I am a member of one of those divisional boards (Care Division) and it’s one of the best things I have done in the Church of God, being involved with great ministries and interacting with the people on the board and in the division. For those who think that these boards are an expense, they are not: members are leaned upon to financially support the ministry the board oversees. And it’s worth noting that may of the ministries my board oversees (Chaplains’ Commission, Real Life Village, Smoky Mountain Children’s Home, etc.) have their own boards. So this move has precedent.
Related to this is another amendment to the minutes, that all board members in these kinds of boards be members of the Church of God in good standing. This is also a good idea.
Modifying Exhorter Licensure
This ministerial credential is a sort of diaconate for those outside of the church. “Doing something” about this has been kicked around for some time and this would do a number of things, from requiring specialisation in the credential to having to renew it every two years. I think the last has the idea that the exhorter’s licence–which is to be renamed “licensed minister”–is a transitional phase to becoming an ordained minister (who don’t and won’t have that requirement,) and would force these people to “fish or cut bait” on their ministerial calling and course. This is opposite of what many churches are doing, but it wouldn’t be the first time we lived in an alternative universe.
Ministerial Reporting
Our ministers at all ranks are required to report their statistics and activities. Now our minutes will reflect that this is done online. One interesting sideline is that, if you retire from the ministry, you need to separately petition not to have to report. This is because some of our ministers never really retire. I remember recording a men’s ministry for a church back in South Florida, and the pastor’s status was recorded as “retired.” Turns out he had pastored in New York state, “retired” and then took on another church in Florida!
Anti-Human Trafficking
This is necessary, especially considering that many of our members both here and elsewhere are more subject to this than we might think, as many live in poverty.
Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence
This is also timely. In a recent post on another website, I said the following from a pedagogical standpoint:
AI, for all of its potential and actual benefits, encourages mental laziness. There, I said it.
We can add spiritual laziness to that, and this resolution addresses that.
Immigration
Given the heated debate over this, I wish we didn’t have to deal with this topic. The way the framers of this resolution tried to get around it was to reaffirm a 2012 resolution (you approved this once…) This may or may not work in the present climate.
Putting aside the political objectives of either unrestricted or severely restricted immigration, as a church if we do not grow our church with nonwhite people groups (and most immigrants are) we will neither grow at all nor fulfil our mission as a Pentecostal church which seeks to see the Spirit poured out on all flesh. Most of the people from elsewhere who populate our churches are hard working God fearing people, the kind of people a nation which has its head on straight really wants to have.
Limited Ministry/Restoration Process
Our church has a good ministerial restoration system. I guess I’m biased because of my role on the Care Board (which directly oversees this) has informed me of what we actually have. There are two extremes to be avoided: one where any infraction means getting your license pulled with no recourse and the other just letting things and people get away with anything. Unfortunately there are supporters of both. I think both of these resolutions are fine.
Offending Ministers (Ministerial Discipline)/Rights of the Plaintiff in Ecclesiastical Trials
The ACNA has made these processes something of a legend these days. Our system is not as convoluted as theirs but we do have ministerial trials, I discussed one last year. These resolutions tighten up some of our procedures, which is not a bad idea.
State Women’s Ministries Board
Women’s Ministries have been in the Minutes since the 1920’s, so it came as a shock in 2010 that the department for those was abolished along with our Lay Ministries department, which handled Men’s Ministries. So, like the Youth board, this is a restoration of something we had before. Men’s and Women’s Discipleship is now one department and has made progress from its beginnings.
Financial Transparency in Pastoral Appointments
The idea that a prospective pastor should have access to a prospective church’s financial condition is only fair for a pastor coming into a church. I think, however, that we should also include the opposite: any church considering a prospective pastor should have information on the financial status of the church he or she is leaving. It is not right to bounce ministers which do not have some basic financial discipline from one pastorate to another.
The Church
This is an item that, on the surface, is another “mother, apple pie and the flag” business, but if we dig a little we will see that there are some issues it doesn’t address (or readdress) but needs to do so.
Let’s look at a quote from the proposed resolution:
That the Church of God is a New Testament church, which recognizes the local church, delineated by its geographical setting, as the foundation of all ministry activities where the pastor nurtures and leads all members to exercise spiritual gifts.
What this means in practice is that the pastor is expected to receive the vision from God, communicate that to the congregation, and the latter is expected to follow that vision. I’ve heard this enunciated from the pulpit on numerous occasions, including our Presiding Bishop. It in turn brings up another question: where does the Church of God and its ministers get their authority? It’s a question I’ve been asking since my 2007 piece Authority and Evangelical Churches and dialogue with the “Ugley Vicar” John Richardson (of blessed memory) three years later entitled Women in Ministry and Authority in Churches: A Response to the Ugley Vicar (and the issue of WO is most assuredly tied up in determining the concept of authority in churches.) And I haven’t gotten much in the way of answers.
The Church of God actually addressed this issue head on in our first General Assembly in 1906:
Our Articles of Faith are inspired and given us by the Holy Apostles and written in the New Testament which is our only rule of faith and practice…After due consideration the Assembly accepted the following motto or ruling: We do not consider ourselves a legislative or executive body, but judicial only. (from Like a Mighty Army.)
As a judicial body the General Assembly (and by extension the entire church) can only interpret the laws, which was the accepted way American civics was taught back in the day and which has been brought back into fashion (much to the consternation of half of the electorate, alternating between which half.) This means the the church’s mission is to carry out and live by what was left by same Holy Apostles in the Scriptures. It is not to legislate. The authority of God is the only authority that matters.
The ideal for a Pentecostal church is a church led directly by the Spirit in accordance with same New Testament. Unfortunately the unique pastoral demands of Pentecostal congregations–specifically the exercise of the manifestations and gifts–coupled with the nature of our congregations have led to a more authoritarian system, which has deflected us from that ideal. The resolution’s emphasis on the church being the people of God is a salutary step in that direction but our structures need to reflect our convictions in that matter. In saying this I don’t want to give the impression that I believe the Church of God has this problem all to itself. Anyone who lived through the Charismatic Renewal in the 1970’s knows that, when compared to the excesses of the Shepherding Movement that Pat Robertson called out, the Church of God had an superior pastoral system informed by years of experience. It’s one reason why, on an operative level, our church feels more like a family than an institution.
I think the best solution to the problem is to add language to it which explicitly reproduces the quoted sentiments from our first General Assembly as to where the ultimate leadership of the church–credentialled ministers and laity alike–must come from.
Priesthood of All Believers
This is set forth because, as the rationale states, “…prevalent belief systems involve intermediaries as a theological necessity.” These usual suspects are the Roman Catholics. Coming from a department which definitely promoted this concept, I’ve come to realise that this whole subject needs a deeper dive.
When I co-authored Ministering at the Altar about twenty years ago, it became apparent that our use of the term “altar” didn’t line up with the term’s use elsewhere, including the Scriptures. With that reality I did my best to close that gap. In both Temple/Tabernacle Judaism and Roman Catholicism, the altar is a place of literal sacrifice, and putting the two in the same breath is intentional.
Non-Catholics generally associate the intermediary business with the confessional, but the principal point of mediation is the Sacrifice of the Mass. Roman Catholicism considers itself the replacement for Temple Judaism, which is why its enthusiasm for the State of Israel is and always will be lukewarm at best. The sacrifices performed there when Our Lord was on the earth are continued, in their idea, on the altars of Catholic churches–be they against or pulled out from the wall–every day.
I have pushed back against this concept in my piece Why I Don’t Agree With the Concept of the “Sacrifice of the Mass” and elsewhere. Contrary to their teaching, it is unnecessary to agree with this idea to then believe and be convinced of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I’ll reproduce the classic Anglican formula for the consecration of the elements, from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer:
The New Testament teaches a different concept. Christ’s sacrifice is once for all, sufficient and complete. He is our great High Priest and the priesthood of Temple Judaism is abolished as insufficient. As the resolution states, we are all priests, albeit not sacrificing ones as his sacrifice is all that’s needed. In a sense one result of Jesus Christ’s finished work on the Cross is that we all got a promotion.
That being the case, this resolution needs to be backed up by giving our laity a larger voice in the course of the church. We could start with restoring the pastoral preference vote, which hasn’t done anyone any favours. This also speaks to the pastoral concept I discussed in the previous resolution.
Biblical Worldview
This is always a good thing to have. The problem in implementation is that churches like ours don’t integrate the Scriptures very well with the world around us. That’s something that Roman Catholicism has done a better job of, although it has laid eggs of its own, as the previous resolution commentary demonstrates. Taking some judicious lessons from them would be useful, and might avoid losing people who are ideal in background for our church like Vice President J.D. Vance.
But I’ve gone to meddling…I better shut up. To paraphrase Origen, this blog post having reached a sufficient length, we will bring it to a close.
-
Once More With Feeling with Joe Colletti and His Reconquista
The North American Anglican has given Colletti his opportunity to respond and he does so with Colletti: A Response to My Critics. His response mostly stuck with those who were given an opportunity in the North American Anglican itself. I’ve said most of what I want to say in my pieces The Cattle Have Already Checked Out: My Response to Joe Colletti’s “On the Theology of Communion and Separation” and “Dreaming of the Red Churches”: My Wrap on Joe Colletti’s Theology and the Responses. I would like to make a few observations that I think have gotten lost in the discussion:
- Colletti’s statement that “I actually do believe there have been instances in history that did warrant a positive separation, namely the Council of Trent. This is because I do believe the Council of Trent imposed automatic excommunication against people attempting to hold the orthodox position on justification, which was a fundamental pertaining to the doctrine of salvation.” is simply wrong. The concept of merit and its implementation (which IMHO is objectionable) which was building in the later Middle Ages was precisely the one that Luther objected to and began the separation of the Reformation; Trent came after and codified Catholic practice. One thing that complicates this debate is that classical Augustinian concepts of justification are viewed on either side through the lens of respective ecclesiologies. Catholics–and Augustine himself–viewed it through the mediating role of the Church, Protestants generally don’t, and Anglicans adopted a “compromise” view that is evident in the classical BCP’s. A more classically Augustinian view can be seen in parts of Catholicism even after Trent, as was the case with the Jansenists and Bossuet.
- Colletti’s endless appeals to what the Episcopal Church officially teaches are not “in the real world.” I don’t know a more charitable way to put it. Episcopalians are masters at reciting the Creeds Sunday after Sunday and not believing half of them. The introduction of critical Biblical studies had a corrosive effect on what the ministers believed and taught, which in turn led to a predictable effect on the laity. The 1960’s put two issues front and centre in the Episcopal Church: the sexual revolution (which led to the likes of Bishop Gene Robinson) and the social justice movement, which became an obsession in a church whose demographics were unsuited to a meaningful response.
- The ACNA’s problem–and those of the Continuing Churches, who to their credit have worked to resolve their divisions–is that there are too many disciples of Diotrephes in the mix: “I wrote a few lines to the Church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, declines to recognize us. Therefore, when I come, I shall not forget his conduct in ridiculing us with his wicked tongue. Not content with that, he not only declines to recognize our Brothers himself, but actually prevents those who would, and expels them from the Church.” (3 Jn 1:9-10). That’s true, for example, on both sides of the WO debate; it is a battle of authority and who will be first in the church. This is especially an occupational hazard of churches with Episcopal governance, but it will destroy the ACNA if it is not addressed soon and forcefully.
You can’t solve problems unless you define them correctly, and for all of his mastery of Church history this is something that Colletti–and for that matter some of his critics–have failed to do.
-
The Endless Dilemma: My Response to Jordan Cooper’s “Protestantism’s Institutional Problem”
I was intrigued to read Jordan Cooper’s Substack post on this topic. As someone who did a Tiber swim back in the day and then left it behind, the renewed interest in Roman Catholicism is certainly familiar. My years as a Roman Catholic left a deep imprint on my life and the way I look at the world, and there’s a reason for that. Now that I am an academic myself, I can see some of Jordan’s difficulties; since I am in the field of the hard sciences, I tend to look at things in a different light, either from a Protestant (and that is not univocal) standpoint or a Catholic one (and that isn’t always univocal either.)
It has often been the case when someone I know personally informs me that they have decided to make the swim, that they justify such a move with claims of intellectual persuasion based upon the strength of RC arguments. In many cases, they have never brought any of these claims or questions to me at all before making a decision.
In my case it was a little more fundamental. The “loosey goosey” attitude of the Episcopal divines I experienced growing up–especially those on the left–gave me the impression that these people weren’t sure that their belief system had objective reality. The comprehensive nature of Roman Catholicism left me no doubt that the Church did, although some of its representatives undermined that certainty. In the environment I was raised in, as a product of a long line of practical people, confirming this was absolutely essential to moving forward, and moving forward I did once I became Roman Catholic.
I recall a conversation with a student at an Ivy League University (I am keeping the details as vague as possible so as not to reveal this individual’s identity) who was raised in a traditional Protestant church prior to making a decision to convert to the RCC just prior to graduation. This student was highly intelligent, strongly motivated, and desired to pursue graduate studies in philosophy. When I asked him about his decision, I was surprised by his honest response, as he confessed simply that the RCC actually has opportunities for job placement for someone who desired to study philosophy. They had an intellectual ecosystem that Protestants simply do not have.
Years of being in the Church of God–including quite a few working at a denominational level–have convinced me that ministry of any kind is a hard way to make a living. Although haters whine about the few rich preachers, the reality is more like a classmate (who taught Physics at a community college) said about our Advanced Linear Algebra class: two or three were doing well and the rest of us were “sucking wind.” This is even more true when you expand that horizon to seminary academics. The young man or woman who wants to enter any field of endeavour needs to think about the income stream before they start.
I don’t know that it is unique to American Protestantism, but it seems particularly prominent in American churches that there is an unending skepticism toward academics within the church. Intellectual pursuits are viewed as inherently ego-stroking, or as dangerous, as if Rationalism or Postmodern subjectivism are the only possible results of academic study.
Let’s start with the last point: the fear of Postmodernism is justified because so much of what seminary academics say has such a strongly Postmodern vibe to it. One of the major shifts in heterodoxy in the last fifty years has come from saying that “this stuff really isn’t true and you shouldn’t believe it” to “this says one thing but really means quite another.” The former precipitated the beginning of the end of Main Line Protestantism in the 1960’s, which encouraged the ones who were left to shift towards the latter.
Having said that, the Roman Catholic intellectual tradition–and those of us who are schooled in it to varying degrees–gives a lot more room to discuss things than we see in Protestantism, one way or another. I am sure, for example, that some of my colleagues find the requirement of where I teach to not teach things contrary to the church’s Declaration of Faith restrictive. Both because of my academic field and my Catholic intellectual background, I do not.
An element of this is that Protestants in America tend to prioritize mission work, evangelization, and (for some) political activism. The life of the mind is always of secondary concern, and there is generally no valuing of intellectual projects for their own sake, but only for practical ministry. This latter point is not entirely mistaken, as theology does ultimately serve a practical end.
Since he brought up political activity, it’s worth restating something that, had the Protestant intellectual tradition been stronger, it would have figured out: Protestant Christianity in general and Evangelical Christianity in particular lacks the structure (in any sense of that word) to achieve its political objectives. The Southern Baptist Convention’s creation of a “shadow Confederacy” and the self-contained world that went with it achieved its short-term goals but translating that into taking over the rest of society–and the Baptists are the archetype of Evanglicalism these days–simply will not happen. In this case I am including history in general and Catholic history in particular in an intellectual tradition, one which both buttresses and undermines Roman Catholicism’s view of itself.
I recall a couple of university events occurring in the same semester when I was involved in campus ministry: one that was Protestant, and another that was Roman Catholic. The Protestant organization invited a prominent scientist to speak, who told his story about becoming a Christian, followed by comments about how immaterial souls do not exist. The Thomistic Institute hosted a lecture by Ed Feser on the relation between Thomistic metaphysics and quantum physics. If one desires a coherent Christian worldview, it is not difficult to see the appeal in the latter.
As a veteran of both the Texas A&M Newman Association at one end of my career and Faculty Commons at the other, I see his point, but I am also aware that Christian responses to the sciences in general leave a lot to be desired of. The biggest problem is that most Christian responders to these questions don’t come from the science side of the debate, and some of those (as he notes) aren’t well grounded in their own faith. I would like to present two examples of worthwhile response that are admittedly Catholic in origin: the first is My Paper on Saint-Venant at Regent University and the second The Challenge from Aquinas That Changed Mathematics.
The point of this article was simply to lay out the problem, rather than to offer some clear singular solution. It is born mostly out of my trying to understand why it is that so many intellectually oriented students feel the pull to the RCC, even when they are not entirely convinced of the veracity of their claims.
The problem with Roman Catholicism is that it sets forth its claims as all or nothing: you take all of it or you take none of it. That really isn’t true. One group that could take serious advantage of that situation are the Anglicans, but they’re either fighting heterodoxy in their own camp or trying to keep up with the Joneses in Rome. There are two things about Roman Catholicism that need crucial examination.
The first is something I mentioned earlier: Catholic history. Roman Catholicism has proclaimed itself infallible, and in 1870 extended that infallibility to the Pope. But the history of the church is more complicated. Why were medievals such as Dante so free to point out corruption in the Church? Was Leo XIV throwing shade on his precedessor Urban II (who proclaimed the Crusades) when he criticised Trump’s adventures in Iran? Why did it take so long for the Church to proclaim Mary’s Immaculate Conception when its greatest theologian–Aquinas–could not? And the Trads need to answer a serious question: how could an infallible church come up with the Novus Ordo Missae?
The second is the state of parish life. With vocations still at low levels and the priests that are left focused on a sacramental distribution of grace, the state of many parishes is that they are filled with laity whose expected duty is enshrined in the puckish statement of Cardinal Suenens: to know when to kneel, to know when to stand, and to know when to reach for their wallet. If you want to know the reason why the RCC loses so many to non-Catholic churches, the best place to start is there.
This is not meant to be a complete blow-by-blow to Cooper’s piece. He’s raised many good points and hopefully provoked constructive thought. But, as Origen would say, this blog post having reached a sufficient length, we will bring it to a close.
-
Will Science Live Again?
The recent “there and back again” of Artemis II is an achievement, even if it only beat the previous record by a small proportion. It’s tempting to say that “we’ve done this before” but that should be tempered by two facts: the fact that we did it after a half century gap when the learned experience had largely faded into the past, and the fact that we did it at all. That wasn’t a given in the wake of the way we walked away from the program the last time, content with earth orbit–albeit with some substantial spacecraft and long stays.
Back in the day there were people out there who were ready to push forward–and those who were pushing back–as I documented in my 2019 piece The Day Science Died:
I recently read a book I picked up entitled Space Frontier by Wernher von Braun. It’s basically a series of articles he wrote for Popular Science from the early 1960’s until just before Apollo 11 in 1969, covering various aspects of the space program and accurately describing the moon mission that shortly took place. von Braun was more than a rocket scientist: he was a visionary who saw us going to Mars in 1986, and had a good idea what it would take to accomplish this.
When I read this book, the first thing that came back to mind was the tight relationship between NASA’s civilian efforts and that of the military. That was inevitable, not only because most of the early astronauts were military pilots, but also because rocketry was very much a province of the military. I wish I had read this book before or during my time in the aerospace industry; it would have given me context for my work.
But the other thing that came in reading this book was an ache–an ache for a time when we were literally reaching for the stars (or at least the moon.) The passing of that time–something that basically lost its momentum after the moon shots and never quite got it back–is a point in history when something seriously died in this country, and that was a general commitment to the advancement of our state with science…
But by the time Armstrong and Aldrin set foot on the moon, the mood had changed. The 1960’s were a decidedly Luddite time; technology was blamed for despoiling the environment and creating the “few minutes to midnight” atmosphere of the Cold War. Those who plied their trade in technology were “nerds.” The space program collapsed and the aerospace industry went with it. A new generation turned away from technology to more “relevant” (and easier way up) professions such as law and finance. Instead of landing on Mars in 1986, we were in angst (something we’ve gotten good at) over the explosion of the Challenger.
Fortunately there were two revolutions going on. It took some time (one wonders if pushing the space program would have speeded it up) but the revolution in computing power was changing the landscape. Would the nerds get their revenge? Well, sort of…but people whose training is in the sciences were still very much in the back seat of our society, in contrast to other parts of the world.
It took the initiative of people who are otherwise unmentionable in fashionable circles to get it going again. It’s true that Elon Musk is trying to fulfil von Braun’s vision of going to Mars, but it’s good that NASA is coming back to the mission that made it great.
The one thing we still need to do–and there’s no sign of meaningful movement on this–is shifting the centre of gravity (in itself a scientific concept) of our educational system from the “arts” (such as they are these days) to a scientific one. I am guaranteed to get a hostile response to this when people figure out that’s what I’m saying, but I’m sticking with it: in a world driven by science and technology, ignorance of same is deadly.
No where was this more in evidence than our response to COVID. I commented on the aftermath of that fiasco here:
In addition to the factors you mentioned, there were several others that made COVID-19 such as fiasco in the U.S.
The first was the fact that it invaded a population with many co-morbidities, such as age, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc.. It almost seems from that respect that COVID-19 was made to attack our population.
Second, the powers that be decided from the beginning that any cure/prevention for the disease disseminated have an unexpired U.S. Patent. That’s why things such as hydroxycholoroquine or ivermectin were shunted aside, irrespective of their merits or lack of same.
Third, the introduction of mRNA vaccines on a population of 300+ million with as relatively little dissemination of these vaccines (and with as little testing as was done due to time constraints) was irresponsible. But our powers that be used Americans’ obsession with “the latest and the greatest” to attempt to popularise this, up to and including a disinformation campaign against J&J.
Fourth, our authorities spoke with scientifically unjustified certainty about the way to combat the spread of the virus. We went into this “behind the eight ball” of knowledge and should have been more up front about that. When things didn’t go the way they said they would, trust was eroded. I discuss the whole business of certainty (or lack thereof) in scientific and engineering processes in my post Teaching Secular Blasphemy.
Fifth, the way reputable people were treated who dissented from the solutions determined was shameful. I’m thinking primarily of those who signed and supported the Great Barrington Declaration.
Sixth, HIPAA made effective contact tracing impossible, thus the lockdown was the only alternative, collateral damage following.
I happen to teach a specialty (geotechnical engineering) which is basically an applied earth science. As such uncertainty due to the complexity of the environment is part and parcel with the field. Engineering students find that hard to take sometimes but they need the perspective. You can view my engineering courses (with the videos I produced for COVID) here.
I could go on with the effects of our deindustrialisation, which has hampered our efforts both in Ukraine and more recently in Iran.
The jury is still out on whether real science and its validator technology will assume the place they deserve in our society or whether they’ll just be drug out from time to time for the convenience of our power holders.
-
“Dreaming of the Red Churches”: My Wrap on Joe Colletti’s Theology and the Responses
The Chinese novel Dreaming of Red Mansions (or Dreaming of the Red Chamber) by Tsao Hsieh-chin is considered a classic in Chinese literature. The title though has nothing to do with the fact that it’s the colour of the Chinese Communist Party (it was written during the Ch’ing Dynasty.) Red in China is traditionally the colour of success and prosperity, which may by a marker as to why Chinese communism is so hopelessly heterodox from a Marxist-Leninist viewpoint. To dream of red mansions or the red chamber is to yearn for a propserous and successful life.
When I read both Joe Colletti’s original piece on why he was going to the Episcopal Church and the responses, it occured to me that this was what he and many of his respondents were looking for in a church: an ideal church in unity with that of the Apostles, whose earthly hierarchy is, like Pseudo-Dionysius envisioned, a reflection (or earthly type) of the heavenly hierarchy of the angels leading up to God himself. And it also occured to me that their attempt to get there is no more successful than those in the novel.
Probably the best response of the six that the North American Anglican published was that of Alexander Wilgus. It was relatively brief and to the point, which is a rarity in much Anglican commentary. His response was centred on the importance of confessional orthodoxy. That’s one of the things that bothers me about even stepping into most Episcopal churches (there are exceptions, but they’re few and far between.) The Episcopal Church has worked hard to be a progressive church and to put this in front of their laity as many Sundays as their laity’s attendance will allow. It’s one of the things that created the blow up last year which was the basis for my post About Those “Loosey-Goosey” Communion Theologies, Episcopal and Otherwise. As I noted in that post:
The minister who complained about receiving Communion in the Episcopal Church did so because this church is a “gay-friendly church.” While I’m sure some Episcopalians would try to dodge this characterisation, during the last quarter century and more the actions of its prelates and the General Convention say otherwise.
A church is first and foremost defined by what it believes and what teaches its laity and clergy to be the truth. As Origen eloquently put it at the start of his Peri Archon:
All who believe and are convinced that grace and truth came by Jesus Christ and that Christ is the truth (in accordance with his own saying, ‘I am the truth’) derive the knowledge which calls men to lead a good and blessed life from no other source but that very words and teaching of Christ himself. By the words of Christ we do not mean only those which formed his teaching when he was made man and dwelt in the flesh, since even before that Christ the Word of God was in Moses and the prophets.
It is unfortunate that many churches with ancient roots have wandered far from that, but it is a reality that cannot be ignored.
Those who would bemoan the whole business of multiple churches that are the result of “scism” need to realise that that’s been going on for a long time. I’m aware of the endless argument that the Church of England and its progeny are a “true church” because they’re “the British church,” which conveniently ignores the fact that the original British church was swept into the corners of the British Isles in the wake of invasions from the Continent and that the see of Canterbury itself was established by a papal mission. (The rest of the British Church was beaten down in the subsequent Roman-Celtic church conflict.) Removing sovereignty over the church from Pope to Sovereign is, at least from Rome’s perspective, supremely scismatic.
The Episcopal Church was itself the result of another scism, but this time secular: the independence of these United States from the United Kingdom. It was evident that independence included that from the Church of England, but the latter was initially unenthusiastic to do anything about this situation, so the Americans went to Scotland and the Anglican church there, itself the result of secular conditions after the failure of Archbishop Laud to impose liturgical worship on the Scots. The Episcopalians have never done anything to put themselves under the authority of the See of Canterbury, even when the politics allowed it and while watching the Roman Catholics build their church in the U.S. under the authority of–God forbid–that dreadful Pope in Rome.
That, of course, leads to the next anomoly in this mess: the ACNA’s own view of its own authority. The ACNA was constituted with two assumptions: the laity caused the rot in the Episcopal Church, and a decidedly Anglo-Catholic view of the episcopate, the latter in spite of (or buttressed by) the strong Charismatic underpinnings of many who started the ACNA. It reflects a longing for human authority to go along with divine authority, and it got sideswiped in Abuja when those assembled opted for a committee at the top rather than a primus inter pares. (It’s worth noting that this move was encouraged by the Sydney Anglicans, whose country’s move out from under the UK was a lot smoother and less an assault on authority than ours.)
It’s time for Colletti and others to stop “dreaming of red churches” and start asking the important question: is the church I’m a part of a help or hindrance to my fulfilling the mission that God put me on this earth to do, from salvation onwards? Apostolic churches are certainly capable of facilitating that fulfilment: it’s not a matter of “can’t” but “won’t.” The hour is late, however, it is time to decide.
-
“Next Time Let Somebody Else Do It”: A Good Friday Reflection
Teaching at Lee University makes me take a greater interest in who’s going there, whether they’re going into the field I teach in (Engineering) or not. One day at church I found out that one of our young people is planning to start at Lee next fall in Nursing. That school is, in reality, the forerunner for the School of Engineering: it “broke the mould” on the strict liberal arts model that Lee has generally followed, making our entrance into the Lee family much easier. How she came into the world, however is an extraordinary story.
Her mother is the oldest of three sisters whose family is well respected in our church. When she was born, her mother had terrible, catastrophic consequences to the pregnancy, so much so that her mother was put into an induced coma and brought back to life on a gradual basis. She literally came back from the dead. The year was 2008; in addition to this resurrection, the Florida Gators–and all three sisters and the entire family are die-hard Gator fans–won the National Championship. In my silly way I’ve always connected the events and mentioned that to her mother, whose response was quick and to the point:
“Next time, let somebody else do it.”
In an age of positive confession and “name it and claim it,” that may come across as an odd response, but Jesus himself was of like opinion while facing his own road to the Cross:
Taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebediah, he began to show signs of sadness and deep distress of mind. “I am sad at heart,” he said, “sad even to death; wait here and watch with me.” Going on a little further, he threw himself on his face in prayer. “My Father,” he said, “if it is possible, let me be spared this cup; only, not as I will, but as thou willest.” (Matthew 26:37-39)
As a man, Jesus Christ found the burden he was about to bear…unbearable; but as God, there was no one else to do it:
But, when Christ came, he appeared as High Priest of that Better System which was established; and he entered through that nobler and more perfect ‘Tabernacle,’ not made by human hands–that is to say, not a part of this present creation. Nor was it with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, that he entered, once and for all, into the Sanctuary, and obtained our eternal deliverance. For, if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, purify those who have been defiled (as far as ceremonial purification goes), how much more will the blood of the Christ, who, through his eternal Spirit, offered himself up to God, as a victim without blemish, purify our consciences from a lifeless formality, and fit us for the service of the Living God! And that is why he is the intermediary of a new Covenant; in order that, as a death has taken place to effect a deliverance from the offenses committed under the first Covenant, those who have received the Call may obtain the eternal inheritance promised to them. (Hebrews 9:11-15)
The system in place at the time couldn’t finish the job:
The Law, though able to foreshadow the Better System which was coming, never had its actual substance. Its priests, with those sacrifices which they offer continuously year after year, can never make those who come to worship perfect. Otherwise, would not the offering of these sacrifices have been abandoned, as the worshipers, having been once purified, would have had their consciences clear from sins? But, on the contrary, these sacrifices recall their sins to mind year after year. For the blood of bulls and goats is powerless to remove sins. (Hebrews 10:1-4)
Fortunately for us–and certainly for my friend whom God brought back from the dead–Jesus Christ made full payment for our sins and won us eternal life, life that can start now and move us into eternity with God.
It’s hard to know when or if the Florida Gators will win the national championship again. Gator fans look for a miracle for it to happen. But we don’t have to wait for the Gators or any other earthly team, cause or nation to obtain the eternal life that Jesus Christ and he alone won for us on that first Good Friday.
For more information click here
-
The Cattle Have Already Checked Out: My Response to Joe Colletti’s “On the Theology of Communion and Separation”
The North American Anglican has not included me (wisely, some would say) in the official responders’ list to the above referenced post. But I would like to do so, and since I have this forum (and have commented on many of their posts in the past) I will do so on this one.
I only want to address one issue: the one of parallel jurisdictions. Colletti thinks he has an strong case, but there is one serious problem: the Roman Catholic Church. No one in the Anglican-Episcopal world AFAIK thinks that there is any problem with either their apostolic succession or the validity of their sacraments. As I had a little fun with in a novel I wrote a few years back:
“Is there any question about the validity of the sacraments of the Roman church?” Julian asked.
“There’s never a question there—it’s ours that seem to always be in doubt,” Desmond answered. The Bishop glared sourly at Desmond.
“No, dear Julian, there isn’t,” the Bishop admitted. “Why is that germane to this discussion?”
“Because she was raised as a Roman Catholic—she was both baptised and confirmed there, and I believe in the same church that you were in just now to witness Bishop des Cieux’ consecration.”
Turning to the issue of parallel jurisdictions, in my own experience when I decided to “swim the Tiber” fifty-four years ago I transferred from the Diocese of South Florida to the Archdiocese of Miami. The latter was underscored by the fact that the parish I did this at was housed in the chapel of the main seminary for same Archdiocese! The Episcopal Church itself has been running a system (too large, I think) of parallel dioceses since its inception, as the Roman Catholic Church in these United States dates back to Colonial times.
When the Reformation took place the Anglican and Lutheran countries simply kept the Roman Catholic Church out of these countries. The Reformed did similar things in places like Scotland, the Netherlands (sort of) and Geneva. When things started getting “mixed up” on both sides of the Atlantic we had parallel jurisdictions. Once you start such a trend, it’s hard to stop.
The problem with the Roman church is that it has lost its way on preserving the sacred deposit of faith, which was its “one job” in this world. The churches of the Reformation–direct and indirect–have attempted to fix this problem. In recent times many of them have lost their way too, this was the impetus of the ACNA. The ACNA has its issues and what’s going on is an appalling failure of leadership and comity within that leadership, in addition to having left WO unresolved in its establishment.
The fact that there are geographically overlapping jurisdictions between TEC and ACNA are really not the problem, any more than those of the RCC and PECUSA (and TEC and ACNA and…) On this issue, as we say in the hills, to bring this up is like closing the barn door after the cows have all left (or more elegantly as I put it in the title.) Whether the reconquista effort will succeed is not known, although church history is not encouraging in that regard. The concept of the ACNA was sound in its inception and it’s a serious pity that the church has gotten off track the way it has.
Sailing the Last Voyage with Newton and Pascal
Positive Infinity 