-
No More Time to Run: My Response to the Newtown, CT School Shootings
Events like the Newtown, CT school shootings simply leave one numb. As one who moves in the halls of academia, the possibility of something like that happening is one that crosses the mind. When it does take place, it hurts.Not so far from Newtown is Danbury, CT. Years ago a group of very accomplished musicians from there made an album entitled Outpouring, and podcasting its ending track No More Time to Run is my response, poor though it may be, to this tragedy. It not only comes from the area but is right for the season as well.
My prayers are with the families and others who have come through this.
-
Book Review: Frank Bartleman's Azusa Street
Anyone who has been around Pentecostal academic circles (and yes, they do exist) has heard a great deal about the Azusa Street revival of 1906, an event which marks (but does not solely define) the beginnings of modern Pentecost. And they’ve heard many things about. But how do they know these things? How, for example, do we know that William Seymour, the black man who lead the initial revival, prayed speaking into a shoe box? Who said that the colour line was washed away in the Blood? How do we know that they sang “The Comforter Has Come” as sort of an anthem?
While not the only source, a key witness–and participant–to all of this who went on to write his account down was Frank Bartleman. His Azusa Street: How Pentecost Came to Los Angeles, first published in 1925, is probably the single most important account we have of an event which has, over the past century, swept the world and transformed Christianity as nothing else has since the Reformation. However, in spite of what has come to be associated with “Pentecostal” and “Charismatic”, Bartleman–at once journalist, tractarian and preacher–was in many ways a far cry of what many associate now with a Pentecostal minister.
Bartleman was born in 1871 in Pennsylvania, and was converted in a Baptist church in Philadelphia. Like many of his era, he was uneasy with the church choices of his day, and he wandered from one to another, getting married in the meanwhile. He eventually ended up “cured of ever worshipping a religious zeal or creed” at the Pillar of Fire Church in Denver. From there he moved to Los Angeles, where he ministered to the downtrodden, preached and wrote and distributed tracts.
There had been signs in Los Angeles that something greater was coming in Methodist and Baptist churches. There was also the Welsh Revival in progress across the Atlantic, and Bartleman corresponded with Evan Roberts. When Seymour was locked out of a Nazarene church for preaching the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues, he began his work at the Azusa Street Mission. On 19 April 1906–the day after the San Francisco earthquake up the coast–Bartleman first visited the Mission. The evidence Seymour had preached for had been out in the open for ten days, and the racially mixed services abounded with a new move of the Spirit.
That move did not come without controversy. As would be the case today, the secular press of the day (especially the Los Angeles Times) trashed the movement. But there were problems enough “inside the camp”. Bartleman, for his part, attributes most of these to the ministers, both those who opposed the movement and those who supported and attempted to “lead” the movement. Bartleman was a tireless advocate of a truly Spirit-led Christianity where the only authority came from God and the only movement came directed by the Holy Spirit, and the machinations of ministers grieved him greatly. He even decried the “jazzy” music that came into vogue in Pentecostal churches after World War I. For those of us who were nurtured on folk music during the Charismatic Renewal, then went to Pentecostal and Charismatic churches only to be told that first the “bar room” style, then rock-style praise and worship are the only things that came from the Throne Room, such an assessment is heartening. (His comments on the deleterious effect of war on Pentecost and revival bear repeating; it wasn’t the first time it happened, and certainly not the last).
His attitude toward ministers–one that has some parallel in Charles Finney, although in many ways Bartleman is more “purely spiritual” than Finney was–is only part of what sets him apart from today’s standard. He lived his life in poverty, depending upon God for his sustenance and wandering from one rented room (or not much more than that) to another. His daughter Esther died shortly before the revival began, leading to the most heart-rending part of the book. But he accepted what came his way as part of the price he paid for doing God’s work and forwarding the revival, one which he was confident would go around the world, as it did.
Bartleman writes in a maudlin style that has gone out of fashion, with many pithy and poignant phrases, but he still writes with more precision and without the positive-confession triumphalism that is common now. This edition’s introduction by Vinson Synan provides very helpful historical background to Bartleman’s life and writing, although Bartleman’s own book does not need as much commentary as many others.
Bartleman ends his book with a plea for Christian unity. Division and difficulties were present even at Azusa Street; our track record in that regard is no better, we should take his exhortation to heart. Azusa Street: How Pentecost Came to Los Angeles is a sincere and documented account about a movement that has shaken the world to the same extent as the earthquake shook San Francisco, one that anyone who considers him or herself an heir to should read–and one that those who don’t should also.
-
Yes, It Really Pays to Learn How to Code
I was pleasantly surprised at Douglas Rushkoff’s article that advocates teaching kids in the U.S. how to code (program, for some of the rest of us) a computer. I’d like to add some personal experience to this, as coding has been a large part of my computer experience.
Almost forty years ago, my father and I journeyed to Texas A&M University for me to look the school over. During the tour we met the Assistant Dean of Engineering, a courtly gentleman named C.H. Ransdell (you old-time Southerners will recognise the use of initials). A product of 1930’s engineering school, he was helpful in getting me to come to Texas A&M, a decision that proved controversial back home.
I came back that summer for freshman orientation, and same courtly Dean Ransdell helped lay out my first semester’s coursework. Among the courses I took was computer programming, and in those days that meant FORTRAN. Even he could see where this world was going (so did Jack K. Williams, the university’s president).
That skill has stuck with me; FORTRAN 77 (as it became) is still my “native” computer programming language, although I’ve coded in BASIC and PHP since that time. (A sample of this is here). My teacher has had a long career in computer science; his speciality is cryptography, relevant then and now. The underlying things that make computers really work haven’t changed as much as you might think.
When I started my PhD at the SimCentre, same SimCentre was very concerned about my ability to code. I dispatched these concerns up front, although there have been other challenges. Coding is still an essential skill for those who actually make computers work for whatever purpose, in spite of the advances that have taken place in object-oriented programming, etc.
Their concern re a student as old as me was unfounded, but my teaching tells me that most of my “traditional” students–and I’m teaching civil engineering–really could use the skill. The convenience of computers has basically dulled their desire to actually “get under the hood” and even program a spreadsheet (and you can do quite a lot with a spreadsheet).
Coding forces an individual to do two things that most people hate to do.
It first forces you to use logic in a rigorous fashion. A weak logical structure will kill you in successful programming as quickly as just about anything. You have to construct the algorithm (or at least understand what it’s doing in the code you’re adopting).
Second if forces you to consider all the sources of error that might come up in an algorithm. Those sources include poor implementation of the logic, improper coding of the mathematics, and the errors that result from digital computation.
By the time you’re done with this, you look at computers differently. Instead of being the passive recipient of the results, you have an idea of what’s behind it, and are more sceptical of those results.
During my first job at Texas Instruments, I did some fairly elaborate coding in the design of this. My boss looked at it and expressed his concern that, with results as “effortless” as these, he wasn’t sure how the “old fogies” (who just got the results out) would deal with it. My response is that this was a bigger problem for the next generation coming up that didn’t have to do the coding. That’s where we’ve been since and where we are now. We live in a society where too many people are accepting too many results uncritically that come out of a computer.
For those of us who code, this reality is scary. It should be for you too. We need to teach those who plan to use a computer how to code, for their sakes as well as ours.
-
Look Beyond…
Could not resist posting this one…
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/d0OYDuuRrec?version=3&hl=en_GB
The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the best part of Roman Catholicism, and songs like this only made it nice.
-
Pat Robertson not a Creationist? That Depends Upon How You Define the Word
Up in Richmond, they’re aghast at this latest oracle from the Tidewater:
Televangelist Pat Robertson challenged the idea that Earth is 6,000 years old this week, saying the man who many credit with conceiving the idea, former Archbishop of Ireland James Ussher, “wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years.”
The statement was in response to a question Robertson fielded Tuesday from a viewer on his Christian Broadcasting Network show “The 700 Club.” In a submitted question, the viewer wrote that one of her biggest fears was that her children and husband would not go to heaven “because they question why the Bible could not explain the existence of dinosaurs.”
This is only news to those who have not been paying attention.
I can’t remember the date, but one day the 700 Club ran a story on Patrick Henry University. One of the things they brought up about this institution was that it required its faculty to sign a statement affirming their belief that the Creation took place in six (Earth) days. When the piece was done, Pat turned to his co-hostess Terry Meeuwsen and asked her whether she could sign such a statement. She relied she could not, to which he answered he couldn’t either. That’s not the only time he has gone on record saying in effect that he is an “old earth creationist” but Richmond, like other capitals, doesn’t pay attention to what’s going on in the “provinces” unless it’s pretty sensational.
Whether Pat is “challenging creationism”, as the article’s title states, depends upon your definition of the word “creationist”. My definition of the word is simple: a creationist is someone who believes that the universe was brought into existence by an external creator (God) ex nihilo, i.e., out of nothing. (That’s because, strictly speaking, the definition of creation is bringing things into existence without pre-existent matter). This is opposed to those who believe that the universe is eternal. This debate has gone on since Aristotle (as readers of Moses Maimonides know) and is current in modern physics. By this definition I am a creationist, and so (I’m pretty sure) is Pat.
However, these days a “creationist” is someone who believes in the six literal days and all that goes with it. By that definition neither one of us is a creationist, and Pat’s disclaimer is certainly true:
Before answering the question, Robertson acknowledged the statement was controversial by saying, “I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this.”
Another inaccuracy the article perpetuates is that young-earth creationism’s greatest challenge was Darwin’s work on evolution. This is not the case because the strongest challenge to a young earth is not biological but geological. As is the case with the Biblical account, dirt (and rocks) came first, and carbon based life later.
The biologists need to come off their high horse on this matter, and the sooner the better.
-
Reply to Giles Fraser: The Effects of Bullying Cut Both Ways
I think the Canon has really stepped into it on this one. In his editorial re the defeat of women bishops at the recent Church of England synod, he tells the following tale:
There was this lad at school who got bullied all the time. When he wasn’t being bullied he was being ignored. He was thin, quiet and spotty. It says something that I cannot even remember his name. But at some point he got picked up by the Christian Union. They made him feel like he belonged and gave him a club to be a part of. And from then on, he began to wear the slightly superior look of someone who thinks he knows something that other people don’t know. Being an outsider became a badge of pride. He was now a Christian. And, in a way, the more ridiculous and unpopular the things he believed the better.
For his beliefs became a sort of barrier against the cruelty of the world. So the more people said his views were stupid, the more he felt the need for the protection they afforded him. His six impossible things before breakfast were a Maginot line against a world of hurt. Which is why he could never give them up or subject them to any sort of critical scrutiny.
Actually, I have made this person up. But I am trying to paint a picture of the mentality of conservative evangelicals, the people who have recently scuppered the female bishop legislation, without invoking the standard caricature of these modern-day puritans as life-denying fun-sponges obsessed with being right and with other people not having sex. Not that this latter image is all that far from the truth. The problem is that from Marlowe, Shakespeare and Jonson all they way through to Blackadder (and that brilliant episode where his rich puritan relatives come round to fulminate against fornication and inadvertently chomp on a penis-shaped turnip), this has become an overused trope that describes someone who seems to have stepped out of the Tardis from another century. The thing is, they are alive and well in the 21st century.
Another take on this is here, but as someone who knows a thing or two about being on the wrong end of bullying, I think he’s said more than he meant to here.
Giles Fraser is a well-known advocate of the full inclusion of the LGBT community in the life of the church, in his case the Church of England. And let’s be honest, LGBT people have been bullied, which is why they’re at the forefront of anti-bullying campaigns on this side of the Atlantic. (My objection to these is the implication that LGBT people are the only ones to be bullied, which is patently false.)
That being the case, let’s rewrite the first two paragraphs as follows:
There was this lad at school who got bullied all the time. When he wasn’t being bullied he was being ignored. He was thin, quiet and spotty. It says something that I cannot even remember his name. But at some point he got picked up by GLSEN. They made him feel like he belonged and gave him a club to be a part of. And from then on, he began to wear the slightly superior look of someone who thinks he knows something that other people don’t know. Being an outsider became a badge of pride. He was now an outed LGBT person. And, in a way, the more ridiculous and unpopular the things he believed the better.
Fraser is trying to caricature the way Evangelicals “carry their attitudes”. But if that’s a result of bullying, then so is the way many LGBT people carry their attitudes. And anyone who has missed the self-righteous, censorious rhetoric coming from that direction lately isn’t paying attention.
And why do you look at the straw in your brother’s eye, while you pay no attention at all to the beam in your own? How can you say to your brother ‘Brother, let me take out the straw in your eye,’ while you yourself do not see the beam in your own? Hypocrite! Take out the beam from your own eye first, and then you will see clearly how to take out the straw in your brother’s. There is no such thing as a good tree bearing worthless fruit, or, on the other hand, a worthless tree bearing good fruit. For every tree is known by its own fruit. People do not gather figs off thorn bushes, nor pick a bunch of grapes off a bramble. A good man, from the good stores of his heart, brings out what is good; while a bad man, from his bad stores, brings out what is bad. For what fills a man’s heart will rise to his lips. (Luke 6:41-45 TCNT)

