-
Nancy Pelosi, Palm Beach and the Strange State of the Rich in an Obama Regime
Nancy Pelosi’s “requirement” of numerous police and security personnel on a recent visit of Palm Beach is something that I found curious. But it also got me thinking about the strange–surreal, in many ways–state of our political process.
Palm Beach shouldn’t be a threatening kind of place for Nancy Pelosi. It’s in a house district that’s currently represented by a Democrat and is secured all of the time by a large (and recently unionised) police force. So where does the threat come from? Does she really think that Rush Limbaugh is going to send someone from his southern compound to do her harm? Or Ann Coulter, who is also a resident of the island? It’s true that someone from across the lake could try, but it would take a fairly sophisticated (well-funded too) effort.
The security, however, does make me think about the strange state of the rich relative to current American politics.
On the one hand, the upper reaches of our society are, on the whole, antipathetic to the social conservatism that has fuelled much the American right since the days of wine and Jerry Falwell. That’s been true since Prohibition. That’s one reason why so many well-heeled people supported Barack Obama in 2008.
On the other hand, except for a few who are positioned to buy the system, many find the creeping socialism and capital controls we have these days highly disturbing and potentially ruinous. So what’s a moneyed snob to do?
To some extent, that’s the dilemma on the other side of the debate, as one knowledgeable individual in the conservative media mentioned to me recently. Getting the social conservatives–who are still in shell shock over 2008–and the fiscal conservatives really working together, as we did in the Reagan years, is one of the key problems in moving the conservative agenda in general and the Republican Party in particular forward.
While all of this division is going on, the statists on the other side march on, success only impeded by national bankruptcy and foreign intervention of one kind or another.
Lord have mercy…
-
If Christians are in the Global South, Why Aren't the Leaders?
Gary L’Hommedieu asks this question–and answers it–in an Anglican context:
“If over 80% of Anglicans live in the global south, why is this not reflected in communion structures?” writes Indian Ocean Primate Ian Earnest in an April 12 letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury in which he protests, among other things, the illicit transfer of power from the Primates’ Meeting to the Anglican Consultative Council and its Joint Standing Committee.
Why indeed?
The short answer is that the present “structures” of power and influence continue to reflect the colonial history of the Anglican Communion. More to the point, these persistent “structures” demonstrate how that history continues unabated. While cosmetic changes have been made to church governance, and while token appointments give the appearance of social transformation, the fact remains: the present structures of power and influence in the Anglican Communion continue to serve the same socio-economic interests as during the pre-conscious Age of Colonialism. The same dominant group that colonized the Global South is still in charge and serving primarily the same social interests-its own.
Although most Evangelical denominations and groups don’t have the colonial heritage that Anglicanism–birthed by the state church of a major colonial power–has, and don’t have the divides that the Anglican Communion does, they all too often share the idea that “headquarters” needs to be in the U.S. or (less often) Europe. And they too often reflect (unconsciously in most cases) that Christian leadership is still a “white man’s burden,” as L’Hommedieu recalls Kipling’s famous line.
This needs to go. Evangelicals need to make this change before they get into the level of conundrum that Anglicanism is in. They need to do this because it’s the right thing to do.
-
Why I'm Not an Episcopalian, Either
Perry Robinson puts it at its simplest:
Sooner or later reasonable people figure out that they can believe everything in such a view without being a member of said “church” and can sleep in on Sunday morning, giving their cash to other organizations. They can then use their own time in ways that they find aesthetically “fulfilling.” Why after all should I maintain the pretence of Christianity every Sunday by watching people use terms, objects and rites from long past and I am going to give money to this? What’s the point? This is supposed to give my life “meaning?” They can use the time in other ways and give money to established charities or causes that lack the wasteful bureaucratic structures of “815.” (Let the reader of That Hideous Strength understand.)
And this is one reason why more liberal bodies decline. They eventually become so inclusive like contemporary Unitarian bodies that they become socialization groups for the extremely idiosyncratic (freaks) and lose practically all cohesion. Such bodies do not make converts and they don’t have significant reproductive output. (It is not like Gay “weddings” will improve this.) This is why theologically liberal movements are parasitic on traditional bodies. They cannot go out and create a liturgy and produce a socially cohesive body of people with a view of the world that binds people together in a deep commitment from scratch. They are expressions of a lack. Frankly, I wish such persons would just be more honest about rejecting Christianity and go on down to their local Unitarian church and save us all a lot of trouble and heartache. What they do strikes me as seriously disingenuous.
There’s no reason why one should adhere to any institution that basically doesn’t believe its core tenets and simply blends into the “culture.” This is especially true with Christianity; it’s unpopular enough now, has been in some circles for a lot longer.
The leadership of TEC has overestimated the past value of the institution being a cultural leader and carrying over into the present while at the same time denying the beliefs of those in the past. Evangelicals should take note of this.
He says something else that deserves comment:
It used to be the case that, say about twenty years ago, you could meet an Episcopalian and chances might have it that the person was a professing Christian in the historic sense of that term. They believed the Scriptures were divinely inspired, Christ rose from the dead and all the other theological goodies expressed in the Creed. Now given the exodus from TEC this is far less likely.
To be honest I could have said this in the early 1970’s and been on target. How deep the root of orthodoxy in Episcopalians went depended upon what diocese and what part of the country you were in. In the land “where the animals are tame and the people run wild,” the bailout on orthodox belief began a long time ago, the senior Henry Louttit notwithstanding.
-
He'd Better Bow to China
As usual, a big deal is made of this:
But this is simply the obeisance that any hopeless debtor would give its largest creditor.
It reminds me of a quip by a local county commissioner: if you walk into a bank as a large depositor, they tell you “yes, sir” or “yes, m’am,” but if you owe a good deal, it’s just “hey, you!”
-
The day we cease to be explorers and revert to armchairs and joysticks is the day we begin to dwell on past achievements rather than future adventures.
“Let’s face it, it will be a long time — if ever — before a robot could repair the Hubble telescope or make the many adjustments needed to add modules to the International Space Station,” Blakey said. “The day we cease to be explorers and revert to armchairs and joysticks is the day we begin to dwell on past achievements rather than future adventures. This must not happen on our watch…”
Blakey urged Obama to develop a long-term space strategy that will carry us through at least one generation. “What will happen if the United States lacks a strategy to explore the universe?” Blakey said. “Will Floridians be forced to change the motto above the soaring space shuttle on your state quarter from ‘Gateway to Discovery’ to ‘Museum of Discovery?’”
If the people I’ve referred to in the past as “anti-moon luddites” get their way, we will.
This also makes me think of something my grandfather Chet experienced in the middle of his own aeronautic adventure, the 1933 Langley Day at College Park, MD:
On 5 May 1933–two days before Langley Day–the N.A.A.’s board voted to sanction the entire event provided these two event were eliminated as “unnecessarily dangerous and contrary to the best interests of aviation.” Chet fired back that the NAA officials were “swivel-chair, broomstick pilots,” and went on as follows:
Members of the contest committee of the N.A.A. waited until yesterday to state their conditions on which their body would sanction our local meet. And as yet I have received no official word from them of what they feel we must do to comply with their rules…I have had no co-operation from the National Aeronautic Association and have had nothing but destructive criticism and meddling…no other course could be taken but to hold the program as planned.
I bitterly resent the treatment accorded by the National Aeronautic Association. Our program has been public knowledge for weeks and it is gross injustice for them to attempt to dictate policies at the eleventh hour.
Our program is safe and our rules have been examined and approved by officials of the aeronautics branch of the Department of Commerce, several of whom are serving as race officials tomorrow. I for one consider that the safety of the air is vested in the Department of Commerce and I am willing to abide by the decision of its officials. If the N.A.A. does not choose to sanction our air meet, the meet will go on without sanction, as it has been planned.
Chet even threatened to have N.A.A. officials who tried to stop the event removed from the field. Fortunately neither accident nor rowdy N.A.A. official marred the event.
Unfortunately, I get the impression that our “scientific” administration is being run by “swivel-chair, broomstick pilots” in more ways than just the space program.
-
My Tribute to the Poles
The terrible plane crash which has killed much of Poland’s leadership leaves one speechless.The Poles have taken much: partition of their country at the end of the 18th Century (the “Enlightenment” no less!), a battlefield in World War I, re-emerging after that only to be dismembered (and much of the population, Jew and Gentile, killed) during World War II, and then forty years of Soviet occupation. To have this happen–especially in connection with the Katyn massacre–is very painful.
But the Poles have come back with courage and endurance, and they will again. One evidence of this–and this site’s “tribute” to their ongoing stamina–is Czerwono-Czarni: Msza Beatowa–Pan Przyjacielem Moim, a “rock Mass” from the Communist era that is one of the best of its kind in the “Jesus music” era. You can click here to visit its page and download the album, in parts or in its entirety.
If they used this for the funeral of one or more of their fallen leaders, it would be a “New Orleans” style funeral: a solemn event celebrated in an upbeat way.
-
Book Review: History: Think for Yourself About What Shaped the Church
History is, for Americans especially, a problematic business. There are those who want to transmit history, and others who want to redefine it. But for most people history is something that gets ignored. For Evangelicals, the common attitude that “between Apostles and us, people weren’t saved” only makes matters worse.
But the history of the church is profitable for everyone, and this is recognised in the book History: Think for Yourself About What Shaped the Church. Written by Robert Don Hughes, Professor of Missions and Evangelism at Clear Creek Baptist Bible College, its a fast–very fast, indeed–overview of the history of the church.
Hughes begins by stating what’s obvious even without his saying so: the book is written from an Evangelical point of view. That has its plusses and minuses, and the latter come out in monographs on history more than anywhere else. The book’s structure is, unsurprisingly, divided up according to different eras. But there are several topics (which he refers to as “Six Big Challenges”) which are discussed regarding each era, and they are as follows:
- People like us (how Christians of each era are like we are today, both strengths and weaknesses)
- The Body of Christ and the Human Institution (how the church is both)
- Church + State = Very Bad Things
- Faith Versus Reason (which has gone back and forth over the years)
- What About Missions?
- Ethics Optional?
Until the eighteenth century his history is broad based, covering all parts of Christianity. After that he concentrates (not exclusively) on portions of interest to Evangelicals. The temptation with that is to cover the latter at proportionately greater length, detail and sympathy, but Hughes avoids that. It’s a fast ride from start to finish.
As far as the text itself is concerned, from the standpoint of historical content and the lens through which it’s viewed, the book is best described as “above average” without being outstanding. There is the occasional factual lapse (such as Patrick being from Wales when he was from the North of England,) but the biggest failing in that respect is sheer brevity. He cannot fathom the difference between subordinationism and denying the deity of Christ altogether, which means he misunderstands the Christology of Tertullian (who was a subordinationist, but Hughes misses that) Origen (also a subordinationist, but Hughes makes a big deal of that) and Arius (who denied Christ’s deity, but Hughes only calls him a subordinationist.) His format on focusing on major figures in each era leads to distortions. For example, his emphasis on Augustine’s obsession with the dirt of sex and the superiority of chastity makes him overlook the fact that Jerome was a more pugnacious (as as well known) presenter of both to the Western church.
Moving towards the Reformation and its aftermath, his juxtaposition of John Calvin and Ignatius of Loyola is interesting and thought-provoking. So is his depiction of Thomas Cranmer; the English Reformation is always a complicated subject, one that still haunts Anglicanism (and the rest of us) today. (His quotation from Cranmer’s BCP in the context of his life was, for me, the most amusing moment of the book.) In the later years he emphasises the Cane Ridge revival and its Southern and Western progenies as the “Second Great Awakening” while ignoring the central importance of Charles Finney (who he only mentions in passing) and his revivals in the North. That’s a typically Southern Baptist (and Southern in general) bias; Finney was a die-hard abolitionist, and the sons of the “Lost Cause” would rather forget it, even Finney was crucial in the development of revivalistic techniques and the shift in American Christianity from Calvinistic to Arminian theology (the latter he does mention, but ignores Finney’s contribution.)
For people who are totally, like, in the dark about the history of the church, History: Think for Yourself About What Shaped the Church is an easy to read introduction that can be gone through between refills at Starbucks (have a registered card though, it’s not that short.) For newbies to the subject, a pictoral history would be better, but Hughes’ effort isn’t a bad one, especially if it inspires readers to dig deeper into the history of the church.
-
The Importance of One Vote in Palm Beach
An appellate court has affirmed a Palm Beach County Circuit Court judge’s decision upholding the result of the town’s February 2009 mayoral election.
Mayor Jack McDonald defeated challenger Gerry Goldsmith by a single vote in a Feb. 21 recount of a Feb. 17 runoff between the two.
In an opinion released Wednesday, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal found that Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Susan Bucher’s office correctly excluded from the recount 13 absentee ballots that weren’t picked up by her office until the morning after the election.
Sailing the Last Voyage with Newton and Pascal
Positive Infinity 