Home

  • Book Review: The Archivist

    Many of you who visit this site do so because of the 1960’s and 1970’s music that’s offered either for download or for sale.  Before the internet, however, the only way to experience the “Jesus Music” of this era was to dig through second hand shops and garage and estate sales for used vinyl (or cassettes and 8-tracks, if you were really desperate.)  For those of us who thought we lived through the era and had the benefit of Christian radio, we thought we knew what was out there.

    The Archivist, by Ken Scott, disabuses us of that last concept.  Originally published in 1996 and printed in quantities worthy of many of the albums it reviews, the Fourth Edition turns to publishing on demand (a technique many of the artists would do well to emulate) to catalogue and review 3,200 different albums of Christian music from the era 1965-1980.  It has become the reference of choice for those of us who are passionate about the Christian music of the era, and has formed the basis for music blogs such as The Ancient Star Song and Heavenly Grooves (not to mention the site one-way.org.)

    The term “Christian music” needs a little clarification relative to this book.  As Scott himself puts it, the “emphasis is on rock, folkrock, folk, progressive, hard rock, country rock, jazzrock, blues, psychedelic, garage, beat, r&b, funk and some of the more adventurous pop.”  What he’s documenting was not only a major step forward in style for Christian music, but also some of the most aggressively evangelistic music that Christianity produced in the last century.   Although the genesis of Scott’s work was to be a collector’s guide, it ends up being a kind of history of an era when, in the wake of the social changes of the 1960’s, Christianity rose to the occasion and altered the spiritual direction of a nation–and the world–for many years to come.

    Scott, faithful to his collectors roots, is a detailed chronicler of his albums.  He writes in a easy to read style, and his objective is primarily to describe rather than to grade (although many of the albums he reviews deserve to be panned.)  He’s dealing with a broad spectrum of music, and that breadth includes style, artistic merit, musicianship, recording quality, graphic design (for the cover,) and theology.  That last point is important, because, in addition to including some music that is very much on the edge of Biblical Christianity, he includes one genre that is frequently very Biblical but gets overlooked by outsiders: the treasure of Roman Catholic music, itself the result of tumultuous change induced by the Second Vatican Council.

    The Archivist is packaged in “one of those generic covers” (a swat at his otherwise excellent review of the School Sisters of Notre Dame) and is densely packed with text in a two-column format.  But this book is an achievement, the product of years of diligence and a love for the genre that is only now being appreciated by a wider audience.  The Archivist is the definitive work on the subject it treats, and for those of us who are interested, it is indispensable.

    ,

  • A Semi-Anglican Blog Moves On Up, and Some Thoughts on the Bishop of London and Redundancy

    Peter Ould’s piece on Anglican Blogs – How do they stack up – Part the Second is an interesting comparison of the Alexa ranking of various Anglican blogs.  There’s no surprise that Stand Firm in Faith is the first and Titus One Nine and VirtueOnline are in the top five.  The conservative blogs and news sites certainly dominate, as is the case with U.S. talk radio (which is why the liberals are hankering to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.)

    So I thought I’d check things out and see where this site came in.  Much to my surprise, it came in with a traffic rank of 2,100,706.  That’s not a world beater, but according to Ould it’s higher than George Conger, The Ugley Vicar, Brad Drell and–PTL–Integrity USA.

    I think the reason why this is so is because of the broad nature of the site, dealing with not only the Anglican world but with Roman Catholicism, social and political matters, and of course things of interest in the Evangelical world.  But don’t underestimate the Anglican component.  As I’ve said before, the one event that really took the stats of this site to a new level was my 2004 posting of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.  The rest is, as they say, history.

    This is also gratifying because I was just removed from the featured feeds of MissionalCOG.  Although I certainly got visitors from there, fortunately it’s not even in the top 10 sources of traffic for this site.  (For COG people, it’s also interesting to note that this site’s Alexa rating is higher than even Actscelerate.)

    I want to take this opportunity to thank my Anglican, Roman Catholic and Orthodox visitors for visiting and hope I’ve been a blessing to them through the years.

    While on the subject of Anglicans, the I cannot let pass the following:

    Redundancy could be a blessing in disguise for City workers who have fallen victim to the credit crunch, the Bishop of London said yesterday.

    The Right Rev Richard Chartres, speaking in advance of a debate at the Church of England’s General Synod on the financial crisis, said that it was difficult to know whether to sympathise more with those who had lost their jobs, or those who were left carrying even greater loads with higher targets and fewer colleagues.

    Redundancy (to use the delightful English term for being laid off) may be good for the soul, but it’s bad for the wallet.  And that can lead to family breakups (if you’ve had the bad taste to marry an opportunist) and other serious consequences.  On the other hand, it can force people to rethink their priorities (especially spiritual ones, which have eternal consequences) and, in some cases, lead to new and better careers and sources of income.

    I’m also inclined to think that, in both CoE and TEC, there are too many bishops relative to the number of both parishes and communicants in their dioceses.  This leads me to think that some redundancies in this field are called for, too.  Perhaps this in turn would lead some prelates to rethink their priorities, and that would be good for the Anglican world and the rest of us, too.

  • Just Remember What Country We’re Really From, and The “Wag the Dog” War That Didn’t Work

    Chuck Colson is trying to making things complicated for Evangelicals:

    So do we retreat into our sanctuaries? Political columnist Cal Thomas, among others, says we should forget the idea of changing culture through politics and just be the church: help the poor, visit those in prison, and so on. To that I say an emphatic “No!” Rather, we should learn from Scripture how God taught the Jews in Babylonian exile to behave: “Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters … multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city … and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jer. 29:5-7, ESV).

    That means we are to be good citizens, praying for and obeying the state. In doing so, we may impact our leaders powerfully, just as Daniel influenced King Nebuchadnezzar when he was appointed to serve him.

    And as God commanded the Israelites, we must also build up and disciple our families at a time when most of the West is in a destructive demographic decline. Close friends of mine, Jack and Rhodora Donahue, consciously decided to raise and disciple a Christian family. Their 13 children have given them 83 grandchildren and growing numbers of great-grandchildren. Not one is weak in the faith; several are priests and almost all others work in lay ministries. The Donahues quip that they have invaded occupied territory, Satan’s domain, with their own brood. Would that every Christian parent approach child rearing that way.

    I say “make complicated” because I don’t think that most Americans–and that includes Colson–really grasp the true meaning of what the New Testament says regarding our relationship to the state.  It’s a subject I discussed over three years ago in Church and State: A Slightly Different View.   Since that time we have developed what is effectively a one-party state, with no relief in sight.

    But there’s the opportunity: we need to realise that, while the God we serve is permanent, our state is transient.  We may be, in human terms, in a purely reactive mode inside the U.S., but we are moving forward elsewhere.  We need to be Christians first and devote our time and resources to the advancement of God’s kingdom rather than trying to rebuild what we’ve lost.  Unlike the bridge over the River Kwai, we don’t need to be building up our enemies any more than we have to.  Unfortunately, in this country too much of our view of who we are and our relationship with God is tied up in our national identity.  Since we are dealing with people who want to separate the two, give them what they ask for and see how they like it.

    While on the subject of states, the State of Israel seems to be going in the opposite direction to the U.S., since Benjamin Netanyahu has the upper hand to form a government.  That having taken place, it seems appropriate to bring up something else the U.S. media has overlooked: the fact that, in many ways, the invasion of Gaza was instigated by Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni to show they were strong on security and blunt Netanyahu’s Likud Party.  It’s obvious that this didn’t quite work according to plan.

    It’s obvious that, when you have an opponent that likes to shoot rockets into your towns and cities, you have to make some kind of response.  But Hamas has been doing this for a long time.  And people who consider dividing Jerusalem and other major concessions don’t seem to be the optimal people to start “tough guy” (or girl in this case) wars.  It’s a similar situation Bill Clinton faced with the Kossovo War; he started it, like the movie Wag the Dog, to deflect attention from his problems with Monica Lewinsky.  It worked: he survived impeachment.

    “Wag the Dog wars” stink.  It’s that simple, irrespective of the nobility or necessity of the cause.  Starting a war for political gain is basically asking people to fight and die for your political party, or you personally as a politician.

    But there’s a silver lining to this cloud.  It’s noteworthy that the biggest advance in Israel-Arab peace–the Camp David agreement between Israel and Egypt–was done by Menachem Begin, the crusty veteran of the creation of the State of Israel who headed up Likud.  So perhaps it’s time to stop “wagging the dog” and start working from a position of resolve.

    ,

  • Just Think of the Reception If the Republicans Had Been in Control

    An old high school classmate pointed me to this, at the Huffington Post of all places:

    Administration officials were greeted with sarcasm and laughter Monday night when they briefed lawmakers and congressional staff on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s new financial-sector bailout project, according to people who were in the room.

    The laughter was at its height when Obama officials explained that the White House planned to guarantee a wide swath of toxic assets — which they referred to as “legacy assets” — but wouldn’t be asking Congress for money. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), a bailout opponent in the fall, asked the officials to give Congress the total dollar figure for which they were on the hook. The officials said that they couldn’t provide a number, a response met by chuckling that was bipartisan, but tilted toward the GOP side. By guaranteeing the assets, Geithner hopes he can persuade the private sector to purchase a portion of them.

    The basic problem here is that the Ivy-League educated Boomer noblesse de robe doesn’t know what it’s doing.  Compounding the problem is that the ruling party, with a basically socialistic outlook, is trying to perpetuate the appearance (at least) of upward social mobility, because it knows that this is what Americans expect.  Unlike the 1930’s, the current electorate has no patience.  So they are unable to tell the truth, i.e., that a debt-laden economy will take time to work through, and that adding more debt will only, in the long run, compound the problem.

    Such a reception, however, does remind me of an old South Louisiana story that I’ve told before, from a political speech:

    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    At the outset permit me to thank you for your warm reception.
    I cannot say that it is unexpected because Terrebonne has always been generous with me in the distribution of her favors.
    Some of the happiest days of my boyhood were spent among you and many of my warmest and dearest friends are in this Parish.
    Terrebonne has always extended me a WARM reception.
    When as a young man I courted the favors of the fair sex, other young men who were courting the same girls saw to it that I received a WARM reception.
    When I sought political preference, my opponents here extended me a WARM reception.
    And when in the course of human events, I shall shuffle off this mortal coil, it is my earnest hope that my reception in the world to come will not be as WARM as it has always been in the Parish of Terrebone.

  • Pope Benedict Finds Jettisoning Replacement Theology Harder Than It Looks

    Spengler’s article on this subject is especially cogent:

    Like many Jewish prayers, Tevye’s prayer to be un-chosen also has become popular among some Catholics. The Catholic Church holds itself to be Israel, the People of God descended from Abraham in the Spirit. But many Catholics, including some in leading positions in the Roman Curia, think it an affront to the sensibilities of other cultures to insist on the unique role of the Church. At the other extreme , misnamed traditionalists do not think that the mustard-seed of faith is sufficient, and that the Church cannot fulfill its function without returning to the bygone days of state religion. Pope Benedict XVI, like his predecessor John Paul II, has fought manfully against these prospective deserters within his ranks. The tawdry burlesque over the case of the paranoid Jew-hater and Holocaust denier Richard Williamson is a sad gauge of his degree of success.

    But there’s one more aspect to this complex drama that must be considered: the relationship of replacement theology to the Catholic Church’s concept of itself.

    Replacement theology is the idea that the Christian Church–in this case the Catholic Church–is the total replacement of Israel in God’s plan.  That idea was buttressed by the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, and is a common theme amongst the Church Fathers, even though we have passages such as Romans 9 and 11.  At the same time the church developed the idea of an earthly priesthood, which neatly took the place of the priesthood that formerly ministered in the Temple in Jerusalem.

    Thus the “replacement” was not only covenantal, but sacerdotal as well.  The whole concept of an earthly, specialised priesthood (as opposed to the priesthood of all believers and the unique high priesthood of Jesus Christ) is in part dependent up on same priesthood being a replacement of its Jewish counterpart.

    Now it’s admirable that Benedict XVI wants to get away from replacement theology.  But he does so at the peril of undermining the Catholic Church’s claims on its own behalf.  His rehabilitation of all of the bishops of the St. Pius X was a calculated risk to uphold the Church’s concept of its own role, because such bishops and people certainly have a high view of that role.  But in doing so he bolsters the replacement theology he’s trying to get past.

    Benedict is, IMHO, trying to square the theological circle on this one.  If it took Protestantism three centuries to seriously tackle the issue, what can Roman Catholicism expect?

  • Bank Aid? Let’s Bring Back Bono!

    The title of the story is the solution:

    White House Now Plans Limited Bank Aid Package

    The Obama administration has decided on a new package of aid measures for the financial services industry, including a bad bank component, and is expected to announce it next Monday, according to a source familiar with the planning.

    Since this problem supposedly has its roots in the 1980’s, it needs a 1980’s style solution.  “Bank Aid” would make a great concert!

  • Ward Three Morality: Too Poor to Paint, and Too Proud to Whitewash

    David Brooks’ piece on Ward Three Morality has me thinking:

    The essence of the problem is this: Rich people used to set their own norms. For example, if one rich person wanted to use the company helicopter to aerate the ponds on his properties, and the other rich people on his board of directors thought this a sensible thing to do, then he could go ahead and do it without any serious repercussions.

    But now, after the TARP, the auto bailout, the stimulus package, the Fed rescue packages and various other federal interventions, rich people no longer get to set their own rules. Now lifestyle standards for the privileged class are set by people who live in Ward Three.

    For those who don’t know, Ward Three is a section of Northwest Washington, D.C., where many Democratic staffers, regulators, journalists, lawyers, Obama aides and senior civil servants live. Thanks to recent and coming bailouts and interventions, the people in Ward Three run the banks and many major industries. Through this power, they get to insert themselves into the intricacies of upscale life, influencing when private jets can be flown, when friends can lend each other their limousines and at what golf resorts corporate learning retreats can be held.

    To my mind, it’s an old money/new money conflict brought back to life.  Or more frequently a no money/new money one.

    My New Orleans raised grandmother–who really impressed me with what it meant to be a product of multi-generational success–used to refer to people as “too poor to paint and too proud to whitewash.”  That expression came from the New Orleans between the Civil War and World War I.  Like most plantation economy Southern states, Louisiana was grievously affected by the Civil War.  That was compounded by the ruin of the Francophone aristocracy that was so prominent through French and Spanish rule and into being a part of the United States (they actually stood down the Feds on an “English only” controversy, AFAIK our country’s first.)  All of that has contributed to Louisiana’s complex and frequently demoralising politics and economics that have fuelled such things as the rise of Huey Long and the abject disaster of Hurricane Katrina.

    In any case, those who once did well frequently found themselves in genteel poverty, with deteriorating houses that they (in theory at least) couldn’t afford to paint, but would not stand to have whitewashed as this was beneath their station.  They looked down on the “tasteless nouveaux riches making a statement” who propsered around them.  That last point is the common lot of people whose families have been successful in the past, but which success has eluded them in the present.  It’s a recipie for resentment, an emotion which is usually associated with people like Sarah Palin and others in the religious right.

    My guess is that many of these “Ward Three” types are replicating this kind of resentment against the tasteless nouveaux riches who have dominated the upper economic strata since the 1970’s.  And it’s also my guess that many of these Ward Three types are products of what we would call “old money” but who have moved into new positions of prominence in society.  And now it’s payback time.

    Sometimes I stop and think that I too could have ended up in Ward Three if I had taken my prep school’s suggestion about going to the Ivy League and other “smart” moves.  As much as I find nouveaux riches hard to take, I have had better things to do with my life.  It’s too bad that others in Ward Three haven’t come to this conclusion.  Barack Obama is promising a renewal (one of these days) of economic growth and upward social mobility, but he’s about to find out that, with Ward Three (or any other static aristocracy) in the driver’s seat, nothing moves up.

  • N.T. Wright: The Tricky Part Isn’t in Allowing Them to Read the Bible

    N.T. Wright thinks that the Bible can put a new zest into ecumenism, in part because of this:

    The synod (of Catholic bishops in Rome) was, in effect, inhabiting more fully the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, particularly the document Dei Verbum. Many bishops at the Synod spoke excitedly of the effect of Bible reading and study on their congregations, and of the sea-change that this represents compared with the time, not long ago, when the Bible was quite literally a closed book to ordinary lay people. More than once bishops declared, as though it was a new discovery, that the Bible (and not just prayer and the liturgy) can bring people into a living personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

    The issue of lay people–Protestant or Catholic–reading the Bible is a more complicated subject that Wright or others care to admit.

    On the Catholic side, the document that officially began the Church’s encouragement for the faithful to read the Scriptures wasn’t the Second Vatican Council but the papal encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, issued in 1943.  Putting the liturgy into the vernacular was an important advance for the encyclical’s message, as the readings from the Scripture (an integral part of the Mass) were now intelligible to a wider swath of the laity.  You still hear Catholics, however, say that they’re not encouraged to read the Scriptures, and that’s largely because the Church still considers itself (and presents itself accordingly) as an active mediator between man and God, something that direct Bible reading can short-circuit.

    On the Protestant side, Barna routinely reminds us of the real Biblical ignorance of many who are supposed to be “people of the Book” in every sense of the word.  It always amazes me that churches that demand a salvation experience from their members have so much of this in their midst.  One reason why this is so is the same reason the Catholics have: too many of our ministers effectively proclaim that they possess magisterium and that their view of what the Scriptures say is the only right one, in their local church at least.  That discourages exploration of the Scriptures as well.

    And, of course, on both sides, there’s lay laziness at work.  Too many people are content to uncritically accept whatever comes from the church they’re a part of and not think about things too deeply.

    The problem isn’t only that people aren’t allowed to read the Bible.  The problem is also that they just won’t.

    One more thing that Wright came out with deserves comment:

    It is precisely Roman Catholic writers, by and large, who read scripture afresh and generated the last generation’s liberation theology. Modern western culture has regularly tried to stop the Church speaking out in the public sphere. “Devotional” and “historical-critical” readings alike can, by themselves, collude with this pressure in a way which falsifies the message of the Bible itself.

    This kind of comment has the a priori assumption that only left-wing interpretations of the Scriptures are the way for Christians to address the “public square.”  But that’s not so.  If the élite’s visceral reaction to a Christian movement is any indication of its radicality, then the American Religious Right must be the most dangerous thing to the world order since the International.  The left routinely compared Sarah Palin to Eva Peron, but perhaps they, sitting on their tsar’s throne of power these days, should look to her as their V.I. Lenin.

    ,

  • Texas Looks at Changing the Law on Church Property Disputes and Secession of Churches

    From the Episcopal News Service:

    An Episcopal priest who proposed rewriting Texas law to favor dissident congregations in property disputes said January 30 he considers it “the next natural step” in an attempt to halt lawsuits within the church.

    “It’s shameful we’re spending so much money suing one another when we could be using that money for mission,” said the Rev. Canon Ed Monk, rector of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Corsicana.

    He and other leaders of the conservative 300-member St. John’s, located about 50 miles southeast of Dallas, contacted state Representative Byron Cook, a three-term Republican. On January 22, Cook introduced House Bill 972, which directs courts to find a “just and right” division of property, having “due regard” for all parties.

    Cook did not return Episcopal News Service calls January 30, but Monk said that the changes were inspired by a Virginia law which awarded property to dissident congregations, contradicting Episcopal Church canons. “I thought it would be good to have a similar one,” he said.

    This obviously would affect centralised churches such as the Church of God as well.

  • It’s Not How Many Children We’re Having, But Who’s Having Them

    Those of us who were confronted back in the 1960’s and 1970’s with books like Paul Erlich’s The Population Bomb have heard this whining before:

    Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.

    A report by the commission, to be published next month, will say that governments must reduce population growth through better family planning.

    “I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt said.

    Since this is from the UK (the source of so much of the silliness in the world today,) it’s relevant that the birthrate in that country and the rest of the EU are below Porritt’s target.  That’s a fairly consistent trend in the developing world, the US being something of the outlier.  The birthrate that Erlich looked at years ago is, in every sense of the word, a thing of the past in the developing world.

    The real source of angst for people like Porritt is that the people who are having all of these children he thinks are excess aren’t to his taste: they’re primarily religious people.  In the UK the first offenders to Porritt’s sensibilities are the Muslims, whose birthrate has let their Anglo-Saxon counterparts in the dirt.  Here the Muslims are doing their part, but Christians are taking up the slack.

    The low birthrate in developing countries results in a redistribution of age that puts burdens on social systems, as people’s ability to live longer isn’t always matched by their desire to work longer.  (With current economic conditions, their need to has changed, but I digress…)  That difficulty can be worked through more easily when it’s in isolation, i.e., when everyone’s birthrate in the country drops together.  That’s the situation in Japan.  In Europe and the U.S., however, you have immigrants (and of course some of those whose ancestors came a long time ago) who haven’t “gotten with the program,” and that makes people like Porritt nervous.  So they cloak their cry to cut down the birthrate of those they don’t like in environmental terms (Margaret Sanger was more up front about her attitudes towards non-white births.)

    IMHO, various factors at work are lowering the birthrate around the world.  We don’t need people like Erlich or Porritt to help out by using this issue to further their own racial, religious and ideological objectives.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started