Home

  • A Strange Way of Selling Accidental Death Insurance

    Well, I think that’s what’s being sold here: this come from my family business archives.  Why it was there I don’t know.  I think it dates from the 1950’s but am not sure.

  • Internationalisation with a Vengeance

    From this piece on Virtue Online:

    While the members of St. Timothy’s originally joined AMiA as what Hassett describe as “a lifeboat” away from an Episcopal Church they perceived to be increasingly errant in its leftward drift while still maintaining their connection to the larger Anglican Communion through the archbishop of Rwanda, she found that the new relationship had a profound impact on both parish and parishioners that went far beyond canonical formalities to forge “a transnational relationship of significant local meaning.” Describing the congregation’s efforts to “think more seriously about what their connection to Rwanda might mean”–which ranged from a display and sale of African handicrafts to assisting an African priest raising money for AIDS orphans to a trip to visit their new provincial see by several congregants–Hassett notes that the “congregation’s experience of finding an alliance with an African church first thinkable, then desirable, involved more and more members’ coming to see African Christianity as a positive model.” As a result, members of St. Timothy’s “were coming not only to think about Africa in new and positive ways but also to look more critically on their own way of life as Americans.”

    If “conservative dissidents point to the orthodoxy, zeal, and other desirable traits they perceive as characterizing the churches of the global South, and seek to bring that moral force to bear in transforming the Episcopal Church,” the Anglicans Hassett encountered in Uganda–the heirs of a colonial church if ever there was one, as Danish Africanist Holger Bernt Hansen’s monumental study Mission, Church, and State in a Colonial Setting: Uganda, 1890-1925, authoritatively documented–have been excited by the discovery that “Africans have something to teach American Christians.” According to Hassett, African Christians see this as an exchange not unlike that of economic globalization whereby “each region is envisioned exporting what it has in plenty, trading those goods for what another region can readily provide”–in this case, spiritual aid in return for material assistance.

    IMHO, the whole movement towards African oversight of American Anglican parishes and now dioceses is one of the greatest unfolding events in Christianity today.  It overturns just about everything in the classical Western missions model: the parallel flow of money and inspiration/expertise, the assumed primacy of a Western “home front,” and the rest.

    Although Evangelical churches don’t (yet) have the doctrinal and moral imperative to do what conserative North American Anglicans have done, this kind of “inversion” can and should come.  Just as the shekinah bailed out of the temple,  so also the centre of gravity of Christianity has departed from the West.  Besides, if “big bucks running the church” is unBiblical on a local level, isn’t that true on a global scale?

  • Making Each Day Count

    From David Trimble’s Still on Patrol:

    What I came out of this ordeal (nearly dying of pancreatitis) with were three things:  (1) a renewed faith in God and in the power of prayer; (2) a renewed appreciation and love for my wife, my sister and my parents, who stood with me through all the darkest hours; and (3) a determination to some day reach the end of my life with no regrets for having not tried to do the things of which I had always dreamed.  Number 3 is why, at my age, I have taken up writing with a vengeance, started Civil War reenacting, taken my cooking to a higher level, and am wholly determined to squeeze the juice out of life to the extent I can do so.

    Evidently hanging tough runs in the family.  I have a cousin who is also into Civil War re-enacting, and he informed me that an ancestor of David’s “…was quite a guy and one of the older combat generals around.  Amazing that a 60yr old would be wounded several times, captured at Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg, have a leg amputated at 61 – and survive until 1888.  He’s regarded as “perhaps Maryland’s most distinguished soldier in the War” according to Warner’s “Generals in Gray.””

    That never hurts, but even at that our time here is very short.  We must make it count.  As Antoine Arnauld would say, we’ll have eternity to rest (no, I’m not one of those who thinks heaven will be a workhouse!)  “We must do the work of him who sent me, while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work.”  (John 9:4)

  • The TAC and Rome: Millimetring Towards Union?

    This story has intrigued me for a long time and actually seems to have some forward movement, according to Ruth Gledhill:

    Rome is taking seriously the prospect of ‘corporate unity’ with traditional Anglicans but the message is: ‘Not yet.’ So says Cardinal Levada, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in this letter. The Traditional Anglican Communion’s Primate, Archbishop John Hepworth, is rumoured to be heading to Lambeth this week. Read Hepworth’s response to his flock here.

    There are several aspects of this to be considered.

    The first is that the Vatican’s own bureaucracies aren’t of one mind on this issues.  Those which deal with ecumenical relationships obviously worry that such a move would alienate the rest of the Anglican Communion.

    But that leads to the second problem: the AC is unravelling in a number of ways, it’s hard to know whom to alienate and what it means.  I think the Vatican was hoping for some clarity with Lambeth but “clarity” and “Lambeth” is almost an oxymoron.

    Most of the action in the “Tiber swimming” competition has been in the US up to now, but with the approval of women bishops in the UK the centre of attention will probably move across the pond.  The UK’s more liberal RCC doesn’t look at the influx of Anglo-Catholics with unalloyed satisfaction; the Vatican will have to find a way to work around that.  (The American RCC is so much larger than its TEC counterpart that American Catholics have a hard time noticing the change.)

    So this drama continues.  It’s hard to know where it’s going, but it’s gone further than I would have thought.

    ,

  • Watergate Hearings, 25-26 July 1973

    The podcast series started yesterday is concluded with more excerpts from the Watergate Senate hearings, some from the same day and some from the following.

    Right: Sen Sam. Ervin (D-NC), the Committee’s Chairman.  His questioning of John Erlichman–which turned into a monologue on rights under the Constitution–dominates most of this excerpt.  His solicitousness of these rights would be sorely missed the following year, when the House Impeachment Committee’s legal staff–including Bernard Nussbaum and Hillary Clinton–would construct rules of procedure such as:

    • Denying the President representation by legal counsel;
    • Prohibiting impeachment committee members from hearing live testimony or cross-examining witnesses (such as took place in these hearings,)
    • Obtaining gag orders to prevent committee members from disclosing contents of documentary evidence (leak plugging, which was Nixon’s own obsession and got him into more trouble than anything else);
    • Denying committee members the power to draft impeachment articles.

    One of the things that Watergate was supposed to be “about” was the need for openness in government as opposed to the secrecy that Nixon, his staff and the “Plumbers” operated in.  But already we see that Nixon’s opponents were–and are–not opposed to secrecy when it suits their own purpose.

    In the midst of these hearings, the business of the Senate went on, and so the hearings were interrupted by numerous floor votes.  To fill the time, excerpts from the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954 were played, including Joseph Welch’s famous “if there is a God in heaven” speech.

  • Obama Can’t Get Past “Bonjour”

    Barack Obama’s trip to France evidently means full employment for his interpreter, as this earlier CBS piece informs us:

    “I don’t speak a foreign language. It’s embarrassing!” Barack Obama exclaimed today at town hall meeting here. Obama, who often touts his time growing up overseas, made the confession while speaking about the importance of teaching foreign languages in schools.

    Obama came under fire by conservative groups earlier this week, after he said that more Americans should learn a foreign language.

    At town hall meeting in Powder Spring, Georgia on Tuesday, Obama said, “It’s embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is merci beaucoup, right?”

    This is one issue that, in some ways, I agree with him about.  However, putting people down on the subject only makes people angry, it won’t solve the problem.

    First, I tend to be a fan of French culture and language, especially as it relates to my Christian belief (Arnauld and Nicole, Pascal, Bossuet, etc.)  I had a chance to express this extensively in my novel The Ten Weeks, where the French got plenty of chances to stick their noses up at the Anglophones around them.

    Second, the teaching of foreign languages in schools needs upgrading in this country.  If you can learn a foreign language, it will also help you speak your own better as well, and we certainly need that.  I have used both of the living languages I learned (French and Spanish) in both my secular business and in my ministry work, especially the latter.

    But that’s my point–if Obama wants to do something constructive about foreign language competency in this country, he needs to start in the public schools.  And that’s where the problem is.  It’s a given that the teachers’ trade union will endorse him.  To upgrade foreign language education will require upgrading those who teach it.  And, if experience with science and math is any indication, the trade union will fight it, which means that most politicians (especially the Democrats) won’t touch the issue.

    And, of course, expecting Anglophone Americans to learn a foreign language has a flip side: those who immigrate here need to learn English.  To do that properly would involve slaughtering the sacred cow of bilingual education, which is another political hurdle the Democrats are unwilling to jump.

    Constructive solutions are one thing.  Spouting elitist snob platitudes is quite another.  Rest assured that, if Barack Obama shows any credible inclination of taking on the teachers’ trade union, that would be change that everyone could believe in.  (He could start by putting this in his iPod.)  But I’m not holding my breath.

    ,

  • Is Turkey the Next Islamic State?

    Jesus said that “But, if he does not listen to you, take with you one or two others, so that ‘on the evidence of two or three witnesses, every word may be put beyond dispute.’” (Matthew 18:16)  So it was with great interest that I saw two very different Asia Times Online writers opine that Turkey is working on becoming the next Islamic state:

    The reasoning for this runs as follows.

    First, Turkey is another one of those nations that came out of World War I, like Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Iraq.  Ethnically diverse with no real unifiying national identity, the only way to hold such a thing together is with force.  Only the Czechs and Slovaks managed to have a “velvet divorce.”  Yugoslavia’s was written in blood.  Iraq and Turkey have been held together by force.  It remains to be seen whether Iraq will stay together after the Americans are gone.

    Turkey was forcibly put together by its “father,” Kemal Ataturk, who created a secular state with a new “Turkish” identity.  Problem is that many in Turkey aren’t Turks, most notably the Kurds.  When sheer state force is loosened, people look for another common identity, and in the Middle East Islam is just about it, which is why Islamicists win elections there, to the befuddlement of our elites.

    Second, the Saudis, Sunnis as they are, are always looking to counter the growing strength of Shi’ite Iran.  The two obvious ways to put the squeeze on Iran are from the East (Pakistan) and the West (Turkey.)  The Saudis have been active in Pakistan for many years via the madrassas.  Turkey is their next geopolitical prize.  But, for Saudi Arabia, Islam isn’t Islam unless it’s Salafi Islam, and that’s a major problem for many Muslims, to say nothing of the West.

    Third, our government, too enmeshed with the Saudis, are prepared to allow and even encourage an Islamic transformation of Turkey if it means help against the Iranians.

    One of the big dangers in all of this is for Israel.  Turkey isn’t exactly an ally of Israel’s, but has traditionally valued its place in the Middle East.  Becoming an Islamic state seriously jeopardises that stance.

  • Watergate Hearings, 25 July 1973

    Our podcast takes a very different turn this week with an excerpt from the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, the so-called “Watergate Committee.”  This excerpt is from the hearings on 25 July 1973.

    Right: On the hot seat: John Erlichman, Richard Nixon’s Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs.

    The questioning here is by Sens. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) and Lowell Weicker (R-CT).  Sen. Inouye is the only member of the Committee still in the Senate.  His questioning was more directed toward the Daniel Ellsberg affair (the “Pentagon Papers”) than the actual Watergate break-in.  This excerpt includes his famous “What a liar!” remark which he made off the record but was picked up by the microphones.

    Watergate–and this committee’s hearings–continue to be a source of interest, both for me and others.  Fred Thompson, the Committee’s Minority Counsel, made a presidential bid this year.  Hillary Clinton–another presidential candidate–was on the staff of the House Impeachment Committee the following year.  Watergate remains the central political drama of the generation now in power, and much of what that generation does is merely an echo of what transpired in places like the caucus room of the Old Senate Office Building (where these hearings took place) thirty-four years ago.

  • Reply to “Jon” on Brian McLaren and his Bridge to Nowhere

    It seems that Jon and Jon want to continue the discussion on my recent post re Brian McLaren.  Their comments are here.  So here goes:

    I read McLaren as saying we have to adapt to a changed environment. That doesn’t have to mean selling out, but rather that the normative C20th model of doing church isn’t fulfilling the Great Commission in the C21st – so we have to find authentic ways that will…

    The message drawn from this doesn’t seem to be that the old verities are false. The message seems to be that the old verities don’t address current problems.

    That depends on what “verities” you’re talking about.  If we’re talking about old methods, that’s one thing.  Much of our methodology in the Evangelical world is more 19th Century than 20th Century, it needs change.  If you’re talking about basic Christian beliefs and theology/doctrine, that’s another matter altogether.

    I’ve taken exception to some of Brian McLaren’s ideas on the latter.  That’s primarily what has motivated me to be sceptical of any positive impact that he might have on Lambeth (and it needs some positive impact right at the moment.)

    Maybe I’m misreading what I see in the world, but it seems to me that the top priority question has shifted from something like “What should we believe?” to something more like “how should we live?”.

    How we live and act is derived from what we believe.  The two cannot be divorced, the current aversion to dealing with existential questions notwithstanding.

    For example, more and more evangelicals in the US are focusing more on social action than on a more direct declaration of the importance of faith in Christ.

    If you really believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, you will do “social action” of some kind, although probably not of the kind that would make the secular left happy.  On the other hand, you can do social action and have no faith in God of any kind.  (Why a philosophical materialist would do this is beyond me, but…)  My thoughts on Christian social action are here.

    IMO, one of the strongest moves of social action in Christianity right at the moment is the shift of the centre of the Anglican Communion to the Global (and economically disadvantaged) South.  It’s one thing to engage in paternalistic “social action.”  To hand over (voluntarily or otherwise) control of yourself to people who are not up to your material level is taking things to another level. But it’s the latter that TEC can’t bring itself to do.

    ,

  • Bishop Alan May Be Impressed by Brian McLaren. But Where’s the Firm Foundation?

    Church of England Bishop Alan Wilson was impressed by emerging church guru Brian McLaren:

    I am impressed by the logic of Brian’s argument. It sheds light on why the fastest growing Church of England congregations, by and large, are Cathedrals. Following it up would involve reimaging our context in a more realistic, low-key, creative and rooted direction. I think I’m up for it.

    One service that +Alan Wilson did provide is a photo of McLaren’s famous “bridge to nowhere” (right.)  As somone who has spent most of his working life as a professional engineer and involved in major civil works projects, I can finally make an intelligent critique of the analogy which he tirelessly propagates.

    It’s not unusual for bridge approaches to settle or otherwise fail more than the main span of the bridge.  Many bridges have the “bump at the end of the bridge.”  That’s due to the fact that the bridge is generally on some kind of deep foundation such as driven piles or drilled shafts, which are generally designed these days to withstand axial (vertical, such as the weight of the bridge and the traffic) and lateral (such as seismic and scour loads.)  The approaches are generally not on deep foundations but on (hopefully) compacted earth.

    The upshot of this is that approaches are generally more susceptible to settlement than the bridge itself.  In this case, they are also more susceptible to scour damage, i.e., loads from fast moving water.  In the case of this Honduran bridge, the scour loads driven by Hurricane Mitch were simply too much and washed the approaches away, leaving the bridge.

    The difference that McLaren misses is this: the bridge was built on a firmer foundation than the approaches.  Jesus himself emphasised the importance of a firm foundation, but McLaren isn’t enough of a civil engineer (and won’t bother to ask one) to make the analogy.  The core problem presently in Christianity in general and the Anglican Communion in particular is that we have spent so much time trying to make people feel good about themselves that we have not bothered to properly disciple them in the essentials of the faith, which is one reason why we feel like a “bridge to nowhere.”  McLaren’s questionable orthodoxy only exacerbates the problem.

    In a comment on MissionalCOG on why it’s not wise to revise the Church of God’s Declaration of Faith, Louis Morgan made the following observation:

    … but I have to say I’m reluctant to mess with the DoF as it now stands. I understand how it may be slightly more binding than scripture in some areas, but I’m afraid any change at the moment could make room for more fanatical doctrines within our movement– and, thus, make it even more binding than scripture. To be honest, I don’t think the majority of our church has a solid understanding of the foundation of the basic tenants of Christian faith and practice and their historical development. If we had a better grasp on such, then I would be less reluctant for us to re-examine our doctrinal statements within genuine spiritual community.

    And this doesn’t even get into some of the really serious deviations we see in the Anglican Communion!

    The importance of a firm foundation cannot be underestimated.  Using a scripture which Clarence Dunham cited in part in the front matter of his Foundations of Structures:

    In fulfillment of the charge which God had entrusted to me, I laid the foundation like a skillful master-builder; but another man is now building upon it. Let every one take care how he builds; For no man can lay any other foundation than the one already laid-Jesus Christ. Whatever is used by those who build upon this foundation, whether gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, or straw, The quality of each man’s work will become known, for the Day will make it plain; because that Day is to be ushered in with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of every man’s work. If any man’s work, which he has built upon that foundation, still remains, he will gain a reward. If any man’s work is burnt up, he will suffer loss; though he himself will escape, but only as one who has passed through fire.  (1 Corinthians 3:10-15)

    ,
Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started