13/05: Reflections on Mothers' Day
I know a woman who has three children. From the time she was a young girl she wanted to be a mother. By her teens she had added to motherhood the goals of becoming a science teacher, and a pastor's wife.
She first became pregnant at 21, when her husband was in his first year of seminary. After the birth of a daughter, she went back to work in the accounting department of a savings and loan. Leaving the daughter with a sitter. That lasted about six weeks. She just could not stand to have someone else raising her child. So the young couple worked on their budget: with some changes--making meals from scratch, sewing her clothes and the baby's, her husband taking a new position as student pastor of two small churches as well as working some evenings as a night watchman--they were able for her to be a stay-at-home mom.
The second pregnancy began during the last year of seminary. She stayed home with the two children the next year while her husband worked as a school teacher and a pastor. Then she went to work part-time as a bank teller to help them afford a new car, but her main energy went to the children. Then came the third child, three more years as a stay-at-home mom, then part-time as a bank teller again. Her career decision took second-place to her children
Finally, when the youngest was in second-grade, she began teaching high school science full-time. But the children always were first, and no matter how busy she was, or how she felt, she made time for them.
The children are away from home now. They've turned out OK. I married well; this woman is my wife.
She first became pregnant at 21, when her husband was in his first year of seminary. After the birth of a daughter, she went back to work in the accounting department of a savings and loan. Leaving the daughter with a sitter. That lasted about six weeks. She just could not stand to have someone else raising her child. So the young couple worked on their budget: with some changes--making meals from scratch, sewing her clothes and the baby's, her husband taking a new position as student pastor of two small churches as well as working some evenings as a night watchman--they were able for her to be a stay-at-home mom.
The second pregnancy began during the last year of seminary. She stayed home with the two children the next year while her husband worked as a school teacher and a pastor. Then she went to work part-time as a bank teller to help them afford a new car, but her main energy went to the children. Then came the third child, three more years as a stay-at-home mom, then part-time as a bank teller again. Her career decision took second-place to her children
Finally, when the youngest was in second-grade, she began teaching high school science full-time. But the children always were first, and no matter how busy she was, or how she felt, she made time for them.
The children are away from home now. They've turned out OK. I married well; this woman is my wife.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
From the China Post (in English, just hit cancel if it asks you to install a Chinese pack):
Christians in northwest Pakistan are fleeing after threats to convert to Islam or else. This ultimatum follows bombings of music stores for selling CDs (strict Islam is against any music), threats to barbers if they shave beards, and pressure to close girls' schools.
Progress certainly is not inevitable.
Christians in northwest Pakistan are fleeing after threats to convert to Islam or else. This ultimatum follows bombings of music stores for selling CDs (strict Islam is against any music), threats to barbers if they shave beards, and pressure to close girls' schools.
Progress certainly is not inevitable.
Iran and Syria. It should have been obvious to someone in the decision-making circles that Syria and Iran would not remain neutral in our effort to build a free society in Iraq--they have too much to lose. While I think the Vietnam analogy is false in many ways, in one way it has a bearing. We are allowing the enemies of a free Iraq to oppose us without penalty. See this video that is linked by Powerline.
What will we do?
What will we do?
The Pope recently reaffirmed traditional Roman Church teaching that certain actions disqualify one from receiving communion. Among these actions are support for abortion. The context of his remarks is the practice of some politicians trying to be both pro-abortion and Roman Catholic at the same time.
My view. You belong to the club, you abide by its rules. If your bowling league says you have to make 14 out of 16 Thursday nights to remain a member, then that is what you do. If the Lodge says you must wear an apron, memorize esoteric jargon, and be regular at the ceremonies, then that is what you do. If you want to belong to a Baptist Church they will put you under water for baptism and will not baptize your infant son. If you want to be Roman Catholic, you may not support abortion.
If you don't want to abide by the rules of the organization, then quit and find a more congenial group. Kennedy and Kerry, have you checked out the UCC?
My view. You belong to the club, you abide by its rules. If your bowling league says you have to make 14 out of 16 Thursday nights to remain a member, then that is what you do. If the Lodge says you must wear an apron, memorize esoteric jargon, and be regular at the ceremonies, then that is what you do. If you want to belong to a Baptist Church they will put you under water for baptism and will not baptize your infant son. If you want to be Roman Catholic, you may not support abortion.
If you don't want to abide by the rules of the organization, then quit and find a more congenial group. Kennedy and Kerry, have you checked out the UCC?
09/05: Mainline Blues, verse 2
Category: Mainline Christianity
Posted by: an okie gardener
In response to Martian Mariner's prompting for me to talk about the causes of the Mainline Blues, instead of pointing out symptoms only, I now offer this second verse. For Verse One.
The nineteenth century also saw two separate ways of thinking influence Christianity that would help lead to the modern mainline predicament.
First, the elevation of experience over tradition and the plain sense of Scripture. America's involvement with revivalist religion helped lead to an emphasis on experience that could cause doctrine to take a secondary place. This tendency was reinforced by the holiness/pentecostal movement of the 20th century. One can see this tendency in operation in the opening of pulpits to women. Among the first groups with women preachers were the holiness groups. In spite of NT prescription that a woman was not to have authority over a man, and the example of the NT church, women were admitted to the pulpit in large measure because congregations experienced their preaching: obviously if they could preach then they were called to preach. Those verses that seemed to count against female preachers were explained away in light of the experience of women preaching. Similarly today experience becomes a standard for interpretting Scripture: if I know, or think I know, a gay or lesbian who seems like a nice person and who seems sincerely to be a Christian, then I conclude that some Scriptures need reinterpretted.
Second, the influence of "higher criticism" mostly from Germany. This method of study treated the Bible texts in exactly the same way that other writings were treated with the same presuppositions. One of the presuppositions was naturalism: miracles were explained as "folktales" or such. Another assumption was that historical material in the Bible was no more accurate (maybe even less accurate) than any other historical material. In other words, the Bible contains writings like any other human product. In that case, Science, whether psychology or whatever, can be used to weigh the claims of Scripture.
The nineteenth century also saw two separate ways of thinking influence Christianity that would help lead to the modern mainline predicament.
First, the elevation of experience over tradition and the plain sense of Scripture. America's involvement with revivalist religion helped lead to an emphasis on experience that could cause doctrine to take a secondary place. This tendency was reinforced by the holiness/pentecostal movement of the 20th century. One can see this tendency in operation in the opening of pulpits to women. Among the first groups with women preachers were the holiness groups. In spite of NT prescription that a woman was not to have authority over a man, and the example of the NT church, women were admitted to the pulpit in large measure because congregations experienced their preaching: obviously if they could preach then they were called to preach. Those verses that seemed to count against female preachers were explained away in light of the experience of women preaching. Similarly today experience becomes a standard for interpretting Scripture: if I know, or think I know, a gay or lesbian who seems like a nice person and who seems sincerely to be a Christian, then I conclude that some Scriptures need reinterpretted.
Second, the influence of "higher criticism" mostly from Germany. This method of study treated the Bible texts in exactly the same way that other writings were treated with the same presuppositions. One of the presuppositions was naturalism: miracles were explained as "folktales" or such. Another assumption was that historical material in the Bible was no more accurate (maybe even less accurate) than any other historical material. In other words, the Bible contains writings like any other human product. In that case, Science, whether psychology or whatever, can be used to weigh the claims of Scripture.
As George Bush's popularity ratings plummet, I am reminded that in a democracy sometimes strong leadership is necessary to save the people from themselves.
For reasons that I will explain later, I recently read Ronald Reagan and the Triumph of American Conservatism, 2nd edition, by Jules Tygiel, edited by Mark C. Carnes for the LIBRARY OF AMERICAN BIOGRAPHY series, Pearson Longman, 2006.
The following passage struck me.
Detailing Reagan's woes during his first two years in office, Tygiel wrote:
Meanwhile, a grass roots Nuclear Freeze Movement, calling for an end to the testing, production, and deployment of nuclear weapons, had taken shape in Europe and the United States. Despite Reagan warnings that a freeze posed a threat to national security, 70 percent of Americans supported the concept.
For the Record: Tygiel omits "unilateral" in his description of the Nuclear Freeze Movement. Remember, the movement asked that the Americans shut down a crucial element of our nuclear deterrent on the assumption that this sign of good faith would convince the Soviets that we meant them no harm and they would, in turn, reciprocate with love and good will.
70 Percent? I am not clear how Tygiel obtained that particular number; it sounds high, but I imagine that there was actually some poll on some day from some organization during the height of the frenzy that reflected that sentiment.
Regardless, it is a fact that the vast majority of Democratic politicians back in the early 1980s, sensing (expecting, hoping for) a popular wave of skepticism toward Reagan's hawkish posture, embraced the movement as a cudgel with which to beat the administration. Morton Kondracke (and other pundits) have offered this analogy already, warning Democrats not to repeat the "nuclear freeze" mistake: "Democrats vied with each other to claim first authorship of the...idea...which was utterly discredited when then-President Ronald Reagan succeeded in winning a Soviet stand-down..." ( the Kondracke piece in its entirety here).
My real point: Perhaps as much as 70 percent of America, in a frenzy of confusion, partisanship and unfriendly media coverage, were willing to throw in the towel on the Cold War, after 35 years of effort, even as we were literally on the verge of one of the most magnificently noble victories in the history of our nation.
Tygiel again: Yet, Reagan, ever the optimist, seemed unfazed. He retained faith in what, to many people, increasingly seemed yet another failed presidency. All will turn out well, he urged Americans, if we simply "stay the course."
The lesson: 28-percent approval be damned. Do the right thing!
We are told that the President takes great solace in the experiences of Harry Truman and Abraham Lincoln. Add Reagan to your list, Mr. President.
Housekeeping note: I am working on a longer review (for this blog) of the brief Reagan biography, as a way of addressing a few of the broader questions and contradictions concerning Reagan, the press and the academy.
For reasons that I will explain later, I recently read Ronald Reagan and the Triumph of American Conservatism, 2nd edition, by Jules Tygiel, edited by Mark C. Carnes for the LIBRARY OF AMERICAN BIOGRAPHY series, Pearson Longman, 2006.
The following passage struck me.
Detailing Reagan's woes during his first two years in office, Tygiel wrote:
Meanwhile, a grass roots Nuclear Freeze Movement, calling for an end to the testing, production, and deployment of nuclear weapons, had taken shape in Europe and the United States. Despite Reagan warnings that a freeze posed a threat to national security, 70 percent of Americans supported the concept.
For the Record: Tygiel omits "unilateral" in his description of the Nuclear Freeze Movement. Remember, the movement asked that the Americans shut down a crucial element of our nuclear deterrent on the assumption that this sign of good faith would convince the Soviets that we meant them no harm and they would, in turn, reciprocate with love and good will.
70 Percent? I am not clear how Tygiel obtained that particular number; it sounds high, but I imagine that there was actually some poll on some day from some organization during the height of the frenzy that reflected that sentiment.
Regardless, it is a fact that the vast majority of Democratic politicians back in the early 1980s, sensing (expecting, hoping for) a popular wave of skepticism toward Reagan's hawkish posture, embraced the movement as a cudgel with which to beat the administration. Morton Kondracke (and other pundits) have offered this analogy already, warning Democrats not to repeat the "nuclear freeze" mistake: "Democrats vied with each other to claim first authorship of the...idea...which was utterly discredited when then-President Ronald Reagan succeeded in winning a Soviet stand-down..." ( the Kondracke piece in its entirety here).
My real point: Perhaps as much as 70 percent of America, in a frenzy of confusion, partisanship and unfriendly media coverage, were willing to throw in the towel on the Cold War, after 35 years of effort, even as we were literally on the verge of one of the most magnificently noble victories in the history of our nation.
Tygiel again: Yet, Reagan, ever the optimist, seemed unfazed. He retained faith in what, to many people, increasingly seemed yet another failed presidency. All will turn out well, he urged Americans, if we simply "stay the course."
The lesson: 28-percent approval be damned. Do the right thing!
We are told that the President takes great solace in the experiences of Harry Truman and Abraham Lincoln. Add Reagan to your list, Mr. President.
Housekeeping note: I am working on a longer review (for this blog) of the brief Reagan biography, as a way of addressing a few of the broader questions and contradictions concerning Reagan, the press and the academy.
09/05: Islamic Wife Abuse
Story from the Washington Post here. While the Post does acknowledge the special pressures facing women in Islam, they do make a mistake in trying to separate Islam and culture on this issue. In the Quran women are regarded as male property, and wife beating is advocated. And, in Islam interpretation is considered to be now closed: in other words, new intepretations of the Quran are disallowed.
While the Post states that spouse-abuse is found in other cultures, which is true, nowhere in the Bible is wife-beating advocated. And, while the Bible is patriarchal, women are not lowered to the level of property.
While the Post states that spouse-abuse is found in other cultures, which is true, nowhere in the Bible is wife-beating advocated. And, while the Bible is patriarchal, women are not lowered to the level of property.
Category: Mainline Christianity
Posted by: an okie gardener
More news here on the slow schism of the Episcopal Church.
The installation of a local minister who recently broke with the Episcopal Church and will now oversee other breakaway congregations was a unique and historic event and one that the Nigerian Anglican leader called "just the first step."
Archbishop Peter Akinola of the Anglican Church of Nigeria makes remarks after his installation of Rev. Martyn Minns (standing, L) as the Missionary Bishop of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America by in Woodbridge, Virginia, May 5, 2007. The convocation represents a group of congregations who have broken from the Episcopal Church over various social and church issues and have now officially become part of the Nigerian church body.
In the West the Anglican Communion is withering away. Here in the U.S. the Episcopal Church (Anglicans in the US) fights among themselves, primarily over stands taken by the U.S. bishops on same-sex practice and marriage, and fidelity to Scripture. In Africa Anglicanism is growing and is conservative. Perhaps we have here a blessed irony, the children of the Western missionary movement returned to save the parent church.
Here is the letter Episcopal Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori sent to Archbishop Akinola. (from the official Episcopalian website) I want to highlight this paragraph from her letter:
First, such action would violate the ancient customs of the church which limits the episcopal activity of a bishop to only the jurisdiction to which the bishop has been entrusted, unless canonical permission has been given. Second, such action would not help the efforts of reconciliation that are taking place in the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Communion as a whole. Third, such action would display to the world division and disunity that are not part of the mind of Christ, which we must strive to display to all.
What a howler! What unblessed irony. "violate ancient customs of the church . . ." that is exactly what the Episcopal church in the U.S. is doing with regard to same-sex practice and Scripture; "would not help the efforts of reconciliation" the Presiding Bishop herself has said that the Episcopal church would not back down on same-sex ordination and marriage, and condescendingly predicted that the rest of Anglicanism eventually would catch up; "would display to the world division" well, who started the division? not Nigeria.
Why are liberals always so irony-impaired?
The installation of a local minister who recently broke with the Episcopal Church and will now oversee other breakaway congregations was a unique and historic event and one that the Nigerian Anglican leader called "just the first step."
Archbishop Peter Akinola of the Anglican Church of Nigeria makes remarks after his installation of Rev. Martyn Minns (standing, L) as the Missionary Bishop of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America by in Woodbridge, Virginia, May 5, 2007. The convocation represents a group of congregations who have broken from the Episcopal Church over various social and church issues and have now officially become part of the Nigerian church body.
In the West the Anglican Communion is withering away. Here in the U.S. the Episcopal Church (Anglicans in the US) fights among themselves, primarily over stands taken by the U.S. bishops on same-sex practice and marriage, and fidelity to Scripture. In Africa Anglicanism is growing and is conservative. Perhaps we have here a blessed irony, the children of the Western missionary movement returned to save the parent church.
Here is the letter Episcopal Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori sent to Archbishop Akinola. (from the official Episcopalian website) I want to highlight this paragraph from her letter:
First, such action would violate the ancient customs of the church which limits the episcopal activity of a bishop to only the jurisdiction to which the bishop has been entrusted, unless canonical permission has been given. Second, such action would not help the efforts of reconciliation that are taking place in the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Communion as a whole. Third, such action would display to the world division and disunity that are not part of the mind of Christ, which we must strive to display to all.
What a howler! What unblessed irony. "violate ancient customs of the church . . ." that is exactly what the Episcopal church in the U.S. is doing with regard to same-sex practice and Scripture; "would not help the efforts of reconciliation" the Presiding Bishop herself has said that the Episcopal church would not back down on same-sex ordination and marriage, and condescendingly predicted that the rest of Anglicanism eventually would catch up; "would display to the world division" well, who started the division? not Nigeria.
Why are liberals always so irony-impaired?
08/05: More Romney
Category: Campaign 2008.2
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Dan Gilgoff's insightful column today supports Tocqueville's recent prediction that Romney will secure the Republican nomination:
Gilgoff (regarding Republicans and the Christian Right):
Republican presidential candidates who fall on either end of the continuum, who either embody the Christian Right (Pat Robertson in 1988) or who reject it (Texas Senator Phil Gramm in 1996) lose the nomination. The two most electorally successful Republican presidential candidates of the last 30 years -- Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush -- took a different path, embracing the movement even though they were outsiders to it. If the next Republican to occupy the White House must follow that same strategy, Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor, may be in much better shape than polls suggest.
What Reagan and Bush knew was that the Christian Right was too small a force to nominate its own nonestablishment candidate but too large a force to ignore or offend. This year, Romney is acting likewise, attempting to persuade the Christian Right that he has seen the light on abortion and gay rights. At last week's debate, Romney went furthest in speaking the language of the Christian Right, declaring he "won't apologize to anybody for becoming prolife" (unlike Giuliani), that he opposed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (unlike McCain) and that he thinks the American family is "the heart of the Republican Party" (unlike Giuliani or McCain).
Of course, Romney's Mormonism makes him a tougher sell to the mostly evangelical Christian Right. But with the two other Republican front-runners staking their independence from Christian conservatives on some key issues and the true Christian Right candidates stuck at 1 percent in the polls, Romney sees his opening. And if it is another candidate who winds up winning the Republican nomination, he will need to prove that, when it comes to the Christian Right's role in presidential politics, the math has changed.
Read the entire Gilgoff piece via the Boston Globe here.
Gilgoff (regarding Republicans and the Christian Right):
Republican presidential candidates who fall on either end of the continuum, who either embody the Christian Right (Pat Robertson in 1988) or who reject it (Texas Senator Phil Gramm in 1996) lose the nomination. The two most electorally successful Republican presidential candidates of the last 30 years -- Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush -- took a different path, embracing the movement even though they were outsiders to it. If the next Republican to occupy the White House must follow that same strategy, Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor, may be in much better shape than polls suggest.
What Reagan and Bush knew was that the Christian Right was too small a force to nominate its own nonestablishment candidate but too large a force to ignore or offend. This year, Romney is acting likewise, attempting to persuade the Christian Right that he has seen the light on abortion and gay rights. At last week's debate, Romney went furthest in speaking the language of the Christian Right, declaring he "won't apologize to anybody for becoming prolife" (unlike Giuliani), that he opposed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (unlike McCain) and that he thinks the American family is "the heart of the Republican Party" (unlike Giuliani or McCain).
Of course, Romney's Mormonism makes him a tougher sell to the mostly evangelical Christian Right. But with the two other Republican front-runners staking their independence from Christian conservatives on some key issues and the true Christian Right candidates stuck at 1 percent in the polls, Romney sees his opening. And if it is another candidate who winds up winning the Republican nomination, he will need to prove that, when it comes to the Christian Right's role in presidential politics, the math has changed.
Read the entire Gilgoff piece via the Boston Globe here.
08/05: Police Riot in L.A.?
The media portrayal of the recent May Day protest and police response has tended to blame the police for the violence. A counter-portrayal here. I do not accept the MSM picture.
