#Reformed Doctrine Explained

[mindfulldsliving]

The Impact of Calvinism on Modern Christianity

When we think about Reformed Theology and Calvinism, a common perception emerges that these beliefs are simply extensions of Pauline Christianity. Critics argue they introduce a false gospel, one that diverges from the teachings of Christ Himself.

Apologetics Unveiled: Dissecting Reformed Theology and the Calvinist Doctrine When we think about Reformed Theology and Calvinism, a common perception emerges that these beliefs are simply extensions of Pauline Christianity. Critics argue they introduce a false gospel, one that diverges from the teachings of Christ Himself. We aim to explore these claims and understand their implications for our…

[faeriefully]

Hi there!

I'm one of your Catholic followers, and I'm just a little curious to learn more about Reformed Theology since I know very little of it.

is there any books you could reccomend to learn a bit more about it?

always interested in learn about how the beliefs of my brothers and sisters in Christ!

if you don't have any no issue either just curious

Hi hi ✨

Sure! I’ve got a couple different resources!

Books:

What is Reformed Theology? - R. C. Sproul

The Holiness of God - R. C. Sproul

Chosen by God - R. C. Sproul

Knowing God - J. I. Packer

Concise Theology - J. I. Packer

Show Me Your Glory - Steven Lawson

Bondage of the Will - Martin Luther

Freedom of the Will - Johnathan Edwards

Reformed Theology - Jonathan Master

These are all great books that discuss theology from a reformed foundation! Some are specifically about explaining reformed theology and some are foundational doctrine studies from a reformed perspective.

For further reference! There’s great, free resources that are available through Ligonier Ministries (a trusted prominent reformed ministry).

“What Is Reformed Theology?” from Ligonier Ministries

“Chosen by God” from Ligonier Ministries

“The Holiness of God” from Ligonier Ministries

-

I also am always up for answering questions and have quite a few answered tagged #reformed theology

[prolifeproliberty]

As a “confessional Lutheran (not catholic, not Protestant),” how would you like… explain that because the definition many (Catholics, let alone others) have of Protestantism is that it’s a breakaway from the Catholic Church circa Reformation era; and it’s not Catholic or Orthodox. Like. I mean both are true ? Honest question for real not trying to be shady!! Tysm!

Thanks for asking!

You see, the definition of Protestant as “broke away from Rome during the 1500s” is both so broad as to be functionally meaningless when it comes to actual doctrine and also so narrow that it would exclude many denominations that we consider Protestant today who broke away from the “Protestants” of the 1500s.

First, it should be noted that Luther had no intent to leave the Roman Catholic Church, but was forced out when he refused to recant all of his works, including those that were in line with Catholic teaching. He held on to Catholic practice wherever he could.

From our Lutheran Confessions:

At the outset we must again make the preliminary statement that we do not abolish the Mass, but religiously maintain and defend it. For among us masses are celebrated every Lord’s Day and on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved. And the usual public ceremonies are observed, the series of lessons, of prayers, vestments, and other like things. (Source: https://bookofconcord.org/defense/of-the-mass/ )

Most Protestant churches/denominations today either have their roots in Calvinism or Arminianism, both of which are wholeheartedly rejected by Lutheranism.

In fact, the Lutheran Confessions (from which Confessional Lutheranism gets its name) go to great lengths to distinguish Lutheran teaching from both Roman Catholicism and from the other Protestants of the time.

Also, Lutherans are much closer to Catholics on matters such as Holy Communion and Baptism, even if we aren’t quite on the same page.

For a lighthearted, more humorous take on the distinction, here’s one of my favorite videos to post on Reformation Day:

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ian Millhiser at Vox:

On Thursday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Trump v. United States, the case where former President Donald Trump claims that he is immune from prosecution for any “official acts” that he committed while in office. It is, frankly, very difficult to care about this case or to spend mental energy teasing out what the justices may say in their opinions. That’s because Trump has already won.

Trump’s arguments in this case are exceedingly weak, and it is unlikely that even this Supreme Court, with its 6-3 Republican supermajority, will hold that Trump was allowed to do crimes while he was president. Trump’s immunity argument is so broad that his lawyer told a lower court that it would apply even if he ordered the military to kill one of his rivals. (Though Trump does concede that he could be prosecuted if he were first impeached and convicted.) But this case was never actually about whether the Constitution allows a sitting president to avoid prosecution if he uses the powers of the presidency to commit crimes. Trump’s goal is not to win an improbable Supreme Court order holding that he can assassinate his political adversaries. It is to delay his criminal trial for attempting to overturn President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election for as long as possible — and ideally, from Trump’s perspective, until after the 2024 election.

And the Supreme Court has been his willing patsy. As a general rule, federal courts only permit one court to have jurisdiction over a case at a time. So once Trump appealed trial Judge Tanya Chutkan’s ruling that, no, presidents are not allowed to do crimes, Chutkan lost her authority to move forward with Trump’s criminal trial until after that appeal was resolved. Special prosecutor Jack Smith understands this problem as well as anyone, which is why he wanted the Supreme Court to bypass an intermediate appeals court and rule immediately on Trump’s immunity claim last December. The justices denied that request. After the appeals court ruled, they also denied Smith’s request to resolve the case on an much more expedited schedule.

[...]

The legal arguments in the Trump v. US case, explained in case anyone actually cares

Trump’s lawyers seek to blur the line between civil lawsuits — the president actually is immune from being sued for official actions taken while in office — and criminal prosecutions. Under the Supreme Court’s precedents, all government officials, from a rookie beat cop all the way up to the president, enjoy some degree of immunity from federal lawsuits filed by private citizens. If you follow debates about police reform, you’ve no doubt heard the term “qualified immunity.” This is a legal doctrine that often allows police officers (and most other government officials) to avoid liability when they violate a private citizen’s rights. As the Supreme Court held in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

The purpose of this immunity is to protect government officials from the kind of liability that might deter them from performing their jobs well. Harlow argued that qualified immunity ensures that the stresses of litigation won’t divert “official energy from pressing public issues.” It prevents lawsuits from deterring “able citizens from acceptance of public office.” And the Court in Harlow also warned about “the danger that fear of being sued will ‘dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible [public officials], in the unflinching discharge of their duties.’” Yet, while qualified immunity often prevents civil lawsuits against police and other government officials from moving forward, it’s never been understood as a shield against criminal prosecution. Just ask Derek Chauvin, the police officer convicted of murdering George Floyd. The Supreme Court has also ruled that a short list of government officials — prosecutors, judges, and the president — have “absolute immunity” from civil suits. This is because people who hold these three jobs are unusually vulnerable to harassment suits filed by private litigants. Prosecutors perform duties that require them to antagonize potential litigants: criminal defendants. And judges’ duties necessarily require them to rule in favor of some parties and against others — who might then turn around and sue the judge.

[...]

The best defense of the Supreme Court’s behavior in this case

The Court’s decision to delay Trump’s trial for months, rather than expediting this case as Smith requested, cannot be defended. That said, in an op-ed published in the New York Times shortly after the Supreme Court decided to delay Trump’s trial, University of Texas law professor Lee Kovarsky made the strongest possible argument for giving the justices at least some time to come up with a nuanced approach to the question of whether a former president is sometimes immune from criminal prosecution.

Trump, Kovarsky argues, should not be given immunity from prosecution for attempting to overturn an election. But he warns that “American democracy is entering a perilous period of extreme polarization — one in which less malfeasant presidents may face frivolous, politicized prosecutions when they leave office.” For this reason, Kovarsky argues that “the Supreme Court should seize this opportunity to develop a narrow presidential immunity in criminal cases” that would prevent a future president from, say, prosecuting President Biden for the crime of being a Democrat. The problem with this argument, however, is that even if the current Supreme Court could come up with a legal framework that would allow Smith’s prosecution of Trump to move forward, while also screening out any future case where a president was prosecuted for improper reasons, there’s no reason to think that a future Supreme Court would hew to this framework. Kovarsky is arguing that the Court should use the Trump case to establish a precedent that can guide its future decisions. A precedent like Roe v. Wade. Or like Lemon v. Kurtzman. Or like Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Or like United States v. Miller. Or like any other precedent that this Supreme Court has tossed out after that decision fell out of favor with the Republican Party.

Donald Trump won the delay battle in Trump v. United States, even as the court hasn't issued a ruling yet on whether or not he has total presidential immunity.

[probablyasocialecologist]

The complex, planned control of a huge country required automation. After discussions that took place from 1956 to 1957 at the Institute of Economics in Moscow under the leadership of academician K. Ostrovityanov, a troubled mode of commodity production under socialism was officially adopted, contradicting Karl Marx’s writings on the practice of economic planning. State-owned enterprises worked according to the plan and, at the same time, for profit. This doctrine divided the country’s economists into Marxists (advocates of a non-commodity economy), who denied the commodity nature of production under socialism, and restorers of capitalism (promoters of a commodity economy). The ideological struggle between these economists received a new impetus with the awareness that cybernetics were needed to solve economic problems. Yet, while cyberneticists were busy solving the complex problem of automating economic management, the party nomenklatura, afraid of losing the privileges that came from planned, manual control, imposed economic “reforms” from the 1950s through the ’90s. At the same time, a shortage of goods in the consumer market was created in the short-term interests of the nomenklatura by fixing prices, which led to increased speculation and corruption. The system of equilibrium prices—a necessary feedback mechanism of the consumer market that plays an important role in optimizing the supply structure—was excluded from the economic planning process. This doomed the ruble to defeat by the dollar. The reforms aimed at giving more and more rights to enterprises, allowing them to focus on profit, intensified the chaos in public administration and ultimately led to the collapse of the country in 1991, with the restoration of capitalism and the transfer of management of the country’s development to global capitalist forces. How do we explain why the nomenklatura ended up choosing to dismantle socialism? It is necessary to note that Stalin eliminated the party maximum in 1932. According to the academic E. S. Varga, the abolition of the party maximum contributed to the disintegration of Soviet society into layers with huge differences in income and the personal enrichment of appointed party nomenklatura. Their example was followed by the bureaucracy and the lower strata, becoming expressed in careerism, intrigues against competitors, theft, and corruption. The contradiction between the officially proclaimed communist morality and the real ideology of the ruling circles led to a widening gap between the elites and the working people, and encouraged cynicism and careerism in society.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Logan Lancing

Published: Feb 28, 2024

People who have escaped cults all tell a similar story. That story starts with a desire to belong, coupled with a desire for purpose. Strong familial and social bonds are generally preferable to shaky relationships, isolation, and the feeling of being an outcast. Likewise, feeling like one’s life lacks any meaning or purpose is a recipe for anxiety, depression, or even madness. If you talk to people who have escaped cults, they all tell you that they didn’t set out to join a cult—the cult set out to prey on them, offering to fill the voids that we must all grapple with, to varying degrees, throughout our lives. The cult offers inclusion, affirmation, and a secret cult knowledge of life’s purpose. All one must do is take the leap of faith.

Cults are incredibly effective for a variety of reasons, most of which is their ability to lead initiates deeper into the cult, even when those initiates start to sense that the “inclusion,” “affirmation,” and “purpose” offered to them comes with some very nasty conditions and ultimatums. Cult survivors describe how difficult it is to stop placing one foot in front of the other when the cult has total control of one’s physical, social, and emotional environments. Cults work tirelessly to control all information entering an initiate’s eyes and ears. Cults control the books you can read, the news you can watch, the organizations you can trust, the experts you must listen to, and the people you confide in. The cult environment is one of endless propaganda designed to be so effective that one loses control of their own thoughts; loses control over the voice in their head.

Once an initiate finds themselves in the cult’s totalizing environment (see Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism by Robert Jay Lifton) the cult lifts the veil of love, affirmation, and inclusion and reveals a cycle of psychological abuse designed to drag the initiate deeper into the cult’s doctrine. This abuse is justified through a language of purity—initiates must let go of all the bad influences and contamination of their former lives, revealing their deepest secrets through ritual confessions. The point is to strip the initiate down, leaving them totally vulnerable and exposed. Only then can the cult rebuild the initiate in the cult’s image.

Cult survivors will tell you that they often didn’t know they were in a cult until someone pierced the cult’s totalizing environment with a message from the outside; a tether to a long-lost reality; an invitation to step back into the real world. The Queering of the American Child is one such tether, and I hope parents nationwide will receive the message loud and clear: Education is in the grip of a religious cult—the Queer Cult.

Now, I don’t mean “queer” as in “gay” or “lesbian�� or “bisexual.” I mean “queer” as it is defined in the academic literature of the Queer Cult’s doctrine: Queer Theory.

Unlike gay identity, which, though deliberately proclaimed in an act of affirmation, is nonetheless rooted in the positive fact of object-choice, queer identity need not be grounded in any positive truth or in any stable reality. As the very word implies, “queer” does not name some natural kind or refer to some determinate object; it acquires its meaning from its oppositional relation to the norm. Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an essence.[1] (Halperin, 1995, p. 62, italics in original)

Our children are “experiencing the queer,” as Queer Educational Activist Kevin Kumashiro explains in his 2009 book, Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice (2nd edition). Specifically, our children are experiencing the “queer” because they have been purposefully placed in a state of psychological crisis. “Crisis,” Kumashiro says, “should be expected in the process of learning, by both the student and the teacher. Like queer activism, queer teaching always works through crisis…the goal is to continue teaching and learning through crisis—to continue experiencing the queer.”[2] (Kumashiro, 2009, p. 55)

The Queer Cult has total control of our national discourse as it relates to sex, “gender,” and sexuality. Our children are fed a steady diet of cult doctrine through mainstream media, social media, popular culture, the psychiatrists they consult, and the doctors their parents trust. Not least of which, our children attend schools that universally push the idea that children can be “born in the wrong body.” America’s children learn that they have “gender identities” that might not match their “sex assigned at birth.” A Medical Industrial Complex waits in the wings with irreversible puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and “gender affirming” surgeries.

The social and emotional pressures to conform to the Queer Cult’s corrupted understanding of reality are hard to bear. Most people know that “radical gender ideology” is insane, but they go along with it because they don’t want to be considered a “bad person,” “on the wrong side of history,” or worst of all, a “conservative.” The cult’s moral extortion racket is designed to drag us deeper into their agenda; deeper into what Queer Activist Michael Warner calls a “queer planet.”[3] However strong the pressure may be, we must remain tethered to reality—not only for ourselves, but especially for our children. As we say in the book,

[Queer Activists] believe they can arrest the steering wheel of History and drive us all off the ledge. Under normal circumstances, all of this nonsense would be cause for endless mockery and laughter. Unfortunately, Queer Activists have proved to be remarkably effective. Today, they already have one hand on the wheel, and our kids are in the car.[4]

In The Queering of the American Child you will learn what Queer Theory is, where it comes from, how it got into schools, and what it’s attempting to do with your children. You will learn that Queer Theory has nothing to do with helping gay kids, and nothing to do with helping troubled children feel “included” in a healthy set of societal norms. Letting the cultists speak for themselves, Dr. James Lindsay and I bring in hundreds of citations to lay bare the Queer Cult’s agenda. Our schools are initiating children into the Queer Cult through psychological manipulation and child abuse. What you read will shock you, and that’s a good thing. Welcome back to reality.

--

References

[1] Halperin, D. M. (1995). Saint Foucault: Towards a gay hagiography. Oxford University Press. (p. 61) [2] Kumashiro, K. K. (2009). Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice (2nd ed.). Routledge. (p. 55) [3] Warner, M. (1991). Introduction: Fear of a queer planet. Social Text, (29), 3–17. [4] Lancing, L. and Lindsay, J (2024) The Queering of the American Child: How A New School Religious Cult Poisons the Minds and Bodies of Normal Kids. New Discourses. (p. 65)

[lookingforhappy]

here's an absolutely ancient draft with explainations of each of the brellies' names and origins that i compiled millenia ago lmao

Luther -

Wikipedia:

As a German surname, Luther is derived from a Germanic personal name compounded from the words liut, "people", and heri, "army". As a rare English surname, it means "lute player". Luther is also derived from the Greek name Eleutherius. Eleutherius is a cognate of the Greek word eleutheros (έλεύθερος) which means "free".

Luther is a given name of various origins, it is derived from the same surname and became a first name mainly in tribute of Martin Luther.

Luther was ordained to the priesthood in 1507. He came to reject several teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church; in particular, he disputed the view on indulgences. His refusal to renounce all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the Holy Roman Emperor.

Lutheran theology differs from Reformed theology in Christology, divine grace, the purpose of God's Law, the concept of perseverance of the saints, and predestination.

Predestination, in Christian theology, is the doctrine that all events have been willed by God, usually with reference to the eventual fate of the individual soul.

Diego -

Wikipedia:

The name has long been interpreted as reanalysis of Santiago, from older Sant Yago "Saint Jacob," in English known as Saint James, as San-Tiago.

One of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus according to the New Testament. Saint James is the patron saint of Spain and, according to tradition, his remains are held in Santiago de Compostela in Galicia.

James is described as one of the first disciples to join Jesus. The Synoptic Gospels state that James and John were with their father by the seashore when Jesus called them to follow him. James was one of only three apostles whom Jesus selected to bear witness to his Transfiguration. James and John (or, in another tradition, their mother) asked Jesus to grant them seats on his right and left in his glory. Jesus rebuked them, asking if they were ready to drink from the cup he was going to drink from and saying the honor was not even for him to grant. The other apostles were annoyed with them. James and his brother wanted to call down fire on a Samaritan town, but were rebuked by Jesus.

The Acts of the Apostles records that "Herod the king" (usually identified with Herod Agrippa I) had James executed by the sword. Nixon suggests that this may have been caused by James's fiery temper, in which he and his brother earned the nickname Boanerges or "Sons of Thunder". F. F. Bruce contrasts this story to that of the Liberation of Saint Peter, and notes that "James should die while Peter should escape" is a "mystery of divine providence".

Didacus is recorded in the forms Diaco, Diago in the 10th century. The form Diego is first recorded in the late 11th century. Its original derivation from Didacus is uncertain, among other things because the shift from -ía- to -ié- is unexplained.

familyeducation.com:

The name Diego is of Spanish origin and means "supplanter." It is believed to be derived from the name Santiago, and in medieval times, Diego was Latinized as Didacus. It is believed Didacus derives from the Greek word didache, meaning "teaching."

dictionary.com:

Supplanter: noun. someone or something taking the place of another, as through force, scheming, strategy, or the like.

Allison -

Wikipedia:

Alison is primarily a female given name in English-speaking countries. It was originally a medieval French nickname for Alis, an old form of Alice derived with the suffix -on or -son sometimes used in the former French nicknames such as Jeanson ("little Jean") or Pierson ("little Pierre").

The name is first recorded in Scotland in the 12th century. It was popular until the early 19th century and, spelled Allison, was the 45th most common name given to baby girls in the United States in 2005

Allison also has separate, disputed roots as a family name.

Allison is a surname of English and Scottish origin. It was a patronym, in most cases probably indicating son of Allen, but in other cases possibly from Ellis, Alexander, or the female given name Alice/Alise.

The surname was first recorded in England in 1248, when a "William Alisun" is recorded in the Documents of the Abbey of Bee in Buckinghamshire. In Scotland, the earliest record dates from 1296, when "Patrick Alissone, Count of Berwick" paid homage to the ruling council of Scotland in the absence of a proclaimed king.

behindthename.com:

Allison: From the middle of the 20th century this has primarily been used as a variant of the feminine name Alison.

Alison: Norman French diminutive of Aalis (see Alice). It was common in England, Scotland and France in the Middle Ages, and was later revived in England in the 20th century via Scotland.

Alice: From the Old French name Aalis, a short form of Adelais, itself a short form of the Germanic name Adalheidis (see Adelaide). This name became popular in France and England in the 12th century. It was among the most common names in England until the 16th century, when it began to decline. It was revived in the 19th century.

Adelaide: Means "noble type", from the French form of the Germanic name Adalheidis, which was composed of the elements adal "noble" and heid "kind, sort, type". It was borne in the 10th century by Saint Adelaide, the wife of the Holy Roman emperor Otto the Great.

Klaus -

Wikipedia:

Klaus is a German, Dutch and Scandinavian given name and surname. It originated as a short form of Nikolaus, a German form of the Greek given name Nicholas.

The name is derived from the Greek name Νικόλαος (Nikolaos), understood to mean 'victory of the people', being a compound of νίκη nikē 'victory' and λαός laos 'people'. An ancient paretymology of the latter is that originates from λᾶς las (contracted form of λᾶας laas) meaning 'stone' or 'rock', as in Greek mythology, Deucalion and Pyrrha recreated the people after they had vanished in a catastrophic deluge, by throwing stones behind their shoulders while they kept marching on.

The name became popular through Saint Nicholas, Bishop of Myra in Lycia, the inspiration for Santa Claus.

In one of the earliest attested and most famous incidents from his life, he is said to have rescued three girls from being forced into prostitution by dropping a sack of gold coins through the window of their house each night for three nights so their father could pay a dowry for each of them. Other early stories tell of him calming a storm at sea, saving three innocent soldiers from wrongful execution, and chopping down a tree possessed by a demon.

Another famous late legend tells how he resurrected three children, who had been murdered and pickled in brine by a butcher planning to sell them as pork during a famine.

Five -

Wikipedia:

5 (five) is a number, numeral and digit. It is the natural number following 4 and preceding 6, and is a prime number. It has attained significance throughout history in part because typical humans have five digits on each hand.

Gerard Way's insta @/gerardway:

Maybe they'll learn the numbers don't matter, as Five did, which is why I feel he embraced his number as a name instead of a rank, and rejected an actual name (which I hope we see one day!).

Steve Blackman on Reddit Q&A:

Grace helped the kids choose names that were popular from their birth places. However, Five couldn't decide on one before getting lost in the apocalypse. Now, he just likes the name "Five".

Ben -

Wikipedia:

Ben is frequently used as a shortened version of the given names Benjamin, Benedict, or Benson, and is also a given name in its own right.

Ben (in Hebrew: ��ֶּן‎, Son of) forms part of surnames, e.g. Abraham ben Abraham (Hebrew: אברהם בן אברהם‎). Bar-, "son of" in Aramaic, is also seen, e.g. Simon bar Kokhba (Hebrew: שמעון בר כוכבא‎).

The Arabic "Bin" (بن) or "Ibn" (ابن) or "Ben" (dialectal Arabic) means "son of".

Benjamin is a popular given name for males, derived from Hebrew בִּנְיָמִין‎, Binyāmīn, translating as "son of the right [hand]", though in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the name appears as "Binyaamem": "son of my days".

Benjamin is often shortened to Ben, sometimes to Benny, Benj, or Benji. It is also a patronymic surname. Like many biblical names, it is popular in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths alike, having many variant forms in other languages.

The "Benjamin of the family" is a phrase used in several languages to refer to the youngest son—especially when he is much younger than his brothers. Sometimes the name is chosen for a son born to mature parents unlikely to have more children, especially if he has several older siblings. Both of these usages derive from the biblical son of Jacob of that name, who occupied that position in his family. In some languages, by extension, it is also applied to the runt of a litter of animals.

Vanya -

Wikipedia:

Ваня (Vanya), a male or female diminutive of the Russian, Croatian, Serbian, Bulgarian and other Slavic given names Ivan or Ivana. It is the Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian and other Slavic form of John or Jane, itself derived from a Hebrew name, meaning "God is gracious" or "Gracious gift of God". An alternative spelling of the name is Vanja. In the Scandinavian countries and in Bulgaria, it is a female given name, in Bosnia and Herzegovina mainly a male given name, in Russia it is male given name, and in Serbia and Croatia it is a unisex name.

The play portrays the visit of an elderly professor and his glamorous, much younger second wife, Yelena, to the rural estate that supports their urban lifestyle. Two friends—Vanya, brother of the professor's late first wife, who has long managed the estate, and Astrov, the local doctor—both fall under Yelena's spell, while bemoaning the ennui of their provincial existence. Sonya, the professor's daughter by his first wife, who has worked with Vanya to keep the estate going, suffers from her unrequited feelings for Astrov. Matters are brought to a crisis when the professor announces his intention to sell the estate, Vanya and Sonya's home, with a view to investing the proceeds to achieve a higher income for himself and his wife.

Alone, Vanya wonders why he did not fall in love with Yelena when he first met her ten years before, when it would have been possible for the two to have married and had a happy life together. At that time, Vanya believed in Serebryakov's greatness and was happy that his efforts supported Serebryakov's work; now he has become disillusioned with the professor and his life feels empty.

Angrily, Vanya asks where he, Sonya, and his mother would live, protests that the estate rightly belongs to Sonya, and that Serebryakov has never appreciated his self-sacrifice in managing the property. As Vanya's anger mounts, he begins to rage against the professor, blaming him for the failure of his life, wildly claiming that, without Serebryakov to hold him back, he could have been a second Schopenhauer or Dostoevsky. In despair, he cries out to his mother, but instead of comforting her son, Maria insists that Vanya listen to the professor. Serebryakov insults Vanya, who storms out of the room. Yelena begs to be taken away from the country and Sonya pleads with her father on Vanya's behalf. Serebryakov exits to confront Vanya further. A shot is heard from offstage and Serebryakov returns, being chased by Vanya, wielding a loaded pistol. He fires the pistol again at the professor but misses. He throws the gun down in disgust and sinks into a chair.

The Tsar Bomba (Russian: Царь-бо́мба), (code name: Ivan or Vanya), also known by the alphanumerical designation AN602, was a hydrogen aerial bomb, and the most powerful nuclear weapon ever created and tested. Tsar Bomba was developed in the Soviet Union (USSR) by a group of nuclear physicists under the leadership of Igor Kurchatov, an academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union.

[pure-land]

Suggested Further Readings Jodo-Shinshu;

Bloom, Alfred. Life of Shinran Shonin: The Journey to Self-Acceptance. 1968. Reprint. Berkeley: Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1994. 80 pp. One of the earliest treatment of Shinran’s life in English by a Western scholar. Scholastic in nature but this monograph can be enjoyed by non-specialists. The author raises many intriguing questions, for example, 1) why did Shinran enter the monastery, 2) why did he leave, 3) what were the specific charges against him, and 4) what prompted his return to Kyoto.

Bloom, Alfred. Shinran’s Gospel of Pure Grace. Tucson: The Univ. of Arizona Press, 1965. 95 pp. The first systematic and “theological” treatment on Shin- ran by a Western scholar. Extremely popular in college classrooms and still in print after thirty years.

Bloom, Alfred. Tannisho: Resource for Modern Living. Honolulu: The Buddhist Study Center, 1981. 102 pp. Explains the most important chapters that illumine the heart of Shinshu teaching from the perspective of modern issues and concerns. Re- cently it was republished as Strategies for Modern Living by the Numata Center for Buddhist Re- search and Translation with a new translation of the Tannisho.

Bloom, Alfred. Shoshinge: The Heart of Shin Buddhism. Hawaii: Buddhist Study Center Press, 1986. 107 pp. A commentary on the set of poetic verses expressing Shinran’s indebtedness to his spiritual masters and one which has played a central role in the Shinshu liturgical tradition; contains an Eng- lish translation of the verses by T. Nagatani and R. Tabrah.

Dobbins, James C. Jodo Shinshu: Shin Buddhism in Medieval Japan. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1989. 242 pp. An excellent his- torical treatment of the development of Shinshu institutions from Shinran to Rennyo. This book, in particular, fills “gaps” in previous scholarship in two areas: 1) contributions of Kakwnyo (third abbot) and his son Zonkaku and 2) developments of the other Shinshu branches. The discussion of doctrinal heresy offers an innovative and insightful approach to our understanding of doctrine and its historical evolution.

Fujimoto, Ryukyo. Shin Buddhism’s Essence: The Tannisho — Prof. Ryukyo Fujimoto’s Translation, with Extracts from His Writings as Commentary. Edited by Tetsuo Unno. Los Angeles: Prof. Ryukyo Fujimoto Memorial Publication Ad Hoc Committee,148 pp. Contains the author’s translation of The Tannisho and a collection of brief essays on Shinshu doctrinal and historical topics. The book provides a glimpse into a respected scholar and teacher who inspired many of the Shinshu teachers in North America. Kakumura, Northiko. Shinran: His Life and Thought. Los Angeles: The Nembutsu Press, 1972. 192 pp. A concise book that introduces Shinran through the main phases of his life. It critically examines the scholarly theories surrounding the areas of con- troversy.

Kiyozawa, Manshi. December Fan: The Buddhist Essays of Manshi Kiyozawa. Trans. and ed. by Nobuo Haneda. Komiyama Printing Co., 98 pp. Kiyozawa (1863-1903) is one of the most pivotal Buddhist leaders in modern Jodo-Shinshu history. Belonging to the Higashi Honganji branch, this progressive priest helped to reform the teach- ings with message that resonated with modern Japan. Nobuo Haneda has translated other worksby teachers of the Higashi branch, notably those of Maida Shuichi (1906-1967), in Heard by Me and The Evil Person. Rogers, Minor L. and Ann T. Rogers. Rennyo: The Second Founder of Shin Buddhism. Berkeley, California: Asian Humanities Press, 1991. 434 pp. A thorough study of the eighth abbot (monshu) of the Hongwanji branch, Rennyo (1415-1499), with a translation of his letters and a discussion and analy- sis of his life and his preeminent role in the devel- opment of the largest Jodo-Shinshu institution.

Ueda, Yoshifumi and Dennis Hirota. Shinran: An Introduction to Hts Thought. Kyoto: Hongwanji Int. Center, 1989. 372 pp. The most comprehensive and systematic presentation so far of Shinran’s thought in a single volume. It places Shinran within the development of Mahayana Buddhist thought. It contains ample translations of key passages from his writings based on major doctrinal themes. Authored by two main translators of the Shin Buddhist Translation Series.

Yamaoka, Seigen. True Pure Land Buddhism: Jodoshinshu: An Introduction. Los Angeles: Pure Land Publications, 1991. 65 pp. Provides a good traditional overview of the major doctrines, supported by appropriate citations from the original sources. Written from within the tradition with emphasis on orthodox doctrine. May prove to be difficult reading for those looking for spiritual edification on an introductory level. Translations of Jodo-Shinshu scriptures Inagaki, Hisao. The Three Pure Land Sutras. Kyoto

[fantasyinvader]

Had a bit of a thought today. Indulge once again in my theory that Almyra was founded by members of the Elites' clans who fled Fodlan rather than bend the knee to the Empire. There's a lot this would explain and add to Claude's arc, and I think one of these things is explaining why he believes the Church wants to keep Fodlan isolated.

If the proto-Almyrans fled Fodlan, think about who they were fleeing from. The Empire, who they viewed as a bunch of religious zealots according to the Shadow Library. The unit description for Nemesis also says that they were led to believe that the people of the Empire were being deceived and they were liberating them according to the guy who is fighting under pretenses. We have a people driven from their homeland, seemingly viewing those who bend the knee as cowards (which included the children of the heroes who had "sacred" weapons) while they were courageous because they fled to fight again another day. We also have Edelgard's belief that she'll get along with Almyra because they don't believe in the Goddess.

How much you wanna bet that Almyrans view the War of Heroes as the Empire conquering Fodlan to push their beliefs onto others, with the only options being to accept the Church of Seiros and abandon the beliefs that flourished under Nemesis or to flee? From there, as well as building a bigass wall to keep Almyra out, Claude came to the conclusion the Church wanted to keep Fodlan isolated?

Plus, there was also this bugging me. Remember the information that Solon tried to slip Claude? The stuff about the Immaculate/White One? Why would that have sway on Claude unless there's some history there, like Almyrans remember the Immaculate One as this terrifying monster and showing Claude how it ties into Church doctrine is meant to remind him of that? And thinking about it, is Claude's white wyvern meant to be a jab at Rhea, metaphorically taming the beast and turning it into Claude's own personal mount? You know, before Claude learns the truth, realizes that Almyra is based on a pretty fucked up culture influenced by the Agarthans, and then goes home to reform it in Verdant Wind? Hell, Claude using the Church in Flayn's ending, showing Almyra the beliefs they had long demonized, is said to be effective so it probably stands to reason that Cyril isn't a fluke. Almyran commoners would accept the Church's teachings, which include telling nobility that they have some goddamn responsibilities to those they preside over.

[alandemoss]

Matthew's Subtle Subversion

I have not, nor will I, watch the popular Christian series "The Chosen". The show, which draws from Mormon influences, was highly anticipated by several Baptists I know, and I find that rather odd. When I think of the title, I am immediately repelled by the concept of “the elect” as understood by Reformation, Calvinist, and Presbyterian traditions. Predestination, as they interpret it, is a grotesque, isolationist, and heretical reading of selective scripture. This doctrine renders much of creation meaningless, serving only to protect the fearful cultures it infects.

I am neurodivergent which has made me insatiably curious my entire life. Other traits of my condition include deep yet detached emotions, intense focus, thorough exploration of details, and a strong sense of justice. While these characteristics have served me well in work and hobbies, they have primarily led to isolation. Few people are interested in hanging out with someone who spends most of their time researching facts, history, and cultural patterns, writing poetry, or studying psychology. I rarely understand jokes, and flirting is utterly lost on me, despite my extensive research into these social skills.

However, after 46 years, I am finally ready to speak my truth and do whatever it takes to share my human experience. This begins with a hard truth about myself:

I hold deep contempt for the religious dogma I was raised in. It seeks to disallow my very existence, and I believe that such ideology should be eradicated along with all similar ignorance. Only recently did I come across a quote from a far-right "Christian" pundit calling for the elimination of autism as part of a sort of purification of humanity. My flat affect once led a deacon to suggest that I was possessed by demons and that I should learn my demon’s name for exorcism. This encounter occurred while I was volunteering at a nursing home, where the gentleman couldn’t see the "joy of the Lord" in me.

Autistic individuals like myself are often subjected to the harshness of righteous indignation, with little grace offered by dogmatic adherents. Pastor Rick Morrow of Beulah Church in Richland, MO, recently claimed that neurodivergent people are afflicted by the devil or perhaps simply not favored by God. According to Morrow: "Either the devil has attacked them, he's brought this infirmity upon them, he's got them where he wants them, and/or God just doesn't like them very much, and he made them that way… Well, my God doesn't make junk. God doesn't make mess-ups." Am I truly consumed by the demonic? This appears to be a clear case of projection—one that calls for serious investigation.

A pang of curiosity led me to search Google for any indication that Jesus’ disciples might have been autistic. My initial thoughts centered on Thomas, given his skepticism, his need for empirical evidence, and his relative obscurity among the Twelve. Peter also came to mind, given his staunch loyalty, even to the point of violence, and his strong sense of justice, qualities that Jesus regarded as foundational to the church.

Interestingly, "The Chosen" portrays Matthew as autistic. Having watched videos explaining the reasons behind this decision, I find myself in agreement. Matthew is portrayed as highly skilled with numbers, socially inept, clumsy, occasionally dim-witted, and consistently exhibiting a flat affect. He is also despised by many, as tax collectors were in that era. I believe Matthew likely harbored deep contempt for the religious hierarchy of his time, possibly using his position as a tax collector to exact a measure of justice for himself while undermining the religious authorities. Who could blame him, considering how poorly “weirdos” are treated within church walls? I would have, and indeed have, acted similarly on my own behalf and others.

There is a very real danger to the pursuit of happiness, freedom, and even the lives of neurodivergent individuals when zealots become convinced that God requires them to be healed—or worse, purged.

I have long felt a sense of distrust and distance from fundamentalist congregants. As far back as I can remember, I’ve always asked too many questions or, worse, involuntarily laughed at the absurdity of hierarchical leadership, antiquated ideas, and overly dramatic cultural condemnations. These, more often than not, are thinly disguised expressions of a preacher’s personal dislikes masquerading as divine mandates. I have tried to work quietly to subvert these toxic ideologies. A moderately concerned inquiry into the evolution of dogmatic theology reveals it to be nothing more than the wishful interpretations of lost souls. There is no grace, no love, and no good that comes from a spirit of zealotry. Zeal directed against one’s brothers and sisters breaks every commandment and the whole of love’s law.

I’m glad that Jesus saw Matthew. I have no doubt that I, too, would lay down my life to follow such grace. I pray that our friends lost to puritanical piety will once again rediscover His love.

[tanadrin]

Does Dan McClellan ever explain how he's a Mormon? I started listening to Data Over Dogma the other day, thanks your regular comments about it, and I'm absolutely boggled that this dude can say this shit and then go to church on Sunday.

he talked about his biography in his Mormon Stories appearance. he converted as an adult, around 19 or 20--he describes himself as feeling kind of aimless in life, having social connections through friends and family members to the mormon church, and being drawn to it that way. inferring a little bit from the context, he seems to have landed within a pocket of mormons that were either pretty pro-lgbt or not strenuously anti-lgbt--enough that that didn't put him off, given his agnostic and not particularly conservative background.

he's an interesting case, for sure! he explicitly avoids talking about his personal beliefs, so i can only guess what his exact though process was. but the impression i get is someone who 1) was strongly drawn to the social aspects of organized religion (and mormonism is very tight-knit socially), 2) was willing to suspend judgement on the more out-there elements of doctrine (the really off-the-wall historical stuff), and 3) isn't too pressed about the truth claims element of religion, or doesn't personally find that the most important part of religious experience and feeling.

and yet it is still kind of strange to me to listen to someone who is very thoughtful about the cognitive science of religion, who deeply understands the textual history of religious scripture, and who understands why you can't use faith-based arguments as part of any coherent methodology in the analysis of that scripture, to try to mount a defense of religiosity in general. i mean plainly people can do it. but i can't imagine how, unless there is some deep cognitive dissonance at work. i think that even if the truth claims of religion aren't the most important part of religion to you, they're plainly incredibly important when it comes to, like, how religious traditions are differentiated--if the truth claims don't matter, there's much less reason to be mormon vs episcopalian vs baptist.

i could see salvaging out of all that some kind of general moral therapeutic deism, or ultra-reformed judaism, or other spiritual-but-not-dogmatically-religious worldview--but belonging to an avowedly dogmatic, hierarchically organized religious institution, with the kind of internal discipline that means members like dan are (let us be charitable) less than entirely open with their criticisms less they face larger-scale social consequences--a problem not even modern Catholics face--and one which is nonetheless built on an unusually recent, and unusually disprovable set of truth claims like mormonism is--like, idk. it's really hard to imagine someone who knew all the stuff he knows about biblical history being drawn to mormonism if he had learned that stuff first. and if that's true that feels kind of like an indictment of the religion? like it really is mostly contingent features we don't care about in any deep way.

that makes more sense for ethnoreligions like judaism, and out of all american religions, mormonism is probably closest to being an ethnoreligion itself. it's pretty culturally insular compared to mainline protestantism. even most flavors of fundamentalist evangelicalism. the closest analogue is maybe the primitive baptists? and they're a tiny denomination. but if it was really a self-sustaining culture it probably wouldn't need a centralized hierarchy that excommunicated dissenters who got too big a public profile for criticizing the church.

[thetruearchmagos]

Straight Shooters: Marksmen Of The UC Army

Hey folks! I've been having some fun with graphics, and this post's a little bit of a teaser to what promises to be a very long, and has already been a very difficult to make, resource on some of the units of the United Commonwealth Army.

Tagging, if I may @athenswrites @hessdalen-globe @caxycreations @thatndginger @theprissythumbelina @avrablake @maskedemerald

Size: Team of Six.

Purpose: Reconnaisance, Observation, and Execution.

Skilled, accurate shooting has been a point of pride for the United Commonwealth Army since its inception. This legendary proficiency was best exemplified by those handpicked few who earned for themselves and their units the moniker of Marksman.

---

------ Origins ------ The 'marksmen' of the modern Army draw their roots from the Light Infantry of the old "Armies of the Coalition", in the days of black powder and thick ranks and before the creation of the single, unified Army of the Commonwealth. While these soldiers were still chosen for an exceptional skill in sharpshooting, their deployment as skirmishers at the leading edge of a line of battle distinguishes them from the breed unto their own that were the Marksmen of the UCA. The term and what it meant would change with the ages, but the trade of sharpshooting would come into its own in the various peacekeeping crises and operations that were the bread and butter of the Army throughout the 60's A.S., a mere twenty years after its formation as a unified service. These conflicts would see a fundamental shift in the way the Army fought and organised itself, and the need for change was brought to the forefront after the disastrous fate of one expedition conducted on Commonwealth soil, in the Battezid Empire. Among the many changes instituted throughout the era was the formal codification of Marksmen as their own discrete, distinct trade within the overall structure of a battalion of infantry, and their removal from the traditional linear structure of infantry battalions in the field of combat. Instead, the newly created field manuals dictated the creation of specialised sections of Marksmen independent of the 'bulk' of a battalion's bayonet strength, and specifically trained to conduct highly independent, flexible activities in support of their parent battalions.

---

------ The Issue At Hand ------ The catalyst for these reforms was the Fremont Report, the product of a deep-cutting inquiry conducted in the wake of the fiasco that was the Siege of Pazotin. In the analysis of that battle and the broader peacekeeping campaign leading to it, one key deficiency diagnosed in the eyes of the board of inquiry was the shoddy state of the Army's intelligence, reconnaissance, and observation functions at the battalion level and below. Groups of irregulars numbering over a hundred each and making use of their knowledge of the complex local terrain had caught entire outposts off-guard, enabling the groups to overpower the outnumbered and surprised defenders without a hope for reinforcement. The lack of timely, useful intelligence had made itself acutely known well before the siege. Over the course of the UC's peacekeeping duties both within Battezid and on foreign shores, the conventional doctrines surrounding scouts and cavalry had proven entirely ineffective at rooting out criminals, separatists, and other irregular forces, however useful they may have once been at keeping track of an enemy army in the field. A number of factors went into explaining these failures. One criticism levied against those existing scouting forces was their total lack of discretion. Enemy settlements and concentrations usually had hours of advance notice of Commonwealth advanced guards and scouts before they flooded into an area, as the troops of cavalry or columns of marching patrols did little to conceal their movements and their sheer size made them easy to keep tabs on. Furthermore, as much as the Army could claim and tell itself that it had control over wide areas of territory, few troops were allowed to stray beyond the walls of their scattered forts and outposts, making constant surveillance, especially at night, more myth than fact anywhere out of sight of a base’s watch towers. Lastly, the patrol routes and paths taken by UC patrols or convoys were well known to any who bothered to keep track, and shortly after the necessary materials had been provided by Fuhrati smugglers many would be well mined or otherwise prepared for ambushes.

---

------ In The Field ------ One recommendation made to remedy this deplorable state of affairs was inspired by the comparatively successful experiences of another battalion. The 1st Stretport Guards Rifles was one of the earliest battalions to arrive in Battezid, and had spent an unusually extended period of time on deployment to the region. Fortunate itself to never have encountered as daunting a crisis as that which had faced the 2nd Tomikawa at Pazotin, it had still suffered the same creeping attrition and infuriating lack of success which marred the experiences of nearly every battalion in the southeastern provinces. However, its soldiers and commanders were apparently a more creative cohort than their peers, and operating with the usual sort of independence afforded to experienced battalions had crafted a solution to their issue. At the behest of its commander, Lieutenant Colonel - and future divisional commander in the Chainbreaker War - Malcolm Wyett, every platoon in the battalion’s ranks was to submit its six best shooters to his headquarters for a special assessment. There, they underwent a specialised training course in the field of observation and an early version of camouflage supposedly inspired by Wyett’s favourite pastime of  hunting, and issued field binoculars and primitive optical scopes for their rifles. After this abbreviated course, each group would be sent back to their platoons, with a handful of the top performers kept at battalion headquarters under the direct supervision of Colonel Wyett. Once returned, these soldiers were not reintroduced into the ‘Lines’, which made up the bayonet strength of the platoon. Instead, they remained an independent ‘Section’ under the direct control of the Platoon Commander, though they were just as often assigned to the Company’s headquarters where needed. These Sections were given considerable independence, and the Sergeants who commanded them were encouraged to spend as much time as possible beyond their camps. They would spend days, even weeks on end in the field, positioning themselves on terrain features that granted them good views across their platoon’s or company’s sectors, and simply keep tabs on the comings and goings of everyone in sight. While their skilled shooting was a point they were selected for, those on such missions were specifically instructed to hold fire, simply noting down contact reports and submitting them to their commanders at the end of the day.

---

------ Silver Sniper's Bullet? ------ By these methods the battalion had steadily chipped away at illicit activities within its area of operations, and more than halved its casualty rate on routine patrols. Now with a tool that allowed his troops to go into the field in a state other than blindness, Wyett resolved to take more aggressive action. Civilian authorities, whose work had been much eased by the diminished violence, had been a key source of intelligence for the Colonel before, and now informed him of a massing of separatist forces within his jurisdiction in preparation for an uprising at a scale to replicate the disaster at Pazotin. The call was put out to 11th Regiment HQ, 1st Stretport’s superior formation, for reinforcements, but Wyett had no intention of sitting still and waiting for what was to come. Bringing together thirty of the most successful marksmen from across the battalion under his headquarters, the assembled force devoted itself to close observation of the gathering threat. Over the course of many days, the battalion’s intelligence picture grew, supplied through multiple avenues but with Wyett’s marksmen among the most prominent. When the time came to drop the hammer, these sharpshooters would put their skills to good use in putting down those they had identified as being particularly important leaders in the separatist camp. Instead of facing down a unified, well organised force with the element of surprise, the uprising would be nipped in the bud, reduced to a disorganised force scattered before the assembled battalion in a full strength raid against its camps and gathering places. When the dust settled and the last few bands were rounded up, Wyett’s soldiers had good reason to feel accomplished. As successful as the 1st Stretport’s example proved to be, there had been countless times when lessons were learned, put to use, and just as soon forgotten with passing leadership and rotated units. This time, though, the need for change was too obvious and too dire in the eyes of a suddenly incensed top brass to ignore, and in what could very well have been a hasty decision the good work of the 1st Stretport would become the template for a revitalised peacekeeping force. The freshly appointed commander of the Battezid Military District, Lieutenant General Mazhar Ayberk, would play a key role in promoting these reforms across his command, with his staff and himself doing much to overcome the material deficits and institutional inertia that had long stymied the process of military change.

---

------ The Trade ----- What made a marksman was a great deal more than their shooting skills. Above all, operating without the direct supervision of officers or with clear lines back to friendly forces, a high degree of autonomy and self sufficiency was demanded of those who wished to become marksmen. Small ‘sections’ developed closely knitted teams, and for the sake of success under constantly shifting circumstances required them. As the eyes and ears of their parent battalions or other formations, patience and good judgement generally overcame aggressiveness, for marksmen had to remember that their job was to enable the activities of the unit as a whole, not just their own. To do their work marksmen were variously equipped, just as much determined by what was at hand as by what fit best. The recently standard issue "Pinpricker" Model 48 bolt action - forefather of the Model 62 that the UC Army would one day enter the Chainbreaker War with - did the sharpshooter's job well enough, and each in a team of two carried their own rifle. More important than the gun itself, however, were the scope mounted to it, and the field binoculares issued. These were what allowed the watchful observers to surveil their domain, and a lucky few units received a highly experimental lumi-crystal lense attachement that granted limited low-light vision with a clear enough night or soon enough after sun down. Finally, as highly independent troops marksmen had to look after themselves, unable to rely on the static and reliable supply chains that kept their Line comrades sustained. When going into the field, the recommendation in Wyett's battalion was for each sharpshooter to carry enough food for a three day stint, field camping equipment for both of them, maps and other navigation gear, and a spare set of boots. These soldiers would be doing a great deal of walking, in between long sessions of sitting very still and pretending not to be there.

---

------ Finishing School: Castle Almakand ------ The lesson carefully learned by the early marksmen of the 1st Stretport, and the first handful of battalions instructed to emulate their work, had been immensely valuable in their own right. Keen to capitalise on a successful venture, General Ayberk was given the latitude to create a common course and programme for the training of marksmen. The old imperial fort at Castle Almakand was selected to host the trainers, made up of the first grade of sharpshooters across Ayberk’s command, specifically to train cadres of marksmen from recently arrived battalions and to provide the insight into how things really were at the green troops new home. In a time when the professionalised, standardised systems of training and doctrinal development were in their infancy for a young Army, this particular policy would do much to make sure ‘new’ soldiers would learn the same lessons and gain the same insight of their veteran comrades without having to pay the same price in blood.

[racefortheironthrone]

Where other nations like Scandinavia, Germany went to one while Scotland, Switzerland, Holland when towards the other, It kind of seems like England didn't end up in either Lutheranism or Calvinism camps?

Ok, back to comparative Refomations!

I can understand why the English Reformation and/or Church of England confuses Europeans, because it does seem neither fish nor fowl when it comes to which flavor of Protestant to categorize it as. However, as I'm about to explain, there's a good historical reason for this.

The first thing to understand is that a lot of the early "evangelicals," "bible men," or Protestants - men like Cranmer or Cromwell and their generational peers - were broadly Lutheran in their beliefs and sympathies, and as a result the struggle during the Henrician Reformation was between Lutheran and Catholic doctrine.

However, by the time you get to the Edwardian Reformation, you see something of a relative decline of Lutheran doctrine and an increasing popularity of Calvinist doctrine - for example, you see Cranmer shifting to the Calvinist position on the Eucharist and the real presence in the late 1540s. I think a lot of this had to do with the fact that England is geographically closest to Scotland and Holland, and so it was easier to get Calvinist literature than Lutheran literature and so forth. This is why you start to get those rascally Puritans running around complaining about things not being Calvinist enough, and why you get the historical irony of much of the latter English Civil War being a war between two camps of Calvinists, one of whom was Presbyterian and one of whom wasn't.

The second thing to understand is that, even though a lot of the early elements of Anglican doctrine - the Ten Articles of 1536, the Book of Common Prayer of 1549, etc. - were essentially political compromises and seen as such by figures like Cranmer, pretty soon you got English theologians who came to see them as something different. Here, we get the see the concept of via media - the idea that Anglicanism was and must be a reasoned, moderate compromise between Protestantism and Catholicism and between Lutheranism and Calvinism - get promoted as a positive good in its own right and the idea of Anglicanism as an equal (and the only truly English) denomination to Lutheranism and Calvinism. Unsurprinsgly, a lot of your High Church Anglicans and crypto-Catholic Anglicans come out of this intellectual tradition, and there's a reason why they and the Puritans didn't get along.

The third thing to understnad is the role of historical contingency. For example, it is quite possible (and arguably was even likely) that England would have gone full-bore Presbyterian during the English Civil War if it hadn't been for the fact that Oliver Cromwell and the other Puritans and other "Dissenters" in the New Model Army hated the idea of an established church of any kind. (Ironically, there was even an outside chance that, had Charles II managed the Restoration in 1650-1652, all of Britain would have gone Presbyterian at Covenanter gunpoint.) If the Republic had survived Cromwell or the Parliamentary elections of 1660 gone another way, it's quite possible that Anglicanism would have withered on the vine without the Clarendon Code.

In conclusion: England became Anglican because there weren't enough convenient Lutherans and because the Calvinists kept fighting themselves.

[pugzman3]

There is a huge difference between this 👆, and this 👇

There is a reason the catholic church forbid the reading of the Bible by the "lay people". They put it into their doctrine that the Bible is a dead word, until read and explained by the pope. True story. But they couldn't keep that going because they can not stop the true word of God. So now, they shame you for wanting to read it and understand it on your own. They call you "proud" or "arrogant" for wanting to understand it without their "guidance".

Why? Because the Word of God destroys their whole establishment. This has been known for centuries. It's what sparked the protestant reformation. The devil does not care if you go yo church. He can control what is said, and he has been doing that for a long time. But God has his hands, his promise to keep his word preserved, and the devil can not touch it.

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Isaac Ambrose (1604-1663) Explains the Importance of the New Birth and Being a Sincere Believer

Regeneration and the New Birth, by Isaac Ambrose (1604–1663)

Isaac Ambrose (1604–1663), was a Reformed, Presbyterian puritan divine whose works were held in high esteem for their doctrinal excellence and biblical practicality.

In this work Ambrose covers the doctrine of regeneration in three tiers. First he covers the doctrinal aspects of the words of Christ in John 3:3, “Except a Man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” He explains here the order the Holy Spirit sets down in the necessity, generality, manner and issue of the new birth. In the second part, he further explains the doctrine…

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

The walls of liberty.

July 5, 2023

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

JUL 4, 2023

          Last week’s rulings from the Supreme Court continue to lead the news as the nation celebrates the 4th of July holiday. The Washington Post’s headline reads Biden faces renewed pressure to embrace Supreme Court overhaul. The details matter less than the fact that the notion of Supreme Court reform is the top story on a day when the Court issued no opinions. And the Supreme Court is top of mind for many readers, many of whom recommended articles and action items for other readers in yesterday’s Comment section. Chief among those recommendations was Rebecca Solnit’s exhortation in The Guardian, The US supreme court has dismantled our rights but we still believe in them. Now we must fight.

          Solnit is a gifted writer who hit the mark in capturing the feelings of millions of Americans. She first addresses the feelings of anger and frustration about a Court that is out of control:

The first thing to remember about the damage done by the US supreme court this June and the June before is that each majority decision overturns a right that we had won. [¶] Each of those victories was hard-won, often by people who began when the rights and protections they sought seemed inconceivable, then unlikely, then remote, and so goes the road of profound change almost every time. [¶] To recognize the power of this change requires a historical memory. . . . Memory is a superpower, because memory of how these situations changed is a memory of our victories and our power. Each of these victories happened both through the specifics of campaigns to change legislation but also through changing the public imagination. The supreme court can dismantle the legislation but they cannot touch the beliefs and values.

          In words that I wish I had written, Solnit urges us to action:

[H]istory shows us that when we come together with ferocious commitment to a shared goal we can be more powerful than institutions and governments. The right would like us to feel defeated and powerless. We can feel devastated and still feel powerful or find our power. This is not a time to quit. It’s a time to fight.

          Other readers shared Jennifer Rubin’s op-ed in The Washington Post, Self-government is worth defending from an illegitimate Supreme Court.

On this Independence Day, we should reaffirm the twin pillars of democracy: Voters (not the mob) pick their leaders, and elected leaders (not unelected judges) make policy decisions for which they are held accountable. On this Independence Day, we should reaffirm the twin pillars of democracy: Voters (not the mob) pick their leaders, and elected leaders (not unelected judges) make policy decisions for which they are held accountable.

          Rubin identifies the many ways in which the Court has strayed from its legitimate role as a judicial body (familiar ground for readers of this newsletter) but highlights the particularly destructive role of the “Major Questions Doctrine.” That judge-made doctrine arrogates to the Court the right to overturn any decision by a federal agency with which the reactionary majority disagrees. The pseudo-rationale for the doctrine is that if Congress intends to delegate discretion to federal agencies on “major questions,” it should use a level of specificity that is to the liking of the Supreme Court.

          Says who?

          The doctrine was invented from whole cloth to justify judicial activism in service of an anti-government agenda. As Jennifer Rubin writes,

The mumbo-jumbo “major questions doctrine” is not the stuff of judging. No wonder the chief justice got touchy when Kagan pointed out that the court “is supposed to stick to its business — to decide only cases and controversies and to stay away from making this Nation’s policy about subjects like student-loan relief.”

          Ian Millhiser explains the Major Questions Doctrine in detail in his article in Vox, entitled, The Supreme Court’s student loan decision in Biden v. Nebraska is lawless and completely partisan. Millhiser does not mince words:

Let’s not beat around the bush. The Supreme Court’s decision in Biden v. Nebraska, the one canceling President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, is complete and utter nonsense. It rewrites a federal law which explicitly authorizes the loan forgiveness program, and it relies on a fake legal doctrine known as “major questions” which has no basis in any law or any provision of the Constitution. Roberts’s opinion in Nebraska effectively overrules the decision of both elected branches of government. It overrides Congress’s unambiguous decision to give this power to the secretary of Education. And it overrules the executive branch’s judgment about how to exercise the authority that Congress gave it. As Kagan writes in dissent, “the Secretary did only what Congress had told him he could.”

          Like Rebecca Solnit, Jennifer Rubin ends her op-ed on a note of optimism and determination to right the wrongs of the Court:

On this Independence Day, which celebrates rebellion against a monarch lacking consent of the governed, it behooves us to dedicate ourselves to robust and authentic democracy: government of the people, by the people, for the people — not by arrogant right-wing justices.

          On this Independence Day, it is also worth reflecting on how little the size of the Court has changed since the adoption of the Constitution in 1789. At that time, a Supreme Court of six justices served a nation of 13 states with 4 million inhabitants. If the Supreme Court had grown on a basis proportional to the number of states (from 13 to 50), the Court would be 23 justices today. If the Court had grown on a basis proportional to the increase in population (from 4 million to 330 million) the Court would be 489 justices today. (Check my math here: Percentage Increase Calculator.)

          Other comparators could be used to estimate the appropriate increase in the size of the Court: increase in GDP, increase in the number of petitions for review in 1789 vs. 2023, increase in the number of lawsuits filed annually in 1789 vs. 2023, or increase in the number of laws and regulations on the books in 1789 vs. 2023.

          Obviously, increasing the Court’s size from 9 to 489 justices is ludicrous. But increasing the Court from 9 to 13 justices (as many suggest) ignores the tremendous growth of the nation—and the need for a substantially larger Court. The workload of the Court does not increase in relation to the number of states, but to the populations in those states, the economic activity in those states, the number of lawsuits filed by the residents of those states, and the number of laws and regulations that must be interpreted.

          Without regard to any of the present controversies surrounding the Court, substantially increasing the Court’s size is a reasonable proposition. But considering the Court’s descent into illegitimacy and usurpation of legislative power, increasing its size substantially is an easy call: We must do it to overcome the reactionary majority. We have no other choice.

          Enlarging the Court requires only a majority vote in both chambers of Congress, while virtually every other structural reform would require a constitutional amendment—a 2/3rds approval in both chambers of Congress and ratification by 3/4ths of the states. That will never happen. (If you propose imposing 18-year term limits, I urge you to read the plain words of the Constitution: Article III Section 1 | U.S. Constitution.)

          Urgency is required. As reader John C. posted in response to my 4th of July newsletter,

I agree that the long term looks promising, but many people cannot wait for the long term. Women who want abortions, victims of gun violence, refugees, same-sex couples who want goods or services, students who are barred from colleges, and so forth are suffering now and lack the luxury of waiting.

          We can work our way out of this daunting situation in the short term at the ballot box—by retaking the House and defending the Senate in 2024. And then demand boldness from our leaders. While they have temporized and appointed commissions and fretted about the “legitimacy” of an enlarged Court, tens of millions of Americans have been injured by a rogue Court that abandoned the rule of law and adopted the agenda of religious nationalism. The solution is staring us in the face and is within our grasp. Let’s take it!

          In the words of Rebecca Solnit, “This is not a time to quit. It’s a time to fight.”

          And if you are looking for guidance on where and how to direct your fighting spirit, there is no better place to look than Jessica Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water on Substack. Her post on the 4th of July is filled with action steps you can take, including word scripts for calling your elected officials in Washington, D.C., and important organizing / fundraising events, such as:

An event on Wednesday, July 5th at 5:30 PM Eastern with Senator Sherrod Brown and Ohio Democratic Party Chairwoman Liz Walters about how you can help get out the “NO” vote in the Ohio special election set for August 8th. Register here.

A Force Multiplier event with Senators John Tester and Raphael Warnock on Monday, July 10, 7:00 PM Eastern. The event will help build grass roots support for Senator Tester in what is expected to be a hard-fought campaign. Register and donate here.

          While you are at it, sign up for Jessica Craven’s Chop Wood, Carry Water for the latest on daily actions you can take to help defend democracy!

Concluding Thoughts.

          We are about to end our brief holiday in the Berkshire region of Massachusetts. As a California native raised in the desert that is the San Fernando Valley, I have been struck by the sense of place and history that is everywhere in a countryside settled before the founding of the United States. A simple example is the low stone walls that seem to be alongside every road we traveled. When the early settlers cleared the land for grazing and farming, the stones were obstacles to be moved. But nothing was wasted, and the stones were repurposed into walls to keep cattle and sheep from wandering and to mark boundaries separating neighbors and crops.

          Low stone walls that were built three centuries ago still mark the landscape today. Indeed, they define it. The walls initially set the natural course for footpaths but soon evolved into the markers for horse trails, wagon ruts, country lanes, dirt roads, and (eventually) state highways. As we glided along the highway in our electric vehicle over the holiday weekend, we were unconsciously following the paths set by farmers who moved and stacked rocks by hand to create a clearing for an emerging nation.

          In the same way, we are unconsciously following the paths defined by founders and framers, citizens and soldiers, immigrants and indigenous peoples, and Americans enslaved and free. Our struggles may seem new, but they follow ground that is well-trod, shaped by the efforts of those who came before us. It is worth a moment of reflection to recall that we have inherited a nation that has been shaped by the sweat and toil of generations before us. As we fight to reclaim the rights lost over the last year, we should recognize that are not starting from scratch. The land has been cleared, and the walls of liberty have been built and are still standing. We need only find and reinforce them for the next generation.