#i would also consider joining the anglican church if not for the fact that it's an hour away using public transit

[theancientfootsteps]

might fuck around and become a lutheran

[apenitentialprayer]

I was asked why someone should be Catholic if they're Orthodox and therefore can participate in the Eucharist. I didn't have a good answer for him, but I was wondering if you did?

The Russian Orthodox philosopher Vladimir Soloviev never technically converted to Catholicism, but he was a major advocate of the reunification of the Churches and believed that the Pope in fact did have primacy over the Universal Church. He wrote a book in 1895 called Russia and the Universal Church, which you (or the person who asked this question to you) can read in its entirety here.

Soloviev emphasizes that the church is supposed to be universal in nature, but since the East-West Schism the Eastern Orthodox Churches have taken on increasingly nationalistic characters. Without union with a visibly global Patriarch that transcends national borders, he argues that the Eastern Churches will become subjected by the secular state.

This fear is highlighted by the Holy Synod established by Emperor Peter the Great in 1721, which abolished the office of the Patriarch of Moscow and established a ruling body more amenable to Peter's Enlightenment-inspired Church reforms. Over 150 years after this event, Soloviev can quote Ivan Aksakov, who says:

As is well known, the Russian Church is governed by an administrative council called a Spiritual Conclave or Holy Synod, whose members are nominated by the Emperor and presided over by a civil or military official, the High Procurator of the Holy Synod, who has complete control of the government of the Church. The dioceses, or eparchies, are nominally ruled by the bishops nominated by the Head of State on the recommendations of the Synod, that is, of the High Procurator who may subsequently depose them at pleasure.

So, Soloviev argues that without the universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, there is no one to appeal to in the event that a secular authority seeks to usurp ecclesial authority.

Soloviev also recounts a story about a potential convert who despaired of finding his place in the Orthodox Church and became Catholic instead:

William Palmer, a distinguished member of the Anglican Church and of the University of Oxford, wished to join the Orthodox Church. He went to Russia and Turkey to study the contemporary situation of the Christian East and to find out on what conditions he would be admitted to the communion of the Eastern Orthodox. At St. Petersburg and at Moscow he was told that he had only to abjure the errors of Protestantism before a priest, who would thereupon administer to him the sacrament of Holy Charism or Confirmation. But at Constantinople he found that he must be baptized afresh. As he knew himself to be a Christian and saw no reason to suspect the validity of his baptism (which incidentally was admitted without question by the Russian Orthodox Church), he considered that a second baptism would be sacrilege. On the other hand, he could not bring himself to accept Orthodoxy according to the local rules of the Russian Church since he would then become Orthodox only in Russia while remaining a heathen in the eyes of the Greeks; and he had no wish to join a national Church but to join the Universal Orthodox Church. No one could solve his dilemma, and so he became a Roman Catholic.

Soloviev points here to what he sees as another severe problem in the Orthodox Communion: "The Eastern Church is not a homogeneous body. […] If the Russian and Greek Churches give no evidence of their solidarity by any vital activity, their 'unity of faith' is a mere abstract formula producing no fruits and involving no obligations." The disagreement over whether Palmer's baptism was valid or not placed the man in such an exasperating situation that he straight up left for Rome.

The question becomes, when you have varying customs and disciplines that are causing problems and contradictions with something as essential to the faith of baptism, whose authority do you turn to in order to find a solution? Saint Irenaeus answered Soloviev's concern over 1700 years earlier: "For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [i.e., Rome] on account of its preeminent authority."

Soloviev believed that "on the day which the Russian and Greek Churches formally break with each other the whole world will see that the Œcumenical Eastern Church is a mere fiction and that there exists in the East nothing but isolated national Churches." Soloviev paints an incredibly bleak picture here, I think, but even if it's exaggerated, well, it's also an important question now that Particular Churches within the Eastern Orthodox communion have been in schism since 2018. It's not the first time a schism has occurred between Moscow and Constantinople (one lasted slightly less than a hundred years), but, y'know...

[carewyncromwell]

Question: Would Arthur Weasley be Bootstrap Bill, except now he's Bootstrap Arthur?

No. Neither Bill nor Charlie is a one-to-one match with Will Turner, just like my girl Carewyn is not a one-to-one with Commodore Norrington, Jules Farrier @cursebreakerfarrier is not a one-to-one with Elizabeth Swann, or Orion is a one-to-one with (Captain!) Jack Sparrow -- so Bill and Charlie’s backstory, personality, and family history are not that much like Will’s.

Bill, Charlie, and Percy -- in this POTC universe -- come from the very poor and very large Weasley family, whose only claim to notoriety in Britain comes from how many sons they have and thus how common their last name is among red-haired men. This is why when Carewyn joined the Navy and collided with Bill, Bill thought it’d be safer if Carewyn used his name to help hide herself, as opposed to names like “Smith” or “Roberts,” which have already been pegged by many to be “false names” used by criminals and pirates to hide their identities. (See Orion using the nickname “Smithy” and Carewyn and Jacob immediately picking up on the fact that it was a false name.)

The way I see it, Arthur is a poor but honest working man who has never left England, so when his sons were looking for a way to make money to support themselves, Bill looked to the Navy, who was actively recruiting soldiers during the War of Spanish Succession. As mentioned, he collided with Carewyn, who’d disguised herself as a boy and joined the Navy for a similar reason since she was an orphan and her brother Jacob had disappeared, leaving her alone with no prospects as a poor single woman of 15. Charlie, who was the same age as Carewyn, enlisted not long after Bill -- Percy joined the Navy too a bit later, as the War was coming to an end in 1714.

When the War was over, a lot of Naval soldiers were dismissed abruptly with no support, since their service was no longer needed. Many of those such privateers who had worked for the crown sacking Spanish ships ended up becoming pirates in the aftermath of the War, since attacking ships and plundering were the only skill set they really had that could give them any sort of income. Carewyn, Bill, and Charlie, however, decided that what they wanted to do was become merchants -- to do that, though, they’d need financial collateral, as well as a ship. And so they found career paths that would give them a salary to work with so they could start saving up for that goal together. Bill applied for priesthood at one of the smaller Anglican churches on the Spanish-founded and thus largely Catholic Port Royal; Charlie took on an apprenticeship with Port Royal’s blacksmith; and Carewyn (still in disguise as a man named Carey Weasley) of course remained with the Navy and was appointed to the position of Captain and later Commodore. While in Port Royal, Bill fell head over heels for the Governor’s daughter, Juliette “Jules” Farrier (so yeah, no childhood love backstory here), and thus Bill’s goal to start up that family business in merchanting would also hopefully give him enough prospects to impress Jules’s father enough that Bill could court Jules for her hand in marriage. Complicating matters, of course, is the fact that Governor Farrier is currently interested in trying to set Jules up with Bill’s “younger brother,” Carey (AKA Carewyn), since she’s a very well respected Naval officer who the Governor wants firmly positioned in Port Royal to deal with the “scourge” of piracy. Unlike Governor Swann, Governor Farrier is very vocally anti-pirate and is willing to pay whatever he has to in order to protect his family, Port Royal, and his business interests with the East India Trading Company.

Despite them not following the path a lot of their fellow veterans took (namely, the path to piracy), however, Bill, Charlie, and Carewyn have enough “rebel” in them that they honestly aren’t ideal for the kind of Navy the East India Trading Company wants: one that will bow to their whims and destroy anyone who gets in the way of their business practices. After all, Bill is the guy who found out that one of his fellow soldiers was really a girl (a HORRID thing, back in those days, considering how women were “supposed” to behave) and said, “Here -- use my surname, it’ll help you hide better.” And Charlie for that matter is the guy who found out his brother made friends with a girl in disguise as a boy and said to that girl, “Hey! We’re the same age! Let’s be twins 8D”. Percy...well, he knows about Carewyn being a woman and isn’t very happy about her fighting and lying to her superiors -- but she’s an upstanding officer and a good person, and Percy knows both that the British crown is better off having her in the ranks and that they would probably discharge her dishonorably with no prospects and maybe even punish the Weasleys for helping her hide her gender if they found out. He’s nothing if not conflicted about it, though.

[troybeecham]

Today, the Church celebrates the Feast of All Saints.

Orate pro nobis.

“Every society has its heroes. The ancient Greeks looked to Achilles. The Civil Rights movement looked to Martin Luther King Jr. American popular culture looks to mononymous celebrities like Bono and Oprah.

The Church is no different. Our heroes are the saints — from the well-known, like St. Mary the Virgin or St. Francis, to the more obscure, like St. Sebastian or St. Lucy. These heroes of the faith come from different time periods and walks of life. Some of our saints are found in the Bible (all the apostles are considered saints, for example), but many more are found throughout the centuries: monks, friars, nuns, scholars, deacons, priests, bishops, and ordinary people who did extraordinary things for the God they loved.

Saints hold an ambivalent place, however, in the hearts and minds of contemporary Christians. We’re not so sure that we should have a category of sainthood, because we’re not so sure that Christianity is the kind of thing that should have superheroes. After all, aren’t we all equal before God? And isn’t it true that Christianity is not a performance?

We might be more inclined to say that all Christians are saints and only by God’s grace. Isn’t that what we should be focusing on? This kind of thinking has roots in the Protestant Reformation, but perhaps even more so it’s a reflection of the egalitarian culture in which we live. Contemporary society is increasingly trending toward informality and solidarity. We’ve dispensed with formal titles and certain forms of speech that reflect outmoded Victorian sensibilities. We can’t help it. And if you’re an American (like me), it’s in our blood. Even if we don’t always live by our principles, we’re committed to the idea that everyone should be equal.

Yet the Church holds onto this idea of saints. And not just saints, but Saints. These are the heroes of the faith. We’re reminded of this fact especially on days like today, when we celebrate the Feast of All Saints.

For centuries, the Church in the West has set aside November 1 as a day to recognize and honor all of those recognized as saints for their devotion to our Lord. This has been a part of the Anglican tradition from the beginning.

Many churches also take the opportunity to remember all of our loved ones who have gone on to be with the Lord, and this is good and fitting. But the Church has set aside November 2 as an optional commemoration for All the Faithful Departed for this purpose. The distinction between these two feast days is often blurred, for practical reasons. But the fact remains that our loved ones have a special place in our church’s calendar, reserved just for them.

We should not neglect Saints. We need them if we want to learn what it means to be a Christian. We need flesh-and-blood examples of what it means to be a follower of Jesus in this strange world we live in. Sometimes we need others to remind us of the demanding — and even counterintuitive — nature of Jesus’ teachings. Thanks to the Saints, we have 2,000 years of lived commentary on Jesus’ summary of the Law and the Prophets:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (Matt. 22:37-39)

We have the example of St. Francis, who truly became poor for Christ’s sake, as he committed himself to a life of total poverty. We may not be called to such a radical task, but Francis’s example is a powerful reminder of the attitude we should have toward our material possessions ¾they are not our own, and we are simply stewards of whatever God has given us.

Or we have the example of St. Augustine, who was a proud, ambitious, and lustful young man, until he had a radical encounter with Jesus Christ. His life is a witness that even our most disordered desires can be transformed by grace into a passionate love for God.

We have the example of St. Catherine of Siena, who spoke truth to power while exemplifying humility. She was instrumental in returning the papacy from Avignon to Rome, and her faithfulness and boldness gave her a hearing in the papal court. Her dedication to the Eucharist can teach us the meaning of Jesus’ words, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51).

This is why we need the Saints. When we ignore them, we close ourselves off to a vast treasury of resources that can help us to interpret and take to heart Jesus’ words about what it means to follow him. This is the most valuable lesson that the Saints can teach us — not just by their examples of doing good deeds. There is much more to being a saint that just doing good. The lives of the saints are living answers to this question: How should we respond to Jesus’ call to discipleship?

I have often wondered if the slogan WWSD? (What would a Saint do?) is more helpful than the popular WWJD? (What would Jesus do?). I’m not suggesting that the saints are better examples of how to live than Jesus. What I mean is that it’s helpful to remember that the saints are people just like us. They had the same flaws and unhelpful tendencies that we have. It’s sometimes hard to know how to answer the question What would Jesus do? since, after all, Jesus was the incarnate second person of the Trinity. It’s a bit easier to imagine what a Saint might do, because we have so many examples of what they did do, and they always remind us that God’s grace is powerful enough for us to follow Jesus’ difficult commands.

The Saints remind us that to be a disciple of Jesus is to struggle. We’re in a competition against ourselves, against our worst inclinations, and against many of the lies that society tells us about what success looks like or about what our priorities should be. Or, in more traditional Christian language: our struggle is against the world, the flesh, and the devil.

St. Paul, in his letter to the Philippians, describes the journey this way: “forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:13b). He adds, “Brothers and sisters, join in imitating me, and observe those who live according to the example you have in us” (Phil. 3:17).

In other words, look at the Saints. Know that this is what you are called to. This is what it means to follow Jesus. And, ultimately, their examples should give us hope. When we look at the lives of the Saints, we are able say, in the words of the children’s hymn, “and there’s not any reason, no, not the least, why I shouldn’t be one too” (Hymn 293, “I Sing a Song of the Saints of God,” The Hymnal 1982).” - Stewart Clem

Almighty God, you have knit together your elect in one communion and fellowship in the mystical body of your Son Christ our Lord: Give us grace so to follow your blessed saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those ineffable joys that you have prepared for those who truly love you; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, in glory everlasting.

Amen.

[nickpaterson]

How my religion taught me to hate

I grew up in a religious family, with Anglican roots.  My mother joined a small growing church group, which developed into one of the largest Baptist churches on Vancouver Island.  We were part of this same church family from the time I was 4 years old. Now in my 40s, my mother still attends the same group.   I am proud that our family was part of and still is part of this growing group that dopes a lot of good and outreach locally in her community.  I value relationships and advice from many members of this congregation.

               During the troubles of my teenage years, members of this group reach out to me to provide guidance when I was lost, to be supportive when I needed it, and to give advice.  One of the most influential people from this church weas my pastor, Mark Buchanan.  He was a little man who more often was in board shorts and a Hawaiian shirt with sandals, instead of a stuffy suit.  I loved watching him break the norms, and make people uncomfortable, to make them think about why they felt this way.  He would walk quietly to the stage, and this big booking voice would get your attention.  He put feeling into his speech, and he challenged traditional ideas, kept you rapt to everything he said, made us laugh and cry, and made sure we understood why we did things.  Mark also wrote a book called “Your God is too safe”.  I still have my autographed copy of the book as well as a spare handed down from my mom.  Admittedly, I never read the whole thing, but the title alone caught my attention, and made me want to research more and break the norms to make sure what I thought was right, instead of just safe and familiar.  

               My mother always gave me ideas to make me think. She told me from a young age to make sure I knew what I believed, and to know why, and that she would support me in those choices as long as I could support my argument with logic and faith. She may not have exercised this as much as she would like, making sure I went to church without fail, even when I didn’t want to, and being less than willing to explore alternate churches.  But the idea and the sentiment were there, and they stuck with me throughout my life.

               On my own as an adult, I spent a lot of time talking to people of different faiths, and asking questions about how, why, what for, history of, and more.  I learned a lot about different denominations and faiths, alternate religions, alternate deities, wicca and witchcraft, natural beliefs and more.  Some were fascinating ideas, some were fantasy style stories that kept the attention but not the faith, and some made me incredibly uncomfortable to the point I avoided them in further research.  But nothing fit. So, I stuck to what was safe and familiar, not knowing how or why to believe anything else.  

               In all my research over the years, some ideas stuck and made it into my daily practice, because they meshed with what I read in my bible, and my interpretation of Jesus love and teachings, even if I didn’t see them in practice elsewhere.  Because I spent so much time talking to people of different backgrounds, I had a lot of friends who didn’t believe in the same things I did. My biggest takeaway from all of this was acceptance.  They didn’t believe in my god, or read my bible, but they answered my questions, and taught me, without judging even if I didn’t accept what they taught.  We debated respectfully back and forth and taught each other whatever we could.  Nobody was judged, or ostracised, or ridiculed for those beliefs.  We made for a pretty hodgepodge group.  

I had Jehovas Witnesses try to convert me.  I had coffee and visited with Mormons.  I head my cards and stars and palms read by Wiccans.  I attended Buddhist weddings in a haunted church at the stroke of midnight on Halloween.  I went to church with United, nondenominational, Anglican and more services.  I saw people speak in tongues, and believe they were performing healing prayers.  I even attended a country revival by a river and marched in an anti abortion silent protest.  I spent countless hours debating, and researching to reinforce my debates when I got stuck, and learning different viewpoints.  

               But I accepted everyone regardless of background. I asked questions that may have been ignorant from simply not knowing. I interrupted classes and speeches and took notes.  I stayed open to new ideas, and only asked from others what I would be willing to do myself, such as attending each others services to learn from a different viewpoint. The biggest lesson I ever learned in life was that nobody was lesser because they believed something different, or practiced on a different day, or used a different word for God.  I wasn’t better than them, or right or wrong.  I condemned no one that I could learn from, and hoped that I could teach them some of the same.

               I learned many things I don’t want to be a part of. I learned how I didn’t want to be treated or spoken to.  I learned what people could blame on their religion, and how awful you could be made to feel in the name of the Holy.  I saw some awful bigotry and hate, both in and out of churches. I made decisions that would shape who I have become.  I also learned that no matter who they prayed to or when, or how, the crazy truth of it is:  Almost everybody preached the same thing with a few small differences, while they condemned everyone else who disagreed.

               I even saw this within my own family.  For example, one of my nephews has recently chosen to express himself as transgender.  So he becomes She.  My sister, his mother, chose to support this in the best possible way.  I asked questions like “What name do I use and when” and tried to express the parts I didn’t understand, and learn the rest.  I let this child teach me whats he needed and I have tried to support her as best as possible.  My children followed my example and made me proud.  Come Christmas a couple years later, and our religious mother is visiting from the west, and expressing her opinions.  She wanted to take my sisters child to a counsellor to get fixed, behind my sisters back, and hoped that I would help.  I said no unconditionally. I found out that my older sister had heard our mother venting about this issues, and ripped into her with her opinion that Mom should stay the hell out of it.  I do love that our family is at a stage in life where we can be blunt and rational as we discussed this, since a couple days before Christmas we were throwing around religious and opinion thoughts on the subject.  I got to look at my mother and say “to be honest, your opinion doesn’t fucking matter, since it’s not your child to raise”. My mom looked shocked and started to be offended, but then realised it was not calling her out or insulting her, and that it was correct.  Then I also got to point out to her that at the very least, she should be proud that she raised three children as a single mother, who could all grow into such loving and accepting people that none of us judged or condemned anyone regardless of their way of life or choices.  This is again a very abridged version of this whole conversation, but you get the general idea.  

               One of the biggest wakeup moments that came in my life regarding religion and peoples attitudes towards it came from a church I attended for a while.  After over a year of getting to know people and following their teachings, it came that I would be moving to another city.  I mentioned to a few nice older folks what city I would be going to, and received a few recommendations on a church to look out for.  One particular gentleman, who always went out of his way to speak to myself and my children, and who I believe was an Elder at the church to be respected, gave me this recommendation.  I paraphrase: “You should check out Church A.  They have this and this and would love a new family with plenty of kids. And you wouldn’t have to worry about any of those fags and weird shit.”

               I knew right then that I would never check out his recommendation, and that I would never return to this church.  I have spent time since then really listening extra close to sermons and messages put out by other churches and church leaders, and looking for the nuances and lessons they teach to their youth.  Everything is put forth as support “You can make your choices within your faith”, Pro life, we will support you when you choose Gods way, and so very many more.  Look up newsletters and ads from your local churches and you will see all of these and more in many different wordings.

               Look a layer deeper.  Listen to what these messages say.  “we will support you in gods path, but believe different and you are alone”. “you are evil for choosing different”.  You will go to hell for eternity. Our way is the only way and everybody else is wrong.  Its very thinly veiled, but every church I’ve been to is secretly teaching me to hate those that are different and hoping that I don’t notice.  

               Hate gay people because they don’t follow the bible. Hate abortionists for not supporting this fetus regardless of health or history or any other option.  Our way is the ONLY way.  You cannot be different.  You cannot think your own way.  We can’t prove it except through vague scripture and ask for blind faith because we said so.  You are evil if you disagree.  Don’t look different or act different.  Judge others and condemn them for having an opinion. See a theme here? You can see this in all those local church and religious flyers too.  Just go have a look, I’ll wait here.

                 Here’s what I learned in Sunday school as I see it. Choose to follow and consider my opinion, or don’t.  Your call!

               -The Old testament is a history lesson.  Here is what God wants you to do and why.  Here is what is good and bad, and here is the struggle we went through to get here.  Exactly the same as our kids learning about war and holocaust and local history in school.  Learn the lessons because people already went through them and get the theory behind the fact.

               -The New testament changed everything.  We no longer had to sacrifice because Jesus did it for us. Unclean foods didn’t matter because we were purified in faith. Sinful acts could be forgiven if we asked for it.  Love everybody as you wish to be loved.  Look at the Good Samaritan, he helped a neighbour he should have hated because that’s what he was taught, but he chose to be a good person anyways, regardless of who was on the receiving end.  Jesus spent time with beggars, and the terminally sick, prostitutes, and men who had no other ambition in life.  He loved them all the same and he gave them the same message, regardless of their background, or choices, or personal opinions.  He didn’t ever treat one person as lesser than the next.

               The church teaches us to HATE sinfulness in their interpretation, and to shun those who are different or to try and change them to our own way of thinking.  I don’t care what church you go to, it will teach the same.  Look at these similarities between religions..  Catholicism, Christians of various denominations, jewish, jehovas witness, Mormon, 7th day Adventists, Islamic, Buddhist, even Native cultures.  On a base level, the stories handed down through history are very similar, slightly changed through translation and retelling over time.  The morals of the stories are the same.  Every different denomination of Christianity has the same base teachings and the same roots.  They simply split off because one group within that religion disagreed on a base idea, split off, and taught in their own way.  Now 2 thousand years later, we have Baptists and Pentecostals and Lutherans and Anglicans, and more, all telling us that everybody else is wrong.

               So who’s right?   Only each of us can decide that for ourselves.  Look at all the common base lessons and live your life to the best of your ability.  Follow Jesus teachings, whether you believe he was a man or a prophet, or the son of god, and love your neighbour unconditionally.  Decide where you stand on all the slight differences of opinion. It’s all on your and your choice. But stop spreading hate!

               Hate destroys everything that religions of all sorts teach.  Hate turns religious peoples into conquerers, terrorists, feuding families, and multiple warring factions.  Hate causes pain to those on the receiving end, and stress to those on the giving end. There is no possible positive side to hate.  

               I chose to avoid churches in general for the last few years because I could not handle listening to the hate, and finding the worst possible bigots and liars within the walls of the churches, pretending to be good people on Sunday mornings so other people would look up to them.  One day a week does not get you into the kingdom of heaven.  A band I listened to said it the best way possible when I was a teenager, but even though I always remembered it, I never understood it.  “The greatest single cause of Atheism today are those that praise Him with their words, then walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle.”  - DC Talk -What if I stumble

               Stop living hate when you preach love. Practice the words that come out of your mouth, and truly love your neighbour.  His religion, color of skin, gender identity, or relationship status should have no bearing on what kind of person they are.  You don’t have to LIKE everyone, or spend time with people you don’t mesh with, but you have no right to judge those that have never done a thing to harm you.  

               Hate the lies of the church teachings, hate the bigotry, Love the man or woman you see in front of you.  We are all fighting for the same thing: to wake up each morning, and enjoy our lives in the best way we know how. Hate in any form robs us from this enjoyment of life.  You don’t have to believe in God or the Bible to live a good life and be good to others. You only have to have faith in humanity, and making this a good place for everyone to enjoy.  Be excellent to each other.

               Hate is Baggage.  Life is too short to be pissed off all the time. Its just not worth it. – American History X.

[blackfreethinkers]

Rethinking the History of Slavery, Race, and Abolition

Seventeenth‐century Quakers, I came to understand, were radical but not because they were abolitionists. Instead, Quakers like George Fox were radical because they suggested that Blacks and Whites should meet together for worship.

Quakers were not the only Christians persecuted for meeting with enslaved people. As I began to investigate this issue further, I looked beyond the Quaker records to the archives of Protestant denominations⁠: members of the Church of England (Anglicans) as well as other smaller denominations, like the Moravian Church. As I did so, I realized there were some intriguing similarities in their experiences.

In each case, English slave owners attacked Protestant missionaries and enslaved Christians for meeting together. On the island of Saint Thomas, for example, Moravian missionaries and Black converts were beaten and attacked by White colonists. Slave owners stole Bibles from enslaved Christians, and they burned Moravian books.

The above photo shows a letter either written—or more likely dictated—by a free Black Moravian woman named Marotta, who wrote to the Queen of Denmark to ask her to support Black Christians. In it, she asks the Queen to support the Black women “of Saint Thomas,” because the slave owners would not allow them to “serve the Lord Jesus.” The petition was first written in Marotta’s native West African language (on the left) and then translated into Dutch Creole (on the right). Marotta’s appeal was accompanied by another letter written in Dutch Creole and also signed by several other Black Moravians on Saint Thomas. This letter went into more detail about the problems facing enslaved Christians: The White planters “beat and injure us when [we learn] about the Savior,” they wrote. “[They] burn our books, call our baptism the baptism of dogs, and call the Brethren beasts.”

As I looked closer at these and other sources, I began to understand why English slave owners found the prospect of slave conversion so threatening:

When enslaved people became Christian, it challenged the justification for slavery, which was religious difference, i.e., it was considered legal to enslave “heathens” but not to enslave Christians. In some cases, missionaries taught enslaved people to read the Bible and to write. This was very unpopular among slave owners. When enslaved Christians met for worship, White colonists feared they were plotting slave rebellion. This helps to explain what happened in Barbados: When Quakers started to include enslaved people in their worship meetings, English slave owners reacted aggressively. When the Quaker William Edmundson visited Barbados in 1675, for example, he was attacked by the governor for “making the Negroes Christians, and [making] them rebel and cut their Throats.”

Protestant Supremacy

These documents reveal some misunderstood aspects of colonial slavery. English slave owners thought of Christianity⁠—and especially Protestantism⁠—as a religion for free people, and they worried that a baptized slave would demand freedom and possibly rebel. As a result, they excluded most enslaved people from Protestant churches.

I felt that this was an extremely important aspect of early colonial slavery and that it had not been fully recognized. So in my book, I gave it a name: Protestant supremacy. Protestant supremacy, I came to understand, was the forerunner of White supremacy. White supremacy uses racial designation to create inequality. But in the seventeenth century, the concept of race, as we know it, did not exist. And most significantly, the concept of “Whiteness” had not yet been created. So slave owners created the ideology of Protestant supremacy, which used religion to justify slavery.

I turned to the legal archives to understand this better. I read through all of the laws passed on the island of Barbados in the seventeenth and early‐eighteenth centuries. In the earliest slave laws, I found, colonists didn’t call themselves “White”; they called themselves “Christians.” Protestant slave owners constructed a caste system based on Christian status, in which “heathen” slaves were afforded no rights or privileges while Catholics, Jews, and nonconforming Protestants were viewed with suspicion and distrust but granted more protections.

This is why it was so controversial for Quakers and other missionaries to introduce enslaved people to Christianity: because it threatened to undermine Protestant supremacy. So the next question is, how did this change? How did Protestant supremacy become White supremacy?

From Protestant Supremacy to White Supremacy

We’ve already seen how Protestant supremacy was challenged. It was challenged by missionaries, including the Quakers, and by enslaved and free Blacks, who wanted to become Christian: people like Marotta.

But in each case, it was challenged differently. I’ll start with the missionaries. Quaker, Anglican, and Moravian missionaries responded to Protestant supremacy by trying to argue that Christianity and slavery were perfectly compatible. Protestant missionaries drew on biblical descriptions of slavery as well as the ideal of the “godly” household to encourage slave owners to allow enslaved people to convert. They noted that Christian slavery had a long and well‐established history in Europe and the Catholic American colonies. Missionaries also tried to defend slave conversion by arguing that enslaved Christians would be more docile and harder working than their “heathen” counterparts.

For an example of this, we can return to the Quaker William Edmundson, who is often thought of as one of the first “antislavery” Quakers. But when he was attacked by the Governor of Barbados for worshiping alongside enslaved people, he responded by saying: “[i]t was a good Work to bring them to the Knowledge of God and Christ Jesus, and … that would keep them from rebelling or cutting any Man’s Throat.” The implications here are clear: Conversion would make slavery safer; it would make enslaved people less rebellious.

Enslaved Christians fought Protestant supremacy in a different way. As we saw in Marotta’s letter, they tended to argue that they had a right to practice Christianity, to read the Bible, and to worship together. Over time, more and more enslaved and free people of color fought their way into Christian churches, influenced by theological, practical, and social motivations.

One of these individuals was named Charles Cuffee. Cuffee, who was probably born into slavery, was baptized on September 9, 1677, in an Anglican church in Barbados. The minister of the church noted that Cuffee had recently been “freed,” making him the first free Black man to be baptized on the island. In 1689, 12 years after his baptism, Cuffee brought two children to the baptismal font: Thomas, aged ten, and Mary, aged five. The minister noted that they were the “son & dau of Charles Cuffee free Christian negro.” By joining the Anglican Church, Cuffee was making a claim for himself: As a free Christian man, he had acquired most of the markings of a freeholder. According to Barbadian law at the time, he would be eligible to vote in elections and, at least hypothetically, run for office if he could acquire enough property.

It was in response to free Black Christians like Charles Cuffee that English slaveholders began to create White supremacy. Soon after Cuffee brought his children to the baptismal font, Barbadian lawmakers wrote a new law, redefining citizenship to include the word “white” as well as “Christian.” This was one of the first times that the word “white” was used in the legal records. The law declared that “every white Man professing the Christian Religion … who hath attained to the full Age of One and Twenty Year, and hath Ten Acres of Freehold … shall be deemed a Freeholder.”

Twelve years later, lawmakers refined their definition of Whiteness further. A 1709 law clarified that a “white” person could have “no extract” from “a Negro,” thereby establishing the “one‐drop rule” as the definition of Whiteness and laying a new foundation for slavery and social oppression that made race seem like a natural category⁠—something that was innate.

What we see here is the codification of Whiteness as a legal category that was specifically intended to exclude free Black Christians from the full rights of citizenship. We often take “Whiteness” as a given, but it has a very specific history. We assume that race is a biological reality when it is actually a political category. Slaveholding politicians actively created the category of “Whiteness” as part of a political strategy to protect slave ownership and restrict the voting rights of free Blacks.

With the creation of Whiteness, slave conversion became less threatening. Whiteness, rather than religious difference, became the new way to justify and enforce slavery.

Combating White Supremacy

As our society becomes increasingly aware of the lasting effects of White supremacy, it’s important to think about where Whiteness comes from. Most people think that race is biological, but this belief is very destructive. It naturalizes race and allows us to forget that Whiteness was created in order to legalize and justify inequality. In other words, we need to acknowledge that individuals made decisions that led to “Protestant supremacy” and to “White supremacy.” If we don’t recognize this history, we risk repeating the injustices of the past.

It’s also important to think about the many different meanings that religion had in slave societies. We see in Protestant supremacy that religion could be a source of oppression. But that’s certainly not what it meant to the enslaved men and women who fought hard to be baptized. Our histories need to keep those two facts in balance, and especially not allow the oppressive regime of Protestant supremacy to desensitize people to the experiences of enslaved and free Black Christians.

For those of us who identify with the Quaker tradition—as I do—this history invites us to think about what it really means to combat oppression. This also means confronting the uncomfortable aspects of Quaker history. When we relegate the blame for slavery and oppression to people “in the South,” for example, we are actively erasing Quaker complicity in, and support for, slavery not only in Barbados but also in Philadelphia and elsewhere in the North. This is an uncomfortable past, but it’s a past that needs to be brought into the light.

Looking carefully at this Quaker past can teach us a lesson about social justice. It shows us that it’s not enough to be radical; we also have to be vigilantly aware of history and the complexities of inequality. It’s not enough to have good intentions. We must be critically engaged with the past to understand the influence it continues to exert in the present.

Finally, history is never inevitable. Things could have developed differently. As we all know, Quakers⁠—as well as many evangelical Christians, both Black and White⁠—played a central role in the abolitionist movement, showing that Christianity, and Quakerism in particular, could be used to support emancipation. We can and should remember those abolitionist Quakers and learn from them. But we can’t whitewash our own history, or we risk repeating it.

[incomingalbatross]

Catholic Batman Headcanons

Exactly what it says.

Parents were Catholic; however, during his childhood/adolescence, Bruce drifted away from the Faith (mostly due to improper catechesis, probably)

If Alfred was his guardian, probably affected by Alfred being (in my head) Anglican; if not, whatever relatives nominally had charge of him probably weren’t religious

Never confirmed in childhood; although mostly still believing, by the time he left home for training he hadn’t been a practicing Catholic for years

After his time with the League of Assassins, though, Bruce had something of a crisis. He’d fled them and somehow ended up in London (it reminded him of Alfred), where, wandering the streets, he happened across a little Catholic church and went in out of desperation, continuing his internal breakdown in a pew

Ra’s had been trying to persuade him to join them and “save” the world his way, and while Bruce couldn’t stomach that (apart from their larger plans, nothing that involved taking life would be worth it to him), he was beginning to wonder if there was any right way to do what he’d dedicated his life to.

Then the pastor found him. He was a quiet, unimpressive little priest, but somehow Bruce found him pouring out his troubles to him.

He didn’t think Bruce was crazy. In fact, he managed to untangle most of Bruce’s conundrums with remarkably few words, helping him see his own crusade more clearly than he ever had before.

Bruce ended up being received back into the Church and confirmed in London (yes, getting the documents from Gotham was terrible, but he managed it).

He considered a lot of confirmation saints--martyrs, soldiers, theologians, child-saints--but he ends up with St. Joseph. He likes all that “terror of demons, pillar of family life” stuff, but also... there’s just a draw there, one he can’t entirely explain

(A couple decades, five-ish adopted children and many, many pleas for intercession later, he’ll look up and go “oh. that’s why.”)

(St. John Bosco also gets frequent prayers from the direction of Wayne Manor)

When he gets home, he sets up a little chapel in the manor. There’s no tabernacle, of course, but there is an altar.

(Alfred is happy to note these changes in his boy--he’d probably prefer it if Bruce were Anglican or Episcopalian, but this is a massive step up from “mostly nothing,” so.)

Bruce Wayne’s donations end up being what keeps multiple Gotham parishes afloat. There are also a lot of Masses said for the repose of Thomas and Martha Wayne’s souls. (Bruce never misses an All Souls’ Day. Even if the Rogues were wreaking havoc two days earlier.)

I have a few more involving the kids/Gotham itself, but they’re not directly related and this is getting long. Maybe another post...

[hallsp]

Religion, Memoir

I’m a Cradle Catholic. I was baptised Simon Peter, after the first Pope.

I was blessed with water, anointed with chrism, wrapped in a white garment, and presented with a candle, a process which changed me ontologically for all eternity, or so it goes.

My parents were both Catholic. In fact, though my surname betrays my ultimate English ancestry, my family was Catholic as far back as we could trace. My mother was quite devout, she was very active in the parish with the family mass group. Her father, my maternal grandfather was an active member of the Knights of Saint Colombanus, who was in Rome for the canonisation of Oliver Plunkett. My own father never went to Mass on a Sunday except at Christmas. He had wanted to apply for Trinity College, but his principal wouldn’t sign the application. One of the other teachers did, but he never tried.

I was raised happily within the bosom of the One True Church, undergoing all the usual rites of passage. I have the certificates to prove it.

In total, I have received four of the seven sacraments: baptism, communion, confirmation, and penance. I haven’t been married, ordained, or annointed during sickness, so I haven’t received the sacraments of matrimony, holy orders, or extreme unction.

The only way to receive all seven would be if you were first ordained but left the priesthood to get married, or, if you marry as a protestant minister, and then convert.

I once heard a story about a priest visiting a girls’ class just before communion, and asking the classroom a standard question: how many sacraments are there? “Seven for boys, six for girls,” came the answer from a precocious girl at the back.

I became head altar boy when I was ten years old, ringing bells.

I do remember the decision of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to allow female altar servers. We went from being “altar boys” to “altar servers” almost over night. This was in 1994.

I also began acting in various on-altar productions, all characters from the New Testament. There are photos of me crowned as King Herod. I remember playing Pontius Pilate. Alas, I was never picked to play the Big Man. I didn’t have hair long enough, I suppose. Or I was a terrible actor. Always the accuser, never the accused.

I became head altar boy when I was ten years old. I also began acting in various on-altar liturgical productions. I was privileged to be able to play a number of characters from the New Testament, including King Herod, Pontius Pilate, and various members of the Sanhedrin. Alas, I was never picked to play the Big Man. I didn’t have long enough hair. I became a Minister of the Word, giving readings and prayers of the faithful, but the peak of my ministerial career came with my appointment as Minister of the Eucharist, assisting with the distribution of the sacraments of holy communion.

Later, I became a Minister of the Word, giving readings and prayers of the faithful, but the peak of my ministerial career came with my appointment as Minister of the Eucharist, assisting with the distribution of the sacraments. This I did aged 18.

I was once so attracted to the ritual and ceremony of the Church that I seriously (though briefly) considered a vocation as a priest.

I went to Colaiste na Rinne for five summers, and attended Mass every Sunday according to instruction. I don’t suppose there were many Protestants or Dissenters. I don’t remember any, in any case. I also went to Protestant scouts. A neighbour of ours was Danish, so Evangelical Lutheran in all likelihood, and she convinced many of us to join the scouts. There was a “Catholic” scouts near to my school, but the Protestant scouts was nearer my home. In any case, I went to 47th Ballybrack, behind St. Matthias’ Church of Ireland, not 59th Johnstown/Killiney.

I attended a Catholic national school where faith formation was a part of the everyday classroom, but the catechism no longer held sway post-Vatican II. I don’t remember much in the way of religious instruction until the year of my Communion aged eight, by which time I was already an altar server. I was involved in my community, friendly and on first name terms with a succession of priests, Father Meldon, Father Kelly, Father Mulvey. I had the Service of Light and my Confirmation in sixth class, aged twelve.

I moved on to secondary school at a Christian Brothers school, and I was taught mathematics by the last remaining brother, a teacher I very much liked. It was then that I moved to ministry of the word. Aged eighteen, I became a Minister of the Eucharist. I went for a couple of training days at the Disciples of the Divine Master Liturgical Centre, in Blackrock, just off the N11.

At University I began asking questions, seeking to really understand my faith logically, to prove it was true, and to answer questions being put to me by people hostile to my faith. I argued with chaplains. One memorable exchange with the CofI chaplain about evolution. I argued with creationists handing out anti-evolution DVDs on Grafton Street.

I began meeting more unorthodox clergy. The priest who married Claire Conway. I was in a writers’ workshop with Andrew Furlong, de-frocked Anglican vicar. David Frazer, Anglican vicar and Sinn Fein supporter.

I joined the Chapel Committee but it never met.

I spent a few years hanging at the back of the church!

The change to and with your spirit. I was gone.

[rjhamster]

Grace and peace!  This Sunday, we will gather to celebrate Trinity Sunday, a major Feast Day in the Church, when we reflect on the biblical doctrine of the Trinune God, Father, Son Holy Spirit.  

Our Gospel text is Matthew 28:16-20, which includes the exhortation to "Go and make disciples of all nations," which is a real possibility for those of us who live in the mission field of the greater Washington D.C. area which has become a crossroads of the world.  In fact, one of the joys of my life over the past 40 years since coming to minister in this area has been meeting people from many different nations (ethnos - people groups) in our neighborhoods, parks, marketplaces, museums, schools, churches, and public gatherings. 

This Sunday, we'll explore some practical ways to fulfill the Great Commission where we live and work.  We will also be praying for our nation in response to the following letter from Archbishop, Foley Beach issued this week:

A letter from Archbishop Foley Beach.

Dearest People of God in the Anglican Church in North America:

I write you with a tremendous heaviness in my spirit and soul as I observe and participate in what is happening today in the United States of America. If ever there is a time for the people of God to fall on our faces before God and plead for his mercy and intervention, now is the time. As believers, we are given the privilege of coming to the Throne of Grace with our petitions and requests, and he promises to hear us (1 John 5:14,15).

Consider what we have experienced in recent days and weeks:

•Another senseless killing by a police officer of an unarmed black man, George Floyd.

•Hundreds of thousands of people participating in peaceful protests.

•The unleashing of a spirit of lawlessness where rioting, violence, destruction of businesses and properties (mostly minority owned), unbridled theft, personal assaults on bystanders, store owners, the elderly, and police officers.

•Covid-19 closing whole countries down, reportedly killing over 100,000 people in the U.S., over 7,000 in Canada, and over 10,000 in Mexico, and creating an economic calamity with tens of millions of people unemployed across North America.

•Numerous businesses and churches have had to close down and many will not reopen.

•Incredible generosity of strangers helping strangers in the midst of calamity.

Sisters and brothers, I am asking you to join me in spending the next week in prayer and fasting for North America (Wednesday, June 3 - Wednesday, June 10). For those who can fast the whole week, a day, or a meal, I ask you set aside time to intercede on behalf of your community, state, and nation.

Pray in the Holy Spirit and as the Holy Spirit leads you, and as you do, consider these petitions:

•Show me my own sin; reveal to me the darkness of my own heart (Ps.139:24)

•Reveal to me the repentance I need in my own life.

•The ending of the lawlessness and violence.

•Justice for those who have had their lives taken from them, especially George Floyd, and comfort for their families.

•Comfort for the family and friends of the thousands of people who have lost their lives because of Covid-19.

•Help for the millions who find themselves suddenly without a job.

•Provision for all those business owners who have lost their business because of rioting, for those who have insurance and those who do not.

•Strength for the health care workers, nurses, doctors, technicians in hospitals and medical facilities who continue to work fearlessly to save lives.

•Wisdom for our government and civil leaders as they seek to keep us safe both from the virus and from the violence in our cities.

•Food and provision for those who are hungry and in need.

•Fresh anointing for the Church of Jesus Christ to faithfully proclaim the Gospel and reach people who are hurting, suffering, alone, and in need.

•Specific acts of grace and mercy that You want me to carry out in this time.

If you would like some specific prayers to help you pray, consider these from the Book of Common Prayer 2019 on pages 657-661:

#39 - For our Nation

#40 - For All Sorts and Conditions of Men

#41 - For Cities, Towns, and other Communities

#42 - For the Human Family

#43 - For Social Justice

#44 - In Times of Social Conflict or Distress

#45 - For Those Who Serve Others

#46 - For Commerce and Industry

#47 - For the Unemployed

#48 - For Agriculture and Farming

#49 - For Schools, Colleges, and Universities

#50 - For the Medical Professions

#51 - For Those Who Inform Public Opinion

Jesus said: Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. (Luke 11:9,10)

Your brother in Jesus Christ,

The Most Rev. Dr. Foley Beach

Archbishop and Primate, Anglican Church in North America

                                             +++

Looking forward to worshiping the Holy Trinity with you this Sunday!

Your servant in Christ,

The Rev. Dean F. Schultz - Christ the Redeemer Church in Springfield, VA

[heavyarethecrowns]

Kate is 100 times more suitable than Meghan, she is English, Anglican, and has never been married. Meghan is American, Catholic, and has been divorced!!

Well this is awkward, 

Philip - Greek

Duchess of Gloucester - Danish 

Her son in law Gary - New Zealand/Maori

Princess Michael - Austrian 

Autumn Phillips - Canadian

and that is just the recent ones! 

We are not including the current Duke of Kent (and siblings) mother was Greek (in fact a cousin of Philip) and other members from then and before were not English too. Actually when you say English are we having to say Scottish, Welsh and Irish are not considered suitable too because then we are going to have to include people like the Queen Mother and that too are unsuitable?

In fact Anon, until recently it was considered BETTER to marry foreigners in fact English (aka British) were considered a bad option. 

Also did you know if we had the whole English thing then this current RF would not even exist because ths RF is………drumroll……….GERMAN.

I mean this entire RF, not just the current line, I mean ¾ were not British in any way shape or form. 

So this whole ‘English’ thing is completely ridiculous. 

That is before we even start talking about how you don’t have to be from the country of the RF to serve it well. See Philip and Duchess of Gloucester who serve HM incredibly. See other RF’s like the Danish who have Australian Mary and French Marie, or heck most of the Queen’s of Europe who serve the RF’s they married in to perfectly. 

So are you saying all these people are unsuitable?

Now you mention Anglican, well Philip was not before he married in, neither was Autumn - she was Catholic but converted so that - due to the law at the time which has now been changed - he would keep his line in succession. 

Even your Kate was not before she married in, OK that is a lie she decided to join the Church a week before the wedding because (and I quote) she felt her journey with God had come to the point she wanted to dedicate herself to the Church. It had nothing to do with the RF it was just a coincidence her journey with God came at such good timing right? 

So are these unsuitable to you, Kate included?

Oh and all the Kents would be considered unsuitable because all the Kent’s are Catholic! Duke of Kent, Duchess of Kent, all his children, all his grandchildren. Prince and Princess Michael, their children and grandchildren, also Princess Alexandra too! All considered unsuitable to you. 

Now divorced, sigh, Camilla, Princess Michael, Gary son in law of the Duchess of Gloucester would all be considered unsuitable because apparently we still live in the 20′s! 

You know Queen Letizia was divorced before marrying Felipe and she is one of the best royals we have in Europe right now. 

Why should a woman be considered less than because a relationship failed for a reason we know nothing about? Do you know why Meghan and her husband divorced? it could be any reason but it is a reason we don’t know and she would not be punished for something we know nothing about and for something that has nothing to do with whether they can do the job. 

……………………………………………………………………………………

Let me be frank to you and all these people that don’t like Meghan. 

Never let your prejudice get confused in to what is considered suitable in the BRF and what is not. 

It does not matter that she is American - since 1066 and the first real King of England we have had foreigners married in and until the last 100 years it was considered better to. Also like I said this RF is German anyway and several members including Prince Philip who has just served the RF for 70 YEARS perfectly is Greek, not just that his sisters were married to German Officers and he married in to the BRF just a couple of years after WW2 when anti German sentiment was still at a high!!

Half the RF is also Catholic and that means nothing, members married in and changed which Meghan can to. Also reminder, he can marry a Catholic and still remain in the line of succession, even before that law change he could marry a Catholic just like the Duke of Kent and Prince Michael and still be part of the BRF. Peter married Autumn when she was catholic but she changed to COE and it was a non story. So Meghan is Catholic? and? is that supposed to mean something? as newsflash, who cares!

Divorced, well I don’t know about anyone else but I live in 2017, people marry, people divorce and the same is true of the BRF. Anne, Charles, Andrew, Camilla, Princess Michael, Gary…………all divorced so I fail to see why that makes someone unsuitable because last time I checked, Anne, Charles and Camilla were the hardest working and assets to the RF. So Meghan would not be because…………..?

To be blunt, none of these things make Kate better or Meghan worse. None of these things make any royal or potential royal better or worse, never has, never will. 

The only thing showing here isxenophobia and bigotry on the part of people that don’t like Meghan. 

If you want to prove, so desperately to the point of constant lies about her, then show why she would be bad at her job. Actions not prejudice because of her job, nationality and marital status. None of which has anything to do with her possible future job. 

As lets me clear and have this finally get in to the heads of people in the fandom. 

This is what is needed to be a good royal and makes you a suitable royal

Work ethic

Can dress and behave professionally 

Show interest in other people and other things 

Meghan has a work ethic

She has shown she can dress professionally and to the weather too! 

I have also seen no evidence she cannot show interest in others. 

So no Meghan is not unsuitable to be a royal and is not worse than Kate. 

As last time I checked Kate, despite her Englishness, not being divorced and becoming COE a week before the wedding can do none of the things listen in what actually makes a suitable royal. 

So your analysis is invalid. 

I suggest rather than hating on someone for inconsequential thing you instead learn about the history of the RF, this RF currently and what a royal is and does. 

[robbiercyes]

now let's talk about james madison!!!

ALRIGHT ALRIGHT ALRIGHT LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT JAMES “JEMMY” MADISON JR. AKA A 5 FOOT 4, 120 POUND CAN OF WHOOP ASS

So here’s the deal about James Freaking Madison. The dude has a ton of titles: Father of the Constitution, Author of the Bill of Rights, 4th President of the United States, etc. etc…..there’s a lot more, but I’m not gonna list them all out right here. He’s quite deserving of those titles too, because I can’t think of any other Founding Father who did quite as much as he did in crafting the American political and legal landscape. But despite all of his accomplishments, he doesn’t get nearly enough credit. Jefferson gets a huge ass monument in DC and his face is plastered on a mountain, Washington gets a shit ton of stuff including a city and state named after him, Hamilton gets the ten dollar bill and a musical…what does poor Madison get? Nothing. Madison Square Garden might be the closest thing to a Madison monument, and then of course there’s his home Montpelier, but Montpelier doesn’t get nearly as much attention as Jefferson’s Monticello or Washington’s Mount Vernon.

Needless to say James Madison deserves a helluva lot more attention than he gets. And I’m not talking from a place of bias when I say this (even though he is, in fact, my favorite founding father) because he did A LOT for this country. If this 5 foot 4, 120 pound can of whoop ass didn’t come into the American political arena, I really don’t think the American Republic would have lasted very long.

So let me start talking about James Madison.

James “Jemmy” Madison Jr. was the eldest of 12 children and was born and raised in what was considered the “frontier” of Virginia. He also suffered from partial epilepsy. Or, at least, that’s what modern historians call it. He only directly referenced it once and he described it as “attacks resembling epilepsy, and suspending the intellectual functions.” What does this mean? Well, it’s hard to detail exact symptoms 200 years later, but the best guess historians have is that he probably didn’t suffer from full seizures (where you would black-out, collapse, foam at the mouth, etc.) but that it might have compromised his “intellectual functions.” Maybe he couldn’t move or speak, maybe he couldn’t understand things, but whatever happened to him during these attacks he usually ended up bed-ridden for a few days to a few weeks. His attacks only seemed to happen, though, when he overexerted himself. For example, when the revolution started, he joined the Virginia Militia to fight for the cause only to drop out after a few weeks after suffering from an attack. He also suffered from an attack at the end of the Continental Congress.

These attacks, though, never deterred him from getting the job done. He was tireless and determined in his work. Between a relentless work ethic and a brilliant political and tactical mind, he got a lot of shit done. He wasn’t the warmest guy though, at least not at first. Many people considered him cold, aloof, reserved, etc. He was, like his friend Jefferson, the shy and introverted type. You know how many times people on tumblr say they’ll hide up in their room if there’s a stranger in the house? That’s exactly what Madison did. Seriously - when someone came to visit Montpelier he briefly introduced himself and then just stayed in his room practically the entire time the guest was there. Then, of course, there’s the time when he was attending HIS OWN INAUGURATION PARTY and complained that all he wanted to do was go to bed. #relatable

Like I said before, he was a bit of an aloof figure when someone first met him, but once he warmed up to them they found a man who was very modest, mild-mannered, and intellectually curious. He was a cold-eyed realist, a great story-teller, and a man known by his friends for having a self-deprecating (and sometimes inappropriate) wit. A few examples of his wit include: when he was on his death-bed he joked that he “always talked better lying down”; when he had to cover the costs of a Tunisian diplomat who brought with him a bunch of concubines he joked to Jefferson that the costs were “appropriations for foreign intercourse”; when he always told the story of that time someone stole his only hat (HIS ONLY HAT - talk about shitty luck); etc. So while he was quite cold to people he didn’t know, and he was never one to have many friends, to those who he did consider his friends, he was quite warm and jovial.

He had a lot in common with his BFF from Monticello, Thomas Jefferson, including their reserved, introverted natures and intellectual curiosities, but they were also different people. Madison was strategic, always thinking ten steps ahead, and he was a realist. Jefferson, by contrast, was extremely idealistic and didn’t always think things through. There are many times where he would come up with these ideas that seemed great in theory but weren’t grounded in reality. Madison would be the voice of reason, reigning in his friend when he became too involved in his own fantasy land. Jefferson was also an optimist who believed the best in people - Madison never had these instincts. Madison always seemed quite cynical when it came to people (though not to the extent as Hamilton). While Jefferson believed the people could do no wrong, Madison believed the people were susceptible to their own passions and it was why he never believed in populist politics.

He also wasn’t adverse to public speaking, but it didn’t come to him naturally. He wasn’t the most charismatic orator in the world (nor the loudest - in a lot of his speeches/arguments there are blanks because note takers honestly couldn’t hear him lmao woops), but he worked at it. He was extremely convincing when making his arguments. He knew how to make a good and sound argument. So whatever he lacked in charisma he gained in logic.

But, of course, we also have to talk about how he was a slave owner. Madison’s relationship with slavery is pretty interesting. When he was younger he seemed to be desperate to break away from his financial ties to slavery. He even tried to buy some land in New York so he didn’t have to rely on slave-labor. He was never successful in this endeavor. Madison was very aware of the hypocrisy of the revolution when it came to slavery, but like many Southerners his career and financial stability relied on that very institution. By the end of his life he seemed to believe slavery a necessary, but temporary, evil. He hoped that slavery would be abolished in the next generation, but he seemed to believe that it was something that could only be abolished in the future and not in his own time. Like many “anti-slavery slave owners” (I really don’t know what else to call them), he seemed to believe in this fantasy that slavery would die out in the next generation (when, in fact, the opposite happened). It was probably their way of absolving themselves of responsibility while also easing their own consciences.

But let’s get on to why I consider him a 5 foot 4, 120 pound can of whoop ass.

He. got. shit. done. He planned, prepared, persuaded, set agendas… he was fucking relentless in his work and he became a political giant because of it. There’s a reason why Dolley Madison referred to him as “the great little Madison.” I mean this dude was so relentless he even debated James Monroe in a FUCKING BLIZZARD and got frostbite on his nose because of it (he would he get a scar on the tip of his nose which he would make fun of later on).

He wasn’t afraid to get his hands dirty in politics, but he did what he did to accomplish real goals. Here are a few:

Religious liberty. Do you like our lovely separation of church and state? You can thank Madison (at least in part) for that. Madison was the most aggressive supporter of having a separation of church and state than any other founding father. It started when a group of Baptists were arrested in Virginia for practicing their religion and he was like “that’s fucked up, man” so he successfully got a portion of the Virginia Constitution to allow for the “free exercise” of religion. A few years later he helped then-Governor Jefferson pass the Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom which finally disestablished the Anglican Church from Virginia (wait to go, Jemmy).

Then, of course, there’s his work on the Constitution. Madison basically locked himself away for a few months and poured over a series of books Jefferson had sent him from France on past republics. He wanted to figure out how and why these republics failed and collapsed. His notes were essential in crafting the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. I doubt Madison would approve of his title as the Father of the Constitution since he always argued that the Constitution was a kind of group effort (again, this dude was pretty modest - did I mention he never even made plans for a gravestone for himself? he just didn’t give a shit about that apparently), which is true, it was a group effort, but he really was a leading force at the Constitutional Convention. He advocated for a system of checks and balances and came up with the Virginia Plan which detailed the three branches of government we have now. He’s also the reason we know so much about what happened at the Convention. He created his own form of short-hand and wrote down literally EVERYTHING that was said at the Convention before going home and writing everything out long-hand (now that’s dedication).

He didn’t get everything he wanted out of the Constitution, but he still ardently supported it as the co-author of the Federalist Papers which was essential to getting the Constitution ratified. Madison wrote 29 essays, his Federalist 10 and Federalist 51 being the most famous of all of the 85 essays. In Federalist 10 he wrote about his theories on political factions where he essentially argues that while political factions/parties are destructive to republics, they’re inevitable and they can be used to control one another. He also writes about the dangers of majorities to become tyrannical over minorities and that our form of government specifically tries to prevent that by giving minority factions enough power to force majority factions to make a deal with them (for example, that’s why Democrats have the power to challenge and fight back against an overwhelming Republican majority). Federalist 51 discusses similar topics, but argues how the ambitions and vices of one group can be used to control the ambitions and vices of another. This essay is also where he famously wrote “If men were angels, no government would be necessary; if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls would be necessary.”

He then goes on to write the Bill of Rights. Ironically enough, Madison never believed a Bill of Rights was necessary. He thought that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights were already implied in the Constitution, but he also worried that listing out specific rights would allow for the rights not specified to be unprotected. And he had a point, but he realized that a Bill of Rights was needed because it would win over Anti-Federalists (people opposed to the Constitution). So, even though the other members of Congress didn’t want to waste their time on a Bill of Rights, Madison still kept pestering them about it. He was a giant (figuratively speaking) in the House of Representatives, and in a time without political parties and an insignificant Speaker of the House, Madison became THE leader of Congress. And, thanks to his political talents, he managed to get the amendments passed.

But whenever you start reading up about James Madison, you run into the “James Madison Problem.” Essentially, it’s the idea that James Madison had a significant shift in political beliefs during the 1790s. Earlier in his political career he believed in a strong central government and he was seriously frightened by “tyrannical” state legislatures. He believed the state legislatures and their populist politics needed to be reigned in by a powerful central government. In this regard he was like Hamilton. Later on in his career he flips, though, arguing for states rights and a smaller federal government. A lot of historians try and figure out why he so drastically changed his political opinions (although Madison himself never believed his beliefs changed). In my opinion I think Madison’s opinions were more consistent than people think.

When he was crafting the Constitution, Madison was coming from a decade of chaos from uncontrollable state legislatures based on populist politics. In that regard, Madison believed that a strong federal government was key to reigning in the states and populist politics. But by the time of the 1790s, Madison realized his ideas of the federal government were much different than Hamilton’s. Hamilton wanted a federal government that emulated those of Europe - Madison wanted no such thing. Madison’s idea of a strong central government was more like a judicial-like umpire than Hamilton’s idea of a European-style bureaucracy with large standing armies and a powerful independent executive. Madison thought the federal government could be the balancing act between the different states, Hamilton thought the federal government would rule the states. Then, of course, Hamilton’s financial plan was the breaking point for Madison who believed that a national bank was unconstitutional and that the rest of Hamilton’s plan screwed over poor farmers (which it kind of did). When Madison broke away from Hamilton, Hamilton really felt betrayed. The two had become friends during the Constitutional Convention and the writing of the Federalist Papers, so naturally Hamilton was stunned to learn that his friend was the leading voice against his financial plan. Needless to say they weren’t friends after that.

But the more the Federalists pushed the boundaries of the Constitution (at least, that’s how Madison saw it) the more Madison became appalled at the growing powers of the federal government. To fight against Hamilton and the other Federalists, Madison joined with Jefferson to create the first political party: the Democratic-Republican Party. Then, in 1800, Jefferson was elected President and Madison became his Secretary of State. He helped negotiate the Louisiana Purchase, dealt with increasing tensions with the British, and a whole lot of other shit that I’m not going to list out here. By 1808 Madison was elected the 4th President of the United States. It was under his presidency where we had the War of 1812 and the Burning of Washington. There’s been a lot of criticism for how Madison and his administration handled the war, and they are justified, but he also managed to fight a war and end it without increasing the powers of the executive. Most wars expand the powers of the executive branch which can put a republic in jeopardy, but Madison resisted this. He also showed a lot of bravery and resolve during the Burning of Washington. He and his administration fucked up, but there were some good moments as well.

By the end of his two terms, Madison returned to Montpelier for a well-deserved retirement, and, despite his supposed ill-health, he ended up out-living every other founding father.

Hopefully this little rant convinced you why I think Madison is a 5 foot 4, 120 pound can of whoop ass. I could go on and on about him and I still have more stories I could tell but I’ll end it here.

[troybeecham]

Today, the Church celebrates the Feast of All Saints.

Orate pro nobis.

“Every society has its heroes. The ancient Greeks looked to Achilles. The Civil Rights movement looked to Martin Luther King Jr. American popular culture looks to mononymous celebrities like Bono and Oprah.

The Church is no different. Our heroes are the saints — from the well-known, like St. Mary the Virgin or St. Francis, to the more obscure, like St. Sebastian or St. Lucy. These heroes of the faith come from different time periods and walks of life. Some of our saints are found in the Bible (all the apostles are considered saints, for example), but many more are found throughout the centuries: monks, friars, nuns, scholars, deacons, priests, bishops, and ordinary people who did extraordinary things for the God they loved.

Saints hold an ambivalent place, however, in the hearts and minds of contemporary Christians. We’re not so sure that we should have a category of sainthood, because we’re not so sure that Christianity is the kind of thing that should have superheroes. After all, aren’t we all equal before God? And isn’t it true that Christianity is not a performance?

We might be more inclined to say that all Christians are saints and only by God’s grace. Isn’t that what we should be focusing on? This kind of thinking has roots in the Protestant Reformation, but perhaps even more so it’s a reflection of the egalitarian culture in which we live. Contemporary society is increasingly trending toward informality and solidarity. We’ve dispensed with formal titles and certain forms of speech that reflect outmoded Victorian sensibilities. We can’t help it. And if you’re an American (like me), it’s in our blood. Even if we don’t always live by our principles, we’re committed to the idea that everyone should be equal.

Yet the Church holds onto this idea of saints. And not just saints, but Saints. These are the heroes of the faith. We’re reminded of this fact especially on days like today, when we celebrate the Feast of All Saints.

For centuries, the Church in the West has set aside November 1 as a day to recognize and honor all of those recognized as saints for their devotion to our Lord. This has been a part of the Anglican tradition from the beginning.

Many churches also take the opportunity to remember all of our loved ones who have gone on to be with the Lord, and this is good and fitting. But the Church has set aside November 2 as an optional commemoration for All the Faithful Departed for this purpose. The distinction between these two feast days is often blurred, for practical reasons. But the fact remains that our loved ones have a special place in our church’s calendar, reserved just for them.

We should not neglect Saints. We need them if we want to learn what it means to be a Christian. We need flesh-and-blood examples of what it means to be a follower of Jesus in this strange world we live in. Sometimes we need others to remind us of the demanding — and even counterintuitive — nature of Jesus’ teachings. Thanks to the Saints, we have 2,000 years of lived commentary on Jesus’ summary of the Law and the Prophets:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (Matt. 22:37-39)

We have the example of St. Francis, who truly became poor for Christ’s sake, as he committed himself to a life of total poverty. We may not be called to such a radical task, but Francis’s example is a powerful reminder of the attitude we should have toward our material possessions ¾they are not our own, and we are simply stewards of whatever God has given us.

Or we have the example of St. Augustine, who was a proud, ambitious, and lustful young man, until he had a radical encounter with Jesus Christ. His life is a witness that even our most disordered desires can be transformed by grace into a passionate love for God.

We have the example of St. Catherine of Siena, who spoke truth to power while exemplifying humility. She was instrumental in returning the papacy from Avignon to Rome, and her faithfulness and boldness gave her a hearing in the papal court. Her dedication to the Eucharist can teach us the meaning of Jesus’ words, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51).

This is why we need the Saints. When we ignore them, we close ourselves off to a vast treasury of resources that can help us to interpret and take to heart Jesus’ words about what it means to follow him. This is the most valuable lesson that the Saints can teach us — not just by their examples of doing good deeds. There is much more to being a saint that just doing good. The lives of the saints are living answers to this question: How should we respond to Jesus’ call to discipleship?

I have often wondered if the slogan WWSD? (What would a Saint do?) is more helpful than the popular WWJD? (What would Jesus do?). I’m not suggesting that the saints are better examples of how to live than Jesus. What I mean is that it’s helpful to remember that the saints are people just like us. They had the same flaws and unhelpful tendencies that we have. It’s sometimes hard to know how to answer the question What would Jesus do? since, after all, Jesus was the incarnate second person of the Trinity. It’s a bit easier to imagine what a Saint might do, because we have so many examples of what they did do, and they always remind us that God’s grace is powerful enough for us to follow Jesus’ difficult commands.

The Saints remind us that to be a disciple of Jesus is to struggle. We’re in a competition against ourselves, against our worst inclinations, and against many of the lies that society tells us about what success looks like or about what our priorities should be. Or, in more traditional Christian language: our struggle is against the world, the flesh, and the devil.

St. Paul, in his letter to the Philippians, describes the journey this way: “forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:13b). He adds, “Brothers and sisters, join in imitating me, and observe those who live according to the example you have in us” (Phil. 3:17).

In other words, look at the Saints. Know that this is what you are called to. This is what it means to follow Jesus. And, ultimately, their examples should give us hope. When we look at the lives of the Saints, we are able say, in the words of the children’s hymn, “and there’s not any reason, no, not the least, why I shouldn’t be one too” (Hymn 293, “I Sing a Song of the Saints of God,” The Hymnal 1982).” - Stewart Clem

Almighty God, you have knit together your elect in one communion and fellowship in the mystical body of your Son Christ our Lord: Give us grace so to follow your blessed saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those ineffable joys that you have prepared for those who truly love you; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, in glory everlasting.

Amen.

[sprob002-blog]

A Little About New Zealand

Like many other people, what intentionally made me interested in traveling to New Zealand was the breathtaking scenery and to visit the set of the Lord of the Rings. Just one minute into this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo4ueevKfdE), and I am ready to pack my bags and book the next flight. This beautiful country is split into the North Island and South Island, and its remoteness from the rest of the world has allowed the creation of some beautiful animals. I study marine biology, so it would be really amazing to experience evolution’s works and see things that you can not see anywhere else in the world. New Zealand is home to some unique creatures, like the kiwi, which has become the unofficial symbol for the country as well as a nickname for the native people. Another native species is the yellow-eyed penguin, which is one of the six types of penguins found around the country. 

My knowledge of New Zealand is quite limited, but I was aware that it once was under British rule until they gained independence in 1947. Even though they are now a sovereign nation, the countries flag still represents a time they were under the crown. The interactions with Great Britain and the native Maori people of New Zealand have shaped the culture of the society. An important day in history that is celebrated annually is when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed on February 6, 1880. The treaty was designed to determine who had authority over the land, but the natives and English had disagreements which subsequently led to The New Zealand Wars just five years later. One interesting fact is that New Zealand was the first self-governing nation to give women the right to vote in 1893. 

 English is the common language, but many natives can speak Maori which is the second popular language in the country. The English language in New Zealand is similar to that of Australian English in the way its pronounced, but there are some differences. They say you can tell an Australian accent from a New Zealand accent by the way they pronounce vows and by the slang that is used. Australians tend to draw out their vows more, and have their own unique slang for things such as sandals that they call thongs. Even if you have an ear for accents, I’m sure it would take a couple time visiting to truly be able to tell the difference between the two. 

Prior to searching and collecting images, I was not informed of the rich history that New Zealand has. Its culture is influence mainly by western culture, the isolation of the islands, and the indigenous Maori people. In present day, the majority of inhabitants are of European decent and the Maori have become a minority, but their influence is still strong. A big component of New Zealand culture is Kapa haka, which is the term for Maori performing arts, and is a cultural dance to express heritage through song. It has even been performed before sporting events by their national rugby team, the All Blacks. When traveling to any foreign country, it is a good idea to become familiar with traditions and cultures. This short video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB3m5Nc1BzM) was a good start for me when brushing up on New Zealand traditions. 

The Maori have a traditional way of cooking that involves digging a deep hole in the ground and using hot stones to cook meat and vegetables that are wrapped in leaves. This method is called hangi, and lets you embrace the authentic experience of New Zealand cooking. I found it interesting that schools will have a hangi because this differs greatly from the food that is known to be served in US lunchrooms. 

Another popular dish is whitebait fritter, which is juvenile fish cooked in egg whites to create an omelet. This is considered a delicacy and alternative to fish and chips, and it is a must try when I visit. It’s no surprise that seafood is a big part of New Zealand diet consider the country is an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. 

Food gatherings are a popular and common social event in New Zealand. If a native says they are “shouting” it means that they are providing the meal at their cost. If you are invited over for dinner, the same social manners follow as in the US. It is proper to offer to bring a dish or something to drink, and to be sure if you can bring an additional guest. Also, the drinking age in NZ is 18! Some people follow Maori customs within the home by not having shoes on, not sitting on tables or pillows, and saying a karakia to bless the food before the meal. Do not be alarmed if someone greets you with a kiss on the cheek, as it is a friendly and common thing to do. After dinner a favorite New Zealand dessert is hokey pokey ice cream, vanilla ice cream with clumps of honeycomb toffee, and they apparently eat 23 liters per capita a year alone! New Zealanders also like their lolly, which is slang for candy. 

Despite having deep cultural roots, New Zealand is not immune to acts of racism. Unfortunately, they have been at the forefront of world news recently because of the terror attacked at various mosques that left over 50 dead and many others injured. (https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/03/14/witness-many-dead-in-new-zealand-mosque-shooting)

It is incredibly sad that we must fear for our lives when we walk outside, but it is especially heinous to prey on innocent people at a place of worship. This incident is the worst attack in New Zealand history, and in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sOKzcd0Uxg) the Prime Minister explains that she dose not plan to do nothing about it. She vows that the gun laws will change to prevent further incidents like this one. However, it is uplifting to see an article in the NZ Herald that schools in the country are stepping up and trying to help students with their mental health (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/health/news/article.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=12212778). Many schools, like ones in the US, believe teachers should not intervene in a student’s life, but perhaps if we took a more proactive action to help mental illnesses then maybe terrible acts like this recent one will no longer occur. 

New Zealand has been a constitutional monarchy since 1952, and this basically means that Queen Elizabeth II reigns, but it is the government and people who do the ruling. They do not have a formal constitution, but rather a collection of documents, such as the Treaty of Waitangi, that help lay the framework for their government. The country has their own form of currency, and one New Zealand dollar equals $0.66 US dollars. Their government functions in the same way as the United States by having three separate branches: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. However, unlike the US their legislature branch is only made out of the House of Representatives. Another notable difference in their government is that they are a unitary state and not a federation. Their central government limits the authority of the regions and even is in charge of police and education. I am not sure if I would like the idea of a more powerful central government, but it does seem that the country would be more uniform in their actions.  

There are many aspects about New Zealand life that remind me of the United States. For starters, the gender roles are about the same in each country. Men are supposed to be the breadwinners while women stay at home with the children. For New Zealand, this role began because back in 1840 the majority of Europeans were men that came for work, and the women slowly started to move to the islands to create permanent homes. These roles were fairly common and constant and woman did not really start joining the workforce until the late 1900′s. In today’s world, women in both United States and in New Zealand are working to break that stereotype and are taking on more unconventional roles. Another similarity between the two countries is that Christianity is the main religion, and in New Zealand almost 50% of people claim to be Christians. Even though Anglicanism is the religion of the monarch of New Zealand, the country does not have an established church. The country has had the basic right of freedom of religion since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Also, the mainstream music in New Zealand is not much different from music I hear in America. I looked up their top 100 popular songs, and I was not familiar with #1 which was a song called “Days Go By” by a welsh band called High Contrast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9pUR1QV3yQ). However, I was familiar with many of the other songs I saw on the list. Before researching popular artist, I had no knowledge that Lorde, who is played on many radio stations in the US, is from New Zealand. One of her most popular songs, “Royals” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlcIKh6sBtc), has an astonishing 757 million views on Youtube. I enjoyed many of the artist that I came across, like Marlon Williams. The first video of him that I saw was on NPR Music’s channel, and I was familiar with the segment they do called Tiny Desk Concert (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab8YnmHB6tE). I found it very interesting to learn that many of the artist I have come across I’ve had no idea they were from places such as New Zealand. 

Besides Lord of the Rings I did not know of any movies made in New Zealand or by a NZ company. The film industry is definitely smaller than in the US, and many of their films do not receive international credit. The highest grossing film in their country is called Hunt for the Wilderpeople and made almost 10 billion dollars in 2016. The movie is a comedy/drama about a boy and his foster father running through the NZ wilderness because there is a manhunt after them. I came across the site “NZ On Screen” (https://www.nzonscreen.com/explore) that broadcast all different types of TV shows, movies, music videos, and even cultural art performances that have been made in New Zealand. I found this site really useful in trying to explore popular media as well as a way to learn more about their society. 

Before traveling to New Zealand, I believe it is a good idea to look up some travel blogs to get an idea of what it might feel like to be a tourist in a foreign land. One I found very useful was “The Do’s and Dont’s of a New Zealand Road Trip” (https://youngadventuress.com/2014/08/new-zealand-road-trip.html). It covers everything from the perfect campervan to rent, a review of popular tourist sites, and even to driving in New Zealand because lets be honest driving in a foreign country can be a little scary. However, the most informative blog I came across was “How to Plan Your Ideal New Zealand Trip” (https://misstourist.com/how-to-plan-your-ideal-trip-to-new-zealand/). This blog has all the information you need in terms of the best time to visit, how much you can expect to spend, and even some tips on how to score the best deals because it can become rather expensive. 

After researching and collecting images about New Zealand, I have a better understanding of their cultural roots and some of the traditions that are popular. I plan to expand my knowledge by keeping up with current news and exploring more of their popular movies and music. The collection I have so far will help me be more respectful when I travel to New Zealand, and it has made me more comfortable when I travel abroad. 

[pwitness]

“Phyllis McGinley: Catholic “housewife poet” who wrote about domesticity and about saints.  Suburbia is often a target of Distributist critique, but McGinley does highlight another side of it, the sanctity of it, perhaps the kind of joyful holiness which is possible within a slightly dysfunctional system (and aren’t all systems a bit dysfunctional?). She wrote “light verse” about the deepest of topics.  Perhaps in this way she was a bit more realistic than her male medievalist colleagues.  For example, consider her take on Daylight Savings Time:

In spring when maple buds are red, We turn the clock an hour ahead; Which means, each April that arrives, We lose an hour out of our lives. Who cares? When autumn birds in flocks Fly southward, back we turn the clocks, And so regain a lovely thing That missing hour we lost in spring. 

It is easy to see why people would be contemptuous of this sort of thing, but you can see in Phyllis McGinley a gentle kind of semi-Chestertonian attitude towards suburbia: seeing the enchanted within the industrial society.

There is a real sanctity evident in McGinley’s poems which takes the form of humility, as for example in “Reflections at Dawn”:

I wish I owned a Dior dress Made to my order out of satin. I wish I weighed a little less And could read Latin. Had perfect pitch or matching pearls, A better head for street directions, And seven daughters, all with curls And fair complexions. I wish I'd tan instead of burn. But most, on all the stars that glisten, I wish at parties I could learn to sit and listen...

Buffet, ball, banquet, quilting bee, Wherever conversation's flowing, Why must I feel it falls on me To keep things going? Though ladies cleverer than I Can loll in silence, soft and idle, Whatever topic gallops by, I seize its bridle, Hold forth on art, dissect the stage, Or babble like a kindergart'ner Of politics till I enrage My dinner partner. 

A feminist could easily read this as Phyllis McGinley giving an aesthetic sanction to women being demure, “seen and not heard”, but the reference to longing for Latin suggests something deeper, as does the reference to “ladies cleverer than I”; she seems to have the same insight as chapter six of the Rule of St. Benedict on the value and holiness of silence (which comes before a chapter on humility).  Her insight into the dangers of being oppositional appear in “The Angry Man”.  She did not enjoy her childhood, growing up on a ranch where she felt isolated and enduring the death of her father at age 12 (which precipitated the family’s move to another state), and thus appreciated the stability of suburban family life.

Robert Speaight was an actor who read a bunch of T.S. Eliot’s poems on record and played Thomas Becket in the first production of Murder in the Cathedral.  His brother, George Speaight, was a puppeteer who also wrote histories of the circus, clowns, and Punch and Judy (the first academic study on the history of Punch and Judy).  They were Roman Catholic converts; George had worked on Eric Gill’s farm, and Robert was also friends with Gill and wrote a biography of him which discreetly avoided discussing Gill’s sexual proclivities.  Robert also wrote a biography of Hilaire Belloc and called Maurice Baring’s book Have You Anything to Declare? “the best bedside book in the English language”.

David Jones was a painter and poet.  During art school, he would visit Westminster Cathedral and admire the Stations of the Cross by Eric Gill. He became Catholic in 1921 and was received by Father John O’Connor, the inspiration for Father Brown (who concelebrated Chesterton’s Requiem Mass with Father Vincent McNabb; eulogy by Fr. Ronald Knox).  Fr. O’Connor referred Jones to Gill; he joined Gill’s guild and was even engaged to his daughter at one point.  He was an illustrator, doing work for example for T. S. Eliot's The Cultivation of Christmas Trees, and invented a genre that still influences calligraphers, “painted inscriptions”. He also wrote an epic poem of World War I, “In Parenthesis”, which T.S. Eliot wrote the introduction to.  WH Auden called it the best book about the war.  Jones himself probably had PTSD from his experience being wounded as a soldier in the War.  He also wrote essays on art that were influenced by his Catholicism, such as “Art and Sacrament” and “Use and Sign”.

Graham Sutherland painted a picture of Winston Churchill that he hated, which an episode of “The Crown” was dedicated to documenting.  It depicted all of his brokenness and agedness and perhaps inspired him to resign.  But Sutherland was also a convert to Catholicism and had painted a Crucifixion which showed Christ’s weakness in vivid detail; perhaps for him there was something Christological about showing Churchill’s weakness, something Churchill couldn’t see.  He was commissioned to do that painting by the Anglican priest Walter Hussey, a patron of the arts who bemoaned the fact that the Church and the arts were being divorced--think what he would have thought of our ugly new church buildings! Sutherland also did the tapestry of Christ at Coventry Cathedral. His deep faith is not mentioned on “The Crown”.

Kazimir Malevich was a Christian mystic, and his “Black Square” was first displayed in the same spot on the wall where an icon would have hung. It is a kind of commentary on the Soviet oppression of religious images and spirituality; it has left a black void in its wake.  It can be compared to how T.S. Eliot uses free verse to criticize the emptiness and individualism of his society, or how Andy Warhol shows the banality of our new religious symbols--like corporate logos--or stares at the Empire State Building for 8 hours to contrast it with how a traditional church really could be stared at for hours.

Roy Campbell was a poet who converted to Catholicism in Spain and was sympathetic to Franco’s regime; Borges thought his translation of St. John of the Cross was almost better than the Spanish original. (Borges seemed to prefer English to Spanish.)  Tolkien: “Here is a scion of an Ulster prot. family resident in S. Africa, most of whom fought in both wars, who became a Catholic after sheltering the Carmelite fathers in Barcelona — in vain, they were caught & butchered, and R.C. nearly lost his life. But he got the Carmelite archives from the burning library and took them through the Red country. [...] However it is not possible to convey an impression of such a rare character, both a soldier and a poet, and a Christian convert. How unlike the Left - the 'corduroy panzers' who fled to America [...]”.  Lewis, meanwhile, didn’t like him, wrote a poem against him, and drunkenly read it to him at the Eagle and Child (Bird and Baby).  Campbell’s line “Against a regiment I oppose a brain. And a dark horse against an armored train” inspired Alex Colville’s painting Horse and Train.  He also punched the communist poet Stephen Spender who didn’t press charges because he liked Campbell’s poetry. His poem The Georgiad was a parody of intellectual fads like the Bloomsbury Group.  He was often left out of anthologies because of his political views, which seems to vindicate the ballad written by Phyllis McGinley:

"You'd better compile a collection     Of words that another has wrote. It's the shears and the glue Which will compensate you     And fashion a person of note. For poets have common companions.     Their fame is a wraith in the mist. But the critics all quarrel To garland with laurel     The brow of the anthologist, My son,     The brow of the anthologist."

[animalruth19-blog]

The Definitive Guide to knights

As a subject of fact, now I’m sensation indignant that priests aren't normally out there prior to mass, so does this mean I can’t get Communion tomorrow morning at seven:thirty? Given that I’m “indignant”? Truthfully ~ I uncover it not easy to feel that my Lord and God won't want me to…. The pope, irresolute and harrassed, lastly adopted a Center training course: he decreed the dissolution, not the condemnation from the order, and never by penal sentence, but by an Apostolic Decree (Bull of twenty-two March, 1312). The order getting been suppressed, the pope himself was to determine as towards the destiny of its customers as well as disposal of its possessions. As into the home, it absolutely was turned over towards the rival Buy of Hospitallers to generally be placed on its unique use, particularly the defence with the Holy Areas. In Portugal, nonetheless, As well as in Aragon the belongings had been vested in two new orders, the Buy of Christ in Portugal and also the Order of Montesa in Aragon. As towards the customers, the Templars acknowledged guiltless were being permitted either to join An additional armed service purchase or to return on the secular point out. During the latter scenario, a pension for life, billed to the possessions with the get, was granted them. Alternatively, the Templars who experienced pleaded guilty prior to their bishops had been to generally be treated "based on the rigours of justice, tempered by a generous mercy". The pope reserved to his personal judgment the cause of the grand master and his three 1st dignitaries. They had confessed their guilt; it remained to reconcile them While using the Church, after they had testified for their repentance While using the customary solemnity. To give this solemnity extra publicity, a System was erected before the Notre-Dame with the looking through with the sentence. But for the supreme instant the grand grasp recovered his courage and proclaimed the innocence of the Templars and the falsity of his have alleged confessions. To atone for this deplorable instant of weakness, he declared himself able to sacrifice his lifetime. He understood the fate that awaited him. Promptly right after this unanticipated coup-de-théâtre Considerably of your heritage of humanity which the original Knights Templar preserved and formulated is intriguing record, revealing several “techniques” that are much desired by seekers around the globe, and supplying sensible solutions to many challenges of modern Culture. The priories range twenty-four, and the commanderies, which had been subdivisions from the priories, 656. All these posts had been held In keeping with seniority, the commanderies following three strategies, which were being called "caravans". A most significant modify in the character with the purchase was the transformation of your knights into corsairs. The piracy practiced from the Muslims was the scourge of your Mediterranean and especially of Christian commerce. The Knights of Rhodes, on their aspect, armed cruisers not simply to provide chase towards the pirates, but to create reprisals about the Turkish merchantmen. With expanding audacity they made descents within the Coastline and pillaged the richest ports in the Orient, for example Smyrna (1341) and Alexandria (1365). On the other hand, a fresh Muslim energy arose at this period — the Ottoman Turks of Iconium — and took the offensive versus Christianity. Once the tumble of Constantinople, Mahomet II directed his attention into the endeavor of destroying this den of pirates which manufactured Rhodes the terror of your Muslim world. Henceforth the purchase, thrown within the defensive, lived perpetually on the alert. As soon as, beneath its grand grasp, Pierre d'Aubusson, it repulsed all of the forces of Mahomet II within the siege of 1480. In 1522 Solyman II returned to the attack which has a fleet of four hundred ships and an army of 140,000 Males. The knights sustained this excellent onslaught with their habitual bravery for a duration of six months underneath their grand master, Villiers de l'Isle Adam, and capitulated only when their provides were fully fatigued. Their life had been spared, and they ended up permitted to withdraw. Solyman II, in homage to their heroism, lent them his ships to return to Europe. They dispersed to their commanderies and begged Charles V to grant them the island of Malta, which was a dependency of his kingdom of Sicily, and this sovereignty was granted them in 1530, beneath the suzerainty in the kings of Spain. The Knights of Malta (1530-1798) The letters of the Apostle Paul and also the Acts in the Apostles in The brand new Testomony display that early Christians believed that this institution provided a mandate to carry on the celebration being an anticipation in this life of the joys of your banquet that was to come back in the Kingdom of God. Once the seize of Jerusalem by Saladin (1187), the Hospitallers retained only their possessions during the Principality of Tripoli, and these they misplaced a century later on by the fall of Acre (1291). They were being obliged to seek refuge, below their grand master, Jean de Villiers, from the Kingdom of Cyprus, wherever they already had some belongings. King Amaury assigned them as a location of residence the town of Limassol within the coast. Having turn out to be islanders, the Hospitallers were obliged to modify their way of warfare. They Outfitted fleets to combat the Muslims on The ocean and to safeguard the pilgrims, who had not ceased to go to the Holy Areas. But it was chiefly the conquest on the island of Rhodes, underneath the Grand Master Foulques de Villaret, that brought about a complete transformation in the purchase. An Unbiased View of religious vocation buddhism The Knights of Rhodes (1309-1522) In one sentence, paganism is usually a lifestyle of untruth. In excess of The 2 thousand a long time due to the fact Calvary, Christianity has had to frequently take care of pagan Concepts, pagan legislation; in the word--that has a pagan tradition that hated Christianity for the same reason that it crucified the Incarnate Fact, who became guy to teach the earth the way to provide God in this article in the world, in an effort to have Him in a blessed eternity. After i dug deeper, I found that commencing even previously, Potentially back again for the fifth century, the Heart, that's the spiritual coronary heart in contrast to the human organ, was symbolized by a drinking vessel. Catholics are accustomed to paintings in the Sacred Coronary heart of Jesus, so we understand that there was veneration for Jesus' Coronary heart. It can be unknown to how many of his twelve disciples Jesus imparted his solution teachings, but what survives right now as the Gnostic Gospels, what was located in a cave in Egypt in 1947 and is known as the Naj Hammadi library, comprise the writings of Mary Magdalene and Thomas. I figured that the put experienced a reputation, a code name that may not give absent its area. Within the novel I named it Hafiz Mountain, for the reason that Hafiz in Arabic indicates to protect information, as in crafting, memorizing, or secreting it away, and I figured that’s just what the mystical underground and afterwards the Brotherhood would have named it, or a thing very related. Calvin, whose posture was closer to that of Luther, taught the “actual but spiritual existence” of Christ but in the sacramental motion in lieu of in the elements of your Eucharist. The High Church Anglicans (Particularly Considering that the Anglo-Catholic Oxford movement on the nineteenth century) and the Lutherans (who affirm the true existence of the body and blood of Christ “in, with, and under” the bread and wine) adhere most intently to your traditions of Catholic eucharistic doctrine and practice. In their liturgies equally Anglicanism and Lutheranism operate within the framework of the mass, adopting selected features and rejecting Other people; the liturgical actions in both of those traditions over the nineteenth and twentieth hundreds of years restored supplemental aspects, even though theological interpretations in the Lord’s Supper continued to Exhibit good variety. etc. etc. The checklist is not exhaustive, and any sin that Now we have meditated on before hand, understood its gravity and however preferred to perform it could be a lethal sin. Inside, the oldest section (1132) would be the east choir, which became the prototype for a particular trick of community architecture: the walls are straight on the surface but rounded inside of. Likely to confession annually has not been needed from the Church. What is required is always that you get the Eucharist at least annually. Obviously your can’t acquire inside the point out of mortal sin instead of about to confession so far as I know isn't a mortal sin.

[blackchristiannewswire]

Why Lay People Can (and Should) Plant Churches by Ed Stetzer

[caption id="attachment_429164" align="aligncenter" width="1391"] Image processed by CodeCarvings Piczard ### FREE Community Edition ### on 2018-04-29 19:43:04Z | http://piczard.com | http://codecarvings.com[/caption]

The desire to plant churches using lay people is not new, but it is finding a renewed emphasis. This is partly because we’ve found that when we primarily go the Bible college/seminary route to find all our church planters, we don't naturally develop bi-vocational paths to plant churches, which are also necessary for us to reach the world for Christ.

Roland Allen, a well-known Anglican missiologist in the last century, wrote some books on the issues associated with certain models of missiology. The titles give away the point of his books.

His first book was called Missionary Methods, St. Paul's or Ours. It’s subtle, I know.

He dealt with the idea that missionaries in China, for instance, would send future missionaries off to England to attend college and seminary, then years later they would come back as pastors. By then, they were more English than they were Chinese, so they would say that they were useless for the work.

He also wrote a book called The Case for Voluntary Clergy. Again, subtle.

One more book to consider, from the title alone, is the The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church and the Causes that Hinder it, which suggested that educational attainment and missiological engagement were, at times, inversely proportional.

So, the titles make the case: We need a path to raise up church planters from outside of educational institutions.

Now, to save some time in the twitter conversation that always follows these articles:

I don’t like using the term laity, as it reinfornces the laity/clergy divide, but I use it here to make this article clear.

I can’t tell you what everyone considers laity compared to clergy. The case I am making here is for church planters and pastors who are not formally trained (but often receive informal training on the job).

So is formal training good, or bad?

I have four graduate theological degrees. I teach at a graduate theological institution, and I like it when people come and join our program.

So, I am not against education. Not at all. In fact, I believe there is great value in higher education. However, there is a reality that when you create high qualifications and high credentialing, what happens is that you actually get less church planting. This is key for this article.

Here's where your polity comes in. I'm Baptist, so I come from a group with very low polity. It's all local church. There's no credentialing requirements outside of what is set by the local church. Others (LDMS Lutherans, for example) have high credentialing expectations. Some denominations require seminary training or an M.Div. in order to be credentialed.

Click here to read more. Source: Christianity Today