It’s Calvin’s 500th birthday (more or less), right?

By Quintus (A. S. Way, tr.).

ne heart was steadfast, and one soul clear-eyed,
Cassandra. Never her words were unfulfilled;
Yet was their utter truth, by Fate’s decree,
Ever as idle wind in the hearers’ ears,
That no bar to Troy’s ruin might be set.
She saw those evil portents all through Troy
Conspiring to one end; loud rang her cry,
As roars a lioness that mid the brakes
A hunter has stabbed or shot, whereat her heart
Maddens, and down the long hills rolls her roar,
And her might waxes tenfold; so with heart
Aflame with prophecy came she forth her bower.
Over her snowy shoulders tossed her hair
Streaming far down, and wildly blazed her eyes.
Her neck writhed, like a sapling in the wind
Shaken, as moaned and shrieked that noble maid:
“O wretches! into the Land of Darkness now
We are passing; for all round us full of fire
And blood and dismal moan the city is.
Everywhere portents of calamity
Gods show: destruction yawns before your feet.
Fools! ye know not your doom: still ye rejoice
With one consent in madness, who to Troy
Have brought the Argive Horse where ruin lurks!
Oh, ye believe not me, though ne’er so loud
I cry! The Erinyes and the ruthless Fates,
For Helen’s spousals madly wroth, through Troy
Dart on wild wings. And ye, ye are banqueting there
In your last feast, on meats befouled with gore,
When now your feet are on the Path of Ghosts!”

Then cried a scoffing voice an ominous word:
“Why doth a raving tongue of evil speech,
Daughter of Priam, make thy lips to cry
Words empty as wind? No maiden modesty
With purity veils thee: thou art compassed round
With ruinous madness; therefore all men scorn
Thee, babbler! Hence, thine evil bodings speak
To the Argives and thyself! For thee doth wait
Anguish and shame yet bitterer than befell
Presumptuous Laocoon. Shame it were
In folly to destroy the Immortals’ gift.”

So scoffed a Trojan: others in like sort
Cried shame on her, and said she spake but lies,
Saying that ruin and Fate’s heavy stroke
Were hard at hand. They knew not their own doom,
And mocked, and thrust her back from that huge Horse
For fain she was to smite its beams apart,
Or burn with ravening fire. She snatched a brand
Of blazing pine-wood from the hearth and ran
In fury: in the other hand she bare
A two-edged halberd: on that Horse of Doom
She rushed, to cause the Trojans to behold
With their own eyes the ambush hidden there.
But straightway from her hands they plucked and flung
Afar the fire and steel, and careless turned
To the feast; for darkened o’er them their last night.
Within the horse the Argives joyed to hear
The uproar of Troy’s feasters setting at naught
Cassandra, but they marvelled that she knew
So well the Achaeans’ purpose and device.

As mid the hills a furious pantheress,
Which from the steading hounds and shepherd-folk
Drive with fierce rush, with savage heart turns back
Even in departing, galled albeit by darts:
So from the great Horse fled she, anguish-racked
For Troy, for all the ruin she foreknew.

Historical transcription. Listed as labeled. Nothing more is known about the recording except that Mike R. may have been from Dallas.

Would you stand?

There’s a peer responsibility, says the LORD, that’s coming to you by my hand and not by your own, simply because I am making you to mind the business of some others that would consider you as a busybody, minding your business and not your own. The LORD says, It’s my mind, it’s my business, to enter into that relationship. Being as it is, says the LORD, there’s trouble on every hand, even death and destruction, says the LORD, ahead of those you know. In many ways I’m calling you in, to be faithful as a brother. Faithful are the wounds of a friend but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy. The LORD says, I want you to be willing to confront in a brand new way those that you know and perceive are in the trouble that leads to death. The LORD says, It’s a responsibility but I’m growing you up in the next three months. And in such ways I will do a quick work of righteousness, that in the midst of it, that in the midst of it, the LORD says, find within your heart a reason for rejoicing, a reason for knowing that the LORD has taken interest to develop that which He has planted within your heart, even Himself.

The LORD says it’s time for you to see that no longer will you be led by deductive reasoning, situation ethics; you will be led by my Spirit. And as the reasoning of your senses, being trained discerning good and evil, the LORD says, exercise your right in the scripture and discern whether I approve or disapprove. For I will cause you to know in the tone of your heart, my good pleasure or my displeasure. Move accordingly.

The tarying that you have been walking in, the place, says the LORD, of limbo, the neural place, is no more. Rejoice now. I’m bringing you out of that place of inactivity and pulling you in to an aggressive mode of seeking and pursuing the kingdom of GOD and my righteousness.

Thus all those things that you thought about in reflection, many of those things will be added unto you. Especially a car, especially those things that in the process of my blessing for you to be seen as one of my children, richly furnished, provided for, but not by the hand which you thought it would come, but by the hand of God.

As it becomes my portion, says the LORD, everything about you, the leadership quality and ability that I’m giving you, by faith, will be more important than what you could have received in Pharaoh’s courts. That you would rather choose to suffer with the Hebrews than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of the sins for a season. The LORD says, many of the delights that would be in your flesh were it not for this word tonight would parade before you. And I would say, turn them away, every one of them. From the female portion, to those materialistic values, and even intelligence acceptance; the LORD says I’m not allowing you to be promoted in the ways of Man, for the sake of your heart and for the sake of the leadership I have called you to. For as Moses was a deliverer to Israel in all their bondage, so will I make you a man who is a deliverer from[?] many of your own generation, for many of those who cannot find their way to the promised land.

He says, Rejoice. Because though it took thirty years, it will take a very small time, comparatively, in which you will carry your generation and those that I choose for you to reckon with, that they may know that that portion of GOD that the scripture speaks of has fallen upon you.

Say this with me:

Father, I receive of you tonight
a table
of nourishment
provided for me
in the midst of the wilderness.
You know my confusion
and all of the unrest
the responsibilities I bear
some false
some true.
You will help me differentiate.
I will discern them
by the power of your discernment
and be so gifted
in the discerning of the spirits
that by reason of exercise
my senses will be trained
discerning good from evil.
I’ll be one of your counselors
showing the difference between good and evil
empowering those
by the laying on of my hands
to choose the good and not the evil.
You raised me up from the dust
and from all of my sins
You’ve forgiven me.
Even tonight O LORD
I will walk free
even from the ailments
and the weaknesses of my flesh.
You have chosen me
a leader among the people.
I’ll be a torch.
an ensign
a mediator
in many situations.
And you will save and deliver
from the destruction of the devil
the lives of people
that I love and even don’t know.
I choose you LORD
above the riches
above the seductions
above all the things in the world
the lust of the eyes
the lust of the flesh
the pride of life.
You’re delivering me
completely tonight
that I would walk you way
and know it
and be confident in Jesus Christ.
Amen.

I’ve been looking at the blogs of the Emergent-y (I no longer know what to call the Movement) young pastors. They’re always interesting because they a) are so earnest (which is great) and b) want to tackle important issues (which is also great). Sometimes they veer off into weirdness or simply bad thinking (not so great) but that’s no different than anyone else. At least they are trying to create something rather than just moan.

One of them, lofitribe — gotta mean something but I’m flummoxed — has been of interest lately because Shawn writes about leadership. Since church governance, leadership and the rise of the Despot Leader in Evangelical Churches is my current concern, I have been looking at what young minister types are saying about the issue.

They’re terribly confused on it, most of them. They’re biggest problem is that they look to management gurus for some of their understanding, or worse look to Church Gurus who look to Management Gurus who frankly didn’t know what they were doing in the first place. There are a few decent management gurus and most of them are hard ignored or entirely misinterpreted.

But one of the things Shawn links to is an interesting video of John Crowder. Crowder’s schtick is “high on Jesus” and he’s as entertaining as Otis, Mayberry’s lovable town drunk, if Otis had been the lead character and carried a loaded pistol along with that fifth jug. He’s less interesting than that other famous whisky-swilling media preacher, Dr. Gene Scott, but only because he’s so much less intelligent than Scott was. Crowder’s cute for about three minutes and then he’s just another annoying carny who hasn’t got anything to actually say.

Lots of young Evangelicals link to him because he’s so hot in young Christian circles these days. So Shawn linking to him isn’t all that interesting.

What’s fascinating, and what none of the comments seemed to capture (from my skim), is the way he nails an issue with his title:

John Crowder Reduces Spiritual Gifts to the Ridiculous

Why is that brilliant? Because he’s pointing to important to leadership, even if he doesn’t quite understand it himself.

Here’s the YouTube video in question:

The key thing is not what Crowder says (which can be summarized as a bad Stratum 1 reading of Christian hedonism) but the fake “speaking in tongues” that he uses. Shawn calls him out on this, saying that he is reduces a spiritual gift to being ridiculous.

I’m paraphrasing: Crowder shows contempt the exercise of the real speaking in tongues experience through this ridiculous attempt at faking it.

Speaking in tongues is known in the scientific literature as “glossalia” which, interestingly enough, is the original term. By this, they mean something closer to what Pentecostals mean by “ecstatic utterances” rather than someone miraculously speaking in another language. What happens is that the individual gets caught up in the Spirit (however defined) and starts ceding active control of his mind. His language centers turn off and he often begins swaying. Soon these bizarre sounds of gibberish come out. It’s not language per se but still something that is expressing a pre-linguisitc (not pre-cognitive) state that cannot be adequately described or experienced through the construct of language. The details differ from place to place, and often depend on who has taught you, but the outlines are pretty much the same. Just because it’s not “language” doesn’t mean that it is void of information that needs communicated. Thus Paul insists that when someone speaks in tongues in a Christian meeting that someone else interprets.

And all of this is still different from “prophesying”.

Crowder apparently hasn’t read the scads of works done on glossalia and what it is. If he had he wouldn’t have faked it so horribly badly. The fact that people put up with this means that either they have never seen real glossalia (strong possibility) or they simply want to be taken in by Crowder’s mesmer. It’s an appallingly bad attempt and really does resemble a very drunk atheist’s attempt at contemptuous parody of Pentecostals at, say, an East coast cocktail party for actors who shouldn’t be given work.

What’s interesting for us is that glossalia seems to have been contentious in the early Pauline Church at Corinth because it cut across power lines. It was a prime example of holiness, of being engaged by God, and anyone could have it. This allowed lowly people to take on the powerful, or to diminish their influence. Even Paul has to say “I speak in tongues more than anyone!”

Shawn hits on the issue by calling attention to how Crowder makes a spiritual gift of glossalia into something ridiculous. He’s not saying that glossalia is ridiculous, only that Crowder’s poor attempt at mimicking it is.

What Crowder has done is appropriated a leveling force onto himself. The glossalia is not for the Big Leader but for the little people in the pews. In this way it is like what Paul calls “prophesying” in his letter to Corinth. Because Crowder didn’t even do the easy work of learning to fake it reasonably well (no one can glossalia and speechify at the same time because glossalia turns off the linguistic function in the brain) it leaves him open to the accusation that he’s contemptuous of his followers and has appropriated a sign of leveling in an inappropriate and possibly dangerous way.

What’s really frightening is how many people go along with this. Crowder’s not the only one, of course; he’s just the loudest in the current batch.

It’s really too bad. Glossalia is something that cuts across power structures, that challenges power. When the people allow it to be faked by the Big Leader, they lose something precious. It’s better to be in a church that forbids glossalia than to be in one that permits its leader to fake it so egregiously.

Which is why I said it had to do with our topic.

(Full disclosure: I do not speak in tongues but have felt the need for ecstatic utterance when overwhelmed by my experience of the Trinity.)

One of the interesting findings is that 30% of adults in the States who were raised Catholic have left the RC. It is being maintained primarily by Latino immigrants, who will soon make up the majority of the church. This may have lasting political ramifications for a group which is strongly segmented according to immigrant group (Irish and Poles don’t mix in Chicago, for example).

Also, the number of non-affiliated persons is greatest under 30. If the church growth researchers are correct, people will have a tendency to want to reconnect to religion after the birth of their first child. Since many people are putting off child-bearing until the late 20s or early 30s, we might see a “attend-leave-attend” process going on longitudinally.

The Midwest, as usual, represented the greater nation best, which may have ramifications for church planting.

It is interesting to note how much churn is reported for all groups.

The report is available in long format, which is pleasing.

Who Would Jesus Smack Down?

By MOLLY WORTHEN

Published: January 11, 2009

The Seattle minister Mark Driscoll is out to transform American evangelicalism with his macho conception of Christ and neo-Calvinist belief in the total depravity of man.

A friend of mine called what happened at Mars Hill a great example of how the new emphasis on authority and community gets it wrong, sliding into authoritarianism that is not biblical. I’ll have to get him to talk more on it, since his thoughts would be relevant.

The Times covered the controversy thus:

Nowhere is the connection between Driscoll’s hypermasculinity and his Calvinist theology clearer than in his refusal to tolerate opposition at Mars Hill. The Reformed tradition’s resistance to compromise and emphasis on the purity of the worshipping community has always contained the seeds of authoritarianism: John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake and made a man who casually criticized him at a dinner party march through the streets of Geneva, kneeling at every intersection to beg forgiveness. Mars Hill is not 16th-century Geneva, but Driscoll has little patience for dissent. In 2007, two elders protested a plan to reorganize the church that, according to critics, consolidated power in the hands of Driscoll and his closest aides. Driscoll told the congregation that he asked advice on how to handle stubborn subordinates from a “mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter, good guy” who attends Mars Hill. “His answer was brilliant,” Driscoll reported. “He said, ‘I break their nose.’ ” When one of the renegade elders refused to repent, the church leadership ordered members to shun him. One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. “They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached. John Calvin couldn’t have said it better himself.

Let’s note here that Jonathan Edwards, the greatest preacher of America’s history, was fired by his congregation because he wouldn’t budge on membership issues. I used to think that this represented a failure of the church. I now see it as a good thing: even someone as potent as Edwards was not above the whims of his elders. (Plus, the church and state should never have been tied like that. It was idiotic to have the church membership requirement ‐ full communicant and not just baptized — for all who would hold elected office in the colony. This just created the situation Edwards found himself in.)

The problem with non-Scottish Reformed belief is that it isn’t suspicious enough of people. The Scots had enough sense to modify the structures of the community to balance powers. Power could still be abused but it was unlikely.

Any time you don’t balance the power of leader you will end up with fascists. Democracy in America was heavily influenced by the Scottish Presbyterian model, now widely abandoned by Presbyterians, including the PCA ones. Too bad, really.

Cameron believes that the local church, a state-funded institution in some ways, will continue to see large-scale declines in “membership”. She uses Evers’s triangular model of society with “Volunteer Organizations” in the middle as her framework for understanding church membership’s future. (She notes its similarity to David Billis’s model, saying that he focuses more on the organization side, which is true.)

She believes that several different types of affiliation with the Church (which may be restricted to Church of England, but I believe it is more open to include the major recognized and state-sponsored denominations) will arise that are much different than “membership”.

What will become of local church membership [in the U.K.]? Because of the weight of tradition it seems likely that a proportion (if only a small proportion) of those who see themselves as affiliated to the Church will continue to do this through membership of a local church. These few will face the challenge of maintaining buildings and clergy with very limited resources. Those with other types of affiliation may well attend worship occasionally, but they will feel under no obligation to take part in the work of the local church.

1. The number of people affiliated to the Church will continue to decline but denominations will start to encourage and count other forms of affiliation.
2. Therefore, by 2050, of those describing themselves as actively involved in the church only about one-quarter will be members of a local church.
3. By 2050, some people will claim their affiliation to the Church through para-church organizations that have clear branding and provide their affiliates with products and services. [Earlier cites examples of Alpha, Soul Survivor and ]
4. by 2050, some people will claim their affiliation to the Church through campaigning organizations or by engaging in civic governance on behalf of the Church.
5. By 2050, some people will claim affiliation to the Church through participation in an informal small group that may be networked to other groups with a similar shared experience.

Part of the problem may be that she does not differentiate between Volunteers and Members. This has been dealt with elsewhere (“Are Church Members Volunteers?” I believe is the title), which is summed up in a response by one of the parishioners to the researcher’s question if she was a volunteer here at the soup kitchen: “I’m not a volunteer, dear: I’m a member.”

The book may be worth getting.

she’ll play the role of Spiro Agnew to McCain’s Nixon, dismissing reporters’ tough questions as effete, impudent, sacrilegious, snobby, intrusive, unpatriotic, hostile, disrespectful, chauvinistic, “East Coast,” unfair, unbalanced, liberal, biased, trivial, hypothetical, elitist, and as partisan attempts to lasso her with a “gotcha.”

Worse, SalientMan makes almost the same points that I did, and does it a day earlier. Plus makes more comparisons.

I still say that she could also turn out to be Silent Cal (who also had only executive experience). I don’t think that she compares with Teddy Roosevelt. Sorry, Senator: I know that you idolize him but I don’t think that there are many people who are his equal.

You shouldn’t underestimate her, even with her unbelievable interview with Couric. (Why didn’t McCain call Couric instead? I know that She has even less experience, but I’d love to see someone try and “gotcha” her in an interview about anything.)

Both Gov. Palin and Vice President Agnew were involved in “city” government only before becoming governor.²

Both served only two years as governor before becoming the Republican VP candidate.

Both are running with a candidate who reinvented himself after running eight years prior. (That could be most candidates.)

And the big finale! . . .

If Alaska were a US city, according to the 2006 Census numbers it would rank in size (~670,000) close to Baltimore County (~750,000)³, where Spiro Agnew cut his guilty, guilty, guilty teeth taking money from strangers!

How They’re Not Alike

Mayor Palin served two years longer than County Executive Agnew did.

Back in 1970, when Agnew was County Executive of Baltimore County (1962 – 1966), it had a growing population of between 500-600,000 (estimated from US Census: should exclude City of Baltimore). When Palin served as mayor, Wasilla had a growing population of 6-10,000, or about 1% of Baltimore County forty years ago.

Alaska has a budget of around US$4.4 billion, with another US$2 billion or so in surplus money. Maryland currently has a budget of $30 billion. I don’t think there is any surplus.^4,5

Maryland had had a population around 3.9 million when Agnew was governor. Alaska’s current population today is about 1/6 of that.

Alaska is much larger in geographical area than either Baltimore County or Maryland. Maryland is about 2% of Alaska’s size.

Let’s also note another comparison that might fit. Calvin Collidge didn’t have much more experience than Palin does when he accepted the Republican Party Vice Presidential candidacy. (He was Governor of Massachusetts for two years, but Lt. Gov. for three before that.) He was a bit older than she, at 50. He ended up assuming the presidency with the death of the corrupt Harding. He was also popular with his constituency, but not quite the conservative.

Collidge might be a reasonable comparison, but his extra years as an elected official of a large state (3.85 million in 1920, or around 4% of the US total) make it less of a fit.

Here’s another: When Gov. Wilson assumed the office of President, he had been Governor of New Jersey for two years (1911-1913). Before that he was president of Princeton University.

Of course, most Republicans will join me in my lack of admiration for the 28th president. Still, he was a competent executive until his stroke in 1919. He certainly got things done, even if I don’t think they were all for the best.

That was so much fun that I’m going to look for a comparison to Sen. Biden. Hmmmm…. Sen. Johnson comes to mind quickly, doesn’t it? That doesn’t bode well for Sen. Obama if he wins. Of course, Obama resembles McGovern a bit but Biden as Sargent Shriver?

Joseph Taylor Robinson? “Cactus Jack” Garner, maybe?

1. I also made the comparison with Gov. Theodore Roosevelt of New York, who had only served two years before becoming the Republican candidate for Vice President. But he had already served in Washington as Assistant Secretary of the Navy under McKinley so I didn’t think it was as close. He did do some trust busting, which might be compared to some of Palin’s actions taxing big oil.

2. Agnew was the executive of Baltimore County and not Baltimore. They’re separate governmental bodies and areas. But it’s like a city. Wasillia would have been classified a village growing into town status if it were in Ohio. So it’s a wash between them on definitions.

3. Estimates from US Census data.

4. Even I’m too lazy to find Maryland’s 1968 budget in the archives somewhere, adjust to 2006 dollars, and then make a comparison.

5. Okay, apparently I’m not too busy to chase mindless details. Maryland’s budget for 1968-1969 was $1.16 billion (“Maryland’s Budget Provides for Few New Programs”, Washington Post, March 23, 1968; pp. B2). Adjusted for inflation, that’s a little bigger (around US$6.8B in 2006 dollars) than Alaska’s current budget + surplus.

May you have a long and lustrous future as an independent nation, especially so that Dawn can get back.