Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Quietly, a broadly based ecumenical coalition is being built called "Christian Churches Together." Here are the first two paragraphs from The Layman.
PASADENA, Calif. – More than 300 worshipers gathered for worship at Pasadena Presbyterian Church to inaugurate the most diverse ecumenical grouping in U.S. history.
Christian Churches Together begins with 36 member organizations from all five church "families" – Roman Catholic, evangelical/Pentecostal, Protestant, Orthodox and historic racial ethnic – as well as a number of non-denomination religious groups, such as World Vision, Bread for the World, Sojourners/Call to Renewal, Evangelicals for Social Action and the Salvation Army.
"It is our intent and prayer to broaden and deepen the fellowship of Christian churches and organizations in the United States," said the Rev. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, the general secretary of the Reformed Church in America and chair of the Christian Churches Together steering committee. Full article here and then click on the link "Christian Churches Together
talk first about evangelization"
An excerpt from the RCA website news of the event:
"Our purpose is to 'grow closer together in Christ in order to strengthen our mission in the world,'" he explains. In 2001, church leaders began to lay groundwork for CCT, with a goal of expanding fellowship, unity, and witness among the diverse expressions of Christian faith. The group officially organized at a meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, last year. This week's meeting kicked off with a worship service of celebration and commitment to mark the formal beginning of what Granberg-Michaelson calls "a new and promising fellowship." "We set this time for a worship service to announce and inaugurate Christian Churches Together, as well as to work on how we understand evangelism," says Granberg-Michaelson. Special presentations on the understanding and practice of evangelism were made to the membership by spokespersons for each of the faith traditions Full article here.
Perhaps this ecumenical organization, focusing on cooperation among a broad range of groups, will have success. Jesus did pray for the unity of his Church.
PASADENA, Calif. – More than 300 worshipers gathered for worship at Pasadena Presbyterian Church to inaugurate the most diverse ecumenical grouping in U.S. history.
Christian Churches Together begins with 36 member organizations from all five church "families" – Roman Catholic, evangelical/Pentecostal, Protestant, Orthodox and historic racial ethnic – as well as a number of non-denomination religious groups, such as World Vision, Bread for the World, Sojourners/Call to Renewal, Evangelicals for Social Action and the Salvation Army.
"It is our intent and prayer to broaden and deepen the fellowship of Christian churches and organizations in the United States," said the Rev. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, the general secretary of the Reformed Church in America and chair of the Christian Churches Together steering committee. Full article here and then click on the link "Christian Churches Together
talk first about evangelization"
An excerpt from the RCA website news of the event:
"Our purpose is to 'grow closer together in Christ in order to strengthen our mission in the world,'" he explains. In 2001, church leaders began to lay groundwork for CCT, with a goal of expanding fellowship, unity, and witness among the diverse expressions of Christian faith. The group officially organized at a meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, last year. This week's meeting kicked off with a worship service of celebration and commitment to mark the formal beginning of what Granberg-Michaelson calls "a new and promising fellowship." "We set this time for a worship service to announce and inaugurate Christian Churches Together, as well as to work on how we understand evangelism," says Granberg-Michaelson. Special presentations on the understanding and practice of evangelism were made to the membership by spokespersons for each of the faith traditions Full article here.
Perhaps this ecumenical organization, focusing on cooperation among a broad range of groups, will have success. Jesus did pray for the unity of his Church.
12/02: Babies and Abortion
In the last two weeks I've visited the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at the OU Medical Center several times. A member of our community had a child prematurely. Very prematurely. The baby girl was born at about 22 weeks and weighed 1 poung 9 ounces. Her eyes still were closed and she was placed in a heated compartment ("incubator") with a respirator. The doctors and nurses were realistic with the family and gave no false hope. But, this little girl is hanging on, is developing (her eyes now can open) and has gained 4 ounces. We will watch, wait, and pray, but things are looking better.
Coming away from NICU I have often thought about all the babies that are right now being aborted at the same age as this little girl, and the other premies on that floor. And some are aborted even later, close to the time of natural birth.
What is the difference here between the premies and the aborted babies? Age and development can be the same. Many aborted babies could live if taken from the abortionist to a neonatal intensive care unit. The only real difference is that the adults in control choose for some to live, and some to die.
Do we really want to be in this situation as a nation? A situation in which the life and death of an individual is completely in the hands of someone else? Capital punishment is somewhat different. In that case one can argue that the individual has done something himself or herself which has placed the defendent's life in the hands of a jury. But the babies have done nothing other than exist. And someone else decides if they should live or die. How is their status of babies any different, morally, from the status of an impaired person who needs some level of care?
For my previous argument against abortion see here.
Coming away from NICU I have often thought about all the babies that are right now being aborted at the same age as this little girl, and the other premies on that floor. And some are aborted even later, close to the time of natural birth.
What is the difference here between the premies and the aborted babies? Age and development can be the same. Many aborted babies could live if taken from the abortionist to a neonatal intensive care unit. The only real difference is that the adults in control choose for some to live, and some to die.
Do we really want to be in this situation as a nation? A situation in which the life and death of an individual is completely in the hands of someone else? Capital punishment is somewhat different. In that case one can argue that the individual has done something himself or herself which has placed the defendent's life in the hands of a jury. But the babies have done nothing other than exist. And someone else decides if they should live or die. How is their status of babies any different, morally, from the status of an impaired person who needs some level of care?
For my previous argument against abortion see here.
Today's NYT reads:
Defiant Dixie Chicks Are Big Winners at the Grammys
"After death threats, boycotts and a cold shoulder from the country music establishment, the Dixie Chicks gained sweet vindication Sunday night at the 49th annual Grammy Awards, capturing honors in all five of the categories in which they were nominated" (read entire article here ).
The first clause of the lead contains the MSM stock description of the Dixie Chicks: "threatened, boycotted and mistreated." Woe to any well-intentioned and enlightened dissenter intent on speaking truth to power. McCarthyism lurks in the hearts of these ignorant country-music cretins, and violence and economic coercion are the tools of compliance in Red-State America.
The second clause of the lead offers an abysmally flagrant cliché to describe the Grammy triumph for the Chicks: "sweet vindication." And not because it is merely a trite phrase--but it is also inaccurate. Sweet Vindication? Vindication equals justification. In its most literal sense, vindication connotes exoneration through argument or the exhibition of evidence. I suspect that the verdict of the Grammy voters will enjoy an extremely limited jurisdiction.
Sweet revenge? Maybe. Delicious counterpunch? Probably. Shot across the bow of the "country music establishment"? Yes. The Times actually gets it right in the fourth graph of the story, describing the Grammy haul for the Chicks as a "rejoinder" and a "sharp counterpoint to their shut-out at the Country Music Association awards in November."
An aside: Why did the Country Music Awards "shut out" the Chicks last November? Because the Chicks are no longer on country radio. Country fans in the United States, in general, are no longer buying tickets to see the Chicks in concert or buying their albums. The Chicks are off the radar for most country music fans.
Why did the hicks from the sticks disown the Chicks?
Defiant Dixie Chicks Are Big Winners at the Grammys
"After death threats, boycotts and a cold shoulder from the country music establishment, the Dixie Chicks gained sweet vindication Sunday night at the 49th annual Grammy Awards, capturing honors in all five of the categories in which they were nominated" (read entire article here ).
The first clause of the lead contains the MSM stock description of the Dixie Chicks: "threatened, boycotted and mistreated." Woe to any well-intentioned and enlightened dissenter intent on speaking truth to power. McCarthyism lurks in the hearts of these ignorant country-music cretins, and violence and economic coercion are the tools of compliance in Red-State America.
The second clause of the lead offers an abysmally flagrant cliché to describe the Grammy triumph for the Chicks: "sweet vindication." And not because it is merely a trite phrase--but it is also inaccurate. Sweet Vindication? Vindication equals justification. In its most literal sense, vindication connotes exoneration through argument or the exhibition of evidence. I suspect that the verdict of the Grammy voters will enjoy an extremely limited jurisdiction.
Sweet revenge? Maybe. Delicious counterpunch? Probably. Shot across the bow of the "country music establishment"? Yes. The Times actually gets it right in the fourth graph of the story, describing the Grammy haul for the Chicks as a "rejoinder" and a "sharp counterpoint to their shut-out at the Country Music Association awards in November."
An aside: Why did the Country Music Awards "shut out" the Chicks last November? Because the Chicks are no longer on country radio. Country fans in the United States, in general, are no longer buying tickets to see the Chicks in concert or buying their albums. The Chicks are off the radar for most country music fans.
Why did the hicks from the sticks disown the Chicks?
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Gateway Pundit has the news on Albert Pujols becoming a citizen of the United States. Congratulations Albert.
For those of you who are marginal baseball fans. Pujols is having a career that will have him mentioned with the greatest when baseball is talked about in a hundred years. He deserves to be in the company of Dimaggio, Williams, Cobb, et al. If you can make a way to see a Cardinals game this coming year, do it. You then can tell your grandchildren you once saw Albert Pujols play in person.
For those of you who are marginal baseball fans. Pujols is having a career that will have him mentioned with the greatest when baseball is talked about in a hundred years. He deserves to be in the company of Dimaggio, Williams, Cobb, et al. If you can make a way to see a Cardinals game this coming year, do it. You then can tell your grandchildren you once saw Albert Pujols play in person.
In his comments on the recent series of posts on denominationalism and the new Baptist coalition, Martian Mariner asked the following:
On a different point, you've mentioned the democratization of American Protestant denominations in the early 19th century and you've got an ongoing series about the decline of mainline denominations. I would add the ecumenical movement of the mid 20th century to the category, and then ask the question: What do you see as being the dominant bent of American Protestant Churches in the 21st century?
Making no predictions, here are my thoughts on 21st century American Protestant Churches. (below)
On a different point, you've mentioned the democratization of American Protestant denominations in the early 19th century and you've got an ongoing series about the decline of mainline denominations. I would add the ecumenical movement of the mid 20th century to the category, and then ask the question: What do you see as being the dominant bent of American Protestant Churches in the 21st century?
Making no predictions, here are my thoughts on 21st century American Protestant Churches. (below)
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
The South Florida Sun-Sentinal has a good article on the future of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church and its related ministries. Link from The Layman.
In late December the pastor, D. James Kennedy, was hospitalized with heart problems. Kennedy has been an important figure among conservative Protestants and in the culture wars for over 25 years. Kennedy official bio sketch.
Coral Ridge website. I notice you can listen to an address by Alan Keyes from the site.
In late December the pastor, D. James Kennedy, was hospitalized with heart problems. Kennedy has been an important figure among conservative Protestants and in the culture wars for over 25 years. Kennedy official bio sketch.
Coral Ridge website. I notice you can listen to an address by Alan Keyes from the site.
A Waco Farmer has responded with two questions to my post on Uniting Baptists?. Each question is worthy of its own posted reply. My reply to one of the questions is here. Now, the Farmer's other question:
2. Historical question: the early nineteenth century has been depicted by most American historians as a period of "Democratization of Religion." The big idea that seems to emerge from this thesis is that the Baptists and Methodists appealed to the Americans of the Early National period. In essence, the Baptist and Methodist style was much more attractive to the consumers of religion during that era. Do you agree with that? If so, do you see our era as more consumer-driven than then?
The brief answer is, Yes. The longer answer is below.
2. Historical question: the early nineteenth century has been depicted by most American historians as a period of "Democratization of Religion." The big idea that seems to emerge from this thesis is that the Baptists and Methodists appealed to the Americans of the Early National period. In essence, the Baptist and Methodist style was much more attractive to the consumers of religion during that era. Do you agree with that? If so, do you see our era as more consumer-driven than then?
The brief answer is, Yes. The longer answer is below.
A Waco Farmer has responded with two questions to my post on Uniting Baptists?. Each question is worthy of its own posted reply. Here is one of the questions.
1. I appreciate your recognition that the new Baptist coalition is not based on consumerism. I am convinced that Baptists united for the Democratic Party agenda is not going to be a hot commodity. In my experience, mega-churches with a conservative political bent do much better. Would you agree with that?
First, yes, in general "mega-churches with a conservative political bent" are doing better numerically than churches with a liberal political bent. Although there are some large flourishing congregations with liberal politics, and many large flourishing congregations that are apolitical.
Second, I do not want to cede these social issues to "the Democratic Party agenda." I understand your point, you are speaking of congruity of goals, I t hink. But, . . . (cont. below)
1. I appreciate your recognition that the new Baptist coalition is not based on consumerism. I am convinced that Baptists united for the Democratic Party agenda is not going to be a hot commodity. In my experience, mega-churches with a conservative political bent do much better. Would you agree with that?
First, yes, in general "mega-churches with a conservative political bent" are doing better numerically than churches with a liberal political bent. Although there are some large flourishing congregations with liberal politics, and many large flourishing congregations that are apolitical.
Second, I do not want to cede these social issues to "the Democratic Party agenda." I understand your point, you are speaking of congruity of goals, I t hink. But, . . . (cont. below)
06/02: Uniting Baptists?
Back in 1980, after driving all night from the East Coast, we pulled into New Berlin*, Illinois, for breakfast. On the edge of town were the usual signs welcoming you to the community from civic organizations and churches. One caught our eye: The United Baptist Church of New Berlin. My buddy in the front seat and I laughed till we almost cried. A beaut' of an oxymoron: "United Baptist." Sort of like the fictional "Holy Trinity Unitarian Church," or "Four-Square Fundamentalist United Church of Christ."
Well, I haven't commented on this yet, but former Presidents Carter and Clinton are trying to unite some Baptists, including black and white groups. Article here from The Sun News, Myrtle Beach. Lots of luck. Baptists do division much better than reunion.
One thing from the article caught my attention. (More below)
Well, I haven't commented on this yet, but former Presidents Carter and Clinton are trying to unite some Baptists, including black and white groups. Article here from The Sun News, Myrtle Beach. Lots of luck. Baptists do division much better than reunion.
One thing from the article caught my attention. (More below)
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
I heard on our local television station the other day that Oklahoma led the nation in Army recruits per capita in the eligible age range. Arkansas came in second.
The Kerry crowd probably would point out that we poor Okies and Arkies have limited opportunites and poor quality education which limits our options so that more of our young folks join the military out of desperation.
Let me offer another explanation. (more below)
The Kerry crowd probably would point out that we poor Okies and Arkies have limited opportunites and poor quality education which limits our options so that more of our young folks join the military out of desperation.
Let me offer another explanation. (more below)
