If "sacrament" is defined as a means by which Grace is conveyed to us then I would argue that Nature is, er, naturally sacramental-- except that we humans, due to Original Sin are blind to it. Hence we require the sacraments of the Church since we cannot, usually, perceive God's presence in all things. Though of course God may convey Himself to us by any means whatsoever and sometimes it is through the natural world by some special act of His will.
My view of Trump pretending to work in a (closed) McD's is that it's a Dukakis in the Tank moment- or would be if Trump fans were not so slavishly devoted to the man that they can't see it. See also: The Emperor Has No Clothes.
Re: forced the legislature and Gov. Mike Pence to repeal a state version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
They did not "repeal" the Act; it is still the law in Indiana! They amended one small portion of it in response to criticism. This is exactly the sort of compromise which politicians used to make quite regularly, but which has all but disappeared as our politics has fallen to "My way or the highways" radicals.
Re: I am just shocked to discover that it (BLM) was all a massive grift.
The sacraments of the Church are supernatural and communicate a different type of grace than nature.
Here's a quote from the book "Lost in the Chaos" by R.J. Snell:
"I have high regard for C.S. Lewis and Tolkien, but there is a tendency, even a kind of danger, of reading them and then affirming that the world is broadly sacramental...while denying the reality, meaning, and efficacy of baptism or the Eucharist.
***
Obviously there are varying theologies about the sacraments, and I'm not suggesting one is idyllic unless holding the Roman Catholic view of the sacraments, a view I affirm as true. At the same time, if one denies the notion, meaning, and efficacy of *the* sacraments, positing meaning and efficacy in the sacramental imagination is a safe fantasy, a literary pose, and it signifies absolutely nothing. Christianity is not a variant of romanticism, and while there is much romance in the Faith, you cannot have the romance with out the res, without the real. All too many people are creating a fiction of enchantment, pretending dragons are real and the world is haunted all while insisting that the things actually charged by God remain merely symbolic and empty."
I have really great, faithful Calvinist (reformed Baptist) neighbors, who actually inspired my own conversion to the Catholic Church from agnosticism/practical atheism. They read a lot of fantasy and such. This passage reminds me of them.
Re: The sacraments of the Church are supernatural and communicate a different type of grace than nature.
I agree there's a difference, but I don't agree that it can be described as "natural vs supernatural". God's grace is always and everywhere "supernatural". I would say rather that the grace of the sacraments is deliberately targeted at us, while grace we find otherwise is broader and less specific.
I don't think Tolkien or Lewis can be read as denying the efficacy of baptism, or the Eucharist.
Fair enough on my supernatural/natural distinction being sloppy. I'm no expert on the nuance between sanctifying grace and actual grace. Hopefully you get my point.
The quote is describing the problem within non-sacramental traditions of expecting to get a "sacramental imagination" by reading Tolkien/Lewis while denying the efficacy of the sacraments themselves. Obviously those two authors had high views of the sacraments.
Nature -- the material world -- is fallen. There may be hints of God to be seen, but there are also signs of Satan.
To be sure, if I've done a strenuous hike, over mountains, and a sleep, and then I get up to brew coffee outside my tent and watch the sunrise, I feel I'm seeing the finger of God. However, I have to ignore the rasping parasites in every animal in the view.
I'm not sure I wholly agree. God is more than a "hint".- he is in all places and fills all things. At most the Devil is visible is some superficial destruction he has wrought- but in no way can a mere devil (or a mere man) change the underlying essence of anything. I also don't see the fall of humanity as altering anything essential about the rest of the world, though we too have wrought our share of damage on the world.
I can deny that Trump has little respect for traditional, constitutional norms. Trump didn’t understand how Washington works in his first term, but I can’t think of a single anti constitutional act. That statement of yours sounds like MSNBC
I think it would be more accurate to say that Trump likes getting a rise out of people in SAYING things that make them worry: "that shouldn't be allowed" and "terminate" the Constitution. It's frivolous and tedious, but I don't think it's much worse than that. He got trammeled up in politics as usual by Paul Ryan, nobody's idea of machiavellian superbrainiac supervillain.
You're being generous to Ryan. His net worth went from less than a 100k to 7 million plus as a congressperson. That's corrupt and inexplicable. Plus, he loved playing footsie with the left and MSM.
"Playing footise" = politics as it should and generally must be worked. To get the things done you want you will have to offer opponents something too. Reagan was a master at it. Even George W Bush had some skill there.
If our politics is dysfunctional with too many festering crises not being addressed it's mainly due to the failure of our "leaders" to cut deals, trade horses and divide up half loaves. "My way or the highway" usually ends up being no way at all.
Perhaps a majority of Congressmen play the game. Come to Washington to serve the people and learn to let the Swamp serve them. Many of these "public servants" never leave. For instance, fifteen years ago I slipped by the Post office at 1100 Connecticut Avenue, a modern building of severe glass angles to buy some stamps. Waiting for a chauffeured car in the lobby impeccably dressed in $1000 suits were Senator(retired) John Breaux (D-Louisiana) and Senator(retired) Trent Lott (R-Mississippi). Neither went back home. I am sure they made millions lobbying.
Sir, the whole system is corrupt. It's enough to make one puke.
I sorta like the original idea the framers had, I’ve always thought their idea of public service was a bit like jury duty. Everyone needs to do a bit, but, after you do your bit, you go home.
Problem is most people have no real home to go back to anymore.
The hazard I worry about is that, having been frustrated by constitutional norms that everyone else tended to follow, he is preparing this time around to actively break or subvert them, rather than merely remain befuddled that they exist. Its hard to know the truth of what is published about him, but its not out of character if he did say he needs "loyal generals" like those Hitler had, who would follow any order he gave them.
Indeed. And on 1-6-21 both Maryland and Virginia had National Guard at the District border waiting for Trump to summon them-- which he never did even though his own children were urging him to.
Prediction: If Trump wins, the media will campaign loudly to have Biden resign just so Harris can be the first woman president. The Bidens will fight back with unflattering tidbits about Harris. Harris will try to invoke the 25th Amendment. Hilarity will ensue while China invades Taiwan, Israel takes out the Iranian regime, and Putin levels Kiev.
I don't see it as likely at all, in part because the 25th amendmemt process would take months and would require Congess to be firmly on board.
I saw an intriguing (but also quite unlikely) scenario online if Trump wins: the 25th is eventually invoked due to his cognitive decline in order to stick Vance in the Oval Office where he would be a puppet of Thiel and Musk.
I said "plausible", not "likely". They're different. If I meant "likely" I would have written "likely". You're a great guy, Jon, but you got to stop garbling.
First, The 25th Amendment cannot make Kamala Harris President. It would only allow her to assume the duties of the President. She would have the power without the title.
In order for Kamala Harris to become President, President Biden would have to die, resign, or be impeached by the House and Removed by the Senate.
Second, the 25th Amendment can happen quickly. Kamala Harris would only need the signatures of the majority of the Cabinet on a Letter delivered to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Conceivably, that could happen in less than a day.
No. If the President challenges the action of the Vice-President and the majority of the Cabinet, The Congress has 21 days to uphold the action of the Vice-President (by a two-thirds majority in both houses).
However, the Vice-President assumes the duties (and powers) of the Presidency immediately and retains them until Congress acts against her (if it does).
This is controlled by Amendment XXV, Section 4, of the constitution. It actually provides for the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to transmit to the President pro tem of the Senate and the Speaker of the House their finding that the president is unable to discharge his duties, upon which the vice president assumes the duties of president. The president may transmit in writing to the same officers that no disability exists, and s/he then resumes the office. If the vice president and president have four days to transmit written notice that a disability does exist, and thereupon, congress shall assemble within 48 hours to decide the issue. (Every citizen should carry a pocket copy of the Constitution).
Vance is a political neophyte. As such he risks being misled by a mentor with an agenda. And Peter Thiel is not someone I want to see in such a role. At least the 19th century malefactors of great wealth, though often a nasty bunch, were mostly about their own bottom line. They were not trying to "perfect" humanity as votaries of some cockamammy philosophy.
I think Vance will, more or less as you say, be more concerned with pleasing the crowd and various deserving factions than with forumulating a substantive program and capably administering it.
I hadn't thought of this possibility, but you bring up a good point. Joe won't be able to resist saying: "You f'ed up when you replaced me!" The infighting on the left, if Trump wins, is going to be great!
Yes, there will be a lot of infighting on the left if Trump wins. I suspect it would be overshadowed by the onslaught of daily attacks on Trump by the media.
I don't fear what will happen to our country due to Trump if he is reelected. I do fear what will happen to our country due to the ongoing behavior of the major media outlets. Sure, Trump will be Trump and won't suddenly become "presidential". So, the media will fan the flames and amplify the polarization within the country.
A curious feature of recent news is that a lot of blue-collar union workers viewed Biden as a friend, but are leaning toward Trump rather than Harris. This is an example of how we the people don't fall into neat little packaged constituencies that can be transferred at will. Keeping those votes probably wouldn't have saved Biden, but they are not automatically transferable to Harris either.
True. I don't know if any Californian Politician could appeal to the working class. No devotee of the "Green New Deal" will win over Teamsters, either. Biden had created a working-man, regular guy kind of aura. It was effective. Kamala's attempts at this ("I come from a middle class family") seem to fall flat.
I read once that the Teamsters oppose new oil pipelines because transport by trucks provides a lot more jobs. That isn't, to me, the reason to oppose or support the pipelines, but there are ways to structure shifts in energy source and usage in ways that will win working class support. Unfortunately, many of the "green" advocates are more interested in delivering moral lectures on why This Is Important and therefore You Should Be Willing To Sacrifice.
I think if Harris wins the media will also campaign for Biden to resign so that Harris can get to work "saving America". Who is Biden anymore? A Shadow?
I still do not understand how so many people were convinced that the elevation of sexual deviants was the most compelling issue of our times. This all started because it was unfair for a gay man to be unable to designate his partner as next of kin, as able to visit him in the ICU, etc. it was the same argument from extremes as crying out against denying an abortion to an 11 year old victim of incest. That we couldn’t allow some reasonable accommodation without teaching perversion in middle school, transgender story hour, and full term infanticide says too much about the emotional instability of the electorate.
Every girl 16 and under who enters an abortion clinic is the victim of statutory rape but no one ever asks her whether the father is her 17 year old boyfriend or a much darker entity. The death of the baby, not the care of the mother is the whole point.
It's classic political activism. You search and search and search until you find the right case with the right facts that are going to appeal emotionally, viscerally, and then you use that to hammer through radical changes based on how immobilized people are by the emotional power of the image conjured by the case. It requires patience to find the right case, but when you do, it's political dynamite, especially in a media-marinated culture like ours.
But why are so many otherwise functional people like the proverbial frog in the pot? You would think they would’ve said “hell no!” before we got this far down the lane. A pregnant, molested little girl and a large man in a Dior new look dress with handbag should not arouse the same feelings of protectiveness. Elections, from local school board through the presidency should’ve reflected revulsion before now.
Transgender story hour definitely arouses this kind of visceral disgust, but it hasn’t resulted in any substantial pushback. Fox News viewers, that aging and shrinking demographic, get angry, but nothing happens at the polls. Asian parents have been the main power behind pushback against wokeness and gender bending in the schools. They want their children to learn academic subjects, not queer propaganda. Surely so do most other parents, but they remain passive.
I think normie gays felt they had no choice but to support the transgender radicalism because they were guilty of marginalizing and bullying transgender people within their own community. It's similar to how guilty white southerners became the loudest voices for "ending racism" because of the historical guilt they felt over Jim Crow and Slavery. In the 1990s the gay-male community would ostracize actual transgender transitioners as freaks. The gays are now overcompensating by supporting the radical transgender movement. Without this support from the powerful gay-male community the transgender movement wouldn't have a chance. Guilt like anecdotes can be very effective politically.
I don't understand the passivity of most voters either. It's possible the transgender movement has been downplayed on the left while being hyped excessively by the right-of-center media.
I doubt most gays care about trans. Its the well funded lobbies who want a continue rationale for their own existence who are shouting in the ears of receptive politicians.
Its the poverty pimp mentality. Once of the weaknesses of LBJs "War on Poverty" is that all kinds of opportunists set up organizations to "fight poverty," and some actually provided some services or goods, but none of them sought to actually end poverty, move people out of poverty on a sustainable basis, because then what would justify the next grant which funded the obscene salaries the executive leadership was paid? The same dynamic is at work with non-economic causes.
I think it's about the sequencing and the aftermath of gay rights, and the way that the new orthodoxy has been socially enforced (including in workplaces).
You're right that most people have far less sympathy for trans than for gays, for fairly obvious reasons. Many gays themselves also have little sympathy for trans, but keep their mouths shut about it because of the reasons John mentions. So why do most people remain so passive on the issue?
I think the way this happened is that gay rights were sequenced first, which made sense as it was an easier issue, socially, and in the wake of gay rights "winning" with Obergefell, the new order was almost immediately rigidly enforced on everyone, in almost all contexts. Before Obergefell public opinion was changing, but it was still close to 50/50. After the decision, it became very hard for the dissenting view to be expressed, and very quickly it became socially verboten to express it other than in reliable private settings. It was a very fast change after Obergefell. And so people, in general, became keenly aware of the social power of this new movement, and how hemmed in they were to oppose it. It was a vast change from the atmosphere even in 2010, never mind 2008, when Obama said he believed in one man one woman marriage (hard to believe now).
At the same time in the aftermath of Obergefell, the gay rights lobbying mechanism, which was large and very well funded, pivoted instantly to trans issues, because, as Charlie points out, it was the next thing on the agenda and it allowed that large apparatus to continue operating and influencing, on the new issue. And this was a lot of power -- the gay rights machine had just come off of the massive victory in Obergefell, and was aggressively consolidating that socially and culturally, and in that context when it pivoted to push trans, this had a substantial "silencing effect" on dissent.
In effect, people saw that trans was the new gay, because that was how the same advocacy groups were framing it, while at the same time dissent on gay issues was being stamped out and marginalized. And a lot of people, while they felt much less sympathy for trans issues, were frightened into keeping quiet -- because the issues were being run together, and people were getting into hot water if they refused to toe the line on gay issues. This dynamic helped trans issues to entrench themselves everywhere, especially in the professional organizations and the corporate world, much faster than ever would have been the case had the sequencing been different, or had there been different advocacy organizations at work.
Instead, HRC and similar groups who had issued grades to companies and professional groups for how they had treated gays now were doing that for trans issues, too, at a time where tolerance for dissent on gays was extremely low and getting lower every day. That created a kind of knee-jerk reaction in the corporate/professional world, because they had learned in the gay rights crusade that getting on the wrong side of the LGTBT groups was painful, and so they just extended their policies to cover trans as well as gays, and that was that.
This was particularly the case in the medical profession, which was kind of "ground zero" for the trans activist world since it stood at the center of trans issues in a way that it did not for gays -- unless the trans movement successfully neutralized the medical profession, and made it bow to the movement's priorities, the push for trans would have gotten nowhere, and so a very strong push was made on the medical "gatekeepers", and very quickly they mostly collapsed. And when that happened it became increasingly impossible for anyone else to push back against it because, after all, the docs had backed off on the issue and were handing out hormones and performing surgeries no questions asked. Instead of talking straightforwardly about the differences between the sexes, the medical profession hid behind terms like "AMAB" and "AFAB" as euphemisms for male and female, ducking and running in a desperate effort not be caught in the maelstrom of a thorny socio-political issue. This total collapse of the medical profession's historical treatment of trans issues (which was very tailored to a narrow set of individuals, quite gate-kept, and done in a way that did not undermine the basic binary between the sexes) made opposition by everyone else very hard. After all, how could you claim there were things like male and female that mattered when even the doctors were saying that there wasn't?
This is why, I think, opposition to trans rights in the US has taken a different path than in, say, the UK or other European countries. Here, it's all about how the advocacy groups pivoted immediately and placed a decisive influence on the corporate and professional worlds, which dramatically sped up the sea change in trans issues, and made dissent very difficult. It's why dissent here has been mostly limited to arguing about the "easiest" issues, like surgery and blockers for minors, males competing with girls and women in sports, and so on. These are more marginal, and specific, issues on which at least a partial coalition can be built to make reasonable pushback in some places. But the broader issues like "trans women are women" and so on ... not much.
Finally, feminism in the US has dealt with the rise of trans in a fundamentally different way than feminists have done in other countries. In the US, there are a few outliers here and there who have dissented, but in general feminism, both in its political/public face, and in the private, workaday expression of average feminist women, has been either supportive of trans rights or mum about them. Contrast the UK where there has been robust pushback from prominent feminists, and lesbians in particular, against undue expansion of trans rights -- there's no equivalent of that in the US, and there likely won't be. That says a lot about the differences between feminism in different countries in the West, I think, but in impact the US has not had any significant feminist pushback, in terms of prominent people, against the expansion of trans rights, and that's a very notable difference from other countries.
Add all those things up, all of them, and you get a situation where most people don't really support the same way many did gay rights, but most elect to keep their heads down on the issue for various reasons, mostly due to fear of opposing it too much in the aftermath of the crackdown on dissent that happened in the period following Obergefell.
There are a lot more important issues out there than drag queens. And things like DQSH are purely local issues anyway and do not belong in national debate any more than debates about whether to rezone some parcel of land as commercial or what streets should have sidewalks.
All some one had to do was make his/her partner the person to make decisions in an advanced medical directive and grant them power of attorney. You can even cut out your spouse this way. This is standard if you have a lawyer draw up your will.
The reason for voting Trump is clear. With Trump we may get Fascism, but with Harris we get it for sure. More seriously, we won't get Trump fascism for two reasons. One, his threats are mostly empty bluster, a way of making his point. Second, any illegal moves - any most legal ones - will be opposed by a wide variety of actors with most of the institutional power on their side. Even Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley would oppose him. Harris's lawless moves will be ignored. Heck, some years ago I remember the NYT urging Obama to break the law and just let the Republicans fume since they didn't have the votes to remove him from office.
Stephens's column sums up where we are now pretty clearly. The present government is using every trick in the book and violating long-established norms at every turn, and then tell us they are worried about American Constitution Republicanism if Trump wins. Please.
If Trump and Vance create an conduit for tech billionaires (Musk, Thiel...) to run public policy we end up with transhumanism. I'd think Rod would have serious concerns about that.
After the election we must have lunch sometime and make out lists -- without prejudice to who wins. Just, what do you think needs to be broken, what do I think needs to be broken. Then see how much overlap there is, how much on your list I could do without, how much on my list you could do without. What's left may be our respective hills to die on, or maybe not.
The reviewer to whom you allude, Jono Darville, cites as evidence the late Patrick Collinson's book "The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English Society 1559-1625" (1982), affirming of the book that "However, as Patrick Collinson argues, the Reformation was 'an episode of re-Christianization' that disrupted 'a process of secularization with much deeper roots.' It was primarily a movement of Christian re-enchantment, the very thing this book prescribes."
I have read this book twice since its publication in 1982, and I can say with assurance that Collinson does not speak of the English Reformation process as an episode of "re-Christianization," but rather of (if you will) de-Catholicizing a society deeply hostile to the Reformed Protestant vision of the English Reformers and then protestantizing it: the former took many decades, as did the latter, and, even in the eyes of the "reformers" themselves neither process was ever completed satisfactorily (as Collinson himself acknowledges), in part due to the popularity of popular Catholicism and in part due to the ambiguous nature of the Church of England, "the Church that Elizabeth built," in and after 1559. I suppose that if Darville understands Catholicism as a secularization of "true Christianity" his argument makes sense; otherwise, it is nonsensical. Reformed Christianity, in England and elsewhere (Scotland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, to name but a few places) was a force for "disenchantment;" Lutheranism, by contrast, to a much lesser extent. (The English Reformers and most Protestant English churchmen between 1560 and 1625 spurned both Luther and Lutheranism as "inadequately reformed," that is, as retaining many "superstitious and unScriptural" Catholic beliefs and practices.)
Darville's argument seems to amount to the contention that prayer plus an enchanted book, The Bible, is all the enchantment a Christian needs. In other words, it is an argument that confessional Reformed Christianity is the answer. One may take it or leave it, but that is what it amounts to.
POSTSCRIPT
"It is semi-fair to say that I largely ignore the supernatural claims of Pentecostals"
Most Reformed Christian "Reformers" (again, as opposed to Lutherans [for the most part] and Catholics and, well, every other sort of Christian) believed that miracles had ceased with the death of the last apostle and that phenomena such as glossolalia and even possession/exorcism were enthusiastic fancies, probably diabolically inspired, except, of course, for witchcraft, which resulted from a pact with the devil, not "possession." They (the Reformed Reformers) would have regarded charismatics and pentecostalists as at least delusionaries if not worse.
Got rid of it? It is a very strong force today in the Church of England, the "Conservative Evangelicals," as they're termed, compared to whom the Anglo-Catholics are a spent force (gone liberal or else gone to Rome or to Orthodoxy), second only to the dominant bien-pensant Liberals. They are also the dominant force in the GAFCON and Global South Network groups. Some of them have "modernized," of course; that's why so many of these semi-conservative evangelicals support the pretended ordination of women, for instance (but not all) but oppose sodomitical pseudogamy.
Neither the Anglican Communion - as opposed to some "Continuing Anglican" bodies - nor the ACNA semi-conservatives, are "safe spaces" for "Catholic-minded" Anglicanbs.
I have heard the current Pope say a lot more heterodox things than that. Every month, it seems.
Pot, kettle, etc. (Except that an ordinary CofE priest doesn't speak for the Anglican Communion the way that the Pontifex Maximus speaks for the Roman one.)
When I read or watch in drama the early Anabaptists condemning infant baptism, I recall my Methodist pastor (who does both kinds of baptisms) explaining that the baby is not agreeing to anything, the parents and godparents are committing to raise the child in the faith. When the child is older, they can make their own decision about adult baptism.
I don't know about the CoE so I will have to take your word for it. In the Global South they are a very enchanted group compared to those of us in the West. Oddly enough I found that there are a lot of catholic minded Anglicans in the ACNA. I am one of them. They to be perfectly fine with me.
True, but irrelevant. The ACNA had a study process a few years ago which seemed to be leading to that goal, but they jibbed and kicked the can down the road when it became evident that there would be a big "break-away" if they went ahead and abolished WO. Consequently, it will never happen, and sooner or later "Catholic-minded Anglicans" in ACNA will have to draw the correct conclusions from it, and act accordingly. C.:
I was very sick just over a year ago. Spent two nights in a hospital. My, priest, who is no Anglo Catholic, anointed me with Holy Oil in a rite of healing, which is in the BCP, and consecrated the Eucharist for me which he said would really heal me. I am better now so it worked.
I think it's foolish to say anything overall about what the C. of E. believes. To view it positively, it can be seen as an umbrella organisation, and a vaguely religious entity, a bit like Shinto, that looks after old buildings, and puts on grand rituals of state like coronations. In those terms, I'm actually positively inclined towards it, as I am towards Shinto here in Japan; I think most countries have a civic religion of sorts, and I prefer the British or Japanese ones to the aggressively atheist French one, with the Pantheon and laicite, or the US one with the saluting the flag and all that stuff tending towards unquestioning support for US foreign policy.
I was a conservative Anglo-Catholic for a couple of years when young, and that seems one of the few positions that is now untenable within the C. of E. Those people have all swum the Tiber or the Bosphorus (or the Nile in my case!!)
My cousin is a semi-conservative Evangelical (his wife is a vicar, so only semi-conservative!), and charismatic-leaning, and they are part of a national network of congregations with similar positions that functions as a denomination in its own right. From a Catholic-ish perspective that seems absurd, but it seems to work on its own terms.
A few others are more hardcore Calvinist, or fullblown charismatic, and they also have their own networks. We hear a lot about radfem vicars celebrating abortion and transing children, but they're also only small groups, who similarly have their own networks.
I am a conservative, LCMS Lutheran. It has been said that our denomination is "too Catholic for the Protestants, too Protestant for the Catholics". So be it. Years of Calvinism led to a discouragement of soul and a feeling of being in a place where we just didn't fit. Wonderful people, but we feared "wonderment". We feared theological questions that only could be answered by scriptural gymnastics. We learned that God created the world and could save us, but that He made some to damn to hell. We learned that a supernatural God could not be present in Communion or in the waters of Baptism. These ideas were "superstitious", somehow primitive. Not "rational". Thank God for a church that does not fear the wonder and inexplicable ways of God! There are times when I experience a "hint of Heaven" as C.S. Lewis put it, times when I am in an inbetween place and for an instant, I know beyond knowing that there is so much more. I now worship with others who also know that there is "so much more". I say these things because I hope that if Orthodoxy doesn't seem to be your path, but you are searching, please consider Lutheranism. It has been a place of great blessing to our family. Whatever you do, this new book by Rod Dreher is on point and desperately needed. Mine is arriving today and I can't wait!
My best friend, an almost Mom, is LCMS Lutheran. We met in Catholic scripture study. We will never convert each other and we don’t mind a bit. The discussions are great.
Thank you for your comment! I think God must smile upon your scripture study. I love good conversations with other believers where we are firm in our differences but united by our belief in and love for Christ. God bless you!
We have a pretty good time! If God wants us to have fun in each others company with lots of jokes, good natured ribbing, then, He is indeed smiling on us!
Laura, this is so well stated. I, also, am a confessional Lutheran. My father was an LCMS pastor, and I now belong to the AALC, a smaller confessional Lutheran body. With the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, God mysteriously but truly comes to us in natural elements.. Luther, of course, never intended to start a new denomination. As the book The Catholicity of the Reformation points out, "theirs was a quest for reformation and renewal in continuity with the 'one holy catholic and apostolic church' of ancient times." As a conservative, confessional Lutheran, I join you, Laura, in inviting those who want a robust sacramental life but with Scripture as the sole basis for the Church's teaching and doctrine. And I, too, am looking forward to Rod's new book. I'm hoping to start a reading group in my church on Live Not By Lies in 2025.
Thank you for your reply! I am definitely not out to steer people away from Orthodoxy if they feel so led. I am trying to point out that in truth, the Lutheran Church can also claim to be an "ancient faith" since as you so rightly point out, Luther did not intend to create a new church, much less name it after himself :) I am hoping that this book can be read and discussed in all Christian churches in an effort to regain much of the history and the "wonder" that was part of our faith from the beginning. All you have to do is read the first part of the gospel of John and you are in a place beyond everyday life. "And the Word was God". No greater wonder exists! God bless you!
I read the PCA elder's book review. I've also read chapters two and three of "Living in Wonder" which explain how the West became 'disenchanted', lost its sense of the mystical, of wonder.
A one sentence summary might be that Western thought and science divided nature and supernature into separate realms before concluding (centuries later via secularism) that supernature didn't really matter or even exist - Nominalism, Reformation, Enlightenment, Capitalism, Industrial Revolution/Technology all played a role, per Dreher. Each is presented as a historical event, not as football-spiking rhetoric.
For the PCA elder to get hung up on the Reformation being included on that list, a section covering less than two pages in a 264-page text, says more about his sensitivity than the book itself
If Trump can't get past the Leftist lies and the entrenched Democrat voter fraud, people of faith and people who believe in an American republic will be staring down the barrel of full-on authoritarianism from Washington and every blue state capital. We've seen creeping authoritarianism for decades, but this will be a full gallop. It's a very bleak future. Yet there's nowhere to go except maybe Hungary. No intent to black-pill here; I'm actually working election day and have my yard signs up, etc. I just fear very much for my kids and young grandkids, probably much the way eastern Europeans shuddered as the Communists took control there.
As a former Dem I will say the way the pot keeps calling the kettle black is nauseating. Covid exposed this Admin and highest Dems to be actual fascists themselves- look at the definition of fascist with a covid lens and it’s clear. They tried to hide it by calling it public health” but they were framing the unvaccinated in exactly the same way Hitler framed the Jews in the 1930s and “quarantine camps” were in the long range plan. I mean they meet the definition in every way- how so few people recognized it for what it was I don’t understand. Admin was and still is authoritarian in so many ways. I despise Trump but I will be voting against the Dems in every race.
We had some newswoman whose name I cannot even remember, let alone what she talked about. I can better recollect the dive bar we went to afterward and what adult beverages I imbibed (Long Island iced teas, FYI).
The class the year before me had George HW Bush speak. The one the year after me had Hillary Clinton as the speaker.
I do. Our college president, Dr. Bellavance, said that if you stacked dollar bills with regards to America's debt, it would reach the moon. And that was in 1982. He's probably the last college president to care about deficit spending.
That's right. The budget deficit reached about $1 trillion about 1982. Now it is about $35 trillion. The stacked dollars must be closing in on Mars by now.
I didn't go to my college graduation. My HS graduation had a speech by the principal & valedictorian, and 780 kids were graduated in 28 minutes in order to get us out of the stadium before the thunderstorm (there was lightning in the distance)!
Who _was_ my commencement speaker?! (edit: found the program -- one Johnnetta Cole, President of Spelman at the time... I think I remember a few words, not particularly lovely ones, from this speech.)
Congratulations on the book, Rod. My wife and I have ordered our copy and look forward to reading it soon. Nice looking friend on the beach, by the way. I don't know what the top half looks like but the photographed part isn't bad at all. Sorry, couldn't resist.
Re the election, I have such contempt for the likes of John Kelly and his coterie of former senior officers who've joined the hysterical chorus against Trump. Like, it's OK what their newfound Dem-Mediacrat buddies have done to our military: the hollowing out, the crisis of recruiting, the relentless wokifying, the rancid politicization, the installing of a culture that flies in the face of the values they once swore to defend.
Yup, they have no problem with any of that. Instead, their boogeyman is Trump as per Regime marching orders. Kelly and the rest of them are disgraces to the uniform they once wore...and I don't give a flying fig how many medals they can hang on it. There's not an ounce of moral courage among the lot of them.
Of course the abiding irony of the whole thing is that Trump doesn't remotely pose the threat that the unhinged minds of Dem-Media have conjured. The man doesn't have the wit or intellect to be a "dictator." We saw that during the four years of his presidency. Hell, he couldn't even impose control on the Executive Branch of the government he nominally headed, let alone on the entire country.
As for the outcome in two weeks...or several weeks because, as we know, elections are no longer decided on election day in the Land of the Free and the Brave...it surprises me how many otherwise intelligent and sincere Americans still don't get it: the winner of this thing is foreordained. Whatever happens, it will not be Trump taking the oath of office on January 20, 2025. The Regime and its Ruling Party are simply not going to allow that to happen. They've staked too much on their new puppet...they have the power to ensure she "wins"...and they intend to use it to that end.
I'm trying to reject this level of cynicism, but it is terribly hard. The Left controls more of the levers of power today than they did in 2020. It will be easier for them to cheat. And the majority of Americans will "look away" from any evidence of fraud as the specter of the darkness this represents will be just too difficult and painful to contemplate.
After the election they will bankrupt and imprison Trump and Musk. Have 2 American billionaires ever faced the possibility of ruin if an election doesn't go their way? I don't think so.
I hope my defensive pessimism proves wrong, of course.
Yes, I too fervently hope I'm wrong, but I'm just struck by the commentary and news reports on this election that all continue to pretend the whole thing is somehow within the bounds of normalcy when in fact our "democracy" has gone off the rails while those who derailed it point the finger at the Orange Boogeyman. This simply cannot end well.
Also, Americans who don’t “look away” from evidence of fraud are painted as the real threat to election integrity. And yes, it is hard to see how widespread mail-in ballots and other sundry irregularities can be overcome when they’ve so stacked the deck in their favor. We’ll soon see if the jaundiced view proves out.
I’m really looking forward to reading the new book. Regarding the early reviews, Brad East was actually a grad assistant in one of my classes in grad school while he was working on his PhD, and I remember him as being very thoughtful and measured. Definitely the kind of person with whom you could disagree and feel like your opinions were being fairly considered.
As for the Calvinist critique, insert a lazy joke about the book not being your fault because you didn’t choose to write it. But it makes sense that of the varieties of Christianity, the Reformed branch would be the most hostile to this book.
Re: Nature is not a “sacrament” to anybody.
If "sacrament" is defined as a means by which Grace is conveyed to us then I would argue that Nature is, er, naturally sacramental-- except that we humans, due to Original Sin are blind to it. Hence we require the sacraments of the Church since we cannot, usually, perceive God's presence in all things. Though of course God may convey Himself to us by any means whatsoever and sometimes it is through the natural world by some special act of His will.
My view of Trump pretending to work in a (closed) McD's is that it's a Dukakis in the Tank moment- or would be if Trump fans were not so slavishly devoted to the man that they can't see it. See also: The Emperor Has No Clothes.
Re: forced the legislature and Gov. Mike Pence to repeal a state version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
They did not "repeal" the Act; it is still the law in Indiana! They amended one small portion of it in response to criticism. This is exactly the sort of compromise which politicians used to make quite regularly, but which has all but disappeared as our politics has fallen to "My way or the highways" radicals.
Re: I am just shocked to discover that it (BLM) was all a massive grift.
This is like way old news at this point.
I agree with your first paragraph.
"Sacramental" is not "sacrament", though. Maybe it's a distinction without a difference to that reviewer, I dunno.
The sacraments of the Church are supernatural and communicate a different type of grace than nature.
Here's a quote from the book "Lost in the Chaos" by R.J. Snell:
"I have high regard for C.S. Lewis and Tolkien, but there is a tendency, even a kind of danger, of reading them and then affirming that the world is broadly sacramental...while denying the reality, meaning, and efficacy of baptism or the Eucharist.
***
Obviously there are varying theologies about the sacraments, and I'm not suggesting one is idyllic unless holding the Roman Catholic view of the sacraments, a view I affirm as true. At the same time, if one denies the notion, meaning, and efficacy of *the* sacraments, positing meaning and efficacy in the sacramental imagination is a safe fantasy, a literary pose, and it signifies absolutely nothing. Christianity is not a variant of romanticism, and while there is much romance in the Faith, you cannot have the romance with out the res, without the real. All too many people are creating a fiction of enchantment, pretending dragons are real and the world is haunted all while insisting that the things actually charged by God remain merely symbolic and empty."
I have really great, faithful Calvinist (reformed Baptist) neighbors, who actually inspired my own conversion to the Catholic Church from agnosticism/practical atheism. They read a lot of fantasy and such. This passage reminds me of them.
Re: The sacraments of the Church are supernatural and communicate a different type of grace than nature.
I agree there's a difference, but I don't agree that it can be described as "natural vs supernatural". God's grace is always and everywhere "supernatural". I would say rather that the grace of the sacraments is deliberately targeted at us, while grace we find otherwise is broader and less specific.
I don't think Tolkien or Lewis can be read as denying the efficacy of baptism, or the Eucharist.
Fair enough on my supernatural/natural distinction being sloppy. I'm no expert on the nuance between sanctifying grace and actual grace. Hopefully you get my point.
The quote is describing the problem within non-sacramental traditions of expecting to get a "sacramental imagination" by reading Tolkien/Lewis while denying the efficacy of the sacraments themselves. Obviously those two authors had high views of the sacraments.
Nature -- the material world -- is fallen. There may be hints of God to be seen, but there are also signs of Satan.
To be sure, if I've done a strenuous hike, over mountains, and a sleep, and then I get up to brew coffee outside my tent and watch the sunrise, I feel I'm seeing the finger of God. However, I have to ignore the rasping parasites in every animal in the view.
I'm not sure I wholly agree. God is more than a "hint".- he is in all places and fills all things. At most the Devil is visible is some superficial destruction he has wrought- but in no way can a mere devil (or a mere man) change the underlying essence of anything. I also don't see the fall of humanity as altering anything essential about the rest of the world, though we too have wrought our share of damage on the world.
I can deny that Trump has little respect for traditional, constitutional norms. Trump didn’t understand how Washington works in his first term, but I can’t think of a single anti constitutional act. That statement of yours sounds like MSNBC
I think it would be more accurate to say that Trump likes getting a rise out of people in SAYING things that make them worry: "that shouldn't be allowed" and "terminate" the Constitution. It's frivolous and tedious, but I don't think it's much worse than that. He got trammeled up in politics as usual by Paul Ryan, nobody's idea of machiavellian superbrainiac supervillain.
Ryan is the nation's last devotee of Jack Kemp.
You're being generous to Ryan. His net worth went from less than a 100k to 7 million plus as a congressperson. That's corrupt and inexplicable. Plus, he loved playing footsie with the left and MSM.
"Playing footise" = politics as it should and generally must be worked. To get the things done you want you will have to offer opponents something too. Reagan was a master at it. Even George W Bush had some skill there.
If our politics is dysfunctional with too many festering crises not being addressed it's mainly due to the failure of our "leaders" to cut deals, trade horses and divide up half loaves. "My way or the highway" usually ends up being no way at all.
I get the footsie part--Trump plays footsie with spiked boots!
But going to Washington to become super wealthy is a relatively new (post Bush senior) norm.
Perhaps a majority of Congressmen play the game. Come to Washington to serve the people and learn to let the Swamp serve them. Many of these "public servants" never leave. For instance, fifteen years ago I slipped by the Post office at 1100 Connecticut Avenue, a modern building of severe glass angles to buy some stamps. Waiting for a chauffeured car in the lobby impeccably dressed in $1000 suits were Senator(retired) John Breaux (D-Louisiana) and Senator(retired) Trent Lott (R-Mississippi). Neither went back home. I am sure they made millions lobbying.
Sir, the whole system is corrupt. It's enough to make one puke.
I sorta like the original idea the framers had, I’ve always thought their idea of public service was a bit like jury duty. Everyone needs to do a bit, but, after you do your bit, you go home.
Problem is most people have no real home to go back to anymore.
The hazard I worry about is that, having been frustrated by constitutional norms that everyone else tended to follow, he is preparing this time around to actively break or subvert them, rather than merely remain befuddled that they exist. Its hard to know the truth of what is published about him, but its not out of character if he did say he needs "loyal generals" like those Hitler had, who would follow any order he gave them.
Well, the last name he had disloyal generals that disobeyed lawful orders, so I sympathize
Name one.
1) The general that lied to him about removing troops from Syria.
2) On 1/5/21 he ordered the Pentagon to use National Guard to protect Capitol; they didn’t
3) Milley called the Chinese without authorization to tell them there would be no missile launch
The second is a lie, wherever you found it. The other two are quite dubious.
Indeed. And on 1-6-21 both Maryland and Virginia had National Guard at the District border waiting for Trump to summon them-- which he never did even though his own children were urging him to.
Prediction: If Trump wins, the media will campaign loudly to have Biden resign just so Harris can be the first woman president. The Bidens will fight back with unflattering tidbits about Harris. Harris will try to invoke the 25th Amendment. Hilarity will ensue while China invades Taiwan, Israel takes out the Iranian regime, and Putin levels Kiev.
This is quite plausible.
I agree.
Yep.
I don't see it as likely at all, in part because the 25th amendmemt process would take months and would require Congess to be firmly on board.
I saw an intriguing (but also quite unlikely) scenario online if Trump wins: the 25th is eventually invoked due to his cognitive decline in order to stick Vance in the Oval Office where he would be a puppet of Thiel and Musk.
Mitch McConnell would support that.
I said "plausible", not "likely". They're different. If I meant "likely" I would have written "likely". You're a great guy, Jon, but you got to stop garbling.
It's quite plausible then that the Powerball ticket I bought today will be a winner. But that's nothing to organize my future around.
I thought X was for morons.
????
How is this a reply to me? I made no mention of X.
I think the link is "Musk." But I agree its still not a reply to you.
A couple of minor points.
First, The 25th Amendment cannot make Kamala Harris President. It would only allow her to assume the duties of the President. She would have the power without the title.
In order for Kamala Harris to become President, President Biden would have to die, resign, or be impeached by the House and Removed by the Senate.
Second, the 25th Amendment can happen quickly. Kamala Harris would only need the signatures of the majority of the Cabinet on a Letter delivered to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Conceivably, that could happen in less than a day.
When I've seen discussions of this before it's been said Congress votes to approve the action. Is this not correct?
No. If the President challenges the action of the Vice-President and the majority of the Cabinet, The Congress has 21 days to uphold the action of the Vice-President (by a two-thirds majority in both houses).
However, the Vice-President assumes the duties (and powers) of the Presidency immediately and retains them until Congress acts against her (if it does).
This is controlled by Amendment XXV, Section 4, of the constitution. It actually provides for the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to transmit to the President pro tem of the Senate and the Speaker of the House their finding that the president is unable to discharge his duties, upon which the vice president assumes the duties of president. The president may transmit in writing to the same officers that no disability exists, and s/he then resumes the office. If the vice president and president have four days to transmit written notice that a disability does exist, and thereupon, congress shall assemble within 48 hours to decide the issue. (Every citizen should carry a pocket copy of the Constitution).
Vance would be nobody's puppet. He is the most mentally competent of the Big Four.
Vance is a political neophyte. As such he risks being misled by a mentor with an agenda. And Peter Thiel is not someone I want to see in such a role. At least the 19th century malefactors of great wealth, though often a nasty bunch, were mostly about their own bottom line. They were not trying to "perfect" humanity as votaries of some cockamammy philosophy.
I think Vance will, more or less as you say, be more concerned with pleasing the crowd and various deserving factions than with forumulating a substantive program and capably administering it.
I hadn't thought of this possibility, but you bring up a good point. Joe won't be able to resist saying: "You f'ed up when you replaced me!" The infighting on the left, if Trump wins, is going to be great!
Yes, there will be a lot of infighting on the left if Trump wins. I suspect it would be overshadowed by the onslaught of daily attacks on Trump by the media.
I don't fear what will happen to our country due to Trump if he is reelected. I do fear what will happen to our country due to the ongoing behavior of the major media outlets. Sure, Trump will be Trump and won't suddenly become "presidential". So, the media will fan the flames and amplify the polarization within the country.
I want the 'Pussy Hat' franchise.
A curious feature of recent news is that a lot of blue-collar union workers viewed Biden as a friend, but are leaning toward Trump rather than Harris. This is an example of how we the people don't fall into neat little packaged constituencies that can be transferred at will. Keeping those votes probably wouldn't have saved Biden, but they are not automatically transferable to Harris either.
True. I don't know if any Californian Politician could appeal to the working class. No devotee of the "Green New Deal" will win over Teamsters, either. Biden had created a working-man, regular guy kind of aura. It was effective. Kamala's attempts at this ("I come from a middle class family") seem to fall flat.
I read once that the Teamsters oppose new oil pipelines because transport by trucks provides a lot more jobs. That isn't, to me, the reason to oppose or support the pipelines, but there are ways to structure shifts in energy source and usage in ways that will win working class support. Unfortunately, many of the "green" advocates are more interested in delivering moral lectures on why This Is Important and therefore You Should Be Willing To Sacrifice.
I don't know that I expect that, but it would make for some hilarious comedy.
I think if Harris wins the media will also campaign for Biden to resign so that Harris can get to work "saving America". Who is Biden anymore? A Shadow?
My friend said the same last week.
He reasons that Kamala can then make a 2028 run claiming she has 'experience' , or as she would say, 'lived experience' as president.
And yes, hilarity will ensue as described. Added attraction: look for ISIS to do a nostalgia tour.
I still do not understand how so many people were convinced that the elevation of sexual deviants was the most compelling issue of our times. This all started because it was unfair for a gay man to be unable to designate his partner as next of kin, as able to visit him in the ICU, etc. it was the same argument from extremes as crying out against denying an abortion to an 11 year old victim of incest. That we couldn’t allow some reasonable accommodation without teaching perversion in middle school, transgender story hour, and full term infanticide says too much about the emotional instability of the electorate.
Every girl 16 and under who enters an abortion clinic is the victim of statutory rape but no one ever asks her whether the father is her 17 year old boyfriend or a much darker entity. The death of the baby, not the care of the mother is the whole point.
It's classic political activism. You search and search and search until you find the right case with the right facts that are going to appeal emotionally, viscerally, and then you use that to hammer through radical changes based on how immobilized people are by the emotional power of the image conjured by the case. It requires patience to find the right case, but when you do, it's political dynamite, especially in a media-marinated culture like ours.
But why are so many otherwise functional people like the proverbial frog in the pot? You would think they would’ve said “hell no!” before we got this far down the lane. A pregnant, molested little girl and a large man in a Dior new look dress with handbag should not arouse the same feelings of protectiveness. Elections, from local school board through the presidency should’ve reflected revulsion before now.
Transgender story hour definitely arouses this kind of visceral disgust, but it hasn’t resulted in any substantial pushback. Fox News viewers, that aging and shrinking demographic, get angry, but nothing happens at the polls. Asian parents have been the main power behind pushback against wokeness and gender bending in the schools. They want their children to learn academic subjects, not queer propaganda. Surely so do most other parents, but they remain passive.
I think normie gays felt they had no choice but to support the transgender radicalism because they were guilty of marginalizing and bullying transgender people within their own community. It's similar to how guilty white southerners became the loudest voices for "ending racism" because of the historical guilt they felt over Jim Crow and Slavery. In the 1990s the gay-male community would ostracize actual transgender transitioners as freaks. The gays are now overcompensating by supporting the radical transgender movement. Without this support from the powerful gay-male community the transgender movement wouldn't have a chance. Guilt like anecdotes can be very effective politically.
Interesting. I had no idea of this. I ask questions like this not rhetorically but because I am genuinely puzzled as to how we got here.
I don't understand the passivity of most voters either. It's possible the transgender movement has been downplayed on the left while being hyped excessively by the right-of-center media.
I doubt most gays care about trans. Its the well funded lobbies who want a continue rationale for their own existence who are shouting in the ears of receptive politicians.
I think you are right. A noble cause degenerates into a scam over time.
Its the poverty pimp mentality. Once of the weaknesses of LBJs "War on Poverty" is that all kinds of opportunists set up organizations to "fight poverty," and some actually provided some services or goods, but none of them sought to actually end poverty, move people out of poverty on a sustainable basis, because then what would justify the next grant which funded the obscene salaries the executive leadership was paid? The same dynamic is at work with non-economic causes.
You hit the bullseye there.
I think it's about the sequencing and the aftermath of gay rights, and the way that the new orthodoxy has been socially enforced (including in workplaces).
You're right that most people have far less sympathy for trans than for gays, for fairly obvious reasons. Many gays themselves also have little sympathy for trans, but keep their mouths shut about it because of the reasons John mentions. So why do most people remain so passive on the issue?
I think the way this happened is that gay rights were sequenced first, which made sense as it was an easier issue, socially, and in the wake of gay rights "winning" with Obergefell, the new order was almost immediately rigidly enforced on everyone, in almost all contexts. Before Obergefell public opinion was changing, but it was still close to 50/50. After the decision, it became very hard for the dissenting view to be expressed, and very quickly it became socially verboten to express it other than in reliable private settings. It was a very fast change after Obergefell. And so people, in general, became keenly aware of the social power of this new movement, and how hemmed in they were to oppose it. It was a vast change from the atmosphere even in 2010, never mind 2008, when Obama said he believed in one man one woman marriage (hard to believe now).
At the same time in the aftermath of Obergefell, the gay rights lobbying mechanism, which was large and very well funded, pivoted instantly to trans issues, because, as Charlie points out, it was the next thing on the agenda and it allowed that large apparatus to continue operating and influencing, on the new issue. And this was a lot of power -- the gay rights machine had just come off of the massive victory in Obergefell, and was aggressively consolidating that socially and culturally, and in that context when it pivoted to push trans, this had a substantial "silencing effect" on dissent.
In effect, people saw that trans was the new gay, because that was how the same advocacy groups were framing it, while at the same time dissent on gay issues was being stamped out and marginalized. And a lot of people, while they felt much less sympathy for trans issues, were frightened into keeping quiet -- because the issues were being run together, and people were getting into hot water if they refused to toe the line on gay issues. This dynamic helped trans issues to entrench themselves everywhere, especially in the professional organizations and the corporate world, much faster than ever would have been the case had the sequencing been different, or had there been different advocacy organizations at work.
Instead, HRC and similar groups who had issued grades to companies and professional groups for how they had treated gays now were doing that for trans issues, too, at a time where tolerance for dissent on gays was extremely low and getting lower every day. That created a kind of knee-jerk reaction in the corporate/professional world, because they had learned in the gay rights crusade that getting on the wrong side of the LGTBT groups was painful, and so they just extended their policies to cover trans as well as gays, and that was that.
This was particularly the case in the medical profession, which was kind of "ground zero" for the trans activist world since it stood at the center of trans issues in a way that it did not for gays -- unless the trans movement successfully neutralized the medical profession, and made it bow to the movement's priorities, the push for trans would have gotten nowhere, and so a very strong push was made on the medical "gatekeepers", and very quickly they mostly collapsed. And when that happened it became increasingly impossible for anyone else to push back against it because, after all, the docs had backed off on the issue and were handing out hormones and performing surgeries no questions asked. Instead of talking straightforwardly about the differences between the sexes, the medical profession hid behind terms like "AMAB" and "AFAB" as euphemisms for male and female, ducking and running in a desperate effort not be caught in the maelstrom of a thorny socio-political issue. This total collapse of the medical profession's historical treatment of trans issues (which was very tailored to a narrow set of individuals, quite gate-kept, and done in a way that did not undermine the basic binary between the sexes) made opposition by everyone else very hard. After all, how could you claim there were things like male and female that mattered when even the doctors were saying that there wasn't?
This is why, I think, opposition to trans rights in the US has taken a different path than in, say, the UK or other European countries. Here, it's all about how the advocacy groups pivoted immediately and placed a decisive influence on the corporate and professional worlds, which dramatically sped up the sea change in trans issues, and made dissent very difficult. It's why dissent here has been mostly limited to arguing about the "easiest" issues, like surgery and blockers for minors, males competing with girls and women in sports, and so on. These are more marginal, and specific, issues on which at least a partial coalition can be built to make reasonable pushback in some places. But the broader issues like "trans women are women" and so on ... not much.
Finally, feminism in the US has dealt with the rise of trans in a fundamentally different way than feminists have done in other countries. In the US, there are a few outliers here and there who have dissented, but in general feminism, both in its political/public face, and in the private, workaday expression of average feminist women, has been either supportive of trans rights or mum about them. Contrast the UK where there has been robust pushback from prominent feminists, and lesbians in particular, against undue expansion of trans rights -- there's no equivalent of that in the US, and there likely won't be. That says a lot about the differences between feminism in different countries in the West, I think, but in impact the US has not had any significant feminist pushback, in terms of prominent people, against the expansion of trans rights, and that's a very notable difference from other countries.
Add all those things up, all of them, and you get a situation where most people don't really support the same way many did gay rights, but most elect to keep their heads down on the issue for various reasons, mostly due to fear of opposing it too much in the aftermath of the crackdown on dissent that happened in the period following Obergefell.
There are a lot more important issues out there than drag queens. And things like DQSH are purely local issues anyway and do not belong in national debate any more than debates about whether to rezone some parcel of land as commercial or what streets should have sidewalks.
All some one had to do was make his/her partner the person to make decisions in an advanced medical directive and grant them power of attorney. You can even cut out your spouse this way. This is standard if you have a lawyer draw up your will.
BLM: Buy Large Mansions. Thanks suckas!
I may borrow your BLM meaning idea.
I'm sad to say that it did not originate with me, but I've been happy to repeat it.
The reason for voting Trump is clear. With Trump we may get Fascism, but with Harris we get it for sure. More seriously, we won't get Trump fascism for two reasons. One, his threats are mostly empty bluster, a way of making his point. Second, any illegal moves - any most legal ones - will be opposed by a wide variety of actors with most of the institutional power on their side. Even Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley would oppose him. Harris's lawless moves will be ignored. Heck, some years ago I remember the NYT urging Obama to break the law and just let the Republicans fume since they didn't have the votes to remove him from office.
Stephens's column sums up where we are now pretty clearly. The present government is using every trick in the book and violating long-established norms at every turn, and then tell us they are worried about American Constitution Republicanism if Trump wins. Please.
If Trump and Vance create an conduit for tech billionaires (Musk, Thiel...) to run public policy we end up with transhumanism. I'd think Rod would have serious concerns about that.
Conduit? Have you heard of the "twitter files" and Matt Taibbi? This conduit already exists.
Thiel in particular seems like a James Bond villain. I put him in the same box as Noah Yuval Harari. I don’t get the Christian enthusiasm here.
What Harris can do will be easier to repair than what Trump will likely try to do.
I dunno. Depends on what you think needs to be broken.
After the election we must have lunch sometime and make out lists -- without prejudice to who wins. Just, what do you think needs to be broken, what do I think needs to be broken. Then see how much overlap there is, how much on your list I could do without, how much on my list you could do without. What's left may be our respective hills to die on, or maybe not.
A historian at your service!
The reviewer to whom you allude, Jono Darville, cites as evidence the late Patrick Collinson's book "The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English Society 1559-1625" (1982), affirming of the book that "However, as Patrick Collinson argues, the Reformation was 'an episode of re-Christianization' that disrupted 'a process of secularization with much deeper roots.' It was primarily a movement of Christian re-enchantment, the very thing this book prescribes."
I have read this book twice since its publication in 1982, and I can say with assurance that Collinson does not speak of the English Reformation process as an episode of "re-Christianization," but rather of (if you will) de-Catholicizing a society deeply hostile to the Reformed Protestant vision of the English Reformers and then protestantizing it: the former took many decades, as did the latter, and, even in the eyes of the "reformers" themselves neither process was ever completed satisfactorily (as Collinson himself acknowledges), in part due to the popularity of popular Catholicism and in part due to the ambiguous nature of the Church of England, "the Church that Elizabeth built," in and after 1559. I suppose that if Darville understands Catholicism as a secularization of "true Christianity" his argument makes sense; otherwise, it is nonsensical. Reformed Christianity, in England and elsewhere (Scotland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, to name but a few places) was a force for "disenchantment;" Lutheranism, by contrast, to a much lesser extent. (The English Reformers and most Protestant English churchmen between 1560 and 1625 spurned both Luther and Lutheranism as "inadequately reformed," that is, as retaining many "superstitious and unScriptural" Catholic beliefs and practices.)
Darville's argument seems to amount to the contention that prayer plus an enchanted book, The Bible, is all the enchantment a Christian needs. In other words, it is an argument that confessional Reformed Christianity is the answer. One may take it or leave it, but that is what it amounts to.
POSTSCRIPT
"It is semi-fair to say that I largely ignore the supernatural claims of Pentecostals"
Most Reformed Christian "Reformers" (again, as opposed to Lutherans [for the most part] and Catholics and, well, every other sort of Christian) believed that miracles had ceased with the death of the last apostle and that phenomena such as glossolalia and even possession/exorcism were enthusiastic fancies, probably diabolically inspired, except, of course, for witchcraft, which resulted from a pact with the devil, not "possession." They (the Reformed Reformers) would have regarded charismatics and pentecostalists as at least delusionaries if not worse.
We are thankful that Anglicanism got rid of that view.
Got rid of it? It is a very strong force today in the Church of England, the "Conservative Evangelicals," as they're termed, compared to whom the Anglo-Catholics are a spent force (gone liberal or else gone to Rome or to Orthodoxy), second only to the dominant bien-pensant Liberals. They are also the dominant force in the GAFCON and Global South Network groups. Some of them have "modernized," of course; that's why so many of these semi-conservative evangelicals support the pretended ordination of women, for instance (but not all) but oppose sodomitical pseudogamy.
Neither the Anglican Communion - as opposed to some "Continuing Anglican" bodies - nor the ACNA semi-conservatives, are "safe spaces" for "Catholic-minded" Anglicanbs.
I have heard a female CofE vicar call infant baptism a "superstition".
Whereas I think of "female vicars" as a liberal superstition!
I have heard the current Pope say a lot more heterodox things than that. Every month, it seems.
Pot, kettle, etc. (Except that an ordinary CofE priest doesn't speak for the Anglican Communion the way that the Pontifex Maximus speaks for the Roman one.)
I always thought the baptism of the centurion Cornelius and his household in Acts 10 would have included young children myself.
Likewise; and there's plenty of Early Church evidence to back it up; that is, that infants and children were (at least frequently) baptized.
When I read or watch in drama the early Anabaptists condemning infant baptism, I recall my Methodist pastor (who does both kinds of baptisms) explaining that the baby is not agreeing to anything, the parents and godparents are committing to raise the child in the faith. When the child is older, they can make their own decision about adult baptism.
I don't know about the CoE so I will have to take your word for it. In the Global South they are a very enchanted group compared to those of us in the West. Oddly enough I found that there are a lot of catholic minded Anglicans in the ACNA. I am one of them. They to be perfectly fine with me.
Well, they have priestesses, so your "Catholic-mindedness" seems pretty ahistorical.
Not in my diocese and it is a problem we are working to get rid of.
Plenty of dioceses in ACNA do not allow women priests.
True, but irrelevant. The ACNA had a study process a few years ago which seemed to be leading to that goal, but they jibbed and kicked the can down the road when it became evident that there would be a big "break-away" if they went ahead and abolished WO. Consequently, it will never happen, and sooner or later "Catholic-minded Anglicans" in ACNA will have to draw the correct conclusions from it, and act accordingly. C.:
https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=37-03-055-c
I was very sick just over a year ago. Spent two nights in a hospital. My, priest, who is no Anglo Catholic, anointed me with Holy Oil in a rite of healing, which is in the BCP, and consecrated the Eucharist for me which he said would really heal me. I am better now so it worked.
God is not bound by the sacraments which he has ordained, but the Church is, and we are.
I think it's foolish to say anything overall about what the C. of E. believes. To view it positively, it can be seen as an umbrella organisation, and a vaguely religious entity, a bit like Shinto, that looks after old buildings, and puts on grand rituals of state like coronations. In those terms, I'm actually positively inclined towards it, as I am towards Shinto here in Japan; I think most countries have a civic religion of sorts, and I prefer the British or Japanese ones to the aggressively atheist French one, with the Pantheon and laicite, or the US one with the saluting the flag and all that stuff tending towards unquestioning support for US foreign policy.
I was a conservative Anglo-Catholic for a couple of years when young, and that seems one of the few positions that is now untenable within the C. of E. Those people have all swum the Tiber or the Bosphorus (or the Nile in my case!!)
My cousin is a semi-conservative Evangelical (his wife is a vicar, so only semi-conservative!), and charismatic-leaning, and they are part of a national network of congregations with similar positions that functions as a denomination in its own right. From a Catholic-ish perspective that seems absurd, but it seems to work on its own terms.
A few others are more hardcore Calvinist, or fullblown charismatic, and they also have their own networks. We hear a lot about radfem vicars celebrating abortion and transing children, but they're also only small groups, who similarly have their own networks.
I am a conservative, LCMS Lutheran. It has been said that our denomination is "too Catholic for the Protestants, too Protestant for the Catholics". So be it. Years of Calvinism led to a discouragement of soul and a feeling of being in a place where we just didn't fit. Wonderful people, but we feared "wonderment". We feared theological questions that only could be answered by scriptural gymnastics. We learned that God created the world and could save us, but that He made some to damn to hell. We learned that a supernatural God could not be present in Communion or in the waters of Baptism. These ideas were "superstitious", somehow primitive. Not "rational". Thank God for a church that does not fear the wonder and inexplicable ways of God! There are times when I experience a "hint of Heaven" as C.S. Lewis put it, times when I am in an inbetween place and for an instant, I know beyond knowing that there is so much more. I now worship with others who also know that there is "so much more". I say these things because I hope that if Orthodoxy doesn't seem to be your path, but you are searching, please consider Lutheranism. It has been a place of great blessing to our family. Whatever you do, this new book by Rod Dreher is on point and desperately needed. Mine is arriving today and I can't wait!
My best friend, an almost Mom, is LCMS Lutheran. We met in Catholic scripture study. We will never convert each other and we don’t mind a bit. The discussions are great.
Thank you for your comment! I think God must smile upon your scripture study. I love good conversations with other believers where we are firm in our differences but united by our belief in and love for Christ. God bless you!
We have a pretty good time! If God wants us to have fun in each others company with lots of jokes, good natured ribbing, then, He is indeed smiling on us!
Laura, this is so well stated. I, also, am a confessional Lutheran. My father was an LCMS pastor, and I now belong to the AALC, a smaller confessional Lutheran body. With the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, God mysteriously but truly comes to us in natural elements.. Luther, of course, never intended to start a new denomination. As the book The Catholicity of the Reformation points out, "theirs was a quest for reformation and renewal in continuity with the 'one holy catholic and apostolic church' of ancient times." As a conservative, confessional Lutheran, I join you, Laura, in inviting those who want a robust sacramental life but with Scripture as the sole basis for the Church's teaching and doctrine. And I, too, am looking forward to Rod's new book. I'm hoping to start a reading group in my church on Live Not By Lies in 2025.
Thank you for your reply! I am definitely not out to steer people away from Orthodoxy if they feel so led. I am trying to point out that in truth, the Lutheran Church can also claim to be an "ancient faith" since as you so rightly point out, Luther did not intend to create a new church, much less name it after himself :) I am hoping that this book can be read and discussed in all Christian churches in an effort to regain much of the history and the "wonder" that was part of our faith from the beginning. All you have to do is read the first part of the gospel of John and you are in a place beyond everyday life. "And the Word was God". No greater wonder exists! God bless you!
I read the PCA elder's book review. I've also read chapters two and three of "Living in Wonder" which explain how the West became 'disenchanted', lost its sense of the mystical, of wonder.
A one sentence summary might be that Western thought and science divided nature and supernature into separate realms before concluding (centuries later via secularism) that supernature didn't really matter or even exist - Nominalism, Reformation, Enlightenment, Capitalism, Industrial Revolution/Technology all played a role, per Dreher. Each is presented as a historical event, not as football-spiking rhetoric.
For the PCA elder to get hung up on the Reformation being included on that list, a section covering less than two pages in a 264-page text, says more about his sensitivity than the book itself
Hell, if I believed Trump was half- no, a tenth- of the fascist that his enemies pretend to believe he is, I'd be one of his biggest supporters.
The guy was already president for 4 years. If his previous term was "fascism," then let's have more, please.
If Trump can't get past the Leftist lies and the entrenched Democrat voter fraud, people of faith and people who believe in an American republic will be staring down the barrel of full-on authoritarianism from Washington and every blue state capital. We've seen creeping authoritarianism for decades, but this will be a full gallop. It's a very bleak future. Yet there's nowhere to go except maybe Hungary. No intent to black-pill here; I'm actually working election day and have my yard signs up, etc. I just fear very much for my kids and young grandkids, probably much the way eastern Europeans shuddered as the Communists took control there.
"In other news today, with heavy trading the United States is up 3/8s of a banana
Living in Wonder is unique: it is better than it’s hype
As a former Dem I will say the way the pot keeps calling the kettle black is nauseating. Covid exposed this Admin and highest Dems to be actual fascists themselves- look at the definition of fascist with a covid lens and it’s clear. They tried to hide it by calling it public health” but they were framing the unvaccinated in exactly the same way Hitler framed the Jews in the 1930s and “quarantine camps” were in the long range plan. I mean they meet the definition in every way- how so few people recognized it for what it was I don’t understand. Admin was and still is authoritarian in so many ways. I despise Trump but I will be voting against the Dems in every race.
I’m head over heels for Wendell Berry’s writing. He understands enchantment because he understands land as a living thing.
Wendell Berry was my commencement speaker at graduation. I honestly don't remember a word he said though,
Does anyone remember anything their graduation speaker said? Couldn’t even say who mine was.
We had some newswoman whose name I cannot even remember, let alone what she talked about. I can better recollect the dive bar we went to afterward and what adult beverages I imbibed (Long Island iced teas, FYI).
The class the year before me had George HW Bush speak. The one the year after me had Hillary Clinton as the speaker.
Oh, the halcyon days of Long Island iced teas.
I do. Our college president, Dr. Bellavance, said that if you stacked dollar bills with regards to America's debt, it would reach the moon. And that was in 1982. He's probably the last college president to care about deficit spending.
Guessing we’ve past Mars and are somewhere in the asteroid belt now?
That's right. The budget deficit reached about $1 trillion about 1982. Now it is about $35 trillion. The stacked dollars must be closing in on Mars by now.
I didn't go to my college graduation. My HS graduation had a speech by the principal & valedictorian, and 780 kids were graduated in 28 minutes in order to get us out of the stadium before the thunderstorm (there was lightning in the distance)!
Who _was_ my commencement speaker?! (edit: found the program -- one Johnnetta Cole, President of Spelman at the time... I think I remember a few words, not particularly lovely ones, from this speech.)
Congratulations on the book, Rod. My wife and I have ordered our copy and look forward to reading it soon. Nice looking friend on the beach, by the way. I don't know what the top half looks like but the photographed part isn't bad at all. Sorry, couldn't resist.
Re the election, I have such contempt for the likes of John Kelly and his coterie of former senior officers who've joined the hysterical chorus against Trump. Like, it's OK what their newfound Dem-Mediacrat buddies have done to our military: the hollowing out, the crisis of recruiting, the relentless wokifying, the rancid politicization, the installing of a culture that flies in the face of the values they once swore to defend.
Yup, they have no problem with any of that. Instead, their boogeyman is Trump as per Regime marching orders. Kelly and the rest of them are disgraces to the uniform they once wore...and I don't give a flying fig how many medals they can hang on it. There's not an ounce of moral courage among the lot of them.
Of course the abiding irony of the whole thing is that Trump doesn't remotely pose the threat that the unhinged minds of Dem-Media have conjured. The man doesn't have the wit or intellect to be a "dictator." We saw that during the four years of his presidency. Hell, he couldn't even impose control on the Executive Branch of the government he nominally headed, let alone on the entire country.
As for the outcome in two weeks...or several weeks because, as we know, elections are no longer decided on election day in the Land of the Free and the Brave...it surprises me how many otherwise intelligent and sincere Americans still don't get it: the winner of this thing is foreordained. Whatever happens, it will not be Trump taking the oath of office on January 20, 2025. The Regime and its Ruling Party are simply not going to allow that to happen. They've staked too much on their new puppet...they have the power to ensure she "wins"...and they intend to use it to that end.
<the winner of this thing is foreordained. . .>
I'm trying to reject this level of cynicism, but it is terribly hard. The Left controls more of the levers of power today than they did in 2020. It will be easier for them to cheat. And the majority of Americans will "look away" from any evidence of fraud as the specter of the darkness this represents will be just too difficult and painful to contemplate.
After the election they will bankrupt and imprison Trump and Musk. Have 2 American billionaires ever faced the possibility of ruin if an election doesn't go their way? I don't think so.
I hope my defensive pessimism proves wrong, of course.
Yes, I too fervently hope I'm wrong, but I'm just struck by the commentary and news reports on this election that all continue to pretend the whole thing is somehow within the bounds of normalcy when in fact our "democracy" has gone off the rails while those who derailed it point the finger at the Orange Boogeyman. This simply cannot end well.
Also, Americans who don’t “look away” from evidence of fraud are painted as the real threat to election integrity. And yes, it is hard to see how widespread mail-in ballots and other sundry irregularities can be overcome when they’ve so stacked the deck in their favor. We’ll soon see if the jaundiced view proves out.
Prayer is our only avenue :)
She's got legs, indeed.
I’m really looking forward to reading the new book. Regarding the early reviews, Brad East was actually a grad assistant in one of my classes in grad school while he was working on his PhD, and I remember him as being very thoughtful and measured. Definitely the kind of person with whom you could disagree and feel like your opinions were being fairly considered.
As for the Calvinist critique, insert a lazy joke about the book not being your fault because you didn’t choose to write it. But it makes sense that of the varieties of Christianity, the Reformed branch would be the most hostile to this book.