Guest post from Lleweton — former journalist — on the Houses of Parliament

My cyberfriend, Lleweton (Lleweton’s Blog), a retired journalist, has responded in a guest post to my recent entry calling for a halt on any further reform to the House of Lords:

Many thanks for your kind words, Churchmouse, and for your invitation to comment. I think Peter Mullen says it all really and thank goodness he has a platform for his views. My work in the Westminster Press Gallery involved daily reporting of the two Houses of Parliament as the debates happened.

For many years this was before broadcasting from the Chamber was allowed. Also, for much of that time the broadsheets carried separate reports of debates as well as comment by Lobby correspondents. My organisation, as a news agency, supplied hundreds of outlets, from nationals to the tiniest provincial weeklies, as well as trade journals, in the latter two cases according to their stated needs.

Over the years – I first went to Westminster in 1967 and retired in 1991 – the rhythm and flow of the place became ingrained in us,  as, in our news agency job, we followed the Parliamentary Day in both houses, from the start of the sitting until ‘House Rose’. In  July, as the Parliamentary session approached its close, this would involve frequent all night sittings as the Government tried to complete its legislation.

A quirk of the system was that if, say, the Commons sat at 2.30pm on a Tuesday and went through until midday on the Wednesday, it remained Tuesday until the House rose. We agency people were always there, in relays of course.

But in that rhythm and in the procedural quirks and rituals, lay the secret of the place, the checks and balances in the legislative process.  The Commons would always have their way over the Lords, if they insisted, by using the Parliament Act, which ensured that the opposed legislation would pass after a period of delay.  But, where a Government has a majority, time, at least in my day, was a major weapon in the Opposition’s armoury, not only in disagreements between the two Houses but in the Committee and Report Stages of Bills as they went through the Commons.

In the Commons the Government could only resort to a Timetable (‘guillotine’) motion as a response; this didn’t happen very often and, if it did, there was a fuss. I’m well out of touch, but last time I checked, it seemed that most legislation has a timetable scheduled into it and from what I read, a great deal of detailed law goes through on the nod, unscrutinised, at least in the Commons.

Yes, the independence from patronage of hereditary peers was invaluable as a check on misuse of power. And so was the expertise. I think I may have mentioned to you in the past the hereditary peer, Lord Teviot, who had  worked as a bus driver and always spoke in the  Upper House on transport matters.

I gather all-night sittings are a thing of the past and that working hours have become more ‘family friendly’ but I wonder whether the stuffing has been knocked out of the Palace of Westminster. It’s easy to be nostalgic and sentimental about the place but its procedures and rhythms were part of a beating, living heart, in the twilight courtyards, or as the sun rose over Big Ben – and yes we were exhausted – and in the many bars and restaurants.

And just as happens in villages around the country, we knew, in this village, where we could go, which bars enter and which not, according to our job in the Palace.

And as in the village pubs of  yesteryear, there were bars where people of all ranks mingled  and where they knew each other.  The Westminster Village was indeed a village -  and did not comprise simply the metropolitan media-political elite. You may also like to hear that I was also a member of the Parliamentary Staff Christian Fellowship – though as a journalist I was not a member of the staff -  which had members from all over the Palace, and links with similar groups among peers and MPs. Another aspect of village life.

I don’t know what things are like now. I wouldn’t want to visit really. I did hear from an old colleague who went there recently that the Press Bar was closed at 7pm,  reportedly for lack of demand, while the House was still sitting. Unbelievable and sadly symbolic maybe. I won’t say of what because that would start another thread.

But my friend found refreshment at one of the staff bars with the police and doorkeepers and other workers.

Again, my thanks to Llew for an insider’s perspective of the Houses of Parliament and what it was like to report on proceedings there.

Llew, anytime you would like to write a guest post with more on the topic, I would be happy to publish it for you.

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

French conservatives still have the will to carry on — lesson for the GOP

Perhaps this title is a bit unfair, but even though Nicolas Sarkozy lost his re-election bid, his UMP and other French conservatives have lost none of their enthusiasm for the upcoming parliamentary elections on June 10 and 17, 2012.

Although the campaign lasted about half the time of an American presidential one, it ended up with a few significant parallels to the 2008 Obama-McCain contest.

- The results of the vote were similar to America’s in 2008. Hollande received 51.62% to Sarkozy’s 48.38% in the second round on May 6, 2012. Nice-Matin has the most complete election map which includes all the overseas territories and electoral groups, e.g. Français de l’étranger (‘Frenchmen living abroad’).

- People voted not so much for Hollande as they did against Sarkozy. The American MSM suffered from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Their French counterparts had an equally chronic case of Sarkozy Derangement Syndrome. The media’s constant hammering on these two candidates bore fruit in both cases. In 2008, anti-Bush undecideds mistakenly saw McCain as a Bush clone and either sat out the election or voted for Obama. In 2012, enough people loathed Sarkozy to the extent that they either stayed at home on May 6 or voted for Hollande.

- Conservatives have now rejected the MSM en masse.  Over the past couple of years French conservatives have seen their MSM in a new light. It is not unusual to see the publicly-owned France Télévisions stations referred to as Rance2 or Gauche3. (Rance refers to ‘rancid’ and gauche means ‘left’.) Radio stations were in the tank for Hollande, even RMC which is the only national station to offer wall-to-wall talk; although the morning political shows take calls from many right-of-centre callers, the talk show hosts (with the exception of Eric Brunet) were clearly pro-Hollande. Newspapers fared no better. There is only one right-of-centre national paper, Le Figaro. The others, principally Le Monde and Libération, are decidedly left-wing. Le Monde made the greater shift leftward. I read it every day between 1997 and 2005 for its balanced reporting and excellent analysis. Then, with subsequent editorial changes, the paper avoided the controversial subjects it formerly featured, the analysis became more superficial and the editorial line was consistently socialist.

The role of the French media

Le Monde featured several articles on media coverage of the 2012 presidential campaign, not all of them self-critical. Some readers wrote in saying that the paper seemed as if it was the house organ of Hollande’s Parti Socialiste. In response to this article, reader un peu tard (‘a little late’) stated:

Better late than never! Yes, the media are partisan and journalists too complacent, e.g. the anti-Sarko primaries. Having subscribed to Le Monde for 40 years, I had to cancel my subscription. I admit to having been somewhat shocked by Le Monde‘s stance during this campaign. I’m waiting to see if your slant will be rectified by a bit more objectivity. When will the collusion between female journalists and male politicians end?

That last sentence, by the way, referred to François Hollande and his First Lady, journalist Valérie Trierweiler who hosts a television show about politics. She also, as one would expect, has a wide network and considerable influence on other journalists.

Since 1994, Le Monde has had an ombudsman who responds to negative comments from readers. (I remember Robert Solé’s years in the role and always enjoyed his columns.)  In this article, Pascal Galinier details the negative posts he has received and attempts to defend the paper.  Two excerpts:

Caroline Medec thinks it is useful to remind us that ‘a newspaper’s role is not to convince its readers to believe in something but to inform them so they can make a better decision with all the information to hand’. An elegant and good definition of our profession which we work hard to put into practice every day — believe it, dear ‘avid reader’ from Quimper [Brittany]!

From Hamburg, in Germany, one … France (who wishes to remain anonymous) tells us of her ‘discomfort’ as a reader: ‘objectivity doesn’t exist, nor does impartiality. Le Monde had accustomed me to greater rigour, equal treatment and at least a bit of ambiguity in its handling of  the news. I can well understand, admit and share your rejection of a certain conduct or a certain candidate but I wish you would give them equal weight.’  

Galinier responds that they received the same criticism in their coverage of the 1995 presidential campaign.

A third article finds Le Monde taking Sarkozy to task for complaining about France’s media:

After the first round of voting [April 22], putting him in second place, he railed against ‘commentators and pollsters’ who are ‘always mistaken and understand nothing’. Everyone took a hit: Libération, Le Monde, France Inter [radio], all accused of being against him. His diatribes against the media align with a certain success on the part of his militants who can’t bear to think he could lose. At each rally, journalists are more or less taken apart by a public white-hot with anger.

They are angry because — as a feature below the article explains — most French journalists are on the left. I’ve read various estimates from 80% to 94%.  That also is reminiscent of the American media scene. Even Fox News isn’t that conservative; it only happens to be the most conservative of the television stations.

The conservative reaction online

On May 16, Le Monde described conservative militants launching their own Twitter and blog ‘resistance’ (see one illustration at the top of this post — a play on Hollande’s le changement — c’est maintenant or ‘change is now’). They cite ‘Mdame Michu’ who began with Twitter and now has her own blog combining political satire with serious comment. Her Twitter account ended up being hijacked, hence the blog, although she says she will also continue with Twitter.

One blog I followed during the campaign is by an ex-journalist. It is called Tout sauf Hollande. Pourquoi? (‘Anyone but Hollande. Why?’). I hope this blogger keeps it going, but one can see that it was primarily intended for the campaign. It’s still worth reading to better understand what is likely to happen during his presidency.

What the GOP can learn from the UMP

Sarkozy’s party is the UMP — Union pour un Mouvement Populaire. They are gearing up for the parliamentary elections in June. In fact, if you click on a link on the aforementioned page, you will get a pop-up sign-up banner with a large photo of young people waving the French flag: ‘Everyone’s mobilised for the parliamentaries’.

Lesson 1 for the GOP: Get a dynamic picture like this of 20- and 30-somethings from the GOP in stylish casual dress and tousled hair waving American flags. These people should look indistinguishable from Democrats. No geeks in the front for this one. Also include the sign-up of email and zip code.

Since 2005 — two years before Sarkozy won the presidency — the UMP has had a ‘Jeunes Actifs’ (‘Active Young People’) group, which bills itself as ‘the thirty-somethings of the UMP’. François Guéant, the founder, is the son of Sarkozy’s most recent Minister of the Interior, Claude Guéant. The JA was originally associated with the UMP but is now an integral part of it. It groups young people from university age up to, presumably, the cusp of middle age. The JA page states that it is comprised of students, working class employees, small business owners, artisans as well as professionals (e.g. law, medicine). They have concerns specific to their age group and are also disaffected yet interested voters supporting a conservative line.

Lesson 2 for the GOP: Instead of groups for Latinos and women — laudable though that is –  switch to the UMP method, streamlining by two broad age groups. This strategy could well work better than by race or sex. The blend of activists will also be improved and really get the message out there for November. Why not link up with some of the French guys and bounce some ideas off them? Better yet, find out how they organise themselves — but never let on to the perfidious MSM. That’s how the lefties do it. (I read on a left-leaning site recently that Obama’s team used European canvassers — university students — to go from door to door in New Hampshire in 2008. They were fluent in English and were able to adopt American accents. Although I’m not advocating that, there is something to be said for seeing how other teams on the same side operate.)

Still on the topic of the UMP’s Jeunes Actifs, have a look at their home page. It’s vibrant, exciting and dynamic — a pleasure to visit. Note the moving headline banners which cut through the page. Note the style, the aesthetics, the typeface.

Lesson 3 for the GOP: Please rethink your RNC web page. (This ‘get connected’ page is not even worth considering.) It’s flat and looks very 2008. Somewhere there must be a young Republican who can make it more dynamic. Whilst I’m certainly not advocating copying the UMP’s Jeunes Actifs, there must be a way to also work with photography and design. I would certainly move the bottom third with the videos somewhere in the middle and use a lot more photos. Make it more aesthetic and appealing. For further ideas, see the main UMP webpage and Britain’s Conservative Party site.

The UMP logo is quite attractive and pleasing to the eye. The tree, by the way, suggests conserving tradition and life. Britain’s Conservative Party also uses a tree, although in a more abstract design.

This is the GOP logo:

Lesson 4 for the GOP: Rethink part of the logo, if not now, then for the next legislative elections in two years’ time. What about returning to an elephant with a blue background to the stars? Could you choose a Pantone with more blue in it? The scarlet is hard on the eyes and, frankly, looks cheap. Note the bluish red in the UMP logo.

Britain’s Conservatives switched logos rather dramatically from a torch to a tree.

Before (until 2004):

An interim logo added an arm to indicate strength (2004):

This is the current logo (in use for a few years now, sometimes with a Union flag instead of green) — sorry, this the only size I could find, although it is larger in reality:

The tree indicates a softer touch to appeal to women and a move away from the ‘nasty Tory’ image which our own left-wing media has saddled them with over the years.  Personally, I don’t like any of the Conservative logos, but that’s just me. The Union flag instead of the green on the tree (see the top banner on their home page) is much better. The point here, though, is to illustrate that one can dramatically change a party logo successfully. (And, no, I’m not suggesting getting shot of the elephant.)

I wish the GOP every success this year, although I have reservations about their candidate. Why couldn’t they have run Jim DeMint, a Presbyterian (PCA) from South Carolina, who would have had broad appeal across many groups? In 2008, Hillary’s PUMAs, turned off by the Democrats, were hoping he would have a chance this time around.

Anyway, design which engages people online can go a long way towards garnering active support. It says, ‘This is who we are’. Do the Republicans want to look boring or interesting? Does a dull website say they are indifferent about the race? I believe it does, even if the opposite is true. The GOP can — and should — improve their online image to engage more young people (twenty- to thirty-somethings) as well as forty-something independents. They will need all the support they can get in 2012.

‘Force and cruelty’ from pastors scatters the faithful

Dr Wryzek’s blog, So What’s the Point? provides a thought-provoking insight into the 21st century Church.

Dr Wryzek has studied theology and has also spent time as a pastor. One of his latest posts, ‘Are Your Church Leaders Doing the Right Thing … Really? (Part 1)’ followed the line of the Episcopalian Mockingbirds on legalism and ‘working’ for the church. The Mockingbirds posited that there were two classes of churchgoers: one which served and one that was served.

Although I wasn’t of this mindset until the last decade, I now believe that many pastors put to ‘work’ the middle and upper-middle class members of the congregation. The class ‘to be served’ is only on the receiving end of their gracious ministrations, as ordered by the pastor. It is another way — perhaps a ‘nudge’ — to get people to redistribute their wealth and time ‘for the church’. Meanwhile, they and their families get left behind.

One proponent of this perspective is a Baptist pastor, the Revd David Platt of the Church at Brook Hills, Birmingham, Alabama. Dr Platt is firmly committed to overseas missions, which is laudable. However, from what I have read of his theology on other blogs, it seems that he wants wealthy Americans — I use the term advisedly — to finance his missionary ministry with large sums of money.  Hmm.

Yes, as Christians, we are all called to charity, however, as with fruits of faith, we do this in various ways. We are not cookie-cutters. Platt proposes a ‘Radical Experiment’  which involves, as one would expect, money and time, some of which should be spent in small groups — the ecclesiastical collective flavour of the month.  Small groups often involve public confession of sins which are in general no one else’s business except yours and God’s. In the small group — a pietist innovation from centuries ago — the congregant humbly confesses before the appointed leader. If you’re thinking Communist Party here, you would not be wrong; check out the late ex-Communist Bella Dodd’s story of public confession before the local Party Leader.

I can appreciate Platt’s enthusiasm for missions, but to apply emotional blackmail to faithful Christians who are no doubt are already giving to their church and various charities — free time included — is bang out of order. It is not Platt’s business to coerce people into the redistribution of their wealth, which is really what this is. The Holy Spirit and God’s grace will move Christians towards a decision which is right for them as individuals and families.

Anyway, what happens when the money runs out? People like Platt seem to think it is an endless resource when it is, in fact, as Baroness Thatcher pointed out, quite finite, especially where redistribution (socialism) is concerned.

I’m not saying that Platt is a socialist by any means, but he seems to have fallen into a trap. Jesus’s advice to the rich young man was situation-specific. The young man said that he was faithful to all the commandments. This then begged the question: what was the only thing left which was required of him? Jesus tested him; in today’s parlance: ‘Well, if you’re that good a person, then, please, join My apostles and Me. The only prerequisite is for you to sell your possessions and donate the proceeds to the poor’. In other words, Jesus called the young man out.

It is unlikely that Platt’s congregation and adherents are self-proclaimed keepers of all the Ten Commandments. I certainly am not, even though I keep praying for the grace for increasing sanctification. We are all sinners, and almost all of us would fully admit that. So, why should Platt  feel he is authorised to develop a Radical Experiment for wealth redistribution? In any case, the first word — ‘radical’ — should start ringing alarm bells.

Seriously, if one’s ministry is that compelling — to use language which Platt’s generation would understand — then, money should just come flowing in naturally. Platt shouldn’t even need to hammer on this topic. However, as it is, his move comes across as arrogant and unbiblical — even if he doesn’t intend it to be that way.

I don’t think that Platt, as well meaning as he probably is, is using actual force or cruelty, just emotional blackmail. ‘Look at how much you have and how little they have’.

The Revd Wade Burleson, also a Baptist, has a balanced appraisal of both sides of Platt’s radical idea, accompanied by helpful Bible verses — the best I’ve read yet.

However, there is another aspect to this subject, which might come as news to Platt:

There are many European states which take in many people from the developing world every year. Not just a few dozen, but tens of thousands per Western European nation annually. These migrants do not want Platt’s sort of 19th century missionary charity in their own lands, even if they happily accept it as a stopgap measure; many are looking for economic opportunity in the West.  We European taxpayers provide every assistance to those coming to our countries — at the expense of our own — believe it.

To my American readers: In all sincerity, donate money and time as you wish, but do not give up your holiday homes or bulk savings for the missions unless you can afford to and really want to. We Europeans are redistributing our ‘wealth’ — via taxes – to those arriving from former colonies as well as in tens of billions of euros (pounds, etc.) in foreign aid to their homelands. Therefore, today’s taxes address the material problems the missions once did. This is the truth. So, relax, enjoy your families and contemplate your retirement. May it be an easy and happy one in this time of economic crisis.

But, I digress.

Back to Dr Wryzek, who writes of pastors employing emotional blackmail in more malign ways (emphases mine):

Because once a pastor always a pastor, I’m disturbed (probably in more ways than one!) at the condition many churches and their leaders are in these days … But, this is nothing new; similar leadership degradation happened to Israel and Ezekiel 34 … describes what Israel’s shepherds did that brought them under God’s judgment and how the problem was solved.

You’ll notice the very first indictment is they used material and monetary resources reserved for the flock, and from the flock, to insure their own personal security and plenty; they became exceedingly fat while the sheep became skinny. Making this number one suggests it is particularly irritating to God (putting it mildly). Next, because of this inordinate self-preoccupation they lost track of the sheep and didn’t bother to go after those who either wandered away (the Hebrew word suggests ‘scared off’) or seek after those who became lost altogether (literally ‘perishing’). Furthermore, they failed to take care of the weak (malnourished), provide healing to the sick and bind up the broken (alludes to treating wounds caused by wolves). Finally, they ruled the remaining sheep (the ones not scared off or not yet dead from neglect) with force and cruelty ...

The ‘force and cruelty’ is a bit more subtle and is very often disguised by ecclesiastical authority (the minister/laity distinction or the so-called ‘Moses’ model of ministry are examples) and tricking the sheep into thinking they exist for the sake of the shepherd instead of the other way around. Using the force of guilt to manipulate a flock into supporting dubious, self-serving programs is one quite effective example. This works by appealing to loyalty for the shepherd (“I’m your loyal pastor so help me out here”), or by using the Bible to coerce some kind of behavior, usually about giving money (“…give to this ministry and God will give back to you even more”). The sheep feel bad if they don’t respond as directed or, much worse, might even feel they’re letting God down and this is just plain cruel.

If any of the above is happening to you or the flock you’re part of at least consider confronting the leadership or find a safe haven somewhere else. Blind loyalty to a person, persons or denomination just because of some ‘past’ good old days or long-standing history isn’t going to cut it because we are in the last days and the kind of ecclesiastical disintegration we are witnessing is a precursor, and contributor, to the great apostasy I think is already beginning (2 Thess. 2:1-3).

Pray for guidance when receiving pastoral requests for time and money. Avoid feeling pressured. Focus on your families’ needs first, then those of others.  Charity begins at home.

An elected House of Lords: ‘the last thing Britain needs’

More wisdom from the Revd Dr Peter Mullen in the Telegraph — and a grateful hat tip to loyal reader Lleweton of the eponymous blog!

(Photo credit to gentlemen’s outfitters Ede and Ravenscroft in Cambridge, where Samuel Pepys bought some of his attire.)

Reform of the House of Lords started when Tony Blair was Prime Minister, although the seed for it was planted in the early 20th century. It has been a Labour and Liberal Party (as was, now Liberal Democrats) bone of contention since then. Some ‘wet’ Tories have sided with them. Today:

all but 92 hereditary peers were expelled under the House of Lords Act 1999 … making the House of Lords predominantly an appointed house.

Since then, there has been further debate and demand from the usual suspects for an entirely elected House of Lords (HoL).

What few of these socialist materialists realise is the benefit not only that hereditary peers gave — and those remaining continue to give — to the nation but that an elected HoL will add a second elected house of politicians, turning it into a Senate.

Peter Mullen rightly argues against such a move in ‘The last thing Britain needs is an elected House of Lords’  (emphases mine):

Our ancient voting system for membership of the House of Commons was always an outward and visible sign of this wider meaning of democracy. I mean, when a candidate gets elected to be an MP, he does not represent only the people who voted for him, but the whole of his constituency …

An elected House of Lords will ensure that its members, far from being independent, will owe their places to special interest groups, political parties, trades unions and the like. And they will all be subject to control by whips of various sorts.

Just so. He reminds us of the distinctives of hereditary peers:

Hereditary peers by contrast possess a real possibility of exercising impartiality. Eccentricity is a virtue, not a vice. And their perspective, whether derived from service in the military, in the shires or the market towns, the faded industrial centres of bygone Britain, will have provided them with a breadth of experience far exceeding that of the career politicos …

We’re on the verge of a catastrophic mistake.

Mullen is right on the money. I have watched and listened to some of the remaining hereditary peers debate on BBC Parliament. They can competently discuss many topics which ordinary politicians cannot: nutrition, animal welfare, farming, fishing and the like.

I cordially — and especially — invite my fellow blogger Llew to chime in on this topic, as he has had extensive experience as a newspaper reporter covering Parliamentary affairs both in the Commons and the Lords.

In the meantime, this is what a few of the Telegraph readers think:

pwrenplan 04/23/2012 07:15 PM: The HoL is probably the most incorrupt legislative body in the world. For hundreds of years they have been a moderating influence on an occasionally overreaching HoC. 
Those on the left just do NOT understand the concept of wanting to do the right thing and a sense of DUTY which are the characteristics portrayed by most of the HoL members – particularly the hereditaries.
They do NOT have to worry about re-election – but they also do NOT have any real power – the HoC can insist on its desire.  All in all a wonderful balance.
What will the left want next? an elected monarch?

derekemery 04/23/2012 07:37 PM: … The public is not excited by a change to the Lords because they see no necessity as it has been working well …

cartimandua 04/23/2012 09:48 PM: And they still understand agriculture, fisheries, and the land.

Most hereditary peers have a strong sense of duty, which they have inherited from their parents and forebears going back generations. They manage large estates and villages with tenants who work on their land or in their houses; they also understand Britain’s history.  All of these, as a Telegraph reader above said, involve a strong sense of duty to one’s country, monarch, family and local residents, whom they treat with inordinate respect and courtesy.

It is a pity that the Fabians and Marxists are so self-consumed by class envy that they cannot seem to release their grimy grip on this topic. In reality, they want their children and their cronies to corrupt this country so that it’s on its knees — all for their control and enrichment. Name me one hereditary peer who ever did that. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown piled the HoL with more Labour appointees to ‘balance’ — read exceed — Conservative numbers.

For now, onto a more pleasant and aesthetic aspect of the HoL. In the photo at the top of this post which is clearer on Ede and Ravenscroft’s page, you might have noted the numbers of bars on the robes. The shop explains more about the materials used and the significance of the bars, with ranks discussed at the link:

Meticulously maintained, refurbished and altered, ceremonial robes rarely need replacing. The robes are made from scarlet superfine faced cloth; a durable tightly woven wool fabric. They are finely trimmed with three-inch wide ermine bars, and two-inch wide gold oak leaf lace.  The number of bars of ermine and gold reveal the wearer’s rank …

About 175 peers entrust their robes to Ede and Ravenscroft’s safekeeping during the year. When the State Opening draws near, the Chancery Lane tailor sends out letters to peers asking if they are to attend.  The firm checks, labels and packs the robes, ready for delivery to the House of Lords. On the day itself at least a dozen staff members go to the House of Lords to help dress peers, pages and other officers of state.

This brings me indirectly to the American economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen who analysed Western society in The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899) — a book well worth reading, although its syntax is somewhat cumbersome. This book started to sell once it was billed as a ‘satire’, however, it is full of facts and theory. There’s nothing satirical about it apart from the barbed comments Veblen makes about all social strata.

Veblen’s parents emigrated from Norway to Cato, Wisconsin. Veblen’s father wanted him to become a Lutheran pastor, but the son was a firm agnostic. (I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Scandinavian pietism, à la Babette’s Feast, turned him off God for good.) He also wasn’t very nice to the Veblens or to his first wife, but other ladies found him charming and he remarried in 1914. His second wife died in 1920, and he devoted much of his time to his daughters.

Veblen also co-founded what is now known as the New School in Union Square (Greenwich Village) in Manhattan. Having earned his degrees at Johns Hopkins University and at Yale, Veblen was well versed in Enlightenment philosophy and post-Enlightenment movements such as social Darwinism and economics.  That said, it was difficult for him to obtain an academic teaching post because most professors in the late 19th century had theology degrees, largely considered a prerequisite. Sons of immigrants were also not readily accepted into academe, although that was probably a secondary factor. However, Veblen taught at the University of Chicago before moving to Stanford University in 1906. He died at home in Menlo Park, California, just a few months before the stock market crash in 1929.

Although Veblen became more allied with socialism in his later years — seeing it as a stage along the way to a peaceable industrialised society — when he wrote The Theory of the Leisure Class in 1899, he was somewhat more balanced in his approach. And this is what leads me to tie in the HoL with him. He coined an expression called ‘idle curiosity’, by which the bourgeoisie used their ample free time to discover more about the world. The manual worker had no time for such pursuits and the middle class merchants were interested in imitating another bourgeois pursuit, ‘conspicuous consumption’, another Veblen expression.

Veblen theorised that ritual, ceremony and status played their part in holding Western society together. This is still true in the 21st century; even leftist leaders in countries which no longer have nobility in their government or a monarch as head of state — both of which Great Britain still has — still have elaborate rituals, sumptuous banquets and access to luxury items such as private jets.  I picked up a lecture by an R Lichty on Veblen which supplies interesting points along this line:

Ceremony plays a major role in keeping people in line. In this sense, the military, sports, religion, and other ceremonial procedures are used to keep people’s minds off the functioning of the system. Ceremony leads to the acceptance of arbitrary command and unquestioning obedience to one’s superiors …

Where does this all end? The chase of pecuniary gain leads to wealth inequality. Eventually, the working class finds out that they can not live the life they want to live – i.e., they are excluded from the hierarchy. The majority also begin to see the wastefulness of the current system. Don’t forget that the system is plagued by business cycles. Each depression brings with it increased worker awareness of system problems, especially a knowledge as to who it is that causes by business cycle. This awareness causes the working class to change (take over?) The system.

Veblen doesn’t have a picture of what would replace this system. He thought the engineers would take over and workmanship would be elevated to a preeminent position. He seems to imply that the system would be run as a socialist system, but this is only an implication. He did say there were equal possibilities for emerging to a more efficient system or to a system that is worse than the one now in place …

Our leaders wanting a more egalitarian system in the HoL — transforming it into a corrupt Senate — follow this line of thinking.

However, Veblen also wrote about the positive aspects of bourgeois pursuits and their benefit to society (p. 1 of the link), which is what I picked up having read a selection of his works:

A relatively unknown aspect of Veblen’s writing included his work on positive or “good instincts.” “Good instincts” – workmanship, parenting, and idle curiosity are productive in the promotion of collective social welfare/life processes. The last of these, idle curiosity may have much in common with classical views of leisure. Idle curiosity was seen as important for its role as “non-directed activity of exploration in the search for answers to life’s interests” (O’Hara, 1994, p. 8) in which “play” and “fundamental thinking” are core. Idle curiosity, according to Veblen, was “the most substantial achievement of the race, – its systematized knowledge and quasi-knowledge of things” (1914, p. 87). In Veblen’s terms a peaceful and productive society (a kind of “small is beautiful” perspective) is one in which positive instincts dominate. These concepts deserved to be re-examined in light of today’s resurgence of interest in Veblen’s works and the complex needs inherent in today’s society.

Our hereditary peers have the knowledge that goes with idle curiosity in spades. The HoL is intended to be a check on the House of Commons and the monarchy, although, since the Glorious Revolution, the check weighs more heavily on Parliamentarians than on our gracious Queen, our Head of State.

Our remaining hereditary peers provide an intelligent, considered and civilised aspect to British society. They understand the history, the people, the conflicts, the resolutions, the agriculture, the trade and the cultural aspects which have made Britain great in the eyes of the world. That is thanks to idle curiosity and spare time spent well.

Millions of people every year come to visit and tens of thousands arrive to settle in our green and pleasant land. A goodly portion of the glue that holds our society together still comes from the hereditary peers and the Queen. It would be tragic and savage if our three main parties were to start to unravel our British fabric by further reforming our House of Lords. Personally, I would reverse what Tony Blair did and bring back the rest of our hereditary peers.  Historically, we owe them a debt of gratitude for their leadership along the lines of Christian values and national responsibility.  They’re not perfect, but no one is.

Therefore, the last thing Britain needs — especially in Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee year — is a move towards an elected House of Lords.

Donna Summer – a Prodigal Daughter

Donna Summer, the Queen of Disco, died at the weekend.

What happy memories I have of dancing to her singles during my stay in France. Her producer at the time, Giorgio Moroder, was the King of Eurodisco, which transformed dancefloors across the Continent in the mid-1970s.

It’s hard to believe that Moroder, now living in Los Angeles, is 72 and that Summer was 63. How time flies.

Words cannot express how much I loved Summer’s and Moroder’s collaborative efforts. They brightened my world for a few years.

Anyway, a few words about this lady — born and raised in Dorchester (Boston, Massachusetts) — and a frequent churchgoer who eventually found her way back to God after a decade of musicals, recording studios and concerts. Although she never lost her faith, at one point — as she told Pat Robertson in 1983 (see video at the end of the article) — she wondered if God would forgive her sins of the late 1960s and 1970s.

Around 1979 or 1980, she was on anti-depressants, which she discusses in the video. She explained that whilst they deadened the depression, they awakened other parts of her mind. For instance, she would stay awake for days at a time. She also felt severe pangs of conscience. She dreamt of herself as being three different people. So disturbed by what was happening, thanks to a friend, she was able to meet with a pastor who laid hands on her. She never looked back.

Although she never gave up recording and concerts, she and her music moved away from the sensuality of the Eurodisco era. In the mid-1980s, homosexual groups criticised her stance on AIDS, which she said was a punishment from God. She later apologised for any pain she caused AIDS sufferers and added that some of the men she worked with were also gay.  As anyone who was sentient at the time knows, disco had a huge gay following in the 70s, particularly in New York (e.g. Studio 54).

Summer, whose maiden name was Gaines, took the surname of her first husband, the Austrian Helmuth Sommer, and anglicised it. She and Sommer had a daughter together — Mimi — who has since had children of her own, adding to Summer and second husband Bruce Sudano‘s familial joy.  The Sudanos had two daughters, Brooklyn and Amanda Grace. Sudano also works in the music business as a singer, songwriter and producer and used to accompany his wife on tours as a musician and singer.

Although she did not smoke, Donna Summer died of lung cancer, said to be unrelated to secondhand smoke. I wanted to highlight that so that people do not start using her in their leftist and secular pietist anti-tobacco campaigns.

Although no prescription drug name was mentioned in the video, I should like to add that Miss Summer’s experience with anti-depressants ties in with those of two people I knew. In the late 1980s, one of my colleagues in the US — a bright, happy, efficient worker — became depressed; it seems her (very) long-term boyfriend had not yet asked for her hand in marriage. (They have since married.) At the time, her doctor prescribed Xanax, which made her tired, weepy and withdrawn, at least temporarily.  In the second case, in the mid-1990s, I worked with a woman in the UK whose boyfriend was prescribed Xanax. They had been having problems before, but the drug made his behaviour violent and erratic. She was very grateful they were not living together because she feared the worst. They broke up several weeks after he started taking the tablets. ‘I’M PERFECTLY FINE — YOU’RE THE ONE WITH THE PROBLEM’, he would yell at her over the phone, generally first thing in the morning.  Oh, my.

Donna Summer told Pat Robertson that she took prescription drugs to deaden her conscience. She explained to him that she was trying to run from coming clean with God. The pills only made things worse, although she added that God works everything to His plan. She wasn’t sure if He would forgive her — saying that Satan was starting to get a grip on her to go further down the road to perdition.  After her healing and return to faithfulness, she said that she had assurance, although she still hadn’t completely forgiven herself for several years spent in a ‘kind of darkness’.  Former journalist, now screenwriter, Joe Eszterhas also spoke of coming out of ‘darkness’ when he returned to faith.

Please, if you are in this type of situation, do take a quarter of an hour to watch Summer’s 1983 video. She spoke for many people and, despite all we read and hear about drug use (recreational or prescription), we get very little about its deadening of the conscience of the sinner. Donna Summer would no doubt encourage everyone who feels now as she did then to ask for the Lord’s forgiveness today.  She was broken. Joe Eszterhas — who lived on the wild side — was also broken. They knew the world and sin only too well. Take time to read and hear what they had to say — then give it careful consideration.  May God bless you in your reconciliation with Him, your Heavenly Father who embraces all His prodigal sons and daughters.

Finally, my deepest sympathies to Bruce Sudano and to Donna Summer’s daughters along with prayers for strength and resilience in the days and months ahead.

Thank you, Lord, for giving us Donna Summer and her unforgettable voice.  She made many of us who came of age in the 1970s happy people with fond memories of her music.

Further reading:

Donna Summer – Telegraph

Donna Summer Called Her Singing ‘Power’ from God – CBN News

As Christian faith ebbs, socialist materialism flows

The epistles of James, verses of which have been appearing on this blog as part of the Forbidden Bible Verses series, have much to say about our response to material and religious oppression.

What makes James the Just’s advice difficult to swallow — and follow — even today is the exhortation to follow the way of Christ, not the world, when things go badly.

In James 1:1-16, he tells the diaspora of Jewish Christians to count their ‘trials’ as joy (James 1:2). These are tests requiring steadfastness of faith as a robust response (James 1:3-4). James says nothing of anger, revenge or protests here. Community organisers, socio-political activists and liberation theologians would find that anathema and would probably advise ignoring such advice.

Yet, James the Just was known as being above reproach in character and deed — even if he wasn’t an Apostle. Some Bible scholars theorise that his righteousness might have been the root of the Jewish Christian diaspora from Jerusalem. He was so exemplary and had made so many converts that the powers that be — high priests and wealthy citizens — wanted rid of them.

However, such a message jars with our 21st century materialism. I have a well-off acquaintance who craves more money, a larger house and so on. She is in love with what this world can provide but never counts her own blessings: a healthy, loving family; a house in a good neighbourhood and financial security. No, for this agnostic, there always has to be something more to be acquired. Faith is unimportant to her. It is irrelevant.

It is not so different with those in France who recently voted the Socialist (PS) François Hollande into office.  They want the rich to be taxed on 75% of their income, a policy which Hollande mooted during the recent presidential campaign. Yet, as someone (Pascale Lundi from Nîmes) pointed out on a radio forum, the rich are already paying millions into the French treasury:

Do the sums!! I invite the PS to demonstrate that [Liliane] Bettencourt [Loréal heiress] only pays 14% in tax (admittedly, that’s not a lot), but even 14% of €1 million (just off the top of my head) is €140,000 … We have to be logical about this (for your information, I pay only €300 in tax) … 

Demonising the rich by extracting more from them is not going to help the situation. As Baroness Thatcher said (paraphrased), ‘The problem with socialism is running out of other people’s money’.

It’s always someone else who must pay. It is always someone else’s fault. Yet, even in adversity, believers can find themselves strengthened by God’s grace. As Matthew Henry points out (emphases mine):

By suffering in the ways of righteousness, we are serving the interests of our Lord’s kingdom among men, and edifying the body of Christ; and our trials will brighten our graces now and our crown at last.

It seems the more people fall away from the Christian faith, the more they become attached to the temporal comforts of this life. Nothing else seems to matter. And left-wing politicians, activists — along with clergy — are good at pumping up the class war. For this reason, I have become wary of men and women ‘working for a more fair and just society’. Those are Democrats, Labo(u)r Party members, Socialists and Greens, to name but a few.

Fairness and justice do not come through redistribution of material goods. Fairness and justice come about through faith in Christ Jesus and in the fruits of that faith in loving ‘one another as I have loved you’ (John 13:34-35).

If we truly love Jesus and put our faith in Him, we will be able to get by with what we have. God will give us the grace and the means to survive in times of hardship. Even Obamacare will not provide everyone with peace of mind with regard to healthcare. Mandated coverage of sorts under this misguided bill does not guarantee prepaid treatment. It seems that many supporters of this policy do not understand that point. It would be much better — and more Christian — to be able to move away (impossible though it is right now) from the power of big insurance companies by returning to independent consortia of family doctors and specialists. That’s how it was when I was growing up in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s. One took out insurance to cover hospital stays and procedures.  For everything else, one paid a general practitioner a modest amount for treating minor ailments, giving inoculations and so on. And that is what most people need, not preventive checks of all sorts which only inflate the coffers of insurance companies.

Then, there are those who point the finger at ‘scroungers’ and ‘malingerers’. No one denies that they exist, but many conservative-libertarians lump everyone receiving temporary Job Seekers Allowance or unemployment insurance into one big basket. ‘They should be made to wear Gitmo-orange jackets and be outside in all weathers — earning their keep!’ Friends, these temporarily unemployed people have already paid into the system. They receive a modest weekly sum which is just enough to keep their heads above water.  Whilst some deviously milk the system, many of them  are among the honest number.

And, finally, we have the problem of immigration. Would that left-leaning politicians — and I include ‘wet’ British Conservatives here (akin to RINOs in the US) — admit, ‘Well, this is a means of reparations for past colonial wrongs.’  Be honest. But, this, too, is a materialistic solution. It is also impractical. Nicolas Sarkozy and his cabinet members pointed out on various radio interviews a few weeks ago, ‘When a glass of water is full, you can’t keep filling it up.’ Of course, the ‘r’ word was used against them. Right now, the ‘r’ word is akin to the ‘f’ word. I cannot bear to hear or read it anymore, it’s been so misused over the past five years.

Of course, there was a time not so long ago — and readers who are descended from immigrants will know this — that those who emigrated to another country were grateful to be there. Many men had to find jobs to support their families; women had to learn the local language and customs. However, more than that, fitting in was an essential voluntary component of the immigration story.

Many years ago I read Irving Howe’s World of Our Fathers which is a absorbing and detailed account of Jewish migration to New York in the early 20th century. They suffered disdain and ridicule from their own people. These immigrants were from Eastern Europe. The German Jews, by then well settled into New York society, shunned them. Of course, the Eastern Europeans had networks for poorly-paid jobs and substandard housing, but no family expected to stay in that situation. They aspired to being as accepted as their German brethren were. They took things on the chin. They scrimped and saved. The men put themselves in positions to pick up English on the job so they could move up in the world. The women took in arduous textile piecework at home whilst minding their children. Parents ensured that education had primacy in the household after God. Mothers learned English from their school-age children. Howe described numerous ghetto households where — as a typical example — after school, the mother set aside an hour or so to listen to a child read to her. She would ask questions in Yiddish; she would ask the child to explain to her in English. Later on, the mother would sit next to the child and learn to read English.

These parents told their children that they would have to rise from their poverty and do better than they.

There was no welfare, no subsidised health care, no unemployment insurance, no social housing, no housing assistance.  The only available free benefit was the relatively recent state school system.

And this was the common Christian and Jewish immigrant experience until a few decades ago.

So, it is little wonder that many Americans and other Europeans who have migrated to another country (even within their own continent) and remember their ancestors’ stories take umbrage at new arrivals coming from other nations who appear to be ungrateful. Admittedly, this — like wealthy taxpayers and the temporarily unemployed — can also quickly lead to tarring people with the same brush, which is equally reprehensible.

Nonetheless, there is bound to be a problem when a predominantly biblical culture which considers pride is a sin finds itself confronted with politically militant secularists or equally upfront new arrivals demanding occupation ‘rights’, ‘justice’ for the ‘oppressed’ and encouraging public marches which do little to resolve anything. In fact, they often serve to block open discussion and stoke resentment. It’s no wonder James the Just advised a Christian not a materialistic solution!

This leads to a misunderstanding on both sides of the spectrum, for instance, between private and public sector employees as well as longtime residents and incoming groups. One recent example were the Mayday marches in France. I also have in mind another video which I’ve now watched several times; I’m still not sure I’ve understood it properly. It was a national day march (not French) which took place nearly a year ago in Marseille, a 2600-year old bastion of the successful assimilation of many cultures over the centuries:

Only a few participants look as if they are enjoying it. At the five minute mark, the men begin raising walking sticks and fists. A blog that covers these events, Le Meilleur de Marseille, didn’t mention anything afterward which would have included people from Marseille to celebrate this national day. If there was nothing for the greater city, then it comes across as confusing to the rest of the population. By contrast, public celebrations of Christian saints or Western nations’ festivals include everyone in the event. (The people in the film are Cormorian and Muslim, speaking in their own language and marching in a Christian (broadly speaking) city.)

Christians are perplexed by such demonstrations when they have been brought up in humility, quiet living and love of one another. We are here together but a short time. One is reminded of 1 Peter 2:11, 16-17 (emphases mine):

 ¹¹Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;

¹⁶As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

¹⁷Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

This applies to all believers. We might be slighted for not participating in demonstrations or militancy. We might be ridiculed for a quiet life. Yet, if we remember the Sermon on the Mount — ironically, the same sermon that leftist Christians enjoy quoting — we are called to be meek and righteous.

So, whether we are immigrants, suffering economic hardship, discriminated against because of our faith, let us remember James 1:12:

Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.

We can live without socialism, materialism and identity politics. We cannot live without Christ.

Forbidden Bible Verses: James 2:6-7 and 11-13

Two short passages in James 2 have been excluded from the Lectionary used in public worship.

As such, these omissions can be included in my ongoing series Forbidden Bible Verses, also essential for our understanding of the Bible.

Today’s verses are taken from the English Standard Version with commentary by Matthew Henry.

James 2:6-7 and 11-13

⁶But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? ⁷Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?

…

¹¹For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. ¹²So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. ¹³For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

—————————————————————-

Last week’s post, which concerned James 1:1-16, discussed James the Just’s instructions to Jewish Christians suffering socio-economic and religious persecution. They were scattered outside of Jerusalem, where wealthy landowners gave them small plots of land to farm. Generally, these were too small to feed a family and it was common for male family members to supplement their income by going into trade. On top of that, many of these new converts lived in fear of the authorities for having embraced the truth of Christ.

The first part of James 1 instructs these new Christians to respond not with anger or revenge, but with patience and steadfastness. James told them that if they needed these qualities, they had only to pray for them and they would be strengthened. This is a dramatically different response than we learn today, even in church, with regard to oppression. We are taught by community organisers and sometimes clergy to respond with aggression and hate. However, such is not the way of Christ but of the world.

Bible.org lends a bit of background to James 2 (emphases mine):

One can picture what this situation did to the church in Palestine. On the one hand, the church naturally felt resentment against the rich. They had “robbed” many of the members of their lands; they probably showed discrimination against Christians in hiring their labor; and they (at least the high-priestly clans) were the instigators of attempts to suppress the church (which was probably viewed as a revolutionary movement). On the other hand, if a wealthy person entered the church or was a member, there would be every reason to court him. His money was seen as a means of survival. Certainly one should not offend him.⁶⁸

In the first part of James 2, James the Just takes his audience to task for favouring men wearing fine clothes for this reason. In other words, he is telling them to forget the materialistic thinking of the world and focus on those of pureness of mind and soul. Therefore, the humblest person with faith should be shown a warm welcome to their church community over a rich person who might be able to provide them with money or influence. Hence, the admonition in verse 6 to welcome the poor believer in his rough clothing; the Church is for believers, including the humblest of them. James also cautions his faithful against exalting oppressors, those who drag them before a court to condemn their belief in Christ (verse 7).

James alludes to Leviticus 19:15 with regard to our divinely-mandated criteria for judgment. Righteousness is the determining factor:

You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.

Matthew Henry explains:

Observe hence, 1. The rule for Christians to walk by is settled in the scriptures: If according to the scriptures, etc. It is not great men, nor worldly wealth, nor corrupt practices among professors themselves, that must guide us, but the scriptures of truth. 2. The scripture gives us this as a law, to love our neighbour as ourselves; it is what still remains in full force, and is rather carried higher and further by Christ than made less important to us. 3. This law is a royal law, it comes from the King of kings. Its own worth and dignity deserve it should be thus honoured; and the state in which all Christians now are, as it is a state of liberty, and not of bondage or oppression, makes this law, by which they are to regulate all their actions to one another, a royal law …

Therefore, in judging by righteousness, James’s Christians would face the possibility of more persecution and poverty. However, better an uncorrupted soul in precarious circumstances than a compromised faith in material comfort. This also recalls James’s warning to Christians with wavering faith (James 1:5-8):

⁵ If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. ⁶But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. ⁷For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; ⁸ he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

James picks up on the aforementioned ‘royal Law’ in verse 8 and reminds his listeners that we are commanded to obey all of the Law — loving God and one’s neighbour. We cannot claim to keep one law then ignore another and expect to be exalted on Judgment Day. Christ Himself said (Matthew 5:19):

Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Hence, James’s warning against showing partiality to those who can make our temporal life easier (verse 10) and that committing one sin but not another still condemns us under the Law (verse 11). Our Lord hates all sin, therefore, we cannot claim to still be in His good books if we say, ‘Well, I only committed adultery, but I’d never have murdered anyone.’

Henry explains:

if we offend in one point, we contemn the authority of him who gave the whole law, and so far are guilty of all. Thus, if you look to the law of the old, you stand condemned; for cursed is every that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them, Gal. 3:10.

James exhorts his audience to remember that Christ’s Law is one of ‘liberty’ (verse 12). It frees us from Satan’s world but our faith in Christ also frees us from ultimate condemnation.

Henry says:

2. It is a law of liberty, and one that we have no reason to complain of as a yoke or burden; for the service of God, according to the gospel, is perfect freedom; it sets us at liberty from all slavish regards, either to the persons or the things of this world. 3. We must all be judged by this law of liberty. Men’s eternal condition will be determined according to the gospel; this is the book that will be opened, when we shall stand before the judgment-seat; there will be no relief to those whom the gospel condemns, nor will any accusation lie against those whom the gospel justifies. 4. It concerns us therefore so to speak and act now as become those who must shortly be judged by this law of liberty; that is, that we come up to gospel terms, that we make conscience of gospel duties, that [w]e be of a gospel temper, and that our conversation be a gospel conversation, because by this rule we must be judged.

Another component of this is to exercise mercy to those who have offended us (verse 13). James points out that those who do not extend mercy in their judgment of others will find that the Lord shows no mercy towards them. He adds that mercy triumphs over judgement — and this is what believers will find on the day of reckoning. Although we will all die as sinners, those with faith in Christ will be in His presence for all eternity.

As the Lord will show us mercy, therefore, it is incumbent upon us to do likewise in this life. Mercy allays a fearful judgment under the full weight of the Law.  In Henry’s words, recalling Matthew 5:7:

It concerns all to consider among which they shall be found; and let us remember that blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

This is something some socio-political activists, including ‘Christian’ community organisers, have forgotten. Let us ensure we do not fall into the same trap.

Next time: James 2:19-26

Legalistic Lutheranism (and Applied Finneyism) – Part 2

Today’s post concludes with the LCMS pastor — the Revd Matt Richard’s — journey to confessional Lutheranism.

Yesterday, he detailed his Folk Lutheranism. In Part 2, he describes the four main hurdles he faced in coming to a confessional understanding of the Christian faith.  Excerpts follow, emphases mine.

Shift #1: My View Of Sin?
My Folk Lutheranism understood sin primarily as a series of actions that I did or did not do. Sure, I confessed that I was a sinner, but in all reality my belief of sin was narrowly focused on external actions alone …

I slowly began to realize that I wasn’t a sinner because of my sinful actions, but rather I was a sinner who sinned. This idea of sin was a much more serious problem than I had originally realized.

In the linked post relevant to this shift, he observes (italics in the original):

If we only see sin as a series of bad behavior (i.e. actions) and repentance as a change in certain external deeds (i.e. going from bad to good), we do not capture the full extent of sin and repentance but only arrive at a watered down view of sin and what the reformers called ‘partial repentance.’  Seeing repentance primarily in the external realm (i.e. change in external actions) can be equated to putting a band-aid over top of a cancerous internal tumor and saying, “all better!”  This limited view of repentance only deals with the symptoms of sin but not the core of sin itself.  Using a biblical phrase from Jesus in Matthew 23:25-26, this limited focus of external repentance results in becoming a whitewashed tomb; it fosters a mess of works righteousness and man-centered theology. 

According to Martin Luther the life of a Christian is one of daily repentance.  He states, “In a Christian, this repentance continues until death.  For through one’s entire life, repentance contends with the sin remaining in the flesh.  Paul testifies that he wars with the law in his members (Rom. 7:14-25) not by his own powers, but by the gift of the Holy Spirit that follows the forgiveness of sins (Rom. 8:1-17).  This gift daily cleanses and sweeps out the remaining sins and works to make a person truly pure and holy.”

Shift #2: My View Of The Law?
We have all heard the phrase, “Don’t smoke, drink or chew, nor date girls that do” … The problem with people was that they were simply were lazy and lacked the proper will power to enact God’s Law. Things changed though as I encountered the Epistle of Romans. I slowly began to understand the implications of a bound will and see that the main use of the Law was not to reform my sinful nature, but to reveal and expose the depths of my depraved nature.  The sinful nature needed to be crucified.

In his essay, ‘The Law Is Good’, to which he links above, Pastor Matt notes (p. 9):

Living by the Law actually does not increase faith but destroys it. When we live by the Law and strive for external good works what happens according to Gerhard Forde is that, “the apparent goodness of our works seduce us into putting our trust in them.17” Forde goes on to comment on all of our works that proceed from the Law stating, “no matter how good, are deadly sin because they entice us away from the „naked trust in the mercy of God‟ to a trust in self.18”

Doing works under compulsion to fulfill the demands of the Law results in freedom and faith being destroyed. Martin Luther comments on the thought of viewing works as if they can fulfill the demands of the Law by saying, “to presume that they (Works) are able to do something that they are actually powerless to do. The result of this violent intrusion of works is to corrupt and diminish the glory of God’s grace.19” To diminish the glory of God’s grace is to destroy faith and put the attention onto self. (See Galatians 5:4)

Shift #3: My Location Of The Gospel?
Probably one of the most difficult things for me to process in my shift was the fact that the Gospel was outside of me … Thus I reduced the Gospel to my pious actions and located Salvation within the sphere of Matt Richard. I failed to realize that the Gospel was outside of me in the person and work of Christ.

In the document linked to, he explains (italics in the original):

Simply put, our justification is outside of us not inside.  This means that we don’t look inward, but we look outward to Christ for assurance that our sins are forgiven.  We don’t turn inward, but we turn outward to hear the acquittal declaration that we have been restored in a right relationship with God through Christ.  Furthermore, in the realm of sanctification we are blessed with the Holy Spirit dwelling within us so as to mold and shape.  Sanctification is something that happens inwardly to us by the Holy Spirit through the Word.  

Loosely stated, justification happens outwardly and sanctification happens inwardly.  Another way of stating this is that, “our justification is entirely a consequence of Christ’s work for us, on our behalf, but not in us.”[4]  

Shift #4: My Understanding Of Biblical Verbs?
Finally, I also failed to see that many of the verbs in the scriptures were done by God to me, not by me towards God. I viewed God like a deaf old man that was passive. I didn’t understand that God came to me through the precious means of grace; therefore, I created my own ways to try and get another jewel in my crown. In other words, I constantly felt the pressure to actively ascend to God in order to bring Him my spiritual report card for affirmation. I viewed my faith as needing to be something that required action on my behalf, lest I be labeled a lazy Christian …

In a link to his explanation on the use of the passive voice in the New Testament, he says:

… our inclination to the active voice does impact our reading of the New Testament. The result is that we will often interpret New Testament passives as things that we do, verbs that we need to act upon rather than what God is doing to and for us, verbs that God is doing to us. The difference is huge because it can change the whole meaning of a passage.

Pastor Matt concludes his post as follows:

The Old Adam had freedom to move in my Folk Lutheranism, but in Confessional Lutheranism he was not merely threatened but was finding death. Furthermore, my understanding of the Gospel was no longer conditioned by the theology of my Folk Lutheranism. It was declared boldly without “ifs, ands” or “buts.” For the sake of Christ, Christ alone my sins were forgiven …

… when the Law kills and the Gospel unconditionally grants life, all theologies of glory are brought to rubble and in the midst of the debris appears a Cross. Brothers and Sisters, we are left with Jesus, Jesus alone, and He is all that we ever need.

May God richly bless you as you continue your journey into the depths of the cross of Christ.

Legalistic Lutheranism (and Applied Finneyism) – Part 1

Yesterday’s post concerned the legacy of Charles Grandison Finney, one of America’s foremost evangelists — and Pelagians — of the 19th century. Even today, his legacy reaches the Protestant church in subtle ways.

The following first-person story from a Lutheran pastor explains why Finneyism is alive and well in the 21st century. The Revd Matt Richard is a regular contributor to a confessional LCMS pastors’ blog, Steadfast Lutherans (The Brothers of John the Steadfast) [see my blogroll].

Recently, Pastor Matt shared the story of his journey into confessional Lutheranism. Now one might think that he must have been this way since he was a child, considering that he is ordained. However, such is not the case. What he has to say concerns not only Finneyism but the outer holiness legalism of another large Protestant movement that has over the centuries pervaded many denominations.

What follows are excerpts from ‘My Journey into Confessional Lutheranism (Part 1 of 2)’, a fascinating account. Emphases mine below:

Church of the Lutheran Brethren? Chances are you haven’t heard of this small denomination. However, for me it has been all that I’ve known since infancy.

This denomination was founded in 1900 as five independent Lutheran congregations met in Wisconsin to form a new synod. These churches were not splitting from another synod or denomination but gathered together with the main purpose of compiling resources to send missionaries overseas …

For myself, I have often jokingly said that I am a spiritual mutt. I grew up in the Church of the Lutheran Brethren, my Father is a practicing Roman Catholic and my Mother has roots in the American Lutheran Church.  Through my childhood Christian education and youth group, as well as my college years of working at an Evangelical Christian Bookstore, I developed what I’ve come to call “Folk Lutheranism.” My Folk Lutheranism was a mixture of Lutheranism and Fundamentalistic Finneyism, coated with Evangelicalism and saturated with Pietism. Needless to say, I spent a lot of my time in legalism as well as constantly taking my spiritual temperature to see if I loved Jesus enough.  I virtually had no assurance.

After college I applied to Lutheran Brethren Seminary in Fergus Falls, MN … Frankly, I was unprepared for seminary and found myself crushed by the academic weight of the classes. Furthermore, the theology that I encountered also attacked my old nature and worldview. I can recall … longing for the Gospel that they presented, yet warring with it in my mind. About this time in seminary I gravitated towards the Church Growth Movement and really sunk my teeth into Rick Warren’s books, “The Purpose Driven Life,” and, “The Purpose Driven Church.” Therefore, when I received a call right out of seminary to go to Rancho Cucamonga, California, I was a Fundamentalistic-Finneyistic Lutheran Pastor, coated by Evangelicalism, saturated with Pietism and driven by Purpose.

… add the Emergent Church Movement to my list.   How can all these “isms” be embraced cohesively? They can’t, as much as I tried. All of the plethora of theologies were beginning to make up a perfect storm; that is to say, an epistemological crisis …

I can remember it like yesterday reading Matthew 9:10-12 during my struggle … As I read this passage, the Word hit me. I… I am sick. Jesus came for me! It sounds so simple now, but you have to understand that from my Folk Lutheran perspective the Gospel was merely what got you “in.” … I had carelessly assumed the Gospel, and at this point I was gracious[ly] delivered the Gospel.  I was reminded that it was for me, a sick sinner who was confused, dead and broken. Thus my journey into Confessional Lutheranism had just begun.

You can read more about the Church of the Lutheran Brethren and its seminary.

The point of these spiritual journeys is that many of us carry influences other than the denominations to which we adhere now. Pastor Matt was affected by a Finneyistic pietism and legalism under a Lutheran umbrella. Yes, it seems contradictory, but it’s probably not that unusual a story. In fact, the mix of denominational and cultural influences is probably pretty common to many, especially in North America.

I have read accounts of Assembly of God Pentecostalists with seminary degrees moving to the Anglican Church and acquiring a strong Calvinistic influence along the way. Why they wouldn’t join an orthodox Presbyterian denomination instead is puzzling, but there you go.

It’s not right or wrong, it just is. As one cannot choose one’s family, it seems that one cannot choose one’s childhood church, either. However, one can end up with a fair amount of baggage and spiritual issues to work through later.

It also seems that our childhood denominations can help to determine our responses in various situations. Some longtime denominational adherents develop trigger reactions to various words or vocal intonations from others in the secular world.

It takes a lot of determination and a lot of grace to work through these struggles. And human nature dictates that we, for whatever reason, enjoy legalism. Quite possibly, it gives us the illusion that we are in control of our own religiosity, perhaps our own salvation.  Being able to jump through all the legalistic hoops of pietistic, Finneyistic Christianity day after day connotes personal success for many people.

Thank goodness God stopped Pastor Matt in his tracks and transformed his life.

For those of us welcoming newcomers to our churches, let’s remember to practice patience, kindness and fellowship.  And, when we are in the quiet of our own homes, let’s remember them in our prayers, that they may come to know the doctrine of grace.

As an ex-Evangelical, now a Reformed pastor and seminary professor, Dr R Scott Clark, said:

Now, a word to those congregations (such as mine) who find themselves host to such pilgrims. Please remember that our new friends are probably disoriented. The language, customs, and food are strange to them. They bring with them expectations not shaped by the Reformation. Our emphasis upon the gospel, sacraments, and the visible church may strike them as overly formal. We have two choices. We can pretend that we really belong to their tradition or we can gently, gradually welcome them to ours. I recommend the latter. It may take time for Americans raised on religious fastfood to learn to enjoy a new diet, language, and culture. If we try to become what the pilgrim has left behind, what use are we to the pilgrim? (Matt. 5:13). Let us welcome our brothers and sisters with open arms, open Bibles, and warm smiles.

More Evangelicals are beginning to make their way towards liturgical and confessional denominations. I’ll have a few posts on this soon.

Tomorrow: Pastor Matt’s Journey into Confessional Lutheranism (Part 2)

Americana: Michael Horton on the legacy of Charles Finney

Until a few years ago, the name Charles Grandison Finney meant nothing to me. However, many American Protestants will have been unknowingly influenced by his 19th century Pelagianism.

In 1995, Dr Michael Horton examined the long shadow of Finneyism on the American Church in ‘The Legacy of Charles Finney’, written for Modern Reformation magazine.  Horton is the J. Gresham Machen professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido, California), a host of the White Horse Inn broadcasts and editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine. He is author of many books, including The Gospel-Driven Life, Christless Christianity, People and Place, Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, The Christian Faith, and For Calvinism.

Horton’s essay is lengthy and absorbing reading for anyone seeking a better understanding of Protestant denominations in America. Charles Finney has influenced fundamentalist preachers as well as social gospel ministries. Horton explains how Finney’s man-centred, emotional and experiential focus works. Excerpts follow, emphases mine:

… Finney’s moralistic impulse envisioned a church that was in large measure an agency of personal and social reform rather than the institution in which the means of grace, Word and Sacrament, are made available to believers who then take the Gospel to the world … Evangelists pitched their American gospel in terms of its practical usefulness to the individual and the nation.

That is why Finney is so popular. He is the tallest marker in the shift from Reformation orthodoxy, evident in the Great Awakening (under Edwards and Whitefield) to Arminian (indeed, even Pelagian) revivalism, evident from the Second Great Awakening to the present. To demonstrate the debt of modern evangelicalism to Finney, we must first notice his theological departures. From these departures, Finney became the father of the antecedents to some of today’s greatest challenges within evangelical churches, namely, the church growth movement, Pentecostalism and political revivalism.

Who is Finney?

Reacting against the pervasive Calvinism of the Great Awakening, the successors of that great movement of God’s Spirit turned from God to humans, from the preaching of objective content (namely, Christ and him crucified) to the emphasis on getting a person to “make a decision.”

Charles Finney (1792-1875) ministered in the wake of the “Second Awakening,” as it has been called. A Presbyterian lawyer, Finney one day experienced “a mighty baptism of the Holy Ghost” which “like a wave of electricity going through and through me … seemed to come in waves of liquid love” … Refusing to attend Princeton Seminary (or any seminary, for that matter), Finney began conducting revivals in upstate New York. One of his most popular sermons was “Sinners Bound to Change Their Own Hearts.”

Finney’s one question for any given teaching was, “Is it fit to convert sinners with?” One result of Finney’s revivalism was the division of Presbyterians in Philadelphia and New York into Arminian and Calvinistic factions. His “New Measures” included the “anxious bench” (precursor to today’s altar call), emotional tactics that led to fainting and weeping, and other “excitements,” as Finney and his followers called them …

What’s So Wrong with Finney’s Theology?

One need go no further than the table of contents of his Systematic Theology to learn that Finney’s entire theology revolved around human morality … a collection of essays on ethics.

But that is not to say that Finney’s Systematic Theology does not contain some significant theological statements …

Finney declares of the Reformation’s formula simul justus et peccator or “simultaneously justified and sinful,” “This error has slain more souls, I fear, than all the Universalism that ever cursed the world.” For, “Whenever a Christian sins he comes under condemnation, and must repent and do his first works, or be lost” (p.60).

Finney’s doctrine of justification rests upon a denial of the doctrine of original sin … As someone has said, “We sin because we’re sinners”: the condition of sin determines the acts of sin, rather than vice versa. But Finney followed Pelagius, the fifth-century heretic, who was condemned by more church councils than any other person in church history, in denying this doctrine.

… In clear terms, Finney denied the notion that human beings possess a sinful nature (ibid.). Therefore, if Adam leads us into sin, not by our inheriting his guilt and corruption, but by following his poor example, this leads logically to the view of Christ, the Second Adam, as saving by example …

That is not entirely fair, of course, because Finney did believe that Christ died for something—not for someone, but for something. In other words, he died for a purpose, but not for people. The purpose of that death was to reassert God’s moral government and to lead us to eternal life by example, as Adam’s example excited us to sin … Not only did Finney believe that the “moral influence” theory of the atonement was the chief way of understanding the cross; he explicitly denied the substitutionary atonement …

Then there is the matter of applying redemption. Throwing off Reformation orthodoxy, Finney argued strenuously against the belief that the new birth is a divine gift, insisting that “regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness to love or benevolence,” as moved by the moral influence of Christ’s moving example (p.224) …

Having nothing to do with original sin, a substitutionary atonement, and the supernatural character of the new birth, Finney proceeds to attack “the article by which the church stands or falls”— justification by grace alone through faith alone.

Distorting the Cardinal Doctrine of Justification

The Reformers insisted, on the basis of clear biblical texts, that justification (in the Greek, “to declare righteous,” rather than “to make righteous”) was a forensic (i.e., legal) verdict … Therefore, it was a perfect, once and-for-all verdict of right standing …

To this, Finney replies: “The doctrine of imputed righteousness, or that Christ’s obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption.” … (pp.320-2) …

Finney Today

... With roots in Finney’s revivalism, perhaps evangelical and liberal Protestantism are not that far apart after all. His “New Measures,” like today’s Church Growth Movement, made human choices and emotions the center of the church’s ministry, ridiculed theology, and replaced the preaching of Christ with the preaching of conversion ...

When the leaders of the Church Growth Movement claim that theology gets in the way of growth and insist that it does not matter what a particular church believes: growth is a matter of following the proper principles, they are displaying their debt to Finney.

When leaders of the Vineyard movement praise this sub-Christian enterprise and the barking, roaring, screaming, laughing, and other strange phenomena on the basis that “it works” and one must judge its truth by its fruit, they are following Finney as well as the father of American pragmatism, William James, who declared that truth must be judged on the basis of “its cash-value in experiential terms.”

Thus, in Finney’s theology, God is not sovereign, man is not a sinner by nature, the atonement is not a true payment for sin, justification by imputation is insulting to reason and morality, the new birth is simply the effect of successful techniques, and revival is a natural result of clever campaigns …

As Whitney R. Cross has carefully documented, the stretch of territory in which Finney’s revivals were most frequent was also the cradle of the perfectionistic cults that plagued that century. A gospel that “works” for zealous perfectionists one moment merely creates tomorrow’s disillusioned and spent supersaints …

Christians and interfaith groups campaigning today against alcohol and tobacco borrow from Finney.  Theonomists striving for a ‘moral America’ owe the idea to Finney. The evangelical witness testifying ‘Today, I made the decision to be saved’ has ripped a page out of the Finney notebook. The parents who seek formulaic holiness in church activities and at home with ‘godly’ parenting books have copied Finney’s theology. The pastor who says that an emotional ‘experience’ of Christ indicates salvation is borrowing from Finney, whether he realises it or not.

Finney’s theology, imbued as it is in many corners of America, produces confusion when people leaving an unbiblical Evangelical church for a confessional denomination encounter the doctrine of grace for the first time.

This is the danger of heresy — it’s false, oppressive, confusing, painful and soul-destroying in many ways. It also leads people away from the crucified and risen Christ who freed us by dying and rising from the dead for us.

Tomorrow: Legalistic Lutheranism – part 1