Archive for May 27th, 2007
Defining Evangelicalism
May 27th, 2007
Interesting information.
The term “Evangelicalism” is a wide-reaching definitional “canopy” that covers a diverse number of Protestant groups. The term originates in the Greek word evangelion, meaning “the good news,” or, more commonly, the “gospel.” During the Reformation, Martin Luther adapted the Greek term, dubbing his breakaway movement the evangelische kirke, or “evangelical church”-a name still generally applied to the Lutheran Church in Germany.In the English-speaking world, however, the modern usage usually connotes the religious movements and denominations which sprung forth from a series of revivals that swept the North Atlantic Anglo-American world in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Key figures associated with these revivals included the itinerant English evangelist George Whitefield (1715-1770); the founder of Methodism John Wesley (1703-1791) ; and, the American philosopher and theologian, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). These revivals were particularly responsible for the rise of the Baptists and Methodists from obscure sects to their traditional position as America’s two largest Protestant denominational families.
Indeed, by the 1820s evangelical Protestantism was by far the dominant expression of Christianity in the United States. The concept of evangelism and the revival-codified, streamlined, and routinized by evangelists like Charles G. Finney (1792-1875)-became “revivalism” as evangelicals set out to convert the nation. By the decades prior to the War Between the States, a largely-evangelical “Benevolent Empire” (in historian Martin Marty’s words) was actively attempting to reshape American society through such reforms as temperance, the early women’s movement, various benevolent and betterment societies, and-most controversial of all-the abolition movement. After the war, the changes in American society wrought by such powerful forces as urbanization and industrialization, along with new intellectual and theological developments began to diminish the power of evangelicalism within American culture. Likewise, evangelical cultural hegemony was diminished in pure numeric terms with the influx of millions of non-Protestant immigrants in the latter 19th and early 20th-centuries. Nonetheless, evangelical Protestantism remained a powerful presence within American culture (as evidenced by the success of evangelists like Dwight L. Moody and Billy Sunday). Going into the 20th-century evangelicalism still held the status of an American “folk religion” in many sectors of the United States-particularly the South.
Posted in 
The Burdens of Being a Queen
May 27th, 2007
Ever since I was a child I have admired Queen Elizabeth II. Her son Charles is only a year younger than I so I’ve grown up with her.
But, even though she’s an aristocrat, she’s still human. Look at how miserable she looks in the above photo taken while Britain was celebrating the new millenium.
It’s like, “Must I put my bare hands on yours? Veddy well, then, I shall do it out of duty to my country.”
I watched the movie The Queen about the death of Diana and the royal reaction. I thought it was hysterical when Tony Blair was first introduced to her and was told when he entered the room he should bow his head and never, never turn his back on her. What a hoot!
Then I read of her recent trip to the US and noticed she had on long gloves everywhere she went. I think I read she had 100 pairs with her. I hate to wear gloves in the winter, let alone to every function I attend. And those long gloves look kind of uncomfortable.
But you know what? There will be the day when she will bow down to the True King and she will back out of His presence. And she won’t be any richer or any more aristocratic than anyone else at that time.
We All Need Friends
May 27th, 2007
I have in the past 45 minutes returned from church. I did not attend Sunday School because the sermon seemed to have touched me so deeply I didn’t want to be distracted from it.
I wanted to think and pray about it and a situation that has been very painful to me.
The sermon series is about our need for friends and our need to be friends to others.
All I could think of was my former blogging partner telling me in her last email to me that she did not accept my offer of forgiveness for what she had done to me because she felt she had done nothing.
I wasn’t totally innocent in the matter, but I did ask her forgiveness for any real or perceived hurt I had caused her. She has refused to forgive me and told me God told her to do it.
She thought I was trying to make peace with God when I was trying to make peace with her. I am at peace with God.
When I responded to her very long email she wrote these words back to me:
FYI – I knew you couldn’t do it!
My husband is right. You aren’t a Christian.
That’s why appealing to your Christian spirit won’t work.
I did not read this email. Nor will I – Get thee behind me, Satan!
These words cut to my very soul and have hurt me more than anything else in my life has ever hurt me, and I must get over them.
Riding home from church in tears, two verses came to me:
I tried to give my friendship and was slapped away numerous times. I was casting my pearls before swine and allowing them to be trampled under their feet by my many efforts at reconciliation.
She is neither a dog nor a swine, but using the analogy that’s exactly what I was doing.
God does not command us to be enemies, and my offer of friendship and reconciliation were sincere. She refused my offers.
The other verse is also from Matthew:
I shall now shake the dust off my feet and let the Lord sort it out whether it be here or in Heaven. Either way, He has shown me there is no fruit on that tree.
Cross-posted at The Barb Wire
Nothing Personal Mr. Edwards…but..
May 27th, 2007
Anti war protestors at Memorial Day parades may be expected in today’s climate but when a Presidential candidate encourages this action…well judge for yourself.
Edwards backs off call for Memorial Day war protests
Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards has been urging supporters to demonstrate against the war at Memorial Day parades. The Hill reported a week ago that Edward’s anti-war Web site, supporthetroopsendthewar.com, suggested that people make signs that say: “SUPPORT THE TROOPS — END THE WAR.” The paper quoted the Edwards site as saying:
Bring them to your local Memorial Day parade. Then take a digital photo of yourself and your family or friends holding up the poster and tell us about it. We’ll include it in a ‘Democracy Photo Album’ on our site.”
The whole premise of “Support the Troops — End the War” escapes me. These men and women understand their mission and recognize the peril of just walking away with the job unfinished.
Mr. Edwards took a bit of heat on this issue and decided to amend his first call to action but the change is so subtle I am certain it will go unnoticed.
But the Web site is a little different now. After much criticism of the call for Memorial Day protests, Edwards’ site now says Monday should be off limits for such demonstrations.
Buy a bunch of poster-board and markers. At a picnic or with family and friends, make signs that say “SUPPORT THE TROOPS – END THE WAR.” Bring them to your local Memorial Day parade. Many parades are held on Saturday or Sunday. If your parade is on Monday, however, we ask that you choose another action to honor the fallen. Then take a digital photo of yourself and your family or friends holding up the poster and tell us about it. We’ll include it in a “Democracy Photo Album” on our site.
Those who wish to protest have every right to do so. For a man who wishes to be the next Commander In Chief to encourage them on such a reflective holiday…well that’s another kettle of fish.
What if We Held an Election and Nobody Came?
May 27th, 2007
With the self-proclaimed base of the Republican party going bananas over illegal immigration and promising to not vote for someone who is not 100% as far right as they are on every issue, we now have the same thing happening to the self-proclaimed base of the Democratic party.
The bitter battle between the Democratic Congress and President Bush over Iraq war funding may be over for now, but another fight has erupted between Democrats and members of the antiwar base who say they were betrayed by their party.
Democratic leaders told their rank-and-file supporters Friday they had no choice but to give up efforts to tie a troop-withdrawal deadline to an emergency appropriations bill. Mr. Bush on Friday signed the bill that pays for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan until the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30.
Many antiwar activists and bloggers condemned the Democrats’ retreat and said their patience with party leadership was wearing thin.
“Today America watched a Democratic Party kick them square in the teeth — all in order to continue the most unpopular war in a generation,” Democratic campaign strategist David Sirota wrote Friday on the left-wing Huffington Post Web site. “We gave them our heart; they gave President Bush a blank check.
“That will make May 24, 2007, a dark day … when Democrats in Washington not only continued the war they promised to end, but happily went on record declaring that they believe in their hearts that government’s role is to ignore the will of the American people,” Mr. Sirota wrote.
The Daily Kos, one of the largest antiwar Web sites, also expressed disappointment and anger that leaders such as Democratic Sen. James H. Webb Jr. of Virginia voted to approve funding for the war. But it took some solace in Mr. Webb’s statement that he “will not relent from my continuing efforts to bring this occupation to an end.”
“They let us down this time. But the opportunities for them to make amends still exist,” Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of the Daily Kos, wrote the day after the vote. “If Democrats take advantage of them, as they promise they will, then all might be forgiven. They can prove to us that they in fact know what they are doing, and that they, in fact, do plan on honoring their most sacred promise to the 2006 electorate.
“And if they don’t? Well, no one, not even the most rabid partisans, have an endless supply of patience,” Mr. Zuniga warned.
As I’ve said before, the problem with the extreme wings of both parties is their candidates have to be as pure as the driven snow when it comes to their issues. No compromise; no reality; just temper tantrums to get what they want.
So, with the election about 17 months away, what will these purists do if they don’t get their way? Besides suck their thumbs and sulk?
They can’t vote for anyone in good conscience because no one measures up, so do they stay home to punish the party?
Maybe that’s not such a bad idea because then we could elect someone who is reasonable and not ready to fall off a cliff on the right or the left.
After That, The World! Bwahahahahaha!
May 27th, 2007
According to this article, quoting the Times of London:
The deputy leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has urged supporters in Iraq to extend their “holy war” to other Middle Eastern countries.
In a letter sent to the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq in the past few weeks, Zawahiri claims that it is defeating U.S. forces and urges followers to expand their campaign of terror.
He conjures a vision of an Islamic state comprising Lebanon, Palestine and Syria, where Al Qaeda has already gained its first footholds.
The goal of an Islamic “greater Syria,” first outlined by Zawahiri two years ago, is detailed in the letter amid growing concern about the activities of new groups under Al Qaeda’s influence in the countries concerned.
Why not? They want the whole world and might as well start somewhere.
But because they’re such gentle souls who want nothing but peace and a new caliphate we should all rest assured this is the extent of their ambitions, right?
Why don’t we all get together at the UN and vote to give them the territories they want and then all will be sunshine and roses and we can come home from Iraq and Afghanistan without any more worries about Al Qaeda.
Of course, all the territories he wants are right at Israel’s border. Nah, they wouldn’t touch Israel. All they want is their own piece of the world and they’ll be peaceful. Heck, we can even make them members of the UN just to make sure they have peaceful intentions.
After studying his mug shot I have finally figured out what’s wrong with him. He has a dent in his forehead. Someone must have hit him hard in the head with a rock (they love to throw rocks, but not the kind of rocks we think of; what they throw are mini-boulders) and now his frontal lobes are non-functional.
I’m not sure of the other cave dweller, bin Laden.
One question: Just where exactly is the country of Palestine?
One Thing We Will Not Be Doing Here
May 27th, 2007
Over the past couple of days I’ve been reading stories in the Washington Post of two new books critical of Senator Hillary Clinton to be released soon.
The Post has been reporting the gossipy parts of the books, and there is nothing new in their reporting.
We will stay away from the gossip and unless there is something newsworthy in either book, i.e. something we don’t already know and should know to help us decide on this or any other presidential candidate we will not be publishing any of the exerpts or even discussing the contents of the books.
This goes for any other presidential candidate, but we know so much about Senator Clinton already we don’t need to get into her private life any more than has already been done.
Other candidates not as well-known will probably have a hard look taken at what is written about them in an effort to keep our readers informed about the presidential candidates.
