tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11371039869030019812024-03-14T06:27:08.419+01:00Infinite MonkeyThis blog is mostly about web design, Anglican and Old Catholic theology and other churchy things in Europe, plus about living as an ex-pat American in Germany, but will occasionally take a detour into other areas as my supply of bananas and of trees for swinging allows.John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.comBlogger107125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-12192613735177626532018-10-24T13:58:00.000+02:002018-10-24T13:58:05.078+02:00Comments are dead. Long live comments!<p class="dropcap">
Welp, since Google Plus is now dead, and my blog used it for commenting, I can no longer moderate old comments — including removing some spam. So I was reluctantly forced to switch to regular Google-based commenting, which nuked all old comments. My apologies, but…well.
</p>
<p>
On the upside, at least with this new commenting system, I can moderate more effectively than before. Comments are always welcome, but no spam, no personal promotion, and please keep it respectful and polite.
</p>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-26405267150543556742018-05-31T19:30:00.001+02:002018-05-31T19:41:03.015+02:00Anglican history, part III: Who founded Anglicanism?<blockquote>
The following completes my series on Anglican history. <a href="http://infinitusmonachus.blogspot.com/2011/10/anglican-history-part-one-henry-viii.html">Part I can be found here</a>, and <a href="http://infinitusmonachus.blogspot.com/2011/10/anglican-history-part-two-royal.html">Part II can be found here</a>. The text of this was <a href="http://qr.ae/TUTEB6">originally posted on Quora</a> in answer to a question there.</blockquote>
<div class="dropcap">
<p>As I alluded to in Part II of this series, the common misconception is that Henry VIII “founded” Anglicanism (or at least the Church of England). That is actually completely false. The true founder — if we discount St. Augustine of Canterbury founding the English Church in 597 — was not Henry, but his daughter, Elizabeth. This is something of a pet peeve of mine…</p>
<p>
Elizabeth I was formally the <b>Supreme <i>Governor</i> of the Church of England</b>, technically the first to hold that title. (Her father, Henry VIII, and her brother, Edward VI, had been Supreme <i>Head,</i> but many loyal English Catholics were offended by it and Elizabeth changed the title to appease them.) All British monarchs ever since Elizabeth have held that title.</p>
<p>
The pet peeve is that it is commonly (and wrongly) said that Henry VIII “founded” the Church of England. <strong>He did not.</strong> The <i>existing</i> English Church simply cut ties to Rome. These ties were restored by Mary I, and again cut under Elizabeth.</p>
<p>
It is also commonly (and wrongly) assumed that Henry dramatically reformed the Church of England, and that he left a lasting mark on it. Actually, Henry stoutly resisted any attempts at reforms, and feuded with Luther and the Reformers on the Continent. Priests were still required to be celibate, the Mass was still usually in Latin (though an English Bible was published), belief in transubstantiation was required by law (<i>see</i> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-nine_Articles#Six_Articles_(1539)">Six Articles</a>), prayers for the dead were still said. And anyway what little he did change was restored by Mary. (She was unable to reverse the Dissolution of the Monasteries for political reasons, but otherwise wiped out the few small changes Henry <i>did</i> allow.)</p>
<p>
The Church of England — and with it the Anglican Communion as a whole — was reformed not by Henry, but by Elizabeth. The hallmarks of Anglicanism are not to be found in Henry’s church, but in Elizabeth’s, and broadly speaking, the essentials of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabethan_Religious_Settlement"><b>Elizabethan Settlement</b></a> are still what makes Anglicanism unique in uniting Catholicism and Protestantism in a single body.</p>
<p>
So if anyone could be said to have founded Anglicanism (besides Jesus Christ and St. Augustine of Canterbury), it would be Elizabeth — not Henry VIII. Her vision of a single church uniting all Christians regardless of denomination is what makes Anglicanism what it is today.</p>
<p>
Hence I would argue that the only real service Henry VIII did for Anglicanism is fathering Elizabeth. She is the true central figure in Anglican history, and really should get a <i>lot</i> more credit for it.</p>
</div>
John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0Xanity Design52.4700976 13.1026663000000132.4375306 -28.205927699999989 72.5026646 54.411260300000009tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-62867419800492006812017-11-15T17:27:00.000+01:002017-11-15T17:27:35.536+01:00What is liturgy and why is it necessary?<p class="specialnote">The following was originally <a href="https://www.quora.com/What-is-liturgy-and-why-is-it-necessary/answer/John-Grantham-2">posted on Quora as an answer</a> to the question at hand.</p>
<p class="dropcap">
I literally just did a workshop on liturgy for my parish last weekend. Liturgy is a big passion of mine. The word <i>liturgy</i> comes from Greek and literally means “public service”. In other words, by doing the liturgy, we are rendering a service unto God and our community.
</p>
<p>
In general, <i>liturgy</i> refers to the structure and ritual elements of a church service, be it a Mass/Eucharist or daily prayer.
</p>
<p>
<i>Liturgy</i> and <i>ritual</i> or <i>rites</i> are often (mistakenly) used as synonyms. Actually, <i>liturgy</i> specifically means ritual <i>with a purpose.</i>
</p>
<p>
The purpose of liturgy is to lead people to God and one another. That’s it. Which sounds simple, but it is actually not. Liturgy should (in a Christian context) take disparate people, with different tastes and beliefs and ideas and backgrounds, and join them together as one mystical Body of Christ.
</p>
<p>
That is a tall order. And anyone trying to claim that one particular liturgy works for everyone — one size fits all — is horribly mistaken.
</p>
<p>
Liturgy also seldom “just works”. It requires constant education and catechism of the parish to help them understand the meaning and purpose of the liturgy. The parish ideally should also be active participants in the liturgy, not just passive spectators. By involving the parish directly in the liturgy, they are joined more effectively with one another and with the living God made truly present on the altar in the Mass.
</p>
<p>
But liturgy does not stop there. All of this is utterly pointless if the people who consume the transformed Body and Blood are not <b>themselves</b> transformed. If the parish members do not take heed of it and go forth into the world to make it a better place and care for God’s gift of creation, then the liturgy has singularly failed to fulfill its purpose.
</p>
<p>
The liturgy thus should help us to see and hear and feel and touch and taste Christ, not just in the Body and Blood, but in our fellow human beings. “God became man so that man might become like God.” That is the basic sentiment and mission of the liturgy.<sup><a href="#footenote-001" name="footnote-001-return">1</a></sup> Everything else is just gravy.
</p>
<hr />
<p class="specialnote">
<sup><a href="#footenote-001-return" name="footnote-001">1</a></sup> See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)">Wikipedia’s article on Divinization</a>.
</p>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0Xanity Design52.4700976 13.1026663000000132.4374486 -28.205927699999989 72.5027466 54.411260300000009tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-5576912018768896252016-09-15T17:43:00.000+02:002017-11-15T17:49:31.161+01:00The simplest explanation for the difference between nominative, accusative, dative and genitive articles in German<p class="specialnote">
The following was original written in <a href="https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-simplest-explanation-for-the-difference-between-nominative-accusative-dative-and-genitive-articles/answer/John-Grantham-2">answer to a question on the topic on Quora</a>.
</p>
<p class="dropcap">
<b>Nominative: </b>Subject case. The thing performing the action. Marked below in <b>bold</b>.
<br />
<b>Accusative: </b>Direct object case. The thing being acted upon by the action. Marked below in <i>italics.</i>
<br />
<b>Dative: </b>Indirect object case. The thing receiving the action. Marked below in <b><i>bold italics.</i></b>
<br />
<b>Genitive: </b>Posessive case. Marked below with ALL CAPS.
</p>
<p>
Consider these nouns, all masculine (<b>der</b> in nominative):
</p>
<p>Der Junge (the boy)
<br />
Der Knochen (the bone)
<br />
Der Hund (the dog)
<br />
Der Nachbar (the neighbor)
</p>
<p>
Consider this sentence:
</p>
<p>
<b>Der Junge </b>gab <b><i>dem Hund</i></b> DES<i> </i>NACHBARN <i>einen Knochen </i><br />
(<b>The boy</b> gave <b><i>the</i></b> NEIGHBOR’S <b><i>dog</i></b> <i>a bone</i>)
</p>
<p>
Because of these inflections, German is able to reverse word order while maintaining the same meaning, but creating subtle changes in emphasis:
</p>
<p>
<b><i>Dem Hund</i></b> DES<i> </i>NACHBARN gab <b>der Junge</b> <i>einen Knochen</i><br />
<i>Einen Knochen</i> gab <b>der Junge</b> <b><i>dem Hund</i></b> DES<i> </i>NACHBARN
</p>
<p>
In each case, the noun that comes first gets added emphasis. This sort of highly flexible sentence structure is virtually impossible in modern English without resorting to prepositions or other constructions.
</p>
<p>
There are other ways case is affected, particularly by prepositions. The dative prepositions always cause nouns that directly follow to be dative:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
<i>Aus, außer, bei, mit, nach, seit, von, zu, gegenüber</i>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
The accusative prepositions always cause nouns that directly follow to be accusative:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
<i>Bis, durch, entlang, für, gegen, ohne, um</i>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Finally, these flexible prepositions can be either dative (if static) or accusative (if implying motion or change) depending on the situation:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
<i>An, auf, hinter, in, neben, über, unter, vor, zwischen</i>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
<i>In dem Zimmer </i>is dative and therefore means <i>in the room</i>, whereas <i>in das Zimmer</i> is accusative and thus means <i>into the room</i>.
</p>
<p>
There is more to it than that, but that’s it in a nutshell.
</p>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0Xanity Design52.4700976 13.1026663000000132.4374486 -28.205927699999989 72.5027466 54.411260300000009tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-83012379570403617282016-08-17T16:25:00.001+02:002016-08-17T16:25:58.098+02:00Gender in German: Time to abolish it (or change its name)<div class="drop cap">
After a long hiatus, there was a topic that came up in an online conversation that has inspired me to write about a topic near and dear to me: German grammatical gender. Mind you, I have mastered German pretty well — in fact I can write paragraph after paragraph of flawless German (though for some reason every four or five paragraphs I have one that goes completely all to hell). I also actually think I do get why German has gender — and (hopefully) can show you how it works so that you can appreciate it.
</div>
<p>
What bugs me is the way grammatical gender is perceived, both inside and outside the German-speaking realm. This is what Mark Twain, in a fit of frustration, <a href="http://www.kombu.de/twain-2.htm">wrote about the subject:</a>
</p>
<blockquote>
Every noun has a gender, and there is no sense or system in the distribution; so the gender of each must be learned separately and by heart. There is no other way. To do this one has to have a memory like a memorandum-book. In German, a young lady has no sex, while a turnip has. Think what overwrought reverence that shows for the turnip, and what callous disrespect for the girl. [...] A tree is male, its buds are female, its leaves are neuter; horses are sexless, dogs are male, cats are female -- tomcats included, of course; a person's mouth, neck, bosom, elbows, fingers, nails, feet, and body are of the male sex, and his head is male or neuter according to the word selected to signify it, and not according to the sex of the individual who wears it -- for in Germany all the women either male heads or sexless ones; a person's nose, lips, shoulders, breast, hands, and toes are of the female sex; and his hair, ears, eyes, chin, legs, knees, heart, and conscience haven't any sex at all. The inventor of the language probably got what he knew about a conscience from hearsay.
<br /><br />
[...]
<br /><br />
In the German it is true that by some oversight of the inventor of the language, a Woman is a female; but a Wife <i>(Weib)</i> is not -- which is unfortunate. A Wife, here, has no sex; she is neuter; so, according to the grammar, a fish is he, his scales are she, but a fishwife is neither. To describe a wife as sexless may be called under-description; that is bad enough, but over-description is surely worse. A German speaks of an Englishman as the Engländer; to change the sex, he adds -in, and that stands for Englishwoman -- <i>Engländerin</i>. That seems descriptive enough, but still it is not exact enough for a German; so he precedes the word with that article which indicates that the creature to follow is feminine, and writes it down thus: "die Engländerin," -- which means "the she-Englishwoman." I consider that that person is over-described.
</blockquote>
<p>
So it is easy to make fun of — if you don’t understand what gender is for and what it really is.
</p>
<p>
Grammatical gender in German actually has nothing — I mean <i><b>nothing</b></i> — to do with “gender” in the sexual sense. Zero. De nada. Twain’s observation above that a girl <i>(das Mädchen)</i> and a female <i>(das Weib)</i> are both “neuter”, while a cat is female regardless of its real gender (<i>die Katze</i>), <b>should</b> clue you in on this, but Twain definitely missed the point.
</p>
<p>
After some 20+ years of speaking the language on a daily basis, I think there is another explanation for the origin and purpose of grammatical gender. If you look at how plurals are formed, they are fairly consistent across each of the three genders. Usually this is taught as “if it is masculine, then it forms the plural like this”. I think that that is actually backwards. <b>It is “masculine” because the plural is formed a certain way, not the other way around.</b>
</p>
<p>
If a word’s plural adds an umlaut and an -e, like <i>Topf</i> -> <i>Töpfe</i>, then it almost certainly is masculine. Or if it remains unchanged in the plural, then it is also most likely masculine, like <i>der Knochen</i> -> <i>die Knochen</i> or <i>der Knoten</i> -> <i>die Knoten</i>.
</p>
<p>
If a word’s plural adds an -en or -n, like <i>die Frau</i> -> <i>Frauen</i> or <i>Lampe</i> -> <i>Lampen</i>, then it is almost certainly feminine.
</p>
<p>
If a word ends in a diminutive (<i>-chen</i> or <i>-lein</i>, such as <i>Mädchen</i>), or adds <i>-er</i> to form the plural, then it is almost certainly neuter. Hence <i>das Mädchen</i> becomes <i>die Mädchen</i> in the plural, or <i>das Kind</i> becomes <i>die Kinder</i>.
</p>
<p>
In the end, the “gender” is thus a tool for marking words for forming plurals in certain ways. It is nothing to do with sexual gender.
</p>
<p>
Granted, there are exceptions to these rule above, and Germans reading this will no doubt start posting them in response. The thing is, no language is 100% consistent — English is a particularly sloppy and irregular language. While German is indeed far more regular and systematic than English, that does not mean it is completely consistent. I submit that the plural is the real basis for the so-called “gender”.
</p>
<p>
So why bother with grammatical gender? Well, it actually helps make the language <b>far more supple and subtle in phrasing and word order.</b> German is able to play with word order in sentences in ways English can not remotely compete with. Consider the following three sentences:
</p>
<blockquote>
Der Junge gibt dem Hund den Knochen.<br />
Den Knochen gibt der Junge dem Hund.<br />
Dem Hund gibt der Junge den Knochen.
</blockquote>
<p>
All three nouns in this are “masculine” — <i>der Junge</i> (the boy), <i>der Hund</i> (the dog), and <i>der Knochen</i> (the bone). All three sentences thus mean almost exactly the same thing: <i>The boy gives the dog the bone</i>. The only subtle difference is one of emphasis. Where the first version matter-of-factly says the boy gives the dog the bone, the second emphasizes that the THE BONE was given, and the third emphasizes that THE DOG was given a bone. All this just by swapping word order — something which is impossible in English without adding prepositions. <i>The bone gives the dog the boy</i> means something completely different and only makes sense when we add those prepositions or use passive voice: <i>The bone was given by the boy to the dog</i>.
</p>
<p>
English had this same system once upon a time, when it was still Anglo-Saxon, before the Norman invasion of 1066. The genders, along with nearly all traces of the cases (dative and accusative), were lost over time as English became the language of simple peasants, while the elite spoke Norman French for some 300 years. We get by without it in English, but I think the language is actually somewhat poorer without it. Yes, it is easier to learn for new speakers, but it is also far less flexible and efficient in expressing complex thoughts.
</p>
<p>
Seen that way, the “gender” could really just as well have been called the “flavor”, with “der” words being sour words, “die” words being sweet words, and “das” words being salty words. <b>The masculine, feminine, and neuter labels have caused all sorts of misunderstandings — and not just by non-native speakers.</b>
</p>
<p>
To illustrate this misunderstanding: German and English have diverged dramatically in the way they try to become “gender neutral”. Where English tries to abolish all traces of gender from daily language, such as avoiding the <i>-ess</i> ending and preferring neutral terms instead — <i>flight attendant</i> instead of <i>stewardess</i>, <i>chair</i> instead of <i>chairman</i>, etc. — <u>German has gone the polar opposite way</u>.
</p>
<p>
German feminists get really offended if you forget the <i>-in</i> feminine ending for a woman’s job position, for example, or forget to use it in the plural. So instead of forming the plural for <i>der Lehrer</i> as <i>die Lehrer</i> to encompass all teachers, whether male or female, they insist on using the plural feminine form of <i>-innen</i> — <i>Lehrer und Lehrerinnen</i> — or sometimes resorting to the rather clumsy short form of <i>LehrerInnen</i> with a capital <i>I</i>.
</p>
<p>
This results is some really tortured and clumsy grammar. Where politicians, for example, would address others as a group as <i>liebe Bürger</i> (“dear citizens”), now they resort to <i>liebe Bürgerinnen und Bürger</i> (“dear female and male citizens”).
</p>
<p>
In our church, this had an even more strange effect — one that I tried to point out at our synod in a debate on the subject, but which unfortunately got nowhere. You see, our church — the Old Catholic Church in Germany — is quite vocal about supporting women’s ordination. Which is fine, I support it, too. But part of the point of women’s ordination, I think, is the notion that a person’s gender <b>should not matter</b> in performing their function as clergy. Otherwise, if there <i>is</i> a difference between the genders, that unwittingly opens up a hole for arguments as to why women should not be ordained.
</p>
<p>
Either gender matters for the priesthood, or it doesn’t. I happen to think it does not. But if it does…then what? And if it does not, then why insist on it being mentioned?
</p>
<p>
So ironically, by insisting on saying <i>die Priesterinnen und Priester</i> (“female and male priests”) instead of just <i>die Priester</i> to mean “priests”, the feminists among us are in effect forcing us to note the gender where <b>gender isn’t supposed to be relevant</b>.
</p>
<p>
This on top of the fact that science is showing us how gender is far more complex than a mere binary of male and female. It just is not the case that a person is solely male or solely female. The two blend into each other, like a continuum. Some people are well on the male side of that continuum, some are well to the female side, but in the middle there is a grey area. What about intersexed or transsexual people in Germany? How are feminists going to label them? Would an intersexed priest — not outside the realm of possibility! — be a <i>Priesterin</i> or a <i>Priester</i>? Would a transsexual teacher be a <i>Lehrer</i> or <i>Lehrerin</i>?
</p>
<p>
If we simply dump the whole idea of grammatical gender having anything to do with biological or sociological gender, then the whole problem disappears — while maintaining the grammatical flourishes and subtlety that grammatical gender provide.
</p>
<p>
For those Germans reading this (and I would be happy to translate this into German to make it easier for them to read!), think about it. If you really want German to be an inclusive language, and I hope you do, then let’s stop using “masculine/feminine/neuter” to describe grammatical gender. Or at least stop mixing grammatical gender with gender politics. Because it just makes no sense to do it.
</p>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0Home sweet home in Potsdam, Germany52.470110000000012 13.10266000000001432.437468500000008 -28.205933999999985 72.502751500000016 54.411254000000014tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-69152348528019942602016-01-26T22:24:00.000+01:002017-11-15T19:35:11.517+01:00The “Awful German Language” or How to Remove your Pickelhaube<blockquote>The following was originally written for my <strong>English for Scientists</strong> class at the Leibniz Institute in Potsdam for doctoral students. Enjoy.</blockquote>
<p class="dropcap">The following is just my opinion, and should be taken with good humor. However, it is worthwhile for you to consider as students of writing in English. When Germans start to write in English, there are certain habits they keep from how they learned to write in German. This is natural. Nonetheless what may seem like good style to a German will not be appreciated by an English speaker. Instead, it can be very frustrating and annoying.</p>
<p>In the English-speaking world, a very different style is considered better than in the German-speaking world. When Germans write in English — and their Germanness is plainly obvious — and I have to proofread and correct it, I call it “removing the Pickelhaube” from the text.</p>
<p>There is perhaps no better illustration of the culture clash that results from this difference in style than the classic text <i>The Awful German Language</i> by Mark Twain. In that article, the famous American author and satirist savagely (but hilariously) described German grammar.<span class="CharOverride-1"><span id="footnote-002-backlink"><a class="_idFootnoteLink _idGenColorInherit" href="#footnote-002"><sup>1</sup></a></span></span> He wrote:</p>
<blockquote>There are ten parts of speech, and they are all troublesome. An average sentence, in a German newspaper, is a sublime and impressive curiosity; it occupies a quarter of a column; it contains all the ten parts of speech — not in regular order, but mixed; it is built mainly of compound words constructed by the writer on the spot, and not to be found in any dictionary — six or seven words compacted into one, without joint or seam — that is, without hyphens; it treats of fourteen or fifteen different subjects, each inclosed <i>[sic]</i> in a parenthesis of its own, with here and there extra parentheses which reinclose <i>[sic]</i> three or four of the minor parentheses, making pens within pens: finally, all the parentheses and reparentheses are massed together between a couple of king-parentheses, one of which is placed in the first line of the majestic sentence and the other in the middle of the last line of it — after which comes the <span class="smallcaps">VERB</span>, and you find out for the first time what the man has been talking about; and after the verb — merely by way of ornament, as far as I can make out — the writer shovels in <i>“haben sind gewesen gehabt haben geworden sein,”</i> or words to that effect, and the monument is finished.</blockquote>
<p>This shows the kind of frustration that an English speaker feels when reading a text that is opaque and hard to understand, especially when it comes from a German trying to write German in English. (It is worth noting that modern 21st century editors would heavily criticize even Mark Twain’s 19th century text for being too complicated and not simple enough.)</p>
<p>My observation is that German writers and readers want and expect a kind of intellectual fireworks. It goes like this: If the text is ornate, complex, and elaborate, then the content is also more highly valued. I see it all the time in popular German newspapers and magazines, from <i>Die Zeit</i> to <i>Der Spiegel</i> to <i>Der Tagesspiegel</i> to any given literary or scientific publication. The contrast with English could hardly be greater: The English-speaking world by and large prefers a purely pragmatic, utilitarian, simple style. English texts should be clear, simple, easy to understand: These are the hallmarks of good writing in English, whether scientific, journalistic, or creative.</p>
<p>We must always remember this basic law of writing — <strong>you are not writing for yourself, but for your audience</strong>. Your readers will probably not be fellow Germans, but English speakers from all over the world. They will be both native and non-native speakers, with all sorts of reading levels. These poor souls may struggle to understand your “haben sind gewesen gehabt haben geworden sein”, no matter how much effort you may have put into your rhetorical flourishes. Thus you are doing your readers a great service by keeping your text as simple and direct as possible. They will thank you for it.</p>
<p>So how do you do it? What are some signs of Pickelhauben in your text? Here are a few examples:</p>
<p><i>Run-on sentences.</i> If you have a sentence that contains more than one complete thought — or worse, many — then you probably have a Pickelhaube in your text. Try to keep your sentences short and sweet. Avoid running sentences together with commas, colons, semicolons, or (God forbid) parenthesis. A “complete thought” is generally said to contain one subject and one verb. If your sentence contains more than one of each, it is probably a run-on sentence.</p>
<p><i>Long paragraphs.</i> A paragraph generally should have one “main idea” and move on to the next paragraph, rather than try to cover too much ground. If your paragraphs take up whole columns and pages, you probably have a Pickelhaube staring you in the face.</p>
<p><i>Inverted or convoluted sentence order.</i> German is a very flexible language thanks to its complex sentence structure — which is what made Mark Twain tear out his hair trying to understand it. For better or “wurst”, English can’t do anywhere near the kind of varied sentence order and structure that German can. So don’t even try. While you should vary sentence order a little, straying too far from the basic Subject-Verb-Object is usually not a good idea. If most of your sentences don’t follow <span class="smallcaps">SVO</span> order, you probably have yet more Pickelhauben in your text. </p>
<p><i>Mangled prefixes and suffixes.</i> This is a curse for anyone learning English. As one good example, is it “economic policy” or “economical policy”? (It’s “economic”.) For some reason, Germans love to add the suffix “-al” to adjectives ending in “-ic” where the German equivalent is “-isch”. If you have a lot of adjectives ending in doubled-up prefixes or suffixes like “-ical”, you probably have a Pickelhaube in your text.</p>
<p><i>Gender-specific language.</i> While German values, even requires, naming the gender of the subject — <i>der Lehrer/die Lehrerin</i> — English absolutely tries to avoid it. At one time the feminine ending “-ess” was common and is on rare occasions still used (such as “hostess”), but today should be avoided. Thus <i>steward/stewardess </i>is frowned upon; <i>flight attendant</i> is preferred. <i>Mailman</i> is considered hopelessly sexist; <i>mail carrier</i> is now the “correct” term. <i>Chairman</i> is disliked; <i>chairperson</i> or even just <i>chair</i> is now the norm. In some style manuals, however, sometimes gender does slip through — so you may come across <i>chairwoman</i> — and in some cases simple tradition has preserved older forms, like <i>Congressman/Congresswoman</i>. Still, the trend in the English-speaking world is definitely towards a truly gender-neutral language. You are on the safer side if you avoid gender-specific terms, especially the gendertyping suffix “-ess”, in your writing altogether. On occasion I have seen German writers insist on using gender-specific terms (a favorite was “professoress”). Don’t.</p>
<p><i>Misuse of the genitive.</i> Germans often try to literally translate the German genitive case into English, such as <i>die Wohnung meines Freundes</i> is translated as “the apartment of my friend”. This is very awkward in English. Instead, English speakers prefer to simply use the apostrophe S for the possessive case, like “my friend’s apartment”. This applies even when it is a double possessive, like “my friend’s apartment’s windows”.</p>
<p><i>Misuse of the reflexive.</i> German has many reflexive verbs, like <i>sich denken</i>. English, by contrast, generally does not. Thus when a German says “I think myself that this is correct English”, he or she is wrong. The correct form would simply be “I think that this is correct English.” To think <i>to</i> oneself means you think something and keep it to yourself, that is, you don’t tell anyone. Thus “I think to myself that this is correct English” means you don’t actually <i>say</i> it aloud. Similarly, in English you comb your hair, you brush your teeth, and so on — no “self” is needed. “I remember me/myself” is just such a typical mistake. As a rule of thumb, if the German verb uses <i>sich</i>, a reflexive pronoun won’t be needed in English, but if it uses the dative <i>mir/dir/Ihnen</i>, it probably does.</p>
<p><i>Confusing adverbs and adjectives.</i> In German, adverbs and adjectives can often be used interchangeably, but in English, there is a critical difference. If the word describes or modifies a noun, it is an <strong>adjective</strong>. If it describes or modifies a verb, it is an <strong>adverb</strong>. Many adverbs can be identified by the ending “-ly”, as most adjectives can be turned into an adverb simply by adding the “-ly” ending. Thus the sentence “she slammed the door angry” is incorrect; the proper form is “she slammed the door <strong>angrily</strong>”. We know the adverb <i>angrily</i> describes the verb, bceause it tells us how she slammed the door. <i>Slam</i> is the verb, <i>angrily</i> describes that verb, hence it needs the -ly ending.</p>
<p><i>Wordiness. </i>The German language is like a highly versatile toolkit of roots, prefixes, and suffixes, with limitless possibilities for new words. That means that German, much more than English, can come up with a new word on the spot and still be understood: <i>Grundgesetz</i>, <i>Vergegenwärtigung</i>, <i>Rentenversicherungsträger,</i> <i>Donaudampfschifffahrtskapitänsgesellschaft</i>. German also loves arcane abbreviations and acronyms much more than English: <i>Kripo, StVO, KaDeWe, Pkw, <span class="smallcaps">PS</span>, Hbf, MfG</i>. The problem is that English just doesn’t work very much like that. Where Germans are used to (and expect) long words, technical terms, and obscure jargon, English readers are not. German writers in English therefore often use (or worse, invent) large words and obscure terms that English speakers would rarely choose. If there is a simpler term for what you mean, try to use it. Meanwhile if your vocabulary sounds like you swallowed a thesaurus covered in a sticky Wikipedia sauce, you probably have a Pickelhaube in your text.</p>
<p><i>Overuse or misuse of commas.</i> Comma rules in English are quite different from those in German. A typical German comma error would be to write “I think, that…” where an English speaker would never use a comma. German generally uses commas to split phrases, but English generally only uses them in lists or to mark independent clauses (an “independent clause” is different from a phrase or dependent clause in that it contains a complete thought, i.e. a subject and a verb).</p>
<p><i>Overuse or misuse of prepositions.</i> Prepositions in English are a minefield for Germans learning the language. A preposition often modifies the meaning of the verb, sometimes quite drastically. “To knock” means (<i>an-)klopfen</i>, “to knock <i>up</i>” is American slang for “to get someone pregnant”. The sentence “I’m dressing up to go for a run” may seem <span class="smallcaps">OK</span>, until you realize that “to dress up” in English means to wear fancy clothing. (The correct form would be “to get dressed”.)</p>
<p><i>False friends.</i> There are many cases of “false friends” (the proper term is “false cognates”) in German and English. Some of the worst offenders are the verb “to become” (which means <i>werden</i>, not <i>bekommen</i>), “eventually” (<i>possibly</i>, not <i>eventuell</i>), “actual” (<i>wirklich</i>, not <i>aktuell</i>), “delicate” (<i>empfindlich</i> or <i>zerbrechlich</i>, not <i>delikat</i>), “irritate” (<i>reizen</i>, not <i>irritieren</i>), or “objective” (as an adjective, it means <i>sachlich</i> or <i>gegenständlich</i>; as a noun, it means <i>Ziel</i>, not <i>Objektiv</i>, which in English is a <i>lens</i>). There are many, many others.<sup><span class="CharOverride-1"><span id="footnote-001-backlink"><a class="_idFootnoteLink _idGenColorInherit" href="#footnote-001">2</a></span></span></sup> Whenever a German says “I am becoming some food”, English speakers wonder if a hungry tiger is lurking nearby.</p>
<p><i>Mangled prepositions. </i>“Different than” or “different from”? “Since” or “for”? Whenever you use a preposition, keep in mind that you can’t assume that the English “equivalent” to a German preposition is the right one. Chances are it is actually wrong. For example, “seit vielen Jahren”, translated into English, is not “since many years”, but “<i>for</i> many years”. Similarly, “anders als” is not “other as”, but “other <i>than</i>”.</p>
<p><i>Invented English terms and malapropisms.</i> A famous example of a German “loan word” from English is <i>das Handy</i>. The problem is that no one in the <span class="smallcaps">UK</span> or <span class="smallcaps">USA</span> calls a mobile telephone a “handy”. Ever. (Americans call it a “cellphone”, the British call it a “mobile”.) In fact the word “handy” in English is never used as a noun. Another example is the bizarre <i>das Basecap</i>, which in “real” English is “baseball cap” or “ballcap” and never “basecap”. There are other examples of this. Beware of using “English” words you know from German. If you do use one, you probably have a Pickelhaube in your text.</p>
<p>A great example of this last point is this gloriously awful text written by a Japanese author, who clearly believed he or she was writing impeccable English. It is so terrible that I memorized it. It goes like this: <i>When passenger of foot heave in sight, tootle the horn. Trumpet him melodiously at first, but if he still obstacles your passage then tootle him with vigor.</i> No doubt this person congratulated himself or herself on their efforts, but it is a disaster worthy of the Titanic — even though <i>technically </i>it is grammatically correct.<sup><span class="CharOverride-1"><span id="footnote-000-backlink"><a class="_idFootnoteLink _idGenColorInherit" href="#footnote-000">3</a></span></span></sup> You can avoid making such a fool of yourself simply by keeping it simple.</p>
<h3>Love your Pickelhaube</h3>
<p>None of this is means German is a bad language. In no way do I mean to criticize German or the way it is used. German is a wonderful language that I greatly enjoy using, as is English. </p>
<p>However, just like American football and soccer are both wonderful sports that are related and share a common ancestor, it would make little sense to play soccer using the rules of American football. Like those two sports, German and English are closely related and share a common ancestor (Indo-European), but they are still quite different. Thus I invite you to love your Pickelhaube and be proud of it, but it may be a good idea to not wear it when you venture into the Anglosphere. I would be happy to give you a ballcap.</p>
<hr class="HorizontalRule-1" />
<div class="_idFootnotes">
<div id="footnote-002" class="_idFootnote">
<p class="Footnote" lang="en-GB"><a class="_idFootnoteAnchor _idGenColorInherit" name="footnote-002" href="#footnote-002-backlink"><sup>1</sup></a>	See <a href="http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/awfgrmlg.html"><span class="url_link">http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/awfgrmlg.html</span></a> for the full article.</p>
</div>
<div id="footnote-001" class="_idFootnote">
<p class="Footnote" lang="en-GB"><a class="_idFootnoteAnchor _idGenColorInherit" name="footnote-001" href="#footnote-001-backlink"><sup>2</sup></a>	See <a href="http://german.about.com/library/blfalsef.htm"><span class="url_link">http://german.about.com/library/blfalsef.htm</span></a> for lots more examples and a quiz.</p>
</div>
<div id="footnote-000" class="_idFootnote">
<p class="Footnote" lang="en-GB"><a class="_idFootnoteAnchor _idGenColorInherit" name="footnote-000" href="#footnote-000-backlink"><sup>3</sup></a>	Many more such — ahem — monuments to overly exuberant English may be found on <a href="http://www.engrish.com/"><span class="url_link">http://www.engrish.com/.</span></a></p>
</div>
</div>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0Home sweet home52.470110000000012 13.10266000000001432.437468500000008 -28.205933999999985 72.502751500000016 54.411254000000014tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-43657005588576778992016-01-11T22:32:00.000+01:002017-11-15T17:07:04.144+01:00Word choices, or how to find your inner Anglo-Saxon<blockquote>
The following was originally written for my <strong>English for Scientists</strong> course that I taught at the Leibniz Institute in Potsdam.
</blockquote>
<p class="dropcap">The English language has a complex and fascinating history. That history affects how certain words are perceived. Therefore it affects your word choices when writing in English.</p>
<h3>A brief history of the English language</h3>
<div class="illustrationright">
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heptarchy#/media/File:Anglo-Saxon_Heptarchy.jpg"><img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Anglo-Saxon_Heptarchy.jpg/285px-Anglo-Saxon_Heptarchy.jpg" width="200" /></a>
<span>The “Heptarchy” of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.<br />
From Wikimedia Commons</span>
</div>
<p>English ultimately is derived from Anglo-Saxon (sometimes called “Old English”), a language closely related to Low German (Plattdeutsch), Dutch, and Frisian. In the late 5th century <span class="smallcaps">AD</span>, Angles, Saxons, and Jutes from northern Germany and Denmark invaded and colonized what became England — “Angle-Land” — which until then had been Roman and Celtic. Almost no words of Latin or Celtic survive from that period in English, making it clear that the Romano-British population was completely displaced by the Anglo-Saxons. (Their descendants are the modern Welsh and Cornish.) The Anglo-Saxons then formed into several kingdoms like Kent, Wessex, Mercia, and Northumbria, which gradually formed into one kingdom of England.</p>
<p>Here is the Lord’s Prayer in Anglo-Saxon from about the year 1000. The “þ” is called “thorn” and is the “th” sound in “this”; the “ð” is called “eth” and is the “th” sound in “thin”.</p>
<blockquote>Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum;<br />Si þin nama gehalgod<br />to becume þin rice<br />gewurþe ðin willa<br />on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.<br />urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg<br />and forgyf us ure gyltas<br />swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum<br />and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge<br />ac alys us of yfele soþlice.<span class="CharOverride-1"><span id="footnote-003-backlink"><a class="_idFootnoteLink _idGenColorInherit" href="#footnote-003"><sup>1</sup></a></span></span></blockquote>
<p>By way of comparison, here it is in the English of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer:</p>
<blockquote>Our father, which art in heaven,<br />hallowed by thy name;<br />thy kingdom come;<br />thy will be done,<br />in earth as it is in heaven.<br />Give us this day our daily bread.<br />And forgive us our trespasses,<br />as we forgive them that trespass against us.<br />And lead us not into remptation,<br />but deliver us from evil.</blockquote>
<p>Starting around the year 800, Vikings began to attack the British Isles. After 865, they started an all-out conquest of England — which nearly succeeded. While they were beaten back and defeated by King Alfred the Great in 886, Alfred had to accept their control over the northern and eastern parts of England, which became known as the “Danelaw”. To this day, many place names in northern England have the Danish “-by” ending (like Derby) alongside the Anglo-Saxon “-ham” ending (like Grantham). Many Viking words were added to Old English and used alongside Anglo-Saxon words, like <i>heavens</i> (Anglo-Saxon) and <i>sky</i> (Old Norse). Words like <i>bash</i> and <i>skull</i> and <i>give</i> and <i>take</i> all came from the Vikings.</p>
<p>From 1016 to 1035, England was ruled by a Danish king, Canute (or Cnut), and was briefly part of a Scandinavian empire. This brought more Danish colonists, which left its mark on the language. Titles like <i>earl</i> (jarl) came into English at this time alongside the English <i>thegn/thane</i>.</p>
<p>In 1066, the Normans led by William the Conqueror invaded England and took the crown. The Normans were originally Vikings who colonized northern France, but by the time of the Norman Conquest, they spoke a dialect of Old French. They replaced nearly the whole upper class of Anglo-Saxon society all at once. Thus to this day legal and high culture terms in English are generally French in origin. Until the 19th century, legal proceedings in England were still largely conducted in Norman French. In many cases French words were used alongside Anglo-Saxon ones: <i>kingly</i> (Anglo-Saxon) and <i>royal</i> (French), for example. Even the word “government” is French.</p>
<p>After 1066, English went into a kind of long sleep, barely surviving as the language of simple peasants and farmers. For almost 300 years, the English noble class spoke French and ignored English. It wasn’t until King Edward <span class="smallcaps">III</span> (reign 1327-1377) that an English king spoke English in Parliament. </p>
<p>Because of the steady immigration of different language groups and the lack of an elite to maintain standards, English became much simpler — like a créole or patois in the Caribbean or Africa simplifies English today. Inflections and genders (der/die/das/die, dem/der/dem/den…) like you see in German nearly vanished, though a few examples remain: <i>who/whom, he/him/his</i>, or calling a ship <i>her</i>. </p>
<p>English also shifted from the German habit of making compound words to the French manner of stringing words together separately. Germanic compound words like <i>handbook, highway, townsfolk</i> gave way to phrases. Where German or Old English would form a compound word like <i>Hochschule</i>, English prefers to leave the words separate: <i>high school</i>. Note the lack of a hyphen as well.</p>
<p>In spite of all this change, throughout history, the bedrock of English remained firmly Anglo-Saxon. Of the 100 most commonly used words in English,<span class="CharOverride-2"><span id="footnote-002-backlink"><a class="_idFootnoteLink _idGenColorInherit" href="#footnote-002"><sup>2</sup></a></span></span> nearly all are of Anglo-Saxon origin: words like <i>the, this, I, and, by, for, two</i>, and so on. For most common things, there is an Anglo-Saxon word that can be used and is often preferred. </p>
<p>Thanks to the constant input of new words from Danes, Normans, and the Church, English gained a huge vocabulary filled with synonyms taken from Old Norse, Norman French, and Latin. Instead of just “red”, an apple in English can be “crimson”, “ruby”, “carmine”, “maroon”, “scarlet”, “vermillion”, “russet”, “claret”, and more besides.</p>
<p>Then came Shakespeare (1564-1616), who almost singlehandedly transformed the language. Shakespeare is said to have coined over 1700 words,<span class="CharOverride-2"><span id="footnote-001-backlink"><a class="_idFootnoteLink _idGenColorInherit" href="#footnote-001"><sup>3</sup></a></span></span> and many common phrases we use today were invented by him. Phrases like <i>the be-all and end-all, put your best foot forward, brave new world, to breathe his last, crack of doom,</i> and hundreds more were all from Shakespeare.</p>
<p>This richness of language in English is both a blessing and a curse. It is a blessing because it makes it possible for poets and writers to have greater shades of meaning than is possible in other languages, but it is also a curse, because the temptation is always there to abuse that privilege.</p>
<h3>What is language for?</h3>
<p>This matters in your writing because you are not writing poetry or art, <span class="Semibold">you are writing to be understood</span>. Language in this case is for a very specific purpose: giving information as efficiently and easily as possible. </p>
<p>Let’s talk about the King James Bible, a translation in English that was completed in 1611. Like you, the translators wanted to reach as wide an audience and communicate as clearly as possible. The reason was their Protestant zeal to bring the Bible to all people so that anyone could understand it, not just priests. To this day the King James Bible ranks as one of the best-written English texts of all time. It is loved for its clarity and simplicity. Along with Shakespeare — who lived at about the same time the King James Bible was translated — it ranks as the strongest influence on the English langauge of any single work. Hundreds of common phrases and idioms we use today come from that Bible — <i>ashes to ashes, a broken heart, a drop in the bucket, a labor of love, flesh and blood</i> — these and many more come from the King James Version.<span class="CharOverride-2"><span id="footnote-000-backlink"><a class="_idFootnoteLink _idGenColorInherit" href="#footnote-000"><sup>4</sup></a></span></span></p>
<p>The biggest reason it is considered to be so clear and precise is because its translators preferred to stick to simple Anglo-Saxon words. They only coined Latinate or Greek words only where absolutely necessary and where the meaning of those words is “crystal clear” (that is a term coined by the King James Bible, by the way). </p>
<p>Somehow, through all the centuries, English speakers have kept a preference for those ancient words, and people who overuse French, Latin, Greek or other “foreign” words still come across to many as <i>elitist, opaque, distant, snobbish</i>, even <i>aggressive</i> — all negative words that come from Norman French, by the way. Perhaps this gut feeling is also an echo of the feelings the defeated Anglo-Saxons must have felt toward their Norman overlords.</p>
<p>This is helpful to remember when trying to understand how words are perceived by native speakers of English. It happens on a deeply subconscious level; most people would not know why it sounds better or worse. The reader almost certainly won’t think much about why they feel the way they do about the text, but they will still have those feelings. Those feelings in turn can change how your writing is perceived in subtle, yet important ways.</p>
<h3>The only rule in English: There are no rules</h3>
<p>It may sound strange, but English has no commonly agreed rules. German has Duden, the French have the <i>Academie française</i>, but English has many competing sets of rules. Even within individual countries, there are multiple dictionaries and rule sets to choose from. One dictionary may say a word is spelled “cookie”, another may insist it is “cooky”.</p>
<p>Furthermore, since there never was a central authority deciding what the rules are, English never went through a complete reform like German has done. Where a word’s spelling from one dialect became the preferred one, a totally different pronunciation from a different dialect would also become the choice. Hence English spelling often has no rhyme or reason. <i>Cough, though, thought</i>, and <i>rough</i> all use the combination <i>ough</i>, but sound totally different from each other. Then there are differences between American, British, Canadian, and Australian English — is it <i>center</i> or <i>centre</i>, <i>honor</i> or <i>honour, tyre</i> or <i>tire, while</i> or <i>whilst</i>?</p>
<p>The answer to this problem is the rules are whatever the group you are in says they are. If you are in America or are in contact with Americans, use American English. If in contact with British people, use British English. Then decide which style guide you need to use, if you need it. But the main thing is, don’t worry about it too much — even native speakers get things like this wrong all the time!</p>
<hr class="HorizontalRule-1" />
<div class="_idFootnotes">
<div id="footnote-003" class="_idFootnote">
<p class="Footnote" lang="en-GB"><a name="footnote-003" class="_idFootnoteAnchor _idGenColorInherit" href="#footnote-003-backlink"><sup>1</sup></a>	Retrieved from <a href="http://www.lords-prayer-words.com/lord_old_english_medieval.html"><span class="url_link">http://www.lords-prayer-words.com/lord_old_english_medieval.html</span></a>, February 19, 2015.</p>
</div>
<div id="footnote-002" class="_idFootnote">
<p class="Footnote" lang="en-GB"><a name="footnote-002" class="_idFootnoteAnchor _idGenColorInherit" href="#footnote-002-backlink"><sup>2</sup></a>	See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_common_words_in_English"><span class="url_link">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_common_words_in_English</span></a></p>
</div>
<div id="footnote-001" class="_idFootnote">
<p class="Footnote" lang="en-GB"><a name="footnote-001" class="_idFootnoteAnchor _idGenColorInherit" href="#footnote-001-backlink"><sup>3</sup></a>	Retrieved from <a href="http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/wordsinvented.html"><span class="url_link">http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/wordsinvented.html</span></a>, February 20, 2015</p>
</div>
<div id="footnote-000" class="_idFootnote">
<p class="Footnote" lang="en-GB"><a name="footnote-000" class="_idFootnoteAnchor _idGenColorInherit" href="#footnote-000-backlink"><sup>4</sup></a>	See <a href="http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/bible-phrases-sayings.html"><span class="url_link">http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/bible-phrases-sayings.html</span></a></p>
</div>
</div>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0Home sweet home52.470110000000012 13.10266000000001432.437468500000008 -28.205933999999985 72.502751500000016 54.411254000000014tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-67165107013979560242015-03-26T17:33:00.000+01:002017-11-15T17:33:38.569+01:00What are the main differences between Presbyterianism and Catholicism?<p class="specialnote">
The following was originally posted as an <a href="https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-main-differences-between-Presbyterianism-and-Catholicism/answer/John-Grantham-2">answer on Quora to the question at hand</a>.
</p>
<p class="dropcap">
First, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, Presbyterians are what is called a <i>confessional church</i>, meaning that they adhere to a statement of faith (or “confession”) beyond the basic Creeds of the early Church (Nicene and Apostolic). A confession lists a whole series of things their members are required to believe. Usually for Presbyterians this is means the Reformed confessions like the Westminster Confession (see <a href="http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/">Westminster Confession of Faith</a>). Most Protestant denominations fit this description — Lutherans, for example, adhere to the Augsburg Confession. A list of Reformed confessions can be found at <a href="http://www.reformed.org/documents/">Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org</a>. The Roman Catholic Church does have its dogma and catechism, but no binding precise statements of faith beyond the Creeds. Technically when one becomes Catholic and is baptized, one need only accept the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds as the minimum statement of faith; the rest is therefore less binding, if still important.
</p>
<p>
Second, as the name implies, Presbyterians do not believe in episcopal governance like Roman Catholics, Anglicans/Episcopalians, Old Catholics, or the Orthodox do (in theory Methodists also fit this category, but are somewhere in between the two). I would call these latter churches collectively “Catholic churches”, even if some are technically also Protestant. The Catholic churches all believe in the three-fold offices of bishop, priest (also called “presbyter” or “elder”), and deacon. Presbyterians, by contrast, do not believe in an office of bishop that is distinct from the office of presbyter.
</p>
<p>
Third, as an extension of the second point, Presbyterians do not believe in the apostolic succession and historic episcopate like the Catholic churches do. This means that for them, only Scripture and correct teachings give a church legitimacy (<a href="http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSola_scriptura&ei=MgsVVeiqOojkaLCqgagB&usg=AFQjCNE96MymPyaO-CsJC3nJ9aQWBlmf8w&sig2=KnP1WiQ6PwJBMxruzNj7CQ&bvm=bv.89381419,d.d2s">Sola scriptura</a>); unlike Catholics they do not require that the church be led by leaders in an unbroken line of bishops going back to the Apostles. The Catholic churches instead believe that Scripture is a source of doctrine, but not the only one — writings of the Church Fathers and other parts of Church tradition are just as important.
</p>
<p>
Fourth, as a further extension of the second and third points, they do not believe in an ontological change by ordination. This means that they don’t view ordination as a full sacrament like the Eucharist or baptism. A sacrament like baptism is irreversible — once baptized, always baptized. Thus once someone becomes a Catholic priest or bishop, they remain so for the rest of their lives, even if they may lapse in the meantime or stop actively working as such. An elder in the Presbyterian church, however, merely holds an office and is not “changed” by the ordination.
</p>
<p>
Fifth, there are major differences in teachings revolving around justification and free will. As a church in the Reformed tradition, Presbyterians hold to a kind of predestination, which Roman Catholics reject, preferring the idea that human beings are capable of using their free will to turn to God (while being unable to do so without help from the Holy Spirit). They also believe that faith alone (<a href="http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSola_fide&ei=zAoVVe6pHsXkaveqgrgP&usg=AFQjCNGJTa4nQ-dF3cjpoawvcnrmnE0M6w&sig2=kDRA5Na4EtZX80mRbwe_IA&bvm=bv.89381419,d.d2s">Sola fide</a>) brings salvation, that is, only what one believes is relevant and not what one does. Catholics generally hold to faith and works, with the works (things you do) being the necessary result of that faith.
</p>
<p>
Lastly, like other Reformed churches, Presbyterians accept only two sacraments, Baptism and Eucharist, whereas Rome believes in seven (Baptism, Eucharist, Confirmation, Holy Orders/Ordination, Confession/Reconciliation, Matrimony, Unction/Anointing of the Sick). Furthermore, Presbyterians reject any semblance of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The Real Presence means that one believes the bread and wine are somehow changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. Roman Catholics believe in a form of the Real Presence called transubstantiation, which was a medieval attempt to philosophically explain the Real Presence using Greek substance theory. Other Catholic churches generally believe in the Real Presence, but reject Rome’s narrower definition of it. Presbyterians view the Eucharist (or “Lord’s Supper”, as they prefer to call it) as symbolic only with no change in bread and wine. Furthermore, Presbyterians reject the Catholic idea of the Eucharist or Mass as a kind of penitential sacrifice, claiming that Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross was a once-only thing for all time and that therefore “repeating” it at the Mass is heresy. (Catholics typically respond that they do not <i>repeat</i> that sacrifice, merely make it present in the here and now.)
</p>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0Xanity Design52.4700976 13.1026663000000132.4374486 -28.205927699999989 72.5027466 54.411260300000009tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-38414619061043891542015-03-09T11:50:00.002+01:002015-03-09T11:50:43.137+01:00The myth of Galileo, Copernicanism, and the Catholic Church<p>The following was posted on Quora in response to the question <a href="http://www.quora.com/What-are-some-common-misconceptions-about-the-Catholic-Church-in-the-Middle-Ages"><i>What are some common misconceptions about the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages?</i></a>:</p><p class="dropcap">One of the worst misconceptions about the Middle Ages is that the Church deliberately tried to limit knowledge and keep people stupid and uneducated. The most common example taken to illustrate this — which was in the Renaissance, but still applied to the Middle Ages — was that of Galileo’s conflict with the Church over heliocentrism.</p><p>In reality, the Church actively <i>supported</i> the dissemination of knowledge. The liberal arts were actively supported by the Church throughout the Middle Ages, even celebrated in church architecture. The major universities of the Middle Ages like the Sorbonne, Oxford, Cambridge, and Heidelberg, were generally supported strongly by the Church and used to teach both the sciences and theology as well as the liberal arts in general. The major scientific thinkers of the age were generally priests and/or monks — like <span class="qlink_container"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon" class="external_link" target="_blank" onmouseover="return require("qtext").tooltip(this, "wikipedia.org")">Roger Bacon</a></span> — and the Church strongly supported the copying and dissemination of learned texts to further those ends. Once Greek philosophical texts like Aristotle became generally available in the West starting with the fall of Constantinople — having been lost in the chaos of the fall of the Western Roman Empire — it was the Church that made sure they were copied and passed around.</p><p>Which leads us to Galileo. The irony of the modern commonly held perception is that the Church was reluctant to approve Copernicus not so much because they held it to be in conflict with the Bible, but the stronger reason was that they held it to be in conflict with <i>Aristotle and Ptolemy</i>. While they were still mistaken for doing so, the Church leaders were utterly convinced the ancient Greek philosophers must have been right — from their perspective Europe was just recovering from a long night (the word “Renaissance” itself means “rebirth”) and rediscovering the ancient learning that had given the world the glory of Rome. Anything contradicting that was suspect, because how could a modern person, a product of all that decay, possibly be more right than the Romans and Greeks were?</p><p>Furthermore, the Church’s initial objection to Galileo was not that he was not right, but that they were concerned about the wider social impact his writings may have <i>and whether Copernicanism was proven without a doubt</i>. They wanted him to publish his works amongst the learned community at the time to let the debate take place in a smaller circle while the Church decided how to adapt to this new learning. Hence the Church, led by Cardinal <span class="qlink_container"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bellarmine" class="external_link" target="_blank" onmouseover="return require("qtext").tooltip(this, "wikipedia.org")">Robert Bellarmine</a></span>, suggested various compromise positions, like stating the Copernican model was mathematically accurate and useful for predictions while still notionally sticking to Aristotle and Ptolemy. Tycho Brahe was one vocal proponent of this compromise, proposing a hybrid model with the other planets orbiting the Sun, while the Sun and Moon orbited the Earth. Other leading Church figures like <span class="qlink_container"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Antonio_Foscarini" class="external_link" target="_blank" onmouseover="return require("qtext").tooltip(this, "wikipedia.org")">Paolo Antonio Foscarini</a></span> published attempts to reconcile Copernican ideas with Biblical passages that previously had been used to buttress Aristotle and Ptolemy.</p><p>Cardinal Bellarmine made this clear by writing, “then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that <i>appear</i> contrary; and say rather that we do not understand them, than that what is demonstrated is false” — in other words, he did not reject the new ideas out of hand, but wanted to find a way to let the Church adapt to the new knowledge and re-interpret Scripture to match. Again, this was still wrong, but also quite understandable and very different from the idea that the Church wanted Copernicanism banned. The Church also wanted to be absolutely sure that Copernicanism was indeed proven beyond a shadow of a doubt before going public with it and asked various scientists and philosophers for their opinions — in other words, <i>peer review</i>, a hallmark of the scientific method.</p><p>Instead, Galileo went public and went out of his way to insult his opponents. In a modern context, it would be like a scientist refusing to publish his works in a peer-reviewed journal and instead put his ideas on Facebook while insulting his colleagues in the process. Even then, he had powerful protectors in the Church, including <span class="qlink_container"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_V" class="external_link" target="_blank" onmouseover="return require("qtext").tooltip(this, "wikipedia.org")">Pope Paul V</a></span>, who had been a personal friend; it was only when Galileo insulted the Pope that he lost that protection and was tried for what were really political, not religious reasons (the religious ones were just a convenient excuse). Had Galileo been less bullheaded and gone through the peer review that the Church wanted, things would have gone very differently.</p><p>This was picked up by Protestant propagandists, who were only too happy to portray the Catholic Church as being beholden to “superstition” (a word they frequently used to deride Catholic teachings). That meme still goes on today in various guises, but it is still a distortion of what really happened.</p><p>I should point out that I’m not Roman Catholic, but Anglican, so it’s not like I take much pleasure in defending Rome. :P</p>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0Home sweet home52.470110000000012 13.10266000000001432.437438000000014 -28.205933999999985 72.50278200000001 54.411254000000014tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-56214386295840336832015-03-09T11:45:00.001+01:002015-03-09T11:45:57.455+01:00Can gays really be Christians?<p>The following was posted on Quora as a response to the <a href="http://www.quora.com/In-the-Bible-it-states-thou-shalt-not-lie-with-mankind-as-with-womankind-it-is-an-abomination-Lev-18-22-Can-someone-be-gay-and-be-a-genuine-Christian-that-is-accepting-the-Bible-as-the-word-of-God-or-that-it-contains-the-word-of-God-and-doing-ones-best-to-follow-it?share=1">question</a>, <i>“In the Bible it states, "thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is an abomination", Lev 18:22. Can someone be gay and be a genuine Christian, that is, accepting the Bible as the word of God, or that it contains the word of God, and doing ones best to follow it?”</i></p><p class="dropcap">The thing about such Biblical literalism — aside from the fact that this passage may well not say anything like the English translation you quote, as <a href="http://qr.ae/jC9IP">Lana Fisher correctly points out</a> — is that you have to first understand what the Bible is and how it came to be. That in turn greatly affects how it should be interpreted.</p><p>The first question is, did the Bible create the Church of God, or was it the other way around? Did someone sit down and write it, and then we Christians all agreed to follow it as written? Or was it more like the Church already existed and then decided which existing writings were canon?</p><p>Any cursory reading of Church history shows that it was plainly the latter. The Bible did not fall from the sky fully formed, but took centuries to find its present form (and even now Christians can’t fully agree on which books belong to it, like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha" class="external_link" target="_blank" onmouseover="return require("qtext").tooltip(this, "wikipedia.org")">Biblical apocrypha</a>). The various books that make up the Bible — along with many others, like the Gnostic texts — were floating around with varying degrees of acceptance by the early Christian congregations, but no “Bible” existed yet. Various lists circulated in those days containing books considered canon; they generally lined up, but there were sometimes significant differences.</p><p>Then the Church got together in a general council and decided on what books should be compiled into the Bible. Not only that, but they picked up on the already existing practice in Judaism (which evolved into modern rabbinical Judaism) of following an <i>established tradition</i> of how to interpret that canon — that is, the interpretations of learned experts approved by the Church took on a kind of canonicity of their own. Joe Shmoe can interpret the Bible any way he likes, but in the eyes of the Church, only that established tradition matters and Joe Shmoe has no authority to claim the Bible says this or that.</p><p>Thus the Church began that tradition with what we now call the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers" class="external_link" target="_blank" onmouseover="return require("qtext").tooltip(this, "wikipedia.org")">Church Fathers</a>, learned men (and they were generally men, or at least few writings from the period from women survive) who began to interpret the Bible based on that earlier Jewish tradition. And here is where it gets really interesting for this question.</p><p><b>The Church Fathers generally rejected a strict literalist interpretation of the Bible.</b> Let that sink in a minute and read this quote by <span class="qlink_container"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen" class="external_link" target="_blank" onmouseover="return require("qtext").tooltip(this, "wikipedia.org")">Origen</a></span> of Alexandria, one of those Church Fathers (emphasis mine):</p><p><blockquote>15. But as if, in all the instances of this covering (i.e., of this history), the logical connection and order of the law had been preserved, we would not certainly believe, when thus possessing the meaning of Scripture in a continuous series, that anything else was contained in it save what was indicated on the surface; so for that reason divine wisdom took care that certain stumbling-blocks, or interruptions, to the historical meaning should take place, by the <b>introduction into the midst (of the narrative) of certain impossibilities and incongruities</b>; that in this way the very interruption of the narrative might, as by the interposition of a bolt, present an obstacle to the reader, whereby <b>he might refuse to acknowledge the way which conducts to the ordinary meaning</b>; and being thus excluded and debarred from it, we might be recalled to the beginning of another way, in order that, by entering upon a narrow path, and passing to a loftier and more sublime road, he might lay open the immense breadth of divine wisdom. This, however, must not be unnoted by us, that as <b>the chief object of the Holy Spirit* is to preserve the coherence of the spiritual meaning</b>, either in those things which ought to be done or which have been already performed, <b>if He anywhere finds that those events which, according to the history, took place, can be adapted to a spiritual meaning, He composed a texture of both kinds in one style of narration, always concealing the hidden meaning more deeply</b>; but where the historical narrative could not be made appropriate to the spiritual coherence of the occurrences, <b>He inserted sometimes certain things which either did not take place or could not take place</b>; sometimes also what might happen, but what did not: and <b>He does this at one time in a few words, which, taken in their “bodily” meaning, seem incapable of containing truth, and at another by the insertion of many</b>. And this we find frequently to be the case in the legislative portions, where there are many things manifestly useful among the “bodily” precepts, but a very great number also in which no principle of utility is at all discernible, and sometimes even things which are judged to be impossibilities. <b>Now all this, as we have remarked, was done by the Holy Spirit in order that, seeing those events which lie on the surface can be neither true nor useful, we may be led to the investigation of that truth which is more deeply concealed</b>, and to the ascertaining of a meaning worthy of God in those Scriptures which we believe to be inspired by Him.</blockquote>(Origen of Alexandria, <i>De Principiis</i> IV.15, 3rd century AD — Source: <span class="qlink_container"><a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.v.i.html#vi.v.v.i-p94" rel="nofollow" class="external_link" target="_blank" onmouseover="return require("qtext").tooltip(this, "ccel.org")">ANF04. Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second</a></span>)</p><p>* — What is meant here is that the Holy Spirit speaks to us through the Church as well as through our individual consciences.</p><p>To summarize Origen, we need guidance and understanding in interpreting Scripture, because sometimes the Bible was meant literally, sometimes it wasn’t. Clearly Jesus was being quite literal when He said to love our neighbors and to love God, but the Earth was plainly not created in six calendar days and the Flood didn’t really destroy the whole world. What matters is the <i>spiritual truth</i> contained in the narratives. </p><p>He also wrote, with another Church Father, Gregory of Nazianus, supporting him:</p><p><blockquote>For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.</blockquote>(Origen of Alexandria, <i>De Principiis</i> IV.16, 3rd century AD — Source: <span class="qlink_container"><a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.v.i.html#vi.v.v.i-p94" rel="nofollow" class="external_link" target="_blank" onmouseover="return require("qtext").tooltip(this, "ccel.org")">ANF04. Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second</a></span>)</p><p>St. Augustine wrote similar things roundly criticizing a literal interpretation.</p><p>So…how do we decide? We refer back to earlier precedents in the writings of the Church Fathers, while also allowing for a range of opinion to exist. Only where the Church has definitively spoken in a general council is there any one possible interpretation binding on all Christians. The Church decides, not individuals, and only when it is in consensus. As Vincent of Lérins said in his famous rule of catholicity — i.e. that which is established canon and binding — <i>id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; hoc est etenim vere proprieque catholicum</i>: </p><p><blockquote>[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that <b>faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all</b>. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally.</blockquote>St. Vincent of Lérins, <i>Commonitory</i>, 434 AD (Source: <span class="qlink_container"><a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.iii.iii.html" rel="nofollow" class="external_link" target="_blank" onmouseover="return require("qtext").tooltip(this, "ccel.org")">NPNF-211. Sulpitius Severus, Vincent of Lerins, John Cassian</a></span>)</p><p>Dogma — in other words, something Christians must believe because the Church has decided so — is therefore only that which the Church has proclaimed in general council.</p><p>Which brings us to this question of homosexuality in particular. Has there ever been a general council that has defined this text to say what you think it says? Is homosexuality a sin or abomination? Of the seven ecumenical councils (i.e. those recognised by the Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, and in theory Anglicans), none say anything about homosexuality. Nothing. De nada. There <i>were</i> regional councils that did condemn “sodomy” at various times, though what they meant by that term changed over time, so we can’t even be sure that they meant homosexuality per se (e.g. a loving long-term relationship, as opposed to just having extramarital sex with people of the same gender or pederasty or beastiality or any of the many other things the term was applied to). But there has never been a definitive dogmatic statement from the whole Church — a statement establishing that this has been believed “<i>everywhere, always, by all</i>” — declaring that homosexuality as we understand it today is in fact a sin and that this passage means what you say it might mean. In fact there is some evidence that same-sex relationships in some forms may have been tolerated, even celebrated (see <span class="qlink_container"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis" class="external_link" target="_blank" onmouseover="return require("qtext").tooltip(this, "wikipedia.org")" data-tooltip="attached">Adelphopoiesis</a></span>), particularly in eastern Europe. At times the Roman Catholic Church has actually worked to decriminalize homosexual relations between consenting adults, like by supporting the Wolfenden Report in the UK in the 1960s or the National Federation of Priests' Councils in the USA noting their opposition to “all civil laws which make consensual homosexual acts between adults a crime”. Thus any claim to homosexuality being dogmatically defined as sin fails St. Vincent’s simple test — and thus a range of opinions is perfectly OK.</p><p>To answer your question based on the above: <b>Yes, it is entirely possible to be gay and be a faithful Christian, unequivocally. </b>I certainly hope many more do so, and am glad to personally know a great number of gay Christians (both clergy and laypeople) who enrich our church’s life. As for the great pain that many Christians have caused gays by claiming otherwise, I am deeply sorry and hope that their wounds will heal, whatever path they take.</p>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0Home sweet home52.470110000000012 13.10266000000001452.469807500000016 13.102029500000015 52.470412500000009 13.103290500000014tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-10438960981464443052015-02-27T10:36:00.000+01:002015-02-27T10:55:19.918+01:00The not-so-new victim politics<p class="dropcap">A friend sent <a href="http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/189030/victimhood-olympics">this link</a> to me — an interesting (if thoroughly depressing) read. It is an article entitled <a href="http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/189030/victimhood-olympics">“Rock, Paper, Scissors of PC Victimology: Muslim > gay, black > female, and everybody > the Jews”</a>. Please do go have a read.<br />
</p><p>The thought that keeps going through my mind about this is that human beings are intensely social creatures obsessed with hierarchy. As soon as one tool for creating and enforcing such a hierarchy passes away — feudalism, say — we come up with another one to replace it. For all the rhetoric of our modern society claiming to be egalitarian and democratic, we are anything but, and things like this are nothing more than schoolyard bullying in an ongoing struggle for greater social status, whatever the cost.<br />
</p><p>Thus I don’t see it as a “new” victim politics, but rather something very old indeed, as old as humanity itself. In the 20th century, there were plenty of such examples of people framing others as heterodox and heaping abuse on them, like within Communism (the Cultural Revolution was a major example, as were Stalin’s purges). Contrary to the article’s claim that this is a thing of the left, the right was and is quite capable of the same thing. Witness the outrage you see on Fox News for anything “un-American” or McCarthyism. Going further back, Muslims and Christians were quite happy to denounce each other — Sunni vs. Shia, Catholic vs. Orthodox vs. Protestant, orthodox Christian vs. “heretics” of various stripes — over trivialities. Quite often these denouncements ended in outright mass murder. And as the manifold examples of the 20th century make clear, religion had little to do with it. It is just one label amongst many that can be seized upon to beat up on someone else. Take away religion, people will find something else — anything to make your identity better than someone else’s in the eyes of others.<br />
</p><p>Take away religion, politics, sexuality, ethnicity, gender, and sports, and people will <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/claudiakoerner/the-dress-is-blue-and-black-says-the-girl-who-saw-it-in-pers#.sjzdz0LxY">seize on the color of a dress</a> to beat each other up with.<br />
</p><p>Maybe we’re not resorting to physical violence as much as we once did (duels, brawls, catfights, wars, genocides), but we’re becoming that much more adept at psychological violence to replace it. Progress of a sort, I suppose, but deep down little if anything has changed.<br />
</p><p>The final irony is that by framing this phenomenon as something “new” and mocking it as “victim politics”, the author is himself engaging in this very sort of hierarchical power politics without realizing it.<br />
</p><p>TL;DR — people suck.<br />
</p>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0Sweet Home Old Prussia52.470154994482925 13.10276269912719752.468945994482922 13.100241199127197 52.471363994482928 13.105284199127198tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-64220060767774526282014-11-19T15:10:00.001+01:002014-11-19T15:22:30.838+01:00Breaking the silence: Potsdam’s Garrison Church and the history of Brandenburg-Prussia<p class="dropcap">
You may have noticed the cobwebs beginning to collect on this blog. That is mainly because I’ve moved to lovely Potsdam, capital of the German state of Brandenburg and former residence of the kings of Prussia (and later the Kaiser). Been busy with our new home and getting settled in. I have to say I love it here, because as you may have noticed, I have a thing for history, and Potsdam is loaded with it…or perhaps “burdened” is a better term. The following story is a good example of this.
</p>
<h3>
Burdened by history and controversy
</h3>
<p>
A major controversy is raging in Potsdam and has been for some years. It revolves around the old Prussian Garrison Church in the center of Potsdam. You can read up on that church and its overshadowed history at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrison_Church_(Potsdam)">Wikipedia</a>, but here some more thoughts about it. I would also highly recommend the book “Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia” by Christopher Clark (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Kingdom-Downfall-Prussia-1600-1947/dp/0674031962">link to Amazon here</a>).
</p>
<h3>
The Church of Holy Paranoia
</h3>
<p>
The Garrison Church was the parish church of the Prussian royal family, which of course later became the Imperial family headed by the Kaiser. You must understand that this church was intricately interwoven into Prussian history, and that history was one defined by paranoia fed by invasion and persecution from outside and within. (As the saying goes, you’re not paranoid if they really are out to get you.)
</p>
<p>
Prussia — which began as the Mark of Brandenburg, the eastern march of the Holy Roman Empire — was a place of poor farmland (much of it swamp) and little natural resources. It also had practically no natural borders and thus was more or less defenseless. As a march or borderland it was constantly under threat of invasion or attack from the east, which in the early Middle Ages was still largely pagan and very hostile. That almost certainly shaped the Prussian mentality.
</p>
<p>
Later on during the Renaissance, Brandenburg was a major scene of the horrors of the Thirty Years’ War, in which Swedish and Austrian troops swept back and forth plundering and destroying, regardless of whether the townsfolk who got in the way were themselves Protestant or Catholic. While the Thirty Years’ War was on the face of it a religious war, in reality it was just a war of conquest and plunder, and the people of Brandenburg bore the brunt of it. Whole towns were wiped off the map, entire cities like Magdeburg destroyed. That this was in the name of Jesus was all the more grotesque.
</p>
<p>
Add to this the peculiar path the Protestant Reformation took in Brandenburg. It went Lutheran fairly early on, and the great mass of the people remained so until the formation of the GDR. After the Augsburg Settlement in 1555 ending the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmalkaldic_War">War of the Schmalkaldic League</a> (a settlement later reinforced by the Peace of Westphalia at the end of the Thirty Years’ War), effectively only two churches were legal in Germany: Lutheran and Catholic. Technically after Augsburg it was now allowed to be Protestant, but only if you were Lutheran — Calvinists or Nonconformists need not apply. Meanwhile the treaties also stipulated that each local prince would determine his territory’s church as “summus episcopus” or “head of the church”, with only those two options on the table, Lutheran or Roman Catholic. Things went awry when the Elector and Markgrave of Brandenburg, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sigismund,_Elector_of_Brandenburg">Johann Sigismund</a>, converted to Calvinism in 1613. From then on it was a constant source of conflict in Brandenburg and its successor Prussia, as the royal family stuck to Calvinism, while the people remained Lutheran (and largely High Church Lutherans at that).
</p>
<p>
Thus the Prussian royal family developed a paranoid streak a mile wide thanks to repeated invasion and desolation and also thanks to constant challenges to their faith from all directions, Lutheran and Catholic. Their response was on two fronts. The first was to develop and maintain a huge and efficient military to defend itself. Prussia was, as the adage went, not a country with an army, but an army with a country. There was a lot of truth to that, as Prussia became a thoroughly militarized society — while this was nothing unique for the time, Prussia was notable for being an extreme case. The second front was this: After many decades of constant trouble because of their insisting on staying with Calvinism and trying to convince their people and other princes to accept that, the royal family eventually came up with its own solution — <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Union_of_churches">forcing the Calvinist and Lutheran churches in Brandenburg-Prussia to merge into a single united Protestant Church</a> in 1817. Thus the Prussian royal house and the church in Prussia were intricately linked, arguably far more so than in any other European state, with the monarch taking an extremely active role in shaping the religious life of his subjects.
</p>
<p>
The result was a potent — and ultimately fatal — mixture with the King of Prussia at the head of one of Europe’s premiere armies and also at the head of its United Church. The Garrison Church was thus the physical representation of that fusion of military and church as manifested in the Kingdom of Prussia. If any building was a symbol of Prussian religious militarism, that was it.
</p>
<p>
Thing is, the Prussian nobility kept its distance from the Nazis in the interwar period. While the former Kaiser and his supporters certainly liked the idea of Germany rising again and were in theory allies of the Nazi’s revanchist and irredentist nationalism, the nobility and Prussian military officers viewed the Nazis with a great deal of disdain (and in some cases outright worry…but all too few). In the end, however, Hitler and the Nazis convinced a number of old Prussian nobility to join forces with them, and that team-up was celebrated in the so-called “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Potsdam">Day of Potsdam</a>” at the Garrison Church — where, ironically enough, many old Prussian noble and military families worshipped, whose members formed the backbone of the Stauffenberg conspiracy that would later try to assassinate Hitler.
</p>
<h3>
The end of the church — against the people’s will
</h3>
<p>
Fast forward to 1968 and East Germany. Potsdam was mostly spared from the war, and the Garrison Church was still intact. It still had a parish using it. However, the GDR leadership was determined to wipe out any traces of Prussian militarism and drive home their view that East Germany was a “New Germany” freed from the chains of its past. So the East German leader, Walter Ulbricht, decreed that the church must go — over the very vocal opposition of the people of Potsdam. And it was torn down, replaced by a (rather ugly) computer center in the typical Commie style.
</p>
<p>
Fast forward again to today, 25 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Moves have been afoot for some time to rebuild the church as a true copy of the original. The EKD, Germany’s mainline Protestant church (to which the successor to the Prussian United Church belongs), and various — in some cases quite nationalistic — groups have joined forces to do so. Yet this has been extremely controversial, precisely because of the church’s powerful symbolism and attachment to the Prussian military regime. What’s more, many people in Potsdam simply don’t want the church back for a lot of reasons — besides the problematic symbolism and worries about a rebirth of nationalism, there is also the point that many other churches around Potsdam are falling apart and in dire need of cash, so the money could surely be better spent there, saving what still exists rather than making a copy.
</p>
<h3>
The rebirth of the church — against the people’s will?
</h3>
<p>
One argument supporters in the EKD make is that the new copy would (if they have their way) be dedicated as a “church of peace and reconciliation” to try and atone for the Day of Potsdam and all that resulted from it. They have enlisted various politicians to support their cause, such as Sigmar Gabriel from the Social Democrats. There is definitely a great deal of national interest in this church being rebuilt, and lots of donors across Germany have given substantial funds for it to be done.
</p>
<p>
Yet the level of opposition in Potsdam itself is intense, and from what I gather, it is growing. Earlier this year, <a href="http://buergerbegehrengarnisonkirche.wordpress.com/2014/03/08/hallo-hallo/">opponents of rebuilding the church</a> succeeded in collecting over 10,000 signatures from Potsdam residents on a petition to block the project, and in a city-wide plebiscite about the city budget, <a href="http://buergerbeteiligung.potsdam.de/content/buergerhaushalt-201516/votierung">Potsdam residents also overwhelmingly called for blocking funding of the project</a>, well ahead of all other budget propositions on the ballot.
</p>
<p>
Thing is, I am a big fan of historical buildings and love Potsdam for its wealth of them. (Some sneer at it and call it Prussian Disneyland. Oh well.) When there is a groundswell of broad support, rebuilding landmarks can go a long way to supporting reconciliation — like the Frauenkirche in Dresden, which was supported by Coventry, whose cathedral was also destroyed in the war. However, in this case something seems seriously wrong — a great mass, possibly a majority, of the local people absolutely don’t want it, and it seems to be a bad joke that a “church of reconciliation” can’t reconcile with its opponents and just keeps steaming ahead regardless of any opposition. That the church was torn down over the objections of its parishioners and the townspeople was a crime in and of itself, but why compound it by stomping all over local feelings a second time?
</p>
<h3>
Reconcile, not divide
</h3>
<p>
This is not to say I am myself totally against rebuilding it (though I do think the money could be better used elsewhere). If I were calling the shots in the city and state governments, I’d probably build it while making sure it is used to instruct and warn about its dark past. But I do think the rebuilding campaign needs to do far, far more to try and get more people on board, especially if they are serious about the church’s mission to be a place of reconciliation. Simply shrugging off criticism and blaming opponents for not being reasonable is not the answer. If they fail in <i>that</i> attempt at reconciliation, then frankly I think the whole project deserves to fail. There is no point to a place of reconciliation that is itself divisive.
</p>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0Gross Glienicke, 14476 Potsdam, Germany52.470076565600166 13.10267686843872152.468867565600164 13.10015536843872 52.471285565600169 13.105198368438721tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-63935073515278793462014-02-04T12:17:00.001+01:002014-02-04T12:17:06.353+01:00Read the Bible with Atheist Jesus<div class="dropcap">
Here is a suggested exercise for reading the New Testament:
Imagine Jesus was an atheist or agnostic, but one aware the people of the time wouldn't accept that, so He tried a different tack to get people to see things in a new way. Weirdly, it works really well a lot of the time — even though I <I>do</I> believe in God. It brings yet another dimension to the NT that I find particularly helpful and even comforting. That said, I know it won’t be for everyone….</div>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-56197992899594781132014-01-23T21:35:00.003+01:002014-01-23T21:35:35.913+01:00When receiving the Eucharist: To be succinct, don't intinct<p class="dropcap">
This was mentioned in response to another post elsewhere on Facebook, but became a general plea here. That plea is to not do intinction when receiving the Eucharist — something that is very common amongst Old Catholics and Episcopalians. The usual argument for it is that it's supposedly more sanitary.
</p>
<p>
However, intinction (dipping the bread into the wine) is actually <i>less</i> sanitary than simply sharing the chalice. The mouth is home to far fewer bacteria than what people carry under their fingernails, even if they've just washed their hands. And the wine's antiseptic anyway.
</p>
<p>
A friend on Facebook pointed out that the contamination from the fingernails sits on top of the wine's surface tension, so the wine's antiseptic properties don't work as well.
</p>
<p>
If you're turned off by sharing a cup with strangers, then you can simply refrain from receiving the wine. There is no rule that everyone has to receive the Eucharist in both kinds; in fact according to church tradition, Christ is fully present in both, so you can just receive the bread <i>or</i> the wine.
</p>
<p>
Then there's the issue of treating the Eucharist with due reverence. I know the concept of Real Presence (or the Roman Catholic version of it, transubstantiation) turns some people off or seems like hocus pocus superstition. Unfortunately, given the way some people explain it or demand others to accept it, I can fully understand why it turns off a lot of people. That said, I think it's really a kind of awareness exercise. For me, the basic idea of the Real Presence is that by saying the Eucharistic prayer, the assembled group led by a priest transforms the bread in some way into the Body and Blood of Christ — "<i>this</i> is my Body, <i>this</i> is my Blood". That doesn't mean you would see muscle and blood cells under a microscope, and that's totally beside the point of the exercise anyway. The point is <i><b>what the change is for</b></i>, which is that the Body and Blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine take on a highly charged and potent symbolic meaning. They represent — and are — the Logos of Creation itself, the Word become flesh, and become something very precious to hold.
</p>
<p>
The idea and hope is that by treating bread and wine with this highest reverence, we then learn to treat everything else in Creation with that same reverence, be it the environment or relationships with other people or even just the food on your table — don't be wasteful in any way, but be mindful of all. The less wasteful we are and the more mindful of our resources and our selves we are, the more there is to go around for everyone, in particular the poor and needy.
</p>
<p>
Intinction, unlike simply drinking from the chalice, risks dripping wine and dropping crumbs everywhere. So it's not only not a very respectful way to treat the Body and Blood of Christ (would you want to carelessly drop Jesus on the floor?), it's also potentially more wasteful. The hope is that we learn to also not waste normal food or resources and learn to be watchful and mindful of how we treat everyone and everything.
</p>
<p>
In the Anglican liturgical tradition, there is the wonderful line after the Eucharistic prayer has been said: "The gifts of God for the people of God. Take them in remembrance that Christ died for you, and feed on him in your hearts by faith with thanksgiving." To me this emphasizes what Creation itself is a gift, and we should be thankful for — and mindful of — every aspect of that Creation, right down to the last crumb of bread and last drop of wine.
</p>
<p>
Some of course will now think of oral communion, that is, having the priest place the bread on the person's tongue. I think it's worth pointing out that the early Church (such as the catechism of Cyril of Jerusalem) taught communicants to "make the left hand a throne for the right hand, which receives the King", and then to raise the bread to the mouth, consuming it all at one go. This has the advantage of not letting crumbs go anywhere, and you can quickly check the palm of your hand to see if any are left. So receiving the Eucharist with your hands is solidly traditional in the Church, far more so than oral communion, and has practical benefits as well.
</p>
<p>
In one parish I visited recently, I noticed that the distribution of Communion felt careless. Nothing was held under the consecrated bread to keep crumbs from falling as pieces were torn off, and no one seemed much bothered about what to do with the leftovers. It made me wonder if the attendees really believed anything special had happened to the bread and wine. Yet this was a parish whose church at least notionally believes in the Real Presence. To be honest, I was very distressed at how carelessly the people there treated the Sacrament and (whether intentionally or not) Jesus Himself in that Sacrament, because the message sent was that the Sacrament itself was not much more meaningful than having tea and cookies. And half the tea and cookies end up in the trash, because, well, meh. Is this how we want to treat our Savior, or our mother Earth, or our fellow human beings? Shouldn't we instead pay closer attention, be mindful of the sacred, and carry that mindfulness into the wider world in order to make it a better and holier place?
</p>
<p>
So…a plea to my fellow Old Catholics and Anglicans. Please consider not receiving by intinction — it's not terribly respectful, and it's not even sanitary, in fact it's less so. So why do it?
</p>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0Home sweet home52.3843968 9.744652200000018626.862362299999997 -31.563941799999981 77.9064313 51.053246200000018tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-12125318120448104532013-11-05T15:38:00.001+01:002013-11-05T15:38:17.494+01:00A summary of Anglican Branch Theory in ecumenism<p>
ANGLICAN<br />
Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans are all branches of the True Church.
</p>
<p>
ROMAN CATHOLIC and ORTHODOX <i>(in unison)</i><br />
No, you're not.
</p>
<p>ORTHODOX<br />
And neither is he.</p>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0The lonely Anglican mission of Hannover-List52.3843968 9.744652200000018632.3157703 -31.563941799999981 72.4530233 51.053246200000018tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-88614442446950895712013-11-05T12:01:00.000+01:002013-11-05T12:13:07.404+01:00Hail to the…Redbloods?<p class="dropcap"><span style="display: inline-block;float:right;margin-left:1em;margin-bottom:1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TSVLwSt7-vQ/UnjQNIyFeII/AAAAAAAAAtU/4mZf_r3c7pE/s1600/redskins-small.jpg" /></span>
I'm a longtime and diehard fan of the Washington Redskins, with many fond memories of the likes of Theismann, Riggins, Monk, Carter, Green and many other stars of the 1980s and 1990s. I also happen to think the controversy over the name, which some claim is racist, is overblown and misplaced, and distinctly remember being very annoyed when my beloved Redskins played in Minnesota in the 1980s (first play of the game: 68-yard TD pass from Theismann to Monk…I think I was the only person in the stands cheering) and saw a handful of protestors demanding the name be changed.
</p>
<p>Having said that…I'm also a creative guy dontchaknow, and as such I had an idea. Just suppose the name <i>had</i> to be changed for some reason (like the NFL caves to pressure, something hardly unimaginable). What would an alternative be that would be palatable to someone like me?</p>
<p>So…I hereby propose the alternative "<b>Washington Redbloods</b>". The name would have many advantages: One, the <a href="http://store.redskins.com/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=321">classic script "R" logo used on ballcaps starting with Joe Gibbs</a> could be maintained. Two, the <a href="http://store.redskins.com/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=733&catID=27">old Lombardi-era "R" helmet</a> (sometimes used in throwback uniforms) could be revived as a possible replacement for the Redskin head logo. (Yes, I would still keep the feathers as a reminder of the Redskins team's pride and tradition. The colors could however be reversed so that the helmet is red as now, not yellow.) Three, it would maintain the warrior fighting spirit of the Redskins name. Four, the "Hail to the Redskins" song could be kept, with just one syllable changed. Five, the warrior imagery from other throwback elements — the <a href="http://www.sportsblink.com/product_images/washington-redskins-authentic-pro-line-throwback-full-size-helmet-3350219.jpg">Sonny Jurgensen-era spear helmet</a>, for example — would still make sense with the new name. And of course red would remain the dominant color.</p>
<p>So…while I'm still in favor of keeping the name as it is, I could certainly live with "Redbloods" as an alternative if the NFL does indeed cave in…which something tells me it will eventually.</p>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com1Redskins Fan HQ Europe52.3843968 9.744652200000018632.315765799999994 -31.563941799999981 72.4530278 51.053246200000018tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-85359188531875882852013-09-18T15:13:00.001+02:002013-09-18T15:14:58.947+02:00Migrants vs. idiots in Germany<p class="dropcap">
<a href="http://i-blogger.de/idioten-besinnt-euch-eurer-wurzeln/">A brilliant link (in German).</a> For the non-Kraut speakers out there, the NPD, a far-right neo-Nazi party, sent a form letter to German politicians of non-German ethnic background. In it, they explained the Latin origin of the word "migrant" (and rudely addressing the recipients as such, instead of by name, claiming along the way that the Roman Empire fell because of too many migrants) and invited them to migrate out of Germany.
</p>
<p>
In response, a German politician of Turkish background replied by paraphrasing the letter, explaining the Greek origin of the word "idiot", reminding the writer that the Greeks invented democracy precisely so that idiots like the writer would never take power — and in a postscript noted that the German text of the original letter was full of punctuation and grammatical errors, which the respondent was kind enough to correct.
</p>
<p>
Nevermind that those "migrants" who destroyed the Roman Empire in the West were, uh, Germans.
</p>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com2In the midst of Germanic tribesmen52.3843968 9.744652200000018632.3157983 -31.563941799999981 72.4529953 51.053246200000018tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-27635337069735865872013-09-18T15:08:00.003+02:002013-09-18T15:08:44.213+02:00I blame Obama for this parenting fail<div class="dropcap">
I just tried threatening my son with NATO air strikes and a UN no-fly zone if he doesn't study. He seemed unimpressed. I blame Obama for wrecking NATO's and the UN's credibility.
</div>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0Future air strike location52.3843968 9.744652200000018632.3157983 -31.563941799999981 72.4529953 51.053246200000018tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-37847457855735982752013-09-17T13:47:00.000+02:002013-09-17T13:47:11.158+02:00"Morning has broken" gets a new verse<p class="dropcap">
Recently I had to plan and lead an English Morning Prayer service for a friend who got married Saturday. He wanted a quiet, meditative service, which is right up my alley, because that's how I like them anyway. (I like to go to the Benedictine monastery in my neighborhood for just that reason.) So it had lots of psalmody in plainchant - what most would refer to as "Gregorian" - which had the added benefit of me being able to lead everyone in singing easily and not having to rehearse hymns, since we would have no organist. That said, given that most attending wouldn't know hymns anyway, not being churchgoers, psalmody is quick to grasp and learn. Even so I was sure they'd want to hear at least one hymn, and it would have to be one they would readily know and that I could lead singing. So as a send-off, the closing hymn was "Morning has broken".
</p>
<p>
Thing is, I don't much like hearing it anymore, having heard it a few times too many, but I couldn't think of anything else. So out of frustration, I came up with my own version, to wit:
</p>
<blockquote>
My wind has broken<br />
Raised my leg highly<br />
Foul stench has spoken<br />
Face is a smiley<br />
Smell of beans flowin',<br />
Onions and broccoli,<br />
Intestines twisting,<br />
sing out all day.
</blockquote>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0My smelly abode52.3843968 9.744652200000018632.315794299999993 -31.563941799999981 72.4529993 51.053246200000018tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-57814943659400618372013-02-15T12:42:00.001+01:002013-02-15T17:50:00.447+01:00On gay marriage in the Church<p class="dropcap">
Recently in a discussion over on Facebook, the topic of gay marriage within the Church came up. The thing is, on the one hand I'm convinced that gays should not only be welcomed into the Church, but should not be barred from receiving Holy Orders or serving in offices of the Church. But on the other hand, I also believe quite strongly in marriage (in spite of the <a href="http://infinitusmonachus.blogspot.de/2013/01/sermon-begging-forgiveness.html">breakdown of my own</a>) and that a "gay marriage" within the Church is not, at least on the face of it, possible. I'd like to explain why and sum up my arguments in the other discussion.
</p>
<p>
The major complaint I have with those arguing for sacramental gay marriage is that they inevitably reduce marriage to be merely the celebration of the love between two people. That love is of course a wonderful thing and should be celebrated, whether the partners are male or female (or transgender, while we're on the subject), but to make something be truly "marriage", it has to be about more than that.
</p>
<p>
To try and differentiate, I'll talk about "matrimony" and use that term to refer to the Church's sacrament of marriage. Note that this has little to nothing to do with civil weddings and how the state chooses to view such partnerships – this discussion is strictly about Holy Matrimony as the Church defines and celebrates it.
</p>
<p>
It's self-evident that matrimony involves love between two people, but to reduce it to just those two people makes it stunted. Matrimony also means providing a foundation for something else, producing children. <i>(Edit: As someone else pointed out, "matrimony" comes from "mater"/"mother" + "monium"/"the state of", i.e. "the state of motherhood/parenthood".)</i> Some would of course quickly argue that I'm trying to make marriage be only about making kids, but that's simply wrong – holy matrimony offers a healthy and blessed foundation for reproduction, but that doesn't mean that the newlyweds absolutely must take that offer. Some may simply decide not to have kids, some may not be able to, but that doesn't change the basic assumption that one integral aspect of matrimony is indeed providing a basis on which we produce the next generation and pass on our love to them.
</p>
<p>
I don't marry someone because I want to have kids, I marry that person because I love that person. That love in turn produces the wish to create children as an expression of that love, not just to the betrothed, but to their children, to God, and to the wider community of the Church – and above all to create new life. By marrying and having children, we too become creators of life like God, a form of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Orthodox_theology)">theosis</a> if there ever was one. If matrimony is reduced to just those two people, then all those other forms of love are ignored, and it is stripped down to something much more mundane.
</p>
<p>
None of this means, however, that gays can't have a sacramental wedding in the Church. I mean in no way to degrade or denigrate gay partnerships. The blessing of a same-sex partnership in the Church is just as sacramental as any other liturgical action of the Church: Anything the Church does in corporate, assembled, ceremonial fashion is a sacrament, so long as it does not contradict Scripture and Tradition.
</p>
<p>
Of course, you may be thinking of the Seven Sacraments – baptism, Communion, confirmation, penance, matrimony, Holy Orders, unction of the sick – and wondering how I can claim gay partnerships are on that list. I don't claim that at all. What I do claim is that that list is not exhaustive. Any sacramental rite the Church performs is a sacrament, and that list is meant to mean a minimum of what the Church must do, not a maximum. So that list can be expanded by any local church, with the sole limitation that it can't contradict Scripture and Tradition, while also not requiring any other local church to accept that rite. So some local churches may choose to bless same-sex partnerships, some may not, and it is best left to them to decide, rather than try to redefine one of those seven sacraments to suit one's own personal tastes and wishes.
</p>
<p>
Some people are called to receive Holy Orders and be priests, some are called to matrimony, some are called to both, some to neither. There is no right to receive sacraments, only a calling. Perhaps gays are simply not called to matrimony under this definition, but they are called to express their sacred love in other ways. Why not celebrate that for what it is, as yet another expression of love, rather than try to bend and twist existing millennia-old sacraments to suit one's own preconceptions?
</p>
<p>
Thus it is of great importance to clearly define what matrimony is, while not degrading or ignoring one important aspect of it. In the process, we have to orient ourselves on the wider Body of Christ – that is, with the wider ecumenical community and with Scripture and Tradition. Otherwise, we cut ourselves off from that wider Body of Christ. On the one hand, one can certainly understand the blessing of same-sex partnerships to be a sacramental rite, not least because there are indeed <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/gay-marriage-reimagining-church-history-50">some precursors in Tradition</a> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis">even liturgies!</a>), but one cannot redefine one of the basic Sacraments of the Church without also making those same sacraments – and with them the Church – completely arbitrary. Holy Matrimony is one thing, sacramental blessings of partnerships another, but please, let's not confuse the two.
</p>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0Home sweet home52.38418 9.744820000000004332.315515500000004 -31.563773999999995 72.4528445 51.053414000000004tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-53165678187294253642013-02-14T12:15:00.000+01:002013-02-14T12:15:12.151+01:00The Infinite Monkey and his cohort on vacation<a href="http://24.media.tumblr.com/23ca921da88a703b768928562eb10e96/tumblr_mhiytrMkdG1qac38bo1_500.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://24.media.tumblr.com/23ca921da88a703b768928562eb10e96/tumblr_mhiytrMkdG1qac38bo1_500.jpg" /></a><p class="caption">Presumably from the filming of the original "Planet of the Apes", but priceless nonetheless.</p>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0Not on vacation (sadly)52.38418 9.744820000000004332.315515500000004 -31.563773999999995 72.4528445 51.053414000000004tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-86183134936024073082013-02-11T13:58:00.001+01:002013-02-11T13:58:57.375+01:00Vote Pope John XXIV!<p class="dropcap">
As you no doubt have heard by now, the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21411304">B-16 Bomber is heading to the hangar</a>, which naturally opens the question of who will succeed him. I wish to throw my mitre into the ring, even though I don't actually have a mitre, or even a clerical collar, for that matter. No worries, <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08429b.htm">Pope John XIX was in fact also a layman at the time of his election to the Papacy</a>, and happens to share my name, so I take that as a good omen. So I'd be Pope John XXIV, give or take a few <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_John_XXIII">antipopes</a>.
</p>
<p>Vote me for Pope! The one in Rome, not <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Other_uses_of_the_title_.22pope.22">one of those other ones</a>. I promise incense in every thurible and baptism for all!</p>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0The Vatican (northern annex)52.38418 9.744820000000004332.3155305 -31.563773999999995 72.4528295 51.053414000000004tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-39696919401933410782013-02-11T13:49:00.000+01:002013-02-11T13:49:27.510+01:00How to win the lottery<p class="dropcap">My girlfriend says I'm such a smart creative guy, why can't I choose the right lottery numbers? So I choose ½, π, √-1, 911, e, and Planck's constant. I plan to sue the lottery authority for discrimination against non-whole numbers not between 0 and 50, too. Numerist bastards.</p>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0Not where I'd live if I won the lottery52.38418 9.744820000000004332.3155305 -31.563773999999995 72.4528295 51.053414000000004tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-41568741904977699762013-01-12T22:31:00.001+01:002013-01-12T22:40:33.943+01:00Sermon: Begging forgiveness<p class="specialnote">After a long hiatus, the reason for which is explained in the sermon below, I've written my first sermon in well over two years. Hope you gain something from it.</p>
<h4>Sermon for the First Sunday after Epiphany (Baptism of Jesus), Year C</h4>
<p class="specialnote"><a href="http://www.lectionarypage.net/YearC_RCL/Epiphany/CEpi1_RCL.html">Isaiah 43:1-7, Psalm 29, Acts 8:14-17, Luke 3:15-17, 21-22</a></p>
<p class="dropcap">Today we’re celebrating the Baptism of Jesus, part of the Christmas season leading up to Candlemas on Feb. 2nd. The events described in the Gospel today have an obvious personal reminder for me.</p>
<p>Back in 2010, here in this church something extraordinary happened right over there behind you – I had the great honor and pleasure of sponsoring Jon for his baptism. It was a moving and powerful experience, and I was deeply honored to be a part of it, welcoming Jon into the Church. I’m very glad and proud to see how he’s become such a pillar in our parish in the time since then.</p>
<p>In the process of that Easter Vigil 2010, not only was he baptized, but also in a sense this church we’re standing in now was itself baptized. It was the first service we celebrated in this church that we are truly blessed to have, the first baptism to be held in it, and the waters in the baptismal pool were in turn used to renew our own baptismal vows and to hallow the church long before it was formally consecrated by our bishop almost 18 months later.</p>
<p>It was also, however, in a way the beginning of the end for me, though of course I had no idea about it at the time. As you may remember, Jon was not the only person who was baptized that night. The other person, Michelle, and I developed a powerful attraction to each other, and my horrible guilt over what I felt was the final straw that led directly to the breakdown of my marriage. My life of apparent normality and seeming stability came crashing to an end not long after, seemingly without warning. My marriage fell apart, my family torn to pieces, and my own personal unhappiness, which until then had largely been hidden from the rest of the parish and the outside world for literally years, exploded into view for all to see. It was without a doubt the worst time of my life, and I’m still sorting through the emotional debris left over.</p>
<p>For a time I seriously considered leaving the parish and never coming back. But I didn’t want to abandon the place where I had invested so much of myself. So to try and reboot, to get out of the spotlight and let things calm down, I withdrew from my parish duties while still attending services. Those duties included doing something I really enjoyed, which was writing sermons for the English services. This is the first time I’ve preached since then, and I have to say, I feel very strange doing it precisely because of all those events that began around the time of that Easter Vigil. When writing this, I often wondered if I even belong up here.</p>
<p>So do I have any business talking to you about right and wrong, about moral issues? My moral example is damaged goods. Without putting too fine a point on it, I’m an adulterer, a sinner. I caused immense pain to my wife and kids and disappointed and shocked a lot of people. To top it off, Michelle and I later broke up, compounding the pain and uproar. I’ve had a hard enough time asking the forgiveness of the Church, but the hardest part of all has been to forgive myself. So I hardly feel like I should be up here now. And I also can’t help but wonder what would be going through the minds of my ex-wife or ex-girlfriend or my friends if they were here listening now, let alone what God thinks about all of it.</p>
<p>But maybe today’s Gospel has a ray of hope for me. In the Gospel, Jesus, the one human being without sin, the one person who ever lived who didn’t need baptism in any sense, that Jesus goes to John the Baptist and asks him for baptism. In the parallel reading in the Gospel of Matthew, John exclaims to Jesus that Jesus should be baptizing him, not the other way around.</p>
<p>Maybe it’s because of the name, but I can easily place myself in John’s shoes right now. I’m supposed to stand here and act all holy and wise and pretend I can teach you something in a sermon, when I feel like I’m the one who needs teaching and guidance most. To carry the metaphor further: The Church, like the local parish, is referred to as the Body of Christ, and at the Eucharist, we often say we receive the Sacrament so that we “may become what we have received, the Body of Christ”. In effect I’m John the Baptist standing here in front of Christ’s body – that would be you – and wondering what the Body of Christ wants with someone like me, because I certainly don’t feel worthy to do much of anything church-related. Like John, I’m here exclaiming, “who, me?!”</p>
<p>I have a wonderful book I love to read to the kids at bedtime, called <i>Mungo and the Picture-Book Pirates</i>. It’s about a little kid named Mungo who loves having a pirate story read to him multiple times every night. But the hero of the book, dashing Captain Horatio Fleet, gets tired of having to go through the motions of being the hero so many times in one evening. As he is leaving the book to go on a holiday, he tells Mungo that maybe Mungo should just go do it himself if he likes the book so much. Mungo exclaims, “Me?! I can’t do anything!” but is left with little choice but to save his favorite book from the evil pirates. So he jumps into the book and becomes the hero himself.</p>
<p>After much buckling of swashes, Mungo does indeed save the day from the dastardly pirates, and Captain Fleet returns from his holiday to give Mungo a medal. </p>
<p>There is a parallel here. It’s not a perfect one, but it will do. Mungo is like John the Baptist – or me – and the hero, Jesus, or Captain Fleet, wants us to not just like him and admire him, but to follow in his footsteps, to save the day like he would. That’s what we’re here for in the Church. If we sit back and say, “I can’t do it” or “I’m not worthy” and let our guilt destroy us, then the paradox is that we only hurt ourselves while not solving anything or doing anybody any good. We have to forgive ourselves before seeking forgiveness from others, and we can do that by accepting God’s grace and peace within us. We can’t wish others peace and spread peace until we make peace inside and with ourselves and with God. God is there to help us by sending out His Holy Spirit, but that Spirit can’t do anything to guide us if we’re so bound up with our own problems that we fail to notice the dove coming down and filling us with grace. It’s a free gift, the gift of salvation, there for the taking if we just stop navel-gazing and beating up on ourselves.</p>
<p>Even the unworthiest person, the gravest sinner, can accept God’s grace and turn things for the better, doing God’s work. So I ask – beg – God and His Church to forgive me, but I especially ask God to help me forgive myself – and then I will have His grace within me, which I need to buckle swashes and swing to the rescue in His name. </p>
<p>So what I can give you, even as unworthy as I am, is this: I ask you to forgive yourselves in the same way, and to forgive one another, so that we, like Mungo, can all set sail into the setting sun and see the waters off the coast of tomorrow – for as Jesus promised on the Cross as He died for our sins, tomorrow we sinners shall be with Him in Paradise. <span class="smallcaps">Amen</span>.</p>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0Old Catholic Church of St. Marie-Angelique, Hannover, Germany52.35796 9.826800000000048426.8359255 -31.481793999999951 77.8799945 51.135394000000048tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137103986903001981.post-46055437798460134772012-11-23T14:14:00.000+01:002012-11-23T14:14:09.895+01:00A prayer for the day after Thanksgiving<p>
Today's prayer at the dinner table:
</p>
<p class="dropcap">
Dear Lord, we thank you for this food. We thank you for leftovers. We thank you that we get to live from this turkey for the next three weeks. We ask you for your guidance in not getting totally sick and tired of Thanksgiving leftovers and not wanting to use the turkey carcass as a doorstop in mockery of the bounty of your Creation. We ask you to forgive us for not packing it all in a big box and mailing it to starving people elsewhere in the world. And above all we pray for healing for our overstuffed gluttonous stomachs. All this we pray in Jesus' name, AMEN.
</p>
<p>Happy Thanksgiving plus one, y'all.</p>John Granthamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04692962320376553044noreply@blogger.com0The epicenter of our Thanksgiving meal52.38418 9.7448252.381757 9.7398845 52.386603 9.7497555000000009