From here:

“There is no one activity that a pastor does that can have a greater influence on the vitality of the congregation than preaching,” Adam Hamilton wrote in his book Leading Beyond the Walls: Developing Congregations with a Heart for the Unchurched. Hamilton is profiled in the July-August 2003 issue of Good News magazine.

“If a pastor is a poor preacher and does not devote sufficient time to preparing sermons, the entire congregation will suffer,” Hamilton says. “If a pastor prepares well-researched and thoughtful sermons with clear relevance and application for her or his congregants and delivers them with passion, conviction and clarity, the entire congregation will reap the benefits.”

The Good News article goes on: “This is never more true than when the church’s aim is to draw the unchurched or non-religious person into a committed relationship with Christ. Yet preaching carries a negative connotation and is often one of the deterrents to non-believers in their search for faith. At Church of the Resurrection (COR), where 70 percent of the 12,000 members report that they were previously unchurched or nominally religious, one of the top reasons often given as a reason for joining the congregation is the preaching. According to Hamilton, laypeople are looking for sermons that are interesting, relevant, biblical, understandable, offer clear application to the hearer’s daily life, address real-life issues and are preached with conviction, passion, love, integrity and humility.'”

Since we’re coming up on the Fourth of July, and towns everywhere are preparing their better-than-ever fireworks spectaculars, we would like to offer this humbling bit of history. Back in the summer of 1962, the U.S. blew up a hydrogen bomb in outer space, some 250 miles above the Pacific Ocean. It was a weapons test, but one that created a man-made light show that has never been equaled ”” and hopefully never will. Here it is:

(Some of the images in this video were until recently top secret. Peter Kuran of Visual Concept Entertainment collected them for his documentary Nukes In Space.)

If you are wondering why anybody would deliberately detonate an H-bomb in space, the answer comes from a conversation we had with science historian James Fleming of Colby College:

Listen to it all and most importantly take the time to watch the amazing video pictures.

….as the nation struggles to emerge from the most severe downturn since the Great Depression, such cuts are the last thing we need. There is no conflict ”” absolutely none ”” between our twin goals of putting the economy back on its feet and reducing long-term deficits. On the contrary, government could take many steps that would serve both goals simultaneously.

For example, it could create a program to restructure consumer debt. Although rates on 10-year Treasury bonds are only about 3 percent, many consumers still carry tens of thousands of dollars of credit card debt at 20 percent or more. This burden has been a continuing drag on spending. The federal government could reduce it by borrowing at 3 percent and lending to consumers at 8 percent under a one-time debt-restructuring plan….

Another useful measure would be a carbon tax ”” or its approximate equivalent, a cap-and-trade system ”” scheduled for a gradual phase-in after the economy has again reached full employment. This would stimulate an immediate, huge jump in private investment without the government having to spend a penny.

Read it all.

Pageantmaster has given some background to some of the names being talked about as the leading contenders to be the next Bishop of Southwark

Dr Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans
From here
How short peoples’ memories are.

The problem over Jeffrey John in 2003 came to a head with allegations that he had been untruthful in a statement he had given about his domestic arrangements. This allegation was made in an article in the Daily Telegraph in June 2003:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1433712/Gay-bishop-and-curate-boyfriend-bought-flat-together-last-year.html
[blockquote]In a statement issued last week, Dr John insisted that he and his boyfriend, whom he did not identify, had not been sexually active for a decade. He added: “My partner and I have never lived together (apart from one brief period while he was moving house) because our separate ministries have never made it possible to do so. However, we rely on each other for support and spend as much free time together as possible.”

Last night, however, the Diocese of Oxford confirmed that the men jointly own a £235,000 flat in Roehampton, south-west London, near the church where Mr Holmes works. They hold regular dinner parties there.

Friends have told The Telegraph that before buying the flat last year Mr Holmes may have used Dr John’s Southwark house as a correspondence address. The disclosures have further angered the critics, who say the statements given by Dr John last week were misleading. [/blockquote]

With the emerging details of Dr John’s private life, it was no longer possible for the Bishop of Oxford and the ABC to push this through under the radar. Faced with a revolt by evangelical and high church Anglicans, as well as from the Communion, the Queen expressed her concern [twice apparently] and a meeting was held between Dr John, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the then Bishop of Oxford. Dr John agreed to withdraw.
He was appointed to what was then the evangelical St Albans Abbey as Dean and in 2006 entered into a civil partnership.

The issue of truthfulness is as pertinent now as it was in 2003.

And from here
Here is some more background on events regarding Jeffrey John, his views and the persistent attempts to make him a bishop.

1. Claims made in 2003 not to live with his partner
The Statement issued by him trying to allay concerns over his appointment as Bishop of Reading in 2003 is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jun/20/gayrights.religion1

Containing this statement:

My personal life
I am a homosexual. As I stated in my Post-Lambeth Reflections, I have been in the kind of covenant relationship I have described above since 1976, and will remain so. I regard this life partnership as a gift and vocation from God.
The relationship does not, however, involve sexual expression. It falls within the ‘gift of same-sex friendship … of companionship and sexual abstinence’ in which the nine diocesan bishops who have publicly spoken against my appointment have said that they rejoice.
Nor is it the case that sexual expression was recently abandoned for the sake of preferment. The relationship ceased to be sexual in the 90s, at the time when Issues in Human Sexuality was becoming the policy document by which clergy were being called to abide.
I have had, and I still have, an overriding regard for the mind of the church in its interpretation of scripture, whatever my personal interpretation. This means that I have always submitted the facts of this relationship, both to my confessors and to my canonical superiors, and I have obeyed their direction.
My partner and I have never lived together (apart from one brief period while he was moving house) because our separate ministries have never made it possible to do so.

As mentioned in my comment above Dr John’s assurance was inconsistent with the information which emerged of his joint ownership of a flat with his partner.

2. On the teaching of Lambeth 1:10
Also in the above Statement is this:

My personal view about homosexual relationships
My own view is that there is a sound argument from scripture and tradition in favour of Christians accepting same-sex relationships, provided they are based on a personal covenant of lifelong faithfulness.
I would not term such a relationship a marriage, but I believe that it could be understood as a legitimate covenanted relationship. My arguments for this view are set out most fully in a booklet entitled Permanent Faithful Stable, first published in 1990 and updated in 2000. Practically the same text also appears as a chapter of a book entitled The Way Forward?, published by the St Andrew’s Day Group in 1999.
Following the Lambeth conference, I also gave a talk entitled Post-Lambeth Reflections to an Affirming Catholicism conference, which was informally photocopied and privately distributed. This talk reflects the anger that I and many others felt in the wake of Lambeth ’98.
I regret its excessively personal and polemical tone, and the fact that, as a result of the controversy about my appointment, it has, ironically, been given far wider circulation than was ever intended.

3. Views on the Atonement
In April 2007 Dr John again hit the headlines here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1547262/Easter-message-Christ-did-not-die-for-sin.html

Clergy who preach this Easter that Christ was sent to earth to die in atonement for the sins of mankind are “making God sound like a psychopath”, he will say.
In a BBC Radio 4 show, Mr John, who is now Dean of St Albans, urges a revision of the traditional explanation, known as “penal substitution”.
Christian theology has taught that because humans have sinned, God sent Christ as a substitute to suffer and die in our place.
“In other words, Jesus took the rap and we got forgiven as long as we said we believed in him,” says Mr John. “This is repulsive as well as nonsensical. It makes God sound like a psychopath. If a human behaved like this we’d say that they were a monster.”
Mr John argues that too many Christians go through their lives failing to realise that God is about “love and truth”, not “wrath and punishment”. He offers an alternative interpretation, suggesting that Christ was crucified so he could “share in the worst of grief and suffering that life can throw at us”.
Church figures have expressed dismay at his comments, which they condemn as a “deliberate perversion of the Bible”. The Rt Rev Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham, accused Mr John of attacking the fundamental message of the Gospel.
“He is denying the way in which we understand Christ’s sacrifice. It is right to stress that he is a God of love but he is ignoring that this means he must also be angry at everything that distorts human life,” he said.
Bishop Wright criticised the BBC for allowing such a prominent slot to be given to such a provocative argument. “I’m fed up with the BBC for choosing to give privilege to these unfortunate views in Holy Week,” he said.

The Bishop of Durham reviewed and criticised the views of Dr John here:
”˜The Cross and the Caricatures: a response to Robert Jenson, Jeffrey John, and a new volume entitled Pierced for Our Transgressions’

The Cross and The Caricatures

His key criticisms lead in:

All of which brings us back to Dr John’s talk itself. It wasn’t long, and of course Dr John would no doubt say, as I have done, that an essay several times the length would still not be enough to do justice to the topic. But it is therefore all the more frustrating to see how many of his short minutes he used up in presenting a sad caricature of the biblical doctrines of God’s wrath, God’s moral providence, and of the atonement itself”¦.

Dr Albert Mohler also wrote an article in response:

The Atonement — Understanding the Meaning of the Cross

Peter Ould also was critical:

Jeffrey John only does half the story

4. Dr John’s attempts to become a bishop and the withdrawal from Reading.

Ruth Gledhill gives the story of what happened when Dr John was asked to resign his appointment as bishop of Reading and gives the background to a prior attempt to make him Bishop of Monmouth, which was stopped by the Church in Wales:
”˜The rise and fall of Dr Jeffrey John’ ”“ Times ”“ 7th July 2003
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1148858.ece
What is apparent according to Ruth Gledhill is that Dr John was suggested by the Archbishops’ Appointments Advisor. Notwithstanding this it was the Archbishop of Canterbury who stepped in to ask for his resignation.

Subsequently in August 2008 he was nominated as Bishop of Bangor ”“ for a second time the Church in Wales got cold feet and he was not appointed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_John

The latest attempt appears to be going on now in Southwark. Dr John is one of two controversial candidates mentioned, the other being the Rev Nick Holtam of St Martins-in-the-Fields ”“ a vocal advocate for “inclusion” who his chums in Southwark Cathedral seem to like. He would normally be debarred from serving as a breach of the restrictions on divorce and bishops, but our House of Bishops have taken it on themselves to attempt to change this without going through Synod. It looks increasingly like this was intended to open the way for those such as Nick Holtam to become bishops.

The Ugley Vicar has an analysis of some of the recent apparently deliberately divisive appointments of CofE bishops including the Bishop of Chelmsford and the suffragan Bishop of Stafford:
http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2010/06/issues-in-human-sexuality-bishops-begin.html

Bearing in mind what Dr Williams and others keep telling us, that bishops are consecrated for the whole Communion, one does have to wonder at the appointments to the House of Bishops here being made at the moment: divorced bishops, gay bishops as well as women bishops. Is the plan to isolate the Church of England from the rest of the Communion? I am amazed at the fecklessness.

Is there a deathwish?

Rev. Nick Holtam, St Martins in the Fields
from here
Unfortunately the other main candidate being talked about is also a campaigner for full gay inclusion [and we know what that means – SSU’s and bishops]. The Rev Nick Holtam is the vicar of St Martins-in-the-Fields and one of the founding steering committee of Inclusive Church:

The rejection of Canon Jeffrey John was probably the most recent high-profile example of injustice in our church, but it is certainly not the only one. We are aware that there are many individuals, groups and organisations that have been working long and hard, often with little support or encouragement, to highlight and overcome injustices in our Church. Some have already joined Inclusive Church .net. We want to honour them all and celebrate their courage. We believe that by forming Inclusive Church.net, we can work together to recover the inclusive nature of the church which is the heart and soul of Anglicanism.

InclusiveChurch.net was born on 11th August 2003 at a Eucharist in Putney. On 15th September a small group of supporters met to consider this overwhelming response, and concluded that Inclusive Church was here to stay. At that meeting we elected a small interim steering group: Rev’d Angus Aagaard, April Alexander, Rev’d Philip Chester, Ven Stephen Conway, Rev’d Joe Hawes, Rev’d Nick Holtam, Rev’d Dr Giles Fraser (chair), Anne Kiem (treasurer), Rev’d Simon Pothen, Rev’d Dr Hugh Rayment-Pickard, Rev’d Richard Sewell, Rev’d Dr Jane Shaw, Very Rev’d Colin Slee, Rev’d Dave Tomlinson, Rev’d Richard Thomas (secretary), Mark Vernon, Charles Walmsley, Rev’d Colin Coward, Rev’d Mary Robins.

An interview in the Guardian in 2005 gives a clue to just how much of an activist he is:

Holtam’s philosophy is crystallised in his careful campaign for the ordination of gay clergy. When Gene Robinson, New Hampshire’s gay Anglican bishop, came to Britain last month he made his first public appearance at St Martin’s despite protests from the Church of England’s evangelical wing. “We were very keen to keep within the letter of the law,” Holtam explains. ‘Nevertheless, we wanted to provide a platform. The way we did it was to hold a service at which he was present, and took no active part, but afterwards he spoke to a full church. Ironically, he got an hour and a quarter to speak and a standing ovation. If he’d been in the pulpit he’d have got 15 minutes and a rather more muted response.”

With the issue of gay clergy threatening to split the Anglican church, Holtam took a risk in welcoming Bishop Robinson. And yet he quails at the idea that he should be credited for his stance. “It’s the place that’s remarkable and I’m just the custodian of the moment,” he argues.

Now he is being pushed for a bishropic, by Rowan Williams according to this article by Jonathan Petre in the Guardian a few months ago:

To his credit, Rowan Williams wants Holtam to be a bishop, and there are several dioceses queueing up to consider him.

So just looking at recent candidates for vacancies here, the pattern is pretty depressing. The Diocese of Chelmsford has had Stephen Cottrell lined up as its next bishop in November. He was put into Reading when Jeffrey John stepped down, and is of similar inclusive activist views. Now in Southwark the proposed two leading candidates are both pro-gay activists, and in Holtam’s case, a co-founder of Inclusive Church in response to the Jeffrey John affair, and the man who was the first to bring Gene Robinson to speak at his church in England.

As disturbing is the linking going on to the support apparently given to some of these candidates by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Then there are the peculiar moves made recently in the House of Bishops removing the divorce bar apparently to clear the way for Holtam to be a bishop.

So is it the case that the ABC and others are pushing for stuffing the House of Bishops with Affirming Catholics of his own stripe and inclusive beliefs?

Is it not reasonable to expect that our bishops are at least capable of conforming to the beliefs of our church and of the Communion’s teaching? Moreover is it not reasonable to have bishops who are acceptable to the other provinces of our Communion? Why should the ABC and his Aff Cath friends stuff this small clique of Inclusive Church types into vacant dioceses?

One CEO told me, “Almost every agency we deal with has announced some expansion of its authority, which naturally makes me concerned about what’s in store for us for the future.” Another pointed out that between the health-care bill, financial reform and possibly cap-and-trade, his company had lawyers working day and night to figure out the implications of all these new regulations. Lobbyists have been delighted by all this activity. “[Obama] exaggerates our power, but he increases demand for our services,” superlobbyist Tony Podesta told the New York Times.

Most of the business leaders I spoke to had voted for Barack Obama. They still admire him. Those who had met him thought he was unusually smart. But all think he is, at his core, anti-business. When I asked for specifics, they pointed to the fact that Obama has no business executives in his Cabinet, that he rarely consults with CEOs (except for photo ops), that he has almost no private-sector experience, that he’s made clear he thinks government and nonprofit work are superior to the private sector. It all added up to a profound sense of distrust.

Some of this is a product of chance. The economic crisis forced the government to expand its authority in dozens of areas, from finance to automobiles. But precisely because of these circumstances, Obama needs to outline a growth and competitiveness agenda that is compelling to the business community. This might sound like psychology more than economics, and the populist left will surely scream that the last thing we need to do is pander to business. But the first thing we need is for these people to start spending their money — soon. As a leading New York businessman who publicly supported Obama during the campaign told me, “their perception is our reality.”

Read it all.

Federal data from 2007 says 40 percent of births in America are to unwed mothers, a trend experts say is especially common in middle-class America. In one St. Louis community, the notion of getting married and having children ”” in that order ”” seems quaint.

For most of their relationship, Nathan Garland and Brianne Zimmerman have marked their anniversary by New Year’s Eve, 2001. They say that was the day they both knew they had found the one.

“It seemed obvious to me the first time we kissed,” Garland says. “Just kind of connected, right then. It really was that obvious.”

They moved in together shortly afterward. They decided to have a baby a few years later, but had no interest in getting married.

Read or better yet listen to it all.

More than half (55%) of all adults in the labor force say that since the Great Recession began 30 months ago, they have suffered a spell of unemployment, a cut in pay, a reduction in hours or have become involuntary part-time workers, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center’s Social and Demographic Trends Project.

The survey also finds that the recession has led to a new frugality in Americans’ spending and borrowing habits; a diminished set of expectations about their retirements and their children’s future; and a concern that it will take several years, at a minimum, for their family finances and house values to recover.

Not all survey findings are bleak. More than six-in-ten (62%) Americans believe that their personal finances will improve in the coming year, and a small but growing minority (15%) now says the national economy is in good shape.

Read it all.

Take a careful look.

….the whole question of diversity and communion more broadly has been a consistent Anglican concern, at least since the late 18th-century English bishops required of the nascent Episcopal Church that she reorder her Prayer Book (e.g. replacing those parts stricken from the Americans’ proposed version of the Apostles’ Creed), if she wished to have her ministers and bishops “recognized” through a process of continuous succession with the English Church. It was still a question when the first Lambeth Conference met and resolved that “it is necessary that [newer Anglican churches] receive and maintain without alteration the standards of faith and doctrine as now in use in [the Church of England]”, echoing in this instance TEC’s initial commitments from 1786. The bishops then explained that, nevertheless, “each province should have the right to make such adaptations and additions to the services of the Church as its peculiar circumstances may require”. Immediately, however, the bishops noted a proviso, “that no change or addition be made inconsistent with the spirit and principles of the Book of Common Prayer”, a standard that, if rather loose, at least pointed to a text. Further, the bishops insisted more concretely, “that all such changes be liable to revision by any synod of the Anglican Communion in which the said province shall be represented”. And here, obviously, “representation” is not viewed as a veto power for one’s own interests, but rather as a participatory role bounded by unitive action.

One can argue whether this Lambeth resolution was consistently followed through in a strict sense. And so, with respect to the broader diversity-unity question, the Communion has tended to address difficult issues on this score as they have arisen, rather than through a strict censorial mechanism, whether constitutional or confessional. But does this lack of a defined template that can measure when diversity becomes “too much”, or when the “recognizable becomes unrecognizable” indicate that in fact there is no means of discernment at all? Certainly not, since the dynamic of recognition ”“ unity and separation ”” has performed this task quite adequately: when one church is no longer recognized as representing other Anglicans before the world, diversity has exceeded the measure of unity.

And, indeed, if the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, based on whatever means by which he has made this determination (in this case, years of consultation) no longer recognizes TEC as representative of the Communion that ”“ for TEC and many other Anglican churches ”“ is substantively defined by their bonds with him, then it is a simple descriptive fact that TEC’s particular convictions have undercut common Communion commitments. There is not some other mechanism that awaits application to reveal this fact. Indeed, the claim made by the Presiding Bishop that a Covenant is needed first before this can be done, ”” and therefore it cannot be done now ”” only underscores TEC’s choice to move to the side of previously acknowledged means of discernment regarding appropriate Christian diversity with the Communion, and to claim a kind of Communion chaos on this matter that even more desperately seeks some kind of covenantal resolution.

Finally, what are we to make of the fact that the Presiding Bishop and other leaders of TEC have long sought to undercut the strength of local diversity within the American Church ”“ there are vast swaths of no-go zones in TEC for traditional and conservative Episcopal clergy and scholars, imposed quite consciously by bishops and the committees they lead? Or that they have now put in place disciplinary canons (the revised Title IV rules) that would give the Presiding Bishop the arguably unconstitutional power to inhibit fellow bishops without prior consultative permission? None of this suggests a stable understanding of the relationship between diversity and Christian unity, despite claims to the contrary in her Pastoral Letter. While the diversity-unity question deserves (and has received) significant Scriptural and theological scrutiny, its practical import is nonetheless contained within these kinds of “actions”, as Lund put it: one judges the character of a tree of unity by its fruit, if always somewhat retrospectively.

Read it all.

A year ago, after analyzing carefully the chaotic vote on the Trisk amendment in Jamaica, we expressed the “hope that this will further demonstrate to the Communion the corrosive effect the current conflict and the efforts of those who seek to defeat or disable the Covenant are having in the Communion.” We have to conclude, however, that in the past year this hope has not been realized and the corrosion has only spread. Many of the primary players at Jamaica are now on the Standing Committee itself and they freely denounce and try to subvert the very Covenant they are to administer. TEC’s Presiding Bishop, like Dr. Fitchett calls the Covenant “un-Anglican,” challenges the Archbishop of Canterbury’s understanding of Pentecost and dismisses canonical requirements of the Church of England as “nonsense.” In reply, a Lambeth Palace official noted pointedly that one of the statements made by the Presiding Bishop was not true. The Secretary General notes that TEC does not “share the faith and order of the vast majority of the Anglican Communion” and that some Communion discussions are “at the point of collapse.” The Secretary General interrupted his vacation to meet with TEC’s Executive Council at its request only to be treated rudely while he was there and ridiculed after he left. Five resignations have been reported by the ACC Standing Committee in the last six months, and the Secretary General described its last meeting as the “worst meeting” of his life.

The Communion can hardly tolerate another year like the last one. It is essential that the Communion have structures that work in the midst of ongoing crises in several churches of the Communion. The corrosive effect we spoke of a year ago must now be addressed as a matter of urgency. Five things are needed….

Read it all.

The mission is twofold.

On July 7, St. John’s Chapel on Hanover Street becomes an official “mission” of the Episcopal Church, which by definition will provide ongoing financial support and direction.

But the chapel has its own mission to reach out to the East Side community, assisting girls and women especially. Since before its consecration last October, St. John’s has set itself the task of providing a safe haven for learning and worship and empowering its members to transcend the particular hardships of daily life, according to its vicar, the Rev. Dallas H. Wilson Jr.

Read it all.

For six weeks, the city held off enemy troops, fighting the longest siege of the war to preserve the freedom of a newly founded nation.

Now, thousands of people walk the site every day without even realizing it is a battlefield — the largest in South Carolina — or the role it played in the holiday the country celebrates today.

“I’m always amazed when I give tours that people don’t realize there was a major battle here in 1780,” said Carl Borick, assistant director of the Charleston Museum and author of “A Gallant Defense: The Siege of Charleston, 1780.

“The siege is important. It was the largest battle in South Carolina during the Revolutionary War.”

Read it all.

Self proclaimed know-it-all A.J. Jacobs talks with Scott Simon about lost facts and heroes from the American Revolution.

Listen to it all.

ohn Adams predicted that July 2nd would be the most memorable date in American history ”” a date that “will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival … to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore.”

He got everything right but the date. The 4th day of July 1776 is indeed the definitive date in American history. Nothing else comes close. When we hear 1776, we are invariably reminded of the Founders in Philadelphia and the noble purpose and principles of our nation’s beginning. We tend to call our national birthday not Independence Day, but the Fourth of July, and that name floods our minds with lifetime memories of flags, marching bands, red, white and blue bunting draped on picket fences, hot dogs, potato salad, friends, family and fireworks.

So, why would Adams think it would be the 2nd day of July that would burn itself indelibly into our national soul?

Read it all.

— What’s your favorite 4th of July memory?
— For what are you most thankful as an American?
— What are you praying for our country today?

(Written for the majority American readership; others please feel free to chime in; heaven knows we need your prayers–KSH)

“Today we stand on an awful arena, where character which was the growth of centuries was tested and determined by the issues of a single day. We are compassed about by a cloud of witnesses; not alone the shadowy ranks of those who wrestled here, but the greater parties of the action–they for whom these things were done. Forms of thought rise before us, as in an amphitheatre, circle beyond circle, rank above rank; The State, The Union, The People. And these are One. Let us–from the arena, contemplate them–the spiritual spectators.

“There is an aspect in which the question at issue might seem to be of forms, and not of substance. It was, on its face, a question of government. There was a boastful pretence that each State held in its hands the death-warrant of the Nation; that any State had a right, without show of justification outside of its own caprice, to violate the covenants of the constitution, to break away from the Union, and set up its own little sovereignty as sufficient for all human purposes and ends; thus leaving it to the mere will or whim of any member of our political system to destroy the body and dissolve the soul of the Great People. This was the political question submitted to the arbitrament of arms. But the victory was of great politics over small. It was the right reason, the moral consciousness and solemn resolve of the people rectifying its wavering exterior lines according to the life-lines of its organic being.

“There is a phrase abroad which obscures the legal and moral questions involved in the issue,–indeed, which falsifies history: “The War between the States”. There are here no States outside of the Union. Resolving themselves out of it does not release them. Even were they successful in intrenching themselves in this attitude, they would only relapse into territories of the United States. Indeed several of the States so resolving were never in their own right either States or Colonies; but their territories were purchased by the common treasury of the Union. Underneath this phrase and title,–“The War between the States”–lies the false assumption that our Union is but a compact of States. Were it so, neither party to it could renounce it at his own mere will or caprice. Even on this theory the States remaining true to the terms of their treaty, and loyal to its intent, would have the right to resist force by force, to take up the gage of battle thrown down by the rebellious States, and compel them to return to their duty and their allegiance. The Law of Nations would have accorded the loyal States this right and remedy.

“But this was not our theory, nor our justification. The flag we bore into the field was not that of particular States, no matter how many nor how loyal, arrayed against other States. It was the flag of the Union, the flag of the people, vindicating the right and charged with the duty of preventing any factions, no matter how many nor under what pretence, from breaking up this common Country.

“It was the country of the South as well as of the North. The men who sought to dismember it, belonged to it. Its was a larger life, aloof from the dominance of self-surroundings; but in it their truest interests were interwoven. They suffered themselves to be drawn down from the spiritual ideal by influences of the physical world. There is in man that peril of the double nature. “But I see another law”, says St. Paul. “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind.”

–Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (1828-1914)

Commentator John McDonough recalls the last great reunion of Civil War veterans from the North and South. It took place July 3-5, 1938, on the 75th anniversary of Gettysburg ”” at Gettysburg, Pa. At the time, the whole country was almost painfully aware that the last living links to a decisive event were about to slip away.

Listen to it all from NPR.

I am not afraid to say that the principle of self-interest rightly understood appears to me the best suited of all philosophical theories to the wants of the men of our time, and that I regard it as their chief remaining security against themselves. Towards it, therefore, the minds of the moralists of our age should turn; even should they judge it to be incomplete, it must nevertheless be adopted as necessary.

I do not think, on the whole, that there is more selfishness among us than in America; the only difference is that there it is enlightened, here it is not. Each American knows when to sacrifice some of his private interests to save the rest; we want to save everything, and often we lose it all. Everybody I see about me seems bent on teaching his contemporaries, by precept and example, that what is useful is never wrong Will nobody undertake to make them understand how what is right may be useful?

No power on earth can prevent the increasing equality of conditions from inclining the human mind to seek out what is useful or from leading every member of the community to be wrapped up in himself. It must therefore be expected that personal interest will become more than ever the principal if not the sole spring of men’s actions; but it remains to be seen how each man will understand his personal interest. If the members of a community, as they become more equal, become more ignorant and coarse, it is difficult to foresee to what pitch of stupid excesses their selfishness may lead them; and no one can foretell into what disgrace and wretchedness they would plunge themselves lest they should have to sacrifice something of their own well-being to the prosperity of their fellow creatures.

I do not think that the system of self-interest as it is professed in America is in all its parts self- evident, but it contains a great number of truths so evident that men, if they are only educated, cannot fail to see them. Educate, then, at any rate, for the age of implicit self-sacrifice and instinctive virtues is already flitting far away from us, and the time is fast approaching when freedom, public peace, and social order itself will not be able to exist without education.

–Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Book II, Chapter 8

Long, too long America,
Traveling roads all even and peaceful you learn’d from joys and
prosperity only,
But now, ah now, to learn from crises of anguish, advancing,
grappling with direst fate and recoiling not,
And now to conceive and show to the world what your children
en-masse really are,
(For who except myself has yet conceiv’d what your children en-masse
really are?)

–Walt Whitman (1819-1892)

So how do I accept what my husband does for a living? Quite easily. He serves his country and does so courageously, next to other respectable men and women. He represents America with the utmost dignity while overseas. The Army is lucky to have him, and so am I. While people sit back and criticize what soldiers do, my husband risks his life over and over again. Let’s be honest: It’s a job that most people don’t want. Many don’t think about it because other people do it.

Other people do it.

Instead of trying to figure out how to accept or justify or understand what my husband does because you don’t believe in war, I’d beg you to know that no one wants war; no one likes war. We’d all love a perfect world, but we do not live in one. Our country is at war; two of them, actually. Soldiers, my husband being one of them, have to deploy. We, as families, have to worry and wait and hope.

I believe that the next time somebody asks me how I accept what my husband does for a living, I will simply tell that person to appreciate my husband’s service and to enjoy his or her freedom while my husband does what his country asks of him.

Read it all.

I received by the Deacon two letters from you, this day, from Hartford. I feel a recruit of spirits upon the reception of them, and the comfortable news which they contain. We had not heard any thing from North Carolina before, and could not help feel ing anxious, lest we should find a defection there, arising more from their ancient feuds and animosities, than from any settled ill-will in the present con test ; but the confirmation of the choice of their delegates by their Assembly, leaves not a doubt of their firmness ; nor doth the eye say unto the hand, ” I have no need of thee.” The Lord will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance. Great events are most certainly in the womb of futurity ; and, if the present chastisements which we experience have a proper influence upon our conduct, the event will certainly be in our favor. The distresses of the inhabitants of Boston are beyond the power of language to describe ; there are but very few who are permitted to come out in a day ; they delay giving passes, make them wait from hour to hour, and their counsels are not two hours together alike. One day, they shall come out with their effects ; the next day, merchandise is not effects. One day, their house hold furniture is to come out ; the next, only wearing apparel ; the next, Pharaoh’s heart is hardened, and he refuseth to hearken to them, and will not let the people go. May their deliverance be wrought out for them, as it was for the children of Israel. I do not mean by miracles, but by the interposition of Heaven in their favor. They have taken a list of all those who they suppose were concerned in watch ing the tea, and every other person whom they call obnoxious, and they and their effects are to suffer destruction. Yours,

–A letter from Abigail Adams (1744-1818) to John Adams (1735-1826) 7 May 1775 (emphasis mine)

Lord God Almighty, in whose Name the founders of this country won liberty for themselves and for us, and lit the torch of freedom for nations then unborn: Grant, we beseech thee, that we and all the peoples of this land may have grace to maintain these liberties in righteousness and peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

The goalkeepers had stopped penalty kicks a minute apart, the referee had nullified an apparent penalty kick goal and Pedro’s seemingly sure effort had tagged the left post. Perhaps nothing was going to enter the net Saturday at Ellis Park.

But on another evening of spellbinding theater at the World Cup, Spain’s David Villa scored the breakthrough goal on an 83rd-minute shot that struck the right post, dribbled along the goal line and kissed the base of the left upright before crossing the barrier.

Read the whole article.

Dr John is a hugely divisive figure in the church after he was forced to stand down from becoming the Bishop of Reading in 2003 after it emerged he was in a homosexual, but celibate, relationship.

Promoting him to one of the most senior offices in the Church would trigger a civil war between liberals and conservatives and exacerbate existing divisions within the Anglican Communion.

Members of the Crown Nominations Commission, the body responsible for selecting bishops, will vote this week on whether Dr John’s name should now be put forward to the Prime Minister for final approval.

David Cameron has been made aware that Dr John is on the shortlist for the post and is understood to be supportive of such an appointment.

Read the whole thing.

(Church of Uganda) The Rev. Canon James William Robert Ssebagala has been elected the 4th Bishop of Mukono Diocese replacing Rt. Rev. Elia Paul Luzinda Kizito.

The election was made during the House of Bishops of the Church of the Province of Uganda sitting at Lweza Training and Conference Centre on 2nd July 2010. His consecration and enthronement will take place at Saints Philip and Andrew’s Cathedral, Mukono on the 19th September 2010.

(The) Rev. Canon Ssebaggala, 52, holds a Master of Arts in Organisational Leadership and Management Degree from Uganda Christian University, Mukono, a Bachelor of Divinity from Makerere University, Mukono, a Diploma in Theology from Bishop Tucker Theological College (now Uganda Christian University, Mukono) and a Diploma in Land Surveying. He has also attended a variety of Courses, trainings and workshops.

(The) Rev. Canon James William Ssebaggala worked as a Parish Priest, Youth Worker, Estates Officer and Diocesan Secretary in Mukono Diocese. He also served in many other capacities within Church related structures and served on various Boards.

Currently, he is the Executive Director ”“ Mission For All (MIFA) ”“ Uganda. He is married to Tezirah Nakimbugwe Ssebaggala and God has blessed them with four children.

Superb play by the Germans.

The United States added just 83,000 private sector jobs in June, according to the monthly statistical snapshot released by the Labor Department. The unemployment rate declined to 9.5 percent, from 9.7 percent in May. But that was a largely illusory decline, as 652,000 Americans left the work force.

Over all, the nation lost 125,000 jobs in June, but those losses came as temporary federal Census workers headed for the exits.

With the economy slowing ”” housing sales plummeted, while earnings and hours worked ticked downward last month ”” the stakes grow larger, economically and politically. The next few monthly unemployment reports will unfold during the run-up to the midterm Congressional elections this fall. Incumbents feel particularly precarious, and major economic decisions about financial reform, unemployment benefits, and aid to states still sit on their desks.

“We may have seen the best of employment for some time,” said Paul Kasriel, chief economist at Northern Trust. “In general the economy is downshifting, maybe to stall speed, or just above stall.”

Read it all, and for those of you so inclined David A. Rosenberg’s detailed analysis is very fine (9 pages of the pdf).

Even by the standards of this deficit-ridden state, Illinois’s comptroller, Daniel W. Hynes, faces an ugly balance sheet. Precisely how ugly becomes clear when he beckons you into his office to examine his daily briefing memo.

He picks the papers off his desk and points to a figure in red: $5.01 billion.

“This is what the state owes right now to schools, rehabilitation centers, child care, the state university ”” and it’s getting worse every single day,” he says in his downtown office.

Mr. Hynes shakes his head. “This is not some esoteric budget issue; we are not paying bills for absolutely essential services,” he says. “That is obscene.”

Read it all.

I hope the White House is paying attention to the latest annual Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook, which offers a truly frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt, with huge implications for the country’s future prosperity. According to the non-partisan CBO, “the federal government has been recording the largest budget deficits, as a share of the economy, since the end of World War II”….

Read it all and follow the link to the important CBO report.

THE Archbishop of Canterbury (above) told the Methodist Conference on Tuesday that “a sense of urgency of who Jesus is” must be at the heart of the Anglican-Methodist Covenant.

Dr Williams said that the Covenant, signed in 2003, was “unfinished busi­ness”, and they were now working out how to “settle in for the long haul”.

It was the second time the Arch­bishop has addressed the Methodist Conference ”” the first was in 2004.

Dr Williams took the examples of St Peter and St Paul to show how the Church of England and the Methodist Church should handle disagreements. He contrasted St Peter’s willingness to compromise with St Paul’s confron­t­ational approach. The apostolic witness embraced both approaches, Dr Williams said. But, he went on, neither “compromise for the sake of a quiet life” nor “confrontation for the sake of feeling righteous” were fully biblical approaches.

Read it all.