Originally posted on Why Evolution Is True: I’ve written a fair bit about accusations of cultural appropriation, and I do so for several reasons. First, these accusations are almost always totally misguided, mistaking admiring imitation for bigotry and theft. Second, they clearly show the folly of the Authoritarian Left, both its virtue-flaunting and its adoption…
Received this comment on my YouTube posting of the Word of God’s New Life album:
I am so grateful that you put this up. I honestly wept when I listened to it. I was all of 10 years old when I first heard this. I make no comments about the excellence of the music (it’s not) nor of the style of worship, but it is very evocative of a time in many lives when this sort of thing represented a hope for great things from God. I only wish that all of these could be found still.
In spite of some of my reservations about the Word of God’s music style, there is no doubt this worship style was moving and spiritual, and there was a hope of great things from God. The whole movement, however, and indeed the whole “Jesus Music” era of the 1960’s and 1970’s got derailed by two things: the effects of authoritarianism through the Shepherding Movement and covenant communities, and the commercialization of Christian music in general in the 1980’s and beyond.
It’s hard to describe to any side in the “music wars” these days what this style of worship meant to those of us who experienced it; we find ourselves alone on the sides. Fortunately we are not alone, as this comment shows. And with God we are never alone.
Most of you who stop by here regularly know that I am a big fan of Grady McWhiney’s “Celtic South” idea. That adherence didn’t come from theoretical considerations, but from hard experience. Some people characterize McWhiney’s thesis as a form of “white supremacy,” but that only shows the decline of reading comprehension among Americans. I think that it’s the key to showing that white supremacy is demonstrably false, but more about that later.
Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage by Grady McWhiney and Perry Jamieson concerns the central event in the conflict between the Scots-Irish and the rest of us: the Civil War/War Between the States. The problem under discussion in this book is best summed up by this passage from the preface:
Charles P. Roland has pointed out that more than a fourth of the million men who served in the Confederate army died of wounds of disease, and that in relation to the southern white population “those service casualties were as great as those endured by major European participants in the wars of the twentieth century. If the North during the Civil War had suffered commensurately she would have lost more than 1,000,000 men instead of 360,000. The American colonies in revolt against England would have lost 94,000 men instead of 12,000. The United States in World War II would have lost well over 6,000,000 men instead of somewhat more than 300,000. The Confederacy rendered the heaviest sacrifice in lives…ever made by Americans.”
How and why the Confederacy lost so many men is the burden of this book. We contend that the Confederates bled themselves nearly to death in the first three years of the war by making costly attacks more often than did the Federals…The Confederates could have offset their numerical disadvantage by remaining on the defensive and forcing the Federals to attack; one man in a trench armed with a rifle was equal to several outside of it. But Southerners, imprisoned in a culture that rejected careful calculation and patience, often refused to learn from their mistakes. They continued to fight, despite mounting casualties, with the same courageous dash and reckless abandon that had characterized their Celtic ancestors for two thousand years. The Confederates favored offensive warfare because the Celtic charge was an integral part of their heritage.
Much of the middle part of the book details the changes in warfare that had taken place in the 1850’s that changed the whole tactical situation. Most of the generals on both sides (and some of the politicians, such as Jefferson Davis) served in the Mexican War, and there the offensive definitely paid off. As the Civil War began much of the officer corps on both sides basically prepared to fight the last war.
But that was a mistake. The major technological change that took place was the change from smoothbore guns to rifles, which extended the kill range from around 300 yards to 1000 yards. That shifted the advantage from the attacker to the entrenched defender. The Federals were quicker to pick on this simple fact as opposed to their Confederate opponents, which led to an observation that didn’t get developed as well as it should: the Federals learned from their mistakes, the Confederates didn’t. That’s as aspect of Southern culture that exasperates more than most, and it’s independent of educational level and socio-economic status. The battle cry of “We’ve always done it this way” still resounds in these parts.
That affected the other aspects of the army, namely the artillery and cavalry. The artillery was slower to convert to rifled bores, and in spite of its offensive value in Mexico found itself most valuable on the defense during the Civil War. Cavalry charges were almost inevitably disasters, with the defenders “emptying the saddles” in short order. The cavalry found itself more effective in dismounted conflict, reconnaissance, and flanking maneuvers. As always Southerners loved the cavalry but their ability to keep it in the field deteriorated to the point that, in the last part of the war, most of the cavalry action came from the Federals.
All of this is presented in fascinating detail that will certainly alter the way one looks at the Civil War from a military standpoint. The question is, how well do the authors link all of this information with the idea of the Celtic South? Not as well as one would like; that comes at the very end of the book, and is to some extent sequestered from the rest. There are several things that the authors could have pointed out which would have strengthened their case.
The first is that the most “Celtic” thing the South didn’t do leading up to the Civil War was to develop an industrial and transportation base to fight the modern war that it became. Such requires patience and industry, both of which were in short supply south of the Mason-Dixon line. That affected the South grievously in its ability to keep an army in the field. The authors speak of the Southern soldier’s ability to endure hardship and deprivation, but both were accentuated by a faulty economic system that progressively found it difficult to furnish its army with weapons, uniforms and (in a rich agricultural region like the South) food.
The second is they point out Grant’s aggressive, offensive strategy in Virginia in the last two years of the war. That needs to be seen as a part of the war of attrition that Grant was fighting. Knowing that he had more men and the industrial base to keep them in the field, Grant simply beat Lee’s army into submission at Appomattox. A different strategy was employed by Sherman, whose name is still cursed down here: he avoided the attack most of the time, inflicting damage on the Confederate civilian infrastructure as opposed to their military one. (He made an exception at Kennesaw Mountain, which he lived to regret.)
The third (and they do mention this from time to time) is that a defensive strategy by the South was not only justified by the changes in weaponry but also by the difficult terrain that covered large parts of the Confederacy. That terrain, coupled with the poor railroad and road system (which was in common with Russia during the World Wars) made the attack difficult. The Confederates would also have done better with guerilla warfare, but their romantic culture didn’t allow for that.
One person that comes in for special opprobrium is Jefferson Davis, the Confederacy’s President. His experience in the Mexican War made him an apostle of the attack, and much of the impetus for that came from the very top. That had traction with Southerners, and led to many of the serious losses the Confederacy experienced, especially in the early years of the war.
The Confederates had company in not learning lessons from their own mistakes. Europeans in general and the French in particular learned little or nothing from the American Civil War. The French (the same native soil as Vercingetorix and his disaster at Alesia) went into World War I with an offensive strategy that lasted until Robert Nivelle’s offensive in 1917 that nearly broke the French army. The Germans for their part attempted to replicate Grant’s war of attrition at Verdun, but it took a few years and another war for that investment to see a return.
Also, many Northerners had the same level of contempt for Southern whites has the latter had for black people, up to and including the desire for genocide. This illustrates that the differences between the two cultures was understood at the time. McWhiney’s thesis has brought back that difference into view. Today the Scots-Irish are Donald Trump’s biggest supporters. You’d think that the left would be eager to embrace McWhiney’s thesis to trash their opponents once and for all. But they have not, and there are three reasons for this.
The first is that, if you can trash one ethnic group, you can trash another. The left is afraid that, if they make this stick, someone else will come along and do the same thing with one of their own constituencies. But anyone familiar with various people groups in this country should realize that the Scots-Irish are sui generis.
The second is that, underneath their contempt, the “hippie ideal” that the sixties types and their fans is really the Scots-Irish typical way of life: unbridled sex and drinking (and now opioids,) along with a lazy attitude towards work. When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez first unveiled her “Green New Deal,” one of the planks in the platform that got removed early was the promise of income for those who didn’t want to work. This is a Scots-Irish dream come true; the reason Southern states are so tight with their welfare systems is they know what would happen if they implemented such a plan.
The third is that the whole attack on “white supremacy” assumes that white people are a homogeneous group. That’s simply not the case. Once we realize that there are differences, a major cornerstone of intersectionality is knocked out. The Scots-Irish are the boxcar hobos on the train of white supremacy, and the sooner both they and everyone else come to grips with that fact, the better.
Today this country is as divided as it has been since the days of attack and die. Those of the Scots-Irish mentality are looking for that great victory that will wipe out their opponents, whether that victory be an election, a great preacher-led revival, or another shooting war. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that this is going to end badly, and in a world where we are not so isolated from the rest, while we fight each other our rivals will advance at our expense. Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage by Grady McWhiney and Perry Jamieson is a good study in what happens when the big things in life are done on impulse and emotion, and that’s a lesson that needs to be learned today.
What about ‘defeated’ or ‘broken’ Christians; is there even such a category? I want to briefly touch upon this, because I see it as a real and present question that continues to confront us in the broader evangelical church. With the departure of Josh Harris, and now one of the lead writers for Hillsong music, […]
The whole business of “were they really saved” is one of the most unedifying parlor games we have in Christianity. And it’s not just the Calvinists either, although they got the ball rolling: the Southern Baptists, with their infelicitous combination of Arminian election and Calvinistic perseverance, do the same thing. As Grow points out, “As with all exegesis, the Calvinist interpretation of I Jn 2.19 flows from their prior commitment to a particular doctrine of God,” but things break down in situations like we’re seeing with Harris and Sampson.
One other thing: Grow notes that “Within the Protestant tradition, there have been two major concepts of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation): the Reformed view and the Arminian view. ” It has been suggested on this site that Calvinism and Arminianism are both forms of Reformed theology, but my experience is that Calvinists regard Arminians the same way Salafis regard Shi’a Muslims: outside of the faith.
For Anglicans, Article XVI allows for a falling away, which is a sensible solution to the problem at hand. But it’s a major reason why I do not think that Anglicanism is strictly speaking “Reformed,” and that makes some people mad.
When it comes to Anglican church planting, we often think of modern evangelical or charismatic examples such as Holy Trinity Brompton in London. But what about the Anglo-Catholic movement that has its roots in the “Oxford Movement” of the nineteenth century? Are Anglo-Catholic Church Planters a Thing? Let’s be honest, when you hear think of…
One of Our Lord’s commands that we have difficulty fulfilling is this one:
But it is not only for them that I am interceding, but also for those who believe in me through their Message, That they all may be one–that as thou, Father, art in union with us–and so the world may believe that thou hast sent me as thy Messenger. (John 17:20-21 TCNT)
No where is that more apparent than the relationship between those who are under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome–the Roman Catholics–and those who are not, whether the latter be Protestant, Orthodox or otherwise. Most Protestants have brushed off any idea of union with–or certainly under–Rome. Unless you figure that Protestant and Orthodox churches will simply roll the Roman Catholics–and in some places like Latin America that’s a possibility–sooner or later some accommodation with the See of Peter needs to be considered, or at least the obstacles to that accommodation need to be dispassionately discussed.
A serious discussion of this is Trevor Gervase Jalland’s The Church and the Papacy. Jalland, Vicar of St. Thomas the Martyr in Oxford and an Anglo-Catholic, delivered the Bampton Lectures at Oxford in 1942. These lectures became the book. As such it presupposes a fairly broad knowledge of the history of the church. Jalland’s main objective is to examine the validity of the claim of the See of Rome to Petrine Primacy, and how that claim has been actualized over the centuries.
The focus of his interest is the period from the New Testament to the end of the sixth century, which takes up most of his narrative. He brings out three important points which become leitmotifs in the history of the Roman Empire church in general and the Roman see in particular.
The first is that the assertion–and the acceptance–of Petrine primacy for the Roman see was relatively early in its history. It should be understood that the church’s structure was “looser” at that time and this primacy didn’t mean then what it means now, but primacy it was all the same.
The second is that the principal objective in bishops of Rome exerting this primacy was to insure that the faith which was handed down by the apostles–the paradosis, to use the transliterated Greek term that Jalland employs frequently–was preserved and maintained. That brought a conservatism to the way Rome responded to the many doctrinal crises that came from the East, a salutary one in most cases.
The third is that this primacy was set in opposition to the Caesero-papism that dominated Eastern church polity. From Constantine I onward Eastern Roman emperors exerted enormous authority over the calling of and presiding over Church councils and the doctrine which they promulgated. The See of Rome did not feel that the state really had any business doing this, although they frequently had to express this opinion very diplomatically. That rivalry was exacerbated by the rise of the see of Constantinople, which had no antiquity (as opposed to that of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch or even Jerusalem) and that rivalry ultimately paved the way to the split between Roman Catholic and Orthodox in 1054.
It’s tempting to observe that, had Rome stuck to the program above, it could have avoided many of the problems that arose later. Jalland doesn’t really come out and say this, but he does show that many of the changes in the nature of the Papacy in the Middle Ages were due to the increasingly politicized nature of the Papacy itself. This manifested itself in two forms. First, the Pope, having sent the Eastern Emperor packing so to speak, felt that he was over the monarchs of the West, and that headship involved political authority. The second was that, by virtue of Papal territory in Central Italy, the Pope became a secular ruler in his own right, with the political role that accompanied that. Both of these created conflict between the Pope and secular rulers, and that conflict helped to fuel the Reformation itself both on the Continent and in Great Britain.
Jalland describes two points in Papal history where a major turn of history took place at a point of weakness in Rome. The first is the Reformation: Jalland describes a Papacy enmeshed in worldly considerations and taking a “deer in headlights” attitude to the oncoming storm in Germany. The second is Vatican I, where Papal infallibility was proclaimed. Jalland opined that the crisis occasioned by the reunification of the country and the progressive disappearance of the Papal States lead Pius IX to seek help from above, first in the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin in 1854 (a doctrine not well supported in tradition) and his own infallibility in 1870, the promulgation of which provides the “book ends” for the lectures.
Jalland, unusual among Christian historians, has a good grasp on the relationship of doctrine with ecclesiology, and the impact of “church politics” (which includes both politics within the church and its interaction with the state.) He avoids the kinds of artificial constructs and sweeping generalizations that plague debates within the church these days. He has an Anglo-Catholic’s aversion to state control of the church, one seen also in Luckock. That is an appropriate backdrop to one of the most interesting narratives in the book: how Pius VII outlasted Napoleon in spite of the latter’s attempt to use the Papacy for his own purposes, something that Stalin’s successors would have done well to remember.
So now that he has shown the antiquity of Petrine primacy, where did he think things were going with Rome? In the last lecture he makes the following statement:
The latest tragedy of its history seems to lie in this, that the vain attempt to save what had long ceased to be valuable contributed its failure to appreciate the opportunity for fulfilling its world-wide mission as a centre of unity and order for Christian society as a whole under changed conditions, and led only to a comparatively sterile reassertion of its primatial status.
Jalland was unsure of where all of this was going, both for the Roman Catholics and for everyone else. Three quarters of a century after Jalland gave these lectures, we really don’t have a clearer picture. Vatican II had a great deal of promise but its own mandate for change was at once too broad and too narrow, and worse it became the tool of those with a sub-Christian agenda. The current Occupant of the See of Peter, back to the usual agenda of protecting the Vatican’s turf, currying favor with the “gods of this world” and using the authority of an infallible successor to Peter to make this happen, has left many inside and outside the Church in the lurch. As for the Protestant world, the Main Line churches, descendants (in the US) for the most part of the state churches (in Europe) that emerged from the Reformation, have lost center stage to the Evangelicals and Pentecostals, whose propensity to splinter makes putting the pieces back together difficult just by the sheer number of the pieces themselves.
What Christianity needs is leadership which is committed to transmitting the paradosis of the Apostles without expanding it. If the See of Peter ever rediscovers that mission, it will fulfill the final charge which Our Lord gave to Peter:
When breakfast was over, Jesus said to Simon Peter: “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than the others?” “Yes, Master,” he answered, “you know that I am your friend.” “Feed my lambs,” said Jesus. Then, a second time, Jesus asked: “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” “Yes, Master,” he answered, “you know that I am your friend.” “Tend my sheep,” said Jesus. The third time, Jesus said to him: “Simon, son of John, are you my friend?” Peter was hurt at his third question being ‘Are you my friend?’; and exclaimed: “Master, you know everything! You can tell that I am your friend.” “Feed my sheep,” said Jesus. “In truth I tell you,” he continued, “when you were young, you used to put on your own girdle, and walk wherever you wished; but, when you have grown old, you will have to stretch out your hands, while some one else puts on your girdle, and takes you where you do not wish.” (John 21:15-18 TCNT)
This, brought to my attention, from Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures, toward the very end:
Approaching therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or they fingers open; but make they left hand as if a throne for thy right, which is on the eve of receiving the King. And having hallowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying after it, Amen. Then after thou hast with carefulness hallowed thy eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake thereof; giving heed lest thou lose any of it; for what thou losest, is a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if any one gave thee gold dust, wouldest thou not with all precaution keep it fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and suffering loss? How much more cautiously then will thou observe that not a crumb falls from thee, of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?
Then after having partaken of the Body of Christ, approach also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth thine hands, but bending and saying in the way of worship and reverence, Amen, be thou hallowed by partaking also of the blood of Christ. And while the moisture is still upon thy lips, touching it with thy hands, hallow both thine eyes and brow and the other senses. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who has accounted thee worthy of so great mysteries. (Mystagogical Cathacheses, V, 21-22)
One of the hills the Trad Catholics die on is reception of the Host on the tongue. But as is the case with many things, the Eastern churches, whose sacramental validity has never been challenged, do many things in liturgical practice that haven’t sat well with their Western counterparts. This is one of them. Many of the “novelties” that are decried by Anglican and Catholic Trad alike are in reality imports from these churches, and as such are a real nuisance to these trads.
I did a series a few years back on Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures. For me, it was an interesting and informative journey, and I commend it again to my visitors.
Although Vulcan exported its pile driving equipment from the start, it was it’s foray into the offshore oil business that gave Vulcan a truly international perspective. That perspective put some of the world’s “hot spots” into its field of interest, and two of them are very active these days: Hong Kong and the Straits of […]
In 1871, Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov became a Professor of Practical Composition and Instrumentation at the St. Petersburg Conservatory. In retrospect, given the music he composed, this is not extraordinary. At the time, however, it was amazing. He was still in active service in the Russian Navy. More importantly, although he had had private music lessons and […]