Podcasts about anglicans

Today's Holy Smoke is a curtain-raiser for ‘Recovering the Sacred', a Spectator event at St Bartholow-the-Great in the City of London in which a panel of experts will explore the rediscovery of traditional worship and theology by young Anglicans and Catholics. The event will be held on Tuesday 8th July; for more details, and to book tickets, go to: spectator.co.uk/churchIn today's episode Damian Thompson talks to Anglican James Vitali and Catholic Georgia Clarke, two Generation Z professionals bursting with enthusiasm for their faith. It's an exhilarating discussion; don't miss it. Produced by Patrick Gibbons.

Today's Holy Smoke is a curtain-raiser for ‘Recovering the Sacred', a Spectator event at St Bartholow-the-Great in the City of London in which a panel of experts will explore the rediscovery of traditional worship and theology by young Anglicans and Catholics. The event will be held on Tuesday 8th July; for more details, and to book tickets, go to: spectator.co.uk/churchIn today's episode Damian Thompson talks to Anglican James Vitali and Catholic Georgia Clarke, two Generation Z professionals bursting with enthusiasm for their faith. It's an exhilarating discussion; don't miss it. Produced by Patrick Gibbons.

It's boom time for Islam. According to the most comprehensive study of global religious affiliation in a decade, there are now two billion Muslims in the world. The study, conducted by Pew Research, also finds there's an interesting twist in the data about the growth of those with no religion. CONRAD HACKETT was the senior researcher on the project.Despite the growth of Islam, there were markedly fewer Muslims attending this year's Hajj celebrations in Mecca. The pilgrimage is required of every able Muslim but numbers were down. The reason, however, is even more intriguing. Associate Professor MILAD HAGHANI from Melbourne University studies urban risk and resilience.Christianity may be thriving in much of the global south but, for the Anglicans of Melbourne, times are tougher. They're now just 5.5 percent of the population, according to the census. Will their new Archbishop be able to turn around the fortunes? RIC THORPE is currently the Anglican bishop of Islington in London, where he's been a successful church builder. What's his plan for the Melbourne diocese?GUESTS:CONRAD HACKETT - senior researcher at Pew ResearchAssociate Professor MILAD HAGHANI from Melbourne UniversityMelbourne Archbishop RIC THORPE 

Christianity may be thriving in much of the global south but, for the Anglicans of Melbourne, times are tougher. They're now just 5.5 % of the population, according to the census. Will their new Archbishop be able to turn around the fortunes of a shrinking church base? RIC THORPE is currently the Anglican bishop of Islington in London, where he's been a successful church builder. What's his plan for the Melbourne diocese?

Matt Ehret is back in Grimerica to discuss the global current and ancient going ons.... He has been busy making all kinds of great content including his trilogy, Revenge of the Mystery Cults, delves into the influence of ancient mystery religions on contemporary institutions and societal engineering. And the documentary series The Hidden Hand Behind UFOs.   We talk about incompetence vs intention, the fall of the 'Rules' based order, the death cult, what happened in 1971, global cults, Maurice Strong, China v the West, ai and bots, the 30 years war, Confucius, Chinese and Korean tv vs Hollywood. The death of the Hero's Journey.   In the second half we get into legislating culture, the woke right, Templars and Rosicrucians, Theosophy - black or white, Plymouth Brethren, The mystery cults, inversion, the Jesuits and Anglicans, Esoteric vs Exoteric, Tavistock, spiritual alchemy, magical working and Montreal church destruction.   In addition to his geopolitical and historical analyses, Ehret has explored the intersection of occult traditions and modern psychological operations. His trilogy, Revenge of the Mystery Cults, delves into the influence of ancient mystery religions on contemporary institutions and societal engineering. amazon.com Furthermore, Ehret co-created the documentary series The Hidden Hand Behind UFOs, which examines the historical and psychological aspects of the UFO phenomenon, linking it to broader themes of social control and cultural manipulation.   https://matthewehret.substack.com/ https://canadianpatriot.org/ https://x.com/ehret_matthew   To gain access to the second half of show and our Plus feed for audio and podcast please clink the link http://www.grimericaoutlawed.ca/support.   For second half of video (when applicable and audio) go to our Substack and Subscribe. https://grimericaoutlawed.substack.com/ or to our Locals  https://grimericaoutlawed.locals.com/ or Rokfin www.Rokfin.com/Grimerica Patreon https://www.patreon.com/grimericaoutlawed   Support the show directly: https://grimericacbd.com/ CBD / THC Tinctures and Gummies https://grimerica.ca/support-2/ Eh-List Podcast and site: https://eh-list.ca/ Eh-List YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheEh-List Our Adultbrain Audiobook Podcast and Website: www.adultbrain.ca Our Audiobook Youtube Channel:  https://www.youtube.com/@adultbrainaudiobookpublishing/videos Darren's book www.acanadianshame.ca Check out our next trip/conference/meetup - Contact at the Cabin www.contactatthecabin.com Other affiliated shows: www.grimerica.ca The OG Grimerica Show www.Rokfin.com/Grimerica Our channel on free speech Rokfin Join the chat / hangout with a bunch of fellow Grimericans  Https://t.me.grimerica https://www.guilded.gg/chat/b7af7266-771d-427f-978c-872a7962a6c2?messageId=c1e1c7cd-c6e9-4eaf-abc9-e6ec0be89ff3   Leave a review on iTunes and/or Stitcher: https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/grimerica-outlawed http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/grimerica-outlawed Sign up for our newsletter http://www.grimerica.ca/news SPAM Graham = and send him your synchronicities, feedback, strange experiences and psychedelic trip reports!! graham@grimerica.com InstaGRAM https://www.instagram.com/the_grimerica_show_podcast/  Purchase swag, with partial proceeds donated to the show www.grimerica.ca/swag Send us a postcard or letter http://www.grimerica.ca/contact/ ART - Napolean Duheme's site http://www.lostbreadcomic.com/  MUSIC Tru Northperception, Felix's Site sirfelix.bandcamp.com 

After four years and over a hundred episodes, we bring Appalachian Anglican to a close with one final conversation—both a retrospective and a bridge to what lies ahead. Bishop Darryl Fitzwater, Dcn Adam, Josh, and Aidan reflect on the importance of doctrinal fidelity, the dangers of theological innovation, and the enduring role of Scripture and tradition in shaping the Church's future. The conversation emphasizes that the Church is a steward, not a master, of doctrine and how Anglicans can live faithfully in an age of rapid change and ecclesial fragmentation.Though this is the final chapter of Appalachian Anglican, the conversation continues through a new endeavor: The American Catholic, launching in Summer 2025. Stay tuned for a fresh voice rooted in the same commitment to theological sanity, liturgical richness, and the building of Catholic communities across North America.For questions or clarifications, reach out to us @darryl@ascensionwv.org

The Declaration of Independence uses the words 'God,' 'the Creator,' and 'Divine Providence,' but many of the Founders were highly skeptical of both Christianity and also organized religion, preferring the scientific and rational ideals of the Enlightenment. In this episode, we explore the tensions between religion and reason in the Declaration of Independence. Topics include the following: -Theistic and deistic beliefs in the Founders, including Franklin and Jefferson -The different religious groups in the Colonies, from Baptists and Catholics to Anglicans and Quakers -Biblical and theological arguments for and against revolution as well as submission to the King -Grievance #20 in the Declaration, which references the Quebec Act of 1774, which allowed for the establishment of Catholicism in the Canadian colony of Quebec -Jefferson's Act for Establishing Religious Freedom (1779) -The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment

Christian nationalism is a phenomenon we usually associate with the United States. But it's also a driving force behind Vladimir Putin and his war on Ukraine. MARLENE LARUELLE specialises in the fusion of religion and global politics at George Washington University. She writes about Russian Christian nationalism in the Journal of Illiberalism Studies. Why is taking so long to choose a new leader of the world's 80 million Anglicans? It took the Catholic Church about three weeks from the death of Pope Francis to elect his successor, Pope Leo. But it's almost seven months since Justin Welby resigned, in controversial circumstances, as Archbishop of Canterbury. MADELEINE DAVIES of The Church Times in Britain has some answers – and a tip about his replacement.How did a young man go from being a racist teenage thug,  who did gaol time, to one of the world's leading Catholic writers. You can thank that lovable character from the G.K. Chesterton novels, Father Brown. JOSEPH PEARCE became captivated by the gentle, crime-solving priest, turned his life around and became a biographer of Chesterton and J.R.R. Tolkien. He brought his extraordinary story to Australia recently as a guest of Hartford College, a liberal studies school in Sydney.GUESTS:Marlene Laruelle Research Professor and Director of the Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies at the George Washington University. Madeleine Davies journalist at The Church TimesJoseph Pearce is a US based British philosopher and author

Why is it taking so long to choose a new leader of the world's 80 million Anglicans? It took the Catholic Church about three weeks from the death of Pope Francis to elect his successor, Pope Leo. But it's almost seven months since Justin Welby resigned, in controversial circumstances, as Archbishop of Canterbury.MADELEINE DAVIES of The Church Times in Britain has some answers – and a tip about his replacement.

The Anglicans of Melbourne have gone all the way to London to find their new archbishop.Last weekend they elected Richard Thorpe, currently the Bishop of Islington.It could be quite a shake up for Melbourne, where Anglicanism has balanced traditional-style worship with a more low-key evangelicalism.Bishop Thorpe's background suggests he prefers a more charismatic style.GUEST:Madeleine Davies is Senior Writer at the Church Times

On the phone-in: Experts, Eric Murphy and Barry Walker answer questions about heat pumps and other heating and cooling systems. And off the top of the show, we speak with Cynthia Pilichos and Liz LeClair about the decision over the weekend on NDAs by the Anglican Diocese of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.

If you are a conservative, Bible-believing Christian, there's a lot to like about the Rev. Calvin Robinson. Raised in England, he stood up to the liberalism of the Church of England and, as a result, that church would not ordain him. He is a powerful communicator who puts his gifts in service of pro-life causes, the sanctity of marriage, and other important issues. Then there's the “other” Calvin Robinson. If you've been following the news about Robinson this week, you probably know that Calvin Robinson, too. That Calvin Robinson is an agent provocateur. He made what appeared to be a Nazi-like salute at a pro-life event in January. He has been fired or suspended from media and ministry jobs. This Calvin Robinson is a guy who seems to be in love with the spotlight, but not at all in love with those in authority over him telling him what to do. The producer for today's program is Jeff McIntosh. The host is Warren Smith. Until next time, may God bless you.

In today's fragmented Christian landscape, tribal loyalties sometimes overshadow biblical truth. At Disciple Nations Alliance, we're frequently asked where we fit theologically. The answer? We don't wear a denominational jersey—and that's by design. In this episode, we unpack why choosing Scripture over systems isn't theological compromise but an emphasis on the heart of God's mission.Rather than aligning with a single tradition, we stand on clear, foundational truths: Jesus is King, His kingdom is advancing, and His method is disciple-making through the Church—holistically and incarnationally—grounded in a biblical worldview. These truths transcend denominational lines and unify believers from Pentecostals in Latin America to Anglicans in Africa.This conversation is a call to elevate Scripture above interpretive frameworks, to approach theology with humility and charity, and to focus on telling the full biblical story.Make a matching gift donation by June 10!View the transcript, leave comments, and check out recommended resources on the Episode Landing Page!Learn More about the 2025 DNA Forum in Panama

Friday, 9 May 2025   Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Matthew 10:2   “And the twelve apostles, the names, they are these: First, Simon, being called Peter, and Andrew, his brother. James the ‘of Zebedee,' and John, his brother” (CG).   In the previous verse, Jesus called His twelve disciples together and gave them power over spirits and sicknesses. Matthew continues his narrative with, “And the twelve apostles.”   The word apostolos, apostles, is introduced. It signifies a delegate or one who is sent. In this case, being apostles of Jesus, they are essentially ambassadors of Jesus for the mission of conveying the gospel. Understanding that, it next says, “the names, they are these.”   Matthew will give a list of the selected men. They are not the same names recorded in each gospel, but they are the same people, being described by the differing names each possessed, such as Simon being Peter. The names are recorded in Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:13-16, and Acts 1:13.   In all lists, Simon (Peter) is recorded first, while Judas the betrayer is listed last. Each time they are listed, they are divided into three separate groups of four each. However, the internal grouping of each group is not always the same.   For an extensive analysis of the patterns of groupings, names, and relationships of these apostles, consulting the commentary of Charles Ellicott will provide great detail. Of these men, the list begins with, “First, Simon, being called Peter.”   The name is derived from the Hebrew name Shimon, which, in turn, is derived from the verb shama, to hear. Thus, the name means Hearing or He Who Hears. Peter is derived from the Greek petra, a rock, and this is the meaning of the name. He is also called Kephas, the Aramaic name meaning Rock. Next, it says, “and Andrew, his brother.”   The name is derived from anér, a male human, a man, a husband. The meaning is Manly, but that can also be equated to Courageous or Brave. Next is “James the ‘of Zebedee.'”   Both names are given detailed explanations in the commentary on Matthew 4:21. The last name in this verse is given next, saying, “and John, his brother.”   The meaning of this name was also explained in Matthew 4:21.   Life application: It is not uncommon to see people on social media call themselves Apostle This or Apostle That. The implication is that they are to be likened to the apostles in the Bible.   There is a problem with this. The title, as noted above, signifies a delegate. One does not designate oneself a delegate or an ambassador. Rather, that appointment comes from the one they represent. In the case of an apostle of Jesus, it means a person must be appointed by Jesus.   There are certain qualifications for the position that are explained in the Bible, none of which apply today. Like the sons of Israel, there is a set number of apostles. In the case of the sons of Israel, there are the twelve born to Jacob through his wives Leah, Rachel, Zilpah, and Bilhah.   There are also the two sons of Joseph who were adopted by Jacob as his own, as is recorded in Genesis 48. This makes a total of fourteen sons. Likewise, there are the twelve apostles named by Jesus in the gospels. There is then Matthias, who was selected to replace Judas in Acts 1.   This is then followed by Paul, who was personally selected by Jesus, “as by one born out of due time” according to 1 Corinthians 15. Thus, there are fourteen named apostles. Like the sons of Israel, that is all there are. Therefore, to claim to be an apostle of Jesus is biblically incorrect and unacceptable.   Denominations, such as Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Swedish Lutheran, Anglicans, etc., who claim apostolic succession do so without biblical support. There is no such thing.   Be careful to evaluate people in the ministry based on their adherence to Scripture, not on a title, degree, or capability (such as knowing Hebrew or Greek). Instead, what matters is how they handle Scripture.   The Bible designates the number of sons of Israel. It also designates the number of apostles of Jesus. In this process, God is providing us with information. Patterns are made for us to understand what is on God's mind and what He is doing in the stream of redemptive history. Pay attention to such things, and a greater understanding of the workings of God will be realized.   Lord God, how grateful we are to You for Your wonderful and amazing word. We stand in awe at the wisdom behind it. For thousands of years, man has been studying it. And yet, it continues to provide us with new information from day to day. Praise You for Your word! Amen.  

Can Catholics believe in both a historical Adam and Eve and modern evolutionary theory? We explore how Church teaching reconciles faith and science, along with insights on Jesus' divinity in the Gospels, the death of a pope, and Catholic relations with Protestants and Orthodox Christians. Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: Click Here Questions Covered:  04:24 – Why in the debate with Bart Ehrmann, he had a disagreement about Jesus saying He was divine in the synoptic gospels? Why?  18:11 – I heard a claim that the Church wanted Luther dead, is this true?  24:11 – How should we treat the death of the Pope? Can we say he is already in heaven?   31:13 – How can the historical Adam and Eve fit in with modern evolutionary science?   44:24 – Was Jesus born in a cave or a house?   47:03 – Can I go to a Protestant service, if I still go to Mass?   49:18 – I heard there is a reentering of communion between Rome and Anglicans. Will this be on hold with the passing of Pope Francis?  52:16 – Can you explain the Orthodox claim that the church was originally beyond just Rome because Peter founded a church in Antioch?  

pWotD Episode 2911: Pope Benedict XVI Welcome to Popular Wiki of the Day, spotlighting Wikipedia's most visited pages, giving you a peek into what the world is curious about today.With 624,120 views on Monday, 21 April 2025 our article of the day is Pope Benedict XVI.Pope Benedict XVI (Latin: Benedictus XVI; Italian: Benedetto XVI; German: Benedikt XVI.; born Joseph Alois Ratzinger, German: [ˈjoːzɛf ˈʔaːlɔɪ̯s ˈʁat͡sɪŋɐ]; (16 April 1927 – 31 December 2022) was head of the Catholic Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State from 19 April 2005 until his resignation on 28 February 2013. Benedict's election as pope occurred in the 2005 papal conclave that followed the death of Pope John Paul II. Upon his resignation, Benedict chose to be known as "Pope emeritus", and he retained this title until his death in 2022.Ordained as a priest in 1951 in his native Bavaria, Ratzinger embarked on an academic career and established himself as a highly regarded theologian by the late 1950s. He was appointed a full professor in 1958 when aged 31. After a long career as a professor of theology at several German universities, he was appointed Archbishop of Munich and Freising and created a cardinal by Pope Paul VI in 1977, an unusual promotion for someone with little pastoral experience. In 1981, he was appointed Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, one of the most important dicasteries of the Roman Curia. From 2002 until he was elected pope, he was also Dean of the College of Cardinals. Before becoming pope, he had been "a major figure on the Vatican stage for a quarter of a century"; he had had an influence "second to none when it came to setting church priorities and directions" as one of John Paul II's closest confidants.Benedict's writings were prolific and generally defended traditional Catholic doctrine, values, and liturgy. He was originally a liberal theologian but adopted conservative views after 1968. During his papacy, Benedict advocated a return to fundamental Christian values to counter the increased secularisation of many Western countries. He viewed relativism's denial of objective truth, and the denial of moral truths in particular, as the central problem of the 21st century. Benedict also revived several traditions and permitted greater use of the Tridentine Mass. He strengthened the relationship between the Catholic Church and art, promoted the use of Latin, and reintroduced traditional papal vestments, for which reason he was called "the pope of aesthetics". He also established personal ordinariates for former Anglicans and Methodists joining the Catholic Church. Benedict's handling of sexual abuse cases within the Catholic Church and opposition to usage of condoms in areas of high HIV transmission was substantially criticised by public health officials, anti-AIDS activists, and victim's rights organizations.On 11 February 2013, Benedict announced his (effective 28 February 2013) resignation, citing a "lack of strength of mind and body" due to his advanced age. His resignation was the first by a pope since Gregory XII in 1415, and the first without external pressure since Celestine V in 1294. He was succeeded by Francis on 13 March 2013 and moved into the newly renovated Mater Ecclesiae Monastery in Vatican City for his retirement. In addition to his native German language, Benedict had some level of proficiency in French, Italian, English, and Spanish. He also knew Portuguese, Latin, Biblical Hebrew, and Biblical Greek. He was a member of several social science academies, such as the French Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 03:27 UTC on Tuesday, 22 April 2025.For the full current version of the article, see Pope Benedict XVI on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm neural Niamh.

A Sermon for Maundy Thursday 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 by William Klock In our Epistle today we hear Paul's description of what took place in the upper room, as the Passover meal came to a close.  This little paragraph is at the core of our liturgy of the Lord's Supper.  Paul tells how Jesus took the bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to his disciples with those familiar but often misunderstood words: “This is my body.  It's for you.  Do this as a memorial of me.”  And similarly with the cup saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.  Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.”  The Christians in Corinth, hearing those words read out would remember the stories told by the disciples about that night.  Just like we do, they'd mentally fill in the whole setting from Jesus washing their feet, to the Passover meal, to Jesus taking the Passover bread and one of the Passover cups and linking it with himself and what he was about to do.  They'd be thinking about this new covenant.  A mystery to the disciples, but the Corinthians knew the story of the cross, too.  They knew that the body of Jesus, broken, and his blood poured out at the cross established something new.  The Jewish Christians there new especially that when they shared in this meal that Paul described, it was like the Passover meal they'd known all their lives, but now in Jesus it meant something new and something better.  Not just an exodus from Egypt, but an exodus from sin and death.  Not just being led by God into a land of milk and honey, but being led by Jesus and the Spirit into God's new creation.  As Passover reminded the Jews year after year after of the Lord's deliverance and how he'd established a covenant with them, how he'd made them his people, and how he'd given them a hope for the future, so the Lord's Supper, every Sunday, reminded them how Jesus had delivered them from sin and death, how he'd marked them as his people in their baptism—not just in water this time, but by pouring his Spirit into them, and it pointed forward to God's promises of world to be conquered by his people.  But not Canaan.  Now it would be the whole world as this new people went out, proclaiming the gospel and living the life of the Spirit.  This community shaped by the Lord's Supper, by this new Passover, was God's future right here in the present, God's new creation in the midst of the old, God's light in the middle of the darkness.  Not perfectly, of course, but still God's future here and now. We forget.  That's why God gave Israel the Passover.  That's why Jesus gave us his supper.  So we don't forget what he's done.  So we don't forget who we are.  So we don't forget the task we've been given to do.  And so we don't forget our future hope.  But still we forget.  And that's why Paul wrote this to the Corinthians.  If we back up to the previous paragraph, to 11:17, he writes to them, What I have to say now isn't a matter for praise.  That means he's about to rebuke them for something they've been doing wrong.  He goes on: When you meet together, you make things worse, not better.  Stop and think about that.  I tend to think that when Christians meet together to worship, even if we don't get everything right, it's still a good thing.  We're better off for it.  On the whole God is pleased.  And yet Paul's saying that when the Corinthian church gets together, what they're doing is so wrong, that on the whole, it's a bad thing, not a good thing. So what are they doing?  He writes, To begin with, I hear that when you come together in the assembly there are divisions among you…  So when you gather together into one meeting, it isn't he Lord's Supper that you eat.  Everyone brings their own food to eat, and one person goes hungry while another gets drunk.  Haven't you got houses to eat and drink in?  Or do you despise God's assembly, and shame those who have nothing?  What shall I say to you?  Shall I praise you?  No, in this matter I shall not!   That doesn't sound very much like the Lord's Supper, does it?   Remember that in the very early church, the Lord's Supper was probably connected to a fellowship meal.  It hadn't yet become the symbolic meal that it would, where we eat a little piece of bread and take a sip from the chalice.  But in Corinth this had ceased to be a truly shared meal.  It sounds like the rich were separating themselves from the poor.  While they ate like gluttons and got drunk, the poor members of the church went hungry.  The rich people probably thought they were doing well.  After all, it was very gracious of them to let the poor—many of them slaves—have anything to do with their meals.  If they were still pagans, knowing nothing of the grace of God, the poor wouldn't be here at all.  Another case of the Corinthians getting everything horribly wrong, but patting themselves on the back for how gracious they were. And Paul rebukes them.  Back in Chapter 5 he wrote, “Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.  Therefore let us keep the feast!”  But if this is how they're doing it, it may be a feast, but it's not the feast.  It's not the Lord's Supper.  Brothers and Sisters, if we don't come to the Lord's Table as one, we don't come at all.  Again, Paul warns the Corinthians: If this is how you keep the feast, it's better if you don't—because this isn't the feast.  In fact, if we jump down to verse 27, Paul writes: It follows from this that anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  Everyone should test themselves.  That's how you should eat the bread and drink the cup.  Now, we should stop there and make sure we hear him.  “Test yourself before you eat and drink.  Test yourself how?  He goes on:  You see, if you eat and drink without recognising the body, you eat and drink judgement on yourself.   The flow of Paul's logic here is so simple there really shouldn't be any question about it.  What's the context of this rebuke?  The Corinthians weren't united when they came to the Lord's Supper.  They were letting worldly divisions and distinctions divide them up.  To put it in terms of our Epistle this past Sunday from Philippians 2: They didn't share this mind amongst themselves.  They weren't being humble as Jesus is humble.  And so Paul reminds them that the Supper was instituted by Jesus to remind us of him and to remind us who and what we are in him.  And now he warns them that if you eat and drink of the Supper without recognising the body, you eat and drink judgement on yourselves.  What's the body?  That's one of Paul's ways of talking about the church—especially when he wants to stress our unity and interdependence. So what he's saying is that central to coming to the Lord's Table is doing so as one people.  The cross has overcome all our differences.  There is no longer rich nor poor, slave nor free, Jew nor gentile, man nor woman.  It doesn't mean those markers are gone.  It's that in the pre-gospel world, those differences divided us all up, but the cross now makes us one.  That's part of how the church puts God's future, his new creation on display here and now.  It's one of the ways we show the world the beauty of the gospel.  Without this unity, the Lord's Supper is just another meal—like any other worldly meal, where you invite the people who are like you or the people you want to score points with.  Ironically, it's become common for Christians to flip Paul's warning on its head and to fence off the Table from other Christians who have different views of how the Lord's Supper works.  To “recognise the body” is taken to have something to do with Jesus being present in some way with the bread and wine, and we'll only let people come to the Table if they agree with us on how exactly that works.  Which is just the sort of thing Paul is warning against.  Jesus instituted the Supper to be a powerful symbol of our unity in him, but we keep it to ourselves and keep others away who disagree over what exactly that means. I have to think that this is one reason the church in the West is in such decline.  Our churches are too often divided between rich and poor, or divided along political lines or ethnic lines, and while there's certainly a place for division over serious theological error, most of our division are over matters that should never be a source of division.  Paul certainly thought that lack of unity was a problem.  He goes on in verse 30: That's why several of you are weak and sick and some have died.  But if we learned how to judge ourselves, we would not incur judgement.  But when we are judged by the Lord, we are punished so that we won't be condemned along with the world.  So, my brothers [and sisters], when you come together to eat, treat one another as honoured guests by waiting for each other.  If anyone is hungry, they should eat at home, so that you don't come together and find yourselves facing judgement.   When we think about the Lord's Supper, we so easily get distracted and hung up on other things.  The idea of “real presence” seems to dominate the discussion in Anglican circles these days.  When Veronica and I were married, before the service began the priest warned the congregation that only those who believe that Jesus is “really present” in the bread and wine were allowed to come to the Table.  I was livid—in part because there wasn't really anything we could do about it at the time, but mostly because that's not what Anglicans believe.  Or at least what we're supposed to believe.  It may all be an interesting theological discussion, but if we pay attention to Paul, that's not how the Lord's Supper works.  It's not about what might or might not happen to the bread and wine.  Brothers and Sisters, it's about eating and drinking in memory of what Jesus has done for us.  It's about participating in him and in his death and resurrection—this new exodus by which he has delivered us from sin and death and made us a new creation.  And in light of that, it is vital that we come to the Table as one.  Not rich or poor, not slave or free, not Jew or gentile, not man or woman, but as the people redeemed by Jesus, a people filled with God's Spirit, a people who have been made a new temple where Jesus, the Spirit, and the good news of his death and resurrection—where his salvation—is mediated to a dying world.   Let's pray: Almighty Father, whose dear Son, on the night before he suffered, instituted the Sacrament of his Body and Blood: Mercifully grant that we may receive it thankfully in remembrance of Jesus Christ our Lord, who in these holy mysteries gives us a pledge of eternal life; and who now lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.    Amen.

We give a brief overview of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and discuss our general relationship to them as Anglicans.

Patrick kicks things off with a trip down memory lane, reminiscing about the iconic film Jurassic Park and its connection to the groundbreaking news about dire wolves being brought back to life. He explores the intersection of science and ethics, using iconic movie moments to guide his thoughts. Later, Patrick discusses tradition within the church and the evolution of its practices. As always, he wraps it up with some thought-provoking listener calls. Scientists have brought back dire wolves using ancient DNA, with the first born on October 1, 2024, over 10,000 years after their extinction (01:08) Rita - I was asked to have my feet washed on Holy Thursday. Since I am a woman, can I accept? Was there a specific reason Jesus only washed the feet of the men? (10:00) Lily (7-years-old) - Did Jesus still love Judas after he betrayed Him? Is it okay to wear a Rosary as a necklace? (12:46) Catholics set to exceed Anglicans for first time since Reformation (20:02) Rob - My godson is a non-practicing Catholic and getting married outside the Church. How can I explain that I can't go to his wedding? (30:19) Alex – Do you think it’s a good idea for someone who sexually assaults a woman to be forced to financially support the child and mother? (37:17) Tommy - What is the Christological perspective from Palm Sunday about God bestowing a great honor on Jesus by giving him a better name before all others? (45:02)

Don't be shy, send me a message!I am delighted to be joined by Canon Ned Lunn at Bradford Cathedral for this special Easter episode! I ask him:What is a Canon?What is a Cathedral?What is Easter, for Anglicans?Anglicans are, of course, members of the the Church of England or members of any Church in communion with it.You can find Bradford Cathedral on Youtube: @bfdCathedral Message me anytime on Instagram, @FlemingNeverDiesE-mail: AlbionNeverDies@gmail.comCheck out my https://www.youtube.com/britishcultureCheck out my Red Bubble shopSubscribe to my newsletter for update e-mails, random postcards, and stickers: https://youtube.us9.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=b3afdae99897eebbf8ca022c8&id=5165536616Support the show

Want to reach out to us? Want to leave a comment or review? Want to give us a suggestion or berate Anthony? Send us a text by clicking this link!Something unexpected is happening in Catholic churches around the world. While mainstream narratives suggest declining religious participation, a quiet revolution is brewing in the most surprising demographic: Gen Z. We're witnessing a remarkable surge in young Catholics embracing traditional liturgical practices, with recent data showing Latin Mass communities growing despite official Vatican restrictions. The Atlantic reports that these communities have been relegated to school gymnasiums and storage rooms, yet continue to attract devoted followers – particularly young ones. Studies show 44% of Latin Mass attendees are under 45, compared to just 20% in regular parishes.This trend isn't limited to America. In the UK, Catholics now outnumber Anglicans two-to-one among Gen Z, part of a pattern observed across all age groups. The Bible Society's research reveals Christianity growing after decades of decline, driven specifically by young adults seeking community, meaning, and connection in an age of social media fragmentation and mental health challenges.What's drawing the younger generation to ancient liturgical forms? For many, it's the reverence, beauty, and historical connection missing in contemporary worship. As one attendee simply put it: "This is a place where we more easily meet God." Others value the ceremonial aspects, Gregorian chant, periods of silence, and emphasis on sacrifice that characterize traditional practices.This phenomenon appears to follow what scholars call the "strict church hypothesis" – religious groups tend to thrive when membership demands commitment and sacrifice. In our increasingly secular world, perhaps the future of faith lies paradoxically in its ancient past.What do you think is driving this traditional religious revival among young people? Share your thoughts in the comments below.Support the showSponsored by Recusant Cellars, an unapologetically Catholic and pro-life winery from Washington state. Use code BASED25 at checkout for 10% off! https://recusantcellars.com/Also sponsored by Quest Pipe Co. Get your St Isaac Jogues pipe here: https://questpipeco.com/discount/Amish?redirect=%2Fproducts%2Fst-isaac-jogues-limited-edition********************************************************Please subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKsxnv80ByFV4OGvt_kImjQ?sub_confirmation=1https://www.avoidingbabylon.comMerchandise: https://shop.avoidingbabylon.comLocals Community: https://avoidingbabylon.locals.comRSS Feed for Podcast Apps: https://feeds.buzzsprout.com/1987412.rssSpiritusTV: https://spiritustv.com/@avoidingbabylonRumble: https://rumble.com/c/AvoidingBabylon

It's a small world. The great David Rieff came to my San Francisco studio today for in person interview about his new anti-woke polemic Desire and Fate. And half way through our conversation, he brought up Daniel Bessner's This Is America piece which Bessner discussed on yesterday's show. I'm not sure what that tells us about wokeness, a subject which Rieff and I aren't in agreement. For him, it's the thing-in-itself which make sense of our current cultural malaise. Thus Desire and Fate, his attempt (with a great intro from John Banville) to wake us up from Wokeness. For me, it's a distraction. I've included the full transcript below. Lots of good stuff to chew on. Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. 5 KEY TAKEAWAYS * Rieff views "woke" ideology as primarily American and post-Protestant in nature, rather than stemming solely from French philosophy, emphasizing its connections to self-invention and subjective identity.* He argues that woke culture threatens high culture but not capitalism, noting that corporations have readily embraced a "baudlerized" version of identity politics that avoids class discussions.* Rieff sees woke culture as connected to the wellness movement, with both sharing a preoccupation with "psychic safety" and the metaphorical transformation of experience in which "words” become a form of “violence."* He suggests young people's material insecurity contributes to their focus on identity, as those facing bleak economic prospects turn inward when they "can't make their way in the world."* Rieff characterizes woke ideology as "apocalyptic but not pessimistic," contrasting it with his own genuine pessimism which he considers more realistic about human nature and more cheerful in its acceptance of life's limitations. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, as we digest Trump 2.0, we don't talk that much these days about woke and woke ideology. There was a civil war amongst progressives, I think, on the woke front in 2023 and 2024, but with Donald Trump 2.0 and his various escapades, let's just talk these days about woke. We have a new book, however, on the threat of woke by my guest, David Rieff. It's called Desire and Fate. He wrote it in 2023, came out in late 2024. David's visiting the Bay Area. He's an itinerant man traveling from the East Coast to Latin America and Europe. David, welcome to Keen on America. Do you regret writing this book given what's happened in the last few months in the United States?David Rieff: No, not at all, because I think that the road to moral and intellectual hell is trying to censor yourself according to what you think is useful. There's a famous story of Jean Paul Sartre that he said to the stupefaction of a journalist late in his life that he'd always known about the gulag, and the journalist pretty surprised said, well, why didn't you say anything? And Sartre said so as not to demoralize the French working class. And my own view is, you know, you say what you have to say about this and if I give some aid and comfort to people I don't like, well, so be it. Having said that, I also think a lot of these woke ideas have their, for all of Trump's and Trump's people's fierce opposition to woke, some of the identity politics, particularly around Jewish identity seems to me not that very different from woke. Strangely they seem to have taken, for example, there's a lot of the talk about anti-semitism on college campuses involves student safety which is a great woke trope that you feel unsafe and what people mean by that is not literally they're going to get shot or beaten up, they mean that they feel psychically unsafe. It's part of the kind of metaphorization of experience that unfortunately the United States is now completely in the grips of. But the same thing on the other side, people like Barry Weiss, for example, at the Free Press there, they talk in the same language of psychic safety. So I'm not sure there's, I think there are more similarities than either side is comfortable with.Andrew Keen: You describe Woke, David, as a cultural revolution and you associated in the beginning of the book with something called Lumpen-Rousseauism. As we joked before we went live, I'm not sure if there's anything in Rousseau which isn't Lumpen. But what exactly is this cultural revolution? And can we blame it on bad French philosophy or Swiss French?David Rieff: Well, Swiss-French philosophy, you know exactly. There is a funny anecdote, as I'm sure you know, that Rousseau made a visit to Edinburgh to see Hume and there's something in Hume's diaries where he talks about Rousseau pacing up and down in front of the fire and suddenly exclaiming, but David Hume is not a bad man. And Hume notes in his acerbic way, Rousseau was like walking around without his skin on. And I think some of the woke sensitivity stuff is very much people walking around without their skin on. They can't stand the idea of being offended. I don't see it as much - of course, the influence of that version of cultural relativism that the French like Deleuze and Guattari and other people put forward is part of the story, but I actually see it as much more of a post-Protestant thing. This idea, in that sense, some kind of strange combination of maybe some French philosophy, but also of the wellness movement, of this notion that health, including psychic health, was the ultimate good in a secular society. And then the other part, which again, it seems to be more American than French, which is this idea, and this is particularly true in the trans movement, that you can be anything you want to be. And so that if you feel yourself to be a different gender, well, that's who you are. And what matters is your own subjective sense of these things, and it's up to you. The outside world has no say in it, it's what you feel. And that in a sense, what I mean by post-Protestant is that, I mean, what's the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism? The fundamental difference is, it seems to me, that in Roman Catholic tradition, you need the priest to intercede with God, whereas in Protestant tradition, it is, except for the Anglicans, but for most of Protestantism, it's you and God. And in that sense it seems to me there are more of what I see in woke than this notion that some of the right-wing people like Chris Rufo and others have that this is cultural French cultural Marxism making its insidious way through the institutions.Andrew Keen: It's interesting you talk about the Protestant ethic and you mentioned Hume's remark about Rousseau not having his skin on. Do you think that Protestantism enabled people to grow thick skins?David Rieff: I mean, the Calvinist idea certainly did. In fact, there were all these ideas in Protestant culture, at least that's the classical interpretation of deferred gratification. Capitalism was supposed to be the work ethic, all of that stuff that Weber talks about. But I think it got in the modern version. It became something else. It stopped being about those forms of disciplines and started to be about self-invention. And in a sense, there's something very American about that because after all you know it's the Great Gatsby. It's what's the famous sentence of F. Scott Fitzgerald's: there are no second acts in American lives.Andrew Keen: This is the most incorrect thing anyone's ever said about America. I'm not sure if he meant it to be incorrect, did he? I don't know.David Rieff: I think what's true is that you get the American idea, you get to reinvent yourself. And this notion of the dream, the dream become reality. And many years ago when I was spending a lot of time in LA in the late 80s, early 90s, at LAX, there was a sign from the then mayor, Tom Bradley, about how, you know, if you can dream it, it can be true. And I think there's a lot in identitarian woke idea which is that we can - we're not constricted by history or reality. In fact, it's all the present and the future. And so to me again, woke seems to me much more recognizable as something American and by extension post-Protestant in the sense that you see the places where woke is most powerful are in the other, what the encampment kids would call settler colonies, Australia and Canada. And now in the UK of course, where it seems to me by DI or EDI as they call it over there is in many ways stronger in Britain even than it was in the US before Trump.Andrew Keen: Does it really matter though, David? I mean, that's my question. Does it matter? I mean it might matter if you have the good or the bad fortune to teach at a small, expensive liberal arts college. It might matter with some of your dinner parties in Tribeca or here in San Francisco, but for most people, who cares?David Rieff: It doesn't matter. I think it matters to culture and so what you think culture is worth, because a lot of the point of this book was to say there's nothing about woke that threatens capitalism, that threatens the neo-liberal order. I mean it's turning out that Donald Trump is a great deal bigger threat to the neoliberal order. Woke was to the contrary - woke is about talking about everything but class. And so a kind of baudlerized, de-radicalized version of woke became perfectly fine with corporate America. That's why this wonderful old line hard lefty Adolph Reed Jr. says somewhere that woke is about diversifying the ruling class. But I do think it's a threat to high culture because it's about equity. It's about representation. And so elite culture, which I have no shame in proclaiming my loyalty to, can't survive the woke onslaught. And it hasn't, in my view. If you look at just the kinds of books that are being written, the kinds of plays that are been put on, even the opera, the new operas that are being commissioned, they're all about representing the marginalized. They're about speaking for your group, whatever that group is, and doing away with various forms of cultural hierarchy. And I'm with Schoenberg: if it's for everybody, if it's art, Schoenberg said it's not for everybody, and if it's for everybody it's not art. And I think woke destroys that. Woke can live with schlock. I'm sorry, high culture can live with schlock, it always has, it always will. What it can't live with is kitsch. And by which I mean kitsch in Milan Kundera's definition, which is to have opinions that you feel better about yourself for holding. And that I think is inimical to culture. And I think woke is very destructive of those traditions. I mean, in the most obvious sense, it's destructive of the Western tradition, but you know, the high arts in places like Japan or Bengal, I don't think it's any more sympathetic to those things than it is to Shakespeare or John Donne or whatever. So yeah, I think it's a danger in that sense. Is it a danger to the peace of the world? No, of course not.Andrew Keen: Even in cultural terms, as you explain, it is an orthodoxy. If you want to work with the dominant cultural institutions, the newspapers, the universities, the publishing houses, you have to play by those rules, but the great artists, poets, filmmakers, musicians have never done that, so all it provides, I mean you brought up Kundera, all it provides is something that independent artists, creative people will sneer at, will make fun of, as you have in this new book.David Rieff: Well, I hope they'll make fun of it. But on the other hand, I'm an old guy who has the means to sneer. I don't have to please an editor. Someone will publish my books one way or another, whatever ones I have left to write. But if you're 25 years old, maybe you're going to sneer with your pals in the pub, but you're gonna have to toe the line if you want to be published in whatever the obvious mainstream place is and you're going to be attacked on social media. I think a lot of people who are very, young people who are skeptical of this are just so afraid of being attacked by their peers on various social media that they keep quiet. I don't know that it's true that, I'd sort of push back on that. I think non-conformists will out. I hope it's true. But I wonder, I mean, these traditions, once they die, they're very hard to rebuild. And, without going full T.S. Eliot on you, once you don't think you're part of the past, once the idea is that basically, pretty much anything that came before our modern contemporary sense of morality and fairness and right opinion is to be rejected and that, for example, the moral character of the artist should determine whether or not the art should be paid attention to - I don't know how you come back from that or if you come back from that. I'm not convinced you do. No, other arts will be around. And I mean, if I were writing a critical review of my own book, I'd say, look, this culture, this high culture that you, David Rieff, are writing an elegy for, eulogizing or memorializing was going to die anyway, and we're at the beginning of another Gutenbergian epoch, just as Gutenberg, we're sort of 20 years into Marshall McLuhan's Gutenberg galaxy, and these other art forms will come, and they won't be like anything else. And that may be true.Andrew Keen: True, it may be true. In a sense then, to extend that critique, are you going full T.S. Eliot in this book?David Rieff: Yeah, I think Eliot was right. But it's not just Eliot, there are people who would be for the wokesters more acceptable like Mandelstam, for example, who said you're part of a conversation that's been going on long before you were born, that's going to be going on after you are, and I think that's what art is. I think the idea that we make some completely new thing is a childish fantasy. I think you belong to a tradition. There are periods - look, this is, I don't find much writing in English in prose fiction very interesting. I have to say I read the books that people talk about because I'm trying to understand what's going on but it doesn't interest me very much, but again, there have been periods of great mediocrity. Think of a period in the late 17th century in England when probably the best poet was this completely, rightly, justifiably forgotten figure, Colley Cibber. You had the great restoration period and then it all collapsed, so maybe it'll be that way. And also, as I say, maybe it's just as with the print revolution, that this new culture of social media will produce completely different forms. I mean, everything is mortal, not just us, but cultures and civilizations and all the rest of it. So I can imagine that, but this is the time I live in and the tradition I come from and I'm sorry it's gone, and I think what's replacing it is for the most part worse.Andrew Keen: You're critical in the book of what you, I'm quoting here, you talk about going from the grand inquisitor to the grand therapist. But you're very critical of the broader American therapeutic culture of acute sensitivity, the thin skin nature of, I guess, the Rousseau in this, whatever, it's lumpen Rousseauanism. So how do you interpret that without psychologizing, or are you psychologizing in the book? How are you making sense of our condition? In other words, can one critique criticize therapeutic culture without becoming oneself therapeutic?David Rieff: You mean the sort of Pogo line, we've met the enemy and it is us. Well, I suppose there's some truth to that. I don't know how much. I think that woke is in some important sense a subset of the wellness movement. And the wellness movement after all has tens and tens of millions of people who are in one sense or another influenced by it. And I think health, including psychic health, and we've moved from wellness as corporal health to wellness as being both soma and psyche. So, I mean, if that's psychologizing, I certainly think it's drawing the parallel or seeing woke in some ways as one of the children of the god of wellness. And that to me, I don't know how therapeutic that is. I think it's just that once you feel, I'm interested in what people feel. I'm not necessarily so interested in, I mean, I've got lots of opinions, but what I think I'm better at than having opinions is trying to understand why people think what they think. And I do think that once health becomes the ultimate good in a secular society and once death becomes the absolutely unacceptable other, and once you have the idea that there's no real distinction of any great validity between psychic and physical wellness, well then of course sensitivity to everything becomes almost an inevitable reaction.Andrew Keen: I was reading the book and I've been thinking about a lot of movements in America which are trying to bring people together, dealing with America, this divided America, as if it's a marriage in crisis. So some of the most effective or interesting, I think, thinkers on this, like Arlie Hochschild in Berkeley, use the language of therapy to bring or to try to bring America back together, even groups like the Braver Angels. Can therapy have any value or that therapeutic culture in a place like America where people are so bitterly divided, so hateful towards one another?David Rieff: Well, it's always been a country where, on the one hand, people have been, as you say, incredibly good at hatred and also a country of people who often construe themselves as misfits and heretics from the Puritans forward. And on the other hand, you have that small-town American idea, which sometimes I think is as important to woke and DI as as anything else which is that famous saying of small town America of all those years ago which was if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything at all. And to some extent that is, I think, a very powerful ancestor of these movements. Whether they're making any headway - of course I hope they are, but Hochschild is a very interesting figure, but I don't, it seems to me it's going all the other way, that people are increasingly only talking to each other.Andrew Keen: What this movement seems to want to do is get beyond - I use this word carefully, I'm not sure if they use it but I'm going to use it - ideology and that we're all prisoners of ideology. Is woke ideology or is it a kind of post-ideology?David Rieff: Well, it's a redemptive idea, a restorative idea. It's an idea that in that sense, there's a notion that it's time for the victims, for the first to be last and the last to be first. I mean, on some level, it is as simple as that. On another level, as I say, I do think it has a lot to do with metaphorization of experience, that people say silence is violence and words are violence and at that point what's violence? I mean there is a kind of level to me where people have gotten trapped in the kind of web of their own metaphors and now are living by them or living shackled to them or whatever image you're hoping for. But I don't know what it means to get beyond ideology. What, all men will be brothers, as in the Beethoven-Schiller symphony? I mean, it doesn't seem like that's the way things are going.Andrew Keen: Is the problem then, and I'm thinking out loud here, is the problem politics or not enough politics?David Rieff: Oh, I think the problem is that now we don't know, we've decided that everything is part, the personal is the political, as the feminists said, 50, 60 years ago. So the personal's political, so the political is the personal. So you have to live the exemplary moral life, or at least the life that doesn't offend anybody or that conforms to whatever the dominant views of what good opinions are, right opinions are. I think what we're in right now is much more the realm of kind of a new set of moral codes, much more than ideology in the kind of discrete sense of politics.Andrew Keen: Now let's come back to this idea of being thin-skinned. Why are people so thin-skinned?David Rieff: Because, I mean, there are lots of things to say about that. One thing, of course, that might be worth saying, is that the young generations, people who are between, let's say, 15 and 30, they're in real material trouble. It's gonna be very hard for them to own a house. It's hard for them to be independent and unless the baby boomers like myself will just transfer every penny to them, which doesn't seem very likely frankly, they're going to live considerably worse than generations before. So if you can't make your way in the world then maybe you make your way yourself or you work on yourself in that sort of therapeutic sense. You worry about your own identity because the only place you have in the world in some way is yourself, is that work, that obsession. I do think some of these material questions are important. There's a guy you may know who's not at all woke, a guy who teaches at the University of Washington called Danny Bessner. And I just did a show with him this morning. He's a smart guy and we have a kind of ironic correspondence over email and DM. And I once said to him, why are you so bitter about everything? And he said, you want to know why? Because I have two children and the likelihood is I'll never get a teaching job that won't require a three hour commute in order for me to live anywhere that I can afford to live. And I thought, and he couldn't be further from woke, he's a kind of Jacobin guy, Jacobin Magazine guy, and if he's left at all, it's kind of old left, but I think a lot of people feel that, that they feel their practical future, it looks pretty grim.Andrew Keen: But David, coming back to the idea of art, they're all suited to the world of art. They don't have to buy a big house and live in the suburbs. They can become poets. They can become filmmakers. They can put their stuff up on YouTube. They can record their music online. There are so many possibilities.David Rieff: It's hard to monetize that. Maybe now you're beginning to sound like the people you don't like. Now you're getting to sound like a capitalist.Andrew Keen: So what? Well, I don't care if I sound like a capitalist. You're not going to starve to death.David Rieff: Well, you might not like, I mean, it's fine to be a barista at 24. It's not so fine at 44. And are these people going to ever get out of this thing? I don't know. I wonder. Look, when I was starting as a writer, as long as you were incredibly diligent, and worked really hard, you could cobble together at least a basic living by accepting every assignment and people paid you bits and bobs of money, but put together, you could make a living. Now, the only way to make money, unless you're lucky enough to be on staff of a few remaining media outlets that remain, is you have to become an impresario, you have become an entrepreneur of your own stuff. And again, sure, do lots of people manage that? Yeah, but not as many as could have worked in that other system, and look at the fate of most newspapers, all folding. Look at the universities. We can talk about woke and how woke destroyed, in my view anyway, a lot of the humanities. But there's also a level in which people didn't want to study these things. So we're looking at the last generation in a lot places of a lot of these humanities departments and not just the ones that are associated with, I don't know, white supremacy or the white male past or whatever, but just the humanities full stop. So I know if that sounds like, maybe it sounds like a capitalist, but maybe it also sounds like you know there was a time when the poets - you know very well, poets never made a living, poets taught in universities. That's the way American poets made their money, including pretty famous poets like Eric Wolcott or Joseph Brodsky or writers, Toni Morrison taught at Princeton all those years, Joyce Carol Oates still alive, she still does. Most of these people couldn't make a living of their work and so the university provided that living.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Barry Weiss earlier. She's making a fortune as an anti-woke journalist. And Free Press seems to be thriving. Yascha Mounk's Persuasion is doing pretty well. Andrew Sullivan, another good example, making a fortune off of Substack. It seems as if the people willing to take risks, Barry Weiss leaving the New York Times, Andrew Sullivan leaving everything he's ever joined - that's...David Rieff: Look, are there going to be people who thrive in this new environment? Sure. And Barry Weiss turns out to be this kind of genius entrepreneur. She deserves full credit for that. Although even Barry Weiss, the paradox for me of Barry Weiss is, a lot of her early activism was saying that she felt unsafe with these anti-Israeli teachers at Columbia. So in a sense, she was using some of the same language as the woke use, psychic safety, because she didn't mean Joseph Massad was gonna come out from the blackboard and shoot her in the eye. She meant that she was offended and used the language of safety to describe that. And so in that sense, again, as I was saying to you earlier, I think there are more similarities here. And Trump, I think this is a genuine counterrevolution that Trump is trying to mount. I'm not very interested in the fascism, non-fascism debate. I'm rather skeptical of it.Andrew Keen: As Danny Bessner is. Yeah, I thought Danny's piece about that was brilliant.David Rieff: We just did a show about it today, that piece about why that's all rubbish. I was tempted, I wrote to a friend that guy you may know David Bell teaches French history -Andrew Keen: He's coming on the show next week. Well, you see, it's just a little community of like-minded people.David Rieff: There you go. Well, I wrote to David.Andrew Keen: And you mentioned his father in the book, Daniel.David Rieff: Yeah, well, his father is sort of one of the tutelary idols of the book. I had his father and I read his father and I learned an enormous amount. I think that book about the cultural contradictions of capitalism is one of the great prescient books about our times. But I wrote to David, I said, I actually sent him the Bessner piece which he was quite ambivalent about. But I said well, I'm not really convinced by the fascism of Trump, maybe just because Hitler read books, unlike Donald Trump. But it's a genuine counterrevolution. And what element will change the landscape in terms of DI and woke and identitarianism is not clear. These people are incredibly ambitious. They really mean to change this country, transform it.Andrew Keen: But from the book, David, Trump's attempts to cleanse, if that's the right word, the university, I would have thought you'd have rather admired that, all these-David Rieff: I agree with some of it.Andrew Keen: All these idiots writing the same article for 30 years about something that no one has any interest in.David Rieff: I look, my problem with Trump is that I do support a lot of that. I think some of the stuff that Christopher Rufo, one of the leading ideologues of this administration has uncovered about university programs and all of this crap, I think it's great that they're not paying for it anymore. The trouble is - you asked me before, is it that important? Is culture important compared to destroying the NATO alliance, blowing up the global trade regime? No. I don't think. So yeah, I like a lot of what they're doing about the university, I don't like, and I am very fiercely opposed to this crackdown on speech. That seems to be grotesque and revolting, but are they canceling supporting transgender theater in Galway? Yeah, I think it's great that they're canceling all that stuff. And so I'm not, that's my problem with Trump, is that some of that stuff I'm quite unashamedly happy about, but it's not nearly worth all the damage he's doing to this country and the world.Andrew Keen: Being very generous with your time, David. Finally, in the book you describe woke as, and I thought this was a very sharp way of describing it, describe it as being apocalyptic but not pessimistic. What did you mean by that? And then what is the opposite of woke? Would it be not apocalyptic, but cheerful?David Rieff: Well, I think genuine pessimists are cheerful, I would put myself among those. The model is Samuel Beckett, who just thinks things are so horrible that why not be cheerful about them, and even express one's pessimism in a relatively cheerful way. You remember the famous story that Thomas McCarthy used to tell about walking in the Luxembourg Gardens with Beckett and McCarthy says to him, great day, it's such a beautiful day, Sam. Beckett says, yeah, beautiful day. McCarthy says, makes you glad to be alive. And Beckett said, oh, I wouldn't go that far. And so, the genuine pessimist is quite cheerful. But coming back to woke, it's apocalyptic in the sense that everything is always at stake. But somehow it's also got this reformist idea that cultural revolution will cleanse away the sins of the supremacist patriarchal past and we'll head for the sunny uplands. I think I'm much too much of a pessimist to think that's possible in any regime, let alone this rather primitive cultural revolution called woke.Andrew Keen: But what would the opposite be?David Rieff: The opposite would be probably some sense that the best we're going to do is make our peace with the trash nature of existence, that life is finite in contrast with the wellness people who probably have a tendency towards the apocalyptic because death is an insult to them. So everything is staving off the bad news and that's where you get this idea that you can, like a lot of revolutions, you can change the nature of people. Look, the communist, Che Guevara talked about the new man. Well, I wonder if he thought it was so new when he was in Bolivia. I think these are - people need utopias, this is one of them, MAGA is another utopia by the way, and people don't seem to be able to do without them and that's - I wish it were otherwise but it isn't.Andrew Keen: I'm guessing the woke people would be offended by the idea of death, are they?David Rieff: Well, I think the woke people, in this synchronicity, people and a lot of people, they're insulted - how can this happen to me, wonderful me? And this is those jokes in the old days when the British could still be savage before they had to have, you know, Henry the Fifth be played by a black actor - why me? Well, why not you? That's just so alien to and it's probably alien to the American idea. You're supposed to - it's supposed to work out and the truth is it doesn't work out. But La Rochefoucauld says somewhere no one can stare for too long at death or the sun and maybe I'm asking too much.Andrew Keen: Maybe only Americans can find death unacceptable to use one of your words.David Rieff: Yes, perhaps.Andrew Keen: Well, David Rieff, congratulations on the new book. Fascinating, troubling, controversial as always. Desire and Fate. I know you're writing a book about Oppenheimer, very different kind of subject. We'll get you back on the show to talk Oppenheimer, where I guess there's not going to be a lot of Lumpen-Rousseauism.David Rieff: Very little, very little love and Rousseau in the quantum mechanics world, but thanks for having me.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Laura Kuenssberg talks to Justin Welby, the former Archbishop of Canterbury. As the figurehead for the 85 million people in over 165 countries who call themselves Anglicans, he presided over some of the key events in the Commonwealth of the last ten years, including the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II. But his tenure was clouded, and eventually ended, by an abuse scandal that shook the church. This interview is the first with Justin Welby since he resigned. The Interview was made by Clare Williamson and Lucy Shepherd. It was hosted by Laura Kuenssberg. The editor is Sam Bonham. Thanks to our colleagues all over the BBC, and all over the world, for their support making The Interview.

The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church share a common origin, but over time, differences in theology, practice, and leadership have led to a significant split. In this episode, Pastor Jeff and Tiffany revisit their recent conversation with Reverend Greg Kronz to debrief what makes these two denominations distinct and why thousands of churches chose to leave the Episcopal tradition and form the Anglican Church in North America.

My Story   Talk 11 Brasenose College, Oxford (1959-1962) Part 2 Welcome to Talk 11 in our series where I am reflecting on God's goodness to me throughout my life. Last time I finished by sharing with you how God powerfully spoke to me after a Philosophy tutorial through a verse in Psalm 119. Today I'll be talking in more detail about my spiritual experience at Oxford, which, looking back on it, was to be far more significant for my future life and ministry than the academic programme I was following. The most important thing a young Christian can do when going up to university is to make sure right from the start that they find, and have regular fellowship with, other Christians. There are two main ways of doing this, either by joining the Christian Union or by attending a local church – or preferably both, which is what I did. Christian Union and Local Church The CU at Brasenose was part of the OICCU – Oxford Inter-Collegiate Christian Union. Each college CU would have its own weekly meeting for prayer and Bible study, but there was also a regular Saturday night Bible Study held at the Northgate Hall, situated close to the Oxford Union building. This was well attended by Christians from across the whole university, and I became a regular attender at both these gatherings. I appreciated the opportunity to meet Christians from different denominational backgrounds, and, bearing in mind my experience of the Anglican chaplain at Brentwood School, was particularly pleased to discover that some Anglicans actually did profess the believe the Bible! However, much as I enjoyed fellowship with these good people, having been only recently baptised in the Spirit, and having begun to appreciate Pentecostal worship, I was very aware that something very important was lacking in their meetings – the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit. Of course, things are very different today, but in those days the Charismatic Renewal had not yet begun and most Anglicans, who in my experience tended to view other denominations as somewhat inferior, were highly suspicious of, if not totally unaware of, the rapidly growing worldwide Pentecostal Movement. And, of course, I was eager to enlighten them! But first a word about the local Pentecostal church. At the time, the only Pentecostal church in Oxford was the Elim Church situated on the Botley Road just beyond Oxford Railway Station. I was keen to attend there because, however valuable membership of a Christian union may be, there really is no substitute for the life and fellowship of a local church. So throughout my time at Oxford I regularly attended on Sundays both the morning and evening services, which meant incidentally that I missed both lunch and dinner in college because the mealtimes clashed with the times of the services. More importantly, on my very first Sunday in Oxford, it was there that I met three other students who were from Pentecostal churches, which led to our meeting regularly for prayer and to the formation of the Students' Pentecostal Fellowship.     Students' Pentecostal Fellowship The students I met after church that first Sunday morning in Oxford were, Michael Collins who came from Dorchester AoG and was in his second year at St. Peter's Hall reading Engineering, and Gladys Bland and John Miles who, like me, were in their first year. Gladys was from East Ham AoG and was doing postgraduate work in English Literature at Somerville College, and John was from Gloucester AoG and was reading English at Regents Park College. We were all delighted to meet each other because up to then there had been relatively few Pentecostals attending university. We soon became firm friends and agreed to meet regularly together for fellowship and prayer, particularly for spiritual gifts and for Christian students from a different denominational background to be baptised in the Spirit. Michael had a friend called Philip who was already Spirit filled, and he joined our prayer group too. I will never forget the day, early in our first year, when there was a prophecy in one of those meetings that people of all denominations, including professors and university lecturers, would be baptised in the Spirit. As I've already mentioned, the Charismatic Renewal had not yet begun or, if it had, we had not heard of it, and to be honest, I really wondered if that could possibly happen. But it did, and in our own small way we were to be a part of it. What we didn't know then was that similar groups were forming in other universities. There were students from a Pentecostal background at Cambridge and London Universities too, and once we heard about this we naturally wanted to get in touch with them. And a key person to help us do that was Richard Bolt. Richard had been an Anglican ordinand but after he was baptised in the Spirit in an AoG church in Durham his course at Clifton Theological College was terminated because he was laying hands on other students and praying for them to speak in tongues. Shortly after this he was welcomed by AoG and became an Assemblies of God minister based in a small assembly in Colchester. However, as the Lord was using him in healing and in leading others into the baptism in the Spirit, Richard's ministry extended well beyond Colchester as he took time to travel to universities and colleges to encourage Pentecostal students and to pray for others who wanted to be filled with the Spirit. He was certainly a great encouragement to me and my family. My mother was baptised in the Spirit under his ministry. But before I knew anything about how the Lord was using Richard, the thought had already crossed my mind that we ought to form, at least in Oxford, a university society for Pentecostal students. The Baptists had what was known as The John Bunyan Society which met every Sunday afternoon in Regents Park College where John Miles was a student. He and I attended this quite often and I mentioned to him that I thought it might be good to have something similar for Pentecostals. As a result of this, John wrote to Aaron Linford, the editor of Redemption Tidings, the AoG weekly magazine, and asked for advice. And it was at this point that Richard Bolt told us about the Pentecostal students at Cambridge and London. All this led to a gathering in London early in 1961 when the Students' Pentecostal Fellowship (SPF) was formed. Richard Bolt was recognised as its Travelling Secretary and Donald Underwood, a graduate of Trinity College, Dublin, as General Secretary. We organised annual weekend house-parties where students were exposed to the ministry of Pentecostal leaders, and evangelistic missions where students would sing, testify, and preach during the summer vacations. We also published a magazine known as The Pentecostal and developed a postal library service where students could borrow books by Pentecostal authors. At Oxford our group grew in numbers during our second year, partly due to an influx of students from Culham College led by Andrew Parfitt, the son of the AoG pastor at Maidstone, but also because our prayers were being answered and students from other denominations were getting baptised in the Spirit. But that leads me to how I personally started to be used in leading others into the baptism. Leading others into the baptism It all began a few weeks after I had started at Oxford when, after one of those Saturday night Bible Studies in the Northgate Hall, I was looking at a book on the bookstall which was about a revival that had broken out somewhere in Africa. Chris, one of my Anglican friends from Brasenose, saw what I was looking at and asked me if I had any personal experience of revival. So I began to tell him about the baptism in the Holy Spirit. As a result, Chris started to seek the baptism and came along to the Elim church where the pastor laid hands on him and prayed for him. But nothing happened and after a few weeks Chris came to me and said, I want you to pray for me. I'm coming to your room tomorrow and I want you to lay hands on me and pray for me. I was frankly unsure how to respond to this. I was very new to all this myself and I did not know if I had the authority to lay hands on him. I didn't know if such things were the responsibility of pastors, and I wasn't a pastor. But Chris was very insistent and so I agreed. The next day was Saturday and there were no lectures or tutorials for me to attend, so I decided to spend the night in prayer. This was something I had never done before, and have not done very often since, but I realised the seriousness of what Chris had asked me to do and I wanted to get it right. When Chris came the next day, we chatted for a bit, and then he said, Well, are you going to pray for me or not? I think he may have sensed that I was putting it off because, despite my night of prayer, I was nervous about it. He knelt down in front of me, and I plucked up courage and, quietly speaking in tongues, gently placed my hands on his shoulders. But nothing seemed to happen, and I didn't know what to do, when I remembered that in the Authorised Version (which most of us were still using in those days) Acts 19:6 says that it was when Paul had laid his hands upon the Ephesians that the Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. In other words, the Spirit came on them after Paul laid his hands on them.  And I found myself prophesying over Chris that he would receive, and that he would receive that very day. At which, Chris got up, said thank you, and left me. And I was left wondering if I had done the right thing. I had my answer at eight the following morning. I was still asleep, having had no sleep the previous night, when I was woken by something digging me in my ribs. It was Chris with his umbrella. What was he doing here?             Oh, it's you Chris. What on earth are you doing here? And then it occurred to me that he might have come to tell me what had happened, so I added,             You haven't received the baptism, have you? To which he responded as he continued to dig me in the ribs,             O ye of little faith! He had, of course, received, and he told me how it had happened. After he had left me he had returned to his room and had been reading a book by, or about, the famous missionary to China, Hudson Taylor. The book emphasised that in addition to faith we need courage in our Christian lives, and Chris realised that that was just what he needed. He looked up from the book intending to say, Yes, Lord. Give me courage. But instead of doing so, he found himself speaking in tongues! Little did I know it then, but Chris was to be the first among hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have begun to speak in tongues through the ministry the Lord has given me. But that's closely related to the subject of spiritual gifts and how I began to exercise them. Beginning to exercise spiritual gifts Shortly after I was baptised in the Spirit I visited the bookshop at the AoG National Offices at 51 Newington Causeway, London. I bought every book they had on the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts. As a young Baptist I had received little teaching about the Spirit and none whatsoever on spiritual gifts. And I was eager to learn. I devoured books like Harold Horton's The Gifts of the Spirit and Donald Gee's Concerning Spiritual Gifts, and I learnt that the baptism in the Spirit is not an end in itself, but a gateway to supernatural gifts like tongues,  interpretation, prophecy, and healing. And I was longing to receive and be used in whatever gifts the Lord might have for me. As it happened, I didn't have long to wait. I was still in my first year at Oxford when I was confronted with a situation at the church I was attending. The Elim church in Oxford was a well-attended lively church where the gifts of the Spirit were regularly in operation. On a Sunday morning there were often prophecies, tongues and interpretation. Some of my Christian friends from Brasenose came along to experience Pentecostal worship and so far I had not been embarrassed in any way by what went on in the meetings. However, one Sunday morning, when fortunately none of my friends was present, somebody spoke in tongues but there was no interpretation. No explanation was given for this and, although I was still new to these things, I knew that the Bible was very clear that speaking in tongues in church should be interpreted. I probably should have asked the pastor about this, but he was a busy man and I did not know him very well. Consequently I kept quiet about the matter, but was still concerned that everything was not quite as it should be. Shortly after that, when Richard Bolt was visiting, I told him about this and asked him what I should do. He said, The answer is very simple David. You interpret. To which I replied, But I don't have the gift. He then said, Then ask for it. But, bearing in mind that 1 Corinthians 12:11 tells us that these gifts are given as the Holy Spirit determines, I asked, But I know God wants me to have it? His answer to this was along the following lines. The very fact that I was concerned about it might well indicate that God wanted me to have it. And, anyway, we know from God's word that it is his will that tongues in church should be interpreted. So I would be in God's will if I went ahead and interpreted it. I should pray about it and next time it happened I should ask God for the interpretation and then speak out in faith. Our heavenly Father gives good gifts to his children when they ask him. Although I still had questions, I decided to do what he said and over the next few weeks kept asking the Lord about the matter. Then, one Sunday morning it happened. Someone spoke in tongues and I waited, hoping that someone else would interpret it. But when no one did, I asked the Lord to give me the right words to say and immediately a few words came into my mind which I began to speak out in faith. I say in faith, but I have to confess that my faith was mingled with doubt. I was half expecting the pastor to intervene and say that this was not the right interpretation! But to my intense relief he said nothing, and after the meeting people came and thanked me for my interpretation. So from time to time, I continued to interpret tongues, but still with the occasional doubt if what I said could really be the interpretation. And later in the series I will tell you how God wonderfully confirmed the genuineness of my gift when I interpreted a tongue that was identified as a language spoken in Africa. God certainly did some wonderful things while I was at Oxford, and I realise now that I was already exercising a ministry while I was there. I was leading our SPF prayer group, teaching others about spiritual gifts, as well as preaching in churches from time to time. It seems that others were recognising this before I did, and I was soon asked to share my testimony at the AoG National Youth Rally held in the Birmingham Town Hall and to contribute an article in Redemption Tidings entitled Pentecost in Oxford University. The Lord was clearly preparing the way for my future ministry. Next time, I'll tell you about my developing relationship with Eileen which led to our marriage immediately after I graduated and how I ultimately decided not to go to Bible College as originally planned, but to accept the pastorate of the Assemblies of God Church in Colchester.

The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church share common roots, but over time, theological shifts and leadership structures have created key differences. In this episode, Pastor Jeff sits down with Reverend Greg Kronz to break down the Anglican Church's hierarchy, beliefs on communion and baptism, and why many churches have chosen to leave the Episcopal tradition.If you didn't listen to Part 1, be sure to check it out for more background on this conversation.Here's What We Discussed:01:05 - Anglican Church Hierarchy Reverend Greg explains the leadership structure within the Anglican Church, from the Archbishop to bishops and dioceses. He also shares insights into the role of GAFCON, a global network of Anglican bishops, and its impact on the future of the church.06:16 - Lay Leadership and Church Governance How do Anglican churches function at the local level? Reverend Greg discusses the role of rectors (pastors), lay readers, and vestries in church governance, and why he prefers the title of "pastor" over "priest" or "father."07:21 - The Anglican View on Communion Unlike the Roman Catholic belief in transubstantiation, Anglicans view communion as a symbolic but deeply meaningful act. Reverend Greg explains the theological basis for this belief and how communion plays a central role in Anglican worship.08:54 - Baptism in the Anglican Church Do Anglicans baptize infants or only adults? Reverend Greg breaks down the differences between infant baptism and believer's baptism, emphasizing that baptism does not guarantee salvation but serves as a covenant commitment.11:39 - The Role of Scripture in Anglican Theology Anglicanism holds that Scripture is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, but interpretation must be done within the context of its genre and overarching biblical themes. Reverend Greg discusses how Scripture is central to Anglican belief and why many Anglicans have distanced themselves from the Episcopal Church.13:00 - Clerical Vestments and Worship Structure Why do Anglican pastors wear certain robes? Reverend Greg explains the meaning behind clerical vestments and how church traditions, such as colors and garments, have evolved over time.17:08 - What to Expect in an Anglican Worship Service From liturgical readings to music, Anglican services blend structure and tradition. Reverend Greg describes a typical service, including the use of hymns, contemporary songs, creeds, and sacraments.We love your feedback! If you enjoyed this episode, leave us a review. If you have any questions or comments on today's episode, email me at pastorjeff@lowcountrycc.orgVisit my website https://www.jeffcranston.com and subscribe to my newsletter. Join me on Sunday mornings at LowCountry Community Church. Check-in with us on Facebook or Instagram @pastorjeffcranstonRemember, the real power of theology is not only knowing it but applying it. Thanks for listening!

Presbyterians took root in the American colonies after the Anglicans and Congregationalists. This raised questions about the relationship between the church and state. Today, W. Robert Godfrey explains how Christians navigated these issues. With your donation of any amount, request American Presbyterians and Revival: Lessons from the Nineteenth Century. You'll receive W. Robert Godfrey's teaching series on DVD, plus lifetime digital access to the messages and study guide: https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/3941/donate Meet Today's Teacher:   W. Robert Godfrey is a Ligonier Ministries teaching fellow and chairman of Ligonier Ministries. He is president emeritus and professor emeritus of church history at Westminster Seminary California. He is the featured teacher for many Ligonier teaching series, including the six-part series A Survey of Church History. He is author of many books, including God's Pattern for Creation, Reformation Sketches, and An Unexpected Journey.   Meet the Host:   Nathan W. Bingham is vice president of ministry engagement for Ligonier Ministries, executive producer and host of Renewing Your Mind, host of the Ask Ligonier podcast, and a graduate of Presbyterian Theological College in Melbourne, Australia. Nathan joined Ligonier in 2012 and lives in Central Florida with his wife and four children. Renewing Your Mind is a donor-supported outreach of Ligonier Ministries. Explore all of our podcasts: https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts

Nika Spaulding Kay Daigle Why celebrate Lent? In this episode of the Beyond Ordinary Women Podcast, Nika Spaulding joins Kay Daigle to discuss all things Lent. Although we may think that Lent is only for Catholics, Anglicans and other liturgical churches, it isn't. Nor is it all about fasting. Celebrating Lent means focusing on Jesus as we prepare our hearts for Easter. So how do we celebrate Lent? How does it work and who should participate in it? When did Christians begin celebrating this season? What are its benefits? What is fasting all about? How should we celebrate it? Nika deals with all of these questions. We encourage you to plan ahead to participate in Lent beginning on Ash Wednesday, which occurs March 5 this year. If you prefer you can watch this episode on video. Recommended resources Readings for Lent N.T. Wright's Lent for Everyone series. This year is Lent for Everyone: Luke, Year C--A Daily Devotional N.T. Wright's new devotional, From Wilderness to Glory: Lent and Easter for Everyone. The Crucifixion by Fleming Rutledge Bread and Wine: Readings for Lent and Easter.  Each day's devotional is an excerpt from a different author's work. Music that draws you to Christ Timestamps: 00:21 Introduction to Lent 05:13 Background of Lent 07:09 Fasting 10:29 Adding in spiritual rhythms during Lent 13:55 Preparing your heart, soul and mind for Easter 16:00 Lent calls us to reflect on the brevity of life 24:06 Other reflections during Lent 25:10 Lent involves community 26:44 Lent is an invitation to repentance & reconciliation 28:32 Suggestions for what to do, read, etc. TranscriptKay >> Hi. I'm Kay Daigle of Beyond Ordinary Women. Welcome to this podcast and video episode of the Beyond Ordinary Women Podcast. We are so glad to have you with us today. Today, our topic is “Why Celebrate Lent?” and our guest speaker is Nika Spaulding. Welcome, Nika. Nika >> Thanks, Kay. I'm excited to be. Kay >> I'm always so happy when you join us. You give us such a depth and wealth of information, and it's so encouraging and positive. A few months ago, and it seems like just yesterday, Nika and I recorded an episode “Why Celebrate Advent? We talked about why we thought that was a great thing for Christians to do. At that time, we decided we would do one on Lent as well. And so here we are. It's already time. It doesn't seem right! Nika >> Doesn't seem right. I feel like it was yesterday. Kay >> I can't believe we're talking about Lent. And you know the day we're recording this, we still have a little bit of time. But still it's coming up and it won't be long before it's here. Nika >>Yeah. Kay >>  And I suppose since we talked about the fact that neither one of us had ever celebrated Advent until we were adults. You didn't grow up in the church, and I grew up in a non-liturgical church. And we just kind of thought that Catholics do that. We don't; we're Protestant. So I'm assuming that you and I are the same on Lent, that we didn't practice Lent until we were adults as well. Nika >> Yeah, exact same. I would say the biggest difference was I probably didn't even know Advent existed until I was an adult. But Lent I did know because of the very thing you're talking about because I had buddies who are Catholic. I remember seeing them with ashes on their head and not being able to eat certain foods, and so I knew Lent existed. But to me it was this kind of bizarro thing that once a year my Catholic buddy's did. That was the extent of what I understood about it. Kay >> Yeah, and all my Catholic friends— I heard them at school talking about what are you giving up for Lent? What are you giving up for Lent? And I thought, this just seems . . . Nika >> Yeah. Why would I give up anything? Kay >> Why are you giving up anything? And they weren't real happy about it, so it didn't make me want to celebrate Lent. You know, I just,

Exactly a month into his new term, President Donald Trump's latest major pick, Kash Patel, has been appointed as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation after a grueling confirmation in the US Senate. Tulsi Gabbard had earlier been confirmed as the Director of National Intelligence. Both these are positive from India's point of view: they signal that the sinister Deep State may well be reined in, after decades of anti-India activism on its part.Over the last week or two, there have been revelations after revelations of bad faith on the part of the disgraced US establishment, most notably in the shadowy USAID agency, which, it appears, was the absolute “Heart of Darkness” of the Deep State, neck-deep in covert operations, election interference, and general mayhem all over the world, and certainly in India.Trump himself emphasized that $21 million in covert funds had gone towards affecting election outcomes in India. Presumably the reduced majority Modi got in 2024 could be traced back to this. Fortress AmericaThe general contours of Trump's foreign policy are beginning to emerge. I predicted a month ago, before Trump had taken over, in ‘Greenland, Canada, Panama: Chronicles of a Foreign Policy Foretold', that Western Europe, and the United Kingdom in particular, would find themselves treated as irrelevant to the new order to come. That has happened.In fact, things have gone beyond what I anticipated. In a nutshell, Trump is downgrading the Atlantic, and his focus will be on the Americas, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific. Which, from a historical perspective, makes sense: the world's economic center of gravity is moving towards Asia; trade flows in the Pacific and the Indian Oceans are increasingly more important than in the Atlantic; and a few centuries of European domination are pretty much over.Sorry Europe, Atlanticism is at an endTo put it bluntly, the vanity that Europe is a ‘continent' is now being exposed as hollow: to be precise, it is merely an appendage, an outpost, to vast Asia. Europe is at best a subcontinent, like India is; it should probably be renamed as ‘Northwest Asia'. The saga of ‘Guns, Germs and Steel' post the Industrial Revolution is winding down rapidly. There is some schadenfreude in that the UK becomes even more irrelevant: just a small, rainy island off NW Asia.The Putin-Trump dialog suggests that Ukraine, and even NATO, are now superfluous. Atlanticism has been a constant in US foreign policy, mostly pushed by two forces:* Eastern European-origin State Department officials who have inherited a blood-feud with Russia from their ancestors, eg. Brzezinski, Albright, Nuland, Blinken, Vindman* an ancient intra-Christian schism between the Eastern Orthodox Church and (for a change) an alliance of Roman Catholics and Western Protestants like Lutherans, Anglicans and Calvinists.It is time that the Americans realized they've been turned into cats'-paws by these forces, and turned their backs on these ancient animosities, which have almost no relevance today. In fact one could argue that a NATO-Russian alliance is the right solution in the medium term, because otherwise both could become puppets of China. Bringing the Ukraine war to an end is a start.The general tone of the Trump White House implies a Fortress America. In practice, this seems to mean that instead of being Globocop, the US focuses on a) the Americas, North and South, b) the Pacific Ocean, d) the Indian Ocean, in that order.A new Monroe Doctrine in the AmericasThe attention being paid to Canada and Mexico over and above the tariffs issues suggests that there is a plan to create a stronger and more unified North American entity; the noises about “Canada the 51st state” and “Gulf of America” suggest that maybe a new NAFTA-style agreement could be inked, especially now that the warming Arctic Ocean makes the thawing tundra of Canada more appealing.It is true that there is no immediate thrust for a Monroe Doctrine-style exclusive US ‘sphere of influence' in South America, but I suspect it is coming. Already, there have been positive vibes between Trump and Argentina's Milei, and Salvador's Bukele: the former for his DOGE-style chainsaw-wielding that's showing results, and the latter for his strong law enforcement.The Island Chains and other red lines in the PacificIn the Pacific, there has been pushback against China's moves on the Panama Canal: there are two Hong-Kong-based entities (read proxies of the Chinese government) controlling ports around it: Balboa on the Pacific side, and Cristobal on the Atlantic side.On the other hand, there is increasing global support (with the judicious use of Chinese carrots such as BRI) for the annexation of Taiwan by China, including, if necessary, by force. A Lowy Institute study (“Five One Chinas: The Contest to Define Taiwan”) suggests that some 119 UN member states accept the official Chinese position on ‘reunification'. Only 40 countries are not on board with China's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan.It is very likely that there will be a showdown between the US and China over Taiwan, within the next two years. It is said that Xi Jinping has given a timeframe of 2027 for all this. It will be interesting to see how many states that condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine will condemn China's future attack on Taiwan. Chances are that many will be strategically silent.Japan, Australia, South Korea and other friends of the US will have a hard time keeping the peace in the Pacific. The “Three Island Chains” act as increasingly critical red lines to contain an aggressive China. In fact, the Asia Maritime Initiative is speaking of five island chains (“China's Reach Has Grown, So Should the Island Chains”), including those in the Indian Ocean (remember the “String of Pearls” intended to tighten around India's throat).The three island chains: 1. Taiwan, Japan, Philippines; 2. Guam, Marianas; 3. Hawaii(Source: China is making waves in the Pacific, Alexandra Tirziu, Jan 2024 https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-pacific-conflict/)Meanwhile, in a show of aggression far from its shores, three Chinese warships indulged in “live firing” in international waters between Australia and New Zealand, and commercial aircraft were warned to keep away. This is a warning to Australia, which, thanks to AUKUS foolishness, cancelled French submarines and now await British submarines… in the 2040s.The increasing relevance of the Indian Ocean and the Middle EastMuch of the world's trade, including 75% of global maritime trade and 50% of its daily oil shipments, go through the Indian Ocean.The main issues will be the control of the Straits of Malacca and Hormuz, and the alternative routes being explored by China via the Isthmus of Kra in Thailand, possible use of Coco Islands and other Myanmarese ports including Sittwe and (a bit of a stretch for China) access to Chittagong. There are also troublesome pirates, including Houthis, that make for perilous journeys leading to the Suez Canal, the Gulf of Aden, and the Red Sea.Interestingly, the US is making moves in the Indian Ocean that will support both the IMEC (India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor) and I2U2, the India-Israel-UAE-US economic partnership. IMEC is the old Spice Route, revivified.There is also the proposed Ben-Gurion Canal through the Negev Desert in Israel that would benefit Saudi Arabia as well (its futuristic NEOM city is nearby), and this would be made feasible by Trump's proposed transformation of Gaza. It would be an alternative to Suez.Following up on the Abraham Accords, Trump 2.0 would like to bring the Gaza war to an end, and create an environment in the Middle East where Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE et al will form a counter and a buffer to the machinations of Iran and Turkey.The Indo-US joint communique is a statement of intentIt is in this global context that we need to analyze the joint communique between the US and India after the Trump-Modi summit. Both nations will be attempting to advance their own strategic doctrines. The US would like India to become a non-treaty ally. India would like to keep its multi-alignment policy going, along with Atmanirbharatha. These may make any bilateral progress a little rough but some give and take will work.There are a few specific areas of interest:* Defense* There is an effort by the US to wean India away from its dependency on Russia for weapons. The most evident carrot here is the F-35 advanced fighter jet, which has now been offered to India for the first time, along with other conventional weapons such as Javelin anti-tank missiles, Stryker infantry combat vehicles, as well as the P8i Poseidon anti-submarine patrol aircraft, and various drones* The P8i is already in service in India, and it would help keep an eye on the southern Bay of Bengal with its proximity to China's submarine pen on Hainan Island* The F-35 raises some questions. In the Bangalore Air Show it was pitted against the Russian Su-57, which is a lot less expensive. Also, the F-35 needs extraordinary levels of maintenance for its ‘stealth' coating. Finally, should India invest in building its own AMCA 5th-generation fighter jet rather than buying?* Even though there will be co-production agreements, the US is a whimsical supplier (remember Tarapur), and there will be little transfer of technology, so military procurement and cooperation must be carefully thought through by India* Trade and Investment* The goal is to reach $500 billion in bilateral trade by 2030, which would involve a doubling from current levels ($200 billion in 2023). Besides, the Trump doctrine of reciprocal tariffs and zero trade imbalance may make some of this difficult* Indian firms are planning to invest $7.35 billion in the US* Energy* India will now get access to US civil nuclear technology, but there's a small twist: the clauses invoking civil liability for nuclear damage will be deleted. This is reminiscent of Pfizer's covid-era contract with developing countries: Pfizer was assured of indemnity (with the local governments being liable) in case of injury or death caused by its vaccine. This sounds like a bad idea* India will increase its purchases of US oil and natural gas. This is a win-win: it will increase US imports to India, thus reducing the trade deficit, and India will be assured of additional supplies* Technology and Innovation* A whole raft of actions have been proposed, including a tie-up between the US National Science Foundation and the Anusandhan National Research Foundation in India, a program called TRUST, another called INDUS innovation, and one in the area of space collaboration, titled NISAR* Multilateral Cooperation* The Quad, IMEC and I2U2 figured in communique, but also something called the Indian Ocean Strategic Venture. I note this nomenclature progress with approval: there used to be the Asia-Pacific, then it was the Indo-Pacific, and now the Indian Ocean is being singled out* In the area of counter-terrorism, the communique explicitly named Pakistani entities such as Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Toiba, among others. This is a welcome change from the shadow-boxing indulged in by the Biden administration and others, whereby Pakistani terrorists were treated as ‘assets'* The extradition of Tahawwur Rana, a Pakistani-Canadian now in a Los Angeles jail, to India for investigation into his role supporting David Headley, in the 26/11/2008 terror attacks in Mumbai, is a welcome sign, after the curious Biden exertions in the Pannun case* People to people links* Indian parents are spending $8 billion a year to support 300,000 Indian students in the US. This amounts to a sort of ‘foreign aid', and also incidentally supplies a lot of especially STEM graduates to the US economy* Facilitating visas, which have become frustratingly difficult for Indian business and leisure travelers to the US. Last year, the wait for just a visa interview was 452 days in Chennai (as compared to 15 days in Beijing), which probably was the result ot the Biden State Department ‘punishing' India for refusing to toe their Ukraine sanctions line* The legal movement of students and professionals between the two countries is to be eased.Overall, this is a statement of intent: both Modi and Trump are laying their cards on the table, and they will both (as they should) bargain hard to benefit their own nations. But India is no longer being treated as a pariah as it was since the Pokhran blasts, the denial of cryogenic rocket engines (via, yes, the Biden Amendment), and so on.As Trump moves towards the inevitable multipolar world, he does not wish to leave Asia to eager hegemon China; as he wishes to move the US out of military entanglements in far-off places (for which he expects Europe and others to bear the burden of their own defense), it is natural for him to want India to punch its weight in Asia.A mutually beneficial relationship free of the supercilious lectures by previous Democratic administrations (eg Daleep Singh on Ukraine sanctions, and he was, ironically enough, the great-grand-nephew of Dalip Singh Saund) would be welcome from the Indian point of view. Having a counterweight to China, and a G3 instead of a G2, would likewise be useful from the US point of view. Thus, there are glimpses of a possible win-win situation.2222 words, 22-02-2025 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com/subscribe

This time co-hosts  Korey Maas (Lutheran), Miles Smith (Anglican), and D. G. Hart (Presbyterian) talk about whether non-denominational Christianity is the future of American Protestantism and what stake confessional Protestants have in denominational structures. The basis for discussion is  sociologist Ryan Burge's analysis of church statistics whose numbers indicate the remarkable increase of non-denominational Protestantism.  Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Congregationalists may sound like the ecclesiastical equivalent of Ford, Lincoln, Chevrolet, and Buick, but institutions matter to Christian faith and practice as much as they do to the manufacturing and sale of automobiles.  Follow the Anglican co-host @ivmiles and the Presbyterian co-host @oldlife.   

Saturday, 15 February 2025   Therefore by their fruits you will know them. Matthew 7:20   “Hence, from their fruits you will know them” (CG).   In the previous verse, Jesus spoke about what happens to the tree that doesn't bear good fruit. Because it doesn't provide fruit for man, it will be cut down. As was seen, having tied the words into their greater context, this pointed to the law versus grace.   The law is likened to a tree with bad fruit because it cannot provide suitable nourishment for man. It was never intended to do so apart from Christ's perfect fulfillment of it. But this means that He was already in a state of perfection, not that He was imperfect and attained perfection through the law. Understanding the greater context, Jesus next begins His summary thoughts of this part of His thoughts with, “Hence.”   The word ara, hence, is introduced here. It is an illative particle, meaning that it is given when drawing an inference. It is stated when a conclusion is reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning. Jesus' conclusion concerning those who are likened to bad trees is that “from their fruits you will know them.”   In the case of false prophets, the main subject of this short line of thought, one will be able to discern a false prophet by the fruit he bears. People don't need to, nor should they be expected to, judge someone simply because of how he looks when preaching. Nor should a judgment be made merely by his oratory skills. Such externals as that can be completely misleading.   Rather, fruit is something external, but which is derived from inside. It expresses that inner aspect in a demonstration of one's true character. This is to be found in the teaching of such a person as well as a close inspection of the way he lives his life when apart from his time of teaching. These things help identify what a person is really like.   Life application: There are preachers, priests, and teachers who present themselves as if they have great holiness when in church. Catholics, Anglicans, and others wear flowing garments, have big poofy hats, and carry rods with crosses on the top of them. They step carefully and move rigidly showing themselves to be models of piety.   And yet, they may be homosexuals or (as it is common in some churches to ordain women today) lesbians. The disgraceful acts they conduct while away from the church identify their true character. They may even bring their vile teachings into the church while speaking of “inclusion” and “tolerance.” These are code words for the acceptance of perversion and immorality. These are their fruits.   Others may know the Bible well and speak against such things, but they teach law observance rather than the grace of Jesus Christ. They bring people into bondage and a yoke that was removed from Israel on the cross of Calvary. Do not touch! Do not taste! Observe this day to be holy! Their legalism goes on and on. They do not understand grace, they will not permit grace, and they shun those who trust in grace. These are their fruits.   Others may have a carefully constructed message, present it well and demonstrate piety, while reminding people of their theological training and background, and yet they may have lied about the college they attended. They also may have more love of sound doctrine than for the Lord who authored the word that gave the doctrine in the first place.   These may be harder to identify, but eventually, their fruit will be exposed. A good but sad example of this was Ravi Zacharias. He meticulously presented outstanding doctrine, was an exceptional orator, and presented himself as a well-trained and sound theologian. And yet, it was discovered that his life was a lie. He was a sexual deviant, and he claimed positions that he never possessed.   Unfortunately, even though many in evangelical circles knew or suspected these things, they did not speak up because of his influence. People's lives were harmed and surely many were disillusioned and removed themselves from fellowship because of what they heard. These were his fruits, and they were only exposed after his death when it was too late. But the Lord will render His judgment.   Check! Investigate! Don't be duped by such externals, even if they include incredible doctrine. Unless you can personally evaluate the individual, always be wary concerning your esteem for him. Instead, send your praise and esteem directly to Jesus who deserves all glory!   Lord God, help us to discern what is right or wrong concerning those we come to for instruction. It is so easy to get allured into a comfortable state around authority figures when we should instead be on guard concerning them and their doctrine. Help us in this, Lord. May our direction be set on a good path, not partaking in unwholesome fruit. Amen.

What hath Martin Luther to do with Thomas Cranmer? This episode explores a fascinating shared history between Anglicans and Lutherans. These two Reformation-born groups were not only finding their feet at the same time, they were also interested in friendship from early on. We'll also be learning what it means to be Lutheran, and what Anglicans and Lutherans continue to do together and learn from each other today.We talk about Lutheran "distinctives"; how politics can be a way of holiness; how Henry VIII was asked to sign the Ausburg confession; and why the Lutherans are asking for an 8th ecumenical council (which might put them out of a job).This is part of our series on Episcopal Church Full Communion Partners. You can warm up to these conversations by listening to our interview with Christopher Wells, "Who Cares About Communion?," Episode 129.Our guest today is Lutheran Bishop, Reformation scholar, and motorcycle man, the Most Rev. Matthew Riegel. Matthew is Bishop of the West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. As a scholar, his primary research interest is the sanctification of ecclesiastical politics. Matthew serves on the West Virginia Council of Churches' Civic Life and Faith Task Force, and in a previous life has worked as a park ranger. Who Cares About Communion? with Christopher WellsWittenberg articles of 1536Fraternal Appeal to the American ChurchesLiving Church EventsGive to support this podcast

My Story   Talk 5   Brentwood School (1950-1956) Part Two Welcome to Talk 5 in our series where I'm reflecting on God's goodness to me throughout my life. Today we're talking about the academic programme at Brentwood, the chaplain, the chapel and Divinity lessons, and the school CCF.   Academic Programme A typical day at Brentwood began with chapel or assembly at 8.50am. This lasted about half an hour. Lessons, which were all 45 minutes long, began at 9.30. The first two periods were followed by a 15 minute break at 11am and the next two periods were followed by lunch at 1pm. With the exception of Wednesdays and Saturdays which were dedicated to sporting activities, there were three periods each afternoon, beginning at 1.45 and ending at 4pm.   And then of course there was homework, which at Brentwood was called prep. In the first year this was expected to take us an hour and a half each evening, increasing to three hours when you were in the sixth form taking A levels. This often involved memorizing things on which you were going to be tested the next day.   And there were huge incentives for doing your prep thoroughly. Apart from the fact that you might be put in detention on Wednesday afternoon if you failed the test, a form order was produced every two or three weeks and sent home to your parents to let them know your current position in class. This certainly kept us on our toes, and, although at Brentwood I never came top as I had regularly done at primary school, I made sure I was always in the top 10.   Subjects in our first year, all of which were compulsory, included English, French, Latin, Maths, History, Geography, Physics, Art or Woodwork, Divinity (Religious Education), and Gym. But after the first year, which at Brentwood was referred to as the second form, the system changed and the subjects you took depended on which stream you had chosen to enter.   The Third Form (i.e. the second year) was divided into four streams, Classical Three, Science Three, Modern Three, and General Three. The advantage of this system was that boys could concentrate early on the areas where they hoped to specialise later. The disadvantage was, of course, that not everyone was at all sure at such a young age of what those future areas might be. It also meant that relatively little teaching was given on some quite important subjects. For example, you did relatively little science if you went into the classical stream.   However, in my case, I think the system proved beneficial. I opted for the classical stream because I was interested in languages and had shown that I had a measure of ability in that area. In doing so I was able to begin studying Greek at the age of 12 which was to prove important in what the Lord had for me in the future.       At the age of 15, when we were in the fifth form, we all took O-level exams (General Certificate of Education, Ordinary Level), after which another choice had to be made.  Which sixth form stream to enter? Although successful in all my exams, my best results were in languages, and of all the streams available the choice for me was narrowed down to Lower Sixth Classics where I could take Latin, Greek, and Classical History, or Lower Six Arts where the options were Latin or English Literature, French, and German or Mediaeval History. Not knowing then the future God had planned for me, I opted for the Arts stream and chose Latin, French, and Mediaeval History for my A-level subjects and Spanish as a subsidiary subject for O-level.   I thank God that, with his help, I passed all these exams. I was particularly grateful about History. A few months before we were due to sit the exams, my history teacher, Mr. Moulde, said to me,   Quite honestly, Petts, I think you're going to fail History.   The basic reason for this was that I wasn't doing enough prep because of all the church activities I was engaged in because, among other things, halfway through my A-level course I had felt God calling me to the ministry. But more about that in the next talk. So, in front of the whole class, I replied,   The problem is, Sir, that I believe that God has called me to be a minister, and that to gain as much experience as I can, I need to be involved as much as possible in my local church. I believe that if I honour God, and if he wants me to pass History, then he will help me to do so.   To which he replied,   Well, Petts, I respect your faith, but I can't say that I agree with you. Unless you put in a lot more work, you will certainly fail.   I did try to put in more work on History without giving up any of my church activities. When the results came through I was delighted to discover that I had scored 60% (the pass mark being 40). And at the beginning of the next term, as I happened to meet Mr. Moulde in the quad, he said to me with a broad smile,   Well, Petts, what do you mean by getting 60? I would never have believed it. Congratulations.   Later that term I won a scholarship at Brasenose College, Oxford to read Philosophy, Politics and Economics. But more of that in a later talk. I need now to say more about my Christian faith while I was at Brentwood. This, of course, needs to be understood alongside my experience at Elm Park Baptist Church which will be the subject of our next talk. At school I was to get a taste of a different kind of Christianity, some of which wasn't Christianity at all as I understood it. But this will become clear in a moment.   The Chaplain, the Chapel, and Divinity lessons The religious climate in the UK in the 1950s was very different from today. Although church attendance had dropped, probably caused by disillusionment because of the war, there was still a general acceptance of the basic truths of Christianity. This, coupled with the fact that religious teaching at Brentwood was, in the words of the school prospectus, in accordance with that of the Church of England, meant that with the exception of Divinity (RE) lessons, apart from one experience I will mention later, there was rarely anything much that would challenge my Christian faith.  Surprisingly the source of that challenge was the Chaplain, the Chapel, and what was taught in Divinity lessons.   The Chaplain, the Reverend R. R. Lewis, M.A. was a graduate of Jesus College, Oxford, and an ordained Church of England priest. As such, he was responsible for most of what went on in chapel and taught all the weekly Divinity lessons. From this it was clear, because he openly acknowledged it, that he did not believe in the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, or the resurrection. In fact he denied the possibility of miracles on the grounds that, if God created the laws of the universe, he would not break his own rules! Of course, when I told my father about this, he reminded me of the outstanding miracle experienced by Auntie May which I mentioned at the beginning of this series.   On another occasion we were told that God could not foretell the future because, if he could, that would mean that we could not be held responsible for our actions. I know some Christians do struggle with this, but, as I have pointed out elsewhere, if I know that something will happen it does not mean that I am causing it to happen.   Having said all that, Mr. Lewis was a nice enough man. I just could not, and still cannot, understand how the Church of England can allow people with such views to hold office in the church. Anglicans often talk about what they consider to be the advantages of the C. of E. being what they call a broad church, but in my view what they claim to be its greatest strength is actually its greatest weakness.   Of course, back then I knew nothing of the evangelical wing of the Church of England and tended to assume that Anglicans all held views like those of our school chaplain. It was later at Oxford that I first met godly people who were part of the C. of E. and whose views, apart from the fact that they believed in infant baptism, were much closer to mine.   And I praise God for the great things that are happening today in those parts of the church where the Bible is honoured and charismatic gifts are encouraged. But from my, admittedly limited, experience of Anglican worship, it was very different from that in the 1950s.   Worship in chapel was very different from what I experienced in our Baptist Church each Sunday. Some differences were relatively unimportant. For example, in chapel we sang Psalms instead of reading them, and we knelt for prayer rather than sitting. But others were more serious. Prayers were never spontaneous, but read from a book, and they were the same prayers week after week!   And preachers would be dressed in robes and precede their sermons with,   In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen,   something which at times verged on the blasphemous bearing in mind the content of what sometimes followed in the sermon.   But none of this seriously challenged my faith, unlike an experience I had in class, once again with our French teacher, M. Jacquotet. I don't remember what I had said, but I do remember his response:   Monsieur Petts, you are a silly little fool if you think that, if there is a God, he can possibly be interested in you!   At the time, I had no answer. There is an apparent logic to arguments like these, but I knew that there must be an answer. So that evening I told my father what my teacher had said, to which he replied,   But that is exactly what we Christians dare to believe. God isn't limited like us. He's so big that he has the capacity to care about every single person and every single thing in the universe. Your teacher clearly doesn't understand this.   And I remembered something that we had been told to memorise in our English Literature lessons. It was taken from Matthew 6:26.   Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?   So my father's advice and the shield of faith, which is the word of God, extinguished yet another of those flaming arrows sent by the evil one (Ephesians 6:16). But my father's Christian influence on my thinking was also very evident in a decision I made with regard to the school Combined Cadet Force.   The CCF and pacifism As I mentioned in Talk One, my father was a conscientious objector during the war. As a Christian he took seriously all the teaching of Jesus, and that included the command to Love your enemies (Matthew 5:44) and he could not see how he could obey this command by killing them. He had to go before a tribunal and answer searching questions to test if his objections were genuine and, as a result, was exempted from military service and allowed to continue his profession as a schoolteacher.       Now at Brentwood it was compulsory for boys in the fourth form and above to be part of the school's Combined Cadet Force (CCF), generally referred to in school as ‘the corps'. This meant that every Thursday boys would dress in Army or Air Force uniform throughout the day and during the last period of the afternoon receive military training on the school playing fields.   There was, however, a provision for a boy to register as a Conscientious Objector if he could satisfy the Headmaster that his objections were sincere. And so, following my father's example, at the age of 14, I was interviewed and asked to explain my objections, as a result of which I was allowed to do First Aid training with the Red Cross as part of the non-uniformed branch of the corps.   Now I realise that most Christians do not take the same pacifist stance. This is one of those issues where Christians are disagreed, and each person must follow their own conscience in the matter. But for me at the time, arguing for pacificism was in many ways the most vital way I had of expressing my Christian faith. Memories of World War II were still very real and our armed forces were already engaged in conflict in the Korean War from 1950 to 1953. Fear of a third world war was very real, and at the time all boys of eighteen were compelled to do National Service involving two years' military training in one of the armed forces.   So the issue of whether it is right to take up arms against one's fellow human beings was particularly relevant throughout my school years, and there were frequent discussions about it both at school and at church.   Whether I was right or wrong to adopt a pacifist position is for others to decide, but what it did for me and the development of my character was undeniable. I was forced to stand up for what I believed in, despite the teasing and accusations of cowardice that inevitably come to people who refuse to fight. The ability to think independently rather than following the majority view, and the resolve to take seriously the teaching of Jesus and to follow it, were to become the determining factors of my life.   So I thank God for my years at Brentwood. They not only provided the foundation for future academic achievements but gave me opportunity to learn how to think for myself and to stand up for what I believe to be right. And, best of all, they were years when I determined to follow Jesus. My faith was both challenged and encouraged, but Brentwood was, of course, by no means the only factor, because throughout my years there I was also a regular attender at Elm Park Baptist Church, which is the subject of the next talk.      

In this episode of FACTS with Stephen and Tyler, we are honored to welcome special guest Bishop Darryl Fitzwater for a deep dive into how Anglicans should view the Blessed Virgin Mary. In part one of this two-part series, we explore key doctrines surrounding Mary, including the Immaculate Conception, her Perpetual Virginity, and the Bodily Assumption. Join us as we examine these teachings from theological, historical, and scriptural perspectives, shedding light on their significance for Anglican theology and spirituality. Don't miss this enriching discussion that sets the stage for part two! If you'd like to donate to our ministry or be a monthly partner that receives newsletters and one on one discussions with Dr. Boyce, here's a link: https://give.tithe.ly/?formId=6381a2ee-b82f-42a7-809e-6b733cec05a7 Here is a link to Bishop Fitzwater's podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/appalachian-anglican/id1553731575 #FACTSPodcast #BlessedVirginMary #ImmaculateConception #PerpetualVirginity #BodilyAssumption #AnglicanTheology #ChristianDoctrine #Maryology #TheologyDiscussion #BishopDarrylFitzwater #AnglicanTradition #EcumenicalDialogue #FaithAndTheology #ScriptureAndTradition #MarianTheology

In this episode of FACTS with Stephen and Tyler, we are honored to welcome special guest Bishop Darryl Fitzwater for a deep dive into how Anglicans should view the Blessed Virgin Mary. In part one of this two-part series, we explore key doctrines surrounding Mary, including the Immaculate Conception, her Perpetual Virginity, and the Bodily Assumption. Join us as we examine these teachings from theological, historical, and scriptural perspectives, shedding light on their significance for Anglican theology and spirituality. Don't miss this enriching discussion that sets the stage for part two! Here is a link to Bishop Fitzwater's podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/appalachian-anglican/id1553731575 #FACTSPodcast #BlessedVirginMary #ImmaculateConception #PerpetualVirginity #BodilyAssumption #AnglicanTheology #ChristianDoctrine #Maryology #TheologyDiscussion #BishopDarrylFitzwater #AnglicanTradition #EcumenicalDialogue #FaithAndTheology #ScriptureAndTradition #MarianTheology

Most of us hadn't heard of Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde until last Monday. She's the Episcopal bishop in Washington, D.C. who made a plea to President Donald Trump. But Anglican church members in Western Newfoundland knew her name. They'd met her in person last fall, at church meetings in Corner Brook. Rev. Mickton Phiri is priest-in-charge at St. Michael and All Angels Anglican Church. He and other Anglicans in the Diocese of Western Newfoundland Labrador Straits met Bishop Budde in person.

The Pudcast returns with co-hosts  Korey Maas (Lutheran), Miles Smith (Anglican), and D. G. Hart (Presbyterian) in the after glow of a very long holiday season -- that seems to get longer the older the observer becomes.  The recording starts with question of whether the five to six weeks between Thanksgiving and New Years -- when everyone seems to return to pandemic levels of output in the workplace -- is too long.  Included is attention to the particular aspects of holiday observance among Lutherans and Anglicans (with Lutherans getting lots of credit for using the phrase, "The Divine Service" most often).  Material that stimulated the discussion was Ross Douthat's speculation that secular liberalism has run out of steam and Eli Lake's report on the Jewish-Americans who wrote so many of the secular Christmas songs.  Listeners who have not seen Whit Stillman's movie, "Metropolitan" should do so asap even if it is no longer Christmas or Advent or Debutante Ball season.    Owing to the recent death of former POTUS, Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump's election victory, the co-hosts also speculated about the effects of past and future presidents on the religious vibe in the United States and elsewhere.  Bonus content: here is an introduction to Washington Irving's Old Christmas, a story that shaped American customs surrounding the holiday.  

In this week's episode of Right to Life Radio, John Gerardi and Jonathan Keller dive into key pro-life updates and legal battles. They discuss Harmeet Dhillon's appointment to the Department of Justice and its implications for civil rights and pro-life advocacy. Special guest Anne-Marie Payden, Executive Director of Tulare King's Right to Life, shares insights on the grassroots fight to stop the new clinic in Tulare and the local efforts to prevent it, including a precedent-setting court case involving CCNRs. The episode wraps up with a look at the UK's push to legalize physician-assisted suicide and what that could mean for similar debates in the United States.

Ann Widdecombe, the former Conservative Party minister, joins Dr Gavin Ashenden in this 90th episode of Merely Catholic, the podcast series for the Catholic Herald, to discuss the resignation of Justin Welby as Archbishop of Canterbury and the future of the Church of England. Miss Widdecombe, who, like Dr Ashenden was a member of the Church of England before converting to the Catholic faith, charts the leadership difficulties and challenges which have split Anglicans in the last 30 years and discuss the prospects of reconciliation. She and Dr Ashenden consider the strong possibility that the next leader of the Church of England and the Worldwide Anglican Communion will, for the first time in history, be a woman.

What the resignation of the Church's most senior figure, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, means for Anglicans worldwide. An independent report found that the Church of England failed to act on allegations that more than a hundred boys were physically and sexually abused by a man running Christian summer camps in the UK and Zimbabwe. What does this mean for the millions of Anglicans in Africa, many of whom were already feeling out of step with the UK leaders of the Church? On this episode, Lucy Hockings speaks to the BBC's religion editor Aleem Maqbool and the BBC's correspondent in Zimbabwe Shingai Nyoka. WARNING: This episode includes discussions of child sexual abuse. Some listeners may find this content disturbing. Producers: Peter Goffin and Alix PicklesSound engineers: Hannah Montgomery and Mike Regaard Assistant editors: Sergi Forcada Freixas and Richard MoranSenior news editor: Sara Wadeson

In which Ruthi is joined by two guests, Ben and Rev Debbie to talk about the Netflix Comedy series Nobody Want's This, a show about the dating life of a Rabbi and someone without faith. Ben is one of the hosts of Sheffield Diocese' "Podcast Words of Grace" which you can listen to here: https://open.spotify.com/show/2mZNG6lawqz4Vvup1ng2Um?si=9dbcce4c21e24319 ------- We are the Vicars Watch Dibley - three real priests who talk about pop culture and what it's taught us about life, faith and the church. We've watched Dibley, and now we're watching everything else! ------- Follow us: Instagram @vicarswatchdibley | Twitter / X @VicarsWatch | Facebook @VicarsWatchDibley Contact us by email at vicarswatchdibley@gmail.com ------- Hosts: Revd Ruthi Gibbons (Instagram @ruthigibbons) Revd Ross Meikle (X @meikle_treacle, Instagram @storytellerross) Revd Cate Thomson (Instagram @revdcate) Producer + music and editing by Revd Natalie Gibbons. ------ Any opinions expressed in this episode are our own and do not necessarily represent those of the Church of England or any other organisations with which we are affiliated.

How are Anglicans persevering in ministry and life together in the face of climate change?The Bishop of Puerto Rico, the Rt. Rev. Rafael Morales Maldonado, has a passion for creation-care ministries, outreach, and evangelism. What's up in ministry in Puerto Rico? And especially how are they integrating concern for climate change into ministry there?Bishop Rafael is the diocesan bishop of Puerto Rico, currently provisional bishop in Cuba, and bishop advisor on the Virgin Islands. He is the president of Episcopal Health Services, Inc., which includes the island's most significant home care and hospice service, as well as president of the Episcopal Funeral Services. Bishop Rafael has also been a key leader in responding to natural disasters that have affected Puerto Rico in recent years.Today we'll talk about: how the island is finding their place in the Lambeth Call on the Environment, saying prayers before planting trees, why good weather reports are a ministry, stepping up mental health services for the voiceless, and learning from St. Francis. This is a joyful conversation on creation and loving the neighbor. The Lambeth Call on the Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentPrograma REDESGive to support this podcast

Jerome Copulsky, a research fellow at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs at Georgetown University, talks with Word&Way President Brian Kaylor about his new book American Heretics: Religious Adversaries of Liberal Order. He also discusses colonial Anglicans, debates during the Confederacy, and Christian Nationalism. Note: Don't forget to subscribe to our award-winning e-newsletter A Public Witness that helps you make sense of faith, culture, and politics. And order a copy of Baptizing America: How Mainline Protestants Helped Build Christian Nationalism by Brian Kaylor and Beau Underwood. If you buy it directly from Chalice Press, they are offering 33% off the cover price when you use the promo code "BApodcast."

Pastors Dan Borvan (URCNA), Chris Drew (OPC), Zack Groff, and Ryan Biese (PCA) joined our panel to talk about the latest hot trend in the Reformed and evangelical worlds—ministers and young people decamping to the Anglican communion...whatever that is.  Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5gWHDesuuE https://religionunplugged.com/news/2024/10/1/will-anglicans-save-evangelicalism https://juicyecumenism.com/2024/09/26/wheaton-anglican-pipeline/ https://juicyecumenism.com/2024/10/08/anglo-catholicism-west-virginia/

A question has long hung over the the United States regarding the proper role of religion in public life. Those who long for a Christian America claim that the Founders intended a nation with political values and institutions shaped by Christianity. Secularists argue that those same Founders designed an enlightened republic where church and state should be kept separate.  American Heretics: Religious Adversaries of Liberal Order (Yale UP, 2024), Jerome E. Copulsky examines the Americans who rejected the secularism of American society, predicted the collapse of the nation, and hoped to develop a new and decidedly Christian commonwealth.  By reviewing extreme religious dissent from colonial times through the current age, Copulsky shows how these thinkers opposed the American orthodoxy of pluralist democracy on theological grounds. Their views are diametrically opposed to the idea of America as a place where multiple sects and creeds peacefully coexist. Each chapter explains a different strain of heresy, beginning with loyal Anglicans who opposed the American Revolution and ending with current National Conservatives who embrace illiberal populism in an effort to enact their vision of a Christian America. Author recommended reading:  The Violent Take It By Force: The Christian Movement That Is Threatening Our Democracy by Matthew D. Taylor Hosted by Meghan Cochran Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

A question has long hung over the the United States regarding the proper role of religion in public life. Those who long for a Christian America claim that the Founders intended a nation with political values and institutions shaped by Christianity. Secularists argue that those same Founders designed an enlightened republic where church and state should be kept separate.  American Heretics: Religious Adversaries of Liberal Order (Yale UP, 2024), Jerome E. Copulsky examines the Americans who rejected the secularism of American society, predicted the collapse of the nation, and hoped to develop a new and decidedly Christian commonwealth.  By reviewing extreme religious dissent from colonial times through the current age, Copulsky shows how these thinkers opposed the American orthodoxy of pluralist democracy on theological grounds. Their views are diametrically opposed to the idea of America as a place where multiple sects and creeds peacefully coexist. Each chapter explains a different strain of heresy, beginning with loyal Anglicans who opposed the American Revolution and ending with current National Conservatives who embrace illiberal populism in an effort to enact their vision of a Christian America. Author recommended reading:  The Violent Take It By Force: The Christian Movement That Is Threatening Our Democracy by Matthew D. Taylor Hosted by Meghan Cochran Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Today, on the Christian History Almanac, we remember the creation of the never-dull Lambeth Conference amongst the Anglicans. Show Notes: Support 1517 Podcast Network 1517 Podcasts 1517 on Youtube 1517 Podcast Network on Apple Podcasts 1517 Academy - Free Theological Education What's New from 1517: Junk Drawer Jesus By Matt Popovits Listen to 1517 Executive Director Scott Keith and Magnus Persson on the latest Re:Formera podcast Signup For Free Advent Church Resources for 2024 The Inklings: Apostles and Apologists of the Imagination with Sam Schuldheisz Hitchhiking with Prophets: A Ride Through the Salvation Story of the Old Testament by Chad Bird More from the hosts: Dan van Voorhis SHOW TRANSCRIPTS are available: https://www.1517.org/podcasts/the-christian-history-almanac CONTACT: CHA@1517.org SUBSCRIBE: Apple Podcasts Spotify Stitcher Overcast Google Play FOLLOW US: Facebook Twitter Audio production by Christopher Gillespie (gillespie.media).

Every Sunday, Anglicans confess their faith with the words of the Nicene Creed, and likewise, many Christians around the world continue this ancient practice in their weekly worship. Yet why? In this session, we discuss why creeds are so important to worship.

Every Sunday, Anglicans confess their faith with the words of the Nicene Creed, and likewise, many Christians around the world continue this ancient practice in their weekly worship. Yet why? In this session, we discuss why creeds are so important to worship.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comJeffrey Toobin is a lawyer, author, and the chief legal analyst at CNN, after a long run at The New Yorker. He has written many bestselling books, including True Crimes and Misdemeanors, The Oath, The Nine, and Too Close to Call, and two others — The Run of His Life and A Vast Conspiracy — were adapted for television as seasons of “American Crime Story” on the FX channel.You can listen right away in the audio player above (or on the right side of the player, click “Listen On” to add the Dishcast feed to your favorite podcast app). For two clips of our convo — why the Bragg conviction helped Trump, and the origins of lawfare with Bill Clinton — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: growing up in NYC as the only child of two journos; his mom was a pioneering TV correspondent; his dad was one of founding fathers of public television; Jeffrey at the Harvard Crimson and then Harvard Law; how Marty Peretz mentored us both; the conservative backlash after Nixon and rebuilding executive power; Ford's pardon; Jeffrey on the team investigating Oliver North; the Boland Amendment and the limits of law; Cheney's role during Iran-Contra; how Congress hasn't declared war since WWII; Whitewater to Lewinsky; Ken Starr and zealous prosecutors; Trump extorting Ukraine over the Bidens; Russiagate; the Mueller Report and Barr's dithering; how such investigations can help presidents; the Bragg indictment; the media environment of Trump compared to Nixon; Fox News coverage of Covid; Trump's pardons; hiding Biden; the immunity case; SEAL Team Six and other hypotheticals; Jack Smith and fake electors; the documents case; the check of impeachment; the state of SCOTUS and ethics scandals; Thomas and the appearance of corruption; the wives of Thomas and Alito; the Chevron doctrine; reproductive rights; the Southern border and asylum; Jeffrey's main worry about a second Trump term; and his upcoming book on presidential pardons.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Eric Kaufmann on liberal extremism, and Bill Wasik and Monica Murphy on animal cruelty. (Van Jones' PR team canceled his planned appearance.) Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.Here's a fan of last week's episode with Anne Applebaum:I loved your freewheeling interview with Applebaum. Just like the last time she was on, each of you gave as good as you got.I tend to agree more with her, because I fear that sometimes you come off as what Jeane Kirkpatrick called the “blame America first crowd” — not that we haven't committed our sins. But if we didn't exist, Putin would still be evil and want to recreate the Warsaw Pact, and the mullahs in Iran would still be fanatics despite our CIA involvement. It's complicated.Another on foreign policy:I despise Putin, my sympathies are totally with the Ukrainians, and I get angry when people like Rod Dreher and Tucker Carlson imply that the Russians were forced by the West to invade Ukraine. But, so what! You hit the nail on the head with the Obama quote — that Ukraine is never going to mean as much to us as it does to them (the Russians). You also made another very good point that the Russians can't even conquer Ukraine, but we're supposed to fear they will march West? How they going to do that?!Another took issue with several things from Anne:You raised the immigration issue, and Applebaum completely dismissed it: Hungary doesn't have a migrant crisis. … Because it's a useful symbol [to] create fear and anxiety. … This is the oldest political trick in the book, and the creation of an imaginary culture war is one of the ways in which you build support among a more fearful part of the population.WTF? Are Hungarians not allowed to see what is happening in every other European country that has allowed mass migration and see the problems it has caused and proactively decide to prevent this?! Are they not allowed to be concerned until Budapest has the banlieues of Paris, the car bombing gangs of Sweden, and the grooming gangs of England?! And in Germany, it has been recently reported that almost half of people receiving social payments are migrants.Applebaum followed that up with an even bigger gobsmacker about Biden's cognitive decline: “This is another road I don't want to go down, but I know people who met with Joe Biden a couple months ago, and he was fine” (meaning I just want to make my statement but will not allow you a rebuttal). And then:I've met [Harris] a few times, mostly in the context of conversations about foreign policy and about Russia and Ukraine and other things. And she's an intelligent conversationalist. … I was impressed with her. And these are way off-the-record conversations... And I was always more impressed with how she was off the record. And then I would sometimes see her in public. And I thought, she seems very stiff and nervous. … You'd like her if you met her in real life.Translation of both of these excerpts: “You plebes who aren't insiders just don't understand, but trust me — the connected insider — instead of your lying eyes.”Another adds:I think for the next few months, you're going to have to push people like Anne Applebaum to be more open to criticizing the Biden-Harris record. She's a smart person with important things to say, but she clearly dared not criticize the current administration, lest she be seen as helping Trump. And another:She says, unironically, that autocrats rig court systems with exotic new lawfare to attack their political enemies to seize or cling to power. I wonder what that makes Alvin Bragg and Merrick Garland.This Dishhead listened to the episode with his teenage son:The notion that Trump supporters want a dictator is beyond ridiculous. They are among the most individualistic and freedom-loving people in America. They are the Jacksonians, the Scots-Irish heart of this country. They are ornery as hell, and if Trump tried to force them into anything, he'd have another thing coming.  Just look how he tried to get them to take “his” vaccine. That didn't work out so well, did it? The truth is, they view people like Anne as the ones who are taking away their rights and freedoms through their absolute dominance of the media and all cultural institutions. Now maybe Trump will deliver them from that and maybe he won't, but that is what they are seeking — not a dictator, but someone who will break the hideous grip that the liberal elite has on the culture.My son is 18 years old and was also listening to the episode. He is highly engaged in national and world affairs, and he also thought Anne was way off track. He's already announced to his mother (much to her chagrin) that he will be casting his first vote for Trump. And get this: he's going to Oberlin College this fall. I can assure you he's not looking for a dictator. He's looking to say “eff you” to a system that has no use for upper-class, normal white boys like him. The elites hate him and his friends.But I'm glad you have a diversity of views on the Dishcast. It really is the best. I look forward to listening to it every week.I can't back Trump, but I do think your son is onto something. On a few other episodes:Lionel Shriver — I love her! I wished you'd talked more about her novel, Mania. It's not perfect, but it's good.On the Stephen Fry pod, I was resistant! He's irritated me at times. But I loved it when you two started doing Larkin! I shouldn't admit this, but “Aubade” could be my autobiography. I think one or both of you misinterpret “Church Going.” Larkin doesn't wish he had faith. I don't think that's relevant to him. Fry talked about how he liked everything about Anglicanism except for the detail about God (and I always suspect that for Anglicans, God is a somewhat troubling detail). I'm probably just guessing, but I don't think that's Larkin. Larkin didn't wish he had faith. He was elegiac about the past in which there was faith. I think you'll see this sensibility in “An Arundel Tomb.”Agreed. Another on Shriver:She seems to think that “liberals” are mistaken in believing that everyone can be equal, but I think she is mistaken in thinking that is what they believe — at least those I know. Liberals do think that 1) expectations play a role in what people achieve; and 2) given the right circumstances, many people find they can achieve more than was expected. Low expectations do lead to low outcomes (and yes, there is research to support that statement). Does that mean everyone can do anything they wish? No. Neither you nor I will ever be a concert pianist, but let us not condemn everyone to the garbage heap based on false expectations.Thanks as always for your provocative discussions.Here's a guest rec:Musa Al Gharbi, a sociologist at Stony Brook, has written for Compact, American Affairs, and The Liberal Patriot. His forthcoming book, We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite, draws on Pierre Bourdieu's notions of cultural capital to analyze the ascendant symbolic capitalists — those who work in law, technology, nonprofits, academia, journalism and media, finance, civil service and the like — and how the ideology known as “wokeness” exists to entrench economic inequality and preserve the hegemony of this class. I have preordered the book, and it should be a timely read for an election in which class (education), not race, has become the preeminent dividing line in our politics.Here's a guest rec with pecs:I have a recommendation that may sound bonkers, but hear me out: Alan Ritchson, the actor whose career has taken off thanks to playing Jack Reacher on Reacher.The fact that he's really, really, really ridiculously good-looking is the least interesting thing about him. I'd love to hear a conversation between you and him for a few reasons. First, he's bipolar and speaks openly about it. Second, he started taking testosterone supplements after his body broke down from working out for Reacher, and he speaks openly about that too. Third, he's a devout evangelical Christian who speaks openly about his faith — and about his disgust with Christian nationalism and the hijacking of Christianity by many Trump supporters. Fourth, he posted what read to me as a thoughtful, sane critique of bad cops, thereby angering certain denizens of the Very Online Right. Thus, he could speak to a number of major Dishcast themes: mental illness, masculinity, and Christianity. To me, he manages to come across as a guy's guy whose comments on political matters sound like the result of actual reflection, rather than reflexively following a progressive script, which is how most celebrities come across. He's articulate, and the way he's navigating this cultural and political moment is fascinating. And if you do snag him, you should supplement the audio with video.Haha. But seriously, we're trying to keep the podcast fresh and this is a great out-of-the-box recommendation. Next up, the dissents over my views on Harris continue from the main page. A reader writes:I have no particular attachment to Kamala Harris, and share some of your concerns, but your latest column reads more like a Fox News hit piece than a real assessment. The main problem is that you seem to be judging Harris almost exclusively on the basis of statements she made in 2020, at the height of the Democrats' woke mania because of George Floyd. Do you not remember that she was destroyed in the primary because she was a prosecutor, and was to the right of almost everyone else in the primary, except for Biden and Sanders? That's why she lost: she wasn't woke enough. So as VP, of course she pivoted to shore up her appeal to the base, like any good politician would. It's terribly unfortunate that she had to tack hard left precisely as the country was moving back to the center and rejecting wokism, but that doesn't mean she's the “wokest candidate,” as you say. It just means she's a politician.My criticism also extended to her management and campaigning skills in the past. And look: I don't think it's fair to compare my attempt to review the evidence of her record with a Fox News hit-piece. It's important to understand her vulnerabilities as well as he core ideas, if she has any. This next reader thinks she is off to a good, non-woke start:I agree with your criticisms of Harris, at least some of them. We need to have stronger border enforcement, we can't have riots in cities, and racism is real but DEI excesses are also bad. And it's troubling that she has a history of being a bad boss. I can only hope that she has learned from her mistakes. But I take heart from her campaign speech in Wisconsin: she said not a word about DEI, nothing about “vote for me to show that you're not sexist/racist, because I'm a woman of color,” and not much about “Trump is a threat to democracy.” It was all, “I have experience dealing with sleazy crooks and sex offenders like Trump, and I want to help middle-class Americans and protect health care and a woman's right to choose.” Sounds like a popular message!You also say, “She is not a serious person.” Bro, have you *seen* the other party's candidate?