Podcasts about congregationalists

pWotD Episode 2908: Good Friday 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 466,574 views on Friday, 18 April 2025 our article of the day is Good Friday.Good Friday, also known as Holy Friday, Great Friday, Great and Holy Friday, or Friday of the Passion of the Lord, is a solemn Christian holy day commemorating the crucifixion of Jesus and his death at Calvary (Golgotha). It is observed during Holy Week as part of the Paschal Triduum.Members of many Christian denominations, including the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Oriental Orthodox, United Protestant and some Reformed traditions (including certain Continental Reformed, Presbyterian and Congregationalist churches), observe Good Friday with fasting and church services. In many Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and Methodist churches, the Service of the Great Three Hours' Agony is held from noon until 3 p.m.—the hours the Bible records darkness covering the land until Jesus' death on the cross. In the Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican traditions of Christianity, the Stations of the Cross are prayed in the evening of Good Friday, as with other Fridays of Lent. Communicants of the Moravian Church have a Good Friday tradition of cleaning gravestones in Moravian cemeteries.The date of Good Friday varies from one year to the next in both the Gregorian and Julian calendars. Eastern and Western Christianity disagree over the computation of the date of Easter and therefore of Good Friday. Good Friday is a widely instituted legal holiday around the world. Some predominantly Christian countries, such as Germany, have laws prohibiting certain acts—public dancing, horse racing—in remembrance of the sombre nature of Good Friday.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 03:01 UTC on Saturday, 19 April 2025.For the full current version of the article, see Good Friday 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 Emma.

Rev. Dr. Cameron A. MacKenzie, Professor of Historical Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana, joins Andy and Sarah for our nine-episode series, “Pilgrims, Puritans, and the Founding of New England.” In episode 4, we learn about the Puritans and Pilgrims settling into the New World colonies, the challenges they faced, the kind of church establishment they formed, what covenant congregationalist churches believed versus Presbyterians, and tensions between two wings of Puritans concerning the experience of grace in their lives. Resources in this episode: All episodes in The Puritan Movement series Find more from Dr. MacKenzie here Recommended reading from Dr. MacKenzie includes: Worldly Saints by Leland Ryken, English Puritanism by John Spurr,  Reformation in England  by Peter Marshall,  Puritan Christianity in America: Religion and Life in 17th Century Massachusetts  by  John Carden, and  Pilgrim's Progress  by John Bunyan. As you grab your morning coffee (and pastry, let's be honest), join hosts Andy Bates and Sarah Gulseth as they bring you stories of the intersection of Lutheran life and a secular world. Catch real-life stories of mercy work of the LCMS and partners, updates from missionaries across the ocean, and practical talk about how to live boldly Lutheran. Have a topic you'd like to hear about on The Coffee Hour? Contact us at: listener@kfuo.org.

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

Thomas Condon didn't set out to become a geologist; he was a Congregationalist minister with a hobby of collecting fossils. And although over the years his hobby took over, he never lost touch with his ministerial kindliness. (Oregon Caves, Josephine County; 1880s) (For text and pictures, see https://offbeatoregon.com/1610e.thomas-condon-oregon-caves-415.html)

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.   

Congregationalists--clergy and congregations—were the driving force in New England's Revolution.  Interpreting liberty  through their own religious framework, which included principles of autonomy, fellowship, and consensus, Congregationalists had much to say about  liberty in church records, letters, and sermon literature.  Kyle Roberts, Executive Director of the Congregational Library and Archives, and Tricia Peone, Project Director for New England Hiddien Histories, join us to talk about their new on-line exhibit Religion of Liberty, and what we can learn from the Congregational Library about the beginnings of the American Revolution.https://www.congregationallibrary.org/https://www.congregationallibrary.org/events/open-house-2024Tell us what you think! Send us a text message!

Title: Purple Peddling Proselyte Text: Acts 16:11-15 FCF: We often struggle Prop: Because the Lord will build His church, we must faithfully follow His leading trusting Him for the results of our work. Scripture Intro: CSB [Slide 1] Turn in your bible to Acts chapter 16. In a moment we will begin reading in verse 11 from the Christian Standard Bible. You can follow along in the pew bible or in whatever version you prefer. What a joy it was to have Eric and Cherie present what the Lord has been doing in their work. And the message that he gave last week beautifully dovetails with the message that has been at the heart of the book of Acts thus far. A message that will continue even today. Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Luke have all prepared to embark on the evangelistic portion of their journey. Paul has received a vision of a man from Macedonia, begging them to come and help. In this second missionary journey there are some of the most memorable, powerful, theologically relevant, and amazing historical events that we have in the scriptures. The first of these, which we will see today, is one of my personal favorites. Today we will see the beautiful conversion of a Purple Peddling Proselyte. Stand with me to give honor to and to focus on the reading of the Word of God. Invocation: Father, we are in awe of Your grace this morning. You have stretched forth Your mighty hand and extended peace to all men on whom You favor, and we happen to be inheritors here of that peace. We have known what it is to be Your enemy. And we are now beginning to understand what it means to be Your friend. Today we will look to Your word so that as our Friend You may speak to us and show us what is true and what is real. And that we might see it, believe it and obey it. Give us more grace through the reading and preaching of Your Word… for You have promised it will not return to You empty. We pray this in Jesus' name… Amen. Transition: Let us get right into the text this morning. I am anxious to preach to you the story… of Lydia. I.) The Lord will build His church, we must faithfully follow His leading in making disciples. (11-13) a. [Slide 2] 11 - From Troas we put out to sea and sailed straight for Samothrace, the next day to Neapolis, 12 - and from there to Philippi, a Roman colony and a leading city of the district of Macedonia. We stayed in that city for several days. i. Here we see the four-man mission team act upon the vision given to Paul by the Lord to go to Macedonia. ii. [Slide 3] Luke records their itinerary. iii. They put out to sea and sailed straight for Samothrace. The idea is that they did not have any other stops before arriving in Samothrace. iv. Thrace is another province in the Roman Empire. Samothrace is an island which is part of that province off its southern coast. v. No doubt Samothrace was a good port to send various ships from Macedonia and Thrace and Asia to their various destinations. vi. [Slide 4] From there they sailed to Neapolis vii. From Neapolis they went to Philippi. viii. Many translations add the word Roman here to clarify that Philippi is a colony of Rome and not of some other kingdom. ix. Luke also informs Theophilus that Philippi is the leading or primary city in the district of Macedonia. x. [Slide 5] But we need to unpack this to understand exactly what Luke is saying. 1. Macedonia was a province that was divided into 4 districts. Luke is probably saying that Philippi was the leading city within the particular district they were in. 2. But even when he says leading or primary city, the Greek word means “first” which can mean several different things. 3. Probably Luke intends that Philippi is first in order of honor. Why? 4. Philippi was formed by the Romans as a city comprised of military retirees. 5. As such it was granted the same status as cities within the Apennine or the Italian Peninsula. 6. What does that mean? 7. It was governed by the Roman senate. It had a proconsul from Rome. It was not subject to the Roman poll tax or the Roman land tax, and it operated under Roman law and Roman constitution. 8. Which is exactly what Luke is trying to say when he says Philippi was a Roman colony. Meaning… it had the same status as the cities near Rome itself. Therefore, it was highly honored and favored in the Roman empire. xi. As such it was no doubt quite affluent and well populated; a center for trade and culture. xii. It is here that the mission team will set up shop. And indeed, for several days they stay in the city. b. [Slide 6] 13 - On the Sabbath day we went outside the city gate by the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and spoke to the women gathered there. i. Normally, we see Paul go to the synagogue in a city to begin his ministry. ii. To the Jews first, as he says in the book of Romans. iii. However, in Philippi, we see them go outside the city and down to the river. iv. Here Luke says that they expected to find a place of prayer. Why is that? v. Traditionally it would take 10 Jewish men in order to form a synagogue in a city. vi. It is possible that this is the reason that the mission team expected to find a place of prayer there at the River. vii. However, it is just as possible that the status of this city as Roman colony might have prevented a synagogue from forming within the city limits. viii. Regardless of the cause, in cities in which there was no synagogue, Jewish women would go down to the local body of water, usually a river, and ritually wash themselves and prepare for the Sabbath and spend time in prayer. ix. This is why the missionaries expected to find Jewish people down by the river because there was no synagogue in the city. And so, Paul keeps his pattern of going to the Jews first. x. Having found the place of prayer, the four men sit down and begin speaking and we can infer that they were teaching the gospel. c. [Slide 7] Summary of the Point: Although we had a week break between verse 10 and verse 11, Luke's primary point of teaching is the same or very similar to what he talked about last time and really what he has been talking about in the whole book of Acts. God is the one who providentially prepares both the missionary and the mission. Here, we see our Lord Jesus' words proven true once again. He will build His church. The Spirit of Jesus has guided Paul and his team to Macedonia. He has led them into this district to proclaim the truth of the Word of God. And they have done just that. It is in their obedience that we draw our application. Since the Lord will build His church, we must faithfully follow His leading in making disciples. Just like this missionary team, we must be a tool ready for use in whatever way or place the Lord wishes to use us. Transition: [Slide 8 (blank)] The missionaries are faithful to preach and teach where the Lord has sent them. But what will be the results. Will they find any who have ears to hear? II.) The Lord will build His church, we must trust the Lord with the results of making disciples. (14-15) a. [Slide 9] 14 - A God-fearing woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, was listening. i. As the scene goes forward, Luke blasts us with all kinds of details. Each of these details provide for us some interesting clues as to who this woman is. ii. First, we find that Lydia is a God-fearing woman. 1. If the usage is consistent with what Luke has said previously, it is no doubt right to assume that this woman is a gentile who had converted to Judaism. 2. Since women cannot participate in the sign of circumcision, this would prevent her from becoming a true proselyte. 3. Nevertheless, she is as close to being a Jewish proselyte as she can be. iii. Luke also tells us that she is a dealer in purple cloth. 1. Since we will see later that she has a house and a household in the city, it strongly suggests that she is either widowed or divorced. If this were the case, Roman cultural norms would allow her to own her own business and conduct trade to provide for herself and her family and any other dependents she might have. 2. Being a dealer in purple cloth means that she had a business catering to only the wealthiest in the Roman empire. Purple dye was a very costly commodity at that time, which means any cloth dyed with it would be a costly cloth. 3. This probably means that she traveled often both to get cloth and to get dye, and that she probably provided quite well for herself. iv. [Slide 10] Luke records that she is named Lydia and that she is from Thyatira. 1. The name Lydia means “from Lydia” Which is the area called Asia at this time. 2. It was the very same district that Paul was forbidden by the Holy Spirit to go to before sailing for Macedonia. 3. It is interesting that the very first person Luke records Paul speaking with, is from that same area. 4. By Luke pointing out she was from Thyatira, it does two things for us. a. First, it specifies where in Asia she is from. She is from the city of Thyatira. b. Second, Thyatira was a city famous for its wool trade and purple dye. Hence there is a connection here to her purple trade. c. There is no indication as to what her situation was in Philippi. She has a home here, but is this a temporary residence or did she move here from Thyatira? We do not know. v. [Slide 11] Lastly, Luke records that she was listening to what Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Luke were teaching. An interesting point with wonderful implications that we'll explore later. b. [Slide 12] The Lord opened her heart to respond to what Paul was saying. i. This single statement by Luke is one of the most transparent looks we have available to us in all the New Testament to the inner workings of how God saves someone. ii. We know that God saves us and that we cannot do anything to save ourselves. In fact, the bible frequently tells us that our salvation is not of our own works. iii. And yet the scriptures implore us to repent and believe on Jesus. iv. To add further to the confusion of this riddle, the scriptures indicate to us that repentance and faith are both gifts of God. v. We see in other passages that no man desires to repent for they love their sin and that no man desires to believe because it is foolishness to gentiles and a stumbling block to the Jews. vi. Paul even says that no man seeks after God. And when he says this, he is simply quoting the Old Testament. Meaning men have always been this way. vii. So how do we put these things together? How can repentance and faith be gifts, how can God do all that is necessary for our salvation, how can man be unable and unwilling to repent and believe and yet God calls on us to repent and believe? viii. Is this some cruel joke that God is playing on us? Commanding us to do something we cannot do? ix. Remember what Jesus said, with man it is impossible but with God all things are possible. x. Somehow this tension is true on both sides without taking anything away from either. And right here in the story of Lydia we see how. xi. Paul and his team were preaching. They were doing what they could do humanly. xii. Lydia was listening. She was doing all she could do humanly. xiii. At this point… God does what is necessary to bring Lydia to salvation. xiv. He opens her heart. Another word we could put here… is regeneration. He gives her a heart of flesh that is soft and malleable instead of a heart of stone which is hard and unyielding. xv. Dead things don't breathe. Hard things done bend. Closed doors shut things out. xvi. But God opened Lydia's heart. He brought her to life. He birthed her anew. xvii. Why? xviii. So that she could respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ. xix. The word translated respond here means to listen to the point of agreeing. It means to heed. xx. What are we to make of this? Could Lydia have responded without God opening her heart? xxi. Although Luke does not say it – the rest of the New Testament agrees. No. She could not have responded. For she was dead. Her heart was closed. xxii. But God made her alive so that she could respond in repentance and belief. Thus, the riddle is answered. xxiii. Salvation is all of God. Not in that we never do anything… but in that we can do nothing without God's work happening in each individual… first. c. [Slide 13] 15 - After she and her household were baptized, she urged us, “If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us. i. [Slide 14] And upon this verse, and almost this one alone, is built the entire belief that the infants of Christian parents ought to be baptized into the church. 1. Now I will grant that Luke shortcuts quite a bit here. 2. Luke almost states in passing that she and her household were baptized so he can get to her offer of her home. 3. We are kinda left wondering… wait what? What happened Luke? 4. Luke has consistently portrayed the order as repentance, belief, Spirit indwelling and then baptism. So much so that he should be able to short cut things for us expecting us to make the intuitive leap. 5. The last time we saw someone's household be baptized, it was apparent that the Holy Spirit descended upon them first and then they were baptized with water. 6. In fact, the text said specifically that those who had received the Spirit were baptized. 7. Are we to ignore the context of the book of Acts to assume that Luke and Paul and Silas and Timothy baptized everyone there even if they did not have the Holy Spirit? Even if they did not possess saving faith? Even if they did not respond to the gospel? Even if they did not repent? 8. Literally every example we have had up to this point has been of people repenting, believing, receiving the Spirit of God, and then being baptized. 9. Is it more likely that the order doesn't matter or is it more likely that Luke expects us to fill in the gaps of this story. 10. For me, it makes much more sense that Luke expects Theophilus to understand the order, since he's seen it multiple times. 11. By saying that she and her household were baptized, Theophilus should, and so should we, assume that they too repented and believed on Christ like Lydia did. ii. If this is the case, what then is meant by the word household? Because if it includes infants, they either must be able to believe or they must have been baptized without possessing faith. There really isn't a third option. 1. For us today, household would mean Father, mother, and children. 2. But in the 1st century, the term household could be applied much more broadly. 3. At this time the term household meant slaves, extended family, and others who stayed in your home or estate and depended on you to provide for them. 4. In other words, we do not need to import infant children into this, since the term household does not necessarily imply it. 5. if there were children included, it is reasonable to assume that they were of an age in which they were able to follow the same order as has been established already in the book of Acts. That they also repented and believed on Christ for salvation and were then baptized. iii. Having said all this there are two cautions I'd like to throw out to we Baptists… 1. First, is to humbly recognize that we are a minority heterodox position on this issue in comparison to greater Christendom. a. Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Orthodox churches (Eastern and others), Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Morovians, Nazareans, Methodists, Wesleyans and Congregationalist churches all practice infant baptism. b. Only Pentecostal, Baptist, and Bible churches object to infant baptism. c. What does that mean? It means that we should be humble about our opinion on this matter. d. I can't see infant baptism in the scripture, but most of the church through most of the history of the church disagrees with me. e. Yes, Scripture is my final authority… but I must be cautious when I arrive at an opinion about scriptural interpretation that is shared by so few in all of Christendom. 2. Second, we must understand that not all pedobaptists are the same. a. Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, The Orthodox church, and Lutherans all believe in a baptism which in some way contributes to the salvation of the soul of the one being baptized. b. But Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, Wesleyans and congregationalist churches do not. c. The second group actually has some well-reasoned and logical arguments for why they baptize infants. I personally have not found them very convincing… but they are not trying to undo scripture. Instead, they are viewing infant baptism in light of scripture. iv. With these two cautions I have one final concluding thought on this issue. It is by no means bible, and it is not the official position of the church or even agreed upon by the Elders of our church, but it is my personal opinion and perspective about this matter. Therefore, I reserve the right to change my opinion in the future and you can ignore me completely if you wish

Could a Catholic be on the Throne of England? In this final episode of our series on the Puritan movement, we hear how the Church of England worked through this question with Catholic James as heir to the throne. Learn about the creation of the Whigs and Tories, the reign of King James, how religious freedom ebbs and flows during this period, and the Act of Toleration in 1689 that finally allowed dissenting churches (Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians) freedom of worship, although not yet freedom to participate in government. It wouldn't be until the 1829 Catholic Emancipation Act that Roman Catholics would be granted admission to politics in England. Rev. Dr. Cameron A. MacKenzie, Professor of Historical Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana, joins Andy and Sarah for our nine-episode series on the History of the Puritan Movement in England. Find more from Dr. MacKenzie at video.ctsfw.edu. Interested in going deeper? Recommended reading from Dr. MacKenzie includes Worldly Saints by Leland Ryken, English Puritanism by John Spurr, Reformation in England by Peter Marshall, Puritan Christianity in America: Religion and Life in 17th Century Massachusetts by John Carden, and Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan.

The King and Parliament went to war in 1642 and changed the course of the monarchy. In episode 7 in our series on the Puritan movement, the reformation of the Church of England moves ahead when Westminster Abbey discovers the disunity within Puritan belief and practice. Learn how the Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists differentiate themselves, the most contentious doctrinal points, and how these groups became settled in America. Rev. Dr. Cameron A. MacKenzie, Professor of Historical Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana, joins Andy and Sarah for our nine-episode series on the History of the Puritan Movement in England. Find more from Dr. MacKenzie at video.ctsfw.edu. Interested in going deeper? Recommended reading from Dr. MacKenzie includes Worldly Saints by Leland Ryken, English Puritanism by John Spurr, Reformation in England by Peter Marshall, Puritan Christianity in America: Religion and Life in 17th Century Massachusetts by John Carden, and Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan.

Timothy Dwight -May 14, 1752 - January 11, 1817- was an American academic and educator, a Congregationalist minister, theologian, and author. He was the eighth president of Yale College -1795-1817-. He was also a grandson of Jonathan Edwards

Timothy Dwight -May 14, 1752 - January 11, 1817- was an American academic and educator, a Congregationalist minister, theologian, and author. He was the eighth president of Yale College -1795-1817-. He was also a grandson of Jonathan Edwards

Timothy Dwight (May 14, 1752 – January 11, 1817) was an American academic and educator, a Congregationalist minister, theologian, and author. He was the eighth president of Yale College (1795–1817). He was also a grandson of Jonathan Edwards

fWotD Episode 2632: John D. Whitney Welcome to Featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia’s finest articles.The featured article for Friday, 19 July 2024 is John D. Whitney.John Dunning Whitney (July 19, 1850 – November 27, 1917) was an American Catholic priest and Jesuit who became the president of Georgetown University in 1898. Born in Massachusetts, he joined the United States Navy at the age of sixteen, where he was introduced to Catholicism by way of a book that accidentally came into his possession and prompted him to become a Catholic. He entered the Society of Jesus and spent the next twenty-five years studying and teaching mathematics at Jesuit institutions around the world, including in Canada, England, Ireland, and around the United States in New York, Maryland, Boston, and Louisiana. He became the vice president of Spring Hill College in Alabama before being appointed the president of Georgetown University.During his three-year tenure, a number of improvements were made to the campus, including the completion of Gaston Hall and the construction of the entrances to Healy Hall. The Georgetown University Hospital and what would become the School of Dentistry were also established. After the end of his term, he went to Boston College for several years as treasurer before doing pastoral work in Philadelphia, Brooklyn, and Baltimore, where he became the prefect of St. Ignatius Church. He continued to spend time at Boston College, where he died in 1917.John Dunning Whitney was born on July 19, 1850, in Nantucket, Massachusetts. Descending from a prominent family, his father was Thomas G. Whitney and his mother was Esther A. Whitney née Dunning. Esther was a devout Congregationalist and John was raised in that faith. He was sent to several public and private schools, including Nantucket High School, before entering the United States Navy in 1866. While serving as a lieutenant aboard the schoolship USS Mercury, he had a religious conversion experience.Aboard the Mercury, he would often discuss religion with a shipmate, who argued that none of the Protestant churches were the one true church, and that either the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the Catholic Church was the true church. Whitney was also able to compare the different practices of the Protestant and Catholic chaplains aboard the ship. His conversations with his shipmate convinced Whitney to consider "the claims of the Catholic church". In August 1870, the Mercury was in Newport, Rhode Island, to attend the America's Cup. The captain invited a newlywed Catholic couple aboard to return to New York City from the yacht races. While sailing through the Long Island Sound, the bride dropped a book overboard, and the executive officer had a dinghy lowered into the water to retrieve it. After disembarking in New York, the bride left the book behind, which Whitney discovered to be The Invitation Heeded: Reasons for a Return to Catholic Unity by James Kent Stone, who later became a Passionist priest known as Father Fidelis; the book was written in response to Pope Pius IX's call for all Christians to return to the Mother Church.Having read the book repeatedly, he approached one of the ship's chaplains, Dominic Duranquet, a Jesuit, and declared that if its contents were true, then he must become a Catholic. After being instructed to pray and study further, he requested to be received into the Catholic Church, with Stone as his godfather. On November 2, 1870 (All Souls' Day), Whitney was conditionally baptized by Duranquet in the Church of St. Paul the Apostle in New York City.Whitney entered the Society of Jesus on August 14, 1872, in the Sault-au-Récollet neighborhood of Montreal, Canada, where he remained for two years. He went to Manresa House in the Roehampton district of London, England, in 1875 to study rhetoric for a year, and then to Stonyhurst College in Lancashire for three years to study philosophy. He taught mathematics for a year before returning to the United States in 1880, where he continued to teach mathematics at St. Francis Xavier College in New York City for four years.In 1884, he went to Woodstock College in Maryland to study theology. The following year, he was sent to Mobile, Alabama, where he was ordained a priest on August 15, 1885. He began teaching mathematics in 1886 at Spring Hill College, and eventually became vice president of the school. After four years at Spring Hill College, he went to Ireland in 1890, where he studied theology at Milltown Park in Dublin, before returning to Roehampton for his tertianship in 1892.Whitney then returned to the United States, and began teaching mathematics at St. Charles College in Grand Coteau, Louisiana, from 1893 to 1895. He was transferred to the College of the Immaculate Conception in New Orleans in 1897, and then to St. John's College in The Bronx, later known as Fordham University.Whitney was appointed president of Georgetown University on July 3, 1898, succeeding J. Havens Richards. During his presidency, a number of improvements to the campus were made. The Georgetown University Hospital was opened and the first patient was accepted. Gaston Hall was decorated and completed in 1901. That year, the university also received a donation from Anthony A. Hirst, a wealthy resident of Philadelphia and alumnus of Georgetown College and Law School, to construct Hirst Library inside Healy Hall. The main and center entrances to Healy Hall were completed, walkways were paved, and several campus buildings were renovated, including Dahlgren Chapel.In 1901, Whitney convinced the faculty of the School of Medicine to reconsider the proposal of a local dentist, W. Warrington Evans, to absorb his Washington Dental College as a department of the medical school, a proposal he had been tendering to the university since 1870. The medical faculty accepted the arrangement in May 1901, and the Washington Dental College became a department in late July. It would eventually become the university's School of Dentistry.On May 14, 1901, the university hosted Archbishop Sebastiano Martinelli, the Apostolic Delegate to the United States, upon his elevation to the College of Cardinals. The grand reception in Healy Hall was attended by the students and faculty in their academic regalia, as well as many dignitaries, including the Secretary of War Elihu Root, all the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, all the justices of the federal District of Columbia Court of Appeals (later renamed to a circuit court), most of the foreign ambassadors to the United States, many military and naval commanders, and the faculties of other local universities. While Whitney was popular with the students, the Jesuit provincial superior decided not to renew his term as president, believing he had placed too much emphasis on athletics and was spendthrifty. Whitney's tenure as president came to an end on July 11, 1901, and he was succeeded by Jerome Daugherty.Following the end of his presidency at Georgetown, Whitney became the treasurer of Boston College in 1902 and held this post until 1907. While in Massachusetts, he also worked closely with the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, a female religious order. He then left Boston to take up ministry at St. Joseph's Church in Philadelphia, before becoming the prefect of St. Ignatius Church in Baltimore in August 1909. He succeeded Francis X. Brady, who left to become president of Loyola College in Maryland, and Whitney was stationed at St. Ignatius for the remainder of his life.While at St. Ignatius, he directed the sodality of St. Ignatius Church, which administered the W. G. Read Mullan Scholarship. He spent the year of 1912 in Brooklyn, away from his parish. In May 1916, his health began to deteriorate, and he spent part of 1917 at Boston College in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, where he died on November 27 of that year. His funeral was held in the Church of the Immaculate Conception in Boston and he was buried at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:33 UTC on Friday, 19 July 2024.For the full current version of the article, see John D. Whitney 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 Joanna.

This Day in Legal History: Act of Toleration EnactedOn May 24, 1689, the Parliament of England enacted the Act of Toleration, a pivotal law that granted religious freedom to English Protestants. This legislation marked a significant shift in England's religious landscape, as it allowed non-Anglican Protestants, such as Baptists and Congregationalists, to practice their faith without fear of persecution. However, this tolerance came with limitations: it excluded Roman Catholics and non-Trinitarian Protestants, leaving them outside the protection of the Act.The Act of Toleration emerged in the context of the Glorious Revolution, which saw William of Orange and his wife Mary ascend to the English throne. Their reign, beginning in 1688, was characterized by a move towards greater religious and political stability. The Act was a response to the religious strife that had plagued England for decades, providing a framework for more inclusive, albeit limited, religious coexistence.Despite its exclusions, the Act of Toleration laid the groundwork for future expansions of religious freedom. It required dissenting Protestants to pledge allegiance to the Crown and reject the authority of the Pope, thus maintaining a degree of control over the newly tolerated groups. This compromise allowed for religious diversity while ensuring loyalty to the monarchy.The Act's passage was a milestone in the evolution of religious liberty in England, reflecting the changing attitudes towards religious pluralism. While it did not end all religious discrimination, it represented a step towards a more tolerant society. Over time, the principles enshrined in the Act influenced broader movements for religious freedom and civil rights, both in England and beyond.The significance of the Act of Toleration lies not only in its immediate effects but also in its lasting impact on the development of religious tolerance as a fundamental value in democratic societies.A Democratic operative, Steve Kramer, faces state criminal charges and a federal fine for using AI to fake President Joe Biden's voice in robocalls aimed at discouraging Democratic voters in the New Hampshire primary. Kramer, working for Biden's primary challenger Dean Phillips, was charged with 13 felony counts of voter suppression and 13 misdemeanors for impersonating a candidate. The FCC proposed a $6 million fine for the robocalls, which spoofed a local political consultant's number.New Hampshire Attorney General John M. Formella emphasized that these actions aim to deter election interference using AI. The incident has heightened concerns about AI's potential misuse in elections. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel proposed a rule requiring political advertisers to disclose AI use in ads, while the FCC also proposed a $2 million fine against Lingo Telecom for transmitting the calls.The AI-generated robocall, circulated just before the primary, used Biden's catchphrase and urged voters to stay home. Despite this, Democratic leaders encouraged a write-in campaign for Biden, leading to high voter turnout in his favor.Faked Biden Robocall Results in Charges for Democratic OperativeThe US Supreme Court has made it more challenging for Black and minority voters to contest the use of race in legislative redistricting, according to civil rights advocates. In a 6-3 ruling, the conservative majority determined that South Carolina voters failed to prove that race, rather than partisanship, influenced Republican legislators when drawing district lines. This decision raises the bar for proving racial gerrymandering and could impact redistricting cases nationwide, not just in South Carolina's 1st Congressional District.Leah Aden of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund expressed concern that it is becoming increasingly difficult for plaintiffs to demonstrate racial discrimination. The ruling, which precedes the upcoming November election, could affect similar challenges in states like North Carolina and Tennessee.Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, emphasized a presumption that legislatures act in good faith, making it harder to prove racial intent without blatant evidence. Critics argue this standard allows legislators to use partisan motives as a defense against claims of racial gerrymandering.The decision follows the Supreme Court's 2019 ruling that federal courts cannot oversee partisan gerrymandering claims, further complicating challenges to discriminatory redistricting. Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent, criticized the majority for favoring state arguments and making it tougher for challengers to succeed. This case underscores the evolving legal landscape surrounding voting rights and redistricting in the US.Supreme Court Conservatives Add New Minority Voter RoadblocksA Jackson Walker partner alleged that former Texas bankruptcy judge David R. Jones requested the firm to file a potentially false disclosure about his relationship with attorney Elizabeth Freeman. This disclosure came amidst ongoing litigation involving Jones, Freeman, and Jackson Walker, who are accused of concealing their relationship. The scandal follows Jones' resignation after admitting to the romance.In late 2022, Jones wanted the relationship kept secret as Jackson Walker negotiated with Freeman regarding its disclosure. Despite Freeman's earlier claims that the relationship had ended, the firm discovered in February 2022 that it was ongoing. After confronting Freeman, she admitted the relationship had been rekindled.Jackson Walker's recent filings argue they shouldn't be held liable for Jones' misconduct and urge rejection of the US Trustee's efforts to reclaim $13 million in fees. Jones allegedly provided a misleading proposed disclosure that omitted the romantic aspect of his relationship with Freeman and insisted the firm use it in future cases. Jackson Walker refused and proceeded to separate from Freeman.The firm claims it acted reasonably and didn't breach any ethical rules, pointing out that the US Trustee hasn't penalized Jones or Freeman. The Justice Department's bankruptcy monitor seeks to recover fees from cases where Jackson Walker failed to disclose the relationship. The case highlights the complex ethical and legal issues surrounding judicial conduct and professional responsibilities.Jackson Walker Says Judge Tried to Mislead Court on Romance (2)The U.S. Justice Department, along with 30 states, has filed a lawsuit against Live Nation and its Ticketmaster unit, accusing them of monopolizing concert tickets and promotions. The case, filed in Manhattan federal court, aims to break up Live Nation. Leading the legal team is Jonathan Kanter, head of the DOJ's antitrust division, with Bonny Sweeney as the lead attorney. Sweeney, a veteran antitrust litigator, previously co-headed the antitrust group at Hausfeld and has extensive experience in high-profile cases against companies like Google, Apple, and major credit card firms.Live Nation and Ticketmaster are defended by teams from Latham & Watkins and Cravath, Swaine & Moore, which have deep experience in antitrust defense. The companies deny the allegations and plan to fight the lawsuit. Latham & Watkins, which has long defended Live Nation in private consumer lawsuits and was involved in the 2010 merger approval, has Daniel Wall, a seasoned antitrust defender, as their executive vice president for corporate and regulatory affairs. Cravath's team, led by Christine Varney, former head of the DOJ's antitrust division, also represents major clients like Epic Games in similar high-stakes litigation.US legal team in Live Nation lawsuit includes veteran plaintiffs' attorney | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach. This week's closing theme takes us back to the 18th century, honoring a pivotal figure in the transition from the Baroque to the Classical era: Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach. Born in 1714, C.P.E. Bach was the second surviving son of prolific composer Johann Sebastian Bach. Despite his illustrious lineage, C.P.E. Bach carved out his own distinct legacy, becoming one of the most influential composers of his time in his own right.Today, we commemorate his contributions to classical music as we mark the anniversary of his death on May 24, 1788. Known for his expressive and innovative style, C.P.E. Bach's music bridges the complexity of Baroque counterpoint with the emerging Classical clarity and form. His works had a profound impact on later composers, including Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven.One of his most celebrated pieces is the "Solfeggietto in C minor," H. 220, Wq. 117/2. This energetic and technically demanding keyboard composition remains a favorite among pianists and continues to captivate audiences with its vibrant character and virtuosic passages. The "Solfeggietto" exemplifies C.P.E. Bach's mastery of the empfindsamer Stil, or 'sensitive style,' characterized by its emotional expressiveness and dynamic contrasts.As we listen to the "Solfeggietto," let us reflect on the enduring legacy of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, whose music continues to inspire and delight over two centuries after his passing. Join us in celebrating his remarkable contributions as we close this week with the lively and spirited sounds of his timeless composition.Without further ado, “Solfeggietto in C minor” by Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, enjoy.  Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

"D” is for Dorchester. In 1697 Congregationalists from Massachusetts settled on the north bank of the Ashley River and founded Dorchester as a market village twenty miles northwest of Charleston.

For today's service, hear a Universalist parable about a loving father, a drunken son, and a flaming pit. And learn how the term "Unitarian" was deployed as an insult at heretical thinkers, some of whom died for their beliefs. That is, until on May 5, 1819, when Rev. William Ellery Channing, the leader of the liberal Congregationalists split with the conservative Congregationalists, planted a stake in the ground, raised a flag, and declared "we ARE Unitarians." Along with the usual announcements, and spoken and musical merriment.Choir direction by Alex Pietsch. "Winds, Waves, Water, Earth" and "A Day of Inspiration" by Alex Pietsch. Copyright 2023. All Rights Reserved.Intro and outro background music by Tim Moor at Pixabay.UUMAN is a welcoming congregation and we thank you for taking the time to get to know us a bit better. You can learn more about us by visiting our website at www.UUMAN.orgUnitarian Universalism is a religion based on seven moral principles which promote the inherent worth of all people and each individual's search for truth and meaning. Learn more at uua.org UUMAN is a 501(c)3 organization under the Internal Revenue Code. Your contribution is deductible to the full extent provided by law. https://www.uuman.org/donate/UUMAN - Unitarian Universalist Metro Atlanta North 11420 Crabapple Rd, Roswell, GA 30075 (770) 992-3949 YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcRwJlKGVhksTvxKeCXhxeQ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/UUMAN.ATL Twitter https://twitter.com/UUMAN_ATL #UUMAN #Unitarian #Universalist #Universalism #UU

Known as the Father of American Missions, the Congregationalist and later Particular Baptist missionary served in Burma for almost 40 years.

The Westminster Confession of Faith is a formalised theological statement of Reformed Christianity. It declares what was accepted by the Presbyterians, the Reformed Anglicans, and the Congregationalists of 17th Century Britain. Such confessions are very useful declarations of faith, and very useful teaching tools. Indeed, upon ordination, those that subscribe fully to such a confession, are to subscribe to it as a confession of their own faith. But, on a less formal level, the confession of faith, and the experience of faith are two intertwined truths of every born-again believer- --1. The Word Preached--2. The Word Confessed--3. The Word Believed--4. The Word Promised

Chelsea and I start a new series about the Christian revivals in American history.The controversy over the recent "Asbury revival" drove us to ask the question "What is a revival?"Using a dictionary, Scripture, and a Spurgeon quote, we come up with a working definition of a revival. Then, we dive deep into the setting of the American colonies in the 1600's and early 1700's.As church life was decaying since the first generation of pilgrims covenanted the first Congregational churches in the Massachusetts Bay colony, pastors begin to look for revival.Congregationalist churches practiced infant baptism but only granted church membership to attendees who could evidence regeneration. As the first generation's children became adults but didn't become fully covenanted members, could their children be baptized? Could they partake of the Lord's Supper? Boston pastor Richard Mather argued that the children were proper covenant members in some sense. The question remained whether to baptize children of "unregenerate" members into the third generation.In 1662, Mather collaborated on what became known as the Half-Way Covenant to revive the church with a structural and political solution. Would it work? Scriptures Referenced:Psalm 85:6-8Acts 2:16-18Matthew 7:15-16Titus 3:9,5Sources Consulted:"Revival," Websters Dictionary 1828, Accessed February 19, 2023.C. H. Spurgeon, "What Is a Revival?" Sword and Trowel, December 1866.Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Richard Mather." Encyclopedia Britannica, January 1, 2023."BIOGRAPHY: RICHARD MATHER (1596-1669)," The Mather Project, Accessed February 19, 2023.Richard Mather, "A DISPUTATION CONCERNING Church-Members AND THEIR CHILDREN IN ANSWER to 21 QUESTIONS," 1657.*** Castle Rock Women's Health is a pro-life and pro-women health care ministry. They need your help to move into a new office to serve the community better. Please consider a monthly or one-time donation. ***We value your feedback!Have questions for Truthspresso? Contact us!

Chelsea and I start a new series about the Christian revivals in American history. The controversy over the recent "Asbury revival" drove us to ask the question "What is a revival?" Using a dictionary, Scripture, and a Spurgeon quote, we come up with a working definition of a revival. Then, we dive deep into the setting of the American colonies in the 1600's and early 1700's. As church life was decaying since the first generation of pilgrims covenanted the first Congregational churches in the Massachusetts Bay colony, pastors begin to look for revival. Congregationalist churches practiced infant baptism but only granted church membership to attendees who could evidence regeneration. As the first generation's children became adults but didn't become fully covenanted members, could their children be baptized? Could they partake of the Lord's Supper? Boston pastor Richard Mather argued that the children were proper covenant members in some sense. The question remained whether to baptize children of "unregenerate" members into the third generation. In 1662, Mather collaborated on what became known as the Half-Way Covenant to revive the church with a structural and political solution. Would it work? Scriptures Referenced: Psalm 85:6-8 Acts 2:16-18 Matthew 7:15-16 Titus 3:9,5 Sources Consulted: "Revival," Websters Dictionary 1828, Accessed February 19, 2023. C. H. Spurgeon, "What Is a Revival?" Sword and Trowel, December 1866. Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Richard Mather." Encyclopedia Britannica, January 1, 2023. "BIOGRAPHY: RICHARD MATHER (1596-1669)," The Mather Project, Accessed February 19, 2023. Richard Mather, "A DISPUTATION CONCERNING Church-Members AND THEIR CHILDREN IN ANSWER to 21 QUESTIONS," 1657. *** Castle Rock Women's Health is a pro-life and pro-women health care ministry. They need your help to move into a new office to serve the community better. Please consider a monthly or one-time donation. *** We value your feedback! Have questions for Truthspresso? Contact us!

Chelsea and I start a new series about the Christian revivals in American history.The controversy over the recent "Asbury revival" drove us to ask the question "What is a revival?"Using a dictionary, Scripture, and a Spurgeon quote, we come up with a working definition of a revival. Then, we dive deep into the setting of the American colonies in the 1600's and early 1700's.As church life was decaying since the first generation of pilgrims covenanted the first Congregational churches in the Massachusetts Bay colony, pastors begin to look for revival.Congregationalist churches practiced infant baptism but only granted church membership to attendees who could evidence regeneration. As the first generation's children became adults but didn't become fully covenanted members, could their children be baptized? Could they partake of the Lord's Supper? Boston pastor Richard Mather argued that the children were proper covenant members in some sense. The question remained whether to baptize children of "unregenerate" members into the third generation.In 1662, Mather collaborated on what became known as the Half-Way Covenant to revive the church with a structural and political solution. Would it work? Scriptures Referenced:Psalm 85:6-8Acts 2:16-18Matthew 7:15-16Titus 3:9,5Sources Consulted:"Revival," Websters Dictionary 1828, Accessed February 19, 2023.C. H. Spurgeon, "What Is a Revival?" Sword and Trowel, December 1866.Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Richard Mather." Encyclopedia Britannica, January 1, 2023."BIOGRAPHY: RICHARD MATHER (1596-1669)," The Mather Project, Accessed February 19, 2023.Richard Mather, "A DISPUTATION CONCERNING Church-Members AND THEIR CHILDREN IN ANSWER to 21 QUESTIONS," 1657.*** Castle Rock Women's Health is a pro-life and pro-women health care ministry. They need your help to move into a new office to serve the community better. Please consider a monthly or one-time donation. ***We value your feedback!Have questions for Truthspresso? Contact us!

Thomas Condon didn't set out to become a geologist; he was a Congregationalist minister with a hobby of collecting fossils. And although over the years his hobby took over, he never lost touch with his ministerial kindliness. (Oregon Caves, Josephine County; 1880s) (For text and pictures, see http://offbeatoregon.com/1610e.thomas-condon-oregon-caves-415.html)

In this episode, Dr. Glenn Moots and I discuss several related aspects of Christianity and politics. We dive into Moots's history in the church and academy while exploring his understanding of Christian Reconstructionism. We get into the topic of Christian Nationalism and a state church. We dig into the magisterial protestant perspective on Christianity and politics and what it has to offer us today. What is the relationship of the church and state? What would America look like if Christian Nationalists had their way? What place would Baptists have in a magisterial Protestant nation? Why is choosing between religious pluralism and establishment a false dilemma?Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/chasedavis“How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Christian Nationalism” - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v-utekNec80&feature=emb_titleGlenn Moots on Althusius - https://lawliberty.org/classic/rereading-politica-in-the-post-liberal-moment/“Politics Reformed” - https://amzn.to/3FKBZZf“Justifying Revolution: Law, Virtue, and Violence in the American War of Independence” - https://amzn.to/3fxS0qXLaw and Liberty - Moots - https://lawliberty.org/author/glenn-moots/Support the showSign up for the Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/chasedavisFollow Full Proof Theology on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/fullprooftheology/Follow Full Proof Theology on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/fullprooftheology/

OUTLINE Union Communion INTRODUCTION Today we want to conclude our look at the doctrine of the Trinity. There are many aspects of the doctrine we have not explored. This is indeed one of the deepest doctrines we could ever hope to encounter as we are dealing with the triune nature of God. There are complexities here which can occupy the Christian for eternity. But we want to look at the practical value of this doctrine before we leave it. The doctrine of the Trinity is not just a mystery to occupy the intellectually curious, not it is the very heart of our faith and worship. Many people who don't like history or technical discussions may feel put off thinking about the Trinity, but we must think on the Trinity and how God being one God in Three modes of subsistence impacts on our lives. The Savoy Declaration and the 1689 have a phrase that the WCF does not have at the end of paragraph 3, ‘which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him.' One of the key framers of the Savoy was John Owen, a Congregationalist and probably the best theologian among the Puritans. He is likely the author of this addition. He wrote a book called ‘Of Communion With God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Each Person Distinctly in Love, Grace and Consolation, or The Saints Fellowship with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Unfolded.' This book is considered one of the great classics of Christian devotion. If anyone is interested in reading it I have a free pdf of an up to date English translation I can email to you. In this book Owen explores how the Christian is saved by and worships God as Father,... Read More Source

Price of Passage: A Tale of Immigration and Liberation (DX Varos, 2022), Larry Sommers opens in 1853 in Norway, where only firstborn sons inherited their father's land and estate. Other children had to fend for themselves. Anders realizes that the only way he can live a life of honor is to flee to America. He escapes his uncle's home, hides in a boat builder's barn, and is nearly killed by Maria, a childhood friend. But they talk, and he tells her about his plans to be a farmer in southern Illinois. Anders nearly ruins his chance of reaching Illinois when he tries to stop someone from apprehending a runaway slave. It's a crime punishable by jail time and a hefty fine, but luckily, a kind gentleman intervenes and ends up hiring Anders to help on his farm. When Daniel, the runaway slave, turns up a few years later, Daniel and Maria hide him in their barn. This is a novel about immigrants, home, slavery, freedom and living a life of honor. Larry F. Sommers is a Wisconsin writer of historical fiction, seeking fresh meanings in our common past. He won Honorable Mention in The Saturday Evening Post's 2018 Great American Story Contest for “The Lion's Den,” a tale of childhood in the 1950s, and has published other, similar stories in the online version of The Saturday Evening Post. He served as editor of The Congregationalist, a national church-related quarterly magazine, from 2009 to 2016 and previously worked 23 years in the Public Affairs Office of the Wisconsin National Guard/Wisconsin Emergency Management as a writer, editor, photographer, writing coach, and public affairs consultant in a fast-paced environment punctuated by crisis communication events. A Vietnam-era veteran of the U.S. Air Force, he is active in church work and is a member of the Sons of Norway and two local writers' critique groups. He lives in Madison, Wisconsin, with his wife and dog. G.P. Gottlieb is the author of the Whipped and Sipped Mystery Series and a prolific baker of healthful breads and pastries. Please contact her through her website (GPGottlieb.com). 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

Price of Passage: A Tale of Immigration and Liberation (DX Varos, 2022), Larry Sommers opens in 1853 in Norway, where only firstborn sons inherited their father's land and estate. Other children had to fend for themselves. Anders realizes that the only way he can live a life of honor is to flee to America. He escapes his uncle's home, hides in a boat builder's barn, and is nearly killed by Maria, a childhood friend. But they talk, and he tells her about his plans to be a farmer in southern Illinois. Anders nearly ruins his chance of reaching Illinois when he tries to stop someone from apprehending a runaway slave. It's a crime punishable by jail time and a hefty fine, but luckily, a kind gentleman intervenes and ends up hiring Anders to help on his farm. When Daniel, the runaway slave, turns up a few years later, Daniel and Maria hide him in their barn. This is a novel about immigrants, home, slavery, freedom and living a life of honor. Larry F. Sommers is a Wisconsin writer of historical fiction, seeking fresh meanings in our common past. He won Honorable Mention in The Saturday Evening Post's 2018 Great American Story Contest for “The Lion's Den,” a tale of childhood in the 1950s, and has published other, similar stories in the online version of The Saturday Evening Post. He served as editor of The Congregationalist, a national church-related quarterly magazine, from 2009 to 2016 and previously worked 23 years in the Public Affairs Office of the Wisconsin National Guard/Wisconsin Emergency Management as a writer, editor, photographer, writing coach, and public affairs consultant in a fast-paced environment punctuated by crisis communication events. A Vietnam-era veteran of the U.S. Air Force, he is active in church work and is a member of the Sons of Norway and two local writers' critique groups. He lives in Madison, Wisconsin, with his wife and dog. G.P. Gottlieb is the author of the Whipped and Sipped Mystery Series and a prolific baker of healthful breads and pastries. Please contact her through her website (GPGottlieb.com). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literature

Price of Passage: A Tale of Immigration and Liberation (DX Varos, 2022), Larry Sommers opens in 1853 in Norway, where only firstborn sons inherited their father's land and estate. Other children had to fend for themselves. Anders realizes that the only way he can live a life of honor is to flee to America. He escapes his uncle's home, hides in a boat builder's barn, and is nearly killed by Maria, a childhood friend. But they talk, and he tells her about his plans to be a farmer in southern Illinois. Anders nearly ruins his chance of reaching Illinois when he tries to stop someone from apprehending a runaway slave. It's a crime punishable by jail time and a hefty fine, but luckily, a kind gentleman intervenes and ends up hiring Anders to help on his farm. When Daniel, the runaway slave, turns up a few years later, Daniel and Maria hide him in their barn. This is a novel about immigrants, home, slavery, freedom and living a life of honor. Larry F. Sommers is a Wisconsin writer of historical fiction, seeking fresh meanings in our common past. He won Honorable Mention in The Saturday Evening Post's 2018 Great American Story Contest for “The Lion's Den,” a tale of childhood in the 1950s, and has published other, similar stories in the online version of The Saturday Evening Post. He served as editor of The Congregationalist, a national church-related quarterly magazine, from 2009 to 2016 and previously worked 23 years in the Public Affairs Office of the Wisconsin National Guard/Wisconsin Emergency Management as a writer, editor, photographer, writing coach, and public affairs consultant in a fast-paced environment punctuated by crisis communication events. A Vietnam-era veteran of the U.S. Air Force, he is active in church work and is a member of the Sons of Norway and two local writers' critique groups. He lives in Madison, Wisconsin, with his wife and dog. G.P. Gottlieb is the author of the Whipped and Sipped Mystery Series and a prolific baker of healthful breads and pastries. Please contact her through her website (GPGottlieb.com). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/historical-fiction

God's Opportunity by Hampton Scott TonkRevised and Expanded EditionIt is said that man's extremity is God's opportunity. Christianity, at root, at its finest moments, in the finest sense of the word, is Evangelical, what I call "straight-Gospel Christianity." Straight-Gospel Christians - whether straight-Gospel Protestants or straight-Gospel Catholics or straight-Gospel Anglicans or straight-Gospel Orthodox - can relate to each other in Christ not just well but in some very deep and profound ways whose foundation is fundamentally that of the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Holy Scripture. They are already practically of one heart and of the one mind for which St. Paul pleaded (see I Corinthians 1:10) in imitation of our Lord's earnest prayer for the unity of His disciples (John 17) concerning the Gospel of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.In fact, St. Paul the Apostle himself - he who was once Saul the fiery and zealous Pharisee (the Pharisees are the ancestors of rabbinical Judaism) testified that in a certain mysterious sense Jews - who, after all, gave us Y'shua - Jesus - whom the early Christians - the followers of "the Way" - proclaimed as the Messiah (Hebrew mashiach) - are the foremost participants in the Mystery of Salvation (See Romans 9-11), for they were the first to proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom (See, for instance, Isaiah 52:7-10).Therein lies our hope and our opportunity - and, more to the point, God's opportunity - for a Christian unity which will set the world on fire for Christ.It's God's time. It's Kingdom time. It's the fullness of time. It's God's opportunity!Hampton Scott Tonk holds a Bachelor of Arts from DePauw University (1965) and a Master of Divinity degree from the Episcopal Theological (in 1974 “Divinity”) School in Cambridge, Massachusetts (1972 – which later merged with Union Theological Seminary in New York City).He spent the first years of his Christian life as a Protestant (chiefly Congregationalist but later as an evangelical Lutheran and as a member of the Assemblies of God) and is also familiar – from the inside - with most of the major Protestant denominations.On August 9, 1955 at a United Church of Christ summer camp in Sawyer, Michigan, while sitting under a tree quietly reading the Scriptures he came to faith in Jesus Christ and confessed Him as his Lord and Savior. He was only 11 years old at the time.He then spent 26 years in the Episcopal [Anglican] Church, serving for 12 of those 26 years as a member of the Episcopal clergy.He then spent 23 years in the Orthodox Church.Since his teens he has laughed with, studied with, fellowshipped with, had fun with and prayed with the Jewish people and in the process has learned how fundamentally and amazingly Jewish are Christianity's roots.Simultaneously – since 1959 - he was also fascinated by the Roman Catholic Church, into which he was received on December 8 of 2017, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ and Patron Saint of the United States of America.He was formally educated in Latin, German, and New Testament Greek and can speak French, Spanish and Italian as well.In 2007 he founded a ministry called “Share the Word Ministries,” a ministry consecrated to unity among Christians and Jews and the evangelization of the world.He is also the author of a forthcoming book entitled YES, LORD! A Conversion Story.His third book will be entitled How I Became Successful in Business and in Life – and Why My Failures, Mistakes, and Experiences of Being Fired Were the Best Things That Ever Happened to Me.He is a listee in the 2019-2020 edition of Who's Who in America. https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Opportunity-Expanded-Reuniting-Evangelizing/dp/1648953042/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1609168293&sr=8-1https://www.hamptonscotttonk.com/http://www.bluefunkbroadcasting.com/root/twia/61622sp1.mp3   www.Stratton-Press.comhttp://www.bluefunkbroadcasting.com/root/twia/61622sp1.mp3   

Presbyterians took root in the American colonies after the Anglicans and Congregationalists, and this raised questions about the relationship between the church and the state. Today, W. Robert Godfrey explains how Christians navigated these issues. Get W. Robert Godfrey's New Teaching Series 'American Presbyterians and Revival' on DVD with a Digital Study Guide for Your Gift of Any Amount: https://gift.renewingyourmind.org/2303/american-presbyterians-revival Don't forget to make RenewingYourMind.org your home for daily in-depth Bible study and Christian resources.

Hey Friends, here is our "This Week in Church History" podcast that reviews the Great Ejection of 1662 where more than 1000 ministers voluntarily preached a farewell sermon and surrendered their pulpits rather than comply with the English Parliament's Declaration for the Uniformity of Prayers, Sacraments and Ceremonies of 1662.  This would give rise to the birth of the English Dissidents that would results in a number of groups such as Anabaptist, Pilgrims, Puritans, Presbyterians, Congregationalist and other reformations eventually migrating to America and forming colonies and later the United States.

On this episode of The Becoming Men Podcast, Ray De La Nuez is joined by Fred Grewe Tune in as they discuss what the dying can teach us about living like the men God created us to be. Fred Grewe is a Board Certified Chaplain (Association of Professional Chaplains) with a Doctor of Ministry degree from the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley and is an ordained Congregationalist minister working for Providence Hospice in Medford, Oregon. His interest in working with the dying began in the early 1990's with the death of his best friend who succumbed to AIDS. Fred is a mystery – even to himself. He is a middle-aged, bald, white man who believes God loves him very much and the power of this belief has helped transform a frightened, angry, little man into a more loving and considerate human being. Check out MasterMyPurpose.com to reserve your spot for our new LIVE virtual course. This course will equip good men as they journey to live epic lives by helping them unearth their unique purposes and learn the skills, tools, and habits they need to become the purpose-driven men they were created to be. Want to meet with me One-on-One on a FREE coaching call. Click here to book our Zoom Call! Make sure you connect with me on Instagram @raydelanuez. Consider becoming a financial partner of this podcast. head over to TheBecomingMen.com/Partner. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/becomingmen/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/becomingmen/support

In response to the recent Dobbs decision and the Supreme Court's clear, consistent support for religious liberty throughout this term, many progressives are warning of an imminent “Christian theocracy.” Among the loudest voices predicting our collective doom are mainstream media outlets. For example, a recent story in Reuters claimed, “U.S. Supreme Court Takes Aim at Separation of Church and State.”   What's missing in virtually all of these pieces is a proper understanding of the “establishment clause.” The establishment clause is derived from the opening lines of the First Amendment which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” There are two ways this statement is commonly misunderstood.   First, it is often described as establishing a “wall of separation between church and state.” In fact, those words are found nowhere in the Constitution. The phrase actually was coined later in a letter by Thomas Jefferson. Second, and more importantly, it is assumed that if organized religion cannot be supported by the state, then secularism is somehow “neutral.” Thus, by default, anything goes as long as it's “secular.”  Understanding the historical context is essential. In the 18th century, an “established” religion referred to an official state church. In the U.S., individual states had already established churches, such as the Anglican Church in Virginia. The First Amendment specifically applied to Congress and prohibited a national church. To prefer the Anglican Church over the Congregationalists or Presbyterians would, at the time, mean alienating certain citizens and entire states. States continued to have established churches well into the 19th century.   In addition, the First Amendment was not intended to prohibit religious activities in governmental institutions. From the very beginning, Congress started each session with prayer. That continues today and is led by an official chaplain.   Our founding fathers, particularly James Madison, believed that religious liberty was an innate right, and inseparable from the freedom of conscience. He also believed that religion would better flourish in a free marketplace of ideas. That thinking was the basis for the free exercise clause.   This understanding of the freedom of conscience is the foundation for the other freedoms protected in the First Amendment. Without conscience rights, we cannot truly speak, write, assemble, or advocate freely from our deepest beliefs. That's why the freedom of religion is often called “the first freedom.” Its position in the Bill of Rights highlights its importance.  Although the rights of conscience should not be controversial, somehow, that's what they have become. How this happened is worth considering. By claiming secularism to be neutral, proponents of secularism ,as far back as the 19th century, attempted to broadly apply laws originally intended by Protestants to prevent Catholic schools from accessing state funds. In the 20th-century, secularists embraced the concept of “a living Constitution” in order to transform the meaning of the First Amendment, attempting to keep religious institutions from accessing state funds and allowing only “secular” views in the public arena.  Though many court cases illustrate this, among the more important was Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), which declared unconstitutional Maryland's requirement that officeholders state belief in God. Rather than ruling on the basis of Article VI, which prohibits religious tests for public office, the Supreme Court ruled on the basis of the establishment clause of the First Amendment and of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from violating the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens. The same line of reasoning has since been used to challenge prayers at public meetings, Bible studies in schools, and nativity scenes on public property. In the process, the First Amendment was turned on its head, taking a clause intended to keep the state from backing any one denomination and construing it to position the state in opposition to all organized religions.  In footnote 11 of the Torcaso v. Watkins decision, Justice Hugo Black listed secular humanism as one of a number of religions “which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God.” Calling humanism a religion was not outlandish.  For a century, humanists such as John Dewey and Julian Huxley had defined their beliefs as a religion. After all, secularism involves certain claims about the cosmos, existence, and human nature.   And yet in 1994, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District that while “religion” should be broadly interpreted for free exercise clause purposes, “anything ‘arguably non-religious' should not be considered religious in applying the establishment clause.” In other words, secular organizations were able to play both sides, qualifying as a religion for the free exercise clause but free from constraints from the establishment clause.   To further determine whether religious activities could utilize public spaces, the Supreme Court derived the so-called “Lemon Test” in the case Lemon v. Kurzman (1991). According to this rule, a religious activity is only licit on public grounds if it performs a secular purpose, neither advances nor inhibits religion, and does not foster excessive government entanglement in religion. This test maintained an obviously secular bias: Secular organizations were not required to pass any tests to obtain access.  In the recent decision in the Coach Kennedy case, the Supreme Court continued its long-overdue corrections to the anti-religious way the First Amendment had been interpreted. Particularly by unequivocally tossing the “Lemon Test,” the Court has stopped the active suppression of religious beliefs and practice. We ought not fear an impending theocracy, but instead welcome a redress to the unjust and ahistorical understandings of religion. 

"In the Old Testament alone, “justice” is mentioned hundreds of times in reference to the systemic oppression of vulnerable populations at the hands of the rich and powerful. Here is a very small sampling: “Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.” (Isaiah 1:17) “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free…” (Isaiah 58:6) “This is what the Lord says: Do what is right and just. Rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place.” (Jeremiah 22:3) “Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness, his upper rooms by injustice, making his own people work for nothing, not paying them for their labor.” (Jeremiah 22:13) “There are those who oppress the innocent and take bribes and deprive the poor of justice in the courts…But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!” (Amos 5:12, 24) What you should see in these passages is not just a clear concern for vulnerable populations, but also that they are identifying large scale, systemic issues that are not possible to address by way of mission trips, church service projects, or benevolence. These verses and many others mention things like wages, taxes, greed among the rich, and bribery. Evangelicals who rail against the idea of justice do not deny that the Bible commands Christians to care for the poor and needy, but they seek to make a distinction, saying that individuals and churches are supposed to help the poor and needy, but not try to do so through political processes nor demand that the government do so. This ignores the context of these Bible passages and the problems they mention. How can injustices caused (and maintained) by political forces be remedied by individuals and churches? If Congress passes a law that makes health insurance unaffordable for millions of additional Americans, compassionate churches trying to pay a few medical bills or run a clinic drain their resources while leaving the root cause of the problem in place. If our president halts refugee resettlement programs and cancels protected status for certain immigrants, it's virtually meaningless to talk about helping them since they won't even be here to help. If your city or county is focusing all its resources and energy on the middle to upper class parts of town and neglecting the poor section, your casserole or clean up project is almost insulting. Proverbs 31:8-9 calls us to “defend the rights of the poor and needy.” How are we supposed to do that without engaging those who are taking those rights away? A bucket of water doesn't do much for a house that's on fire. Modern faith leaders' opposition to justice can be traced to some sinister roots in the 1930s. Justice was more commonly preached in American pulpits in those days as the corporate power structure had lost clout with the people because of the 1929 stock market crash. The corporations hated the New Deal, but they were going to need some help in getting Christian America back on board with their agenda. Princeton history professor Kevin M. Kruse says that they found that help in Los Angeles-based Congregationalist pastor James W. Fifield, Jr., who started a movement called “Spiritual Mobilization.” His main sponsors were Sun Oil President J. Howard Pew, Alfred Sloan of General Motors, the heads of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc." --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/antonio-myers4/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/antonio-myers4/support

Our eleventh episode explores the most recent novel on our list of celebrated Great American Novels, Marilynne Robinson's 2004 Pulitzer Prize-winning exploration of Christian humanism, GILEAD. Set in a fictional small Iowa town in 1956, this deceptively lowkey narrative about a dying minister, John Ames, and the sudden reappearance of the town's prodigal son, Jack Boughton, raises intriguing questions about the intersection of the soul and society. Robinson is our most prominent representative of literary or philosophical Christianity today; in a marketplace in which the very notion of Christian fiction raises doctrinaire stereotypes of the rapture and the second coming, she is the rare writer who dramatizes faith as a quiet struggle between personal practice and cultural politics. Jack returns to Gilead with a secret he is convinced will challenge the drowsy, contemplative ministries of both his godfather, Ames, a Congregationalist, and his own father, Robert, a staunch Presbyterian. Jack's revelation raises questions about the function of the Church that locals may not wish to confront. But if this conflict sounds melodramatic, GILEAD is a novel of profound serenity: with a poetic style we call "conversational imagism," Robinson dramatizes the plenitude of God's presence not through fiery epiphanies but through arresting images of the natural world's divinity that pay homage to nineteenth-century American Romanticists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Walt Whitman. Known for her passionate defense of John Calvin and the Puritans as theologists, Robinson depicts faith not as a battle between the spirit and the flesh but between the humility and egotism of individual belief. Few novels have ever so clearly dramatized the relationship between the vulnerability of the religious self and the fragile exercise of democracy.  

If you asked 100 people where the expression Free Love came from, I doubt you would find more than one person who knows. I surely didn't. I thought it originated back in the 1960s with the flower children. But I was wrong. The term originated in the 1850s in a religious commune in Oneida, New York. Called the Oneida Community by some and the Oneida Experiment by others, it was an experiment with sexual freedom under religious auspices, and quoting scripture for its justification.I'm not sure what sent me looking for this, but I found an article in Touchstone magazine by Frederica Mathewes-Green called The Oneida Experiment: What We Have Discovered About Not-So-Free Love Oneida was founded on the principle of Bible Communism. Founder John Humphrey Noyes insisted that, under his personally-devised philosophy, there were to be no selfish attachments, no hoarding of love. Initially, it sounds very strange. How can you hoard love? And how can love be a selfish attachment when it is the outgoing giving of oneself to another person?According to Ms. Green, Noyes had put sexual freedom at the head of his agenda; he was the inventor of the term, free love. The Yale Divinity School student and sometime Congregationalist minister believed that complex marriage was God’s will, as indicated by the scripture, in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven [Mt 22:30]. Now, you may be way ahead of me on this, but it isn't clear to me how a complex marriage can be like angels who don't marry at all.According to Noyes, The abolition of sexual exclusiveness is involved in the love-relation required between all believers by the express injunction of Christ and the apostles […] The restoration of true relations between the sexes is a matter second in importance only to the reconciliation of man to God. As I read more on John Humphrey Noyes, I knew I had to talk to you about it; but I was torn. what is the story really about? Is it about sex? About love? About utopianism? And then I came to a paragraph by Lawrence Foster in an article titled The Oneida Community Experience and Its Implications for the Present…The Oneida Experiment - Frederica Mathewes-GreenWomen, Family, and Utopia: The Oneida Community Experience and Its Implications for the Present - Lawrence Foster

The guys recorded this week's episode in person once again. They're introducing the doctrine of the Church, or the study of Ecclesiology, while focusing in a bit on the differences between Presbyterian and Congregationalist church polity. They sip Glendronach 12 year while discussing these important topics, and ultimately, reflecting on the importance of gathering together with the body of Christ.  Enjoy extended episodes, watch us live stream our episodes before they are released, and get access to exclusive bonus content on Patreon, starting at just $4.99 per month: https://patreon.com/distillingtheologyWe've introduced a new $14.99 per month level with some extra perks, including a Patreon-exclusive coffee mug after your first 3 months as a thank you for your support.Distilling Theology is a proud member of the Society of Reformed Podcasts - a network of doctrinally sound podcasts from a Reformed perspective. You can get all the shows in the network by subscribing to the megafeed at https://reformedpodcasts.com/Thanks for listening and as always, whatever you do, whether you eat or drink, do all to the glory of God.Soli deo Gloria!Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/DistillingTheology)

The guys recorded this week's episode in person once again. They're introducing the doctrine of the Church, or the study of Ecclesiology, while focusing in a bit on the differences between Presbyterian and Congregationalist church polity. They sip Glendronach 12 year while discussing these important topics, and ultimately, reflecting on the importance of gathering together...

This week we talk about the rise of the Congregationalists, otherwise known as Puritans, Separatists, and Independents, and how that lead to the Unitarians. The feedback form is at atheistnomads.com/contact Leave us voice message at atheistnomads.com/speakpipe Support the show at atheistnomads.com/donate Subscribe at atheistnomads.com/subscribe Join our Discord server at atheistnomads.com/discord Sources: Congregationalism Puritans Congregationalism in the US Unitarianism Universalist Church of America Unitarian Universalism New England Theology This episode is brought to you by: Henry K Danielle Pat Acks from the Humanists of Idaho SoJo Big Easy Blasphemy Darryl G Arthur K Samuel C Beatriz A Levi C Richard G Balázs Steve F Brad R And by our $1 patrons and those who want no reward. Contact information, show notes, and links to Social Media and the like can be found at https://atheistnomads.com Theme music is provided by Sturdy Fred. Full shownotes can always be found at https://atheistnomads.com/439 Download episode

Charles Haddon Spurgeon (19 June 1834 – 31 January 1892) was an English Particular Baptist preacher. Spurgeon remains highly influential among ... Parent(s): John and Eliza Spurgeon Children: Charles  and Thomas Spurgeon‎ (twin...‎Nationality: British Died: 31 January 1892 (aged 57); Menton‎, ‎Alp... Reared a Congregationalist, Spurgeon became a Baptist in 1850 and, the same year, at 16, preached his first sermon. His name was Charles Haddon Spurgeon, and he is known today as the “Prince of Preachers.” ... By the age of 22 he was preaching to 10,000 people per Sunday, and later would give up to 10 different sermons a week. In addition to these he churned out volume after volume of Bible commentary, which today number 49 volumes.‎  

Kingdom & State: Separation of Church and State -- Link to full show notesMain source: Wallbuilders.comFirst Amendment says... “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Clearly you can see here that the first amendment creates two distinct points dealing with religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear. Today, what constitutes an "establishment of religion" is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state. The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. For instance, in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Supreme Court held that a state could force the inoculation of children whose parents would not allow such action for religious reasons. The Court held that the state had an overriding interest in protecting public health and safety. So, clearly the phrase "separation of church and state" is no where in the First Amendment. Where did it come from? How did that phrase become the standard for every debate you have with your liberal friends?A bit of history Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) Facts. The Petitioner in his status as a taxpayer filed suit challenging the ability of the Respondent to reimburse funds to parents of parochial school students for the transportation of their children to and from school. The Petitioner brought suit alleging that the New Jersey reimbursement statute respects the establishment of religion, by allowing the parents of parochial school students to benefit from the reimbursement scheme. The New Jersey Court of Appeals held that the statute did not violate the Constitution and the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) granted certiorari to consider the issue. Issue. This case considers whether the parents of parochial school children can benefit from the same services afforded to the parents of public school children. Synopsis of Rule of Law. This case stands for the proposition that, while no law respecting an establishment of religion will stand under the United States Constitution (Constitution), neutral laws, which afford benefits to children will be upheld. Held. Affirmed. In affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court found the statute was not unconstitutional because it was designed to provide a benefit to the parents of all school children, distinct from any religious function in which the children engaged. In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became PresidentThe election of Jefferson – America's first Anti-Federalist President – elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.  Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him how thankful they were they he was elected president.However,  in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for “the free exercise of religion”: "Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights." Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. Separation of Church and State about making sure the GOVERNMENT NEVER creates a national denomination and forces you to follow it. In short, the inclusion of protection for the “free exercise of religion” in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone's religious practice caused him to “work ill to his neighbor.”Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. Jefferson said the following about government's inability to influence religion: [N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.  Kentucky Resolution, 1798.  The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977; see also Documents of American History, Henry S. Cummager, editor (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), p. 179. In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government.  Second Inaugural Address, 1805.  Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78,  March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805. [O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary.  Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808.Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805. I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises.  Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808.Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp. 103-104, to the Rev. Samuel Millar on January 23, 1808. Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion.Separation of church and state is not necessarily concerned with keeping religious influence out of government, rather it establishes a wall to keep government out of religion.Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only  to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination – a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush: [T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly.Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800. Since this was Jefferson's view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would neverbe interfered with by the federal government. As he explained: Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the  Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802. Jefferson's reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America's inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried: And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237. PUT SIMPLY.......In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant. Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “wall” of the Danbury letter was NOT meant to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.It is important to note.... If Jefferson's letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given – as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson's Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America's history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter – words clearly divorced from their context – have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson's Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson's views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment. One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment – as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did. Earlier SCOTUS decisions long understood Jefferson's intentEarlier courts long understood Jefferson's intent. In fact, when Jefferson's letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case – the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today's Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson's entire letter and then concluded: "Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson's letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." (emphasis added) [12] That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson's intent for “separation of church and state”: "[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State." [13]That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People), identified actions into which – if perpetrated in the name of religion – the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc. Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel” – whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.

The Oxford History of Protestant Dissenting Traditions: The Post-Reformation Era, 1559-1689 (Oxford UP, 2020) traces the emergence of Anglophone Protestant Dissent in the post-Reformation era between the Act of Uniformity (1559) and the Act of Toleration (1689). It reassesses the relationship between establishment and Dissent, emphasising that Presbyterians and Congregationalists were serious contenders in the struggle for religious hegemony. Under Elizabeth I and the early Stuarts, separatists were few in number, and Dissent was largely contained within the Church of England, as nonconformists sought to reform the national Church from within. During the English Revolution (1640-60), Puritan reformers seized control of the state but splintered into rival factions with competing programmes of ecclesiastical reform. Only after the Restoration, following the ejection of two thousand Puritan clergy from the Church, did most Puritans become Dissenters, often with great reluctance. Dissent was not the inevitable terminus of Puritanism, but the contingent and unintended consequence of the Puritan drive for further reformation. The story of Dissent is thus bound up with the contest for the established Church, not simply a heroic tale of persecuted minorities contending for religious toleration. Nevertheless, in the half century after 1640, religious pluralism became a fact of English life, as denominations formed and toleration was widely advocated. The volume explores how Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, and Quakers began to forge distinct identities as the four major denominational traditions of English Dissent. It tracks the proliferation of Anglophone Protestant Dissent beyond England—in Wales, Scotland, Ireland, the Dutch Republic, New England, Pennsylvania, and the Caribbean. And it presents the latest research on the culture of Dissenting congregations, including their relations with the parish, their worship, preaching, gender relations, and lay experience. Zach McCulley (@zamccull) is a historian of religion and literary cultures in early modern England and PhD candidate in History at Queen's University Belfast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Oxford History of Protestant Dissenting Traditions: The Post-Reformation Era, 1559-1689 (Oxford UP, 2020) traces the emergence of Anglophone Protestant Dissent in the post-Reformation era between the Act of Uniformity (1559) and the Act of Toleration (1689). It reassesses the relationship between establishment and Dissent, emphasising that Presbyterians and Congregationalists were serious contenders in the struggle for religious hegemony. Under Elizabeth I and the early Stuarts, separatists were few in number, and Dissent was largely contained within the Church of England, as nonconformists sought to reform the national Church from within. During the English Revolution (1640-60), Puritan reformers seized control of the state but splintered into rival factions with competing programmes of ecclesiastical reform. Only after the Restoration, following the ejection of two thousand Puritan clergy from the Church, did most Puritans become Dissenters, often with great reluctance. Dissent was not the inevitable terminus of Puritanism, but the contingent and unintended consequence of the Puritan drive for further reformation. The story of Dissent is thus bound up with the contest for the established Church, not simply a heroic tale of persecuted minorities contending for religious toleration. Nevertheless, in the half century after 1640, religious pluralism became a fact of English life, as denominations formed and toleration was widely advocated. The volume explores how Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, and Quakers began to forge distinct identities as the four major denominational traditions of English Dissent. It tracks the proliferation of Anglophone Protestant Dissent beyond England—in Wales, Scotland, Ireland, the Dutch Republic, New England, Pennsylvania, and the Caribbean. And it presents the latest research on the culture of Dissenting congregations, including their relations with the parish, their worship, preaching, gender relations, and lay experience. Zach McCulley (@zamccull) is a historian of religion and literary cultures in early modern England and PhD candidate in History at Queen's University Belfast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The Oxford History of Protestant Dissenting Traditions: The Post-Reformation Era, 1559-1689 (Oxford UP, 2020) traces the emergence of Anglophone Protestant Dissent in the post-Reformation era between the Act of Uniformity (1559) and the Act of Toleration (1689). It reassesses the relationship between establishment and Dissent, emphasising that Presbyterians and Congregationalists were serious contenders in the struggle for religious hegemony. Under Elizabeth I and the early Stuarts, separatists were few in number, and Dissent was largely contained within the Church of England, as nonconformists sought to reform the national Church from within. During the English Revolution (1640-60), Puritan reformers seized control of the state but splintered into rival factions with competing programmes of ecclesiastical reform. Only after the Restoration, following the ejection of two thousand Puritan clergy from the Church, did most Puritans become Dissenters, often with great reluctance. Dissent was not the inevitable terminus of Puritanism, but the contingent and unintended consequence of the Puritan drive for further reformation. The story of Dissent is thus bound up with the contest for the established Church, not simply a heroic tale of persecuted minorities contending for religious toleration. Nevertheless, in the half century after 1640, religious pluralism became a fact of English life, as denominations formed and toleration was widely advocated. The volume explores how Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, and Quakers began to forge distinct identities as the four major denominational traditions of English Dissent. It tracks the proliferation of Anglophone Protestant Dissent beyond England—in Wales, Scotland, Ireland, the Dutch Republic, New England, Pennsylvania, and the Caribbean. And it presents the latest research on the culture of Dissenting congregations, including their relations with the parish, their worship, preaching, gender relations, and lay experience. Zach McCulley (@zamccull) is a historian of religion and literary cultures in early modern England and PhD candidate in History at Queen's University Belfast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/british-studies

My favorite novel is Gilead by Marilynn Robinson.  It is up there in my pantheon with Les Miserables and Spoon River Anthology by Edgar Lee Masters.  Spoon River Anthology is a dialogue from the grave, short one-page, free-verse statements from the deceased about their lives.  After a while you realize they are interacting with each other, in death as they did in life.  It is one of the most creative books I have ever read.  All three of these are books I have read more than once.  Each time, they are new.  (Which is a characteristic of world-class literature). Gilead is about a Congregationalist minister, John Ames.  He is an older man who lost his beloved wife and daughter during childbirth.  He has never quite gotten over that loss but then, decades later, a young woman appears in his church one morning.  A March-October marriage?  Can this possibly work?  In fact, it does and they have a son.  But then John gets a diagnosis.  He has a heart condition that will soon take his life.  "Why do you have to be so old? his loving young wife asks.  She would have loved having another 30 years with John.  But he recognizes reality.  He realizes that he will never be able to tell his son, now six, all the stories of his family history that he would ordinarily tell him.  Nor will his son have more than a fleeting memory of his father.  John decides to write a letter to the son telling him all the things he would have told him had he had the time, and discussing with him all the issues -- religious, philosophical, historical, personal  – that he would have discussed with him as he got older.  Gilead is the note that John left for his son.  Those who know me know that I spend a lot of time in graveyards.  I frequently lead graveyard walks for friends and students.  When I discuss gravestones I always say that a gravestone is not about death.  It is about life.  It is about who we were, what was important to us, and how we want to be remembered.  This letter is the gravestone that Ames leaves for his son.  Who I was, what was important to me, how I want to be remembered.  By the way, Jane and I put our gravestone into place a few years ago.  It has the normal information:  names, dates, professions.  It includes the names of our two sons and our four grandchildren.  It has the date of our marriage.  And it has the slogan, “We were given the gift of time, and used it well.”  I stole the first part of that from Ted Kennedy's memoir.  He had three older brothers, all of whom died violently (one in war, two from assassination). He said, “I was given the gift of time,” which his brothers were not.  His memoir is a reflection on his life, the achievements that would never have occurred had he died at the age that his brothers died.  We added the last part to our stone to make it clear that we were grateful for our time. John Ames was not given that gift. Do you have a thought?  You can send me a reaction at Stocktonafterclass@gmail.com

For episode 29 of the "50 Baptist You Should Know" Series, we will discuss the Congregationalist-turned-Baptist missionary, Adoniram Judson. While in Burma, war with Britain would put him in prison, where his wife, Ann sacrificed to feed and take care of him.  He was released when the Burmese needed a translator, but the effects of the situation on his wife and child would take their lives. Judson married Sarah Bordman who would pass away while on the ship headed back to England. His third wife Emily would challenge New England to continue his legacy for missions after his death in 1850. Judson finished translating the Bible into the Burmese language, including the prerequisite of having to write down their language in a dictionary.  He paved the way for an astounding 3,700 Baptist churches in Myanmar today!

Today: a final post in this mini-series about church and apostolic ministry; plus my ‘partner' scheme is now up and running (see details at the end). A good friend who shall remain nameless (but was in fact Col Marshall) sent me a brief message after one my recent articles about the heavenly church. Knowing my love for golf he wrote: Having teed up the church ball so nicely I can hardly wait to see how straight you hit it, neither slicing (‘high congregationalism') nor hooking (‘low congregationalism').I've edited Col's message to replace the names that he put inside those brackets, and who represent those two understandings or tendencies about church. Truth be told, I also could have put my own name inside both of those brackets at various points in my life (in fact, if I'm honest, on various days of the week). Col wants me to write about this issue that has been burbling away among Reformed-evangelical pastors and leaders (and in my brain) over the past 15 years or so—and who am I to resist a holler from the Marshall? So what are these two approaches to being ‘congregational' and what might a fairway-splitting drive between them look like? (See the PS for a brief note about the labels I'm using in this post, and why I'm not really happy with them.)By ‘high congregationalism', I mean the idea that the actual physical gathering of the local congregation is definitive for our thinking about ‘church'. As a Sydney Anglican, this strand of thinking is in my bones, via the teachings of Donald Robinson and Broughton Knox. They insisted that the New Testament word ekklesia (‘church') always meant an actual gathering of people, and that accordingly the local congregation or assembly was the earthly expression of ‘church', not a bishop or a denomination or a vague worldwide entity (one of the issues in their context was the debate about the value of ecumenism and the World Council of Churches, but that is a story for another time). For them, the regular weekly gathering was the earthly get-together that visibly expressed the heavenly assembly around Christ; it was the household that visibly expressed the heavenly household of God; it was the motley-but-unified bunch of humans that visibly expressed the ‘new humanity' created in Christ. (And this would be as true of a traditionally structured Sunday congregation in a church building, as it would be of an underground house church in China with very lean or minimal structures associated with it.)I'm almost always a high congregationalist on Sundays. I'm reminded every week that there is something irreplaceably important about this particular group of people that I'm committed to—that I pray with and stand next to and rejoice with and speak to, with whom I sit under the word of God as it is read and preached, and with whom I also get together for mutual encouragement during the week. On Sundays, I remember that there's something precious about these particular newcomers and fringe-dwellers that God has given us to love and to evangelise and to welcome in; and something noble and necessary about these particular pastors who teach and exemplify the word of Christ in our midst. Apostolic ministry is people ministry, and these regularly assembling people are the ones that God has given me to love.In this sense, nearly everyone I know is a ‘congregationalist' of some stripe, and especially so at the moment. As we observed in last week's Payneful Truth, there are not only many tangible benefits of actually getting out of the house and gathering together in a particular place, but also a thousand intangibles that we often don't appreciate. However, for my high congregational friends (and me on some Tuesdays and Thursdays), the centrality of the local, gathered congregation goes a little further and has other implications. It makes you think twice, for example, about multi-site and multi-service churches—about whether you have them at all, or at the very least how they should be organised. If the gathered congregation is of defining importance, then surely the identity and integrity of each congregation should be recognized. In other words, isn't a ‘church' with multiple services or sites actually a ‘fellowship of churches'? If so, then shouldn't each one of those congregations have its own character and membership, and its owns elders or leaders who take responsibility for shepherding this particular flock, and to whom this flock submits (Heb 13:5)? For some of my higher congregationalist friends, this means that the path to growth is to build each congregation as a unit, and then to plant new ones (or rejuvenate other assemblies)—rather than multiplying services within one local ‘church' structure. My low congregationalist friends (and me on Mondays and Fridays) lean harder into the other aspect of what we've been talking about in recent posts here at The Payneful Truth—that Christ is building his heavenly church not only through the activities of local assemblies, but also through the various ways that apostolic ministry happens between and beyond those local assemblies. On this view, the local congregation (as an actual assembly) is a very important thing, but it is not the only thing—evangelism, edification and all sorts of different ministries take place in the world beyond the assembly, and indeed between and among different assemblies (the New Testament is full of this). For my low congregationalist mates, the urgency of the great commission drives us to organize our churches in a way that pursues this larger purpose in creative and effective ways. For example, the pastoral leadership structures of a ‘church' might not be tied to each individual congregation, but span across various church services or congregations, working on the various key purposes that are being pursued (hence, ‘mission pastors', ‘youth pastors', ‘discipleship pastors', and so on). Lower congregationalism sees this flexibility as being necessary (and justified) by the urgency of reaching the lost, and by the freedom the New Testament seems to allow in structuring church leadership.I'm attracted to both of these tendencies because of their obvious strengths. High congregationalism recognizes the extraordinary importance of the group of people with whom I ‘congregate' week by week—and in particular how as a fellowship we are responsible for each other's spiritual growth and perseverance (led by our pastors). We are like a spiritual household that is committed to one another in ongoing edifying love—the ‘household of faith', whose good I am especially obliged to work for (Gal 6:10). I'm reluctant to embrace a model of apostolic ministry that downplays this. Then again, it's easy for high congregationalism to downplay the opportunities for apostolic ministry among and beyond congregations. Low congregationalism very reasonably asks whether the model of pastoral leadership in the New Testament is so clearcut and prescriptive as to rule out various congregations banding together to share buildings, finances and collegial spiritual oversight (as Anglicans have traditionally done in their ‘parishes' and Presbyterians in their ‘presbyteries'). And this kind of teamwork is very powerful in making the most of the gifts that God has given us—not just financial and property gifts, but the strengths of various pastors and leaders working together to lead their congregations in mutual edification and in evangelizing the world. So I'm also reluctant to embrace a model of apostolic ministry that ties the earthly assembly and the heavenly assembly too tightly together—that limits the possibilities for congregations to work together within the one ‘parish', or that generally treats the apostolic ministry that happens outside or between individual assemblies as of secondary significance. The more I think about the New Testament's emphasis on the heavenly assembly of Christ, the more it leaves me thinking that there is a shot available down the middle of the fairway—a ‘heavenly congregationalism' that avoids the trees on one side and the bunker on the other. This brand of congregationalism recognizes the importance of both ways in which Christ builds his heavenly assembly—through the apostolic ministry that takes place among a group of people who actually gather in local assembly, as well as the apostolic ministry that is active between, among and beyond these various assemblies. On the one side, this would mean giving due weight to the identity and mutual responsibility of each gathered congregation, and to have pastors or elders who lead the apostolic ministry within that congregation by their doctrine and life. But (on the other) it means being skillful and organised in working out how to work together cross-congregationally—in shared resources, structures, ministries and leadership—for the sake of effective ministry and mission. Pulling off this shot down the middle may not be easy. For me, finding the fairway never is. But if the New Testament is to be our guide, I think it's the path God calls us to, for the sake of building and growing the church to which we all primarily belong: the heavenly body of Christ. PSA note about the labels ‘high' and ‘low congregationalism'. I struggled as I was writing this piece to find good labels for the two tendencies I wanted to describe. ‘Congregationalism' has a long history, and is often associated with a particular view of church government (namely, that final spiritual authority resides with the members of the congregation, not with an externally appointed elder or pastor). I didn't want to open that can of worms, but what other term to use? Also, I chose ‘high' and ‘low' as a (hopefully!) non-pejorative way of talking about the two ways of approaching the place of the ‘congregation' in ministry. If I've offended anyone, my apologies (but please direct all correspondence to Col Marshall). As promised last week, as of today you can sign up to be partner in The Payneful Truth, supporting both the work I do each week here, and the other writing ministry that I'm involved (e.g. the revision of Two ways to live that I'm currently working on). It's a pretty simple partnership—for my part, I'll keep writing The Payneful Truth and delivering it to you each week; plus I'll send out some bonus Payneful Extra material around once a month, and also give you the inside track on books and resources that I publish. For your part, you chip in something to support me in doing all that—and as a bonus, if you could pray for me from time to time that would be wonderful as well! You can contribute in three modes, depending on what's convenient for you:* A Monthly Partner: $7 a month* An Annual Partner: $70 a year* A Lifetime Partner: $700 to keep getting all this stuff in perpetuity, until I keel over or Jesus returns.To become a partner, just hit this button, enter your email address, and follow the options from there.If you're not up for the commitment of partnership at this point that's totally fine of course; you can remain a free subscriber. I'll keep sending you a free edition of The Payneful Truth every three weeks or so. If you really want to keep receiving the journal every week but aren't in a position to become a partner—just let me know via email (tonyjpayne@me.com). I don't want anyone to miss out because of their circumstances. (No need to explain or apologise; just send me a message that says ‘Please put me on the free weekly list'.) There could be only one kind of image for this week's post—a golfing hero and namesake who frequently split the fairway: Payne Stewart, immortalized in bronze at Pinehurst, the scene of his US Open triumph in 1999.  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.twoways.news/subscribe

500 years ago, a German monk and professor named Martin Luther started a well-intentioned movement to reform “the Church” (Jesus founded only one, after all). Luther's object was not to split the Church, but to bring it into conformity with what he thought was the “true Christianity,” the one he discovered (and, he claimed, any believer could discover) in the Scriptures. Things didn't work out the way he wanted it to, for the Church did split. And split, and split, and split. There are a lot of different kinds of Protestants. In alphabetical order (and not an exhaustive list by any means): Adventists, Anabaptists, Anglicans, Baptists, Calvinists, Congregationalists, Lutherans, Methodists, Pentecostalists, Pietists, Presbyterians, Unitarians, and Quakers. Each of these confessions can be further subdivided. For example, I was raised in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), not the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. What happened? Why can't the Protestants get along? Why do they keep founding new churches?Does anything unite them? And what role did they play in creating modern religious (and political) culture? In his wonderful and witty book Protestants: The Faith that Made the Modern World (Viking, 2017), Alec Ryrie offers answers. Listen in. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices