Calvin L. Smith

Sincere Apologies!

2010-03-10T00:57:00.000Z

It's been a long journey back, so sincere apologies for not keeping the site up to date (whether posting or responding to comments) over the last couple of days or so. Trying to get back into the swing of things, though jetlag calls. Anyhow, I listened to a lecture strongly embracing liberation theology from an Evangelical perspective a couple of days ago, which for me raised all sorts of issues and I really want to comment on, so this will be my next comment/post in the next 24 hours.

Blog From America 15 (the last hurrah)

2010-03-08T01:12:00.000Z

With some hours to kill before the flight, I took the tram to the Mall of America after all and it is indeed pretty huge. And there is a whole theme park right in the middle of it. But the highlight was the no-holds-barred steak meal I'd planned (I have, after all, been working pretty hard so saw no reason why I shouldn't treat myself). Stuart, Dad, you're going to like this.

As soon as I arrived they plonked a whole round, brown, hot loaf on a cutting board before me with a serrated-edged knife like something Crocodile Dundee would carry around with him protruding upright from it, together with a container of whipped butter. This is just to sustain you, making sure you don't faint with hunger while you look through the menu. I opted for the bacon-wrapped Maine scallops with an apricot glaze, which when they came were the size of small eggs. It was a good choice, no regets at all. In fact, I made the absolutely right decision. Delicious! Next, for the main course I opted for the boneless prime rib roast, all twenty ounces. When it came it was fully 1.5 inches thick at the deepest part and soaked in just. It was served with a salt and parmesan encrusted baked potato the size of a small car. I'd been given a long list of items I could have the potato stuffed with (together with an assurance by the waiter that if I couldn't make up my mind I was most welcome to go with all eight options together). But I am an uncomplicated individual and therefore simply opted for the potato to come stuffed with whipped butter, sour cream and diced hickory-smoked bacon. The meat was superb! The menu contains a very useful guide on the various cooking options, and my medium-rare meat was served exactly as described. Again, it was absolutely the right choice, no regrets whatsoever. Finally, there was no way I could eat anything after that, but agreed politely to the waiter's insistance that I view the dessert menu, whereupon he reappeared several minutes later with an extremely large tray containing eight or nine actual desserts arrayed for viewing. The best example of a dessert menu I've seen for some considerable time. Sorely tempted, I knew my limits and wistfully explained that with a nine hour flight beckoning I would sadly have to decline. Once again, it was the right choice!

If you're interested, the restaurant is the Twin City Grill in the Mall of America, Minneapolis, a wood-panelled establishment with a nice ambience and excellent service. More details here. This one is being added to my list of restaurants listed below. I hope you Aussies are reading this, as I fully expect you to take this challenge on board and take me somewhere better (if you can) when I visit Oz this August. There, this Pom has thrown down the gauntlet!

Why Does the BBC Do This?

2010-03-07T19:09:00.001Z

See this story on the BBC News website concerning horrific violence in Nigeria overnight leading to the death of over a hundred people, mainly women and children, macheted to death. Now read the same story as reported on the CNN website. Notice the major difference in how the story is reported? (Hint: One of the report identifies the religious affiliation of the victims, the other expressly avoids doing so, even to the extent that the report seems incomlete and somehow artificial).

Why does the Beeb do this? Is it driven by fear, either of opposition from or alienating a proportion of its Muslim audience? Or perhaps disdain for Christianity? All of the above? Lest someone feel I'm being overly-sensitive here, it's important to note the BBC doesn't have a particularly good track record when it comes to Christianity, while many feel Islam gets rather better treatment. Whether that is the case or not is for others to decide. But I suggest when a Christian village is attacked on a Sunday morning and a hundred people - predominantly women and children - are slashed to death with machetes, yet our national tax-funded broadcaster fails to report the full facts, it has hardly a wise act by a corporation regularly fending off accusations of anti-Christian bias.

Blog From America 14 (wrapping up)

2010-03-07T17:44:00.000Z

My trip's coming to an end and I fly back tonight,. But guess what? Minneapolis has grown on me. The skyway system allowed the other day tgo walk around the city for a couple of hours visiting dozens upon dozens of these skyscrapers, replete with shops and businesses, all linked by walkways. Some of the lift doors are highly ornately decorated with fabulous marble and other decorative effects, while the shops are pretty classy. Streets still look empty though (too cold to walk around in them, it gets almost Artic here), and I still maintain the roads are crumbling.

My hotel room I've been staying in has this huge kingsize bed. The problem is, it is an electronic bed with a hundred different position settings! You'd think I would have had the best sleep ever. Unfortunately, I spent most of the first night going through all the settings and actually slept very little. I had to hide the remote control box eventually so I wouldn't keep messing with it. Plus my bed has seven or eight pillows (all different sizes and levels of firmness), so unfortunately this affected my second night's sleep as I indecisively shuffled them around, trying to ascertain which combination was the most comfortable (I never did find out). You can definitely have too much choice.

Will be catching the light rail to the airport in a few hours, then it's hanging around there for six hours (yawn). Flights worked out badly for this trip. But if I can drop my baggage off early I might go to the Mall of America, which is just a couple of stops from the airport. Supposed to be the biggest and one of the most spectacular in the country (it even has a theme park right in the middle of it). Anyway, if I go I'll let you know about it, and either way I might write another post from the airport.

When Blogging Makes a Difference

2010-03-07T15:05:00.000Z

Archbishop Cranmer's blog has the story of a Methodist minister who is also a Labour councillor being deselected by his local Labour MP because he refuses to canvass on Sundays as this is when he's leading his church in worship. What's great about this story is how it has clearly got under the skin of the MP in question, who writes a rather shrill letter of complaint to Cranmer demanding he take down the post (he does no such thing, of course, choosing instead to comment on the inadequacies of her position and successfully highlight how this government is the most illiberal and anti-faith ever). It's worth pointing out that Cranmer's site is one of the leading UK political blogs with many thousands of readers, hence the MP feeling she had little choice but to respond. Oh that this blog might some day become so big as to wind up politicians like this. (I can dream, can't I?)

The Christian Academy and Christians in Politics

2010-03-07T00:42:00.002Z

At the Evangelical theological conference I've been attending I am struck by how a substantial number of people I've listened to at debates or chatted with lean towards the political left (I think the preferred term is "progressive"). Now it is a truism that the academy always tends towards radicalism and the left. But it is also the case that in politics many politicians on the left move somewhat towards the right when they gain power (according to my politics professor during my MA studies, a classic historical example is the British Labour Party). Of course, there are exceptions to this and most rules. Thus, some people within the academy are on the right, while some on the left do seem to shift further leftwards when in power (though some of these, I think, are actually populists employing leftist rhetoric, but that is an issue for another day).

So the exceptions aside, what are the reasons for a left-leaning academy and politicians who shift rightwards towards the centre? I'm not sure, though I suspect in the case of the academy it is a place driven by idealism, as well as an arena in which to exchange ideas and in doing so challenge the status quo and the Establishment. Meanwhile, I suggest the cold, hard realities of the political world arguably lead politicians to ditch idealism in favour of pragmatism, firstly to get things done, and secondly, because there is a realisation that academic idealism and utopianism is somewhat of a pipedream in the real world. Enter Reinhold Niebuhr's Christian realism.

Whatever the reasons for both these political tendencies, I do not believe these two stereotypes of the academy and political world should be permitted to influence Christians in either arena. The Christian academy should certainly not be shaped by the world's currents, trends, political outlook, worldview and philosophy. Such postmodern ideals will pass one day, as indeed the scepticism of modernity's biblical criticism - and indeed various philosophical influences upon Christianity during its 2000 year history - has now passed into oblivion. And that's the point, isn't it? When the Christian academy permits the world to influence its mindset and worldview it enslaves itself to the dominant fashion of the pervadign Zeitgeist. This is, in a very real sense, worldliness, that is, allowing the world's values to rub off and influence the Church and its actions. Instead, the Christian academy should be thoroughly biblicist in its approach to issues (and not just issues but in shaping its own agenda and worldview), seeking to establish and walk its own path rather than emulate that of the secular academy. It should be radical by all means (after all, Jesus was incredibly radical), but being radical means being something completely different to what is already out there. Yet all too often, Christianity offers a carbon copy (and a poor one at that) of what the world has to offer. In short, the Christian Evangelical Left should not look much like the Democrats or Labour Party, while the Evangelical Right should not be a religious carbon copy of the Republican or Conservative parties. Indeed, there should be no Evangelical Left or Evangelical Right in the first place, as these are simply examples of how the world has rubbed off on us so that we even categorise ourselves on that basis. But of course human nature and things like political cleavage make it hard for us to shake off these ways of thinking.

Meanwhile, from the political perspective (and here is why, perhaps, Christians don't make good politicians) Christian politicians should not be driven by pragmatism and realism, because this is the route of compromise and watering down one's Christian, biblical values. Rather, the Christian politician should be driven by idealism and firmly challenging the status quo. But of course in this route lies a short political career.

It seems to me, then, Christian radicalism means a Christian academy which espouses realism and pragmatism, while Christian political outlook and activity should be zealously idealist and keen to challenge the status quo. But of course the opposite very often seems to be the case. Everything just seems so messed up, doesn't it?

UK Christians and a Forthcoming Difficult Choice

2010-03-06T15:11:00.001Z

The Daily Telegraph has run another interesting comment today on the Lords' ammendment to the Equalities Bill. It seems the changes which will likely force Anglican clerics, and indeed rabbis, Free Church ministers, and even imams (somehow I doubt the latter) to carry out same-sex union ceremonies or blessings in a place of worship, contrary to the will of either the church or minister in question, is an embarassment for the government. How so? After all, Gordon Brown's cabinet is the most secular ever. The embarassment, it seems, is nothing to do with substance but rather timing. A clash with the Church and unpalatable headlines is not what the government wants as we head into a general election in the next eight weeks.

So much for Gordon Brown's "moral compass" and his claim, as a son of the manse, to be driven by the morality imputed to him by his cleric father. I thought Tony Blair's administration did a real hatchet job on people and institutions and of faith and didn't see how it could get much worse. But of course I'd forgotten the old Stalinist days in Soviet Russia, where the state even managed to shape the way you thought and spoke. It's time to get rid of Brown now, for the sake of the country in general, but also because if reelected he and the people around him can and will do so yet more damage in terms of Christian values and freedom. The problem, of course, is who to vote for. Certainly the lesser of two evils, David Cameron is nonetheless some way down this ditching of Christian values route himself, though it is hard to see how he could be quite as antagonistic towards Christians as Brown has been. Perhaps some of it is rhetoric to win votes, but if so I suspect he will lose many others. The Libs' Calamity (self-confessed atheist) Clegg would likely seek to rival Brown's secularising agenda. Of the minor parties, the Greens are hardly Christian-friendly and UKIP is unlikely to make much headway. Pity we can't vote for the best among the main parties, all rolled-up into a Christian bloc, and I, for one, will be looking carefully at the alternatives to my sitting MP, who in correspondence between us nailed his colours pretty firmly to the mast.

Excerpt 5, Pentecostalism and Politics in Latin America

2010-03-05T19:31:00.002Z

For previous excerpts click here.

UNIT 3 CASE STUDY: PENTECOSTALISM AND POLITICS IN REVOLUTIONARY NICARAGUA (Part 1)

On 19 July 1979 Sandinista guerrillas entered Managua, capital of Nicaragua, thus bringing to an end the dynastic, despotic Somoza dictatorship. At the height of an insurrection costing thousands of lives, Somoza fled Nicaragua and guerrillas of the Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional (known as the Sandinistas) seized power.

This was a truly popular revolution, counting various sectors of society among its numbers. The Nicaraguan revolution was also significant for another reason: the central role religion played within it. During the insurrection, liberation theology Christians had aided the guerrillas in various ways, helping the guerrillas to secure victory, and the role of revolutionary Catholics was later recognised when four priests were given roles in the new Sandinista government.

Aside from this, the people of Nicaragua are deeply religious. Therefore, it is not surprising that religion played not only a significant role in the insurrection, but also during the ensuing civil war between the Sandinistas and Contras. During a Cold War in which Nicaragua represented an ideological battlefield, a bitter propaganda war broke out as each side sought to secure the moral high ground. Just as religion had played such an important role in the revolution, once again Christianity found itself at the heart of this new conflict, with Catholic Archbishop Obando y Bravo and Washington on one side, portraying Nicaraguan Christians as victims of a tyrannical regime, while on the other, Sandinistas and their liberation theology allies projected an image of full religious freedom and Christian support for the revolution. It was not long before Nicaragua’s Pentecostals became involved, not least because they were already suspicious of the Sandinistas, which they regarded as communists.

The deeply religious nature of Nicaraguans, the existence of two diametrically-opposed religious blocs in the country (Pentecostalism and liberation theology), a revolutionary government that demanded participation by all (neutrality was not an option), and the explosion of Pentecostal growth during the Sandinista regime, all make Nicaragua an interesting and important case study for exploring Pentecostal politics in Latin America.

A. Historical Background to the Sandinista Revolution

The period following Nicaraguan independence in 1838 was marked by instability and violence as two rival political groups, Liberals and Conservatives, struggled for power. After a bitter civil war in the 1850s, the Conservatives went on to dominate Nicaraguan politics until 1893, when Liberal strongman Jose Santos Zelaya came to power. Zelaya set about modernising Nicaragua and encouraged foreign investment. But by the early 1900s U.S. companies controlled much of the economy. This led Zelaya, an outspoken nationalist, to end concessions to North American companies and reject U.S. intervention in the region. Washington subsequently sided with Zelaya’s Conservative opponents, and as a result of the gunboat diplomacy that followed he was forced to resign in 1909. U.S. Marines then occupied Nicaragua during most of 1909-1933. With North American backing the Conservatives held power until 1926, and in 1925, with the help of U.S. military instructors, set up the National Guard.

A rebel Liberal General, Augusto Sandino, established a peasant army and began a nationalist guerrilla movement to oust the Conservatives and U.S. forces. With mounting casualties, the U.S. trained the National Guard to contain the rebels before turning over control of the security force to the Nicaraguans. At this time, a rising star within the Liberal party, Anastasio 'Tacho' Somoza Garcia, became leader of the National Guard. In 1933, the U.S. withdrew from Nicaragua for good. Sandino now agreed to a truce, but insisted that the National Guard should be dissolved. Somoza had Sandino assassinated, wiped out his army, and over the following years succeeded in taking over Nicaragua. He would rule Nicaragua, either as President or through puppet leaders, during 1937-56. The Somoza dynasty controlled the country until 1979, during which time the family amassed huge wealth and practiced widespread corruption.

Anastasio Somoza Debayle took over the presidency in 1967, while also retaining control of the National Guard. A major earthquake in 1972 destroyed Managua city centre and killed 10,000 people, making a further 50,000 homeless. Somoza grew rich from his appropriation of the large amounts of international aid sent to Nicaragua, and this corruption led to widespread resentment. Around this time the Sandinista guerrillas were beginning to achieve some success. The murder of an anti-Somoza newspaper editor (presumably on Somoza’s orders), a string of publicity coups by the Sandinistas, and the increasing brutality of the National Guard, all contributed to an insurrection that cost as many as 50,000 lives and brought the Sandinista revolutionaries to power.

B. Protestant-Somoza Relations

The majority of Nicaraguan Pentecostals from that era believe that, on the whole, they enjoyed more freedom and suffered less harassment under the regime of Anastasio Somoza Debayle than under the Sandinistas. Even Protestants who supported the Sandinistas and hated Somoza had to admit that, under Somoza, whatever else his faults, he did not mistreat Protestants or Pentecostals. When considering these opinions, it is important not to interpret them as support for the old regime. Most Pentecostals, as with most Nicaraguans, were glad to see Somoza go. Yet the fact remains that practically all Pentecostals believed they enjoyed more religious freedom under Somoza than the Sandinistas.

Pentecostals were permitted to organise large-scale evangelistic activity and campaigns without interference by the authorities. Major efforts included the Latin American Mission’s Evangelism in Depth (1960), and Luis Palau’s Continente ’75, held at the National Baseball Stadium in Managua. Palau, a Hispanic version of Billy Graham who organised mass crusades throughout Latin America, spared no expense in purchasing radio and television time, and Continente `75 represented one of his most spectacular efforts, with some 138,000 attendees over a twenty-two day period. The campaign was also linked by television and satellite and radio for viewing throughout Latin and even North America.

Aside from this religious freedom, it appears some Protestants also enjoyed actual links with the regime, while several Pentecostals (mainly from the Church of God) were allegedly members of the National Guard. During the 1980s, it was sometimes claimed that some of the North American missionaries who fled when the Sandinistas came to power were closely associated with the Somoza regime.

A Useful Social Prop?

Few commentators dispute an absence of tense Pentecostal-Somoza relations throughout most of the Somoza dynasty. However, several pro-Sandinista commentators suggest this was because Protestants (and especially Pentecostals) were puppets of the Somoza regime and, by contributing to the fragmentation of Nicaraguan society, helped to keep the Somozas in power. But the argument is taken further, arguing that Pentecostals actually became willing tools of the Somoza regime. Thus, it is argued, Pentecostals represented a useful prop for the existing social order. (30 They supported, or at the very least did nothing about, a social order and regime that allowed the Somoza dynasty to function unhindered (and for which the Somoza regime was grateful). Meanwhile, the argument goes, Pentecostals also refused to speak out against the regime’s abuses and corruption, while their non-revolutionary worldview and an individualistic theology totally prohibited any involvement in social concerns. Finally, close relations between Nicaragua’s Pentecostals and their anti-communist counterparts in the U.S. ensured they were nothing less than tools of North American imperialism. Why else would they remain apolitical on the basis of Romans 13:1, and thus assist Somoza to retain power, and yet suddenly become fiercely political and anti-Sandinista after the revolution in the face of a government which rejected American hegemony? (31) This imperialist collaboration by Pentecostals is totally at odds, it is argued, with how progressive Protestants in Nicaragua came to support the struggle of the masses through the Sandinistas.

There are several major flaws with this interpretation, which I highlight in my book. The most obvious problem is that the Somoza regime did not intervene to help Pentecostals when they were persecuted by Catholic mobs. This anti-Protestant mood pervaded throughout much of the Somoza period, and persecution did not really begin to abate until some time after the effects of Vatican II (1962-5) began to trickle down among grassroots Catholics. It was only then that Pentecostals became less fearful, feeling they could attend campaigns unhindered and without losing their jobs.

So if indeed Somoza regarded Pentecostals as a useful social dividing force which helped prop his regime, why did he not lend them support against Catholic persecutors? It is clear that during the dictatorships of Anastasio and Luis Somoza at least, far from colluding with Pentecostals, the Somozas expressed disinterest to the extent that the authorities offered little in the way of protection for those besieged by Catholic persecutors. Encouraging Protestantism in order to curb the power of the Catholic Church as a societal actor is one thing. But to suggest that the Somozas used Pentecostals as a social prop simply in order to retain power in the face of their own illegitimate and corrupt power, and that they in some way supported him in this aim, is quite another. If this was so, then Pentecostals had a raw deal as they seem to have received very little in return.

It seems much more likely that Pentecostals preferred a Liberal over a Conservative government, simply because the latter was the party of traditional Catholics at whose hands they had suffered a great deal of harassment and persecution. On the whole, relations with the Somozas were unproblematic, but hardly collusive. Pentecostals respected the authorities, but generally remained apolitical, concerned with their earthly mission to propagate the gospel and preach an imminent parousia. As long as the Somoza regime permitted them to do so, their political participation was minimal.

C. Nature of Pentecostal Sandinista Relations

Sandinista-Pentecostal relations between 1979 and 1990 fall into three discernible stages: 1979-1980, when the Sandinistas enjoyed a honeymoon period among most sectors of Nicaraguan society; late 1980 through to 1986-7, which was marked by great tension between the two; and finally, 1987 onwards, when the implementation of a peace process to end the civil war helped ease tensions. During the honeymoon period, there were some isolated instances of Sandinista hostility and repression of Pentecostals, but these are often considered to be isolated, the product of ignorance by young hothead Sandinistas. On the whole, aside from these isolated incidents it appears many Nicaraguans, including Pentecostals, were willing to give the Sandinistas a chance.

Within a year or so, however, things clearly began to change. Pentecostal leaders I interviewed felt the Sandinistas had a plan to limit religious freedom and create another Cuba. Repression intensified in 1982 when the Sandinista official newspaper denounced Protestant `sects’ and some churches were seized. Later that year the government denounced Pentecostals who it said were working with the CIA to destabilise the revolution. This led Sandinista mobs to seize yet more churches. At this time, the Sandinistas were also in conflict with Catholic leaders who did not support liberation theology.

In the 1985 state of emergency, the country’s leading Evangelical figures, most of them Pentecostals, were arrested and held in El Chipote, the infamous state security prison in Managua. The detentions ranged from a few hours to a few days, and some of the detainees describe brutal treatment. It was only during the late 1980s that Pentecostal-Sandinista tensions eased somewhat. In fact, tensions in general within Nicaragua eased as a peace process was implemented. Also, whereas in the past the Sandinista authorities had hassled visiting speakers to the country, this position was relaxed during the late 1980s. In the lead-up to the 1990 elections, it seems clear the Sandinistas were keen to woo Pentecostal voters.

For their part, throughout the 1980s the majority of Pentecostals were deeply suspicious of the Sandinistas. They rejected the regime’s ideology, revolutionary socialist rhetoric, links with Cuba and the East Bloc, and were deeply suspicious of the neighbourhood organisations at the square bloc level given the task of protecting the revolution. Some Pentecostals spoke out openly against the regime, but paid a price for doing so. Others expressed opposition through neutrality, while some were genuinely neutral. Approximately a third of Pentecostals supported the regime.

Nature of Abuses Faced by Pentecostals

There is plenty of evidence of human rights abuses and repression of Pentecostals during the Sandinista period. Much of it was in the form of general harassment, for example, being stopped in the street and questioned by state security, telephone tapping, being subject to arrest and questioning for no apparent reason, strict limitation on church activities (for example, open air services), having sermons monitored, being watched and reported on by the Sandinista neighbourhood committees, and so on. The Sandinista mobs also caused many problems for Pentecostals, and indeed Protestants who were generally unsupportive of the Sandinista revolution.

But it was especially in the rural areas where Pentecostals suffered the most. The northern highlands were where the movement enjoyed its greatest numerical strength. This region was also where the Contras were at their most active. Away from the cities, Pentecostals were often subject to the most atrocious human rights abuses. Some of the human rights reports are quite disturbing, which are detailed at length in my book. But perhaps the gravest incident aimed at Pentecostals was the mass killing in Murra, Nueva Segovia. The relevant human rights report explains what happened:

On April 10, 1982, 14 members of the evangelical group AoG were captured by members of a Sandinista military battalion after being called to a meeting supposedly to resolve a bank loan application. According to witnesses, they were taken to the El Doradito military base and then to Murra, where local authorities would not identify them. They were then taken toward Santo Domingo and executed along the way. Local residents heard machine gun fire and for two days were prohibited from transiting the zone. They later discovered a grave which had been partly disinterred by animals, but, because the zone was considered a military area and they were afraid, residents decided to keep quiet and did not rebury the bodies. Several of the bodies were identified through membership cards from the peasant union UNAG, others by clothing when an exhumation was carried out on August 16, 1990. (32)

Thus two different pictures emerge of Pentecostal-Sandinista relations in revolutionary Nicaragua. In the cities, Pentecostals faced constant harassment while their leaders were routinely questioned and interrogated, humiliated and watched. But there is little evidence of the exceptionally cruel treatment some of their fellow believers encountered in rural areas. It is clear that significant, widespread, systematic and brutal human rights abuses, mutilations and persecution took place throughout the northern and rural regions of Nicaragua, very often aimed specifically at Evangelicals, mainly Pentecostals.

These Pentecostals were specifically targeted because of their beliefs, which were deemed counterrevolutionary. Clearly, the Sandinistas were not prepared to allow religion to become a vehicle for political opposition, which Daniel Ortega made clear to a meeting of Protestants in September 1982:

Manipulation of religion is the last stand in the (propaganda) war against the Nicaraguan Revolution…“There is no confrontation between the state and religion.” [a revolutionary slogan] But what the state does oppose is the manipulation of religion. (33)

In a Ph.D. thesis, Kathleen Mahonney-Norris explores and compares patterns of political repression in Cuba and Nicaragua, concluding that the greater the perceived threat either of these two states faced, the more intense the repression of political opponents. (34) Opposition groups in revolutionary Nicaragua certainly suffered a great deal of harassment and repression, which was reported widely by the U.S. Department of State, and later several human rights organisations. Her study sheds light on how Protestants were targeted because they were perceived as a political threat, part of the opposition.

In conclusion, Pentecostals were apolitical under Somoza, but increasingly politically-opposed to the Sandinistas. For their part, the Sandinistas regarded Pentecostals as ideological enemies. Reasons for both mindsets are explored in the next unit.

References

(30) Enrique Dominguez, 'The Great Commission', NACLA: Report on the Americas 18:1 (Jan/Feb 1984), 19.

(31) David Haslam, Faith in Struggle: The Protestant Churches in Nicaragua and Their Response to the Revolution (London: Epworth, 1987), 31.

(32) Americas Watch, Fitful Peace: Human Rights and Reconciliation in Nicaragua Under the Chamorro Government (New York: Americas Watch, 1991), 10.

(33) James Goff, 'Nicaraguans Protest Manipulation of Religion', Latinamerica Press 14:33, 16 September 1982.

(34) Kathleen Mahonney-Norris, An Inquiry Into Political Repression: Revolutionary Cuba and Nicaragua as Comparative Cases (University of Denver, Ph.D. thesis, 1996).

Blog From America 13 (learning the hard way)

2010-03-05T19:14:00.001Z

Staying at this plush downtown business hotel where the conference is being held. It's really nice: marble-floored lobby and walls, rich carpeting elsewhere, large plantpots with cactus and palms, and a lobby which rises literally 15 or so storeys high (the lobby is the core of the building, with the seventeen storeys built around it. Expensively-dressed business people everywhere. And of course this is America, where everyone expects to get tipped. By the way, I'm sure some Brits get a bad name over here because they're unaware of how tipping works at restaurants. In the UK it's usually 10%, but sometimes it's added to the bill anyway so you don't bother. In some types of UK restaurants/cafes you don't even tip, or simply leave a token amount. But here in the US tipping is how waiters/waitresses make their income. Eating out is cheap here, but tipping 15-20% is pretty standard and generally expected. Yet a lot of Brits don't know this when they come here for the first time.

Anyway, in my hotel I was working away on my computer (brought lots of work with me) and didn't have time to go out, so I ordered a rather expensive hamburger and chips at $12.50. When it came, however, the bill was considerably inflated, with a $3 delivery charge, several dollars of tax and also a service charge tax of 15%, then the room service attendant expected a 20% tip (I suspect she was rather disappointed to get something somewhat more modest). So this hamburger came to a whopping $22-23. So I learned the hard way not to order room service here (I mean, I could have gone out and had a nice steak for that). But I'll tell you what, it was a pretty good hamburger. Still, at that price it ought to be.

Interesting Comment on Christians in Society

2010-03-05T17:43:00.001Z

Came across this article in The Times by Frank Skinner last night, which I thought might interest you. Whether or not you appreciate his comedy (he can be rather crude at times) or whatever the more Protestant/Evangelical of you think of his faith (Skinner is a Roman Catholic), reading between the lines he makes some rather thoughtful comments and I was quite surprised by his at times appropriate use of Bible verses.The fact is, we have to take care that in exploiting today's pluralist marketplace of ideas to communicate our worldview and ideas as Christians, we do not embrace that other more negative pluralist value - standing up for and defending "our rights" and engaging in direct action - in such a way that we lose sight of Christ's teaching to "turn the other cheek". We will always be persecuted for our views (unless, of course, we become the state religion, and we've seen the disaster establishmentism has represented throughout the Church's history), and the sooner we come to accept that persecution is an inevitable price for following Christ, the less stressed we will be. And I say this as an idealist who frequently gets angry at how Christianity is sidelined and Christians have all manner of issues they disagree with on conscience grounds foisted upon them. "Turning the other cheek" is what has enabled me (admittedly not always successfully) to keep that anger in check.

Blog From America 12 (downtown Minneapolis)

2010-03-05T01:14:00.000Z

I'm in downtown Minneapolis and it is a curious experience. Passed through several times, and of course the airport is a major hub, but this is my first time in the heart of the city. When I arrived I was struck by how empty the streets were of people, and how the city centre pavements and roads are just large slabs of (rather cracked) concrete. In all, I wasn't very impressed. Seemed a bit artificial. It was only after I went from my hotel to a shop across a first storey bridge (they call them skyways) that I realised much of the city centre's tower blocks are all interconnected by these skyways, which are walkways (almost like city streets) allowing everyone to shop and walk throughout the city centre yet keep warm (it can get very cold here). It's rather good, with various tower blocks forming this kind of mall, and some of the interiors decorated rather plushly. Several interesting buildings, too. Still rather quiet, though, but I've found the people very friendly and helpful. The downside is that my hotel room is perched twelve storeys in the air (I hate heights), with a large floor-to-ceiling window being one whole side of my room.

About time!

2010-03-04T10:51:00.000Z

According to this morning's Daily Telegraph Gordon Brown at last is going to put a stop to the politically-motivated abuse of our court system. About time! How can Britain ever be taken seriously as a peace broker if every time an Israeli official or politician comes to Britain they're threatened with arrest because a campaign group seeking publicity approached a magistrate? As usual, it's one rule for Israel and another for everyone else.

Blog From America 11 (random observations)

2010-03-03T15:03:00.001Z

Flying to Minneapolis tomorrow and driving across Michigan today. In the meantime, I thought I'd share some random observations of American life, culture and chatting with people while travelling over the past two or three days. First, I thought it was only in the UK where all too frequently one comes across five or six workmen at roadworks standing around sipping tea and watching a solitary worker dig a hole with a pickaxe. But it happens here too! I suspect the tea has been replaced with the ubiquitous weak coffee Americans drink by the gallon, and they probably chat about "those Dodgers" rather than "the United", otherwise the frustration you feel after sitting in a long queue of traffic for half an hour then pass the work crew responsible for the delay is exactly the same.

Television isn't up too much. News is highly parochial, very much soundbite-driven, while the number of adverts is ridiculous. Sometimes adverts breaks are literally just a few minutes after the last one, usually with no warning. You come to the end of a scene of a programme you're watching, then the very next second you're trying to work out why someone is talking about buttermilk biscuits and how this relates to the film's murder plot. Plenty of sitcoms and other stuff Americans do well (and badly), but news analysis and quality documentaries are few and far between. So yesterday evening I ended up watching Mexican TV instead, which was interesting. They broadcast their version of Candid Camera or You've Been Framed, where this fellow was stopped by a couple of Mexican policemen, they engineered a fight with a passerby, and then all chaos erupted. The fight became real, the actor policemen had to pretend to draw their guns and stop the victim from swinging out. When they finally told him he was on film it was a complete anticlimax, so angry and despairing was the target of the joke, and it took a good five minutes to calm the chappie down. Only then did the laughing begin, by which stage it wasn't that funny.

The economic situation has hit parts of this country pretty bad. I've spent the last week or so in the Midwest, sometimes referred to as the Rust Belt. A former industrial heartland, it fell on hard times some decades back, hence the nickname. But this latest economic downturn appears to have affected disproprotionately this area. Visiting Toledo, Ohio (my wife's home town) I noted various businesses and restaurants which had closed. I've also noted a great deal of support ebbing away from Obama's presidency. Meanwhile, the health care issue is a hot topic here. I assumed many poorer folk would have been sympathetic to a change which brings the government into health care, but actually I've met and spoken with various working class people who don't want Obama's health care reforms. When pressed, two reasons in particular are cited. First, people fear a loss of choice in the provision of their health care. Currently, the health insurance companies have the final say over which procedures you can have. But people fear the government would limit the procedures they are currently entitled to. Actually we've seen this in the UK with people being denied life-saving drugs because they are too expensive. Second, and more generally, people simply don't want the government involved in the provision of health care. Many people do not see this as the government's job, and this view is in keeping with an American tendency towards smaller government, compared with the UK political system which is broadly (though weakly) collectivist. Of course, there are others here who take a different view, but I'm simply explaining why I've learned so many people strongly oppose Obama's plans for health care reform.

Finally, Monday's USA Today had an opinion piece on liberal Protestantism in the U.S. and its impact on society and social change in the twentieth century. Clearly, the author writes from this angle and I believe his view that a decaying liberal Protestantism will undergo a transformation and survive by reinventing itself is fundamentally flawed. After all, the religious movements enjoying the greatest success here are conservative Catholic and Evangelical churches. Nonetheless, the article is interesting and worth reading. It can be found here.

Who is a Jew?

2010-03-02T19:44:00.000Z

Identity consists of multiple layers: nationality, ethnicity, class, religion, gender and various other factors. Concerning what makes someone a Jew, as far as orthodox Judaism is concerned religion represents an integral component of Jewishness, which is indeed why Messianic Jews are often denied permission to emigrate to Israel as they are no longer deemed Jewish. This is nonsense, of course, because one can be Jewish and an atheist. There are various other components which shape Jewish identity, for example, culture, history, language, and so on.

An important component of Jewish identity is, of course, ethnicity. So Jewishness is not just religious, it is also ethnic. Yet some (for example Iran's Ahmedinajad) seek to delegitimise the Jewish state by claiming its inhabitants are not Jewish at all, but rather European. But an interesting article in the Daily Telegraph details how new DNA technology in fact proves the Jewishness of Ashkenazi Jews, indeed even more so than some Sephardic lineages.

But what really interested me about the article was the reference to a fifth of all Spanish male lines having Sephardic origins. For those who don't know, in the late fifteenth century all Jews were exiled from Spain. Most moved to North Africa, but some remained, either converting to Christianity or else pretending to. The Spanish Inquisition was charged with rooting out false converts, which it did so efficiently and cruelly. As you know, I was brought up in Spain and I recall how in the early 1970s the local shopkeeper, hearing my father speak about the Jewish people, invited him to his home and showed him a secret room filled with all manner of Judaica. In fact, this Spanish family were Jewish, managing to keep their identity secret for five hundred years, which is quite incredible.

Blog From America 10 (worship)

2010-03-02T18:17:00.002Z

Apologies for not posting anything the last couple of days. Been away from a connection and also very busy. Anyway, will try and get a couple or three posts published in the next day or two.

I spoke at two services on Sunday and one of the things I'm often struck by when attending a large church over here is the attention given to worship. Of course, worship differs according to which church or denomination one attends, but on the whole the various churches I've visited tend to have a choir, a band consisting of various skilled musicians, and worship leaders. Often times, churches which can afford it will employ a minister of music who is responsible for every aspect of worship. I really enjoyed the service on Sunday, and there is no doubt that when skilled musicians lead three or four hundred people in worship it can be uplifting.

Leaving aside my Sunday experience, the subject of worship in general raises various issues for me, especially in a country like the U.S. where churches can be very large and consumerism means many people often choose which church to attend on the basis of the style and prominence given to worship. I think worship represents an incredibly important part of any church service, provided it is sincere and we are motivated by what worship is all about, giving glory to God. And this raises two very important issues. First, it is important to strike the right balance between making the whole worship experience as skilled and professional as possible (note that in the Bible the temple musicians were to be skilled musicians) yet not allowing it to degenerate into a form of entertainment of self, which of course is the complete opposite of what worship is supposed to be. So I, for one, believe worship (whatever form it takes) should represent the very best we can offer God, but it is also essential to ensure our motives are sincere and we are not driven by the need for entertainment. Second, we should take great care to ensure worship involves all people and age groups within the church, rather than alienating a particular segment of the congregation. Sadly, in some of the larger churches in the U.K. this is not always the case. I've written more on this here.

As a skilled musicians and former church organist, I'd be interested to hear what Chris Lazenby thinks about this whole issue. By the way, Chris has completed several modules on theology and history of Christian worship for our Bachelor degree at King's, and we will be launching these modules in September.

The Church and Israel Teaching Day

2010-03-02T15:37:00.000Z

I'll be doing an all-day seminar exploring various aspects of the relationship between the Church and Israel on Saturday 17 July (11 am - 4 pm) in Wolverhampton, West Midlands, organised by King's Evangelical Divinity School. Further details later, but we've hired a suitable church hall and places are limited, so if you plan on attending you should express your interest as soon as possible by emailing the college office at office(a)kingsdivinity.org.

Blog From America 9 (Christian Culture and Politics in the U.S.)

2010-02-27T16:16:00.000Z

I’ve been asked for my take on faith in the U.S. Having spent a lot of time here over the years (I first came to America in 1972 as a child and was amazed at the large, modern and exciting church we visited in New York) I can’t really do this justice in a short blog post. Nevertheless, here are some brief thoughts based on my observations over the years.

First, Christian faith is ubiquitous and strongly-represented here. I’m currently in Toledo, Ohio, and it’s almost as if there’s a church on every street corner (which on a grid system means an awful lot of churches!). They’re everywhere and they’re highly active. And I’m not even in the Bible Belt. In places like the Dallas - Fort Worth area of Texas the churches are even more numerous and tend to have much larger congregations, many running into the thousands of members. Some of the largest megachurches are located across the Bible Belt. Thus, faith is strongly-represented across the U.S, though it should be noted that there are areas where Christianity is less prominent, notably the liberal heartlands of parts of New England. During a visit to Massachusetts some years ago I was struck by how fewer (and smaller) churches there were.

Next, Christian faith in the U.S. is not homogenous, despite what the European media would have us believe. Yes, the Evangelical right is well-represented, but there is also a growing and highly vocal Evangelical left here. Meanwhile, while Pentecostal and Charismatic churches are well-represented, other movements and denominations enjoy a widespread presence and large churches. The various Baptist denominations (ranging from ultra-conservative and fundamentalist to ultra-liberal) are strong across the 'States. Interestingly, in this country you will also find strongly Evangelical groups within historic denominations which in Europe have tended over the years to swing away from conservatism to a more liberal persuasion. So for example, where I am now one is not hard-pressed to find solid Evangelical Methodist or Lutheran churches which do a fine job. Neither are these small congregations, running into several hundreds of members. One also finds large liberal Protestant churches across parts of the country, and clearly church attendance here is important (whereas in the UK liberal protestant churches seem to be dying out).

One further point concerning the non-homogenous nature of American Christianity. In light of some of the fads, fashions and indeed at times sheer lunacy emanating in the U.S. and making its way across the pond to influence European Christianity, it is easy to stereotype U.S. Christianity as either wacky or business-driven. Both these have some truth to them. Depending on the church, there are instances of over-professionalisation and commercialisation of faith (though in the UK perhaps it wouldn’t do some of our churches any harm to be a little more organised in their activities; turning on the heating is always a good start). But it would be wrong to categorise all of U.S. Christianity as business-driven. Neither are all of them wacky. Far from it. Yes, there are some real strange doctrines and groups here, but there is also plenty of sanity and lucidity among the many churches I’ve visited over the years. I would say a considerable chunk of U.S. churches are not into the negative doctrines and practices we hear so much about.

Another characteristic of U.S. Christianity is that it is incredibly active. Aside from church services, churches often have weekly programmes which bring them into regular contact with outsiders, such as child daycare centres, sports programmes and other social programmes. Churches also hold various events which bring their members together, such as dinners, sports events, and so on. Sunday School is usually held before the main Sunday morning service and is aimed at member of all ages (so you’ll have a teenager class, a young couples class, children’s class, senior citizens' class, and so on). Churches tend to be very modern, nicely-furnished, warm and inviting places. Some churches are involved in radio and television production, and the airwaves are replete with Christian programme, much of it awful, some of it rather good. Depending on the region, faith is also something which is lived and practiced openly. In restaurants you will frequently see families saying grace together before eating, while nobody at the next table bats an eyelid. In the Bible Belt I’ve seen people stand and say grace together (after Sunday service church member all over the country often go out for lunch together). Once I even saw six men, clearly a pastoral team, stand, hold hands around the circular table and sing grace together (personally I think that was going a bit too far - I half expected them to start waltzing around the table). Conversely, in Massachusetts (the liberal heartlands of America where Christians are fewer) I was once with some people who were quite embarrassed to say grace in public. Thus, whether churches, programmes, billboard advertising, Christian businesses, open demonstrations of faith, or whatever, Christianity throughout much of the U.S. is highly active and visible. I am reminded of the University of Stirling scholar David Bebbington's quadrilateral setting out the central features of Evangelicalism: biblicism, crucicentrism, conversionism and activism.

A final observation relates to this visible and active expression of Christianity in the U.S. The European media has made a great deal of how the Evangelical right can swing elections. Now it is true that Evangelicalism is strong, is vocal on moral issues and lifestyle, and when it is united behind a candidate it can make a difference to election results. But I suggest (there are scholars in this field who are far better qualified to discuss this issue) this perception of U.S. Evangelicalism is rather overplayed. When it comes to politics I think Evangelicals are sometimes divided over who to back, many choose not to vote, while the election of Obama suggests Evangelicals do not automatically vote en bloc against someone they perceive may challenge their worldview. Another problem, I think, with this European perception is that it regards U.S. Evangelicals as incredibly politically proactive. Some are, of course, but others are rather more passive. They have opinions and will vote according to their worldview, but they are not necessarily out on the streets or on the airwaves engaging in political campaigning. Rather, given the strength and activity of American Christianity, not just Evangelicalism, politicians across the spectrum seek to court (or at the very least not alienate) the Christian vote. So faith and politics in the U.S. is not just about the Religious Right or Christian political campaigning. Thus, understanding faith and politics here requires more a more nuanced approach than we sometimes see in the European media.
Anyway, some brief thoughts on faith in the U.S. for what they’re worth. I hope you find them useful. Please do comment if you have anything to add, disagree with or can shed further light on any issue I’ve raised, or whatever. I comment as an outsider looking in; American Christians of course will have their own take on how they see themselves.

Blog From America 8 (quick update)

2010-02-27T15:40:00.000Z

Five inches of snow yesterday, and two or three inches on each of the previous two days (plus there was already five or six inches lying on the ground when I arrived). Cars everywhere have long icicles hanging from the chasis or bumpers. Yesterday I was taken to Red Lobster, which as usual was great (I had lobster, king prawns and clam chowder, plus all those extras they throw in). My kids will be glad to know I've got the Taco Bell goodies I was instructed to bring home. Getting rather fed up with large breakfasts now. The church I'm speaking at is taking me out to lunch at a Polish restaurant tomorrow (this area has a high concentration of Polish Americans, indeed I married one).

Speaking tomorrow morning at church, then off on Monday to Grand Rapids to do some research at Calvin College (as long as there's not too much more snow because it is heading northwards into the Michigan peninsula). Grand Rapids is where the publishers Baker Books and Zondervan are based. Last time I was there I found a huge Christian book store (I think owned by Zondervan) full of titles, new and second hand. Great place to browse, I hope it's still there (problem is, luggage allowance doesn't allow me to bring too many books back).

Grand Rapids is where the Reformed wing is particularly strong. In parts of the South it's the Southern Baptists, in the Bible Belt there are a lot of Baptistic and Pentecostal/Charismatic churches, in New England it's the Episcopalians, and around Idaho the Nazarenes are pretty big. Of course, there are all kinds of denominations dotted about across the country, but some regions have higher concentrations of a particular brand of Christianity than others.

In my next entry I'll be commenting briefly on U.S. faith, culture and politics.

Blog From America 7 (21/05/10 - the end of the world)

2010-02-26T14:24:00.002Z

While driving around I've been flicking through the radio stations and there are so many Christian channels: talk shows, preaching, Bible study, Christian pop, Christian rock, and also the rather bizarre. Yesterday I came across a fellow who claimed next year sees the seven thousandth anniversary of Noah's flood, which means the Day of Judgement is scheduled for 2011. He has even put a date on it: 21st May. So whatever plans you had for next year's Summer holidays you might want to rearrange them.

I mentioned this guy in passing to someone who said, "Oh, yes, the end of the world on May 21 2010". It seems he's not some local chappie, but rather has has a syndicated radio programme allowing him to spread his message across the country. Call me pedantic, but I did see a couple of problems with his dating of the Day of Judgement. The first is Matthew 24:36. The second is that I'm told he predicted the Apocalypse back in the early 1980s. Apparently, though, he concedes he didn't have the full revelation back then (clearly not) but now asssures his listeners that he does have it right this time. This is most reassuring.

Blog From America 6 (Twenty Questions at breakfast)

2010-02-26T14:01:00.000Z

Went out for breakfast yesterday morning. Decided on the eggs which came with a choice of bacon or sausage plus several extras. The conversation with the waitress went something like this...

Waitress: Good morning, sir. How are you today?
Me: I’m very well, thank you.

Would you like one of our specials today?
No, thank you. Just one of your regular breakfasts.

Al-right-ee. Which one can I get for you?
I’ll like this option here, please (pointing to menu).

Very good, sir. Tea or coffee?
Tea, please.

Milk or lemon?
Lemon, please.

Juice?
No, thank you.

Sausages or bacon?
Sausages (Unspoken: And please bring it quick as I'm getting rather hungry).

Link or patty?
I’m not sure I understand. (Unspoken: I wish I did understand as I'm sure I'd get my breakfast quicker if I did)
Would you like link sausages, or shaped like patties?
(Somewhat bewildered) Oh, do they taste different from each other?
No, sir. They're just shaped different.
(Reminded of Fawlty Towers and wondered if they also did Mickey Mouse shape, or amphibious landing craft shape sausages) Well, links I suppose.

How do you want your eggs?
Fried, please (Unspoken: Would having them raw make it any quicker?)

Over easy, basted, sunny side up?
I beg your pardon?
Your eggs, sir. How would you them?
Er, well, soft enough to dip my toast in.

Do you want all the egg whites cooked through?
Yes, please.

Home fries or hash browns.
Hash browns, please.

Would you like some sliced tomato on the side?
No, thank you (about to faint with hunger).

Biscuits or toast?
Toast, please (inwardly groaning at this stage, with the waitress wondering why I am grating my teeth).

Wheat, wholegrain, sourdough, rye or white?
Sorry?
The bread for your toast, sir.
Oh, er, could you repeat the options, please?
Certainly. Wheat, wholegrain, sourdough, rye or white?
Rye, please.

Very good, sir. Is there anything else I can get you?
(Unspoken: Yes, my breakfast) Tabasco, please.

Is that all?
Er, yes.

Thank you, sir. Be sure to let me know if you need anything else or want to play Twenty Questions again (actually I made that last bit up).

During the meal I was also asked at least twice if everything was alright or if I needed anything. Thankfully I hadn’t ordered the bottomless cup of coffee as I’m quite sure this would have added a further three of four exchanges with the waitress seeking to refill my cup during the course of breakfast.

The above is not untypical in some restaurants specialising in breakfast. (It reminded me of Fawlty Towers, you know, the Kipper and the Corpse episode, and I fully expected her to ask me, “What would you like your breakfast table made fro: oak, mahogany, teak?"

Fortunately, the breakfast arrived in just a couple of minutes (honest), the whole order correct, and it was excellent. A far cry from the sawdust sausage roll (even though I’d asked for a bacon roll) slammed on my table at London airport by a growling waitress who had clearly just had a row on her mobile 'phone with her boyfriend. Cheaper, too. Of the two experiences I know which one I'd prefer.

Blog From America 5 (Buying a Bible)

2010-02-25T20:48:00.000Z

Went to the local Christian bookstore today to look at Bibles. One of my weakness, this. I enjoy the quite starling array of choices and bindings on display, and I usually end up buying one (can't resist it, a bit like a magpie and shiny objects). I especially like the thin Bibles, and they have lots of those: Thinline, Slimline, Ultrathin and Ultraslim (honest). Aside from an array of thicknesses, bindings and versions, I even came across a Waterproof Bible made from special paper designed especially for those whose work in wet conditions makes this a must-have. Presumably, then, this is the Bible of choice for plumbers, swimming pool cleaners, lifeguards, restaurant kitchen washing up workers, synchronised swimmers, and Alaskan crab fishermen out in the Bering Straits (let me know any others I missed). But the wackiest are the specialist Bibles, designed for those in particular jobs or professions, or else to assist you in getting across your pet doctrine. Thus I saw (to mention but a few) the Military Bible, American Patriot Bible, Firefighter's Bible, Police Bible (complete with matching handcuffs and rubber truncheon... no, just joking), and even an Atheist Bible (not designed for atheists but rather to help you challenge them), a Darwin New Testament (ditto) and a Word of Promise Bible. Lest those of you on the Evangelical left or of a liberal Protestant persuasion feel a little left out, don't worry, they're getting in on the act too, with a Peace and Justice Bible and several others. Which all goes to show how, in our postmodern, relativist age, you can tailor the Bible to pretty well any circumstance, message or situation.

Blog From America 4 (at last!)

2010-02-25T13:11:00.001Z

Made it to the US at last. Five hours behind from you, and also I don’t have an Internet connection all the time, so I’ll post as and when I can, sometimes in batches. Good flight, picked up my hire car and made it to my destination safely. Stuart, plenty of snow here so yet another Christmas to celebrate. Another two in ches overnight, on top of the six or eight inches on the ground already. Seems the country doesn't ground to a halt here when it snows, though. Ate out with family last night and did some shopping (America is a great place for that). Can’t wait to go the local Christian bookstore, a large shop about the size of our local Co-Op.

Has anyone visiting the U.S. ever noticed how it seems like wherever you go your nostrils assailed by one of three dominant smells: coffee, cinnamon or popcorn? They drink coffee by the gallon here. Yes, it's generally weaker than the European stuff, but they tend to serve it in buckets. Indeed, local convenience stores seek to outdo each other by offering the biggest drinks of pop, whether the Gulp, Supergulp, or Double Supergulp Plus! I passed a shop last night advertising a 60 oz drink. Isn't that close to two litres of Coke?

Blog From America 3 (quite difficult to get out of Blightie)

2010-02-25T13:05:00.000Z

With several months elapsing since my last flight I’d almost forgotten how much I detest air travel, particularly the security checks. Today (Wednesday) I got the whole treatment. First, a metal detector which stubbornly kept going off regardless of how much stuff I removed from about my person. This resulted in a pat-down and hand-held metal detector check, but to no avail (I have metal in a leg from an accident which I’m sure has been the cause of most of my airport misery for years). It was clear from the official’s face I didn't fit the correc profile and he was quite sure I wasn't going to slip through the net on his watch, so I was packed off to one of those newly-installed full-body scanners we’ve heard so much about. Whatever they tell you, it’s pretty humiliating. And don’t believe those news clips eulogising their high-tech nature or claiming the operator is in “another part of the airport”. I ushered into a room filled with a big box which I had to stand in front of and give it a twirl with my arms raised high (I just hope they haven't kept the image and superimposed a pink tutu over it). The official accompanying me then thumped loudly on the box with his fist and shouted, “Does it look OK?” At first I thought he had gone quite mad, until a muffled voice from within the box responded, “Yeah, I think so”. Behold, the vanguard of England’s high-tech security, protecting our citizens and air carriers from dangerous terrorists . I suppose you could just make a case for the airport operator being located “in another part of the airport”, though not a particularly distant part of the airport, it must be said.

Deciding I hadn’t been humiliated enough, I was then accosted by two more officials asking a myriad of fool, indeed impertinent, questions. It was getting as bad as El Al (although they even asked me to lower my trousers, that nuisance metal in the leg again). Finally, at the gate were yet more random searches, though thankfully this time I was spared. Attention was instead directed towards several elderly, immobile and somewhat bewildered-looking married couples who had clearly been radicalised and were probably at that very moment carrying bombs on board the flight in their socks. But don’t worry, the officials were on the case, making these elderly suspected terrorists remove their coats, sweaters, jackets and shoes, regardless of how difficult this proved without the aid of a chair or table to place their personal belongings (no such items of furniture, of course, were available). They were then patted down before a gawping queue of fellow passengers. Call me cynical, unpatriotic, or an ostrich with his head in the sand when it comes to security issues, but frankly, I’m afraid I’m not terribly convinced any of this is particularly effective.

Neither do I think this particular London airport is the best advert for Britain. If it was my first glimpse of our wonderful country I’d be quite worried. It goes some way to explaining, I suppose, why many non-Brits boarding the flight exhibited the same look of relief I’ve seen on passengers' faces fleeing civil war-torn Guatemala, Mugabe’s goons at the old Harare airport, or a military dictatorship. In short, the airport is pretty bad. I heard one American passenger talking of his breakfast experience with disbelief (he said it took half an hour to make an egg bap, which was then served stone cold and cost him a king's ransom... I also had a breakfast bap and can confirm his testimony has a ring of truth about it). Even the loos at the airport haven’t escaped the madness. The sinks have automatic taps, and beneath each is a warning sign with an image of billowing steam and the words, “Attention. Very hot water”. But there is no way of adjusting the temperature! Perhaps, then, this is simply more nonsensical ‘elf and safety? Or a rather novel way of saving water as a precious resource? Or maybe it is typical British politeness, kindly informing you beforehand you are about to scald yourself. If you work at the airport and know which of these is the correct reason, answers on a postcard please. In the meantime, to the travellers of the world I say, Britain is a great place to visit, once you get beyond the airport, that is.

Excerpt 4, Pentecostalism and Politics in Latin America

2010-02-24T08:16:00.001Z

For previous excerpts see here.

B. Implicit Political Effects of Pentecostal Belief and Practice

As we can see, eschatology is one example of how Pentecostal belief can have a bearing on the movement’s worldview and political activity. There are others, for example, a strong belief in the sanctity of life which leads to a conservative stand on abortion and euthanasia, or a rejection of communist atheism which led to a suspicion of the East Bloc. However, we should take great care not to stereotype Pentecostals as inherently conservative. Take, for example, the traditionally pacifist stance of the U.S. Assemblies of God. (Donald Gee, one of Pentecostalism’s leading figures in the U.K., was also a pacifist.) (17) It was only in the 1960s that the Assemblies of God in the United States softened its stance on pacifism, permitting liberty of conscience so that members could choose combatant or non-combatant roles during Vietnam. (18)

These are examples of explicit instances of Pentecostal political opinion and activity. Another which is evident in Latin America is the rise of Evangelical, mainly Pentecostal political parties. Thus, ironically, Pentecostal ministers who previously believed strongly in the separation of church and state are now running for office and regularly make political pronunciations in the media. In his survey of Protestant political parties, the sociologist Paul Freston discusses several such parties in the Latin American milieu. (19) Meanwhile, political scientist Timothy Steigenga has traced voting patterns of Pentecostals (and those influenced by Pentecostalised religion) in Costa Rica and Guatemala. (20) Also, Pentecostals in many Latin American countries are heavily involved in social projects such as literacy, helping the poor, orphanage work, and drug rehabilitation. (21)

But political activity among Pentecostals is not always so explicit. Sometimes the movement’s social and political impact may well be far more implicit, whereby Pentecostal belief and practices have an unintended or subtle effect on society and politics. Consider, for example, a sense of empowerment Pentecostalism gives to the poor. The movement’s focus on individualism (individual faith, salvation and regeneration, a dynamic one-on-one relationship with Christ, unique calling, and spiritual gifts bestowed upon the believer, and so on) helps to empower the individual as a worthwhile member of the Pentecostal collective. Thus, across a highly-stratified continent, Pentecostalism offers the poor a sense of worth and value, whereby each individual member is considered unique with an important, God-given role to play in the local church (cf Paul’s discussion of the different parts of the body in 1 Corinthians 12).

Lidia Susana Vaccaro de Petrella, a Pentecostal leader in Argentina, suggests a strong feeling of community within Latin American Pentecostal churches. (22) Another Pentecostal author echoes this view, explaining how the movement provides a sense of community to Latin American peasants migrating to cities. (23) Thomas Birchall explains how Latin America’s poor are welcomed into Pentecostal churches, where they are made to feel far more comfortable than in a more middle-class setting. Migrants to the cities find a new social identity, emotional security, and material assistance within these churches, which also provide sanctuary for the poor, alcoholics, the destitute, unemployed, and rootless. (24) J. Samuel Escobar believes Pentecostalism provides a sense of community to uprooted people who have lost their point of reference. (25) Meanwhile, Pentecostalism often emphasises financial security and prosperity as a blessing from God. The movement encourages thrift and stewardship, while the decision by new converts not to spend their earnings on alcohol or gambling can produce tangible benefits for that person’s family. It also assists social upward mobility.

Yet another example of the implicit social and political effects of Pentecostal belief and practice relates to gender and race issues. Several commentators have pointed out how Pentecostalism helps to challenge machismo, the Latin American prejudice against women. For example, women are empowered as members of equal standing in the local church with a role to play and the accompanying spiritual gift to fulfil their ministry. (26) This sense of self-worth is also extended to view abusive husbands no longer as masters that must be obeyed, but rather victims of sin. Thus, women are encouraged to help their husbands. (27) Furthermore, female ministry within Pentecostalism is highly progressive. Meanwhile, Pentecostalism has also traditionally downplayed race (the early Pentecostals drew heavily from among the black poor), and this emphasis on racial harmony is evident in many of Latin America’s Pentecostal churches.

C. Latin American Pentecostalism and the United States

As stated previously, the explosion of Pentecostalism in Latin America has attracted a great deal of interest among sociologists and other commentators keen to learn of its political impact across the region. One question often asked, mainly by Catholics and those on the left, is the extent to which these groups have formal links with the U.S., particularly North American policymakers. Both have accused Pentecostals of being a tool of U.S. cultural imperialism, or worse, an extension of U.S. foreign policy. Bookshops in Latin America contain many Catholic-produced items on how to deal with the sectas (sects, i.e. Evangelical groups) when they come to your door. Meanwhile, Marxist commentators have accused Pentecostals of being a social prop used by corrupt and unjust regimes to retain the status quo. Thus, the U.S. is seen as encouraging, even financing, such groups for its own purposes in the region.

There is evidence to suggest that the U.S. has, on occasion, sought missionary help to gather intelligence in parts of Latin America, to the extent that the National Association of Evangelicals issued a resolution denouncing such practices. But all this is quite different from suggesting that the invasion of Pentecostalism represents a U.S. foreign policy tool, and that Pentecostals receive funding accordingly, or that Pentecostals in some way represent a social prop for unjust regimes. There was certainly never an invasion of Latin America by early Pentecostal missionaries. Contrary to perceptions among some Latin American Catholics and those on the left, this initial influx of missionaries was small (a missionary here, a man-and-wife team there, etc) and certainly did not constitute an invasion. Moreover, a careful examination of the personal accounts of Assemblies of God missionaries sent from Springfield, Missouri, details only subsistence-level funding (the denomination always encouraged self-sufficiency), and missionaries often struggled financially. David Stoll, too, considers the funding issue inadequate and over-exaggerated. (28) Furthermore, talk of close links between the U.S. and many Latin American Pentecostals is over-exaggerated, while the Assemblies of God in the U.S. encouraged rapid indigenisation of local works (Melvyn Hodges, a Central American missionary and later Missions Secretary of the Assemblies of God, was strongly influenced by the writings of Rolland Allen, who emphasised indigenisation). Finally, if Pentecostals in some regimes represented a social prop, it seems they were getting very little out of it. That they benefited from acting as a prop is a charge that has been levelled at Evangelicals during the corrupt dynasty of Nicaragua’s Somoza family. Yet earlier Somozas did not protect Evangelicals from intense Catholic persecution, while there is evidence that the last Somoza had a group of Pentecostals executed. If Pentecostals in that country willingly helped to bolster the Somoza regime, they clearly received very little in return. The social prop theory is discussed in further depth in my book.

References

(17) John Carter, Donald Gee: Pentecostal Statesman (Nottingham: Assemblies of God Publishing House, 1975), 16-21.

(18) D. J. Wilson, `Pacifism’, in Stanley Burgess and Gary B. McGee, Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 658-60.

(19) Paul Freston, Protestant Political Parties: A Global Survey (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004).

(20) Steigenga, Politics of the Spirit.

(21) Douglas Petersen, Not By Might Nor By Power: A Pentecostal Theology of Social Concern in Latin America (Oxford: Regnum, 1996).

(22) Lidia Susana Vaccaro de Petrella. `The Tension Between Evangelism and Social Action in the Pentecostal Movement’, International Review of Mission 74 (January 1986).

(23) Pedro C. Moreno, `Rapture and Renewal in Latin America’, First Things 74 (June/July 1997), 31-34.

(24) Thomas A. Birchall, A Theological Evaluation of the Growth of the Pentecostal Church in Latin America. MTh Thesis (Dallas Theological Seminary), April 1994.

(25) Samuel Escobar, `The Promise and Precariousness of Latin American Protestantism’ in Daniel Miller, ed. Coming of Age: Protestantism in Contemporary Latin America (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1994), 3-35.

(26) Carol Ann Drogus, `Private Power or Public Power: Pentecostalism, Base Communities, and Gender’ in Edward L. Cleary and Hannah W. Stewart-Gambino, eds. Power, Politics, and Pentecostals in Latin America (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1998), 55-75.

(27) Cecilia Loreto Mariz and Maria Das Dores Campos Machado, `Pentecostalism and Women in Brazil’, in Cleary and Gambino-Stewart, Power, Politics, and Pentecostals, 41-54.

(28) Stoll, Is Latin America Turning Protestant?

Blog From America 2 (What's so special about Earl's Court???)

2010-02-23T23:00:00.003Z

The trip is already steadily going downhill. Yes, superfast and supermodern rail from home to London, but then it all began to sour somewhat. It took an hour and a bit from home to the city, but nearly as long to cross London on the Picadilly Line. Twenty-three stops! Worse, it was absolutely crowded. No seats for at least half the way (in fact, not much air to breath either). I thought that arriving in London at around 8 pm would mean it was pretty quiet, but no, we were all squashed together like sardines for half the journey. Then, lo and behold, the train all but empties at Earl's Court. I have been quite puzzled ever since, wondering what on earth there is at Earl's Court which so entices hundreds of commuters to disembark there with bright smiles on their faces. Indeed, so puzzled I would be most grateful for any reasonable explanation that furthers my understanding of the delights Earl's Court has to offer. Is there some major attraction there, maybe? Or perhaps there was a rave or something tonight (though most of the people who got off looked fairly professional, certainly not the ecstasy-popping crowd). Then I began to wonder if the stop immediately following Earl's Court - West Kensington - is widely known among Londoners as high up on the list of targets for various terrorist groups. If so, I do rather wish they would at least let us provincials know so we too may disembark and sample the delights Earl's Court has to offer. Anyway, explanations shedding any light most gratefully received.

Otherwise, made it to my hotel only to discover it is quite literally located at the end of a runway, with jets taking off just a few feet overhead from my room (I'm on the very top floor) by the minute. Also, the TV here only has seven channels, four of which seem to be Bollywood movie channels (which is fine, I suppose, if there are subtitles, which there aren't), the rest apparently (quite boring) news channels. Personally I think it's deliberate, aimed at ensuring guests go to bed early ready for your early morning flight. Oh, and to cap off a wonderful day, earlier I went out and invested in some quite fine and luxurious sock especially for my trip, only to find out just now that I forgot to pack them. Can't wait to see what tomorrow brings.