Artikels

William Abraham

William Abraham



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

William Abraham is gebore in Cwmavon, Glamorgan in 1842. Opvoed aan die Cwmavon National School, het hy op tienjarige ouderdom 'n kolwer geword.

In 1873 word hy 'n mynwerker en in 1885 word die algemene verkiesing die Lib-Lab-LP vir die Rhondda. Abraham was 'n wonderlike openbare spreker en die mynwerkers het hom die bynaam Mabon (die Bard) gegee. Hy het ook 'n merkwaardige sangstem en sou die mynwerkers dikwels by konferensies en demonstrasies vermaak.

Abraham bly aktief in die vakbondbeweging en was teen 1907 president van die South Wales Miners 'Federation en Tesourier van die Miners Federation of Great Britain.

Abraham het Rhondda gewen in sewe opeenvolgende parlementsverkiesings en het 'n parlementslid gebly totdat hy in 1920 afgetree het.

William Abraham is op 14 Mei 1922 oorlede.

As daar wrywing ontstaan ​​en pandemonium dreig - so maklik om op te wek, so moeilik om te onderdruk - het 'Mabon' nooit op 'n gewone manier probeer om die orde te herstel nie. Hy het onmiddellik 'n Walliese gesang, of die magiese melodie, 'Land of my Father', ingeslaan. Hy het amper nie die tweede lyn bereik nie, toe hy met opgetrekte arms die hele menigte in die kring van sy invloed trek, die groot gehoor in hul onderskeie "dele" laat val, en hom vergesel soos 'n opgeleide koor. Dit was wonderlik, amper magies en die effek was opwindend. Toe die lofsang of lied klaar was, steek hy 'n hand op, en onmiddellik word daar 'n perfekte stilte. Die storm het verbygegaan.


Verenigde Metodiste aan die einde van die hooflyn

Die United Methodist Church staan ​​op 'n kritieke oomblik. Dit is in 1968 gestig in 'n tyd van ekumeniese entoesiasme en euforie, en bevat nou kragte wat dreig om dit as 'n enkele liggaam te vernietig. Hierdie kragte het nie oornag ontstaan ​​nie, maar strek terug na die ouerliggame wat saamgesmelt het tot die Verenigde Metodisme. Drie groepe, die liberale, radikale en konserwatiewes, vind hul ongemaklike kompromie moeilik om te onderhou.

Daar is lankal ooreengekom dat United Methodism 'n koalisie is van uiteenlopende oortuiging en opinie, wat onder die vaandel van teologiese pluralisme gevorm is. Kerkleiers was in die sewentigerjare van mening dat die kernidentiteit van die Verenigde Metodisme, as daar enigsins een was, in toewyding tot die Metodiste Vierhoek (Skrif, tradisie, rede en ervaring) geleë is, en dat dit nie net toegelaat word nie, maar ook in feit het doktrinale pluralisme goedgekeur en bevorder.

Leerstellige pluralisme, ten spyte van die intellektuele onsamehangendheid daarvan, sal werk so lank as wat iets van die liberale protestantisme deur die leierskap van die kerk gehou word, en solank diegene wat nie liberale protestante is nie, dit aanvaar. Pluralisme is in werklikheid deel van die intellektuele struktuur van die liberale protestantisme. As u van mening is dat die Christelike leer in wese 'n poging is om dimensies van menslike ervaring vas te lê wat presiese uitdrukking in taal weerspreek as gevolg van persoonlike en kulturele beperkings, dan kan die waarheid oor God, die menslike toestand, redding en dies meer nooit voldoende geplaas word nie en inteendeel, die kerk moet sy ervaring van die goddelike soos deur Jesus Christus bemiddel, telkens en opnuut uitdruk. Die kerk word 'n soort ewige seminaar waarvan die standaardtekste steeds verander en waarvan die gesprek nooit eindig nie. In hierdie omstandighede is pluralisme 'n onontkombare kenmerk van die kerklike lewe. Pluralisme verhoed effektief die ontstaan ​​van Christelike leerstellige belydenis, dit wil sê ooreengekome Christelike oortuiging en waarheid, en dit skep die sielkundige en sosiale omstandighede vir konstante selfkritiek en hersiening.

Die onsamehangendheid van hierdie standpunt is nie moeilik om te onderskei nie, ondanks die aanvanklike aanneemlikheid daarvan. Op sy eie terme kan dit byvoorbeeld nie duld diegene wat glo dat daar werklik 'n definitiewe openbaring van die goddelike is nie, dat die kerk werklik die waarheid oor God kan onderskei en uitdruk deur die werking van die rede en die Heilige Gees, en dat waarheid is nodig vir effektiewe sending en diens. Daarom is pluralisme van nature uitsluitend. Dit is dus geen verrassing dat pluraliste hul pluralisme maklik verlaat in hul hewige opposisie teen sekere soorte klassieke en konserwatiewe teologie nie.

Pluralisme is tegelyk absolutisties en relativisties. Dit is absoluut toegewy aan die negatiewe leerstelling dat daar geen goddelike openbaring is wat ware kennis van God lewer nie; dit is absoluut toegewy aan 'n radikaal apofatiese opvatting van die Christelike teologie, sodat geen menslike taal of konsep, hoegenaamd geen produk van die rede, voldoende kan wees nie gee die raaisel van die goddelike uit en dit is absoluut daartoe verbind om teologie te gebruik om die Christelike leer te verwoord gegewe die behoeftes en idioom van die dag. Maar dit is relativisties in sy visie oor wat op enige stadium in die geskiedenis die materiële inhoud van die Christelike leer uitmaak. Leer vir die pluraliste is die uitdrukking van Christelike leer soos uitgewerk deur 'n gepaste teologie en uitgedruk in terme wat voldoende is vir die kultuur van die dag. Vir hulle vorm die Christelike tradisie 'n reeks kenmerkende uitdrukkings van die geloof wat die moeite werd is om te ondersoek, maar wat moet verander om nuwe insigte en nuwe waarheid op te neem. Op hierdie analise word tradisie beskou as 'n relatief goedaardige, indien nie streng bindende nie, verskynsel.

Maar meer onlangs het 'n heel ander houding teenoor die kerklike tradisie ontstaan. Daar is nou in die buiteland in die teologie 'n vorm van radikale protestantisme wat 'n heeltemal nuwe visie van Christelike geloof en bestaan ​​uitmaak. Sy voorstanders beweer dat die tradisie oorheers word deur patriargie en uitsluiting, die produk van onderdrukkende kragte wat verband hou met geografiese ligging, sosiale klas, ras en geslag. Dit moet nie geduld word nie, maar uitgestamp en vernietig word. Niemand, ten minste in die openbaar, sou bereid wees om die saak so reguit te sê nie, maar dit is die waarheid van die saak.

Net soos die liberale, is die radikale beide absolutiste en relativiste, maar oor verskillende sake. Hulle verabsoluteer 'n verbintenis tot bevryding, emansipasie en bemagtiging. Net so absoluut is die bevoorregte posisie van aangewese slagoffers van onderdrukking. In sommige radikale kringe kan ons agterkom dat 'n werkende leerstelling van goddelike openbaring teruggekruip het in hul diskoers, waar sekere ervarings van onderdrukking en bevryding as belydenis of as sigbare tekens van die heerskappy van God geneem word, en alles wat die waarheid bevraagteken hierdie ervarings moet onderdruk word. Aan die ander kant, meen radikale, moet ons nie die uiteenlopende oortuigings, ideologieë, teorieë en diskoerse van die nuwe groepe onderdruk nie. Dit word die eintlike fokus van pluralisme terwyl ons probeer om verskillende stemme, ervarings, voorlesings en voorstelle binne die noukeurig omskrewe grense te bevorder.

Binne die intellektuele kringe van die United Methodism het hierdie verwikkelinge tot kommer gelei. Baie van die groot liberale protestantse onderwysers van die tradisie in die laaste generasie het ontnugter geraak oor die verlies van hul gekoesterde opvattings oor kritiese ondersoek, hoflikheid en akademiese standaarde. Hulle ondergaan 'n gemengde gevoel van wanhoop, verraad en vervreemding. Hulle idees oor objektiewe geleerdheid is ingehaal deur vorme van verloofde of toegewyde geleerdheid wat hulle beskou as 'n mengsel van radikale subjektivisme en politieke manipulasie. 'N Vrugbare paar het daarin geslaag om 'n manier te vind om sommige van die nuwe teorieë aan boord te neem sonder om die diepgaande struktuur van hul posisie in die wiele te ry, maar die algemene gevoel is vermoeidheid en diep verlies.

Onlangs het verdeeldheid wat eers in akademiese besprekings na vore gekom het, na die breër kerk begin beweeg. Beduidende getalle vroulike geestelikes beskou teenstand teen hul intellektuele standpunte nou as onuitwisbaar gekoppel aan regse Christendom of as onlosmaaklik gekoppel aan 'n terugslag van wit manlike lidmate in die kerk. Dit is heeltemal in ooreenstemming met die onderliggende oortuigings oor kennis en mag wat 'n groot deel van die nuwe tendens in die teologie lewendig maak.

Hierdie verwikkelinge is werklik 'n nuwe aankoms binne die grense van United Methodism. Dit is natuurlik nie die eerste keer dat die akademiese wag verander het nie, maar hierdie keer het ons iets meer, 'n opsetlike politieke voorsprong wat dit nie toelaat dat dit in die standaard liberale taal van verdraagsaamheid en beleefdheid vervat word nie. & ldquoBetrokke geleerdheid & rdquo bring in die kern van die bespreking oorwegings in verband met emosie, toewyding, persoonlike identiteit, subjektiewe ontvangs en radikale inwerkingstelling in die openbare arena. Daar is in werklikheid 'n missionêre dimensie wat sy aanhangers dryf om die kerk en die wêreld te verander. In hierdie opsig is die nuwe ortodoksie baie soos vroeëre vorme van ortodoksie wat probeer het om die kerk vanuit 'n baie spesifieke belydenisstandpunt te dien. Daar is ook 'n gepaardgaande besorgdheid om kennis en aksie te koppel en aksie te verbind tot lewensbelangrike spiritualiteit.

Baie goeie leraars, teoloë en administrateurs, mense wat 'n generasie diens aan die kerk gelewer het en wat toegewyd is aan 'n klein kern van Christologiese oortuiging, omring deur 'n baie buigsame buitenste ring van oortuiging, stel hulle steeds voor dat dinge baie dieselfde is as hulle was toe hulle in die kweekskool was. Sulke leiers kon intellektueel oorleef deur die heersende diversiteit en pluralisme te vou in hul oortuiging dat Jesus werklik die Seun van God is en die leermeester en redder van die wêreld. Hulle leuse kan saamgevat word: & ldquoStok nou by Christus en laat die res aan God en die menslike geskiedenis oor. & Rdquo Dit is 'n onvoldoende leerstuk vir die lang geskiedenis, maar dit het 'n hele geslag opvallend goed gedien. Alhoewel hulle daarvan bewus is dat die intellektuele landmerke verander, vind hulle dit moeilik om te glo dat die basiese verbintenis tot beleefdheid, relevante bewyse en respek vir die tradisie van die kerk deur die eeue deur 'n heel ander visie van die kerk ingehaal kan word. Tog is dit net 'n kwessie van tyd voordat die hierbo geïdentifiseerde veranderinge hulself op hierdie leiers sal dwing.

Om hierdie kontemporêre portret van die United Methodist Church af te rond, moet iets gesê word oor konserwatiewe of klassieke metodiste. Dit is hierdie groep, wat dikwels op sekularistiese wyse as die regtervleuel van die denominasie geïdentifiseer word, wat daarvan beskuldig word dat hulle die kerk verdeel het.

Hierdie beskuldiging is in die uiterste raaiselagtig, want die praktyk van selfs die hardnekkige konserwatiewes was allesbehalwe skismaties. In plaas daarvan om uit te trek, het hulle oor baie jare gekies om in te bly en te werk vir vernuwing. Die meeste konserwatiewes binne die United Methodism is instinktief gerig op vernuwing eerder as skeuring. Diegene wat toegewyd is aan skeuring, het reeds weggegaan en elders gegaan. Die konserwatiewe vleuel van die kerk is self 'n brose koalisie, insluitend diegene wat in 'n katolieke rigting leun, diegene wat karismaties is, diegene wat in 'n anabaptistiese rigting geneig is, en diegene wat werklik pragmatisch is, maar op die oomblik neig na konserwatisme uit gemak en tradisionele vroomheid. Diegene wat meen dat daar 'n soort sameswering is om uit te trek en 'n nuwe kerk te vorm, ignoreer hierdie verskille onder konserwatiewes en onderskat die moeilikheid om hulle almal bymekaar te bring. Die koalisie hou meestal informeel bymekaar vanweë die vermeende bedreiging vir die integriteit en kontinuïteit van die Metodistiese tradisie. Neem die bedreiging weg en die innerlike verdeeldheid binne die konserwatiewe vleuel van die kerk sal vinnig sigbaar word.

Drie addisionele oorwegings is van kardinale belang om die huidige stemming onder konserwatiewes te verstaan. Eerstens was hulle redelik effektief op plaaslike vlak, en in sommige gevalle was hul sukses in die groei van plaaslike kerke skouspelagtig. Dit het hulle besig gehou en hulle in staat gestel om die kenmerke van die groter kerk wat hulle versteur, te ignoreer. Tweedens het hulle polities meer georganiseerd geraak binne die kerk as geheel. Alhoewel dit nog op die rand is, moet dit nou ernstig in ag geneem word. Derdens het 'n netwerk van hoogs opgeleide konserwatiewe akademici begin met 'n renaissance van klassieke Wesleyanisme. Die ontwikkeling van so 'n netwerk maak die weg oop vir 'n dieper vernuwing, met die oog op beginselvraagstukke wat andersins geïgnoreer sou word en om 'n meer kragtige diagnose van die situasie in die kerk te verwoord.

Skismatiese aktiwiteit behels dat konserwatiewes hul eie beginsels laat vaar. Daar is min meer sprekende stukke oor die euwels van skeuring en die gevolge daarvan as die wat die stigter van Metodisme, John Wesley, verskaf het. (Die ironie van Wesley & rsquos se eie posisie sal egter nie op die waarnemende leser verlore gaan nie, want Wesley het hierdie aanval op partye binne die kerk gedoen terwyl hy een van die doeltreffendste hernuwingsbewegings was wat die Anglikanisme gesien het.)

Oorweeg die volgende opmerkings:

Soos. . . skeiding is boos op sigself, omdat dit 'n skending van broederliefde is, en dit bring bose vrugte voort, dit is natuurlik produktief vir die mees onheilspellende gevolge. Dit maak 'n deur oop vir alle onvriendelike humeure, sowel in onsself as by ander. Dit lei direk na 'n hele reeks bose veronderstellings, tot ernstige en onbarmhartige beoordeling van mekaar. Dit gee aanleiding tot aanstoot, woede en wrok, miskien in onsself sowel as in ons broers, wat, indien dit nie opgehou word nie, bitterheid, kwaadwilligheid en vaste haat kan veroorsaak, en 'n huidige hel kan skep waar hulle ook al gevind word, soos 'n voorspel tot die ewige hel.

Wesley bied 'n grafiese katalogus van ellende wat voortspruit uit verdeeldheid en skeuring. Bose humeur lei tot bose optrede, wat sommige Christene weer die geloof laat vaar en hul ewige redding in gevaar stel. Aanstoot word gegee aan die Heilige Gees, heiligheid word geblus en evangelisasie ly, want buitestaanders sien geen sin om Christen te word nie. Uiteindelik word beide die mag en die vorm van godsdiens vernietig. Selfs 'n kort lees van Wesley is 'n teenmiddel vir enige gedagte aan skeuring in die kerk.

Ten spyte van hierdie kenmerke van konserwatiewe metodisme, vrees ander dit steeds as 'n bron van verdeeldheid in die kerk, en miskien ook begryplik. 'N Nuwe konserwatiewe handelsmerk kom na vore wat beweer dat United Methodism werklik 'n wesenlike leerstuk het waaraan die tradisie toegewyd was en behoort te wees. Nie-konserwatiewe Verenigde Metodiste vrees instinktief dat so 'n perspektief die kerk sal verdeel omdat dit die grenslyne behels tussen diegene wat binne en buite is. Kortom, kritici maak staat op die ou slagspreuk wat die leer verdeel terwyl die ervaring verenig. Die aandrang dat United Methodism 'n belydeniskerk is, 'n sentrale aanspraak van die meeste konserwatiewes, bedreig die verbintenis tot pluralisme, diversiteit en inklusiwiteit van die laaste generasie United Methodists. Hier het ons die hoogtepunt van die aanklag bereik, want om pluralisme te laat vaar en diversiteit slegs binne ooreengekome grense te aanvaar, verteenwoordig inderdaad 'n beduidende afwyking van die onstabiele ortodoksie wat al so lank in die mode was.

Maar selfs hierdie beweging van konserwatiewes hoef nie tot skeuring te lei nie. Inteendeel, diegene wat hierdie heroriëntering aandring, het presies gedoen wat diegene wat hulle tot pluralisme verbind het, 'n geslag gelede gedoen het. Hulle het 'n noukeurige uiteensetting uitgewerk van die United Methodist -tradisie wat die heersende is. Hulle het 'n diep gesprek voorgestel oor die leerstellige identiteit van United Methodism, en hulle het daarop aangedring dat enige debat wat opduik op 'n ernstige en beskaafde manier gevoer word. Boonop erken hulle geredelik dat voorgestelde wetgewende en ander wysigings, indien nodig, op 'n rasionele en billike manier binne die gange en howe van die kerk uitgevoer moet word. Liberale Protestante moet die waarde van so 'n benadering onmiddellik begryp. Dit is 'n ope vraag of hulle dit werklik sal doen, of hulle saam met Radikale Protestante hierdie hele oefening as 'n dekking vir ideologie en 'n soeke na mag wil afmaak.

In die lig van al hierdie oorwegings, is dit nogal merkwaardig dat United Methodism so lank kon saamhang. Alhoewel ander faktore duidelik betrokke is, was ons gelukkig om 'n groep liberale protestante te hê wat kon lei (al was dit op 'n manier wat konserwatiewes sowel as radikale ontstel het) en 'n sterk toewyding gehad het van konserwatiewes om aan boord te bly en vir vernuwing te werk. Soos ek opgemerk het, is dit egter besig om te ontbind, en dit is die liberale verbintenis tot pluralisme wat meegee. Pluralisme, net soos dit steeds onder liberale gewaardeer word, is 'n selfvernietigende idee wat deur radikale sowel as konserwatiewes verwerp word. Dit is 'n inherente onstabiele reëling wat nie die krag van logika of die optog van gebeure kan oorleef nie.

Ons staan ​​dus voor die verbrokkeling van 'n werkende konsensus, en dit is nie moeilik om te dink wat dit sou verg om die onderbreking te voltooi nie. 'N Eiesinnige figuur, die teologiese en kerklike ekwivalent van 'n Ross Perot, kan na vore kom en daarop aandring dat die hele kerk sy weg volg of sterf. 'N Beduidende groep biskoppe kon daarin slaag om 'n agenda te ontwikkel wat in stryd is met die huidige omstandighede. Sommige groot liggame, of jurisdiksies, kan so vervreem raak van die leierskap van die kerk en so ontsteld oor die finansiering van beleid op sleutelgebiede dat hulle besluit om alle bydraes tot die Connection, die beheerliggaam van United Methodism, terug te hou.

Gestel daar kom van links of regs 'n kwessie van morele toewyding waaroor die uiteenlopende bewegings in die kerk kan saamstem dat kerkwye aksie geneem moet word, maar nie kan saamstem oor watter aksie om te neem nie. Veronderstel verder dat hierdie kwessie op 'n dieper vlak logies verband hou met beginselsake, sodat u u nie op hierdie kwessie kan verbind sonder om ook aansienlike verbintenisse te maak oor die interne logika en karakter van die tradisie as 'n geheel nie. Veronderstel nog verder dat diegene wat optrede eis, nie net argumente en retoriek nie, maar ook aktivistiese demonstrasies wou gebruik om hul einde te verseker. Veronderstel uiteindelik dat hulle 'n gemeenskap van plaaslike kerke en ander entiteite in die Verenigde Metodisme sou vorm wat beide hul morele oortuigings uitgespreek het en ywerig gewerk het vir die praktiese aanvaarding van hul agenda. As so 'n scenario sou ontwikkel, kan daar geen twyfel bestaan ​​dat die gemeenskap ryp sou wees vir 'n duidelike skeuring nie.

Dit verg nie 'n vuurpylwetenskaplike om uit te vind wat die relevante scenario eintlik is nie. Net soos alle Protestantse kerkgenootskappe, word United Methodism uitgedaag oor sy tradisionele standpunt oor seksuele moraliteit deur die ontstaan ​​van die gewetensoortuiging dat gay en lesbiese verhoudings 'n wettige uitdrukking is van God en 'n goeie en diverse skepping. Revisioniste is genoeg opgewonde oor die geregtigheid van hul saak, dat hulle dit noodsaaklik ag om beide rasionele en nie -rasionele middele te gebruik om die kerk as geheel te oorwin. Meer as 'n dekade gelede het hulle die belangrike stap geneem om hul posisie in die denominasie te institusionaliseer.

Daar is 'n diepe en onbedoelde ironie in hierdie ontwikkeling. Die teologie wat die gewete van verandering dryf, is diep verbind tot inklusiwiteit. In hierdie teologie het gay en lesbiese Christene dieselfde status wat vroeër aan slawe toegeskryf is en tans aan vroue toegeskryf word, die status van diegene wat uitgesluit is van die tradisionele kerk. Die duidelike doelwit is om hierdie nuwe minderheid in die kerk op te neem, maar die gevolg is om diegene wat homoseksualiteit wil legitimeer, te verdryf. Omdat hulle hulself as versoeners en eenheid beskou, vind die revisioniste dit moeilik om te sien dat hul posisie in werklikheid uitsluitend is.

Bewustheid van hierdie paradoks kan weinig doen om die manier waarop dinge gaan verloop, te verander. Waarnemende revisioniste kan dit sien, en hulle staan ​​voor 'n moeilike dilemma. Een prominente leraar wat persoonlik toegewy is aan die posisie van die revisioniste wat in 'n pastorale brief aan sy gemeente gesê is dat die revisioniste suksesvol was; diegene wat gekant was teen die legitimering van homoseksualiteit, sou gedwing word om 'n pynlike besluit te neem: hulle kon óf binne 'n kerk bly wat sou staan ​​vir 'n agenda wat hulle onverenigbaar vind met gehoorsaamheid aan Christus, of hulle kan die kerk verlaat. Op 'n saak waaroor die hele aantal gelowiges soveel onoplosbare vrae vind, vind ek dit onaanvaarbaar om 'n groot aantal van ons lede te dwing om hierdie dilemma die hoof te bied. & rdquo

Dit is 'n verfrissende erkenning van die saak. Net so verfrissend in sy eerlikheid is die volgende opmerking van 'n senior leraar van 'n Versoenende (d.w.s. revisionistiese) gemeente.

Nou is dit ons beurt om eerlik te wees. Alhoewel die belydenisskrifte van ons denominasie hulde bring aan die idee dat die Skrif outomaties en voldoende is vir geloof en praktyk, het baie van ons baie verder gegaan as die idee in ons teologiese denke. Ons bedrieg net onsself en lieg vir ons evangeliese broers en susters as ons die verandering wat ons gemaak het, ontken.

Ons het verder as Luther & rsquos beweeg sola Scriptura om dieselfde rede het die Katolieke Kerk na die vierde eeu verder gegaan as die heilig verklaarde Skrif. Ons besef dat die begrip van situasies verander. & ldquo Nuwe geleenthede leer nuwe pligte. & rdquo Ons het veel verder gegaan as die idee dat die Bybel uitsluitlik normatief en letterlik gesaghebbend vir ons geloof is. Na my mening is dit goed! Wat sleg is, is dat ons probeer het om onsself en ander te bedrieg deur te sê & ldquowe haven & rsquot het ons posisie verander. & Rdquo

Boonop behou min van ons die geloof in Christus as die enigste manier van redding. Ons vertrou dat God onder baie ander name en in baie ander vorme kan werk om mense te red. Ons sienings het oor die jare verander het.

So 'n erkenning maak duidelik dat daar meer op die spel is as 'n nuwe morele oordeel oor homoseksualiteit. Wat ter sprake is, is beginselvraagstukke en die rol van openbaring en die Skrif in die vorming van die gewete wat die leerstellige kwessies beïnvloed, wat wissel van die plek van die Metodiste -vierhoek in die vorming van die Verenigde Metodistiese identiteit tot die plek van Christus in verlossing.

Die dilemma vir die konserwatiewes, wat hulle deur die aanval op tradisionele leerstellings op hulle afgedwing het, is eenvoudig: hulle beskou hul standpunt as noodsaaklik vir die Christendom, sodat hulle dit nie kan laat vaar nie en lojaliteit kan behou aan wat oorgebly het.

Nie verrassend nie, ons kan na die stigter van Metodisme kyk vir leiding. John Wesley erken dat nie alle interne geskille binne die kerk teruggevoer kan word na slegte trou of gebrek aan liefde nie. Sommige was gewetensake. Oor sy verhouding met sy geliefde Church of England, het hy geskryf:

Ek is nou, en was van jongs af, lid en predikant van die Church of England. En ek het geen begeerte of ontwerp om daarvan te skei totdat my siel van my liggaam geskei is nie. Maar as ek nie toegelaat was om daarin te bly sonder om weg te laat wat God van my vereis om te doen nie, sou dit dan myns insiens en my plig wees om onmiddellik daarvan te skei. Om meer spesifiek te wees, ek weet dat God my 'n bedeling van die evangelie toegewy het. Ja, en my eie redding hang af van die prediking daarvan: & ldquo Wee my as ek nie die evangelie verkondig nie. dit, of my eie siel verloor. As ek op dieselfde manier nie kon bly verenig met 'n kleiner samelewing, kerk of liggaam van Christene nie, sonder om sonde te doen, sonder om te lieg en skynheiligheid, sonder om te preek vir ander leerstellings wat ek nie self geglo het nie, behoort ek onder absolute noodsaaklikheid om van die samelewing te skei. En in al hierdie gevalle sou die sonde van skeiding, met al die euwels daaruit voortvloeiend, nie op my lê nie, maar op diegene wat my gedwing het om daardie skeiding te maak deur van my gemeenskaplike voorwaardes te eis wat ek nie in die gewete kon nakom nie .

Dit is 'n ontnugterende vermaning. Aangesien dit in die kanonieke erfenis van United Methodism verskyn, is dit die moeite werd om te vra of dit wat voorgestel word, voorkom kan word. Hoe kan verdeeldheid vermy word? Ons kan aan verskeie moontlikhede dink, almal onwaarskynlik.

Miskien is daar deurslaggewende nuwe bewyse of 'n nuwe interpretasie van die beskikbare leerstellige en empiriese gegewens wat die een kant sal lei om die ander te bekeer en sodoende eenheid te red. Dit is 'n baie onwaarskynlike moontlikheid, want dit is onwaarskynlik om te dink dat radikaal nuwe bewyse na vore sal kom, of dat 'n aansienlike nuwe herrangskikking van huidige data gevorder sal word. Die standaardlyne is bekend en dit sal waarskynlik nie verander nie.

Miskien sal iemand met die statuur en wysheid van Salomo na vore kom en 'n manier vind om 'n raamwerk te ontwikkel waarin beide kante mekaar kan aanvaar binne 'n ooreengekome konsensus. Dit is om minstens twee redes 'n onwaarskynlike scenario. Eerstens het die kerk as geheel uitgebrei geëksperimenteer met hierdie einste opsie in sy verbintenis tot leerstellige pluralisme. Soos ek herhaaldelik aangevoer het, is dit 'n onsamehangende en onstabiele reëling wat nou uitmekaar val. Tweedens, die tradisie is te groot en te vol partye, koukusse, bewegings en organisasies om so 'n persoon op nasionale skaal te laat ontstaan. Dieselfde logika is van toepassing op die moontlikheid van gesamentlike inspanning van die Raad van Biskoppe en die biskoppe self is diep verdeeld oor die relevante kwessies en het die verdeeldheid nou in die openbaar uitgespreek.

Miskien sal die revisioniste die gevolge van hul standpunt erken en terugtrek óf om 'n nuwe kerk te stig óf om aan te sluit by 'n kerk wat hul standpunt bepleit. Dit is ook onwaarskynlik.

Die revisioniste het nie 'n monolitiese front nie. Een van die interessantste kenmerke van die revisionistiese standpunt is dat dit liberale sowel as radikale kan huisves, 'n prestasie van aansienlike omvang gegewe die spanning tussen hierdie twee groepe. Die revisionistiese standpunt strek oor die gebied van diegene wat die tweede gedagtes oor hul posisie kan geniet, tot diegene wat absoluut oortuig is dat hersiening deur die evangelie vereis word, spruit uit die leiding van die Heilige Gees en verteenwoordig gepaste profetiese optrede in die huidige generasie. Sommige van laasgenoemde is ook van mening dat alle opposisie teen die saak veroorsaak word deur hardkoppigheid, onverdraagsaamheid teenoor minderhede en onkunde. Baie van hulle glo dat hul saak net so korrek is as die teenkanting teen slawerny en die opening van die ordening vir vroue. Gegewe hierdie oortuigings, is dit onwaarskynlik dat die revisioniste hul doelwitte binne die kerk sal staak.

Wat gebeur dan waarskynlik? Aanvanklik sal baie afhang van die spoed van ontwikkelinge in die beraadslagings en optrede van drie groot kiesafdelings binne die kerk: die liberale institusionaliste, die rasse- en etniese minderhede en die konserwatiewes.

Die institusionaliste is minder bekommerd oor die reg of verkeerdheid van homoseksualiteit en verwante kwessies as oor die toekoms van die denominasie. Hulle natuurlike reaksie op die kerk se dilemma is 'n mengsel van woede, nood, irritasie en vrees. Hulle sou baie graag wou hê dat hulle glad nie die kwessies sou aanpak nie, om so goed moontlik deurmekaar te raak en van alle sprake van verdeeldheid en skeuring weg te bly. Hulle koppe is moontlik by die konserwatiewes, maar hulle harte is by die revisioniste en daarom vind hulle hulself innerlik verskeur. Hulle is veral bevrees vir enige bespreking wat na die beginsels van die tradisie gaan, en verkies om so goed as moontlik te leef met watter kompromie ook al. Die tyd vir besluit vir hierdie groep sal kom wanneer hulle die praktyke van die revisioniste in hul plaaslike kerke moet aanneem. Op daardie stadium moet hul koppe oor hul harte wen as 'n skeuring vermy moet word.

Die minderheidsgroepe en#151 Afro -Amerikaners, Spaanse Amerikaners en Asiatiese Amerikaners sal ook van deurslaggewende belang wees vir toekomstige ontwikkelings. In hierdie geval sal daar selfs 'n groter onwilligheid wees om by die konserwatiewes in die kerk te staan. In die verlede het hierdie groepe konserwatiewes as vermoedelik beskou oor rassisme, terwyl hulle aan die ander kant saam met liberale gewerk het in die stryd om burgerregte, en verskeie van hul teologiese helde is deurslaggewende voorlopers, indien nie voorstanders van radikalisme nie. Dit lyk asof hul natuurlike alliansie met die revisioniste was. Tog is baie van die teologiese en liturgiese inhoud van die Afro -Amerikaanse, Spaanse en Asiatiese Amerikaanse tradisies in werklikheid diep konserwatief en ortodoks. Dit is dus baie moontlik dat die leiers van hierdie tradisies met hul vroeëre alliansies kan breek en in 'n beduidend ander rigting kan beweeg.

Laastens is daar die konserwatiewes. Sommige van hulle sal ongetwyfeld 'n aggressiewe lyn inneem deur hulself te wend tot wetgewende optrede, massa-posse, veldtogte vir briewe, mondelinge agitasie en dies meer. Dit is des te groter in die lig van die onlangse, noue vryspraak deur 'n kerktribunaal van 'n pastoor op die aanklagte dat hy die kerkwet oortree het deur 'n huwelikseremonie vir twee lesbiese lede van sy gemeente Omaha, Nebraska, te hou.

Ander konserwatiewes, diegene wat hulleself graag as gematigdes, tradisionaliste of sentriste sou identifiseer, kan baie bly wees dat daar meer radikale konserwatiewes is om die kwessies aan die orde te stel, maar hulle is uiters senuweeagtig oor enige soort drastiese optrede. Miskien versoek hulle om die lyn te neem wat institutionaliste aangeneem het, maar hulle sal hul tyd in die hoop wag dat die ongeluk nooit kom nie.

Op kort termyn het ons 'n manier nodig om onnodige optrede oor die homoseksuele aangeleentheid wat tot die verdeeldheid van die kerk sal lei, te weerhou. Maar dit is duidelik dat homoseksualiteit slegs een van 'n aantal moontlik kerkverdelende kwessies is. Op lang termyn moet ons 'n gesprek stimuleer na die ontstaan ​​van 'n nuwe teologiese konsensus wat die getrouheid van 'n meerderheid in die kerk in die algemeen kan aandui.

Hoe ook al hierdie belangrike gesprek voortduur, en dit sal beslis voortduur, dit moet ingelig word deur die werklike moontlikheid dat die Liberal Protestantse projek wat deur United Methodism geïllustreer is, van die begin af gebrekkig was. Miskien is die idee van teologiese pluralisme mettertyd verplig tot selfvernietiging. Dit is die onheilspellende vrae wat nou betrek word. Die waarheid en die kerk wat ons liefhet verdien van partye aan alle kante van hierdie vrae duidelike denke, eerlik gesproke, wedersydse respek en baie gebed en vas.

William J. Abraham is die Albert Cook Outler -professor in Wesley -studies aan die Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University. Hy is die skrywer van Ontwaak uit leerstellige geheueverlies: die genesing van leer in die United Methodist Church (1995) en Canon en kriterium in die Christelike teologie van die vaders tot feminisme, net uit Clarendon/Oxford University Press.


William E Abraham, skrywer van & quotThe Mind of Africa & quot

William Emmanuel Abraham, gebore in 1934, is 'n Ghanese filosoof en skrywer van The Mind of Africa (first published in 1962). A new edition of Th.e Mind of Africa was published by Sub Saharan publishers in 2015, and this can be purchased from African Books Collective online bookstore.

Onderwys

William attended school at Adisadel College in Cape Coast, Ghana, and went on to study philosophy at the University of Ghana Legon, and then at Oxford University. At Oxford, he became the first African fellow of All Souls, and his interest in African politics quickly developed into a Pan Africanist perspective. The Mind of Africa, written whilst at All Souls, was a fruit of that enlarged perspective.

Return to Ghana

During a visit to Ghana in 1962, the then President of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah, persuaded William to move back to Ghana to teach at the University of Ghana, Legon. William subsequently became pro Vice Chancellor of the University, and chair of the three person vice presidential committee overseeing Ghana's affairs at times when President Nkrumah was abroad. In 1965 William was elected Member of Parliament for Cape Coast. During this period he also chaired the Abraham Commission into Trade Malpractices in Ghana (1965).

After the coup against Nkrumah

In February 1966, Kwame Nkrumah was overthrown in a police/military coup, and many of those close to him including William were arrested. William was imprisoned in Ussher Fort, Accra for 9 months, after which he was released and returned to duties as a Professor at the University of Ghana, before accepting an invitation to be visiting professor at the University of Indiana. This was followed by a similar role at Malacaster College. William finally moved the University of California Santa Cruz to continue his teaching and research, where he stayed until his retirement. He continues as professor emeritus.

William is married to Marya Abraham, and lives in St. Paul Minnesota. He has 9 children.

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS BY WILLIAM EMMANUEL ABRAHAM

2017 What Did Jesus Do? Some Theological Reflections, WestBowPress, May 2017. ISBN 1512785628

1987 African philosophy: Its proto-history and future history in Volume V of The Chronicles of Philosophy, D. Reidel

1987 The Strategy of Plato's philosophy of language in Logos and Pragma, a Festschrift for Professor Gabriel Nuchelmans, Aristarium Series, Vol 3, Nijmegen

1985 Sources of African identity: philosophical foundations, in Africa and the Problem of its Identity, red. Alwin Diemer, Frankfurt am Main, Bern, and New York

1980 Monads and the Empirical World in Leibniz in Theoria cum Praxi, Wiesbaden

1978 The Origin of Myth and Philosophy" Man and World, Vol. XI, No. 1/2, pp. 165-85.

1975 Africa rediviva, book chapter in Readings in African Political Thought, G-C Mutiso and S.W. Rohio, eds., Part VII, Ch. 19.

1975 Leibniz's Philosophy of Logic and Language, Man and World, Vol. 8, No. 3, August, pp. 347-358.1975 Predication, Studia Leibnitiana, Band VII, Hannover, pp. 1-20.

1974 Disentangling the Cogito, Mind, LXXXIII, England, pp. 75-94. Link to paper

1972 The Incompatibility of Individuals in NOUS VJ, I, pp 1-13. Link to paper

1972 The nature of Zeno's Argument against plurality in DK 29BI in Phronesis XVII, I, pp 44-52 Link to paper

1969 Complete concepts and Leibnitz's distinction between neccessary and contingent propositions , Studia Leibnitiana 1 (4):263 - 279. Link to paper

1964 The life and times of William Amo, Transactions of the Historical Society of Ghana. Link to paper

1962 Book chapter Creators of Literature in Prospect. Alfred Hutchinson & Co., Ltd., London


Added 2019-08-30 21:31:02 -0700 by Private User

Ближайшие родственники

About Chief William Abraham Hicks

William Abraham Hicks (1769 - 1837?, age 68) became Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation in 1827 after being elected to succeed his older brother, Charles R. Hicks, the longtime Second Principal Chief who died on 20 January 1827, just two weeks after assuming office as Principal Chief. William served until October, 1828.

In 1832, he became a figurehead for the Cherokee Nation faction advocating a treaty for emigration west of the Mississippi River. In December 1833, members of the Treaty Party elected William Hicks as their Principal Chief (with John McIntosh as his assistant), though Major Ridge and son John Ridge were widely recognized as the true leaders of this faction. He died at Oothcaloga Creek, Georgia before the Removal at age 68.

Charles and William's parents are believed to be a Scottish trader named Nathan Hicks and Nan-Ye-Hi, a half-blood Cherokee woman, who was herself a child of a Swiss man named Jacob Conrad and a Cherokee wife. William married Sarah Bathia Foreman and had 14 children.

CHIEF WILLIAM ABRAHAM6 HICKS, SR, CHIEF (NA-YE-HI5 CONRAD, JENNIE4 ANI'-WA'YA, OCONOSTOTA3, MOYTOY2, A-MA-DO-YA1) was born Abt. 1769 in CNE [GA], and died Bef. November 1837.

He married (1) LYDIA QUA-LA-YU-GA HALFBREED Abt. 1792 in Spring Place, GA, daughter of BIG HALFBREED and QUA-LA-YU-GA CRITTENDEN. She was born Abt. 1776 in CNE [GA], and died 1849.

He married (2) SALLIE FOREMAN 1804 in Tennessee, daughter of JOHN FOREMAN and SUSIE TI-TA-S-GI-S-GI. She was born Abt. 1788 in CNE [TN], and died September 01, 1839 in Fairfield, CNW.

Notes for CHIEF WILLIAM ABRAHAM HICKS, SR, CHIEF:

OCCUPATION: Principal Chief, 1826 - 10/13/1828. Notes of Starr, Letter bks A-F, v1, p119, note C641.

List of students UBM at Spring Place, CN East, 1804-1834. Jerry Clark 8&9 Cher Fam Resch Fall 1992 and Spring 1993, page 10.

In the Cherokee emigration Rolls 1817-1835.

  • 1833 Wm Hicks Sr. Age over 50 residing in Oothcaloga GA (b bef1783)
  • 1833 Wm Hicks Jr. age under 25 from Oothcaloga GA (b aft1808)
  • Wm Hicks Jr. Arrived May 8 1834.
    • *************************

    Table 5, p407-418, The Brainerd Journal lists three students that entered the mission on 12/07/1818, Edward, Jesse and a Polly Hicks. (who is Polly Hicks?)


    A Gift from Mary Lincoln

    After Abraham Lincoln’s death, Mary went into mourning and remained in widow’s clothes until her own death in 1882. She gave some of her White House finery to family members. Her cousin, Elizabeth Todd Grimsley, received this purple velvet ensemble. In 1916 Grimsley’s son, John, sold the ensemble to Mrs. Julian James for the Smithsonian’s new First Ladies Collection.

    John Grimsley attributed this dress to a “seamstress of exceptional ability” who “made nearly all of Mrs. Lincoln’s gowns.” Although he mistook her name as “Ann,” he most likely was referring to Elizabeth Keckly.


    Little Known Black History Fact: William H. Johnson

    William H. Johnson, an African-American man, was the personal valet of President Abraham Lincoln. Johnson was employed by the president well before he went to the White House. He was there when Lincoln received the Republican Nomination for president.

    William Johnson accompanied the president to the famous Gettysburg Address in November 1863.

    When Lincoln became president, he was pressured to fire Johnson because he wasn&rsquot the traditional &ldquopaper bag&rdquo skin color of the other employees. Johnson was indeed fired, but Lincoln referred him for a high profile job with the U.S. Treasury Department. Johnson also continued to do some odd jobs for the president, including fittings, valet and barber services, despite White House protocol.

    The close friendship between Lincoln and Johnson was under question for years the president co-signed a loan for Johnson and buried him when he died. It may have been out of friendship or out of guilt. William H. Johnson died in January 1864 after nursing President Lincoln back to health when he showed symptoms of smallpox during the trip to deliver the Gettysburg Address.

    When Johnson passed away, it was said that President Lincoln had buried his former servant in Arlington Cemetery on a plot with a tombstone that read &ldquoWilliam H. Johnson, Citizen.&rdquo

    President Lincoln never refuted the fact that he and William H. Johnson were friends, not even to the public.

    The character of William H. Johnson is loosely portrayed by actor Anthony Mackie in the newly released film, &ldquoAbraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter&rdquo in theaters now.


    Bykomende inligting

    William Lewis Dayton (1807-1864)

    • Regent of the Smithsonian Institution from 1861 to 1864
    • 1819 (12) Attended the Brick Academy under Dr. Brownlee
    • 1825 (18) – Graduated College of New Jersey (Princeton Univ.)
    • 1830 – Passed the Bar
    • Moved to Freehold, New Jersey
    • 1837 (30) – Entered politics – voted NJ State Senator (upper house)
    • Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court, 1838-1841
    • 1842 (35) – United States Senator, 1842-1851 appointed by Gov. Pennington to Samuel Southard’s seat after his death (another Basking Ridge native).
    • 1856 (49) – Vice Presidential candidate for the Republican Party, 1856
    • Attorney-General of New Jersey, 1857-1861
    • 1861 (54) – Minister to France, 1861-1864
    • 1864 (57) – Died in Paris
    • Both of Williams’ parents (Joel (Plot 624) and Nancy) are buried in the Basking Ridge Presbyterian churchyard cemetery. His brother Jonathan, Amos, and sister Bailey are also there.
    • William and his wife Margaret Vanderveer (the Somerville line) are buried in Riverview Cemetery in Trenton.
    • The Dayton’s had 6 children:
      • Ferdinand Vanderveer (Buried Riverview Cemetery, Trenton)
      • Anna Lewis (Buried Riverview Cemetery, Trenton)
      • William Lewis Jr. (Buried Riverview Cemetery, Trenton)
      • Edward Lewis (Buried Riverview Cemetery, Trenton)
      • Robert (Buried Riverview Cemetery, Trenton)
      • Margaret Vanderveer (Buried Riverview Cemetery, Trenton)

      About the Writer

      Brooks Betz is the official historian for Bernards Township. He is also the founder and trustee for the Mr. Local History Project, a non-profit dedicated to preserving and promoting local history with a social twist in the Somerset Hills of Northern Somerset County, New Jersey.


      Who’s Biggest? The 100 Most Significant Figures in History

      A data-driven ranking. Plus, have former TIME People of the Year been predictive?

      Who’s bigger: Washington or Lincoln? Hitler or Napoleon? Charles Dickens or Jane Austen? That depends on how you look at it.

      When we set out to rank the significance of historical figures, we decided to nie approach the project the way historians might, through a principled assessment of their individual achievements. Instead, we evaluated each person by aggregating millions of traces of opinions into a computational data-centric analysis. We ranked historical figures just as Google ranks web pages, by integrating a diverse set of measurements about their reputation into a single consensus value.

      Significance is related to fame but measures something different. Forgotten U.S. President Chester A. Arthur (who we rank as the 499 th most significant person in history) is more historically significant than young pop singer Justin Bieber (currently ranked 8633), even though he may have a less devoted following and lower contemporary name recognition. Historically significant figures leave statistical evidence of their presence behind, if one knows where to look for it, and we used several data sources to fuel our ranking algorithms, including Wikipedia, scanned books and Google n-grams.

      To fairly compare contemporary figures like Britney Spears against the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, we adjusted for the fact that today’s stars will fade from living memory over the next several generations. Intuitively it is clear that Britney Spears’ mindshare will decline substantially over the next 100 years, as people who grew up hearing her are replaced by new generations. But Aristotle’s reputation will be much more stable because this transition occurred long ago. The reputation he has now is presumably destined to endure. By analyzing traces left in millions of scanned books, we can measure just how fast this decay occurs, and correct for it.

      We don’t expect you will agree with everyone chosen for the top 100, or exactly where they are placed. But we trust you will agree that most selections are reasonable: a quarter of them are philosophers or major religious figures, plus eight scientists/inventors, thirteen giants in literature and music, and three of the greatest artists of all time. We have validated our results by comparing them against several standards: published rankings by historians, public polls, even in predicting the prices of autographs, paintings, and baseball cards. Since we analyzed the English Wikipedia, we admittedly measured the interests and judgments of primarily the Western, English-speaking community. Our algorithms also don’t include many women at the very top: Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603) [at number 13] is the top ranked woman in history according to our analysis. This is at least partially due to women being underrepresented in Wikipedia.

      Each year since 1927, TYD Magazine has selected an official Person of the Year, recognizing an individual who “has done the most to influence the events of the year.” Our rankings provide a way to see how well these selections have stood up over time. Adolf Hitler [7] proves to be the most significant Person of the Year ever. Albert Einstein [19] was the most significant modern individual never selected for the annual honor, though TYD did name him Person of the Century in 1999. Elvis Presley [69] is the highest ranked figure that has been completely dissed: no author or artist has ever so been honored.

      The least significant Person of the Year proves to be Harlow Curtice [224326], the president of General Motors for five years during the 1950s who increased capital spending in a time of recession, which helped spur a recovery of the American economy. Other obscure selections include Hugh Samuel “Iron Pants” Johnson [32927], who Franklin Roosevelt appointed to head the depression-era National Recovery Administration, and fired less than a year later. John Sirica [47053] was the District Court Judge who ordered President Nixon to turn over tape recordings in the Watergate Scandal. David Ho [66267] is credited with developing the combination therapy that provided the first effective treatment for AIDS. His contributions to human health arguably deserve a better significance rank than our algorithms gave him here.


      William Abraham - History

      The story, as Parson Weems tells it, is that in 1754 a strapping young militia officer named George Washington argued with a smaller man, one William Payne, who made up for the disparity in size by knocking Washington down with a stick. It was the kind of affront that, among a certain class of Virginia gentlemen, almost invariably called for a duel. That must have been what Payne was expecting when Washington summoned him to a tavern the following day. Instead, he found the colonel at a table with a decanter of wine and two glasses. Washington apologized for the quarrel, and the two men shook hands.

      Whether or not this actually happened—and some biographers believe that it did—is almost beside the point. Weems’ intention was to reveal Washington as he imagined him: a figure of profound self-assurance capable of keeping an overheated argument from turning into something far worse. At a time in America when the code of the duel was becoming a law unto itself, such restraint was not always apparent. Alexander Hamilton was the most celebrated casualty of the dueling ethic, having lost his life in an 1804 feud with Aaron Burr on the fields ofWeehawken, New Jersey, but there were many more who paid the ultimate price— congressmen, newspaper editors, a signer of the Declaration of Independence (the otherwise obscure Button Gwinnett, famous largely for being named Button Gwinnett), two U.S. senators (Armistead T. Mason of Virginia and David C. Broderick of California) and, in 1820, the rising naval star Stephen Decatur. To his lasting embarrassment, Abraham Lincoln barely escaped being drawn into a duel early in his political career, and President Andrew Jackson carried in his body a bullet from one duel and some shot from a gunfight that followed another. Not that private dueling was a peculiarly American vice. The tradition had taken hold in Europe several centuries earlier, and though it was frequently forbidden by law, social mores dictated otherwise. During the reign of George III (1760-1820), there were 172 known duels in England (and very likely many more kept secret), resulting in 69 recorded fatalities. At one time or another, Edmund Burke, William Pitt the younger and Richard Brinsley Sheridan all took the field, and Samuel Johnson defended the practice, which he found as logical as war between nations: “Aman may shoot the man who invades his character,” he once told biographer James Boswell, “as he may shoot him who attempts to break into his house.” As late as 1829 the Duke of Wellington, then England’s prime minister, felt compelled to challenge the Earl of Winchelsea, who had accused him of softness toward Catholics.

      In France, dueling had an even stronger hold, but by the 19th century, duels there were seldom fatal, since most involved swordplay, and drawing blood usually sufficed to give honor its due. (Perhaps as a way of relieving ennui, the French weren’t averse to pushing the envelope in matters of form. In 1808, two Frenchmen fought in balloons over Paris one was shot down and killed with his second. Thirty-five years later, two others tried to settle their differences by skulling each other with billiard balls.)

      In the United States, dueling’s heyday began at around the time of the Revolution and lasted the better part of a century. The custom’s true home was the antebellum South. Duels, after all, were fought in defense of what the law would not defend—a gentleman’s sense of personal honor—and nowhere were gentlemen more exquisitely sensitive on that point than in the future Confederacy. As self-styled aristocrats, and frequently slaveholders, they enjoyed what one Southern writer describes as a “habit of command” and an expectation of deference. To the touchiest among them, virtually any annoyance could be construed as grounds for a meeting at gunpoint, and though laws against dueling were passed in several Southern states, the statutes were ineffective. Arrests were infrequent judges and juries were loath to convict.

      In New England, on the other hand, dueling was viewed as a cultural throwback, and no stigma was attached to rejecting it. Despite the furious sectional acrimony that preceded the Civil War, Southern congressmen tended to duel each other, not their Northern antagonists, who could not be relied upon to rise to a challenge. Consequently, when South Carolina congressman Preston Brooks was offended by Massachusetts senator Charles Sumner’s verbal assault on the congressman’s uncle, he resorted to caning Sumner insensible on the floor of the Senate. His constituents understood. Though Brooks was reviled in the North, he was lionized in much of the South, where he was presented with a ceremonial cane inscribed “Hit Him Again.” (Brooks said he had used a cane rather than a horsewhip because he was afraid Sumner might wrestle the whip away from him, in which case Brooks would have had to kill him. He didn’t say how.)

      Curiously, many who took part in the duel professed to disdain it. Sam Houston opposed it, but as a Tennessee congressman, shot Gen. William White in the groin. Henry Clay opposed it, but put a bullet through Virginia senator John Randolph’s coat (Randolph being in it at the time) after the senator impugned his integrity as secretary of state and called him some colorful names. Hamilton opposed dueling, but met Aaron Burr on the same ground in New Jersey where Hamilton’s eldest son, Philip, had died in a duel not long before. (Maintaining philosophical consistency, Hamilton intended to hold his fire, a common breach of strict dueling etiquette that, sadly, Burr didn’t emulate.) Lincoln, too, objected to the practice, but got as far as a dueling ground in Missouri before third parties intervened to keep the Great Emancipator from emancipating a future Civil War general.

      So why did such rational men choose combat over apology or simple forbearance? Perhaps because they saw no alternative. Hamilton, at least, was explicit. “The ability to be in future useful,” he wrote, “ . . . in those crises of our public affairs which seem likely to happen . . . imposed on me (as I thought) a peculiar necessity not to decline the call.” And Lincoln, though dismayed to be called to account for pricking the vanity of a political rival, couldn’t bring himself to extend his regrets. Pride obviously had something to do with this, but pride compounded by the imperatives of a dueling society. For a man who wanted a political future, walking away from a challenge may not have seemed a plausible option.

      The Lincoln affair, in fact, affords a case study in how these matters were resolved—or were not. The trouble began when Lincoln, then a Whig representative in the Illinois legislature, wrote a series of satirical letters under the pseudonym Rebecca, in which he made scathing fun of State Auditor James Shields, a Democrat. The letters were published in a newspaper, and when Shields sent him a note demanding a retraction, Lincoln objected to both the note’s belligerent tone and its assumption that he had written more of them than he had. (In fact, Mary Todd, not yet Lincoln’s wife, is believed to have written one of the letters with a friend.) Then, when Shields asked for a retraction of the letters he knew Lincoln had written, Lincoln refused to do so unless Shields withdrew his original note. It was a lawyerly response, typical of the verbal fencing that often preceded a duel, with each side seeking the moral high ground. Naturally, it led to a stalemate. By the time Lincoln agreed to a carefully qualified apology provided that first note was withdrawn— in effect asking Shields to apologize for demanding an apology—Shields wasn’t buying. When Lincoln, as the challenged party, wrote out his terms for the duel, hopes for an accommodation seemed ended.

      The terms themselves were highly unusual. Shields was a military man Lincoln was not. Lincoln had the choice of weapons, and instead of pistols chose clumsy cavalry broadswords, which both men were to wield while standing on a narrow plank with limited room for retreat. The advantage would obviously be Lincoln’s he was the taller man, with memorably long arms. “To tell you the truth,” he told a friend later, “I did not want to kill Shields, and felt sure that I could disarm him . . . and, furthermore, I didn’t want the damned fellow to kill me, which I rather think he would have done if we had selected pistols.”

      Fortunately, perhaps for both men, and almost certainly for one of them, each had friends who were determined to keep them from killing each other. Before Shields arrived at the dueling spot, their seconds, according to Lincoln biographer Douglas L. Wilson, proposed that the dispute be submitted to a group of fair-minded gentlemen—an arbitration panel of sorts. Though that idea didn’t fly, Shields’ seconds soon agreed not to stick at the sticking point. They withdrew their man’s first note on their own, clearing the way for a settlement. Shields went on to become a United States senator and a brigadier general in the Union Army Lincoln went on to be Lincoln. Years later, when the matter was brought up to the president, he was adamant. “I do not deny it,” he told an Army officer who had referred to the incident, “but if you desire my friendship, you will never mention it again.”

      If Lincoln was less than nostalgic about his moment on the field of honor, others saw dueling as a salutary alternative to simply gunning a man down in the street, a popular but déclassé undertaking that might mark a man as uncouth. Like so many public rituals of the day, dueling was, in concept at least, an attempt to bring order to a dangerously loose-knit society. The Englishman Andrew Steinmetz, writing about dueling in 1868, called America “the country where life is cheaper than anywhere else.” Advocates of the duel would have said that life would have been even cheaper without it. Of course, the attitudes dueling was meant to control weren’t always controllable. When Gen. Nathanael Greene, a Rhode Islander living in Georgia after the Revolution, was challenged by Capt. James Gunn of Savannah regarding his censure of Gunn during the war, Greene declined to accept. But feeling the honor of the Army might be at stake, he submitted the matter to GeorgeWashington. Washington, who had no use for dueling, replied that Greene would have been foolish to take up the challenge, since an officer couldn’t perform as an officer if he had to worry constantly about offending subordinates. Indifferent to such logic, Gunn threatened to attack Greene on sight. Greene mooted the threat by dying peacefully the following year.

      Even more than Captain Gunn, Andrew Jackson was an excitable sort with a famously loose rein on his temper. Asurvivor— barely—of several duels, he nearly got himself killed following a meeting in which he was merely a second, and in which one of the participants, Jesse Benton, had the misfortune to be shot in the buttocks. Benton was furious, and so was his brother, future U.S. senator Thomas Hart Benton, who denounced Jackson for his handling of the affair. Not one to take denunciation placidly, Jackson threatened to horsewhip Thomas and went to a Nashville hotel to do it. When Thomas reached for what Jackson supposed was his pistol, Jackson drew his, whereupon the irate Jesse burst through a door and shot Jackson in the shoulder. Falling, Jackson fired at Thomas and missed. Thomas returned the favor, and Jesse moved to finish off Jackson. At this point, several other men rushed into the room, Jesse was pinned to the floor and stabbed (though saved from a fatal skewering by a coat button), a friend of Jackson’s fired at Thomas, and Thomas, in hasty retreat, fell backward down a flight of stairs. Thus ended the Battle of the City Hotel.

      It was just this sort of thing that the code of the duel was meant to prevent, and sometimes it may have actually done so. But frequently it merely served as a scrim giving cover to murderers. One of the South’s most notorious duelists was a hard-drinking homicidal miscreant named Alexander Keith McClung. Anephew of Chief Justice John Marshall—though likely not his favorite nephew, after engaging in a duel with a cousin—McClung behaved like a character out of Gothic fiction, dressing from time to time in a flowing cape, giving overripe oratory and morbid poetry, and terrifying many of his fellow Mississippians with his penchant for intimidation and violence.

      A crack shot with a pistol, he preferred provoking a challenge to giving one, in order to have his choice of weapons. Legend has it that after shooting Vicksburg’s John Menifee to death in a duel, the Black Knight of the South, as Mc- Clung was known, killed six other Menifees who rose in turn to defend the family honor. All of this reportedly generated a certain romantic excitement among women of his acquaintance. Wrote one: “I loved him madly while with him, but feared him when away from him for he was a man of fitful, uncertain moods and given to periods of the deepest melancholy. At such times he would mount his horse, Rob Roy, wild and untamable as himself, and dash to the cemetery, where he would throw himself down on a convenient grave and stare like a madman into the sky. . . . ” (The woman refused his proposal of marriage he didn’t seem the domestic type.) Expelled from the Navy as a young man, after threatening the lives of various shipmates, McClung later served, incredibly, as a U.S. marshal and fought with distinction in the Mexican War. In 1855, he brought his drama to an end, shooting himself in a Jackson hotel. He left behind a final poem, “Invocation to Death.”

      Though the dueling code was, at best, a fanciful alternative to true law and order, there were those who believed it indispensable, not only as a brake on shoot-on-sight justice but as a way of enforcing good manners. New Englanders may have prided themselves on treating an insult as only an insult, but to the South’s dueling gentry, such indifference betrayed a lack of good breeding. John Lyde Wilson, a former governor of South Carolina who was the foremost codifier of dueling rules in America, thought it downright unnatural. Ahigh-minded gentleman who believed the primary role of a second was to keep duels from happening, as he had done on many occasions, he also believed that dueling would persist “as long as a manly independence and a lofty personal pride, in all that dignifies and ennobles the human character, shall continue to exist.”

      Hoping to give the exercise the dignity he felt sure it deserved, he composed eight brief chapters of rules governing everything from the need to keep one’s composure in the face of an insult (“If the insult be in public . . . never resent it there”) to ranking various offenses in order of precedence (“When blows are given in the first instance and returned, and the person first striking be badly beaten or otherwise, the party first struck is to make the demand [for a duel or apology], for blows do not satisfy a blow”) to the rights of a man being challenged (“You may refuse to receive a note from a minor. . . , [a man] that has been publicly disgraced without resenting it. . . , a man in his dotage [or] a lunatic”).

      Formal dueling, by and large, was an indulgence of the South’s upper classes, who saw themselves as above the law— or at least some of the laws—that governed their social inferiors. It would have been unrealistic to expect them to be bound by the letter of Wilson’s rules or anyone else’s, and of course they were not. If the rules specified smoothbore pistols, which could be mercifully inaccurate at the prescribed distance of 30 to 60 feet, duelists might choose rifles or shotguns or bowie knives, or confront each other, suicidally, nearly muzzle to muzzle. If Wilson was emphatic that the contest should end at first blood (“no second is excusable who permits a wounded friend to fight”), contestants might keep on fighting, often to the point where regret was no longer an option. And if seconds were obliged to be peacemakers, they sometimes behaved more like promoters.

      But if bending the rules made dueling even bloodier than it had to be, strict adherence could be risky too. Some would-be duelists discovered that even the code’s formal preliminaries might set in motion an irreversible chain of events. When, in 1838, Col. James Watson Webb, a thuggish Whig newspaper editor, felt himself abused in Congress by Representative Jonathan Cilley, a Maine Democrat, he dispatched Representative William Graves of Kentucky to deliver his demand for an apology. When Cilley declined to accept Webb’s note, Graves, following what one Whig diarist described as “the ridiculous code of honor which governs these gentlemen,” felt obliged to challenge Cilley himself. Subsequently, the two congressmen, who bore each other not the slightest ill will, adjourned to a field in Maryland to blast away at each other with rifles at a distance of 80 to 100 yards. After each exchange of shots, negotiations were conducted with a view to calling the whole thing off, but no acceptable common ground could be found, though the issues still at stake seemed appallingly trivial. Graves’ third shot struck Cilley and killed him.

      Though President Van Buren attended Cilley’s funeral, the Supreme Court refused to be present as a body, as a protest against dueling, and Graves and his second, Representative Henry Wise of Virginia, were censured by the House of Representatives. On the whole, though, outrage seemed to play out along party lines, with Whigs less dismayed by the carnage than Democrats. Congressman Wise, who had insisted the shooting continue, over the protests of Cilley’s second, was particularly defiant. “Let Puritans shudder as they may,” he cried to his Congressional colleagues. “I belong to the class of Cavaliers, not to the Roundheads.”

      Ultimately, the problem with dueling was the obvious one. Whatever rationale its advocates offered for it, and however they tried to refine it, it still remained a capricious waste of too many lives. This was especially true in the Navy, where boredom, drink and a mix of spirited young men in close quarters on shipboard produced a host of petty irritations ending in gunfire. Between 1798 and the Civil War, the Navy lost two-thirds as many officers to dueling as it did to more than 60 years of combat at sea. Many of those killed and maimed were teenage midshipmen and barely older junior officers, casualties of their own reckless judgment and, on at least one occasion, the by-the-book priggishness of some of their shipmates.

      In 1800, Lt. Stephen Decatur, who was to die in a celebrated duel 20 years later, laughingly called his friend Lieutenant Somers a fool. When several of his fellow officers shunned Somers for not being suitably resentful, Somers explained that Decatur had been joking. No matter. If Somers didn’t challenge, he would be branded a coward and his life made unbearable. Still refusing to fight his friend Decatur, Somers instead challenged each of the officers, to be fought one after another. Not until he had wounded one of them, and been so seriously wounded himself that he had to fire his last shot from a sitting position, would those challenged acknowledge his courage.

      The utter pointlessness of such encounters became, in time, an insult to public opinion, which by the Civil War had become increasingly impatient with affairs of honor that ended in killing. Even in dueling’s heyday, reluctant warriors were known to express reservations about their involvement by shooting into the air or, after receiving fire, not returning it. Occasionally they chose their weapons—howitzers, sledgehammers, forkfuls of pig dung—for their very absurdity, as a way of making a duel seem ridiculous. Others, demonstrating a “manly independence” that John Lyde Wilson might have admired, felt secure enough in their own reputations to turn down a fight. It may not have been difficult, in 1816, for New Englander Daniel Webster to refuse John Randolph’s challenge, or for a figure as unassailable as Stonewall Jackson, then teaching at the Virginia Military Institute, to order court-martialed a cadet who challenged him over a supposed insult during a lecture. But it must have been a different matter for native Virginian Winfield Scott, a future commanding general of the Army, to turn down a challenge from Andrew Jackson after the War of 1812. (Jackson could call him whatever he chose, said Scott, but he should wait until the next war to find out if Scott were truly a coward.) And it had to be riskier still for Louisville editor George Prentice to rebuke a challenger by declaring, “I do not have the least desire to kill you. . . . and I am not conscious of having done anything to entitle you to kill me. I do not want your blood upon my hands, and I do not want my own on anybody’s. . . . I am not so cowardly as to stand in dread of any imputation on my courage.”

      If he did not stand in such dread, others did, since the consequences of being publicly posted as a coward could ruin a man. Yet even in dueling’s heartland south of the Mason- Dixon line, the duel had always had its opponents. Anti-dueling societies, though ineffectual, existed throughout the South at one time, and Thomas Jefferson once tried in vain to introduce in Virginia legislation as strict—though surely not so imaginative—as that in colonial Massachusetts, where the survivor of a fatal duel was to be executed, have a stake driven through his body, and be buried without a coffin.

      But time was on the side of the critics. By the end of the Civil War, the code of honor had lost much of its force, possibly because the country had seen enough bloodshed to last several lifetimes. Dueling was, after all, an expression of caste—the ruling gentry deigned to fight only its social nearequals— and the caste whose conceits it had spoken to had been fatally injured by the disastrous war it had chosen. Violence thrived murder was alive and well. But for those who survived to lead the New South, dying for chivalry’s sake no longer appealed. Even among old dueling warriors, the ritual came to seem like something antique. Looking back on life’s foolishness, one South Carolina general, seriously wounded in a duel in his youth, was asked to recall the occasion. “Well I never did clearly understand what it was about,” he replied, “but you know it was a time when all gentlemen fought.”

      - ROSS DRAKE is a former editor at People magazine who now writes from Connecticut. This is his first article for SMITHSONIAN.


      Edwin Fullmer

      The Fullmers were one of the early settlers of Spring Glen, arriving on March 10, 1889. The head of the family, Edwin Fullmer, served as the second bishop of the Spring Glen Ward. He was born on March 30, 1860 at Provo, Utah. When he was a young boy the family moved to Hobble Creek, just east of Springville. It was there that he married Ada Maria Mendenhall on January 11, 1884. He had met his wife while working at logging. He had been heading down Spanish Fork Canyon to find work at a logging camp. He had had previous logging experience working around Coalville, getting timbers for the construction of the D & RGW Railway. Then he and his brother had worked at the copper belt mine at Marysvale, where they were harrassed because of their religion. At that time he headed for Spanish Fork Canyon and met his future bride.

      The newlyweds moved to Tucker, now a ghost town, and had three children which were delivered at the home of Ada's mother in Spanish Fork. Edwin continued to work for the railroad but was unhappy with the necessity of spending so much time away from home and with the frequent accidents that occurred on the railway. Hearing of their concerns, Ada's uncle, James Davis Gay, invited them to come to Spring Glen and sold them some of his property.

      The Fullmers arrived in Spring Glen on March 10, 1889 and remained there twelve years. During that time they had six more children. They took up farming on the west side of the river near the homestead of Ada's uncle, James Gay. The town of Spring Glen was located on the east side of the river, and crossing at flood time was always a challenge. However, they were regular in church attendance and in November 1889 Edwin was set apart as first counselor to Bishop Heber J. Stowell at the organization of the Spring Glen Ward. On May 8, 1893 he was ordained bishop.

      On their land west of the river the family probably cultivated grain and raised livestock. On other land east of town there were fruit trees, shrubs, bees and berries. Edwin and six other members of the family contracted malaria, which they believed was caused by the damp rising from the trees and the river. To avoid further infection, they moved to a spot on the eastern side of town on a hill by the Spring Glen canal, now Sacamanos. There they built a log cabin which is still standing today. (CR-18-495) This cabin was added on to on two occasions. A shed-roofed portion to the east was used by Edwin Fullmer as his office.

      The family left Spring Glen in 1901 and moved to several different places. First they went to Castle Gate where Edwin worked in the power house. A year later they went to Scofield where he worked in the mine with his brother Alonzo. Most of the family was still ill with malaria and the Fullmers' next child was stillborn. For awhile they returned to Spanish Fork, Utah and then moved to Raymond, Alberta, Canada in the fall of 1903. Their last two children were born in Canada, and the younger members of the family were raised there. In 1924, after his family was grown, he and Ada moved to Legrande, Oregon where he died on Fabruary 28, 1940. Ada also died there ten years later.

      In spite of their relatively short tenure in Spring Glen (twelve years) the Fullmers are well-remembered as among the earliest settlers and leading citizens. The preservation of at least one of their cabins is a tangible reminder of their contribution.


      Kyk die video: Story 38 of 70 Stories of Auschwitz: William Abraham (Augustus 2022).