Članki

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 se je rodil v Cwmavonu v Glamorganu leta 1842. Izobražen na nacionalni šoli Cwmavon je pri desetih letih postal kolar.

Leta 1873 je postal agent rudarjev, na splošnih volitvah 1885 pa poslanec Lib-Lab za Rhonddo. Abraham je bil čudovit javni govornik in rudarji so mu dali vzdevek Mabon (Bard). Imel je tudi izjemen pevski glas in je pogosto zabaval rudarje na konferencah in demonstracijah.

Abraham je ostal aktiven v sindikalnem gibanju, do leta 1907 pa je bil predsednik Zveze rudarjev Južnega Walesa in blagajnik Zveze rudarjev Velike Britanije.

Abraham je na sedmih zaporednih parlamentarnih volitvah zmagal Rhonddo in ostal poslanec, dokler se leta 1920 ni upokojil.

William Abraham je umrl 14. maja 1922.

Če je prišlo do kakšnega trenja in grozil pandemonij - tako enostavno vzbuditi, tako težko zadušiti - "Mabon" nikoli ni poskušal vzpostaviti reda na kakršen koli običajen način. Takoj je zapel valižansko himno ali tisto čarobno melodijo "Dežela mojega očeta". Komaj je prišel do druge vrstice, ko je z dvignjenimi rokami, kot da bi vso svojo množico potegnil v krog svojega vpliva, imel ogromno občinstva, ki je padlo v njihove "dele", in ga spremljalo kot izurjen zbor. Bilo je čudovito, skoraj čarobno in učinek je bil navdušujoč. Ko je himna ali pesem končana, je dvignil roko in takoj je zavladala popolna tišina. Nevihta je minila.


Združeni metodisti na koncu glavne črte

Združena metodistična cerkev stoji v kritičnem trenutku. Ustanovljeno leta 1968 v času ekumenskega navdušenja in evforije, zdaj v sebi skriva sile, ki mu grozijo, da ga bodo uničile kot eno samo telo. Te sile niso nastale čez noč, ampak so se razširile nazaj v matična telesa, ki so se združila in oblikovala Združeni metodizem. Tri skupine, liberalci, radikali in konservativci, težko vzdržujejo svoj neprijeten kompromis.

Dolgo se je strinjalo, da je združeni metodizem koalicija različnih prepričanj in mnenj, ki je nastala pod zastavo teološkega pluralizma. Cerkveni voditelji so v sedemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja zagovarjali stališče, da je osrednja identiteta združenega metodizma, če ga sploh obstaja, v zavezanosti metodističnemu štirikotniku (Svetem pismu, tradiciji, razumu in izkušnjam) in da to ni dovoljeno, ampak dejstvo sankcioniral in spodbujal doktrinarni pluralizem.

Doktrinalni pluralizem bo kljub intelektualni neskladnosti deloval, dokler bo vodstvo cerkve držalo nekaj podobnega liberalnemu protestantizmu in dokler bodo tisti, ki niso liberalni protestanti, pristali. Dejansko je pluralizem del intelektualne strukture liberalnega protestantizma. Če menite, da je krščanski nauk v bistvu poskus ujeti razsežnosti človeške izkušnje, ki kljub osebnim in kulturnim omejitvam kljubuje natančnemu izražanju v jeziku, potem resnice o Bogu, človeškem stanju, odrešenju in podobnem nikoli ne moremo ustrezno postaviti in za vse nasprotno, cerkev mora vedno znova izražati svoje doživljanje božanskega, posredovanega po Jezusu Kristusu. Cerkev postane nekakšen večni seminar, katerega standardna besedila se nenehno spreminjajo in pogovor se nikoli ne konča. V teh okoliščinah je pluralizem neizogibna značilnost cerkvenega življenja. Pluralizem učinkovito preprečuje nastanek krščanske doktrinarne izpovedi, torej dogovorjenega krščanskega prepričanja in resnice ter ustvarja psihološke in socialne pogoje za stalno samokritiko in presojo.

Neusklajenost tega stališča kljub začetni verjetnosti ni težko zaznati. Pod lastnimi pogoji ne more prenašati, na primer, tistih, ki verjamejo, da res obstaja dokončno razodetje božanskega, da lahko cerkev res zazna in izrazi resnico o Bogu z delovanjem razuma in Svetega Duha in da takšno resnica je potrebna za učinkovito poslanstvo in služenje. Zato je pluralizem po naravi izključujoč. Zato ne preseneča, da pluralisti zlahka zapustijo svoj pluralizem v svojem ostrem nasprotovanju nekaterim vrstam klasične in konzervativne teologije.

Pluralizem je hkrati absolutističen in relativističen. Absolutno se zavzema za negativno doktrino, da ni božanskega razodetja, ki prinaša pristno spoznanje Boga, je popolnoma zavezano radikalno apofatičnemu pojmovanju krščanske teologije, tako da noben človeški jezik ali koncept, sploh produkt razuma ne moreta ustrezno izražajo skrivnost božanskega in je popolnoma zavezan uporabi teologije za artikuliranje krščanskega nauka glede na dnevne potrebe in idiom. Toda v svoji viziji o tem, kaj je materialna vsebina krščanskega nauka na kateri koli točki zgodovine, je relativistična. Nauk za pluraliste je izraz krščanskega učenja, ki ga je razvila neka ustrezna teologija in izrazilo v terminih, ki ustrezajo takratni kulturi. Krščanska tradicija zanje predstavlja vrsto pomembnih izrazov vere, ki jih je vredno raziskati, vendar se morajo spremeniti, da bodo vključevali nova spoznanja in novo resnico. Na tej analizi se zdi, da je tradicija relativno benigni, če ne celo strogo zavezujoč pojav.

V zadnjem času pa se je pojavil zelo drugačen odnos do cerkvene in rsquos tradicije. Zdaj je v teologiji v tujini oblika radikalnega protestantizma, ki predstavlja povsem novo vizijo krščanske vere in obstoja. Njegovi zagovorniki trdijo, da v tradiciji prevladujeta patriarhat in izključenost, produkt zatiralskih sil, povezanih z geografsko lego, družbenim razredom, raso in spolom. Tega ne smemo tolerirati, ampak ga iztisnemo in uničimo. Nihče, vsaj v javnosti, ne bi bil pripravljen tako odkrito povedati, a to je resnica.

Tako kot liberalci so tudi radikali absolutisti in relativisti, vendar o različnih zadevah. Absolutizirajo zavezanost osvoboditvi, emancipaciji in opolnomočenju. Enako absoluten je privilegiran položaj označenih žrtev zatiranja. V nekaterih radikalnih krogih lahko zaznamo, da se je v njihov diskurz prikradla delovna doktrina božanskega razodetja, kjer se določene izkušnje zatiranja in osvoboditve jemljejo kot epifanije ali kot vidni znaki božjega vladanja in vse, kar postavlja pod vprašaj resnico, vgrajeno v te izkušnje je treba zatreti. Po drugi strani radikali vztrajajo, da ne bi smeli zatreti različnih prepričanj, ideologij, teorij in diskurzov novih vključenih skupin. Postanejo resnično središče pluralizma, ko poskušamo v skrbno omejenih mejah spodbujati različne glasove, izkušnje, branje in predloge.

V intelektualnih krogih združenega metodizma je ta razvoj povzročil nekaj strahu. Mnogi veliki liberalni protestantski učitelji tradicije v zadnji generaciji so bili razočarani zaradi izgube svojega cenjenega pojmovanja kritičnega raziskovanja, vljudnosti in akademskih standardov. So v mešanem občutku obupa, izdaje in odtujenosti. Njihove ideje o objektivnem štipendiranju so prehitele oblike angažirane ali predane štipendije, ki jih vidijo kot mešanico radikalnega subjektivizma in politične manipulacije. Nekaj ​​plodnih je uspelo najti način, da sprejmejo nekatere nove teorije, ne da bi ovrgli globoko strukturo svojega položaja, a splošni občutek je utrujenost in globoka izguba.

V zadnjem času so se delitve, ki so se pojavile šele v akademskih razpravah, začele seliti v širšo cerkev. Precejšnje število ženskih duhovnikov meni, da je nasprotovanje njihovemu intelektualnemu položaju neizbrisno povezano z desničarskim krščanstvom ali neločljivo povezano z odzivom belih moških v cerkvi. To je v celoti v skladu s temeljnimi prepričanji o znanju in moči, ki oživljajo velik del novega trenda v teologiji.

Ta razvoj je resnično nov prihod v meje Združenega Metodizma. Seveda to ni prvič, da je prišlo do menjave akademske straže, tokrat pa imamo nekaj več, namerno politično prednost, ki ne dovoljuje, da bi bila vsebovana v standardnem liberalnem jeziku strpnosti in vljudnosti. & ldquoSodelovana štipendija & rdquo prinaša v središče razprave pomisleke, povezane s čustvi, zavezanostjo, osebno identiteto, subjektivno recepcijo in radikalnim uveljavljanjem na javnem prizorišču. Pravzaprav obstaja misijonarska razsežnost, ki svoje privržence žene k preoblikovanju cerkve in sveta. V tem pogledu je nova ortodoksija zelo podobna prejšnjim oblikam pravovernosti, ki so cerkvi služile iz zelo posebne konfesionalne drže. Obstaja tudi sočasna skrb za povezovanje znanja in delovanja ter povezovanje delovanja z vitalno duhovnostjo.

Številni dobri pastirji, teologi in upravniki, ljudje, ki so cerkvi dajali generacijo storitev in se zavzemajo za majhno jedro kristološkega prepričanja, obdanega z zelo prilagodljivim zunanjim obročem prepričanja, si še vedno predstavljajo, da so stvari podobne bili so, ko so bili v semenišču. Takšni voditelji so lahko intelektualno preživeli tako, da so vladajočo raznolikost in pluralizem spremenili v svoje prepričanje, da je Jezus res Božji Sin in učitelj in odrešenik sveta. Njihov moto bi lahko povzeli: & ldquoBlizu se držite Kristusa, ostalo pa prepustite Bogu in človeški zgodovini. & Rdquo To je neustrezen nauk za dolgo zgodovino, ki pa je izjemno dobro služil celotni generaciji. Čeprav se zavedajo, da se intelektualni mejniki spreminjajo, težko verjamejo, da bi lahko osnovno zavezanost vljudnosti, ustrezne dokaze in spoštovanje cerkvene tradicije v vekih prehitela zelo drugačna vizija cerkve. Vendar je samo vprašanje časa, kdaj bodo zgoraj navedene spremembe vsiljene na te voditelje.

Za zaokrožitev tega sodobnega portreta Združene metodistične cerkve je treba povedati nekaj o konzervativnih ali klasičnih metodistih. Ta skupina, ki je na sekularistični način pogosto opredeljena kot desno krilo veroizpovedi, je obtožena, da je razdelila cerkev.

Ta obtožba je skrajno zmedena, saj je bila praksa celo trdnih konzervativcev vse prej kot razkol. Namesto da bi se umaknili, so se več let odločili ostati in delati za obnovo. Dejansko je večina konservativcev v okviru združenega metodizma instinktivno naravnana na prenovo in ne na razkol. Tisti, ki so predani razkolu, so že odšli in odšli drugam. Konservativno krilo cerkve je sama po sebi krhka koalicija, vključno s tistimi, ki se nagibajo v katoliško smer, tistimi, ki nosijo kartoteke, tistimi, ki so nagnjeni v anabaptistično smer, in tistimi, ki so v resnici pragmatiki, a zaenkrat se nagibajo k konzervativnost zaradi udobja in tradicionalna pobožnost. Tisti, ki verjamejo, da obstaja kakšna zarota, da bi se izvlekli in ustanovili novo cerkev, spregledajo te razlike med konservativci in podcenjujejo težave pri njihovem združevanju. Koalicija se večinoma neformalno drži zaradi zaznane grožnje celovitosti in kontinuiteti metodistične tradicije. Odstranite to grožnjo in notranje delitve znotraj konservativnega krila cerkve bodo hitro postale vidne.

Trije dodatni premisleki so ključni za razumevanje trenutnega razpoloženja med konzervativci. Prvič, bili so razmeroma učinkoviti na lokalni ravni, v nekaterih primerih je bil njihov uspeh pri gojenju lokalnih cerkva spektakularen. To jih je zaposlilo in jim omogočilo, da niso upoštevali tistih značilnosti večje cerkve, ki jih motijo. Drugič, politično so se znotraj cerkve kot celote bolj politično organizirali. Čeprav so še vedno na robu, jih je treba zdaj resno upoštevati. Tretjič, mreža visoko izobraženih konservativnih akademikov je začela nekakšno renesanso klasičnega veslijanstva. Razvoj takšnega omrežja odpira pot za globljo prenovo, pri čemer se osredotočajo na načelna vprašanja, ki bi jih sicer zanemarili, in na artikuliranje močnejše diagnoze razmer v cerkvi.

Shizmatična dejavnost bi vključevala konservativce, ki bi opustili lastna načela. Nekaj ​​bolj zgovornih del je o zlih razkola in njegovih posledicah od tistih, ki jih je dal ustanovitelj metodizma John Wesley. (Ironija lastnega stališča Wesleyja in rsquosa pa ne bo izgubljena za zaznavnega bralca, saj je Wesley ta napad na cerkvene stranke ves čas organiziral eno najučinkovitejših prenovitvenih gibanj, ki jih je videl anglikanizem.)

Upoštevajte naslednje komentarje:

As. . . ločitev je sama po sebi zlo in je kršitev bratske ljubezni, zato prinaša hude sadeže in je seveda produktivna za najbolj hudobne posledice. Odpira vrata vsem neprijaznim temperamentom, tako v nas samih kot v drugih. Neposredno vodi do celega niza zlih ugibanj, do hudega in nemilostnega presojanja drug drugega. To daje priložnost za užaljenost, jezo in zamere, morda tako pri nas kot pri naših bratih, ki se lahko, če jih ne ustavimo, sprožijo v grenkobi, zlobi in ustaljenem sovraštvu ter ustvarijo sedanji pekel, kjer koli jih najdemo, uvod v pekel večen.

Wesley ponuja grafični katalog težav, ki izhajajo iz delitve in razkola. Zle narave vodijo v zlobna dejanja, zaradi česar nekateri kristjani opustijo vero in ogrozijo svoje večno odrešenje. Sveti Duh je obsojen, svetost je pogasjena in evangelizacija trpi, saj tujci ne vidijo smisla postati kristjan. Na koncu se uniči tako moč kot sama oblika vere. Tudi površno branje Wesleyja je protistrup za vsako misel na razkol v cerkvi.

Kljub tem značilnostim konservativnega metodolizma se ga drugi še vedno bojijo kot vir delitve v cerkvi in ​​morda razumljivo. Pojavlja se nova znamka konservativcev, ki trdi, da ima United Methodism res bistveno doktrino, ki se ji je tradicija morala in bi morala biti zavezana. Nekonzervativni združeni metodisti se instinktivno bojijo, da bo takšna perspektiva razdelila cerkev, ker vključuje označevanje meja med tistimi, ki so notri, in tistimi, ki so zunaj. Skratka, kritiki se zanašajo na stari slogan, ki ga nauk deli, medtem ko izkušnje združujejo. Vztrajanje, da je United Methodism konfesionalna cerkev, osrednja trditev večine konservativcev, ogroža zavezanost pluralizmu, raznolikosti in vključenosti zadnje generacije Združenih metodistov. Tu smo dosegli bistvo obtožbe, saj opuščanje pluralizma in sprejemanje raznolikosti le v dogovorjenih mejah res predstavlja pomemben odmik od nestabilne ortodoksije, ki je bila v modi tako dolgo.

Toda tudi ta poteza konzervativcev ne sme voditi do razkola. Nasprotno, tisti, ki so pritisnili na to preusmeritev, so storili točno to, kar so storili pluralistični pred generacijo. Skrbno so opisali tradicijo združenih metodistov, ki tekmuje s prevladujočo. Predlagali so poglobljen pogovor o doktrinarni identiteti združenega metodizma in vztrajali, da se vsaka razprava, ki se pojavi, vodi na resen in civiliziran način. Poleg tega zlahka priznavajo, da je treba predlagane zakonodajne in druge spremembe, če je potrebno, izvesti na hodnikih in sodiščih cerkve na racionalen in pošten način. Liberalni protestanti bi morali takoj razumeti vrednost takšnega pristopa. Odprto je vprašanje, ali bodo to res storili, ali se bodo pridružili radikalnim protestantom, ki bodo celotno vajo zavrnili kot prikrivanje ideologije in iskanje moči.

Glede na vse te pomisleke je izjemno, da se je Združeni metodizem lahko tako dolgo držal skupaj. Čeprav so očitno vpleteni drugi dejavniki, smo imeli srečo, da smo imeli kadre liberalnih protestantov, ki so bili sposobni voditi (čeprav na način, ki je razjezil tako konservativce kot radikale), in smo bili močno zavezani s strani konzervativci, da ostanejo na krovu in delajo za obnovo. Vendar, kot sem opozoril, je to zdaj v procesu razpada in popušča liberalna zavezanost pluralizmu. Pluralizem, čeprav je še vedno cenjen med liberalci, je samouničujoč pojem, ki ga zavračajo tako radikali kot konzervativci. To je sama po sebi nestabilen dogovor, ki ne more preživeti niti sile logike niti prehoda dogodkov.

Soočamo se torej z zlomom delovnega soglasja in ni si težko predstavljati, kaj bi bilo potrebno za dokončanje odmora. Morda se bo pojavila svojeglava osebnost, teološki in cerkveni ekvivalent Rossa Perota, ki bo vztrajal, da vsa cerkev sledi njegovi poti ali umre. Pomembni skupini škofov bi uspelo razviti program, ki je v nasprotju s prevladujočimi okoliščinami. Nekateri veliki organi ali pristojnosti bi se lahko tako odtujili od vodstva cerkve in bili tako razburjeni zaradi politik financiranja na ključnih področjih, da se odločijo, da bodo zadržali vse prispevke za Connection, vodilno telo Združenega metodizma.

Recimo, da se je z leve ali desne strani pojavilo vprašanje moralne zavezanosti, zaradi katerega bi se različna cerkvena gibanja lahko strinjala, da je treba ukrepati v celotni cerkvi, vendar se ne bi mogla dogovoriti, kaj naj storijo. Predpostavimo nadalje, da je bilo to vprašanje logično povezano z načelnimi vprašanji na globlji ravni, tako da se človek ne bi mogel zavezati temu vprašanju, ne da bi se tudi zavezal glede notranje logike in značaja tradicije kot celote. Predpostavimo še, da tisti, ki zahtevajo ukrepanje, niso nameravali uporabiti le argumentacije in retorike, ampak tudi demonstracije aktivistov, da bi si zagotovili cilj. Končno predpostavimo, da bodo oblikovali skupnost krajevnih cerkva in drugih entitet v okviru združenega metodizma, ki sta izrazila svoja moralna prepričanja in si prizadevno prizadevala za praktično sprejetje njihovega dnevnega reda. Če bi se razvil takšen scenarij, potem ni dvoma, da bi bila skupnost zrela za odkrit razkol.

Raketni znanstvenik ne potrebuje, da bi ugotovil, kakšen je dejansko ustrezen scenarij. Tako kot vse glavne protestantske denominacije se združeni metodizem spopada s svojim tradicionalnim stališčem o spolni morali s pojavom vestnega prepričanja, da so gejevski in lezbični odnosi zakonit izraz dobrega in raznolikega stvarstva Boga. Revizioniste dovolj vznemirja pravičnost njihovega vzroka, da se jim zdi nujno uporabiti racionalna in neracionalna sredstva za zmago nad cerkvijo kot celoto. Pred več kot desetletjem so naredili pomemben korak pri institucionalizaciji svojega položaja po vsej denominaciji.

V tem razvoju je globoka in nenamerna ironija. Teologija, ki poganja vest o spremembah, je globoko zavezana vključevanju. V tej teologiji imajo gejevski in lezbični kristjani enak status, ki so ga prej pripisali sužnjem, trenutno pa pripisujejo ženskam, status tistih, ki so izključeni iz tradicionalne cerkve. Jasen cilj je vključitev te nove manjšine v cerkev, učinek pa je izganjanje tistih, ki nasprotujejo legitimizaciji homoseksualnosti. Ker se vidijo kot nosilci sprave in enotnosti, revizionisti težko vidijo, da je njihov položaj dejansko izključujoč.

Zavedanje tega paradoksa lahko malo spremeni, kako se bodo stvari razpletle. Zaznavni revizionisti to vidijo in se soočajo s težko dilemo. Eden vidnih župnikov, ki se je osebno zavzel za stališče revizionistov, je v pastoralnem pismu svoji kongregaciji navedel, da so revizionisti uspeli, tisti, ki nasprotujejo legitimizaciji homoseksualnosti, bi morali biti prisiljeni sprejeti bolečo odločitev: lahko ostanejo v cerkvi, ki bi zavzeti se za program, ki se jim je zdel nezdružljiv s poslušnostjo Kristusu, ali pa bi lahko zapustili cerkev. & ldquoO vprašanju, pri katerem celotno število vernikov najde toliko nerešljivih vprašanj, se mi zdi nesprejemljivo prisiliti veliko število naših članov, da se soočijo s to dilemo. & rdquo

To je osvežilno priznanje zadeve. Enako osvežujoč v svoji poštenosti je tudi naslednji komentar starejšega župnika pomirjujoče (torej revizionistične) občine.

Zdaj smo na vrsti, da postanemo pošteni. Čeprav se veroizpovedi našega poimenovanja navežejo na idejo, da je Sveto pismo »ldquoavtoritativno« rdquo in »ldquozadostno za vero in prakso«, smo mnogi med nami v svojem teološkem razmišljanju močno presegli. Samo zavajamo sebe in lažemo svojim evangeličanskim bratom in sestram, ko zanikamo premik, ki smo ga naredili.

Presegli smo onkraj Luther & rsquos sola Scriptura iz istega razloga je Katoliška cerkev po četrtem stoletju presegla kanonizirano Sveto pismo. Zavedamo se, da se razumevanje situacij spreminja. & ldquoNove priložnosti učijo nove dolžnosti. & rdquo Presegli smo veliko dlje od ideje, da je Biblija izključno normativna in dobesedno avtoritativna za našo vero. Po mojem mnenju je to dobro! Slabo je, da smo poskušali prevarati sebe in druge z besedami & ldquowe haven & rsquot spremenili svoj položaj. & Rdquo

Poleg tega le redki med nami ohranjajo vero v Kristusa kot edino rešitev. Zaupamo, da lahko Bog pod številnimi drugimi imeni in v mnogih drugih oblikah rešuje ljudi. Naši pogledi imeti se je skozi leta spreminjal.

Takšno priznanje jasno pove, da je pri tem vprašanju v igri več kot nova moralna presoja homoseksualnosti. V igri so načelna vprašanja —vlogi razodetja in Svetega pisma pri oblikovanju vesti —, ki vplivajo na vprašanja doktrine, ki segajo od mesta Metodističnega štirikotnika pri oblikovanju združene metodistične identitete do mesta Kristusa pri odrešenju.

Dilema za konservativce, ki jim je prisiljen z napadom na tradicionalne nauke, je preprosta: dojemajo svoj položaj kot bistvenega pomena za krščanstvo, zato ga ne morejo videti opuščenega in ohraniti zvestobo preostalemu.

Ni presenetljivo, da se lahko za vodstvo obrnemo na ustanovitelja Metodizma. John Wesley je spoznal, da vseh notranjih sporov v cerkvi ni mogoče izslediti v slabi veri ali pomanjkanju ljubezni. Nekateri so bili stvari vesti. Ko je govoril o svojem odnosu do svoje ljubljene angleške cerkve, je zapisal:

Zdaj sem in že od mladih nog član in strežnik angleške Cerkve. In nimam niti želje niti oblikovanja, da bi se ločil od nje, dokler se moja duša ne loči od mojega telesa. Če pa mi ne bi bilo dovoljeno ostati v njem, ne da bi izpustil tisto, kar Bog od mene zahteva, bi to postalo izpolnjeno in prav, in moja dolžnost, da se od njega nemudoma ločim. Natančneje, vem, da mi je Bog zavezal razdeljevanje evangelija. Ja, in moje lastno odrešenje je odvisno od tega, da ga oznanjujem: & ldquoWoo sem jaz, če ne oznanjujem evangelija. & Rdquo Če potem ne bi mogel ostati v cerkvi, ne da bi to izpustil, ne da bi se odrekel evangeliju, bi se moral ločiti od ali izgubo lastne duše. Podobno, če se ne bi mogel še naprej združevati z manjšo družbo, cerkvijo ali telesom kristjanov, ne da bi storil greh, brez laži in hinavščine, brez pridiganja drugim naukom, v katere sam nisem verjel, bi moral biti pod absolutnim nujnost ločitve od te družbe. In v vseh teh primerih greh ločitve z vsem zlom, ki je iz tega izhajal, ne bi ležal name, ampak nad tistimi, ki so me prisilili v to ločitev, tako da so od mene zahtevali takšne pogoje občestva, ki jih po svoji vesti nisem mogel spoštovati. .

To je trezen opomin. Glede na to, da se pojavlja v kanonski dediščini Združenega metodizma, se je vredno vprašati, ali je mogoče preprečiti, kar napoveduje. Kako se je mogoče izogniti delitvi? Lahko si omislimo več možnosti, vse pa so malo verjetne.

Morda se bodo pojavili odločni novi dokazi ali nova razlaga razpoložljivih doktrinarnih in empiričnih podatkov, ki bodo eno stran vodili k spreobrnitvi druge in s tem rešili enotnost. To je zelo malo verjetna možnost, saj je neverjetno misliti, da se bodo pojavili radikalno novi dokazi ali da bo napredovalo bistveno novo prerazporeditev trenutnih podatkov. Standardne linije so dobro znane in se verjetno ne bodo spremenile.

Morda se bo pojavil nekdo s Salomonovo močjo in modrostjo in našel način za razvoj okvira, v katerem bi se lahko obe strani medsebojno sprejeli v dogovorjenem soglasju. To je malo verjeten scenarij iz vsaj dveh razlogov. Prvič, cerkev kot celota je dolgo časa eksperimentirala s to možnostjo v svoji zavezanosti doktrinarnemu pluralizmu. Kot sem že večkrat trdil, gre za nekoherentno in nestabilno ureditev, ki zdaj razpada. Drugič, tradicija je prevelika in prepolna strank, poslanskih klubov, gibanj in organizacij, da bi takšni osebi omogočili nastanek na nacionalnem nivoju. Ista logika velja za možnost skupnega prizadevanja škofovskega sveta & sami škofje so glede zadevnih vprašanj globoko razdeljeni in so to delitev zdaj izrazili v javnosti.

Morda bodo revizionisti priznali posledice svojega položaja in se umaknili, da bi ustanovili novo cerkev ali se pridružili cerkvi, ki zagovarja njihovo stališče. Tudi to je malo verjetno.

Revizionisti ne predstavljajo monolitne fronte. Dejansko je ena najzanimivejših značilnosti revizionističnega stališča, da v njem lahko živijo tako liberalci kot radikali, kar je glede na napetost med tema dvema skupinama velik podvig. Revizionistično stališče obsega področje od tistih, ki bi lahko razmišljali o svojem stališču, vse do tistih, ki so popolnoma prepričani, da revizijo zahteva evangelij, izhaja iz vodstva Svetega Duha in predstavlja ustrezno preroško dejanje v sedanjem času. generacijo. Nekateri od slednjih prav tako menijo, da je vse nasprotovanje njihovemu vzroku posledica netrpeljivosti, nestrpnosti do manjšin in nevednosti. Mnogi med njimi menijo, da je njihov vzrok prav tako pravičen kot nasprotovanje suženjstvu in odprtje posvečenja za ženske. Glede na tovrstna prepričanja je malo verjetno, da bodo revizionisti nehali uresničevati svoje cilje v cerkvi.

Kaj se bo potem verjetno zgodilo? Sprva bo veliko odvisno od hitrosti razvoja posvetovanj in dejanj treh glavnih volilnih enot v cerkvi: liberalnih institucionalistov, rasnih in etničnih manjšin ter konservativcev.

Institucionaliste manj skrbi pravica ali napačnost homoseksualnosti in s tem povezana vprašanja kot prihodnost denominacije. Njihova naravna reakcija na cerkveno in rsquos dilemo je mešanica jeze, stiske, razdraženosti in strahu. Zelo bi radi, da se teh vprašanj sploh ne bi lotili, da bi se po svojih najboljših močeh pomešali in se izognili vsakršnemu govorjenju o delitvi in ​​razkolu. Njihove glave so lahko pri konzervativcih, a njihova srca so pri revizionistih, zato se znajdejo notranje raztrgani. Še posebej se bojijo vsakršne razprave, ki bi temeljila na načelih tradicije, in raje živijo čim bolje, ne glede na dogovorjen kompromis. Čas za odločitev te skupine bo prišel, ko bodo morali uveljaviti prakse revizionistov v svojih krajevnih cerkvah. Takrat morajo njihove glave osvojiti srce, če se želimo izogniti razkolu.

Manjšinske skupine —afroameričanov, latinskoameriških Američanov in azijskih Američanov — bodo prav tako ključne za prihodnji razvoj. V tem primeru bo še večja odpornost na strani konservativcev v cerkvi. V preteklosti so te skupine menile, da so konservativci osumljeni rasizma, po drugi strani pa so sodelovali z liberalci v boju za državljanske pravice, nekateri njihovi teološki junaki pa so ključni predhodniki, če ne zagovorniki radikalizma. Zdi se, da je njihovo naravno zavezništvo z revizionisti. Kljub temu je večina teološke in liturgične vsebine afroameriških, latinskoameriških in azijskoameriških tradicij v resnici globoko konzervativna in ortodoksna. Zato je zelo možno, da bi voditelji teh tradicij prekinili svoja prejšnja zavezništva in se premaknili v bistveno drugačno smer.

Končno so tu še konzervativci. Nekateri od njih bodo nedvomno zavzeli agresivno smer, pri tem pa se bodo zatekli k zakonodajnim ukrepom, množičnim pošiljanjem, kampanjam za pisanje pisem, besedni agitaciji in podobno. To je še bolj verjetno glede na nedavno ozko oprostilno sodbo, ki jo je cerkveno sodišče oprostilo župniku glede obtožb, da je kršil cerkveni zakon z izvedbo poročne slovesnosti za dve lezbični članici svoje občine v Omahi v Nebraski.

Drugi konservativci, tisti, ki bi se z veseljem označili za zmerne, tradicionaliste ali centriste, so lahko veseli, da so v okolici bolj radikalni konzervativci, ki pa postavljajo vprašanja, vendar so nadvse nervozni zaradi kakršnih koli drastičnih ukrepov. Morda bodo v skušnjavi, da bi se zavzeli za institucionaliste, preživeli čas v upanju, da do nesreče nikoli ne bo prišlo.

Kratkoročno potrebujemo način, da zadržimo naglice ukrepe glede homoseksualnega vprašanja, ki bodo privedle do delitve cerkve. Jasno pa je, da je homoseksualnost le eno od številnih vprašanj, ki bi lahko razdelila cerkve. Dolgoročno moramo spodbuditi pogovor k nastanku novega teološkega soglasja, ki bi ukazovalo zvestobo večine v cerkvi nasploh.

Ne glede na to, da se ta pomemben pogovor nadaljuje in se bo zagotovo nadaljeval, ga je treba zavedati zelo resnične možnosti, da je bil liberalno -protestantski projekt, ki ga ponazarja Združeni metodologijo, od začetka napačen. Morda se je sama ideja teološkega pluralizma s časom zavezala k samouničenju. To so grozljiva vprašanja, ki se zdaj pojavljajo. Resnica in cerkev, ki jo imamo radi, si zaslužita od strank na vseh straneh teh vprašanj jasno razmišljanje, pošten govor, medsebojno spoštovanje in veliko molitve in posta.

William J. Abraham je profesor za Wesleyjeve študije Albert Cook Outler na Teološki šoli Perkins na Univerzi Southern Methodist. Je avtor Prebujanje iz doktrinalne amnezije: ozdravitev nauka v Združeni metodistični cerkvi (1995) in Kanon in kriterij v krščanski teologiji od očetov do feminizma, tik pred Clarendon/Oxford University Press.


William E Abraham, avtor knjige & quot; Um Afrike & quot

William Emmanuel Abraham, rojen leta 1934, je ganski filozof in avtor 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.

Izobraževanje

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, ed. 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, Letnik 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, Letnik 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 v 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.


    Dodatne informacije

    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 ne 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, ČAS 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 ČAS 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. Ni pomembno. 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 Ljudje 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.


      Poglej si posnetek: Story 38 of 70 Stories of Auschwitz: William Abraham (Julij 2022).


Komentarji:

  1. Juzilkree

    Of course, I apologize, but, in my opinion, there is another way to resolve the issue.

  2. Timoteo

    UH Gosje po koži so že minile.

  3. Mobei

    Mislim, da nimate prav. Ponujam, da razpravljam. Pišite mi v PM.

  4. Heru

    Kakšne besede ... fantastično

  5. Zululabar

    All kulll watch)))) all



Napišite sporočilo