Monday, May 22, 2017
Wednesday, November 09, 2016
Revolt of the Rustbelt
Like many in Britain I retired for the night confident that I would be greeted the next morning by news of a narrow victory in the US presidential election and so I was . . . but not the candidate whom I was expecting. Donald Trump's victory is, by any definition, one for the record books. He is the first president since Eisenhower to enter upon his duties without having held political office at either the state or national level. A better analogy might be with Wendell Wilkie, whose selection as a Republican presidential nominee upended the Republican political establishment and placed at its head a businessman and former Democrat. One should refrain from pressing that analogy, however, for whatever his conservatism on domestic issues, Wilkie was far removed from the prevailing isolationism that dominated the Republican Party until the early 1950s, while Trump's foreign policy agenda would seem to have more in common with that of "Mr. Republican", Senator Robert Taft.
A comparison of state-by-state victories in 2000 (another close election) and 2016 demonstrates that while Hillary Clinton captured three states lost by Al Gore (Nevada, Colorado and Virginia), and may also have taken New Hampshire, she lost the Rustbelt by a clear margin and with it the states of Iowa and Wisconsin (Dukakis states in 1988), Pennsylvania, and, possibly, Michigan. It has been many years since Midwestern voters have had the opportunity to determine the nation's political destiny but they have now done so with a vengeance. Like 2000, albeit by a somewhat narrower margin, the winner of the popular vote has suffered defeat in the electoral college. Such is the nature of American politics.
Posted by
Jeremy Bonner
at
11:51 PM
0
comments
Labels: American Politics
Tuesday, November 08, 2016
The Promise and the Limits of Anglican Growth
Posted by
Jeremy Bonner
at
6:32 PM
0
comments
Labels: Africa, Anglican Communion, Anglican Studies, Anglicanism, Church History, Church of England, Episcopal Church, Personal
Monday, October 03, 2016
George Friedman on Nationalism and the New Economic Orthodoxy
The wealthy lost a great deal after 2008. But what they lost was investment capital, not rent money. The blow for most was not existential. It did not change their lives. For those who used their money for consumption, the impact was substantial. As the trade crisis spread, people lost their jobs, and those who found new jobs were being paid a fraction of their previous salary. 2008 had a different impact on average citizens. But political control remained in the hands of the investor class, which had organized its thinking around the ideology of interdependence. It remained focused on the stability of the financial system rather than the surge in unemployment, underemployment, and the public’s loss of buying power. This played out differently in different countries, but it played out almost everywhere.
********
The issue that 2008 has raised is the importance of nations and the primacy of a national leadership to protect the interests of the nation as a whole, and not the global system or the interests of the financial community. The re-emergence of nationalism is the logical outcome of the failure of interdependence. Part of the assumption of the pre-2008 ideology was that aggregate economic growth benefits everyone. Post-2008 ideology believes that stagnation is paid for by the middle and lower classes. This leads to a political showdown.
********
A new ideology has emerged. It is not yet in power, but it is growing. It argues that the nation-state controlling and limiting its dependence is superior to interdependence. It also argues that the nation-state provides benefits that globalism cannot: a sense of community, the preservation of culture, a sense of self. This argument says that humans without a nation are humans without a community. They are alone, lonely, and helpless. And at the root is the argument that there are more important things than money.
Read it all.
Posted by
Jeremy Bonner
at
3:46 PM
1 comments
Labels: European Union, United States, World Politics
Thursday, June 23, 2016
Voting Leave
It's a bright and sunny June day and British voters are determining our future in Europe. For all but the first two years of my life, the United Kingdom has been a part of the European community and there is no question that a decision to leave will fundamentally alter the way in which our affairs, domestic and foreign, are conducted.
While the Leave and Remain camps have both striven to prove the economic benefits of their stance, the truth is that neither side really knows what the final outcome of leaving the EU will be. If the European Union is not the Leviathan that some believe, neither is it the harbinger of an ever more harmonious Europe. Since the end of the Cold War, as continental Europe has sought to promote a more perfect union (to use the phraseology of our American cousins), it has become increasingly insular in its ability both to look beyond its borders and to handle political crises on the periphery. What began with the tragedy of the Yugoslavian civil war has come full circle with the Syrian refugee crisis.
Despite the populist backlash that has enveloped France, Germany and Eastern Europe, the enthusiasm for greater federalism in both Brussels and Strasbourg seems unabated. The only action that may engender greater realism at the political centre is for a nation state of significant economic weight to take the decision to withdraw. My vote to leave the European Union is thus predicated neither on the purported economic benefits nor on the supposed ability to control our borders (my wife and I still had our passports checked while entering France by train two weeks ago), but on the faint hope that it will concentrate the minds of those who set the policies of the EU. There are no guarantees, of course.
Italy, the Austrian statesman Clemens von Metternich once famously remarked, is a geographical expression and "Europe" is no less. The drive to shoehorn European nation states into a "United States of Europe," often in despite of the wishes of ordinary electors, has done more to promote the revival of the less attractive forms of nationalism than the rabble-rousing of the Far-Right.
And so . . . I vote Leave.
Posted by
Jeremy Bonner
at
10:32 AM
0
comments
Labels: British Politics, European Union, Personal
Sunday, May 22, 2016
Books for Bulgaria and a Panikhida
Today, the third anniversary of my father's death, the community of St. Bede and St. Cuthbert Orthodox Church in Durham held a panikhida in his memory. Here are gathered Father Andrew Louth (formerly of the Department of Theology and Religion), Dr. Krastu Banev and his family, Deyan Petrov and my wife Jennifer and myself.
With the kind assistance of Deyan and Krastu, my father's entire patristic collection was catalogued over the past few months and this week shipped to Bulgaria where it will enhance the collections of the University of Sofia. My father was ever committed to the principle that his books should endow an institution that was in genuine need of books and would make good use of them. Given his long association with Eastern Orthodoxy through the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, I believe he would have approved that his collection, built up over more than fifty years, should find its home in the vicinity of Constantinople. Below the collection stands ready for dispatch on May 16.
Update: May 25, 2016
The books have now arrived at the Patristic Library of the Library of Theology Faculty at Sofia University.
Posted by
Jeremy Bonner
at
3:52 PM
1 comments
Labels: Gerald Bonner, Patristic Age, Personal
Thursday, January 28, 2016
The Pettiness of Home Office Bureaucracy
As one who lived for twenty years as a student and freelance historian in
the United States, I know something of the struggle to obtain permanent
residency (as a spouse) and at times felt irritation both at the bureaucratic
hurdles and at the costs imposed on one whose family had contributed to the
well-being of the American economy, both through tuition fees and direct
financial support. I clearly didn't know when I was well-off.
It came as a considerable shock to learn of the appalling treatment meted out by the
Home Office to Dr. Paul Hamilton, an American scholar who, having completed a
doctorate at the University of Birmingham and while applying for fellowships
with the Leverhulme and Wellcome Trusts, sought further leave to remain, for
which he paid a handsome £650. Not only was this application apparently denied
on December 9, but the authorities failed to inform Dr. Hamilton of this fact
and had him detained at an immigration centre on January 17 on the grounds that
he did not have "enough close ties (eg. family or friends) to make it
likely that you will stay in one place." Dr. Hamilton had already
purchased an open return ticket to the United States (worth £800) and had he
been notified of the denial of his application would have made his own
arrangements to depart.
The present government is only too happy to encourage
"entrepreneurs" to resettle in the UK if they bring in sufficient
assets, but apparently disdains a foreign academic willing to spend upwards of
£100,000 of his own money to boost the resources of the British education
system but who then seeks - not unreasonably - to secure a postdoctoral
fellowship on the same basis as a British academic. The fact that Dr. Hamilton
is a Shakespeare scholar only heightens the irony. The only official who comes
out of this affair with any credit is the police sergeant at Leamington
Spa who called the proceedings "completely ridiculous" and initially
refused to process Dr. Hamilton.
Dr. Hamilton is clearly owed both an apology and the return of his visa
processing fee as partial compensation for his mistreatment. The precedent that
it sets, if this judgment is allowed to stand, is alarming for the academic
community at large. I have written to the Vice-Chancellors of my home
institution and the University of Birmingham, as well as to the Home Secretary
(copied to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education). I hope
others will be moved to do the same.
Update, January 29: Carolyn Pike (who appears to be the University of Birmingham's Director of Legal Services) informs me that "the University is not at liberty to discuss personal matters relating to alumni with third parties." I would never have imagined that one academic asking whether or not a Vice Chancellor would offer his support to another academic would provoke such a response (and from a legal officer rather than the official to whom the appeal was addressed to boot). Let us hope that this will not be another case of the "rich" getting the pleasure and the "poor" getting the blame.
Further Update, January 29: It appears Dr. Hamilton is now a free man. Somehow one doubts that any official apology will be forthcoming.
Posted by
Jeremy Bonner
at
10:40 AM
0
comments
Labels: Academic Freedom, British Politics, Paul Hamilton
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
John 15:13 lived out in Kenya
Shortly before Christmas, the BBC reported from Kenya that the attempted murder by Al-Shabab gunmen of Christians on a bus from Nairobi to Mandera had been thwarted by the refusal of the Muslim passengers to be separated from the Christians. Today there is news that Salah Fareh, a Muslim teacher who took a lead in this incident had died from a bullet wound inflicted at the time. He is quoted as saying:
We are brothers.It's only the religion that is the difference, so I ask my brother Muslims to take care of the Christians so that the Christians also take care of us... and let us help one another and let us live together peacefully.
It has been all too easy in the last few years to become preoccupied with the narrative of Muslims raised in the West who, while not necessarily complicit in the depredations of Islamist radicals, can still treat their actions as excusable in the context of the West's supposed moral decadence and "imperialist" intentions toward Muslim-majority nations. Furthermore, the hostility displayed toward Muslim converts to Christianity in non-Muslim nations (the deplorable case of Nissar Hussein comes to mind) raises justifiable concern about the commitment of Islam to wholehearted religious tolerance.
Nevetheless, Our Lord's declaration that there is no greater love than that a man lay down his life for his friends is illuminated by the death of Salah Fareh. In his case, a choice was clearly presented, and yet he and his Muslim neighbours preferred death to security at the expense of the lives of their brother Christians. There is a message here that we all do well to contemplate.
Posted by
Jeremy Bonner
at
1:41 PM
0
comments
Sunday, January 10, 2016
Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics
- Hacker: The statistics are irrefutable...
- Humphrey: Statistics? You can prove anything with statistics.
- Hacker: Even the truth.
- Humphrey: Yes... No!
Global South - Outer Circle: 41,451,522
Global South - Inner Circle: 3,952,373
Global South Active Membership Share: 9.5%
Global North (less USA and Canada) - Outer Circle: 32,123,599
Global North (less USA and Canada) - Inner Circle: 2,709,038
Global North (less USA and Canada) Active Membership Share: 8.4%
USA and Canada - Outer Circle: 3,852,080
USA and Canada - Inner Circle: 2,134,014
USA and Canada Active Membership Share: 55.4%
Posted by
Jeremy Bonner
at
12:11 PM
0
comments
Labels: Anglican Communion, Anglicanism
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Light not Salt: Michael Nazir-Ali at Durham
The inaugural lecture of the Hensley Henson Lecture on The Church in Politics: Past, Present and Future took place on October 19 in Durham Cathedral and was addressed by Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, retired diocesan of Rochester, whose interventions on marriage and the family, Christian-Muslim dialogue, homosexuality and multiculturalism have made him as controversial a figure as was Henson in his own day.
Bishop Michael opened with an account of how - while organizing meetings for Christians to raise issues of concern with parliamentary candidates during the 2010 election - he was informed by several clergy of his acquaintance that this was not an activity that they felt called by God to undertake. Such "pietistic fideism" however, Bishop Michael insisted, is simply not an option for Christians, nor can it be right simply to accept separation of the private and "sacred" from the public and "secular." Coupled as these notions are with a post-Enlightment celebration of the individual - in the West at least - they run counter to the concept of covenant that underpins a Christian understanding of the moral (if not the civil and ceremonial) law, and it is from the moral law alone that it is possible to discern the common good.
The enduring significance of Matthew 22, vv.15-22, with its implicit separation of secular from sacred, must not be understood as a blanket injunction to deference to civil authority. The Reformation, even as it promoted a degree of distance between church and state, in no sense purported to silence the latter in the public arena. Moreover, there is a clear separation between, as Bishop Michael put it, between the "godly magistrate" of Romans 13 and the "beast" of Revelation 13. The state necessarily forfeits its authority when forbidding what God commands, or, more concretely, commanding what God forbids (Henson, it might be noted, was an admirer of the Confessing Church under National Socialism).
The default position of the Church of England, Bishop Michael argued, has been to conform to the divine injunction to be "salt of the earth," a pastoral presence "working invisibly" through society. Yet this injunction is coupled with another urging Christians to be "lights of the world." If in the Middle East - and perhaps Africa and Asia also - there is a need for an emphasis on the dignity of the individual as against communal and social mores, in the West it is the bonds of family and community that stand most in need of renewal. Such renewal depends upon a commitment to be a light in the darkness that not only draws others to itself but also casts a light - not always welcome - upon policies, customs and behaviours that detract from the health of the community. Such a critique will - if correctly pursued - be holistic in character, free from political partisanship and conscious of the inevitable shortcomings of all human solutions to social disfunction. As Bishop Michael noted, invoking Richard Niebuhr, Christ is ultimately "above culture," since no temporal culture can exhaust the riches of the Gospel.
Posted by
Jeremy Bonner
at
1:04 PM
2
comments
Labels: Anglican Communion, Anglicanism, Church of England, Durham Cathedral, Ethics, Hensley Henson



