<![CDATA[Gordon L. Heath

<![CDATA[Gordon L. Heath - Blog]]>Mon, 02 Mar 2026 09:43:29 -0800Weebly<![CDATA[Methodism and Its Expectations for Lay Preachers]]>Tue, 17 Feb 2026 04:19:16 GMThttps://www.gordonlheath.com/blog/methodism-and-its-expectations-for-lay-preachers

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_First_Methodist_chapel_called_%22The_Foundry%22_-_Capel_Cyntaf_y_Methodistiaid_Wesleyaidd_a_Adnabyddid_Wrth_%22Y_Foundry%22.jpeg

One reason why eighteenth-century English Methodism was such a spiritual dynamo was that much of it was built through the labors of lay (non-ordained) people. In fact, one cannot understand the birth and growth of the movement without acknowledging that vital role of lay people.

A number of Methodists were ordained priests in the Church of England (John and Charles Wesley being two examples), but the need for workers was great. And it did not take long to realize that the work would have to be scaled back if lay preachers were not used.

Lay leaders – both men and women – were involved in a host of functions, one of them being preaching. However, while allowing non-ordained people to preach was a blessing it was also something that caused frequent troubles. Not only did it lead to criticism from opponents of the movement, but it also led to tensions within the movement.

Many of the movement’s leaders had no formal theological training. Many were “on the road” by themselves (often a recipe for disaster!). And there was also the concern over varying or dissenting views among preachers (ordained or otherwise). Since many had no education, efforts were made to provide materials for study. Lay candidates usually served a year or so on probation and then joined the ranks.

John seems to have been the more understanding of brothers, whereas Charles was quite concerned for things that were being done in the church to be done “properly.” As a result, he could sometimes be quite harsh. For instance, Charles once wrote in a letter: “John Wesley made a preacher of a tailor. I with the Lord’s help shall make a tailor of him again.”[1] It seems like a bit of a “good cop, bad cop” arrangement. (In fact, their different approaches caused some stress between the two brothers – but that is another story.)

John tried to stay in contact with the lay leaders, dispensing sage advice such as: “Avoid all nastiness, dirt, slovenliness, both in your person, clothes, house and all about you...Clean yourselves of lice...Cure yourself and your family of the itch...Mend your clothes, or I shall never expect you to mend your lives. Let none ever see a ragged Methodist.”[2]

Several statements were developed to formalize and make uniform the expectations for Methodist preachers. What follows are two of the most well-known. Few will argue that they are not of historical interest. And some would say that they contain words of wisdom for preachers (lay or ordained) today.

Examination of Preachers (1766)

Have you faith in Christ? Are you going on to perfection? Do you expect to be perfected in love in this life? Are you groaning after it? Are you resolved to devote yourself wholly to God and his work?
Do you know the Methodist doctrine? Have you read the Sermons? The Notes on the New Testament?
Do you know the Methodist plan? Have you read the Plain Account? The Appeals?
Do you know the Rules of the Society? Of the Bands? Do you keep them?
Do you take no snuff? Tobacco? Drams?
Do you constantly attend the church and sacrament?
Have you read the Minutes? Are you willing to conform to them?
Have you considered the Twelve Rules of a Helper; especially the first, tenth, and twelfth? Will you keep them for conscience’ sake?
Are you determined to employ all your time in the work of God?
Will you preach every morning and evening? Endeavoring not to speak too loud or too long? Not lolling with your elbows? Have you read the “Rules of Action and Utterance?”
Will you meet the Society, the Bands, the Select Society, the Leaders (of Bands and Classes) in every place?
Will you diligently and earnestly instruct the children, and visit from house to house?
Will you recommend fasting, both by precept and example?

Advice to Preachers (1786)

Always to conclude the service in about an hour.
Never scream.
Never lean upon or beat the Bible.
Wherever you preach, meet the Society.
Do not, without utmost necessity, go home at night.
Never take part against the Assistant.
Never preach a funeral sermon but for an eminently holy person; nor then, without consulting the Assistant. Preach none for hire. Beware of panegyric, particularly in London.
Have love-feasts in more places.
Introduce no new tunes. See that none sing too slow, and the women sing their parts. Exhort all to sing, and all to stand at singing, as well as to kneel at prayers.
Let none repeat the last line, unless the Preacher does.
Inform the Leaders, that every Assistant is to change both the Stewards and Leaders when he sees good. And that no Leader has power to put any person either into or out of the Society.

[1] John R. Tyson, Assist Me to Proclaim: The Life and Hymns of Charles Wesley (Eerdmans, 2007), 82.
[2] Richard P. Heitzenrater, Wesley and the People Called Methodists (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 237.

]]><![CDATA[Chairing Sessions at Academic Society Meetings]]>Tue, 03 Feb 2026 03:13:22 GMThttps://www.gordonlheath.com/blog/chairing-sessions-at-academic-society-meetings

One of the big surprises for me when I was a new doctoral student was the role of chairing a session. I had never before attended an academic conference let alone chaired a session. Yet there I was one day being asked to be a chair. On the advice of my supervisor, I said yes. And that was the start of over a quarter of a century of chairing sessions.

I make no claims about being a superpower when it comes to chairing sessions. Stated simply, I am not an expert. However, I have made a number of observations about chairing based on what I have seen others do, what I have done, and what I wish I had done.

With that in mind, what follows are some bullet points of my thoughts on dos and don’ts of this unique and important opportunity in the life of academics.

What also follows below assumes an in-person meeting. However, much of what is said can be adapted to an all-online conference.

Getting Asked to Chair

If you are a student and are asked to chair a session at a conference that you are attending, your first (and only) response should be “yes.” Of course you can say “no,” but why miss a golden opportunity to gain experience in your craft, meet other scholars, make friends, and demonstrate your abilities to possible employers?

If you know executive members of societies that you belong to, feel free to contact them and volunteer your services as a chair. Sometimes it is hard to find willing people to chair, and that initiative will probably be welcome.

Ask the organizers how they expect the meeting to go, and, if there is anything special that they would like to make sure happens. Most importantly, find out if you are to give a formal response to the papers (probably not the case, but ask just to make sure).

Look at past meetings to get a sense of the type of papers and presenters.

Ask about the online aspect of the meeting. If that is a part of it, make sure you know the technology in advance. And do not try to learn the technology on the fly – ask what they will use and learn it beforehand.

Before Chairing

Dress appropriately (better to dress up than down).

Read the conference schedule and be aware of time and location.

Go and watch some sessions if you have never been to an academic conference.

Attend other sessions of the conference so that you get a sense of what has been happening throughout the event. In other words, don’t just show up to chair and embarrass yourself by not being aware of what has been going on before your session.

Go to the session room ahead of time so that you can find it when you need to (and prevent being late due to being lost).

If possible, contact presenters ahead of time and exchange cell numbers (in case of emergencies, etc.).

Read up on presenters, and if possible, check faculty websites, publications, etc.

If necessary, ask presenters how to correctly pronounce names.

Show up early to make sure that all is well with technology (eg. PowerPoint, Zoom, recording, lighting, microphone), seating arrangements, and podium/table at front.

Show up early to meet-and-great presenters and those in attendance.

Bring a watch or cell phone timer. Remind presenters of time restrictions and let them know how you will be informing of time limits.

Show no favorites for the “famous” in your session.

While Chairing

Introduce yourself (a sentence or two) and welcome each presenter.

Set a tone you feel is right for the occasion.

Honor presenters.

Avoid being a jester. Certainly, be an enjoyable and winsome host, (after all, academic conferences can be insufferably boring), but also use the time as chair to demonstrate your prowess and gravitas as an academic.

Thank those in the audience for their attendance.

Brefly but clearly explain process/schedule/time.

Demonstrate interest when presenters are speaking – pay attention, take notes, and do not look at your phone.

Sit in a line of sight of presenters (or beside presenter if at a table), for it is hard to keep people on time if they can’t see you.

Make sure everyone stays on time (and make a plan to make that happen). This is one of your most important jobs – do what you have to do to make it so!

Be ready with a question to get the question period ball rolling.

Don’t let anyone dominate questions and try to ensure a fair distribution of questions.

Protect presenters from obnoxious questioners and do not allow gotcha questions (especially if questions submitted in advance).

Keep to the rules of the meeting (eg. if online, only take questions from those who watched the video)

After Session Ends

Thank those who attended.

Ask for audience to express appreciation – usually applause is most common (throwing money is appreciated, but very rare).

Thank each presenter personally after event.

Hang around and be the last to leave.

Tidy up and organize the room so that the next session does not have to clean up after your session.

Make sure people exit the room on time if there is a meeting immediately following the one that you chaired.

Final Thoughts

Remember that the event is not about you. You are a servant to make sure that the experience of the presenters and attendees is a good one.

Chairing sessions is an important part in the formation of relationships, dissemination of ideas, and gaining critical feedback, so embrace it and work hard at it.

Take advantage of getting to know presenters and those in the audience.

Do not throw people under the bus – as much as possible take the blame for anything that goes wrong.

Remember what it was like at your first paper presentation, and make people feel welcome and comfortable.

Take advantage of the opportunity to recruit members for your society.

Remember that the role of being a chair is so important that some societies only allow seasoned scholars to do it.

Let the organizer(s) know that you would be glad to chair next year. Also let the planners know you would be happy to help organize next year’s meeting, and/or even join the executive of the society.

]]><![CDATA[It’s the Geography, Stupid!]]>Sun, 25 Jan 2026 03:50:33 GMThttps://www.gordonlheath.com/blog/its-the-geography-stupid

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CAN_orthographic.svg

Despite the surge of patriotism in reaction to Prime Minister Carney’s recent speech at Davos, it is readily apparent to anyone with a map and basic knowledge of history that Canada’s fortunes are inextricably attached to the United States.

Stated simply, geography determines basically everything about a nation’s fortunes. Whether it is security, economy, trade, development, prosperity, or culture, a nation must take geography into account. To think otherwise is folly.

Imagine Mongolia trying to be a naval power or have an independent foreign policy. Or Belgium wishing it were left alone when Germany and France were at war? In fact, every war in human history has been shaped by its geography. Sometimes geography helps a nation win (such as Britain being an island) or sometimes lose (such as Poland being so flat).

The same principle applies to economics. And that especially applies to Canada.

For instance, the population of the United States is a roughly ten times the size of Canada and is a global superpower. Canada’s location between Russia and the United States makes it impossible to have an entirely independent foreign policy. Canada’s industry and trade is meshed with America in a complex symbiotic relationship forged over centuries, and its relatively small population and industrial base makes it impossible to compete head-to-head with the economic colossus to the south.

Stated simply, to think that Canada can thrive apart from a good relationship with the US is folly.

Canadian patriotic zeal and offense over the actions of the US President may fuel bluster and insults toward the southern neighbor. It will even gain political points for politicians who seek to capitalize on Canadian frustrations. But that is a fool’s game,

Clear thinking realism needs to recognize Canada’s limitations due to geography, but also the opportunities. After all, many nations in the world would love to have the access to American markets and industry that Canada has due to its geography.

What is needed now is less cathartic bluster or tough guy references to hockey but more wisdom and humility rooted in hard unchangeable realities on the ground. Stated simply, to think that Canada will prosper against the wishes of the US goes against common sense and Canada had better quickly pivot its rhetoric and policies to reflect its geography. To adapt an idiom from the Clinton era, “Its the Geography, Stupid.”

]]><![CDATA[St. Vincent and Remaining Faithful to the Apostolic Message]]>Sun, 25 Jan 2026 03:33:24 GMThttps://www.gordonlheath.com/blog/st-vincent-and-remaining-faithful-to-the-apostolic-message

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Icon_of_St_Vincent_of_Lerins_by_Bojan_Teodosijevi%C4%87.jpg

How does one remain faithful to the Christian faith as established by the apostles of the early church? For over two decades, I have found St. Vincent’s approach to this issue to be immensely helpful. Just recently a friend of mine, Seán McGuire, pointed out a further aspect of St. Vincent’s teaching that adds another important layer to St. Vincent’s position of such matters.

Details of St. Vincent of Lerins are sparse. He died around 445, so he was probably born late-fourth or early-fifth century.[1] He came from a noble family in western Europe (Gaul – modern-day France), a part of the Roman Empire. He eventually joined a monastery and became a monk.

He was a contemporary of serious theological debates, the calling of councils, and numerous troubling and vexing church divisions. He was also a contemporary of St. Augustine, the giant of western Christian theology.

St. Vincent was concerned with how one can know what the true faith was as found in holy scripture, especially in the face of so many people claiming to know the “true” meaning of a text. Here is how he saw the problem in his day (taken from Commonitorium):[2] [note, “Catholic” in this context means “universal”]

His well known solution was to rely on tradition as a guide, or to use his words, to go with the interpretation “that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.” In other words, novelty was out, and faithfulness to the universal church’s traditional understanding of the text was in.

[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priest and doctors.

I have found this approach to be most helpful. As a professor I come across new readings of the biblical text all the time. My advice in such situations is to think about how they fit within the framework of that “which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.” And if they do not, then consider them suspect, and not worthy of embracing.

But what about developments in theology? Does that mean our understanding of theology can never advance? This is the part of St. Vincent that was introduced to me by Seán. St. Vincent also had a framework for allowing theological understanding to grow, but the fundamental theological foundations to remain untouched.

[54.] But someone will say, perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith….The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.

Here again this issue for St. Vincent is to remain faithful to the basic and fundamental and traditional doctrines. But at the same time a deepening of what those doctrines actually mean is good and actually expected. To use his analogy, it is like the growth of a body: “[55.] The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same.”

In conclusion, in the first case, the tradition of the universal church was the arbiter of correct interpretation of scripture. In the second case, increased understanding of doctrine was good, but that growth should not mean a departure from the original doctrine.

Of course, St. Vincent’s wisdom (some say “rules”) do not solve all problems of divergent views within the church. But I would argue they are a helpful starting point for those seeking to remain faithful to the teachings of the early church. And for those who say just reading their Bible is enough, St. Vincent would say read your Bible but read it with the larger church tradition as a guide.

[1] Thomas G. Guarino, Vincent of Lerins and the Development of Christian Doctrine. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013).
[2] https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm

]]><![CDATA[An Outline – Me (Old School) versus AI]]>Mon, 12 Jan 2026 01:53:56 GMThttps://www.gordonlheath.com/blog/an-outline-me-old-school-versus-ai

Last week in one of my courses I was explaining to students that forty years ago I took a class that required a sermon outline per day, for the entire semester.

The course was on preaching. The professor wanted us to learn how to look at a text and be able to read it, see the structure, determine the meaning, and create an outline that made sense of the passage. And do it in a reasonable amount of time.

At that point in my life, I was preparing to be a pastor of a church, so learning how to do things intelligently and efficiently seemed like a good idea.

The requirement was to start at the beginning of 1 Kings, and work through the book, and, if necessary, move on to 2 Kings. The expectation was one outline per day (Monday to Friday). The one-page outline required a title, purpose statement, and an outline (usually three points with sub-points). No research in commentaries, no illustrations, just an outline that captured well the flow, meaning, and application of the text.

Do the math. One per day is five per week over a thirteen-week semester. Just over sixty outlines.

After that trip down memory lane with my students, I started to ponder a few things.

First, I realized just how helpful that assignment was for my development. It taught me how to read any text (not just the Bible) and look for context, meaning, structure, key words, etc. It also played a vital role in helping me learn how to develop a way to structure a presentation based on my reading of the text. And do it an efficient manner. In sum, that assignment has paid dividends for decades.

Second, I wondered what would happen if I asked ChatGPT to do the same assignment. So today I gave it the same assignment: “create sixty sermon outlines from the biblical book of first kings.”

Within two seconds, I had them.

It then went beyond the call of duty and offered more. It said: “If you’d like, I can:

Expand any outline into a full manuscript
Adapt them for expository, topical, or narrative preaching
Create a year-long preaching calendar
Tailor them for youth, revival, or leadership settings”

To be honest, the outlines were pretty good. But I was not surprised. I have seen what AI can do. I was just curious to see what an Old School versus AI exercise would look like.

Third, perhaps I am a bit of a luddite (after all, I did my undergrad degree mainly with a typewriter), but I genuinely feel sorry for anyone who chooses the ChatGPT option. In fact, I am glad it did not exist as an option when I was a student.

Yes, it was way faster. Yes, it had some pretty good outlines. And yes, it could help make deadlines.

But using it would not have forced me to read, analyze, and reflect on the meaning of the text, nor would it ever help me to hone the craft of communication through thoughtful outlines, witty titles, and relevant application. It also would not have known my intended audience and its particular needs, necessary information when crafting an outline.

Fourth, sadly, as a professor I am not sure how that assignment could ever be given in a class today without AI being used by students. And that is too bad, for the dividends are still there for those who choose the Old School way.

Bonus: my way works when the power is out.

]]><![CDATA[Happy New Year! (1951)]]>Thu, 01 Jan 2026 19:06:10 GMThttps://www.gordonlheath.com/blog/happy-new-year-1951

For the past few months, I have been going through the periodicals of Canadian Baptists searching for material on Baptist chaplains during the Korean War (1950-53). While my attention was on scouring pages for references to chaplains, I made sure I spent some time in the early January issues looking for what they said about the new year. In fact, in my over twenty-five years of researching over 200 years of Canadian churches and war, I always paid special attention to what was said at the beginning of a new year.

There are two main reasons for that attention.

The first is related to my focus as an historian. State simply, during the start of a new year we get expressed in prose, poetry, hymns, liturgies, and sermons some of people's most poignant convictions, fears, and aspirations.

The second – the focus of this blog – is more pastoral and personal. I often hear today that we are in unique and apocalyptic times, that everything is coming to an end, and that no one in the past has ever faced such uncertainty or struggles. I find it helpful and encouraging to be reminded that things have been grim before … but lo and behold here we still are!

This is not an attempt to downplay the suffering and uncertainty of today. However, it is to place today’s suffering and uncertainty in a larger historical context. And to see how previous Christians understood and expressed their faith, but also how we today can be encouraged with the same.

Take the years of the Korean War. North Korea invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950. Before the ceasefire on 27 July 1953, there were over 750,000 dead and wounded among United Nations troops, over 1.5 million North Korean and Chinese combatants dead and wounded, and over 2.5 million citizen casualties on the peninsula.

On the heels of two catastrophic world wars the Korean War seemed to be clear evidence that the world was in a death spiral. To make matters worse, humanity could now exterminate itself with its burgeoning arsenal of nuclear weapons.

But as the images below indicate, there remained hope in the midst of fear and uncertainty.

Their confidence was not some Pollyanna view of the world. In fact, they were very well informed about world affairs (probably more so than many – most? – today). They were also infused by a sense of faith, as the prayer below indicates.

What follows are some of the pages of the new year’s issue so that you can “read the paper” yourself. I have also made the prayer more accessible by updating the King James Bible language.

And with that, I say happy reading and happy new year!

A Prayer for the New Year

ALMIGHTY GOD, the unfailing Source of Light and Mercy, who has brought us into the beginning of this New Year, and are sparing us to love you and keep your commandments, prepare us, we implore, you for the coming days.

Let your grace in light in our darkness, and strengthen our weakness. Help us to forget the sins and sorrows of the past, cherishing only the wisdom and humility that they may have taught us. Inspire us with new purposes and new hopes for the days ahead. Deepened within our hearts love of goodness and truth.

Enable us to discern the solemn meaning of these earthly days and the high in sacred purpose for which they are given. Grant that we may never be unfaithful to you.

You have richly blessed us up to this point; continue to lead us by your hands; continue to admonish and guide us by your Spirit; leave us not to walk alone, Shepherd of our Souls.

Let not our sins and failures take us from the truth that we are Yours. Let not sorrow and weariness, nor the darkness, confusion and mystery of this world, rob us of our faith in you.

Whatever light may shine or shadow fall, keep us in the fellowship of those who trust and obey you…and in your love and service.

We pray in the name and for the sake of Jesus Christ, our Lord, Amen.

]]><![CDATA[Disobeying Unlawful Orders in the Military]]>Sun, 21 Dec 2025 01:50:40 GMThttps://www.gordonlheath.com/blog/disobeying-unlawful-orders-in-the-military

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Color_photograph_of_judges%27_bench_at_IMT.jpg

The recent brouhaha in the US over soldiers disobeying unlawful orders reminds me of comments in a book I published a few years ago. In sum, what is important for Christians to know is that there are provisions in much of the western world's military for soldiers to disobey such orders.

The post-World War Two Nuremberg trials concluded that “just following orders” did not absolve military personal or their leaders from guilt. And that has been reflected in various statements that make provisions for disobeying unlawful orders, albeit rooted less in religious notions and more on arguments based on jurisprudence, human rights, or theories of conscience (although there is a residue of Christian notions of conscience assumed).[1] What that means is that soldiers in some countries are not required to obey unjust orders that break international laws.

For instance, in the Canadian military, it seems soldiers are not required to obey an “unlawful” command, and may, in fact, be punished for carrying out unlawful orders. The Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Armed Forces reads:

"(B) Usually there will be no doubt as to whether a command or order is lawful or unlawful. In a situation, however, where the subordinate does not know the law or is uncertain of it he shall, even though he doubts the lawfulness of the command, obey unless the command is manifestly unlawful.
C) An officer or non-commissioned member is not justified in obeying a command or order that is manifestly unlawful. In other words, if a subordinate commits a crime in complying with a command that is manifestly unlawful, he is liable to be punished for the crime by a civil or military court. A manifestly unlawful command or order is one that would appear to a person of ordinary sense and understanding to be clearly illegal; for example, a command by an officer or non-commissioned member to shoot a member for only having used disrespectful words or a command to shoot an unarmed child."[2]

Other governments have similar types of statements. For instance, the United States military is guided by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (§890. Art. 90, page A2-35)[3] and the Manual for Courts-Martial United States (Article 90, page IV-13).[4] Soldiers are required to obey lawful orders, but not unlawful order.

In the UK, the expectation in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Section 12)[5] is much the same. The expectation is to obey only lawful orders.

Of course, arguing one’s case as to what is just or unjust may be difficult, especially in the heat of battle. And, as the Manual for Courts-Martial United States states, an order “is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate.” Stated bluntly, the consequences of misjudging the situation could be fatal at worst, especially in a military of a despotic regime.

In conclusion, while some governments allow for discretionary decision making by their soldiers on matters related to lawful orders, most militaries in the world do not. Even in democracies making a case for an unjust order is incredibly difficult and dangerous. And, unlike in the movies, the good guys do not always win.

For further exploration of such issues, see Christians, the State, and War: An Ancient Tradition for the Modern World (2022).[6]

[1] Anders Schinkel, Conscience and Conscientious Objections (Amsterdam: Pallas, 2007).
[2] Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Armed Forces, 19.015. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/queens-regulations-orders.html
[3] https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Documents/UCMJ%20-%2020December2019.pdf
[4] https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/2023%20MCM%20(w_%20preface)%20(2023_09_15).pdf?ver=DYv_dgnVlSTjgwUwpO2piQ%3d%3d
[5]
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/cy/ukpga/2006/52/notes?wrap=true&view=plain#:~:text=Section%2012:%20Disobedience%20to%20lawful,are%20more%20routine%20in%20character.)
[6] https://www.bloomsbury.com/ca/christians-the-state-and-war-9781978712911/

]]><![CDATA[Zelensky and Churchill 2.0]]>Fri, 28 Nov 2025 21:06:01 GMThttps://www.gordonlheath.com/blog/zelensky-and-churchill-20

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Winston_Churchill_at_a_BBC_microphone_about_to_broadcast_to_the_nation_on_the_afternoon_of_VE_Day,_8_May_1945._H41843.jpg

The leader of Ukraine is currently facing the harsh and unforgiving realties of great power politics. In sum, despite the exceptionable bravery and innovation of Ukrainian citizens, Volodymyr Zelensky’s war effort is crumbling on the battlefield, the economy is a disaster, and, most importantly, he is losing the vital military and economic support of the US. Various NATO leaders urge him to keep fighting, but without the US the cause is lost.

In the opening days of the Russian invasion, Zelensky was encouraged by key NATO leaders to not make peace but rather to carry on the fight. They boldly declared that Ukraine’s cause was their cause, and that they would support Ukraine to the bitter end.

His leadership was seen by some as the application of what they considered to be the only lesson of World War Two, one epitomized by the indefatigable British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Zelensky sought to channel that iconic bulldog Churchill by rallying the troops and waging a never-say-die defence of his country against a much larger foe.

His attempts at Churchillian doggedness won the hearts of many. And the International Churchill Society even awarded him the Sir Winston Churchill Award in 2022.

But no one seemed to tell him about Churchill 2.0.

In 1945, as the war against Germany was winding down it became clear that eastern Europe would fall under the control of the Soviet Union. And there were glaring indications that Russia had no intention of going home anytime soon.

What was most vexing for Churchill was that the stated purpose of initially going to war with Germany was to come to the defence of Poland. But at the end of the war Poland had simply exchanged being ruled by Nazis to that of Communists, both wickedly oppression systems.

Churchill pondered what to do. He even had a war plan titled Operation Unthinkable developed, but it was quickly deemed to be too costly to wage another war to push back the Soviets.

Ultimately, Churchill 2.0 stood down and accepted the loss. There were no “fight on the beaches” speeches, just a grim realization and resignation that the price of a new war was simply too much. So, he conceded the loss of a nation that he initially went to war to liberate.

Churchill 2.0’s decision was not a sign of moral failure, but rather one shaped by realism and political prowess. Churchill 2.0 was astute and realistic enough to know the military and domestic realties he faced. He knew the horrible outcomes of going to war against the Soviet superpower. And he knew when to compromise.

Zelensky is in a horribly difficult situation, and I pray for him and his nation. That said, what seems to me is that if he is still seeks to emulate Churchill this time it should be Churchill 2.0.

]]><![CDATA[A Paper, No Paper, and One Item off My Bucket List]]>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 04:55:12 GMThttps://www.gordonlheath.com/blog/a-paper-no-paper-and-one-item-off-my-bucket-list

Last week I was at a conference in Boston, Massachusetts. There are many noteworthy things to mention, and what follows are three of them.

A Paper

The conference was the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. And the paper I presented was entitled “Sojourners and Citizens: National Identity in the African Baptist Association, 1855–1914.” Dudley Brown and I recently co-edited The Black Baptist Experience in Canada (2025), and this paper was based on a chapter in the book.

Here is the conclusion to the paper: “While at times using the language of sojourners, the views expressed in the minutes reveal a fairly consistent public narrative of obligations and convictions shaped by being on the margins of a dominant Anglo-French (and British imperial) national identity. What is also apparent in the minutes is a fusion of patriotism, social reform, and race consciousness distinctly forged by religious convictions. It is virtually impossible to pull those aspects apart, for they are intertwined and mutually supportive. What this paper demonstrates is how among Black Baptists there was an appreciation among some for the relative safety and opportunity of Canada and the Empire when contrasted with the horrors of American slavery, and that gratefulness nurtured a sense of loyalty. Their religious convictions compelled them to engage in evangelism and social reforms to shape a Christian Canada. Yet there was also a pragmatic element to their loyalty and social engagement, something born out of the optimism of the age as well as the need to demonstrate the abilities of the Black community in order to silence naysayers and doubters of their worth as equal citizens. While it is outside the purview of this paper, it is worth noting that the Great War thrust upon Canadians in the summer of 1914 was seen as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity way to do just that.”

No Paper

I have seen the future, and I do not like it. Unlike cities in Canada (at least for now) where one can still navigate with cash, downtown Boston was basically paperless.

Of course, going digital is advantageous at times, and is perhaps inevitable. But what about those who do not carry a phone with them everywhere? Or have a limited data plan? Or have an older phone that does not read QR codes? Or, in the case of the elderly (or homeless), do not have a cell phone or do not know how to use apps on their phone?

I found the lack of a paper option frustrating. Even a public shuttle to the airport would not accept cash! (Fortunately, the guy I was travelling with was handy with a phone and saved the day and got us to the airport.) My biggest concern was for seniors who, in many cases, would be unable to navigate the city without their grandkids travelling with them to deal with the constant use of apps, digital wallets, QR codes, etc.

As for me, I am not sure if I would go back for that very reason (especially since my Canadian bank cards would work at some stores and not others.)

One Item off my Bucket List

On the bright side, I got to go to a Boston Bruins game the night before the conference!

I have been a Bruins fan since 1969, but I had never seen a Bruins game in Boston. Fortunately, I was able to get some last-minute tickets, and fellow Bruins fan Dudley and I got to watch the game. It was a great time in an impressive arena.

The temptation to purchase jerseys, t-shirt, pucks, and used sticks was great, but, somehow, I managed to gather enough strength to resist (probably the fear of telling my wife how much I paid for such things was also a deterrent).

All in all, it was a great evening that allowed me to scratch an item off my bucket list.

]]><![CDATA[Church Closures and the Preservation of Remembrance Day Materials]]>Sun, 09 Nov 2025 21:55:30 GMThttps://www.gordonlheath.com/blog/church-closures-and-the-preservation-of-remembrance-day-materials

For decades after the two world wars local churches acted in many ways as a museum or archives entrusted with records of past sacrifices of Canadian soldiers. Be it wall plaques, unit standards (flags), lists of veterans from the church, pictures, order of services, and stained-glass windows, the church was a repository of a vital information, much of it on display every Sunday day of worship.

However, the trending towards significant numbers of closures of local churches presents unique problems for the preservation of Remembrance Day materials. Sadly, material has been destroyed, lost, or damaged, often unintentionally.

What follows are recent examples of two local churches that managed to preserve vital artifacts. Hopefully, their actions will inspire churches to make sure that if they close or transition to a different way of doing church they will ensure the safety of artifacts.

Chatham Baptist Church, Chatham, Ontario, Canada

Chatham Baptist Church closed a few decades ago. Fortunately, however, the church’s leadership had the good sense to submit vital records and artifacts to the Canadian Baptist Archives at McMaster Divinity College. As can been seen by the images below, there were a variety of items submitted.

Interestingly, the church had a scrap book of interesting bulletins, pictures, and newspaper clippings (that was unique, and obviously there was a member of the church quite keen on preserving the church’s connections with veterans).

In sum, despite the closure of the church the forward-thinking leaders who submitted such artifacts have ensured important memories are preserved. And subsequent generations will benefit accordingly.

Wentworth Baptist Church, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

A different example of preservation is that of Wentworth Baptist Church. Wentworth is an inner-city church that has sold its building to a Christian ministry that provides affordable housing for those who need it.

Fortunately, the church will remain on site and continue to be a witness in an area of pressing need. And fortunately, the church has managed to ensure that the stain-glass windows will survive the demolition, renovation, and building of a large complex of apartments and offices.

As you can see by the pictures below, one of the stained-glass windows is dedicated in memory of the past and has a Role of Honor beneath it. Such items are often lost in demolitions – but in this case they are slated for survival.

Memory of history matters. For most of Canadian history the role of churches has been a vital component in preserving the memory of a host of people who sacrificed much for the nation. Hopefully these two examples of preservation will nudge churches facing closures or significant renovations to ensuring that memories will be respected and history will be taught to subsequent generations.

]]>