Traitors: Lee and Washington

I have seen quite a fee people on social media recently calling Robert E. Lee a traitor. While I agree with this accusation, I wonder if others follow their logic through.

If Lee is a traitor, then so is Washington. Lee betrayed his country (the US) and Washington betrayed his (Great Britain). Both men put aside their military uniforms of the country they had sworn an allegiance to defend and instead took up arms against their country, killing men that wore the uniform they once wore.

If anything, Washington is one-step further a traitor than Lee, if only because he formally aligned himself with France, a most shocking and backstabbing move, France being the enemy above all enemies to Great Britain at the time.

Perhaps the best thing to do is simply refrain from calling men like Lee and Washington traitors, especially since these men were, in all honesty, distinguished men of honor, and far greater men than any of us could hope to be in our lifetimes.

Finding the Good in a Catastrophe

In Patrick O’Brien’s Napoleonic era, historical fiction naval series, Captain Jack Aubrey begins most missions with a mixed crew; veteran seamen, land lubbers, convicts, foreign seamen pressed into service.  Strife is the norm.  In each case Captain Aubrey confides to the ship’s doctor and close friend, Stephen Marturin, how he longs for a life-threatening storm or battle to occur.  This inevitably happens, drawing the crew close together and in turn begin performing to Captain Aubrey’s famed standard of proficiency; no more than one minute twenty seconds between broadsides.  The external threat of a great storm or foe forces the mixed crew to forget their petty differences and instead focus on their common concern.

My favorite type of board games are of the cooperative variety rather than the “every man for himself.”  A great example of this is Forbidden Island, which requires all of the players to work together in order to escape from a sinking island.  Dungeons and Dragons could be another example of this style.  The players quickly realize, some faster than others, that they need one another if they are to survive the threat.  The players become imminently aware of their own vulnerability, cured only by relying on one another.  I have noticed a greater sense of bonding and camaraderie among the players walking away from these types of games.

Natural disasters in real-life are world shattering.  Nobody wants them.  Yet, they do have an amazing way of fostering solidarity among humans.  The trivial matters that divide us take a back seat when we are faced with a common, external threat.  It is in these moments, working together, that humans are able to perform impressive feats.  We become aware, if only briefly, what we can accomplish together as a species.  Therein lies the problem, however; we are forgetful.  While catastrophes fortunately are temporary, so also is the boost to our collective good will and ingenuity.  We forget and soon again focus on the trivial trial one foot before us.  It is in this context that I say, thank goodness for the next catastrophe, because I like the thought of firing three broadsides in under two and a half minutes.  Don’t you?

Identity Politics and the Road to Authoritarianism

Politics in America is becoming ever more polarizing. We are expected to fall in one extreme camp or another. The collective is king. “You are either with us or against us…and your silence is agreement.” This is classic identity politics.

Identity politics is a crucial step on the road towards authoritarianism. In order to have complete obedience from a people, individual freedom of thought and action must be placed in subjection to the desires of the collective. Identity politics facilitates this process by convincing individuals that they belong to a collective, sharing mutual desires and concerns. To aid in this effort, flames of fear and hatred, already inherent to the individual, are fanned in a direction that suits the collective. The collective then claims to have a solution, but only lacks the necessary power to make it possible. Desperate for a solution, the individual willingly hands over their freedom of thought and action.

The Jewish-German philosopher, Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), was a refugee from Nazi Germany.  She spent the rest of her life trying help herself and others understand how everyday people can be complicit with atrocities that accompany totalitarian regimes.  The result was her work titled, "The Origins of Totalitarianism."  Roger Berkowitz is a scholar of Arendt's work and interviewed here.  In the interview, Berkowitz explains how we are drawn to identity politics because we "actually prefer a lying world of consistency that upholds our sense of purpose and meaning in our movement and our identity, than the messiness of reality, which actually makes us feel unmoored from any meaning and purpose in life."

The Left's ongoing complicity with Trump and the Right in the falsification of reality is hindering productive public discourse. As the conversation continues to break down and drift from reality, the more likely we will see a totalitarian ideology take power in our time.

How do we fight identity politics? First, acknowledge one’s own fears and hatred. Second, be on guard against collectives that will try to use our fears toward their own ends. Finally, practice valuing and respecting one another. This means we ought not to assume the worst in one another. Through this, we rob the many collectives in the world of their primary tool for gaining power.

Is Our Military Force Structure Outdated?

Our military force structure once divided officer and enlisted based on class; nobility vs. the commoner. That was great when men still wore white tights, but we have since evolved beyond the taste of such civilities. We eventually replaced the often out-of-reach trait of nobility with higher education, our nation's version of an out of reach trait for commoners. Not so any more. 

The enlisted force is becoming more educated by the year. Many enlisted, most notably our senior enlisted, have bachelor’s degrees (31%) and master’s degrees (10%), while 77% of company grade officers only have bachelor’s degrees. And while these senior enlisted members bring far more experience to the table (usually 3 times the number of years), they are still out-ranked by the lowest of “wet-behind-the-ear” officers. 

All of this has led some to begin questioning the legitimacy of utilizing higher education as a distinguishing trait for organizing our force structure. This article goes even further by calling into question the legitimacy of an officer/enlisted structure entirely.

Total Solar Eclipse: No Mere Coincidence

Sun’s diameter - 1.3914 million km

Moon’s diameter –3,474 km

Sun’s distance from Earth – 147.1 to 152.1 million km (varies throughout the year)

Moon’s distance from Earth – 406,662 to 356,509 km (varies throughout the month)

Despite the above vast sizes and distances, the Moon will appear precisely the same size as the Sun in precisely the same location from the perspective of Earth today. One might just consider this to be an occasional coincidence. Consider for a moment, however, that this type of phenomena to this level of precision happens nowhere else in our solar system. As such, it is viewable from the sole location that supports intelligent life.

In addition, the phenomena occurs during a time in that intelligent life’s history where they are able to take advantage of the scientific treasure it bears, namely a greater understanding of our star’s outer corona. This was not possible centuries ago for two reasons; 1) the Moon use to be closer to our planet, completely obscuring the Sun during an eclipse (and hence our ability to study the Sun’s corona, 2) we did not have the technology centuries ago to take advantage of such a study even if it were offered.

The more we learn about our nearest star, the more we will come to understand other stars and the universe in general. The more we learn about creation, the more we learn about our Creator. This is called “General Revelation” in fancy theological terms. We truly are in the age of cosmic discovery, at the right place, at the right time. In other words, consider today’s total eclipse our Creator’s way of saying, “Look at this!” I consider that to be far too exciting to be a dull, mere coincidence.

Thoughts on the US and Paris Agreement

The US pulling out of the Paris Agreement was a mistake, not because Man is the leading cause of global warming (of which I am still not convinced), but because it moved the US further into political irrelevancy on a global scale.

Look at China, the filthiest and grossest of polluters of all industrial nations (a living mockery of the Paris Agreement). Yet China remains with the Paris agreement. Why? Not because they care about the environment (they most certainly do not), but because they are playing the long game. They are patient, while Americans are impatient and pragmatic.

Now Germany will begin to distance itself from the US and likely bolster ties with BRIC nations like India and China. Why? For one, Germany may be the only nation on the planet that actually cares about the environment for non-political reasons. The environment is a nationalistic passion of theirs, second only to their love of soccer. Second, the Germans smell death on the US Empire. They sense the change in winds, and its more than the grotesque flatulence of a certain US leader.

The US staying in the Paris Agreement would have been expensive economically in the near term. The US will find that backing out will have its own costs, which will have long term economic impacts of their own.

Marriage Advice from a Crusty Sergeant

I congratulated a young Airman of mine the other day on her wedding engagement.  We talked about the difficulties married military couples face.  The divorce rate in the military is almost double that of the civilian sector.  One source of stress is the frequent moves.  The average military couple moves 8.6 times over a 20 year career.  I told her that my wife and I have moved 9 times in our marriage.  Military couples also often marry young.  I told her that my wife and I married when we were both 19 years old.  Upon hearing that I had been married 17 years, she asked me if I had any advice.  I told her it had a lot to do with our learning how to resolve conflict, lessons painstakingly learned together over the years.  Here are a few of the things I told her.  

Don’t Hold Back

At the beginning of a marriage you both want to be really nice to one another.  I myself would often hold back my thoughts and feelings when I was upset.  That can only go on for so long before you eventually blow up.  Ephesians 4:26 says, “Do not let the sun go down on your anger.”  Be upfront and honest with your spouse when something is concerning or upsetting you.  

Seek Good Counsel

Eventually you are going to get into an argument.  When, not if, that happens, you may need to seek advice outside the marriage.  Be careful who that counsel comes from.  Your “best friend” may not be it (if this is really the case, you probably just need a new “best friend”).  I have seen too many marriages struggle or collapse because of bad counsel from family or friends that really did not have the best interest of the marriage at heart.  Proverbs abounds in the importance of surrounding yourself with wise counselors.  Seek them out and identify them now before you need them.  

Listen to The Meltdowns

Hear your spouse out.  I came home from work one day and my wife was unexpectedly very upset with me.  I could have said, “I’ll talk to you later when you’re not acting so crazy.”  Instead, I got out a piece of paper and pen and said, “OK, fair enough.  Let’s see what I can do to make things better.  I’ll write down a list of things I can improve on.”  She then broke down in tears and said, “I think I’m pregnant.”  Was she acting emotional?  You bet.  However, all she needed from me was to show that I cared and was willing to listen to her.  Proverbs 18:13 advises us that “if one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.”  

Forgive and Forget

This Airman also happened to be a Christian.  I told her to ensure that they keep Christ at the center of their marriage.  I did not become a Christian until the third year of our marriage.  Our second year was really tough and we almost got a divorce.  I learned my need for forgiveness and how to forgive others.  In marriage, there will be a lot of forgiveness going on; both parties are sinners after all.  When you forgive your spouse, you cannot bring up their sin again.  That is what I mean by “forget it.”  Sin cannot be forgot as in you will never think of it again.  You can, however, forget it by not harboring continued resentment or by bringing it up in unrelated arguments later on.  

There was only so much advice that I could give in a short conversation.  This Airman, however, has a good head on her shoulders and I think she will help improve the poor marriage statistics our generation faces.   

“The Moment”: Our Yearning to Be a Hero

We cannot help but be inspired when we hear of the heroic deeds of others.  We feel ourselves swell with pride as we imagine ourselves taking the same action in such a situation.  The problem is day-to-day life is actually rather boring and mundane.   We wonder when “the moment” may come when we can prove to ourselves and to others that we can be heroes, too.

In the meantime, we wait for “the moment” to show our quality, fantasizing about scenarios where we will reveal our heroic selves.  Here are a few possible scenarios.

“The Gunslinger” Scenario

He is always carrying a sidearm.  Everywhere.  Why?  Because he has been waiting for and expecting “the moment” to happen at any moment, hopefully in public.  An active shooter.  A robber.  The exact means does not matter as long as he is able to finally use his weapon to put the bad guy down.  He does not consider the possibility that he may actually make such a situation worse.  Any why should he?  He has gone over the scenario in his mind many times and it will go perfectly.

“The Prepper” Scenario

I met a man in the military once that had a job that would not technically start until the nuclear apocalypse had started.  Not until after nuclear weapons were in the air would his job begin, which would consist of keeping the government running in a post-nuclear holocaust world.  Problem was, it had not happened yet.  He had been training and prepping for years for this nightmare event.  When I asked him how he felt about his job, his reply was “Sometimes I feel it would be nice to see the fruit of my labor.”  He felt his work went unnoticed.  I explained to him that his state of readiness is a deterrent for the enemy, which hopefully will prevent a nuclear holocaust from happening.  He did not seem convinced.  He was still looking forward to “the moment.”

“Your Crisis is my Crisis” Scenario

You would think that it was his own wife or child that was in jeopardy.  He has spread the news of the tragedy far and wide under the guise of caring for the victim.  He talks an awful lot about how devastated he is.  One would think that the event had actually happened to him.  “The moment” has come, he believes, but all he has really done is hijack the attention of someone else’s “moment.”

“I’m Offended for You” Scenario

He has played the scenario out over and over in his head.  He has his pet peeve, and boy, when someone in public offends another, he is going to make his pet peeve known.  When “the moment” comes one would think that he personally had been offended, but he really is just offended for the victim.  He makes a big scene about it publicly and those witnessing the event walk away confused as to who the real victim was.  

A common theme in the above scenarios is that not only are they looking for “the moment,” they also seek recognition in it.  They also fabricate the moment.  “The real moment” is a real trial, however.  The heroes in all the stories worth emulating do not want or seek out “the moment,” but rather endure and overcome the trial because they must.  When the moment really comes for us, it will come unlooked for.  No, far from looking for it, we will want nothing to do with it. Consider Frodo and Sam in The Lord of the Rings, for example.

As great of a story The Lord of the Rings is, we do not need to look to fiction for real examples of heroes. Look at the greatest hero of all time; Jesus Christ.  Even our Lord in “the real moment” said, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”  Should our real moment ever come, despite how much we will want to run, may we stand our ground.  

Cause of the American Civil War

“The American Civil War was over slavery!”  “No, it was over states’ rights!”  Back and forth the two sides go, on and on.  The American Civil war was actually over both issues.  To help explain how this can be, I will use an analogy I once heard used by Dr. R.C. Sproul in his explanation for the cause of the Protestant Reformation.  

“Frequently the Reformation is described as a movement that revolved around two pivotal issues.  The socalled ‘material’ cause was the debate over sola fide (“justification by faith alone”).  The ‘formal’ cause was the issue of sola Scriptura, that the Bible and the Bible alone has the authority to bind the conscience of the believer.”

The formal cause of the Civil War was over the issue of secession.  The United States (U.S.) did not invade the Confederate States (C.S) because the latter was pro-slavery.  The U.S. invaded the C.S. because the latter had seceded from the former’s union.  Some may interject here that the C.S. started the war when it attacked U.S. property, e.g. Fort Sumter, that fell within the new borders of the C.S.  This is a mute point as the mere act of secession already made claim to such property. (The picture to the right shows Fort Sumter flying a Confederate Flag in 1861.)

The material cause of the Civil War was over the issue of slavery.  The material cause of an issue is easier to discern when one asks the question, “Why was the formal cause an issue to begin with?”  In the Protestant Reformation, the formal issue (is a believer’s conscience bound by the Bible alone or by both the Bible and Church dogma) was only an issue because of the material cause (is a believer justified by their faith alone or by their faith and their works).  Those that believed one is justified by faith alone did so on the grounds that they believed one’s conscience is bound by the Bible alone.  In like manner, the formal cause of the Civil War (secession) was only an issue because of the material cause (slavery).

Take the American Revolutionary War (ARW) as another example.  The formal cause of the ARW was also the issue of secession.  Great Britain did not invade the British-American colonies because the latter refused to pay taxes, i.e. “no taxation without representation”. Great Britain invaded the British-American colonies because the latter rejected the former’s union.  This formal cause (secession), however, was only an issue because of the material cause (refusal to pay taxes), taxes which were levied, mind you, to pay a down the debt incurred when Great Britain defended the British-American colonists from French aggression during the Seven Years’ War.  In addition to these taxes, the colonists’ infamous smuggling practices were also finally put to a stop in order to drive goods away from the black market where it could be properly taxed.  Interesting how when a people’s money is put at risk, whether it be stopping slavery, smuggling, or tax evasion, those people have a tendency to rebel.  But perhaps that is a topic for another blog.

My 50th Blog Post

I began my Hardly Tolerable blog 5 years ago at the recommendation of a good friend who has since past away.  At that time, I expressed concern to him that I would soon have very few friends remaining on Facebook if I continued to assault them with my religious and political posts. 

This marks my fiftieth post since that time.  To no one's surprise, I am sure, about 2/3 of my posts have been of a religious or political nature.  The rest of my posts have touched on a wide variety of topics, such as history, military service, etiquette, pipe smoking, ancestry, and even satire.  Satire was by far the most fun and I really hope to do more of it.  However, in the words of wise Gandalf, "Who will laugh, I wonder?"

I thought it would be worth mentioning the top 3 most viewed posts over the past five years. 

Coming in 3rd was The Clinton Case, which was a political post about corruption in both the Republican and Democrat U.S. parties and the importance of laws applying equally to all citizens, to include the rulers.  My guess as to the popularity of this post is that it involved a high profile candidate running for President.

My 2nd most viewed post was Star Trek Convention, George Takei, and the 2014 Winter Olympics, which was a short post of a political/theological nature.  I would like to think that this post received so many views due to the really cool picture of me sitting in the Enterprise-D captain's chair while in a Starfleet uniform.  I doubt it.  The view count was likely due to the controversial nature about homosexuality in regards to religion and politics.

My most viewed post by far over the last five years was actually one written earlier this month; Presbytery: The Judicial Center of Gravity.  Surprisingly, this post was about Presbyterian church government.  I thought this would be a very boring topic, but perhaps I did add a bit of controversy towards the end when I took a jab at presbyteries that fail to live up to their intended roles.

While I do not write blog posts for the purpose of receiving high view counts, it is reassuring to know that at least some people read them.  I also find it interesting to discover what type of issues draw the most views.  It seems that the very issues that I was concerned would lead me to lose friends on Facebook are the very issues that seem to draw the most view counts on my blog.  Despite this, I plan to continue using my blog and leaving my Hardly Tolerable commentary here.

The Sacraments: Mental Immaturity / Disability

Disclaimer: This blog post is my thinking out loud, and as such, I am open to comments, critiques, and corrections on the topic.

I am concerned by what I have witnessed among Christian denominations that exclude individuals from participation in the Sacraments due to one’s inability to outwardly demonstrate faith in Christ, perhaps due to mental immaturity or disability.  When I say “concerned,” I mean I come close to tears thinking about it, which for those that know me is saying a lot.  

Baptist circles, for example, do not baptize someone unless they have made a public profession of faith.  Another example are Presbyterian circles (of which I belong), who tend to not allow someone to participate in the Lord’s Supper unless they have made a public profession of faith.  Regardless of why participation in a particular Sacrament is being denied, the result is a very real exclusion, a setting apart of that denied person from the rest of the Body of Christ.  That person must be reminded Sunday after Sunday that they are not like the others they sit next to.  Why?  Because they have not met their church leaders’ subjective standard of exhibiting an understanding of and faith in the Gospel.  

In the cases where one has been denied the Sacraments due to mental immaturity, i.e. children, I have often heard the explanation that the person has not yet reached the “age of accountability.”  Not only am I unable to find such a concept in Scripture, this age varies subjectively from church to church.  In the meantime, these children are forced to live in visible exclusion until they reach their church leaders’ prescribed magical age.

Regarding mental disability, I have seen men and women with Down’s Syndrome, for example, be denied the Sacraments for the same reason; their inability to articulate an understanding of and faith in the Gospel, which many of these people will never be able to do.

I believe a person with Down’s Syndrome in the church has as much of a right to the Sacraments as everyone else in the church.  Yes, I wrote “right” and notice I also qualified that this person is in the church.  This means they are attending every Sunday and likely the child of a believer.  This person is in all tense and purposes already part of the visible church and as such ought to receive the sign meant to be administered to the visible church; i.e. Baptism.

A person who has not yet met the local subjective “age of accountability” still has every right to the Sacraments as everyone else in the church.  Let us assume the following; the person is a child of a believer, has been Baptized, is a member of the visible church, and hears the Word preached every Sunday.  Why should that church member be withheld from participation in the Lord’s Supper, the Gospel in visible form?  We do not keep our children from hearing the Word preached prior to reaching an “age of accountability,” so why would we keep them from participating in the Gospel in visible form?  The same goes for those with mental disabilities; if they have received the sign of Baptism, they ought not be denied participation to the Lord’s Supper, as if they are under official church discipline.  In regards to “fencing the table,” I fear we are far too lenient with the sin of those without mental excuse and far too strict with those that are the most mentally tender and vulnerable.  Shame on us!

Perhaps it would help if we considered the means of grace, which are prayer, the Word preached, and the Sacraments.  We pray with and encourage those that are mentally immature or disabled.  We preach the Word to these people in our church, as well.  The Sacraments are effectual means of grace through the working of the Holy Spirit for those that have been given the gift of faith, which is a work of God, not man.  I caution that on the matter of the Sacraments, we too often sound more like Pelagians than proponents of the Gospel of Grace.  May we administer all the means of grace in such a manner that truly magnifies the grace and mercy of God in the saving a people unto Himself.

U.S. Atmospheric Nuclear Testing Research Continues

No, that is not a picture of the Sun to the right.  Rather it is what it would look like if a nuclear weapon detonated at night, 2 miles over your head.

History will always associate the U.S. with the discovery, testing, and war-time employment of nuclear weapons. The U.S. conducted 219 atmospheric nuclear tests alone between 1945 and 1962. If one includes exo-atmospheric, underground, and underwater, there were 1,054 tests. Since 1962, most of the films that captured the atmospheric tests (over 10,000, as multiple cameras were used during a test) have been slowly decomposing, scattered across the country in high-security vaults.

While a dark topic, it is never-the-less important for a nation to preserve it's history. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) has therefore recently been authorized to collect and scan these films into digital form. This takes a great amount of time, but a few are already viewable on YouTube. 

While the preservation of these films is valuable for posterity's sake, new things are now being learned with 21st-century technology that wasn't possible 55 years ago. As such, these films continue to contribute data to current and future weapon physicists. 

Housatonic (pictured above) was one of many tests as part of Operation Dominic in 1962. Housatonic was a low-altitude test delivered via airdrop and detonated at 12,100 ft, (just over 2 miles above the surface).

This is a link to one of these new films.

Presbytery: The Judicial Center of Gravity

I was recently asked by a co-worker which church I attended in town.  He was raised in a non-denominational church and still attended one, so he had many questions for me upon hearing that I am an elder in a Presbyterian church.  I went on to explain what a Presbyterian was and the distinguishing characteristics from other denominations.  My co-worker was most interested in hearing about Presbyterian church government as he found it to differ drastically from the independent, congregationalist style form of government he was use to.  His congregation is subject to no external jurisdiction.  There are no checks and balances between his local church and an external entity should an internal dispute arise.  For example, should his preacher begin preaching heresy, there is no external entity to deal with the pastor.  On the other hand, nor is there protection for his pastor should his congregation turn on the pastor.

In Presbyterianism, there are three levels of courts to deal with disputes.  The first level of court, or session, consists of elders elected by and from among the local congregation.  In addition to the administration of sacraments, the session is responsible for resolving local disputes and, if needed,  the exercise of discipline.  This much my co-worker was vaguely familiar with in his own congregation. 
 

What if the nature of a dispute boils over the ability of a session to handle?  What if the integrity of the session itself is called into question by one or several members of the congregation?  In such cases the regional church, or presbytery, the second level of court would address the issue.  A presbytery consists of a pastor and an elder commissioned from each congregation over a predefined geographic area.  This level of court is really the judicial center of gravity for Presbyterianism.

Occasionally, disputes are not resolvable even at the presbytery level.  In these cases the general assembly, the third and highest level of court, would address the issue.  This level of court consists of a number of pastors and elders from among each presbytery.  While the potential power of a general assembly is great, it rarely flexes such might unless it is truly needed.  Instead, a general assembly, acknowledging that the judicial center of gravity resides at the level of presbytery, provides counsel to a presbytery in which the dispute arose.  In short, the general assembly tends to just tell a presbytery to man up and do their job with a bit of advice thrown in.  I exaggerate only a little.

While biblical and the best form of church government available to fallible men, I told my co-worker that the Presbyterian judicial system only works as well as those running it.  We are far from perfect.  I have noticed recently the very issue of presbyteries not living up to their judicial role, although perhaps this has been an ongoing problem for years.  Complaints are brought before presbytery and are ignored.  Charges are brought forward only to be adjudicated without trial.  Well meaning judicial committees and politically powerful clerks of presbytery are tempted to sweep issues under the rug as they may be viewed as an embarrassment if made known at the general assembly level.  In some respects, this embarrassment is warranted as it is a testament to a presbytery’s failure to “do their job.”  The result, however, is a tolerance for the intolerable, all in an attempt to maintain a false front of unity.  The problem is that such false fronts and the neglect of judicial proceedings are more likely to only cause real fractures within a presbytery.  Yet, that is why the general assembly exists; to provide presbyteries counsel and wisdom from a wider pool of individuals, objective in their discernment.  May general assemblies keep presbyteries living up to their judicial responsibilities.  The ultimate health and welfare of the visible church is at stake.

Note: The above picture is of the Jerusalem Chamber located in Westminster Abbey.  The Westminster Assembly met in the Jerusalem Chamber from the Winter of 1643 until its dissolution in 1653.  In this room the Assembly debated the form of Presbyterian church government in addition to the drafting of the Westmister Standards, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and other documents.