While her sacrificial life has rightly been emphasized, she should also be remembered for her importance in the evangelization of both Burma and Thailand. In Burma, she learned to speak the language so well that she could share the gospel with other women on a daily basis. What’s more, she learned the unique Burmese writing system, which allowed her to write a Burmese catechism and translate several tracts, as well as the books of Jonah and Daniel (while her husband translated other portions of the Bible).

Ann Judson, one of the first two women to be sent as American foreign missionaries, is a familiar name for most Christians. She is particularly remembered as the sacrificial wife who hid her husband’s Bible translation inside a pillow and took it to the jail where he had been confined, bribing the jailers in order to get in.
This is just one of the memorable stories that were repeated in countless accounts during the nineteenth century, when she was held up as a role model for other missionary wives. But most of these accounts leave out much information about Ann’s own work as a missionary and educator.
“Beauty in the Way of Salvation”
Ann “Nancy” Hasseltine was born in Bradford, Massachusetts, December 22, 1789. The youngest of five children, she was lively, cheerful, and intelligent. By her early teens, she was already popular and in demand for parties and other social events. A special dance hall her father built next to their house became the center of social life for the young people of Bradford.
Aware of her intelligence, her parents enrolled Ann at Bradford Academy where she left a mark with her lively spirit. Rufus Anderson, who became a renowned strategist of missions, remembered how, during his studies at the same college, Ann used to playfully chase him “about the Academy grounds with a stick.”[1]
Like most families in the town, the Hasseltines attended the local Congregational Church. Ann remembered learning from her mother a list of sins to avoid if she wanted to escape the torments of hell. But serious thoughts on the subject were soon brushed off by the attraction of a life of “gaiety and mirth.”[2]
By the spring of 1806 a revival swept through the Academy. Ann was affected by the sermons she heard but put off by the heavy emphasis on hell and by the idea that God would choose who was destined there. “So far from being merciful in calling some, I thought it cruel in him to send any of his creatures to hell for their disobedience.”[3]
This resentment brought her to the conclusion that she wouldn’t be happy in heaven, even if she made it there. “In this state, I longed for annihilation,” she wrote; “and if I could have destroyed the existence of my soul, with as much ease as that of my body, I should quickly have done it.”[4]
She credited God for coming to her rescue. “But that glorious Being, who is kinder to his creatures than they are to themselves, did not leave me to remain long in this distressing state. I began to discover a beauty in the way of salvation by Christ. He appeared to be just such a Saviour as I needed. I saw how God could be just, in saving sinners through him.”[5]
A few days later, she found confirmation of her discovery in Joseph Bellamy’s True Religion. “I obtained a new view of the character of God. His justice, displayed in condemning the finally impenitent, which I had before viewed as cruel, now appeared to be an expression of hatred to sin, and regard to the good of beings in general.”[6]
Bellamy was a disciple of Jonathan Edward and one of the architects of the so-called New Divinity, a movement born out of the First American Awakening. Ann began to avidly read other similar authors, such as Edwards and Samuel Hopkins. New Divinity authors emphasized missionary work, and Ann became increasingly interested in missionary accounts.
She also began to teach young children. Her diary shows how she was inspired in this venture by a popular book of her day, Hannah More’s Strictures on the Modern System of Female Education. Resisting the decorative nature of female education in her day, when women were taught only what could serve to entertain their hosts, More believed that education should lead to a life of usefulness. And Ann, motivated by her renewed love for Christ, wanted to be useful.
Read More

Third, this is a persistent issue. There have been efforts to address this issue such as the recently affirmed human sexuality report. We do have our helpful standards in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Some contend this is adequate and no more needs to be said, especially the proposed amendments. But help me if I am missing something (I am the new guy) but apparently these resources are not sufficient for the very fact that the issue persists.

Through the years I always sought the impressions of new guests to my church. Not that the opinion of a longtime member was insignificant, but it was the fresh eyes of new people who saw things others somehow didn’t notice or always appreciate. So as a newcomer to the PCA I thought my impressions might be of value to some as we enter the home stretch of voting on overtures 23 and 37. Now I should point out I am not a newcomer to pastoral ministry. I am a seasoned (that’s code for old guy) pastor from several denominational backgrounds.
So the first thing that strikes me is this, a real issue has presented itself. That may seem too obvious to bother mentioning, but the point is these overtures are not hypothetical or arbitrary. Rather, they are responding to real life circumstances. Real people are really advocating for a position that involves embracing one’s ongoing identity as gay and a potential officer of the church.
The framers and defenders of the proposed overtures did not go on a hunt into people’s private lives to find these issues. I am sure they would much rather focus on other pressing matters of life and ministry. It is not unkind or uncharitable, therefore, to support these overtures that seek to provide clarity in response to this real-life issue.
Second, this is a complicated issue. The concern that the wording of the proposed overtures is complicated and introduces new language to the standards of the church should not be alarming. The presenting issue is complicated. And again, this issue was not chosen by the framers or defenders of the overtures. It was chosen by these who are supporting such a novel and complicated position.
If a secular court has to deal with a malpractice suit involving brain surgery, they cannot complain that it is complicated. Brain surgery is complicated. Likewise, human identity and sexuality are complicated. If the church courts are forced to struggle with handling complicated and novel issues like human identity there is no one to thank but those suggesting the position in which we find ourselves. Therefore, no one should vote against the proposed overtures simply on the grounds that they are complicated or deal with new vocabulary.
Third, this is a persistent issue. There have been efforts to address this issue such as the recently affirmed human sexuality report. We do have our helpful standards in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Some contend this is adequate and no more needs to be said, especially the proposed amendments. But help me if I am missing something (I am the new guy) but apparently these resources are not sufficient for the very fact that the issue persists.
It would be unnecessary to add specific cases to our constitution if it was sufficient to handle the real issue before us. But obviously something more is needed. And there are times when the constitution needs to be amended to make plain the will of the body. Therefore, no one should vote against the proposed overtures on the grounds that they are unnecessary.
And finally, it is an urgent issue. In a recent men’s Bible study at our young church plant the issue of the overtures and the position of “side B Christianity” came up. (Trust me, I was not the one who mentioned it.) Men were immediately alarmed and confused. They wanted to know how long this had been going on. I mentioned a couple years. What is being done? they wanted to know. I tried to explain the difference between the court cases and the proposed overtures. I tried to explain how the system of Presbyterian government works (or is supposed to work).
From the looks and comments that night, I am not sure our church plant will survive if these overtures are not passed, or some definitive action is taken to make clear it is not okay to be an officer of the church and embrace the identity of a gay Christian. But we’re a small bunch and this is not a threat. The point is I have been down this road before. As the pastor of a large church in the PCUSA, I saw the same look in people’s eyes. I heard the same questions and frustrations. I found myself saying the same hollow words- “It’s not exactly what it sounds like.” “We can make a difference.” “This doesn’t reflect who we are as a church.” You know how well that turned out.
Coming into the PCA I was aware there was a diversity of views and even movements within the denomination. But I also saw a denomination that had exciting prospects to fulfill an essential mission. I also strongly believed (and still do) that the vast majority of people within the denomination would not support the position of an officer of the church embracing an ongoing identity as a gay Christian. And while I have learned that people can appreciate debate and due process, they won’t endure protracted procedures that yield mixed messages, or when a system cannot accomplish what is the apparent intent of the constitution and the will of the body.
I have learned that people leave churches like churches leave denominations. Some in groups, some as individuals. Some leave in a huff, some quietly, still others may stay but don’t engage. We should be very concerned about the moment in which we find ourselves.
It is time to address this. If you feel it is appropriate at this moment in our denomination to allow for officers of the church to embrace the identity of a gay Christian, then vote against the overtures. Let me simply ask that you begin your comments whether in formal debates, in social media, or in any other venue with the fact that you do feel this is a viable position and you embrace it. And let me ask that you are forthcoming with your congregation and let them know your position as well. Don’t be like the many pastors and elders I have seen through the years who mislead their flock as to their views and positions.
If you feel this is not the right position for our denomination to be known for (and I can tell you from experience we will be known for it) or the position that allows us to fulfill our mission, but you still have some reservations about the specific overtures, please reflect on the fact that this is indeed an urgent and persistent issue that though by nature complicated, needs to be addressed. Even if you feel the proposed overtures are less than perfect, that is not a reason to vote against them.
It is not the lack of clarity of an overture or the uncertainty of its imagined outcome that we should be most concerned about, but the emerging lack of clarity about who are as a denomination and the uncertainty we will have in fulfilling our mission if these overtures do not pass that should most concern us.
Alan Hager is a member of New River Presbytery and the Organizing Pastor of Grace Church in Buckhannon, WV.

Written by John D. Wilsey |
Tuesday, October 29, 2024
Coming to grips with American nationality is hard work, but it is the work of the American citizen. Christian American citizens have a special responsibility in this work, because we believe that the tension between dignity and fallenness in human nature has been resolved through the Incarnation of the Lord Jesus, and his substitutionary work in redemption on the cross and the resurrection.

It seems everyone has an opinion about nationalism these days. Something called “Christian nationalism” emerged once Donald Trump came on the political scene a decade ago, and especially after January 6, 2021. Since the publication of Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry’s 2020 book, Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States, Christian nationalism has become a veritable cottage industry. Scores of authors, particularly on the left, have sought to get in on the action, publishing title after title excoriating the concept as racist, fascist, patriarchal, violent, and “neither American nor Christian” (in the words of a recently released book by Michael W. Austin).
Others, mainly on the right, have embraced the moniker of Christian nationalism with relish. Stephen Wolfe’s 2021 book, The Case for Christian Nationalism, serves as a manifesto for a magisterial, Erastian polity headed by a Christian prince who serves in the capacity of a king-priest. Whereas the leftist critique of Christian nationalism has developed into a theory of everything progressives hate about conservatives, Wolfe’s book serves as a thumb thrust directly into the eye of the progressive left.
Prior to 2016, the cultural masthead for religious national identity was American exceptionalism—the idea that America was special, unique, and praiseworthy among the nations of the world. A fickle American culture exchanged “exceptionalism” for “nationalism” with little understanding or reflection on the meaning of either term. Since the dawn of the twenty-first century, both “exceptionalism” and “nationalism” have been deployed by the left to describe all that is wrong with America. The left prefers open borders, multiculturalism, multilingualism, and globalism to anything that speaks of American particularity as a nation with a language, culture, governing philosophy, tradition, or heroes of its own. Herein, I hope to briefly explain why this leftist ideology of cosmopolitanism is faulty, and that the better way is not a nationalism, but the conservation of a patriotic nationality that serves as a faithful stewardship of the best of American tradition. This conservative patriotism is in fact a means of loving our neighbor. 
Cosmopolitanism
Political theorist Steven B. Smith’s book, Reclaiming Patriotism in an Age of Extremes, helpfully provides a contrast between nationalism, patriotism, and what he calls cosmopolitanism. He writes, “nationalism is not patriotism’s exact opposite but a deformation of the patriotic spirit.” On the other hand, Smith understands cosmopolitanism as a world citizenship—it is universal, not particular. Tracing the history of cosmopolitanism in the West from Plato, to the Stoics, to the Roman Empire, and to the Enlightenment in the modern period, Smith rightly argued the cosmopolitanism is an abstraction, a chimera, utopian, without “passion and intensity” and “a joyless disposition.”
Most compellingly, Smith describes cosmopolitanism by using the term “cool.” He writes, “Cool is above all an aesthetic pose, expressed in dress, cuisine, language, and shopping. It is a stance of detached irony, a withholding of emotional commitment.” Cool became mainstream after World War II, particular during the liberation movements of the 1960s. Cool transcends good and evil and “has an unmistakenly urban vibe, designating hipness and an indifference to conventional norms, with a slightly outlaw flavor.” Cosmopolitanism—a form of globalism that prizes international diversity in the West for the sake of diversity—is the epitome of cool, because to be cosmopolitan is to transcend national distinctives, borders, citizenship, and politics. Cosmopolitanism is thoroughly postmodern, in that it rejects the normative in favor of the sentimental and experiential.
Thus, it is difficult to make a rational case against cosmopolitanism, because it is by definition irrational. There is no concrete example of cosmopolitanism in history. Even multi-national states and empires like the Roman Empire of antiquity, the Holy Roman Empire of medieval and early modern Europe, or the Austro-Hungarian Empire of late modernity took their shapes around contours defined by practice, statecraft, tradition, religion, and physical boundaries over time. Cosmopolitanism is, as Smith lucidly describes it, not much more than a “vibe.”
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.