» » Reconstructing Early Christian Worship

Download Reconstructing Early Christian Worship ePub

by Paul F. Bradshaw

Download Reconstructing Early Christian Worship ePub
  • ISBN 0814662455
  • ISBN13 978-0814662458
  • Language English
  • Author Paul F. Bradshaw
  • Publisher Pueblo Books; Reprint edition (December 1, 2010)
  • Pages 160
  • Formats txt lit lrf doc
  • Category Bibles
  • Subcategory Churches and Church Leadership
  • Size ePub 1983 kb
  • Size Fb2 1520 kb
  • Rating: 4.5
  • Votes: 266

Building on the approach set out in his Search for the Origins of Christian Worship, Paul Bradshaw attempts to drill down at several key points beneath the surface impression of early Christian worship that has been accepted in most studies of the primary sources. His aim is to see whether a somewhat different picture emerges when one examines the material with altered presuppositions and a questioning attitude.

Thus, each chapter in Reconstructing Early Christian Worship begins from the conventional depiction of its topic. The author then subjects the sources to an assessment from the perspective of the methodology set out in his earlier work, which then leads to new conclusions. Important aspects of the Eucharist, baptism, and daily prayer are each explored in turn and new understandings of those rites opened up. The resulting change in perception not only affects how we reconstruct our Vision of the past but also how we use the past as precedent for worship practice today. Each chapter ends with a comment on the possible modern application of these new discoveries.

Pal F. Bradshaw is professor of liturgy at the University of Notre Dame, and priest-vicar of Westminster Abbey and a member of the Church of England Liturgical Commission. He is the author or editor of several major books (The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship, Eucharistic Origins, Reconstructing Early Christian Worship, The Study of Liturgy, A Companion to Common Worship, volumes 1 and 2).

Early Christian Worship: A Basic Introduction to Ideas and Practice . The Changing Face of Jewish and Christian Worship in North America (Notre Dame Press, 1992).

Early Christian Worship: A Basic Introduction to Ideas and Practice (London: SPCK/Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996, 2010). Reconstructing Early Christian Worship (London: SPCK, 2009/Collegeville: The Liturgical Press 2010). The Origins of Feasts, Fasts and Seasons in Early Christianity (with Maxwell E. Johnson; Alcuin Club Collections 86, London: SPCK/Collegeville: The Liturgical Press 2011).

Reconstructing Early Christian Worship book.

Reconstructing Early Christian Worship. In this book he updates his thinking in this area, focussing on the origins of the Eucharist, Baptism and Daily Prayer. The controversial introductory chapter is entitled: Did Jesus Institute the Eucharist at the Last Supper? To read this book, upload an EPUB or FB2 file to Bookmate.

Bradshaw (and his frequent colleague, Maxwell Johnson) are clearly excellent historians of Christian worship.

Only 17 left in stock (more on the way). Bradshaw (and his frequent colleague, Maxwell Johnson) are clearly excellent historians of Christian worship. What I always find challenging and exciting about their work is that they do not merely provide new answers to our questions, more importantly, they question our answers.

You're here Christian Books Index Reconstructing Early Christian Worship. His aim is to see whether a somewhat different picture emerges when one examines the material with altered presuppositions and a questioning attitude.

His aim is to see whether a somewhat different picture emerges when one examines the material with altered presuppositions and a questioning attitude.

Reconstructing Early Christian Worship - Paul Bradshaw. This book does not pretend to be a complete description of what early Christian worship might have been like. Such a venture would in any case be impossible because of the limitations of our historical information and the caution that modern critical methods place upon what we may assume with regard to the gaps in our knowledge.

Anne McGowan, Paul F. Bradshaw. Pueblo Books, Trade Paperback. Reconstructing Early Christian Worship. Anne McGowan, Paul F. Liturgical Press Academic, 2018, Trade Paperback. Availability: In Stock.

In this book he updates his thinking in this area, focussing on the origins of the Eucharist, Baptism and Daily Prayer.

In this book he updates his thinking in this area. ISBN 13: 9780281060948.

Talk about Reconstructing Early Christian Worship

Assuming you're a liturgy geek, and are curious about the origins of how we got what we have and where it came from, this excellent study is for you. If you operate on the premise that nothing we do has always been the way we do it now, you will enjoy Bradshaw's findings. Bradshaw (and his frequent colleague, Maxwell Johnson) are clearly excellent historians of Christian worship. Their work is scholarly but accessible at the same time. What I always find challenging and exciting about their work is that they do not merely provide new answers to our questions, more importantly, they question our answers. (The Rev. H. Galganowicz)
Great scholarly book on worship in the early church. Bought for a reference book in writing a research paper for college on early church worship and it's connection to post Temple Judaism and synagogue worship.
Good info
Authoritative and well written.
Good to read
furious ox
I can't wait for my class on early Christian worship in the different traditions to start. I plan to use this book to provide assistance for any essays!
Refugee Roulette was co-authored by Professor Jaya Ramji-Nogales of Temple University Beasley School of Law and Professors Andrew Schoenholtz and Philip Schrag of Georgetown University Law Center. The authors originally published the study in 2007 in the Stanford Law Review. This book contains the article, with minor updates. It also includes shorter articles from other legal experts about the main study.

The Refugee Roulette authors limited their study to nationals from "Asylee Producing Countries" (APCs), those who had at least 500 claims in FY 2004 and received at least a 30% grant rate. The 15 APCs include Albania, Armenia, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Ethiopia, Guinea, Haiti, India, Liberia, Mauritania, Pakistan, Russia, Togo, and Venezuela. It excludes countries whose nationals received low grant rates, such as El Salvador and Guatemala, as well as those who entered the asylum system for purposes other than to obtain asylum, such as Mexico.

The study defines judge/decisionmaker as deviating from the mean grant rate if his grant rate was 50% higher or lower than other adjudicators in the same office or court. The study employs a regional rather than national standard to account for differences in the composition of immigrant petitioners before each court. The statistical analysis and comparisons assume that clerks at Asylum Offices and Immigration Courts assign cases to adjudicators on a random basis.

Here are some of the most important findings from the main article:

Overall, during FY1999-2005, Asylum Offices had a grant rate of 35%, referring most other cases to Immigration Judges. The referrals included cases in which the petitioner 1) did not appear for his interview; 2) did not meet his burden of proof; 3) did not allege facts sufficient for protection under the statute; or 4) had not filed within 1-year or show "extraordinary circumstances" justifying a delay. Around 7% of cases were dismissed because the petitioner already had lawful status in the U.S. However, the study found considerable variation in grant rates within and between offices. Most officers granted asylum at a rate of 25-50%. Region D produced the most consistent results, with only one out of 64 judges deviating from the office mean by more than 50%. By contrast, in Region H over half of all officers deviated, and five deviated by 130-190%. The study found that disparities persisted even for petitioners of the same nationality. The grant rate for the 290 officers who handled more than 100 cases involving Chinese petitioners varied from 0-90%. In Region H, 31 out of 52 officers who decided more than 25 cases involving Chinese petitioners deviated by more than 50% from the office's mean. Other regions, such as Region C, show relative consistency for most APCs, but wide variation for Indian applicants.

In theory, because Immigration Courts review Asylum Office decisions de novo, they should not match the inconsistency among Asylum Offices. While the overall grant rate for APCs was 40%, the Refugee Roulette authors found serious disparities among courts for six out of 15 APCs from January 2000 to August 2004. In Los Angeles, 32% of judges deviated by more than 50% from the office's mean rate of 41%. Within courts in Los Angeles, Miami, and New York, 8 judges were 50% above the mean and 16 below it - or 32% of all 74 judges deviated substantially from the court's average. Again, variations arose even when holding nationality constant. Chinese petitioners faced the widest variation, with grant rates ranging from 76% in Orlando, 47% nationally, and 7% in Atlanta - in other words, the odds of a Chinese petitioner winning was 986% greater in Orlando than Atlanta.

The authors believe that that several variables contributed to the variation found among Immigration Courts. Approximately one third of applicants come to court without legal representation. Those with representation receive favorable decisions in around 45.6% of cases, whereas for unrepresented plaintiffs the win rate falls to 16.3%. Law school clinics, pro bono firms, and NGOs, which can dedicate more time to case preparation and documentation, win at even higher rates. Likewise, applicants who claim dependents win 48.2% of cases, compared to 42.3% for lone immigrants.

The Immigration Judge's biographical characteristics also correlate with grant rates. Male judges granted asylum in only 37.3% of cases they heard, compared to 53.8% for female judges. Based on prior literature, the Refugee Roulette authors suggest female judges were more likely to have experienced sex discrimination in the past and thus be more sympathetic to immigrants. Likewise, female judges granted asylum to represented petitioners in 55.6% of such cases, compared to a mere 14.3% for male judges.

Refugee Roulette concludes with several observations and policy recommendations. The authors believe the most difficult part of asylum adjudication is determining the credibility of immigrants. Many judges may possess preconceived notions or skepticism based upon their prior work experience or gender. The report cites studies showing that judges with a heavy caseload rely more upon their intuition and bias than reasoned law to make judgments. Dr. Stuart L Lustig used the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory on Immigration Judges and reported stress levels and burnout higher than any other professional group of respondents. As such, Immigration Judges may simply be substituting bias and intuition when they find themselves unable to apply the law or assess credibility in so many cases. The Refugee Roulette authors recommend hiring more judges and law clerks to relieve the burden.

The authors also propose a return to the 1999 streamlining reforms, utilizing 3-judge panels on the BIA and written opinions, rather than Ashcroft's 2002 streamlining. For the Court of Appeals, the authors suggest Congress amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act to allow a "substantial evidence" standard of review over BIA decisions, rather than the current restrictive standard holding that "the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude the contrary." However, the authors disagree with the GAO about the need to deploy Assistant Chief Immigration Judges and for supervision of Immigration Judges. After the BIA firings in 2002 and the revelations about the Immigration Judge hiring process in 2006, the authors worry that more administrative supervision might simply lead to political manipulation. Rather, the authors ultimately recommend Congress transfer all immigration adjudication to a new Article I Immigration Court.

Even though the study was overall great, I had a few criticisms:

Even though Refugee Roulette focuses on variations and disparities in asylum adjudication, the study never establishes a baseline for how much variation is normal or tolerable. Given that judges in the U.S. legal system are appointed by politicians from competing political parties, it seems natural that there would be some variation due to ideological or jurisprudential differences. During the 2008-2009 Supreme Court term, almost a third of cases were decided by a 5-4 majority - in other words, half the justices varied from the court's mean. Refugee Roulette begins to address this concern, but does not go far enough. The authors refer to Richard Revesz' study of Courts of Appeal judges voting patterns in environmental cases. Revesz found that during some periods Democratic judges were 50% more likely to vote for an environmental challenge than his Republican colleagues. Likewise, a Republican judge was 100% more likely to vote in favor of industry challenges to EPA regulations. Given Justice Scalia's notorious comments about environmental laws before he joined the Supreme Court, such biases certainly should not shock experienced lawyers.

While Refugee Roulette's methodology is generally sound, its emphasis on a 50% deviation from the mean might hide important variation below that level. Grant rates below the 50% deviation mark yield important information about whether there is a gradation among judges, or whether those deviating are in fact extremes. For example, the authors report that only one officer out of 64 in Region D's Asylum Office deviated from the office mean by over 50%. However, Figure 2.2 shows a relatively wide gradation of grant rates, with several other officers deviating from the mean by 40%, 30%, 20%, or 10%. In fact, for that office, few officers actually had grant rates near the mean. Focusing on deviation from the mean relies too heavily on an arbitrary number (50%), suggesting that a court in which all judges deviate from the mean by 40% suffers from less serious disparities than one in which 10% of judges deviate by 50%. In fact, it seems that grant rates near the mean, rather than deviating by double-digits, are the outlier. Refugee Roulette would have benefitted from more consideration of the spread and gradients of grant rates, not just the outliers.

The Refugee Roulette authors dismiss alternative explanations for the variation they reveal a bit too quickly. The authors acknowledge that different parts of the U.S. might receive immigrants from different countries or even sub-national ethnic minorities, but refuse to explore this possibility further. In a few examples Refugee Roulette does hold nationality constant, particularly for Chinese, to show that discrepancy persists both within and between courts. However, this test would not account for sub-national differences in religion or ethnicity, such as Tibetan or Han Chinese, that could play a more important role in asylum hearings than nationality. Admittedly, as the authors note, this data is difficult to find and code.

Refugee Roulette only spends one chapter discussing possible policy solutions, so predictably its analysis is not exhaustive. It spends several pages attacking "straw men," including "some [who] may suggest..." that reform isn't necessary or that the disparities are acceptable. However, the study never cites "some" people who actually hold those extreme positions. No immigrant advocacy group really believes that EOIR should require judges to fill quotas for granting a certain number of asylum petitions. On the other hand, Refugee Roulette does not explore several serious alternative proposals that some scholars have advocated, such as placing Immigration Judges under the Administrative Procedure Act. Thus, the authors lose a valuable chance to justify their proposals and reject others.

More importantly, Refugee Roulette does not effectively link the authors' proposals to the problems they describe. Many of the proposals, such as the need to grant Immigration Judges greater independence, appear to merely react to excesses under the Bush administration. While the authors believe converting the Immigration Courts into an Article I court would ameliorate this problem, it could create new ones. Instead, moving poorly trained and possibly unprofessional judges into an Article I court could simply insulate them from any supervision or expose them to partisan debates over immigration when Congress votes on reappointing them.
The book came in good shape and is a good addition to my library.