What could they have done?

In reading my following arguments, someone will likely conclude, “But you are defending the Confederacy” or “You are defending slavery” or “You are wacisth.”  However, I advance the opposite conclusion: any black racial commentator, while not agreeing with some of my conclusions, will agree with the presuppositions behind those conclusions.  Further, with the black activist I agree that many of the neo-conservative counter-arguments on the race war are either lame or hypocritical.

(Further, I need to say one more time so no one draws the wrong conclusion:  I reject the Confederacy as a political unit, leaving other questions about society and culture aside.  Even more: while I think abolitionist exegesis is bad, I don’t think slavery is a long-term good for society, so I am certainly not advocating that).

Further, and in full agreeance with the black commentator, Southern appeals to “states rights” as opposed to slavery’s being the cause of the War are either misleading or frankly wrong.  True, the most notable white supremacist of the 19th century denied he was fighting to free slaves.

Further, I am not saying that the Confederacy was right en toto. I certainly do not agree with the Davis Administration on its key points. The conservatives who say, “It wasn’t about slavery, but states’ rights” miss the point:  precisely what were the states seeking to preserve? The conservative would answer, “Their rights.”  Very true, but what was the most notorious of those rights? The formal cause of the war was states’ rights–I agree.  The material cause was slavery. There is no getting around that.  (Of course, there are other causes, too, like economics).

Granting that man-stealing is wrong (and so the Yankee capitalists who engaged in it should have been put to death), we need to ask if the current unionized model of labor is really superior to biblical slavery.   Of course, I am not saying the South did it correctly all the time.

Trick question:  how many slaves came to America on ships carrying the Confederate Flag?  What about the Union Flag?

“Okay,” the American Communist might say, “we admit that the Yankee merchants who kidnapped the Africans should have been executed because of God’s law, but the South was wrong to buy stolen property.”

To which I say, “Maybe.  But what exactly would have been the best thing to do for the African?”  Few people have seriously thought about this question.   Set them free?   It sounds noble and Oprah-ish, but think about it.  Today, if you go to the ‘hood’ or to an Obama gathering and you ask them why blacks are so poor today, the response will not be “Crime” or “rap music” or “welfare system,” but it will be “Da Man is keepin’ me down.”   Both liberal and conservative whites get angry at that response, and I used to, but think about it for a moment: the interlocutor touched on something important: if you place someone in an advanced society who does not have the resources, culture, values, or skills to participate in that society, what will happen to him?  He will fall behind ad infinitum.

The southern gentleman knew this.  He knew that simply saying, “Thou art loosed” to the slave would be the worst thing for him. The slave would not have the resources to continue in society. He would immediately be thrown to the gutter without any recourse to labor or wealth.

So what should have happened instead?  I don’t know.  Just pointing it out.  Sometimes the solution is worse than the ailment.  In fact, any government solution is necessarily worse.

What should have happened?  As I’ve mentioned before on dominion, if the slave was regenerate, the master should have placed him in progressing degrees of responsibility so that he could practice being a priest-king of the new creation.  If we want to fault the Southerner, this could be a valid criticism. Further, I don’t think the South was as fully Reformed as some want to make it.  Some states like Maryland, elements of the Carolinas, Florida and Louisiana were Catholic and probably resisted any kind of biblical reformation.  So while my idea is noble and fundamentally correct, I entertain no delusions of its actually working.

But back to the original objection: the southern slave owner should have not bought the property and/or returned it because it is “stolen goods.”  Again, the nature of the case precludes a solid answer.  On one hand if I have stolen goods in today’s society, I’ll probably get in trouble, so I can understand the objection on that ground.  However, does that mean that William the Conqueror’s (my ancestor, actually.  Pretty cool, huh?) invasion of England was wrong?  Probably, but reasoning by extension that does not mean the entirety of English history is necessarily illegitimate.  As Dabney points out,

“The Norman Conquest resulted in a complete transfer of almost all the land in England to the hands of new proprietors; and nearly all the land titles of England, at the present day, are the legal progeny of that iniquitous robbery, which transferred the territory of the kingdom from the Saxon to the Norman barons. If lapse of time, and change of hands, cannot make a bad title good, then few of the present landlords of England have any right to their estates.”

Defense of Virginia, 299.

With a brutal inference Dabney concludes, “If the Virginian slaveholder derived from the New England or British slave-trader, no valid title to the African, then the trader had no valid title to the planter’s money” (301).  I am going to carry Dabney’s analysis one step further: future possessors of that money from the exchange are necessarily sinning by using the money. I disagree with the idea of reparations for former slaves, but if you grant the abolitionist’s point that buying previously stolen slaves is sinful, then you must logically carry the thought to the money from the exchange. While I think Je$$e Jack$on is a racist clown, if the above objection stands, then the conservative who votes Republican and watches Fox News really has no way to answer him.

Far from being the racist curmudgeon people make him out to be, Dabney observes,

“The title by which the original slave catchers held them may have been iniquitous. But these slave catchers were not citizens of the Southern colonies; these slaves were not brought to our shores by our ships. They were presented by the inhuman captors, dragged in chains from the filthy holds of the slave ships; and the alternative before the planter was, either to purchase them from him who possibly had no right to sell them, or re-consign them to fetters, disease, and death. (302).”

Sometimes noble ideology is the cruelest of schemes.  And this one quote by Dabney shows how utterly despicable liberalism is.  Lincoln wanted to send them back to Africa.  Aside from the sheer impossibility of it, it would have been a two-fold death sentence.  If the return voyage didn’t kill the slave, Africa would have.

Towards a Critique of Dabney

This does not mean I agree with Dabney in all aspects.  He defends the lawfulness of fugitive slave law:

“”But when we have proved that the relation of master and slave is no intrinsically unrighteous, and have shown that the fugitive slave law carries this out,” then we should obey it (Discussions III: 66).

The first half of Dabney’s argument is logically sound: any discussion of slavery as right or wrong must first answer the question of the relation between master and slave, and this has not been done.

I do not agree with his conclusion, though.  Deuteronomy 23:15 provides a method of freeing the slave, lawfulness of the purchase notwithstanding.

Further, Dabney’s attitude towards blacks after the War is hard to justify.   Sean Michael Lucas made much of Dabney’s refusal to grant black’s full status in Presbytery.  And Dabney was wrong.  However, I suggest Dabney should have handled it this way. He should have simply kept his mouth shut and nothing would have changed.  Freed slaves weren’t about to become ruling presbyters any time soon.

I’ll prove it by way of illustration.  While I do not endorse his theology, the sexually depraved theologian Paul Tillich pointed out that something like Erastianism always happens.  He is not advocating that the state rule the church, but notes that the “civic elite” usually find roles of leadership within the church.  This is official in countries like England and Germany. But in Presbyterian towns the most educated and affluent usually sit on college and seminary boards, if not rule in the church.  There is nothing wrong with that.  They are probably affluent because they are good stewards.  They deserve leadership roles.  Except at RTS Jackson.

Which brings me back to my point: the wealthy, civic elite likely had no intention of giving freed slaves anything more than a nominal role.  Thus, Dabney’s fear of an uneducated, unprepared populace leading the church would never have happened anyway.

Advertisements

Running theses on Economics

This is tangentially related to my series on High Southern Culture.  I’ve read the Austrian economists almost ten years now.  I remain almost convinced.   Their frequent atheism and anti-Jesus-ism should be a warning.  However, logical conclusions follow from logical premises, so they aren’t easily dismissed.  The following is a work in progress:

  1. Conservative values and raw capitalism are incompatible simply because the latter demand a consumer culture which almost always erodes the values that made the former possible.   This critique is routinely made by monarchists, paleo-conservatives (the guys at Chronicles, Eugene Genovese, etc) to Marxists.
  2. Socialism fails on the other hand because it cannot mathematically account for market prices.   Even socialists like John Milbank concede this point (his essay “Socialism of the Gift, Socialism by Grace”).  Therefore, any socialist country will necessarily end up with simultaneous gluts and shortages.
  3. Further, socialism does not encourage wisdom and thrift.   The entrepreneur understands that resources are limited and so must make wise choices.   This is impossible in a socialist economy (since the US Treasury can print more Federal Reserve notes to bail out the government’s latest bad idea).
  4. Therefore, socialism is incompatible with godly dominion.
  5. Theses 2-4 create a problem with Thesis 1: if socialism fails for the reasons I’ve listed–and it does–how can one avoid raw capitalism?
  6. The tentative answer is in refocusing teleological values.
  7. (6) is created by empowering local farm communities.
  8. A protective measure must be in place to protect a currency from outside speculation.

(To be continued)

Southern Presbyterianism and the Culture War

D.G. Hart has long been a whipping boy among postmillennialists and Reconstructionists.  Indeed, it took me about 8 years to warm up to his arguments.  I used to be a hard-core Recon.  I thought the highest goal in my life would be to take back city hall for Christ (okay, maybe it wasn’t really that, but you get the idea). Through various shifts and trials in my life, I have backed away from that rhetoric.  Something else appeared as superior to the culture war:  ecclesiastical statesmanship.  Christ’s promises were specifically made to his church, not to parachurch ministries and quasi-political cell groups.

Both sides in the debate, R2Kers and Kuyperians, have a troubled use with Thornwell, Dabney, and Southern Presbyterianism.  On one hand, Hart and Co. have correctly identified and applied Thornwell’s “Spirituality of the Church” doctrine.  This is a slap in the face to Kuyperians, at least modern-day ones.  On the other hand, I am not sure how thoroughly Hart can fully apply Thornwell.  Thornwell had no problem with society being governed by “right reason” in accord with a general biblical outline.  (Few Van Tillians hold to Common Sense Realism).  Further, Thornwell (and especially Dabney) are not dis-interested in political and economic questions.

Still, I can’t help but wonder if the 2Kers have a practical point: whether we ought or ought not to “transform” society for Christ, we have to look at issues on the ground.  I am not going to trumpet the typical R2K objections to Kuyperianism (e.g., the world is evil and transformation is impossible).  I think there is a far more troubling objection:  what if the  transformationalists actually succeed?  The problem is that a lot of transformationalists think they are going to go back to Patrick Henry.   More like, though, and more troubling, is that we won’t get Patrick Henry.  We will get Tim Keller.  Tim Keller is a more likely bet for transformationalism.  He is a gifted speaker, a talented organizer, and has a growing church in a large, important city.   The problem:  Tim Keller isn’t really Reformed.

And such a “reformed” society would end up looking like the broader PCA culture.

But what about the points where the transformationalists seem like they got it right?  Should they just be abandoned?  Maybe not.  This is where simply being a student of the magisterial reformation pans out:  we get the theocratic impulse behind such views but we root it in a robust ecclesiology.

A Bibliographical Reflection on a recent debate

I keep coming back to the recent debate between OrthoBridge and myself.  I was puzzled by the admin’s insistence that I prove my case using only Calvin and Confessional documents (though he was fuzzy on the identity of the latter).  For what it was worth, I actually felt I was able to do that but I can’t seem to dodge people’s fascination with Calvin.  He’s a great theologian, sure, and I am generally in agreement with him, but he never intended his work as the “be-all” of dogmatics.  His work, by his own admission, was simply an outline to help young minister’s navigate the Bible.   Interestingly enough, few of the post-Reformation theologians felt any obligation to do their work around Calvin (and references to “Calvin said…” are increasingly rare as the generations go on).  For example, as Coffey notes, Samuel Rutherford never called himself a Calvinist (Coffey, p. 75 n 57).  This was likely universal among Reformed theologians.

So why the fascination with Calvin? I can surmise several guesses:  1) Calvin’s actually easy reading.   While the Institutes are long, with a few exceptions most sections within it are not.   One can easily read a section or two a day.  2)  In the 19th Century the Calvin Translation Society fastlaned the mass-production of Calvin’s works into English.  That’s obviously a good thing, but one of the negative consequences is that few people felt they had to read anything besides Calvin.  3) Turretin wasn’t translated in English (at least for the general public) until the early 1990s.

What sources should the Farrellians at OrthodBridge have used?

For starters, Charles Hodge.  I quoted Hodge in rebuttal to the admin (and the quote completely refuted his view of what Protestants think original sin was) and he said it was, “irrelevant.”  Let’s put Hodge into historical context:  in his 57 years as professor at Princeton Seminary, he trained up towards 10,000 ministers in the United States!  By the very nature of the case, Hodge is easily one of the most representative voices of Reformed theology.   I can only attribute the lack of use of Hodge to plain ignorance (more on that later).  And it is not that Hodge is too expensive:  CBD has him on sale for $30.

If not Hodge, then Dabney.  One can access all of Dabney’s works for free here.

What about Warfield?  I am iffy on Warfield.  His scholarship is impressive, but it is not systematic and organized enough to be helpful.

How about Thornwell?  Thornwell can be tough to read at points, and his works are not always accessible (which is inexcusable on the part of publishers), but he is one of the patriarchs of Southern Presbyterian theology and any quotes by him would be representative.

Physical Labor and the Manliness of Soul

For the godly man, work is a delight and often provides godly manliness.  Dabney writes,

History shows also, than an artificial and luxurious mode of living surely affects the literary taste of a nation. The simplicity of thought is banished. The manliness of soul which proceeds from labor, struggles with difficulty and intercourse with nature, becomes rare.

R.L. Dabney, “Simplicity of Pulpit Style,” Discussions vol. 3, page. 81.

Indeed, Rushdoony would go on to say,

A basic and unrecognized cause of tensions in marriage is the growing futility of work in an age where apostate and statist trends rob work of its constructive goals. The area of man’s dominion becomes the area of man’s frustration. There are those who can recall when men, not too many years ago, worked ten hours or more daily, six and seven days a week, often under ugly and unsafe circumstances. In the face of this, they could rest and also enjoy life with a robust appetite. The basic optimism of that era and the cer¬tainty of progress, the stability of a hard money economy, and the sense of mastery in these assurances, gave men a satisfaction in their labors which made rest possible

The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 346.

The day bourgeoisie Reformed thought failed

Iain Murray wrote a book titled The Day Church and State Failed.  I don’t really know what it is about, but I will borrow the title.  I am trying to figure out why I ditched middle-of-the road “vanilla Presbyterianism” and read Eastern Orthodoxy so sympathetically?

My senior year in college I was thoroughly imbibing the biographies and writings of the Scottish Covenanters.  I listened to all of Joe Morecraft’s lectures on the History of the Reformation.  These lectures, I might add, were wildly theocratic.   Yes, I was a theonomist, and I do reject theonomy now.   (However, it must be said that the Reformed community never came up with a response to theonomy that didn’t sound like either pure Dispensationalism or the Platform for the Democratic National Convention. )  This caused me no small grief in seminary.

Before I start bashing RTS, which I intend to do mercilessly, I need to first say where I was wrong and wrong-headed.  I was wrong on theonomy (though RTS certainly was not right on the matter, being quasi-dispensational).  Still, I went to seminary thinking we would carry on the great, magisterial Presbyterian tradition.  I thought we would thoroughly read and pass down the teachings found in Dabney, Rutherford, the parts of Calvin no one wants to talk about (Sermons on Deuteronomy and Book IV chapter 20 of The Institutes).

I was underwhelmed upon arrival.   The campus was still in a hang-up over theonomy and the Federal Vision controversy was raging.   On one hand, there felt an air of suspicion of whom you could quote as a source and not be seen as a Federal Visionist or theonomist (I quoted Berkhof in a covenant theology paper, but deliberately left the name blank, and the prof said i was using “federal vision” theology.   Seriously).  I do almost understand their fear/paranoia.  Fifteen years ago a Jackson pastor became a theonomist and shot an abortionist.   I guess most of the people in Jackson had trouble making distinctions.

In any case, the fear of theonomy precluded them from truly appreciating their Reformed heritage.    If theonomy is so evil, what do we make of John Knox, George Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford, Thornwell, and the parts of Calvin we don’t like (Servetus, anyone?).  Now, I reject theonomy simply because the exegesis “almost works, but not quite.”  Anyway, the moral vision of the Covenanters and even men like Gustavus Adolphus give you roughly the same thing without all the grief.

But politics isn’t the gospel and the preaching ministry, one might object.  And they are correct.  However, the presuppositions behind these objections carry over into other areas.   The presuppositions more often than not reveal a post-Jeffersonian view of America that is wildly at odds with historic Reformed teaching (remember the changes to the Confession?).  The presuppositions reveal an underlying “Americanism” that will condition the rest of one’s framework.  Among other things, this will subtly redefine what it meant to be Reformed (I realize how silly that sentence is because in the Federal Vision debate, everyone accused each other of doing that, yet none could demonstrate that).

I’ll expand upon that last claim.  I am taking Reformed as largely meaning those who come from the magisterial Reformation and in some sense seek to embody those principles (including that of the civil magistrate!!) in their faith and spirituality today.   (As a result, Baptists can claim to be four or five point Calvinists, but not really Reformed.).  Among other things, this will also include a magisterial defense of these principles.  Inability on the latter is not that great a fault (it is if you are a prof, though).  Inability on the former is a culpable fault.

The Reasons I am staying in the Magisterial Protestant Tradition

Eastern Orthodoxy, especially for those whose worldview has been shattered by Reformed ineptitude, is a powerful attraction.  While I’ve sung its praises in the past, here are the reasons I will not go (for now; unless I am convinced by reason and plain scripture, etc).  Some of these reasons are my own reflections.  Others are taken from Drake, whose tone I don’t always appreciate nor am I using his arguments in the same way, but I will give credit where credit is due.

  1. The EO argument against Sola Scriptura backfires and becomes a good argument against reading the Scripture in light of the Fathers.  Yes, the fathers were holy men and we should read Scripture in light of the Fathers. I myself have read about 5000 double-columned pages of the Fathers.  Here’s the problem:   when the Fathers say things that are mutually exclusive–like when Athanasius says the Son is begotten of the essence and the Cappadocians say the Son is begotten of the Father–who adjudicates?  Who is right?  We can’t say we have to interpret the two passages in light of the Patrum Consensus, because these two passages are themselves part of the same Consensus.   Orthodox apologists have said we have to interpret the fathers in light of the church councils.  Great.  Which church council adjudicates these two fathers?
  2. John 6 speaks of limited atonement.   2 Peter 2:1 seems to deny it.  How shall we decide which is right?  Orthodox and Catholic apologists love to say “what good is an infallible bible without an infallible interpreter?”  This claim, practically speaking, is useless.  The Church has not given us anything like a list of infallibly interpreted verses.
  3. The idea of doctrinal development and liturgical development is inevitable.  While I agree with the Christology behind 2nd Nicea, the fact remains that there aren’t any defenses and presentations of iconodulism in the early Fathers.  yes, I know about Dora Europa.  That, however, is not a passage from the fathers. It is a picture on a wall.  Most importantly, it is not functioning as the Patrum Consensus.
  4. Great heroes like Fr Seraphim Rose warned against basing theology and liturgy on private visions.   What do we do about several prayers to the Theotokos?  These date from the 9th century and seem to come from a vision.  Yet, as Fr Seraphim rightly points out (and one can only think of the Fatima vision), this principle is highly dangerous theology.
  5. On the practical side, I have to think of my family’s well-being.  The local Greek parish, the only option for 200 miles, is a handful of people, the service is mostly in Greek, and there is deliberately no preaching.   Good theology aside, this isn’t good for my family’s spiritual development, to which I, the father, have been entrusted to guard.
  6. That and the Ecumenical Patriarchate has always remained too close to the higher levels of Freemasonry.  Sharing the Eucharist with a Freemason, or with a jurisdiction that tolerates Freemasonry, is sharing and communing with Freemasonry.
  7. EO requires the convert to renounce his former theology and theologizing.  Yet, it is those very things that would have led me to EO.  Therefore, I have to condemn the road that led me here.
  8. St Ignatius of Antioch said to join a schismatic is to lose the Kingdom of God.   Well, did ROCOR “schism” from Moscow Patriarchate?  I agree with their reasonings, but it still kind of looks like a schisming from the Established Church.   Few, however, will deny that St John of Shanghai is not going to inherit the Kingdom of God.
  9. I have other reasons concerning the various jurisdictions and how that isn’t working in America, but I’ll save that for later.

Can American Reformed Thought be Salvaged?

It doesn’t seem likely, but we’ll try.  If American Reformed thought wants to maintain its identity in the face of a distinction-eroding American culture, it must consider the following options.

  1. Go back to the original confession on the civil magistrate.  This will provide a safeguard against the worst aspects of American culture.
  2. The seminary education in the South needs to be revamped whole-scale.  When I saw a youth minister out-debate a Reformed professor of 20+ years on the doctrine of sola scriptura, I knew that the Reformed world would be in for some rough treatment if this were the norm.    How should the professor have handled himself?  He should have relied on the arguments from Richard Muller’s Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics.   It’s not just a series of books.  It’s an outlook.  The key principle is the archetype-ectype theology.  God’s principium essendi is the archetype.  God’s principle of essence (call it aseity, simplicity, whatever).   Such a God can only make himself known through Revelation, which is the principium cognescendi of theology.  This is only an example of a deeper problem.
  3. The problem is that Reformed people really don’t care about their roots in the magisterial and scholastic Reformation. I was interested in Eastern orthodoxy for so many years simply because reading the current Reformed world, and examining major Reformed seminaries in the South left me with the only conclusion that the Reformation in America had failed.   I was wrong, of course, but I was working on very good (available) evidence.
  4. Continuing the Reformation can work provided we draw upon stronger Reformed sources.   I have in mind the men in Muller’s four volume work.  This means the seminaries need to have a stronger emphasis on Reformed scholasticism, the Scottish Reformation (I don’t remember the Solemn League and Covenants ever being mentioned), and the strong moral and political vision found in men like Hodge, Dabney, and Thornwell.   A thorough diet of these men can help the young minister not only explain his faith, but explain the internal causal connections of his faith (that is what made Dabney so great).  If someone can explain the internal connections, then he knows his faith and won’t be shaken.  Someone–and institutions–that simply parrot pop “Reformed” arguments by big-city preachers won’t last five minutes against Dave Hodges or Perry Robinson.

What should the seminaries do?

  1. My immediate thought was “shut down.”  But anyway, they need to revamp the entire project and give stronger emphasis on historical theology.  Yeah, we were told how cool it would be to just focus on Hebrew and Greek and one day we would be able to do our quiet times in Greek.  That’s wonderful.   We also missed out on most of the Reformed heroes.
  2. I suspect that one could integrate historical theology and epistemology in one project.   Keep in mind that the archetype/ectype distinction covers both.
  3. Get rid of most “adjunct professors” who are actually pastors and best friends with the Board of Trustees.  I understand you are saving money, but at the cost of a good education.  You haven’t been in a seminary class until you’ve seen the “professor” literally go insane and call you (and your pastor, and your pastor friend at the church you are attending) a “homosexual Marxist feminist” because you believed in theonomy (if you are scratching your head about the relevance, don’t bother).  The next best thing was watching your friends leave the class and just holler the “F” word because it was so bad.
  4. While you might think it is nostalgic to have a deep South school that is nothing more than a “preacher mill,” the implications are actually quite bad.  Because the focus of some of these institutions is simply to “churn out pastors,” the grading scale is quite insane and at the detriment of the student’s future goals.  If you are simply going to be a pastor at Bodunk Presbterian Church in Tarwater, MS, then you don’t need no fancy schooling beyond a Master’s.  So what that we gave you a D- on a B- paper?  Passing is passing and Old Aunt Bessie May on the front pew don’t care.    Well, she might not care but the Admissions Office at a PhD school will care.  I actually got denied for the first grad school I applied to after RTS because they didn’t understand that 1) RTS was on crack, and 2), like Law Schools, the grading scale isn’t 1:1.   Why is this a problem?  Well, it is keeping young minds from getting PhDs and defending the very faith that someone forgot to do.

Difficulties (still) with Calvinism

I am not ready to affirm a full-orbed Confessionalism (though I am probably more Confessional than Yankee PCA pastors).

  1. While I affirm predestination, I do not read Election the way the “U” in TULIP reads it.  Every time “elect’ is mention in the OT it is mentioned as “elected unto service.”  And before you quote Romans 9, even apostate Israel was “elect.”
  2. I would take an exception on images of Christ.  Mind you, I don’t have any icons in my house of Christ.  I don’t venerate them.   But I agree with Rushdoony:  an Incarnation that cannot be demonstrated is a contradiction in terms.
  3. I agree with rulership by elders, but the word “bishops” is also used in the NT and it doesn’t always mean “elders.”  If it did, why bother using two different words?
  4. I can agree with imputation provided it is first grounded in union with Christ.  Otherwise it is a legal fiction.
  5. I agree with justification by faith alone 100%.  But when Paul is worrying about the gospel  being threatened in Galatians, he and Peter are talking about table fellowship and who is a member of the covenant, not Roman catholic works righteousness.
  6. As to the presence of Christ at the Supper and the Person of Christ, I am with the Lutherans on this one.  I won’t drop the Nestorian bomb anymore, but I have my own issues with WCF 8.2.