“The essential parts of worship we are at no loss to discover, clearly indicated as they are in the history of the Apostolic Church. Praise and Prayer, with the reading and exposition of Scripture, together with the celebration of the Sacraments, are repeatedly referred to as those exercises in which the early Christians engaged. With such worship, though in more elaborate form, the church has always been familiar.” – Robert Johnson
One Thousand Thoughts About Church…#719
“Not only from the individual heart does God require ascriptions of praise and expressions of confidence, but from the organized congregations of His people, He desires to hear the voice of adoration, contrition, and supplication. The cultivation of such worship, and the offering of it in a manner acceptable to God, is a work worthy of the Church’s most earnest care.
It is to be expected therefore, that in the Word of God there shall be found the principles…which possessing Divine authority, shall carry with it the assurance of its sufficiency for the ends aimed at, and of its suitability to the requirements of the Church in every age.” – Robert Johnson
Out And About 1/26/2012
Theology
- Ian Clary as posted links to audio from a church history conference Carl Trueman spoke at in Calgary Grace Church in Calgary, Alberta. Clint Humfrey also participates. I have only listened to two of the talks, but so far so good!
- Kevin DeYoung has a great short post about the importance of nuances in our theology. I think it is contains a very valuable corrective to common pitfalls if we take the things he says to heart.
Reading
- This post, How To Read, is probably worth reading.
Foreign Policy
- Thing’s aren’t looking so great in “liberated” Libya
- This article on Time World asks Obama some hard questions on Afghanistan
- This chart shows how American injuries/deaths have increased in Afghanistan during Obama’s time in office.
Technology
- Google has released Google Public Alerts. Looks like a good tool for crisis weather conditions!
Nuance is Necessary
Kevin DeYoung has a short but really helpful post that I believe is really important for the Christian church nowadays. Here are the central take-home points:
- “Christians must be careful thinkers, especially those who teach other Christians how to think.”
- “[W]e ought to avoid the mistake of making the Bible fit our grid instead of allowing for complementary scriptural ideas to work side by side.”
- “Almost every doctrinal error starts with the desire to affirm or to protect some important doctrine. But without careful thinking and delicate nuances, working hard to avoid one mistake will simply lead us to another.”
In particular, the point about falling into “the mistake of making the Bible fit our grid” is, I believe, a prominent pitfall in our day of multimedia where we can instantly hear tons of presentations and read tons of perspectives with little investment. I think this is true because it is easy to hunt out resources that match our particular grid. Nobody is going to argue the abundance of resources is wrong, but it does make certain pitfalls more pronounced.
I think as we see the Church discussing hotly disputed areas, we need to be particularly careful that as we build up our understanding of the scriptures that we genuinely allow at least two corrective “checks” to be constantly in the back of our mind.
1. Am I taking an otherwise valid Biblical emphasis and over-extending it?
2. Am I allowing one part of a valid Biblical tension to flatten my reading and interpretation?
I’m not saying that these are easy questions or we will always have immediately easy answers. I’m just saying that the Church as a whole would profit if we all would do our best to be constantly coming back to them.
United Bases of America and Other Thoughts
This image released by the National Post illustrates the sprawl of U.S. military bases around the world.
Here are some interesting stats (though not necessarily drawn exclusively from that particular image).
Regarding U.S. military overseas:
- Number of independent countries recognized by the State Department: 195. Number of countries with U.S. Armed Forces stationed there: 150.
- U.S. Armed Forces stationed in Italy: over 9,000.
- U.S. Troops overseas: approximately 500,000
- Number of U.S. military bases around the world: 700-1000.
- Number of bases in Afghanistan: 400
- Percentage of U.S. share of world military spending:43%
Regarding Israel’s enemies
- According to Global Fire Power, Israel’s military strength exceeds that of Iran, Germany, Pakistan, Italy, Egypt, France, and Japan.
- Running some math on Global Fire Power’s numbers. Israel spends 138 times more per square kilometer on defense than Iran does.
- Israel spends about 6.3% of its GDP on the military, Saudi Arabia about 11%. Iran spends 1.8%. Syria spends 4%.
- Number of nuclear weapons Israel has: Unknown, but likely between 75–200. Number of nuclear weapons Iran: None, but allegedly working on their first one for possibly over 30 years.
In light of these figures, import questions to ask are:
- Is this (U.S. military sprawl) sustainable in light of the current economic and geopolitical climate?
- At what point does overseas military over-extension become a threat to national defense rather than an aid to it?
- Why is Iran portrayed in American foreign policy coverage as being an existential threat to Israel (and to some degree even a threat to the U.S.)?
- At what point does a militarized country (such as Israel) become self-sustaining and no longer needs U.S. aid?
A Newt?!
OK, so for the second time I’m breaking my word regarding not talking about the U.S. elections until the primaries are over.
“What Constitution?” – TSA
Rand Paul is a U.S. senator. He refused a pat-down by the TSA and has been detained. He has to get to the Senate proceedings at 2pm.
Am I reading the U.S. Constitution wrong??? Doesn’t Article I, Section 6 say that Senators “shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place”.
Senator Taft On What Could Lead To War With Iran
“The president is usurping his powers as commander in chief. There is no legal authority for what he has done. If the president can intervene in Korea without congressional approval, he can go to war in Malaya or Indonesia or Iran or South America.” – Robert Taft, Senator from Ohio in 1950 in response to Trueman’s intervention in Korea.
Questions That Should Be Asked About Any War (from American Luminaries)
(These questions were all asked in relation to the War of 1812)
- What is the evidence that the protection of the country is the object principally regarded? (Webster)
- When it [the country] calls thus loudly for the treasure and lives of the people, what pledge does it offer that it will not waste all in the same preposterous pursuits which have hitherto engaged it? (Webster)
- In the failure of all past promises, do we see any assurance of future performance? (Webster)
- [I]s war the true remedy? (Randolph)
- Who will profit by it? (Randolph)
- Who must suffer by it? (Randolph)
- Will it render us more respected among foreign nations..? (Taggart)
- [Will it render other countries] less disposed to make encroachments on our rights in [the] future? (Taggart)
Daniel Webster: Senator of Massachusetts
John Randolph: VA Congressman
Samuel Taggart: Massachusetts Congressman
Canadians for Massachusetts Senator Webster
“Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it?”
- Senator of Massachusetts, Daniel Webster (opposing a bill proposing enacting a draft with eye towards conquering Canada)
Dictator Shopping Service
“[W]e seem to have opened a military shopping service for dictators, guns for the asking to anti-Democratic regimes from Iraq and Turkey to Brazil and Argentina, guns for use against their own peoples, guns marked U.S.A., not the best kind of advertising.” – I.F. Stone, 1947
MacArthur on Christopher Hitchens’ Fall From Grace
John R. MacArthur of Harper’s Magazine wrote a piece entitled How Christopher Hitchens Flip-flopped and Fell From Grace.
He says “My feelings about Hitchens—after he embraced the stupidity of invading Iraq—were confusion and disappointment. So disorienting was Hitchens’s conversion to war hawk that I hardly knew what to say, either in private to him or, for that matter, in public.”.
He continues: “I’ve heard it suggested that Hitchens switched sides for the ‘money’—that there’s simply more to be gained on the right than on the left and that even a deeply dedicated leftist can get lonely and tired, always out in the cold, always at a remove from power. My theory is that -he went mad ”
Then in regard to Martin Amis distancing himself from Hitchen’s position, MacArthur says “More than 100,000 corpses later, I think Amis had it right.”
NATO Supports Afghanistan
The Independent and Reuters have have pieces on NATO’s recent staements in regard to Afghanistan.
Here were learn a number of significant things:
- The U.S. is currently spending $130 billion a year on Afghanistan
- The international community is expected to support Afghanistan for years after ending the combat mission in 2014. Funding expected is in the billions of dollars.
- The Karzai government in Afghanistan is likely to receive ongoing support of about $3-$4 billion a year from the U.S. and about $1 billion from other NATO nations.
- Afghanistan is projected to require $7 billion in year in external assistance after most foreign troops go home in 2015. And it is said that it will take decades for it to recover.
Keep in mind too, that as a NATO member, Canada has not escaped this cost. According to independent estimates, Canada has spent something around $18 billion on Afghanistan.
A Literary Game of Who Am I? – Partially Answered
I posted a “Who Am I?” segment a couple days ago. The characters are literary figures mentioned in the Christians and Literature series. The terms are: No online research!
Nick Steffen was the first person to guess all but one of these characters correctly. Person B remains to be identified. Can you guess who it is?
Person A – Daniel Defoe (guessed by Nick Steffen)
- I wrote a piece of satire. The people I was satirizing thought it was quite good and supported their cause, so they promoted it. Then when they found out it was making fun of them, they pilloried me.
- I died hiding from my creditors.
- Three of my novels were about pirates.
Person B (Who is this?)
- T.S. Elliot described my novels as “supernatural thrillers”.
- I published the first major English-language edition of the works of Søren Kierkegaard
- I was a member of the Church of England.
Person C – Robert Heinlein (guessed by Nick Steffan)
- I coined the term “grok”.
- My childhood was spent in Missouri.
- I served in the U.S. Navy.
- I ran for the California State Assembly in 1938
Person D – George Eliot (Guessed by Nick Steffen)
- I was a lady going under the name of a man in order to ensure my work was taken seriously.
- I was one of the leading writers of the Victorian era.
- I wrote 7 novels.
Out And About 1/16/2012
Theology
- The Reformed Forum has an excellent discussion of sanctification with Kevin DeYoung and Rick Phillips.
- Michael Haykin has a book coming out that looks fantastic, The Reformers and Puritans As Spiritual Mentors.
- John Piper recommends 14 books if you want to start reading The Puritans. I’ve read 4 out of 14.
- John Piper’s book Bloodlines is available for free download in PDF format.
Music
- Fans of Robbie Robertson of The Band will find this interview that Peter Mansbridge did with him interesting.
Reading and Writing
- The Atlantic has posted about 9 books about reading/writing for the New Year.
Literature
- Christopher Hitchens’ last article for Vanity Fair was published, and it is an article on Charles Dickens. David Hanglund builds on some related thoughts in When Dickens Met Dostoevsky (Maybe) for Slate.



