If you've been visiting this blog lately you would have noticed that I haven't been posting often enough, and that things like nice images seem to be missing from my posts.
Well, the problem is that I have been attempting to upgrade my computer. Everything was going well until I was unable to restart my operating system - Kubuntu. Finally I decided on reinstalling the whole thing but, since bad luck seems to follow bad luck, this was impossible.
Why? Because my brand new 320gb Western Digital Hard Drive decided to die on me.
Primary Master Hard Disk Fail says the message during POST. So, until I get a new one delivered to me under warranty, I have to use one of my old hard drives.
2007-11-12
2007-11-10
The Economist keeps ignoring Peak Oil
This is classic:
This time around, however, they concede that "oil giants are struggling to pump more oil and gas". So, do they believe in Peak Oil? Hardly. The first reason is simply contractual - bureaucratic red tape set up by governments is the problem. The second reason is that new projects have not been started up fast enough because of labor and equipment shortages.
It is really interesting to watch The Economist peer at the same figures as we do - figures which show an inexorable decline in oil production - and then come to a completely different conclusion. The reason is, for lack of a better word, pride. The Economist derided Peak Oil theory as bad science and just another kooky apocalyptic fad (see here and here for examples). Now that we peakniks are increasingly being heard and believed, not just by scientists but by the public generally, The Economist will refuse to budge from its rock-solid belief system.
Sadly, it is increasingly obvious that the market - the people with money all over the world who buy and sell oil and who determine its price - will be the last part of the world to accept Peak Oil. A person who is ignorant of, or dismissive of, Peak Oil and who has the power to move millions of dollars per day trading in oil, will more than deafen the growing chorus of people who believe in Peak Oil but don't have much power to affect the market. Even if 80% of the world believe in Peak Oil, the 20% who don't will be responsible for 100% of the damage caused by not factoring in this scientific reality into market prices now.
If Peak Oil were to be believed by those who control the market, we would be well on our way to providing solutions to it - mainly because the market will go berserk and price oil more accurately (which, to my mind, would be well over $200 per barrel).
As the oil price climbed towards $100 a barrel during the past few weeks, big Western oil firms were reporting their results for the third quarter. Record oil prices, it turns out, do not translate into record profits. Oil is now close to exceeding the record set in 1979 of between $100 and $110, depending on how you adjust for inflation and what benchmark you use. Yet almost without exception, big oil firms' profits are falling from the peaks reached last year.Don't you just love it? As I complained back in July, The Economist magazine seems to be all at sea trying to explain why oil prices are so high. If you read my July posting, you'll see that, back then, the reasons for high oil prices was because nasty horrible OPEC wasn't pumping enough and that, when they realise that high prices might actually kill off demand, they'll start pumping out more oil to lower the price. All very logical.
Exxon Mobil, for example, reported a 10% drop in profits in the third quarter, and BP's fell even more sharply. Profits also fell at Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Eni. They rose at Total and Royal Dutch Shell—but only thanks to exchange-rate fluctuations and one-off asset sales. Analysts at Citigroup calculate that, measured in dollars, the biggest oil firms' earnings fell by 15% on average.
To be fair, the oil price has surged most dramatically since the end of September, although it was also buoyant in the third quarter. The majors' poor showing also reflects lower profits from refining, as the difference in price between petrol and crude oil has fallen from the exceptionally high levels of recent months.
But the fact remains that oil giants are struggling to pump more oil and gas. In part, this is due to a quirk of the rules that oblige Western oil firms to share the crude they produce with state-owned oil firms in many countries. The contracts in question often stipulate that as the price goes up, the volume of oil the foreigners receive decreases. Worse, several countries are changing contracts or tax rules in ways that will further erode the Western oil firms' profits—and in some cases are throwing them out altogether.
Rising costs are also a problem. Exxon, which is known for its stringent financial discipline, saw costs rise almost twice as fast as revenue in the third quarter. The shortage of labour and equipment that is feeding this inflation is also causing delays to new projects. And there are not enough new projects in the pipeline. The International Energy Agency, an energy watchdog for rich countries, reckons that the expansion plans of the big Western and state-owned oil firms will leave the world 12.5m barrels per day short of requirements in 2015.
Despite this looming deficit and the glaring price signal, all the big companies except Total produced less oil and gas in the third quarter than they did in the same period last year. According to Citigroup, the average decline in overall output was 3.3%. If the relatively steady supply of natural gas is stripped out, the numbers look even worse: oil production fell by 9% on average. No matter how high the price goes, the oil majors cannot make a profit from oil they do not produce.
This time around, however, they concede that "oil giants are struggling to pump more oil and gas". So, do they believe in Peak Oil? Hardly. The first reason is simply contractual - bureaucratic red tape set up by governments is the problem. The second reason is that new projects have not been started up fast enough because of labor and equipment shortages.
It is really interesting to watch The Economist peer at the same figures as we do - figures which show an inexorable decline in oil production - and then come to a completely different conclusion. The reason is, for lack of a better word, pride. The Economist derided Peak Oil theory as bad science and just another kooky apocalyptic fad (see here and here for examples). Now that we peakniks are increasingly being heard and believed, not just by scientists but by the public generally, The Economist will refuse to budge from its rock-solid belief system.
Sadly, it is increasingly obvious that the market - the people with money all over the world who buy and sell oil and who determine its price - will be the last part of the world to accept Peak Oil. A person who is ignorant of, or dismissive of, Peak Oil and who has the power to move millions of dollars per day trading in oil, will more than deafen the growing chorus of people who believe in Peak Oil but don't have much power to affect the market. Even if 80% of the world believe in Peak Oil, the 20% who don't will be responsible for 100% of the damage caused by not factoring in this scientific reality into market prices now.
If Peak Oil were to be believed by those who control the market, we would be well on our way to providing solutions to it - mainly because the market will go berserk and price oil more accurately (which, to my mind, would be well over $200 per barrel).
2007-11-09
Between a rock and a hard place
From the department of there-is-no-choice-but-to-amputate:
Essentially, Bernanke has only two choices when it comes to monetary policy - he can either lower interest rates (thus increasing the money supply) or he can raise interest rates (thus restricting the money supply).
If Bernanke (and the rest of the Federal Reserve) choose to lower interest rates they are essentially encouraging the development of inflation. Additionally, a lowering of interest rates will also make the dollar devalue even more. The growth of inflation - an ever upward spiral of prices - confuses the market and makes it harder for the market and for individuals to spend and invest properly. A growth in inflation will inevitably cause a recession - economic history is clear on that point. Moreover, with the US dollar devaluing, the price of goods and services procured from overseas will rise. Since America's economy is geared towards consumption (rather than production) a continual devaluing of the dollar will choke off the nation's ability to consume, thus encouraging a recession.
But what happens if Bernanke (and the rest of the Fed) choose to raise interest rates? This will halt the plunging value of the dollar and dampen inflation - but it will also cause an economic slowdown. Given that the economy is already in bad shape from the subprime meltdown and its knock-on effects, raising interest rates will sicken an already sick patient. The choice to raise rates will deepen the recession already underway.
What a choice. Bernanke can either choose to make the recession worse later (by lowering interest rates) or make the recession worse now (raising interest rates). This was the dilemma facing Paul Volcker in 1980. As chairman of the Federal Reserve he gritted his teeth and declared that inflation was the enemy to be fought, and raised interest rates to 13.5% in 1981. Inflation was killed, but the world endured a deep recession and America's unemployment topped 10%. But, if Volcker had not taken this step, the result would have been even worse over time.
The current economic conditions in the US warrant this sort of courageous action. If Bernanke and the Fed choose to fight inflation they will cause a world recession as serious as the early 1980s, if not more so. Yet if they choose to ignore inflation and lower interest rates, they will do even more damage.
The U.S. economy not only faces the risk of a sharp slowdown from the housing market's contraction but also of an inflationary surge from sharply higher crude-oil prices and the weaker dollar, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Thursday.The prospect of having to raise interest rates to control inflation is always an important yet unpleasant thing to do. That's why, these days, Central Banks have been made independent from political pressure and influence. Yet the current situation in America is more than just unpleasant, it is downright awful. With the Subprime meltdown tipping America into an almost certain recession, the Federal Reserve has been quick to slash rates to compensate. Yet Bernanke now admits that high inflation and the falling US Dollar are now beginning to worry him.
In prepared testimony to the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, Bernanke painted a picture of an economy in a perilous position, even though it has shown remarkable resilience so far this year, with third-quarter gross domestic product rising at a solid 3.9% annual pace.
Bernanke said that he and his colleagues on the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee expect the economy to slow "noticeably" from the third-quarter growth rate and remain sluggish in the first half of 2008. But Bernanke also suggested that the hawkish members of the Fed might have a point about inflation.
There were downside risks to the subdued growth forecast, and upside risks to the benign inflation outlook, Bernanke said.
The FOMC also believes that overall and core inflation will be "in a range consistent with price stability" in 2008, Bernanke said.
He noted that prices for crude oil and other commodities have risen sharply in recent weeks and that the dollar has weakened in foreign-exchange markets.
"These factors were likely to increase overall inflation in the short run and, should inflation expectations become
unmoored, had the potential to boost inflation in the longer run as well," Bernanke said.
The run-up in crude prices since the FOMC meeting on Oct. 31 has "renewed upward pressure on inflation and may impose further restraint on economic activity," Bernanke said.
Bernanke bluntly said that headline inflation is going to rise in the short term.
Essentially, Bernanke has only two choices when it comes to monetary policy - he can either lower interest rates (thus increasing the money supply) or he can raise interest rates (thus restricting the money supply).
If Bernanke (and the rest of the Federal Reserve) choose to lower interest rates they are essentially encouraging the development of inflation. Additionally, a lowering of interest rates will also make the dollar devalue even more. The growth of inflation - an ever upward spiral of prices - confuses the market and makes it harder for the market and for individuals to spend and invest properly. A growth in inflation will inevitably cause a recession - economic history is clear on that point. Moreover, with the US dollar devaluing, the price of goods and services procured from overseas will rise. Since America's economy is geared towards consumption (rather than production) a continual devaluing of the dollar will choke off the nation's ability to consume, thus encouraging a recession.
But what happens if Bernanke (and the rest of the Fed) choose to raise interest rates? This will halt the plunging value of the dollar and dampen inflation - but it will also cause an economic slowdown. Given that the economy is already in bad shape from the subprime meltdown and its knock-on effects, raising interest rates will sicken an already sick patient. The choice to raise rates will deepen the recession already underway.
What a choice. Bernanke can either choose to make the recession worse later (by lowering interest rates) or make the recession worse now (raising interest rates). This was the dilemma facing Paul Volcker in 1980. As chairman of the Federal Reserve he gritted his teeth and declared that inflation was the enemy to be fought, and raised interest rates to 13.5% in 1981. Inflation was killed, but the world endured a deep recession and America's unemployment topped 10%. But, if Volcker had not taken this step, the result would have been even worse over time.
The current economic conditions in the US warrant this sort of courageous action. If Bernanke and the Fed choose to fight inflation they will cause a world recession as serious as the early 1980s, if not more so. Yet if they choose to ignore inflation and lower interest rates, they will do even more damage.
2007-11-08
Australians now as rich as Americans
According to the CIA World Factbook, America's GDP per capita - a crude measure of average national wealth per person - was US$43,800. According to recent figures released in June by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (5206.0 Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product. Page 23) Australia's GDP per capita is now AUD$50,440. When converted to US Dollars (US$0.9262 = AUD$1.00), this means that Australia's GDP is now equivalent to approximately US$46,720.
I don't have any stats on recent figures to work out what US GDP per Capita is currently, and anyone who knows about this area of economic comparison knows the shortcomings of such measurements. Nevertheless, you could argue fairly solidly that the two nations have now reached parity in terms of GDP per Capita.
This, of course, has very little to do with the wonderful strength of the Australian economy, but with the falling US Dollar. Almost every single nation around the world has had their GDP per capita income increased in relation to the US.
In other words, America is getting poorer.
I don't have any stats on recent figures to work out what US GDP per Capita is currently, and anyone who knows about this area of economic comparison knows the shortcomings of such measurements. Nevertheless, you could argue fairly solidly that the two nations have now reached parity in terms of GDP per Capita.
This, of course, has very little to do with the wonderful strength of the Australian economy, but with the falling US Dollar. Almost every single nation around the world has had their GDP per capita income increased in relation to the US.
In other words, America is getting poorer.
Oil $98
From the department of I-am-so-happy-my-predictions- of-doom-are-coming-true:
The only reason I think it keeps changing is that it is being adjusted by the drop in the US Dollar. But that doesn't really make sense.
BTW - Tapis hit $100. (Tapis is one of the more expensive oil benchmarks. Other benchmarks include West Texas Intermediate - WTI - and Nymex. WTI is usually seen as the international benchmark price of oil)
The ever-weakening dollar and worries about winter fuel supplies sent US oil prices to a peak at $98.62 a barrel.That last sentence is problematic. Why is it that every week when oil prices get higher, the "inflation adjusted 1980 peak" keeps going up and up? A few months ago it was between $92-95 per barrel. A few years ago it was $80. A few days ago it was $99.04.
But prices later fell back sharply after US crude inventory figures showed a smaller than expected weekly fall.
US light, sweet crude settled down 33 cents at $96.37 while Brent closed at $93.24, down from a high of $95.19.
In recent sessions, record levels have been followed by falls of at least $1, and analysts say that prices are still on their way to $100 a barrel.
The weaker dollar has been driving up oil prices as investors have been using the commodity as an alternative to holding dollars, and crude prices have also been lifted in recent days by bad weather hitting North Sea oil rigs.
Oil prices have now risen by 60% this year and some analysts say that $100-a-barrel oil is inevitable.
"We're going to get $100 before too long," said Kevin Norrish of Barclays Capital.
"I think we'll get there," said Dariusz Kowalczyk at CFC Seymour. "The factors that have been driving the recent trend are still in place."
A big fall in US crude inventories might have been enough to push the price over $100 a barrel, but in the event the figures from the Department of Energy showed a smaller than expected drop.
US crude oil inventories fell by 800,000 barrels over the past week to 311.9 million barrels.
Oil prices have still not reached a record high if inflation is taken into account.
Adjusting for inflation, US light crude's record peak of $101.70 came in 1980 against a backdrop of war between Iraq and Iran.
The only reason I think it keeps changing is that it is being adjusted by the drop in the US Dollar. But that doesn't really make sense.
BTW - Tapis hit $100. (Tapis is one of the more expensive oil benchmarks. Other benchmarks include West Texas Intermediate - WTI - and Nymex. WTI is usually seen as the international benchmark price of oil)
Sleep Problems
For the past few years I have not had very good "sleep hygiene". I have tended to go to bed after midnight and then complain and groan when it is time to get up. Sometimes, when I have the chance, I have an afternoon nap that goes too long.
In the last few weeks, however, I have been trying to improve my sleep hygiene by going to bed earlier and avoid naps. I did this after a conversation with Dave and so I have been making a concerted effort to get to bed earlier.
But three times in the last week, including this morning, I have slept for seven-eight hours and woken up feeling as though I had been run over by a train. I actually feel as though I have slept for only 4 hours even though I know it has been nearly double that.
My wife has also complained that I have been snoring far worse than normal, so I'm worried that I might be developing some sort of Sleep Apnea. This has occurred around the same time as a mild cold, but in the past even severe colds have never wrecked me like this.
One possible solution is for me to start drinking Kava again. Kava opened up my airways and nostrils but, since John Howard identified Kava as evil, it can no longer be imported (except for cultural and medicinal purposes, the latter, though, may take me a while to achieve) which means that I have enough for about 5 draughts and that's it. In the past I have used a decongestant nasal spray before bed but using it over the long term is bad for you (not that I stopped using it though).
At least I don't have nacrolepsy. The last thing I need is to meet Tyler Durden...
In the last few weeks, however, I have been trying to improve my sleep hygiene by going to bed earlier and avoid naps. I did this after a conversation with Dave and so I have been making a concerted effort to get to bed earlier.
But three times in the last week, including this morning, I have slept for seven-eight hours and woken up feeling as though I had been run over by a train. I actually feel as though I have slept for only 4 hours even though I know it has been nearly double that.
My wife has also complained that I have been snoring far worse than normal, so I'm worried that I might be developing some sort of Sleep Apnea. This has occurred around the same time as a mild cold, but in the past even severe colds have never wrecked me like this.
One possible solution is for me to start drinking Kava again. Kava opened up my airways and nostrils but, since John Howard identified Kava as evil, it can no longer be imported (except for cultural and medicinal purposes, the latter, though, may take me a while to achieve) which means that I have enough for about 5 draughts and that's it. In the past I have used a decongestant nasal spray before bed but using it over the long term is bad for you (not that I stopped using it though).
At least I don't have nacrolepsy. The last thing I need is to meet Tyler Durden...
2007-11-07
The Regulative Principle
Over at Craig's Blog there is a discussion (which I am contributing to) about the issue of the Regulative Principle of Worship.
Since becoming Presbyterian in 2000, I have, since then, begun to understand and deeply appreciate the idea of the Regulative Principle.
Basically put, the Regulative Principle is based on Sola Scriptura, and argues that "only those elements that are instituted or appointed by command or example in the Bible are permissible in worship, or in other words, that God institutes in the Scriptures everything he requires for worship in the Church and that everything else is prohibited." (quote from Wikipedia)
The Regulative Principle is contrasted by the "Normative Principle" which argues that "whatever is not prohibited in Scripture is permitted in worship, as long as it is agreeable to the peace and unity of the Church." (Wikipedia again)
Here are some basic practices that the Regulative Principle would find essential in public worship:
* The public reading of Scripture. (1 Timothy 4.13)
* The preaching of a sermon based upon a bible text (Expository preaching).(1 Timothy 4.13)
* A clear, central focus upon the Gospel throughout the service.
* The singing of "Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs". (Colossians 3.16)
* Public prayer (Acts 2.42)
* The collection of money (1 Corinthians 16.1-2)
* The celebration of the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11.17-34)
What of the following events during public worship?
* A children's talk. This should certainly be allowed under the Regulative Principle since it is a form of preaching. That it should be directed towards children rather than adults is an acceptance of the fact that children, while worshipping with us, need their own form of "teaching time". It is a recognition of their special need.
* A deliberate exclusion of children This is problematic. I once attended a church in which the parents left their children to be ministered in Sunday School (which, in Australia, is a practice that children go through during the church service). To completely remove children from the entire service via a children's ministry results in children not sharing in the coporate worship that they have with adults. Having the children leave the service half-way through, though, is okay by me, so long as they go somewhere to receive biblical instruction.
*Puppets Used in conjunction with a children's talk there is no problem. Used as mere entertainment it should not be included.
* An overhead or a powerpoint presentation. This technology has replaced the use of service books and song books. In essence, both an overhead and a powerpoint can be used quite well within the Regulative Principle. They are essential these days in the singing of songs and can also help augment the sermon by having a sermon structure. It is important, though, that the projections are limited mainly to words and not show images (except when appropriate, such as an image being used as a direct illustration during the sermon). The problem with background images is that they may communicate more than what is intended in the mind of the viewer. An example of this might be the projection of Da Vinci's "The Last Supper" onto the screen during the Lord's Supper. Faulty technology, however, is a bane when overhead projectors break their globes or when people in control of the Powerpoint presentation are not skllled enough. I have seen, for example, the anarchy caused by a Laptop suddenly deciding to go into "sleep" mode just before the first hymn is sung. Used well,Powerpoint is very useful; used badly, there is nothing in the world as horrible.
*Musical Instruments This is the bane of the Regulative Principle. A significant amount of churches who strongly adhere to the Regulative Principle have banned the use of musical instruments during public worship, arguing that the New Testament does not prescribe them. The use of musical instruments in public worship in the Old Testament is clear, but the argument is that it applies only to Old Testament Israel and not to the church. The Biblical evidence seems to be against this, however, since a) The New Testament does not prohibit musical instruments (which, while sounding like the Normative Principle, is actually important because it addresses the practice of the OT Covenant people in worship with the New Covenant people) and, b) The Greek word psallo ("sing praise") used in Romans 15.9, 1 Corinthians 14.15 and James 5.13, is associated specifically with the playing of stringed instruments (especially in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament). So when James writes in 5:13 "Is anyone cheerful, let him sing praise" literally means "let him sing a string-based song of praise to God".
*Excellence in musicianship It would be better to have no music at all than to have badly played music. On the opposite extreme, however, I would also argue that to have demonstrative musicianship is wrong. I'm talking here about guitar solos or a "rock concert" situation with people waving their hands and having a designated worship leader (usually blond and named Darlene) or even organ-based choirs who sing songs so well that everyone appreciates its musicianship and "feel" and who are not concerned with the substance of what is being sung. One way to check whether the music is getting too "good" is to listen to people after the service. If they comment about how "fantastic" the music was, then it is a problem. The use of musical instruments should never dominate public worship the way they currently do in Charismatic churches and in High Anglican churches. Like seats, their use in public worship should be professional yet unnoticed.
*Drama. I'm torn about this one. On the one hand, drama can be used as part of the teaching - to illustrate something or raise questions that are then solved via the preacher's exposition. On the other hand, drama as part of a religious meeting was something the Ancient Greeks invented (eg Oedipus). In this latter case, the early church would have grown in the presence of the paganism of Greek religion and the use of drama in pagan religious ceremonies was neither condemned nor encouraged in the New Testament. One problem for me is that for Drama to be good you have to have good actors, and good actors will always draw attention to themselves and people are more likely to focus on good drama rather than the message it conveys. I am currently negative towards it but once supported it in the past (in fact, a drama was used to illustrate a sermon I once preached back in 1993)
*Clothes. What to wear to public worship? James 2.1-4 talks about a visitor to the church service wearing "shabby" clothes and how he is less favoured than the man who turns up wearing a gold ring and fine clothing. Those verses, to me, show that clothing is not as issue when God's people gather together and people can wear what they darn well please. When it comes to ecclesiastical garb, like cassocks or gowns or dog collars, the Bible is silent. Special clothing to signify the preacher or "priest" or others involved in "holy" duties is wrong. I speak from experience here since when I was younger I used to be a "server" in a high Anglican church and I would wear vestments as befitting my role within the service, which was to move things around and carry the crucifix.
*An Altar. Going with the High Anglican thinking, I would argue most vehemently that when the Lord's Supper is celebrated on a "table" (1 Corinthians 10.21). A table is not an altar. It does not have to be specially made or designed with special symbols. Another problem with having an altar is Genuflection - people quickly bowing before the altar as they pass by it.
*A Crucifix. Hmmm, another problem. When I was doing my "server" thing back in my high church Anglican days, one role I had was to process through the church carrying a crucifix. Suitably garbed, I would head a procession of people who were also suitably garbed. I remember one time going down the middle of church, holding the crucifix up high and with all the clerics behind me. I looked over at a woman I knew well and smiled at her. She responded by averting her gaze from mine, then looking up at the crucifix and bowing to it as I went by. As someone who had imbibed too much evangelical theology already by that point, that event made me realise how wrong it was. On the other hand, at my church presently we have a large immovable cross on the wall that is mainly ignored. I'll have to think about this one.
*Stained Glass Windows. Another bane of Reformed thinking. The church I go to currently has stained glass windows up the back of it and a small one at the front. Many of us tolerate it more than anything and I, for one, would prefer not to have them at all. The idea behind this is that the church building is not somehow more "holy" than anywhere else. in Reformed and evangelical thinking, the "church" is a group of people, not a building. Dressing up a building and calling it a "church" is thus problematic.Having said all that I am hardly going to send a letter to the session at church demanding they remove the stained glass windows since, while annoying, they don't dominate or confuse people.
Since becoming Presbyterian in 2000, I have, since then, begun to understand and deeply appreciate the idea of the Regulative Principle.
Basically put, the Regulative Principle is based on Sola Scriptura, and argues that "only those elements that are instituted or appointed by command or example in the Bible are permissible in worship, or in other words, that God institutes in the Scriptures everything he requires for worship in the Church and that everything else is prohibited." (quote from Wikipedia)
The Regulative Principle is contrasted by the "Normative Principle" which argues that "whatever is not prohibited in Scripture is permitted in worship, as long as it is agreeable to the peace and unity of the Church." (Wikipedia again)
Here are some basic practices that the Regulative Principle would find essential in public worship:
* The public reading of Scripture. (1 Timothy 4.13)
* The preaching of a sermon based upon a bible text (Expository preaching).(1 Timothy 4.13)
* A clear, central focus upon the Gospel throughout the service.
* The singing of "Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs". (Colossians 3.16)
* Public prayer (Acts 2.42)
* The collection of money (1 Corinthians 16.1-2)
* The celebration of the Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11.17-34)
What of the following events during public worship?
* A children's talk. This should certainly be allowed under the Regulative Principle since it is a form of preaching. That it should be directed towards children rather than adults is an acceptance of the fact that children, while worshipping with us, need their own form of "teaching time". It is a recognition of their special need.
* A deliberate exclusion of children This is problematic. I once attended a church in which the parents left their children to be ministered in Sunday School (which, in Australia, is a practice that children go through during the church service). To completely remove children from the entire service via a children's ministry results in children not sharing in the coporate worship that they have with adults. Having the children leave the service half-way through, though, is okay by me, so long as they go somewhere to receive biblical instruction.
*Puppets Used in conjunction with a children's talk there is no problem. Used as mere entertainment it should not be included.
* An overhead or a powerpoint presentation. This technology has replaced the use of service books and song books. In essence, both an overhead and a powerpoint can be used quite well within the Regulative Principle. They are essential these days in the singing of songs and can also help augment the sermon by having a sermon structure. It is important, though, that the projections are limited mainly to words and not show images (except when appropriate, such as an image being used as a direct illustration during the sermon). The problem with background images is that they may communicate more than what is intended in the mind of the viewer. An example of this might be the projection of Da Vinci's "The Last Supper" onto the screen during the Lord's Supper. Faulty technology, however, is a bane when overhead projectors break their globes or when people in control of the Powerpoint presentation are not skllled enough. I have seen, for example, the anarchy caused by a Laptop suddenly deciding to go into "sleep" mode just before the first hymn is sung. Used well,Powerpoint is very useful; used badly, there is nothing in the world as horrible.
*Musical Instruments This is the bane of the Regulative Principle. A significant amount of churches who strongly adhere to the Regulative Principle have banned the use of musical instruments during public worship, arguing that the New Testament does not prescribe them. The use of musical instruments in public worship in the Old Testament is clear, but the argument is that it applies only to Old Testament Israel and not to the church. The Biblical evidence seems to be against this, however, since a) The New Testament does not prohibit musical instruments (which, while sounding like the Normative Principle, is actually important because it addresses the practice of the OT Covenant people in worship with the New Covenant people) and, b) The Greek word psallo ("sing praise") used in Romans 15.9, 1 Corinthians 14.15 and James 5.13, is associated specifically with the playing of stringed instruments (especially in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament). So when James writes in 5:13 "Is anyone cheerful, let him sing praise" literally means "let him sing a string-based song of praise to God".
*Excellence in musicianship It would be better to have no music at all than to have badly played music. On the opposite extreme, however, I would also argue that to have demonstrative musicianship is wrong. I'm talking here about guitar solos or a "rock concert" situation with people waving their hands and having a designated worship leader (usually blond and named Darlene) or even organ-based choirs who sing songs so well that everyone appreciates its musicianship and "feel" and who are not concerned with the substance of what is being sung. One way to check whether the music is getting too "good" is to listen to people after the service. If they comment about how "fantastic" the music was, then it is a problem. The use of musical instruments should never dominate public worship the way they currently do in Charismatic churches and in High Anglican churches. Like seats, their use in public worship should be professional yet unnoticed.
*Drama. I'm torn about this one. On the one hand, drama can be used as part of the teaching - to illustrate something or raise questions that are then solved via the preacher's exposition. On the other hand, drama as part of a religious meeting was something the Ancient Greeks invented (eg Oedipus). In this latter case, the early church would have grown in the presence of the paganism of Greek religion and the use of drama in pagan religious ceremonies was neither condemned nor encouraged in the New Testament. One problem for me is that for Drama to be good you have to have good actors, and good actors will always draw attention to themselves and people are more likely to focus on good drama rather than the message it conveys. I am currently negative towards it but once supported it in the past (in fact, a drama was used to illustrate a sermon I once preached back in 1993)
*Clothes. What to wear to public worship? James 2.1-4 talks about a visitor to the church service wearing "shabby" clothes and how he is less favoured than the man who turns up wearing a gold ring and fine clothing. Those verses, to me, show that clothing is not as issue when God's people gather together and people can wear what they darn well please. When it comes to ecclesiastical garb, like cassocks or gowns or dog collars, the Bible is silent. Special clothing to signify the preacher or "priest" or others involved in "holy" duties is wrong. I speak from experience here since when I was younger I used to be a "server" in a high Anglican church and I would wear vestments as befitting my role within the service, which was to move things around and carry the crucifix.
*An Altar. Going with the High Anglican thinking, I would argue most vehemently that when the Lord's Supper is celebrated on a "table" (1 Corinthians 10.21). A table is not an altar. It does not have to be specially made or designed with special symbols. Another problem with having an altar is Genuflection - people quickly bowing before the altar as they pass by it.
*A Crucifix. Hmmm, another problem. When I was doing my "server" thing back in my high church Anglican days, one role I had was to process through the church carrying a crucifix. Suitably garbed, I would head a procession of people who were also suitably garbed. I remember one time going down the middle of church, holding the crucifix up high and with all the clerics behind me. I looked over at a woman I knew well and smiled at her. She responded by averting her gaze from mine, then looking up at the crucifix and bowing to it as I went by. As someone who had imbibed too much evangelical theology already by that point, that event made me realise how wrong it was. On the other hand, at my church presently we have a large immovable cross on the wall that is mainly ignored. I'll have to think about this one.
*Stained Glass Windows. Another bane of Reformed thinking. The church I go to currently has stained glass windows up the back of it and a small one at the front. Many of us tolerate it more than anything and I, for one, would prefer not to have them at all. The idea behind this is that the church building is not somehow more "holy" than anywhere else. in Reformed and evangelical thinking, the "church" is a group of people, not a building. Dressing up a building and calling it a "church" is thus problematic.Having said all that I am hardly going to send a letter to the session at church demanding they remove the stained glass windows since, while annoying, they don't dominate or confuse people.
2007-11-06
Evil Lord Soros reveals his plans for world domination
From the department of Supervillainy
Billionaire investor George Soros forecast on Monday that the US economy is "on the verge of a very serious economic correction" after decades of overspending.That dastardly Soros, thinking he can destroy the world through his negative-thinking-ray.
"We have borrowed an awful lot of money and now the bill is coming to us," he said during a lecture at the New York University, also adding that the war on terror "has thrown America out of the rails."
Asked whether a recession was inevitable, Soros said: "I think we are definitely in for a slowdown that I think will be a bigger slowdown than (Fed Chairman Ben) Bernanke is seeing."
Famous for his speculative attack on the Bank of England that made him more than $US1 billion, Soros declined to nominate which currencies are more vulnerable currently. He also declined to comment specifically on the dollar.
"I know exactly where the currencies are going to but I'm not going to tell that to you," he told the audience.
Last week, investment guru Jim Rogers, who co-founded the Quantum Fund with Soros in the 1970s, recommended selling the dollar as well as US investment banks and US housing stocks.
Soros said that, for now, China is the "absolute winner" in economic terms, and will continue to see its economy soaring during the next few years.
"Now it is going through this fantastic transformation but in 10 years time I think you may well have a financial crisis in China," he said.
2007-11-05
Why American Christians should not vote for Mike Huckabee
This is a recent article explaining why American Christians should not vote for Mike Huckabee. Let me just summarise the reasons:
* He supports the "validation of elites", whatever that means.
* While the head of the Arkansas Baptist convention, Huckabee did not "appoint" conservatives to certain positions, which depends upon what "appoint" and "conservative" means.
* As Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee "didn't surround himself with conservatives" and instead "kept many agency heads appointed by Clinton".
* He is very supportive of increasing Mexican immigrants to America.
* He "embrace(s) the notion that fidelity to the Gospel requires privileging the interests of non-citizens over those of fellow citizens (ie immigrants)".
* He supports a federal law to ban smoking in the workplace.
* While Governor of Arkansas, state tax revenue increased by 65.3%.
* He increased taxes.
* The Cato Institute, a libertarian "think tank", gave him an "F".
* He refused to sign some no tax pledge by Grover Norquist.
* In summary, he is not a conservative, not a constitutionalist, but rather an opportunistic traitor to his country.
Now I don't know much about the guy, but there is nothing in this list of grievances that is remotely Christian. Christians are free to decide for themselves whether it is better for governments to be bigger or smaller, or whether taxes should be increased or decreased, or whether they think the US Constitution is fine as it is or requires more amendments to improve it. The reason for this is simple - the Bible gives very little information as to how political entities conduct themselves in the new Covenant era. Christians should vote for the party they think will best help the country, rather than sticking with one particular ideology or single issue.
Christians on the right cannot claim that right-wing, conservative policy is somehow Christian in character. It is not. That doesn't mean it is wrong, it just means that it is not divinely directed. For me on the left, I obviously think that many leftist policies and practices result in better and more efficient outcomes than currently practiced by the right - but I don't somehow think that these leftist policies are based on scripture.
In short, I'm arguing that Christians should consider voting left not because it is biblical (which it isn't), but because it offers a better chance of enriching society (in a non-utopian way). Christians on the right should have the same attitude, rather than arguing that the right-wing is somehow biblical.
* He supports the "validation of elites", whatever that means.
* While the head of the Arkansas Baptist convention, Huckabee did not "appoint" conservatives to certain positions, which depends upon what "appoint" and "conservative" means.
* As Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee "didn't surround himself with conservatives" and instead "kept many agency heads appointed by Clinton".
* He is very supportive of increasing Mexican immigrants to America.
* He "embrace(s) the notion that fidelity to the Gospel requires privileging the interests of non-citizens over those of fellow citizens (ie immigrants)".
* He supports a federal law to ban smoking in the workplace.
* While Governor of Arkansas, state tax revenue increased by 65.3%.
* He increased taxes.
* The Cato Institute, a libertarian "think tank", gave him an "F".
* He refused to sign some no tax pledge by Grover Norquist.
* In summary, he is not a conservative, not a constitutionalist, but rather an opportunistic traitor to his country.
Now I don't know much about the guy, but there is nothing in this list of grievances that is remotely Christian. Christians are free to decide for themselves whether it is better for governments to be bigger or smaller, or whether taxes should be increased or decreased, or whether they think the US Constitution is fine as it is or requires more amendments to improve it. The reason for this is simple - the Bible gives very little information as to how political entities conduct themselves in the new Covenant era. Christians should vote for the party they think will best help the country, rather than sticking with one particular ideology or single issue.
Christians on the right cannot claim that right-wing, conservative policy is somehow Christian in character. It is not. That doesn't mean it is wrong, it just means that it is not divinely directed. For me on the left, I obviously think that many leftist policies and practices result in better and more efficient outcomes than currently practiced by the right - but I don't somehow think that these leftist policies are based on scripture.
In short, I'm arguing that Christians should consider voting left not because it is biblical (which it isn't), but because it offers a better chance of enriching society (in a non-utopian way). Christians on the right should have the same attitude, rather than arguing that the right-wing is somehow biblical.
2007-11-01
An eventful night for the family
I still haven't finished upgrading my computer properly yet (trying to get system to boot off new Hard drive is proving the problem) and I have been using a Linux LiveCD to get access to the internet.
But last night was an eventful one for my family.
As I told you last week, Judy - Anna's mum - had to get an ambulance to hospital. Her Cancer is back in a big way and she had to have quite a few litres of fluid drained from her abdomen. She was sent home last Saturday and went back on her chemotherapy.
Yesterday afternoon she had to get an ambulance again for a different health problem - a potential blood clot. A couple of years ago Judy was hospitalised for a clot and has required a blood thinning agent since then. Suffice to say that her clot condition and her cancer are both serious conditions and both have hit her hard in the last week. Anna had to leave work early to go to the hospital to look after her.
And here's the darkly humourous part - the last time Judy was hosptialised for her clot, Aiden, my son, was hospitalised for croup. They ended up in the same hospital (the Mater in Waratah, near our house) and even in adjacent beds.
Why darkly humourous? Well, as Judy lay in the emergency ward at the Mater last night, Aiden was lying in the emergency ward of the John Hunter Hospital. It's amazing how these coincidences work out.
Anna has been taking Aiden twice a week to Tae Kwon Do classes. Although Aiden was scared at first he has done quite well and enjoyed the physical activity of learning this martial art. With Anna away with Judy, I took Aiden down to his class (which is located within walking distance in his primary school hall). While there I arranged for another mother to give him a lift home in her car while I look after Lillian. I came back.
15 minutes later the mother was knocking on our door. Aiden had fallen badly and cut himself on the chin and I had to drive down to get him to hospital. Serendipitously, Anna called while I was getting ready and found out as well. When I got to the school Anna was already there.
Aiden was a mess. His accident wasn't serious but it was painful and the blood was spectacular. He was practising kicks before the class started with another student of the same age when the accident happened. I think it went like this. Imagine kicking out your right leg at full height while being balanced on your left foot. Now imagine having your left foot catch on pants that were too long, causing you to lose balance. Now imagine falling while facing the ground, without your hands out to protect you. Now imagine your face hitting the ground with an almighty thump, taking the entire weight of your body on your chin. That, in effect, was what Aiden managed to do in less than 1 second.
The damage could have been more serious. X-rays did not show any breaks or fractures in the jaw, and a Dentist had to be called in to examine his teeth. One of his teeth went straight through his bottom lip. The worst bit was his chin. In the old days he probably would have required about 6-8 stitches to fix it up but these days they have a magic glue instead. The medical staff were proficient, professional and kind. Aiden was admitted around 6.45pm last night and we finally left at around 11.30pm.
It is hard for a father to be around his child who is experiencing great pain. On several occasions I had to hold him down to prevent his hands from interrupting the work of the medical staff. Lots of tears were shed. I have to say, however, that this trip was not as stressful as the one I did a few years ago for croup. With croup, Aiden struggled to breathe and this was far more frightening than a bloody chin and a thick lip. Aiden performed well under duress though, and we're proud of how he handled himself.
Judy, however, is still lying in hospital. Her condition is serious. Please continue to pray.
Heavenly Father,
Thank you for keeping Aiden safe while in hospital. Thank you for providing professional and sensitive medical staff who were able to use their expertise to examine and treat him. We praise you father that nothing serious has come out of this. Help Aiden to recover fast.
For Judy, we pray that you heal her. Help her body to be rid of the problems of cancer and clots. Help her to remain strong in the faith. Help Judy, Anna and Neil to trust in your sovereignty in case this is the time that You call Judy into paradise. Thank you for all the great things you have given us, and help us all to respond to suffering not with anger or confusion, but with gratefulness for all the good things you have given us in life. We do not own our lives - they belong to you.
Amen.
But last night was an eventful one for my family.
As I told you last week, Judy - Anna's mum - had to get an ambulance to hospital. Her Cancer is back in a big way and she had to have quite a few litres of fluid drained from her abdomen. She was sent home last Saturday and went back on her chemotherapy.
Yesterday afternoon she had to get an ambulance again for a different health problem - a potential blood clot. A couple of years ago Judy was hospitalised for a clot and has required a blood thinning agent since then. Suffice to say that her clot condition and her cancer are both serious conditions and both have hit her hard in the last week. Anna had to leave work early to go to the hospital to look after her.
And here's the darkly humourous part - the last time Judy was hosptialised for her clot, Aiden, my son, was hospitalised for croup. They ended up in the same hospital (the Mater in Waratah, near our house) and even in adjacent beds.
Why darkly humourous? Well, as Judy lay in the emergency ward at the Mater last night, Aiden was lying in the emergency ward of the John Hunter Hospital. It's amazing how these coincidences work out.
Anna has been taking Aiden twice a week to Tae Kwon Do classes. Although Aiden was scared at first he has done quite well and enjoyed the physical activity of learning this martial art. With Anna away with Judy, I took Aiden down to his class (which is located within walking distance in his primary school hall). While there I arranged for another mother to give him a lift home in her car while I look after Lillian. I came back.
15 minutes later the mother was knocking on our door. Aiden had fallen badly and cut himself on the chin and I had to drive down to get him to hospital. Serendipitously, Anna called while I was getting ready and found out as well. When I got to the school Anna was already there.
Aiden was a mess. His accident wasn't serious but it was painful and the blood was spectacular. He was practising kicks before the class started with another student of the same age when the accident happened. I think it went like this. Imagine kicking out your right leg at full height while being balanced on your left foot. Now imagine having your left foot catch on pants that were too long, causing you to lose balance. Now imagine falling while facing the ground, without your hands out to protect you. Now imagine your face hitting the ground with an almighty thump, taking the entire weight of your body on your chin. That, in effect, was what Aiden managed to do in less than 1 second.
The damage could have been more serious. X-rays did not show any breaks or fractures in the jaw, and a Dentist had to be called in to examine his teeth. One of his teeth went straight through his bottom lip. The worst bit was his chin. In the old days he probably would have required about 6-8 stitches to fix it up but these days they have a magic glue instead. The medical staff were proficient, professional and kind. Aiden was admitted around 6.45pm last night and we finally left at around 11.30pm.
It is hard for a father to be around his child who is experiencing great pain. On several occasions I had to hold him down to prevent his hands from interrupting the work of the medical staff. Lots of tears were shed. I have to say, however, that this trip was not as stressful as the one I did a few years ago for croup. With croup, Aiden struggled to breathe and this was far more frightening than a bloody chin and a thick lip. Aiden performed well under duress though, and we're proud of how he handled himself.
Judy, however, is still lying in hospital. Her condition is serious. Please continue to pray.
Heavenly Father,
Thank you for keeping Aiden safe while in hospital. Thank you for providing professional and sensitive medical staff who were able to use their expertise to examine and treat him. We praise you father that nothing serious has come out of this. Help Aiden to recover fast.
For Judy, we pray that you heal her. Help her body to be rid of the problems of cancer and clots. Help her to remain strong in the faith. Help Judy, Anna and Neil to trust in your sovereignty in case this is the time that You call Judy into paradise. Thank you for all the great things you have given us, and help us all to respond to suffering not with anger or confusion, but with gratefulness for all the good things you have given us in life. We do not own our lives - they belong to you.
Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)