Making the world safe for Julia Ward Howe (thanks to our Iowa correspondent):
Holy war can seem like something that happened long ago or that happens far away — the Crusades of medieval Europe, for example, or jihadists fighting secular forces today. But since their country’s founding, Americans have often thought of their wars as sacred, even when the primary objectives have been political.
This began with the American Revolution. When colonists declared their independence on July 4, 1776, religious conviction inspired them. Because they believed that their cause had divine support, many patriots’ ardor was both political and religious. They saw the conflict as a just, secular war, but they fought it with religious resolve, believing that God endorsed the cause. As Connecticut minister Samuel Sherwood preached in 1776: “God Almighty, with all the powers of heaven, are on our side. Great numbers of angels, no doubt, are encamping round our coast, for our defense and protection.”
Several founding fathers were more theologically liberal than the typical evangelical Protestant of their day. Still, few were anti-religious, and the nation’s architects often stated that religion supported virtue, which was essential to patriotism. “A true patriot must be a religious man,” wrote Abigail Adams, wife of America’s second president.
George Washington believed so strongly in the religious case for patriotism that he demanded chaplains for the Continental Army. He appealed to the Continental Congress for higher pay for chaplains, and when one chaplain impressed the general, Washington went to great lengths to retain him.
That chaplain was Abiel Leonard, of Woodstock, Conn. Washington wrote letters to the governor of Connecticut and to Leonard’s church, hoping they would support the pastor’s extended service in the Army. In his letter to the governor, Washington wrote that Leonard had proved to be “a warm and steady friend to his country and taken great pains to animate the soldiers, and impress them with a knowledge of the important rights we are contending for.”
For Washington, chaplains not only supplied moral guidance but appealed for God’s support in battle, which was vital. He believed that the war’s outcome rested in God’s hands, and he ordered his soldiers to attend “divine service, to implore the blessings of heaven upon the means used for our safety and defense.”
We cannot fully understand the revolution without recognizing such appeals for God’s favor on the battlefield. Both the founders and ministers understood these ideas because they knew scripture, one of the major sources of American patriotism.
No problem here, though, because it’s a wonderful day in the neighborhood:
Talk of glorious causes has persisted from the revolution through the war on terror. Some Americans think of the United States as “God’s New Israel,” a nation on a divine mission, its wars blessed by God. Sometimes rhetoric makes this view obvious: Soon after Sept. 11, 2001, for example, the White House apologized after President George W. Bush used the word “crusade” to describe the battle against terrorism.
But references to religion can be subtler, or even obligatory, in political speeches. Consider President Obama’s July 4 speech from last year, in which he praised military sacrifices and ended with: “God bless you. God bless your families. And God bless these United States of America.”
We pass over such niceties as commonplace, almost dutiful, in political speech, but they are religious statements. Their roots go back to the revolution, when colonists — from evangelical preachers to founders such as Washington — asked for God’s blessing. Whatever century it is, our leaders often include some suggestion of the same biblical themes that filled revolutionary-era sermons, including sacrifice, courage for the fight and appeals for God’s providential blessings on America. We are, it seems, one nation under God after all.
Perhaps the reason American Christians permit blasphemy in their worship services is that the idolatry of U.S. civil religion has made them immune to it.
No peace, no justice.
Old Life 
Amen.
LikeLike
This brings to mind an unfortunate patriotic Sunday service at a PCA church I once attended. The pastor read It’s the Soldier poem during the Sunday morning service – complete with clips of fighter jets taking off and the US flag waving in the background. Why do we need the regulative principle again???
LikeLike
But, sdb, the RPW keeps the Sarah Palin Battle Hymn away. Is that what you really want?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhMepzqJvIw
LikeLike
A number of years ago, some agency or some such of the PCA published a little booklet on the power of prayer. It had a graphic on the front of two praying hands in front of a — I kid you not — a mushroom cloud from an atom bomb going off. I guess we never translated that particular prayer pamphlet to Japanese. But I am not sure that is that much worse than all the portraits of Confederate generals which litter PCA pastors’ church offices across the South. And I am saying all this a combat vet myself. On this, I think every pastor should read Mark Twain’s very short story, “The War Prayer.” I know he was an atheist, but he nails the consequences of mixing secular causes — particularly warfare — into the cause of Christ. Read it, if you haven’t.
LikeLike
Zrim, AAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEE!
LikeLike
Wow! Who needs preachin’ after that? If they followed the RPW, the spirit would’ve been quenched and we’d have really missed out!
LikeLike
Zrim, I can’t believe you dug that thing back up. Hunting skunks. Actually the PCA’s down here have graduated from Palin to Ron and Rand Paul and the real sophisticates among them substitute in Von Mises
LikeLike
That’s a little unfair. I haven’t heard the pastors pull out the Paul’s or Mises card, just the theonomists in our midst. They even wear mises.org rubber bracelets. It’s heartwarming.
LikeLike
Sarah Palin coming south to hunt some skunk. Now that’s a reality show I would watch.
LikeLike
sean,
You mean God isn’t a libertarian? I thought Sinai was all about suggestions.
Seriously though, I had the hardest time understanding why theonomists (e.g. North) would be attracted to Austrian school economics. Then it occured to me that from Austrian School subjectivism to Bahnsen’s absolutizing of CVT, they are all idealists in the end. The ball never left the Kantian court… Maybe your PCA buddies should look into that.
LikeLike
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/july-august/battle-hymn-our-almost-national-anthem.html
Excellent article by Allen C. Guelzo, whom I’ve cited approvingly at the American Creation blog on “the Harvard Narrative”. Entirely appropriate for Christianity Today but iffy for a secular publication. And I certainly do agree the theology of the Battle Hymn of the Republic is pretty incoherent, theologically opining of course. But historically speaking, we must admit the Civil War may not have been fought without the North’s being convinced they were doing God’s work in fighting slavery. The very existence of the Battle Hymn and John Brown’s Body before that is evidence of that fighting Christian spirit.
LikeLike
Yeah, thank God we had a war, right? God couldn’t have done away with slavery without a war.
LikeLike
Jed, it’s an interesting bed fellow for sure, but you’re right. I even tried the French revolution, enlightenment reasoning(you know, atheist premise), well poisoning, and was shouted down with ‘it’s biblical; just weights, and just measures’. I actually struck him(he’s a friend, he’s wrong, a lot, but he’s alright). Then I tried to explain to them the arbitrariness of precious metal valuation and why would I want to put all that power in the hands of some miners in another country, and I got; ‘well we used to trade in tobacco leaves………’ I wasn’t sure where to go from there, other than to tell them I was glad they weren’t in charge. I was thinking about dropping Bryan Caplan on them, but that seemed like overkill.
LikeLike
“The very existence of the Battle Hymn and John Brown’s Body before that is evidence of that fighting Christian spirit.”
Or should it be “that fighting UNITARIAN Christian spirit.”
http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/juliawardhowe.html
Though I understand Calhoun was a unitarian as well.
LikeLike
Jon Rowe
Posted July 12, 2013 at 5:31 pm | Permalink
“The very existence of the Battle Hymn and John Brown’s Body before that is evidence of that fighting Christian spirit.”
Or should it be “that fighting UNITARIAN Christian spirit.”
Though I understand Calhoun was a unitarian as well.
And John Brown was a Calvinist. Well, sort of.
http://m571.com/theology/writings/john_brown.htm
Part of the problem of writing the “history” of Calvinism. Depends on whose Calvinism it is.
LikeLike
Poignant to read for this Glaswegian on July 12th, given the Orange marches going on in the West of Scotland and Ulster.
LikeLike
But isn’t it common for those at war to justify it by appeal to God who is on their side? Ours is not the only age that does that. Sometimes such appeals are subjectively sincere and other times cynically political. But the North and the South both appealed to God, yes?
LikeLike
“Part of the problem of writing the “history” of Calvinism. Depends on whose Calvinism it is.”
2k is whispering to you. Do you hear it?
LikeLike
TVD, I’m wondering how you carry your ego around. Is it like the way Mr. Creosote totes his tummy? Erik, video link. Now.
LikeLike
Zrim, I’m pretty sure TVD is Justin Bieber’s dad.
LikeLike
mikelmann
Posted July 12, 2013 at 6:19 pm | Permalink
But isn’t it common for those at war to justify it by appeal to God who is on their side? Ours is not the only age that does that. Sometimes such appeals are subjectively sincere and other times cynically political. But the North and the South both appealed to God, yes?
Of course. Lincoln’s 2nd inaugural:
Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other.
Which is sweet, ironic and of course tragic. However, less quoted is the next bit:
It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged.
Lincoln a bit snarky here.
Then of course, there’s the providential argument. IIRC, when the Turks were at the Gates of Vienna in 1529, Martin Luther mused that the Muslims overrunning Christendom might be God’s punishment for their sinfulness. So too, America had speculated since Jefferson that a great retribution awaited us for slavery*. Lincoln goes on to acknowledge this common sentiment:
The religious equation was far more nuanced than Us vs. Them. Americans were accepting what they perceived as God’s Will, and His just punishment.
______________________
*” Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!”
―Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia [1785]
LikeLike
mikelmann
Posted July 12, 2013 at 6:20 pm | Permalink
“Part of the problem of writing the “history” of Calvinism. Depends on whose Calvinism it is.”
2k is whispering to you. Do you hear it?
Heh heh. Yeah I hear it, although it’s usually drowned out by the other voices in my head. Justin Beiber’s been sending me some message, but I can’t quite make it out yet.
LikeLike
Sean, so Tom is to history what The Beib is to music (and Sarah Palin is to conservatism)?
LikeLike
Zrim, that’s how it’s looking. He is to history what Beibs is to hip hop culture.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted July 12, 2013 at 7:29 pm | Permalink
Sean, so Tom is to history what The Beib is to music (and Sarah Palin is to conservatism)?
sean
Posted July 12, 2013 at 7:37 pm | Permalink
Zrim, that’s how it’s looking. He is to history what Beibs is to hip hop culture.
Awesome, you guys. I see why Calvinists are so renowned for their sense of humor.
LikeLike
Ask the Callers if the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is a great Christian denomination and they will most likely say it is not. They are likely to cite it’s small size (30,000 some members), it’s relative youth (75 years give or take), and the fact that is merely one of many Protestant sects. As this story illustrates, however, it is possible to look at the wrong things in determining what greatness is:
For Mariano Rivera: 19 Seasons, 0 Hits
By BRIAN COSTA
Somewhere, deep inside the bowels of Yankee Stadium, there is a bat that belongs to Mariano Rivera. Well, probably. Possibly. It isn’t in his locker, but he is somewhat sure it exists. “I maybe have one somewhere here,” he said.
Mariano Rivera could finish his career with the major-league record for most games played without a hit.
To hitters, it is the most precious of tools. To starting pitchers, it is a toy they occasionally get to play with during interleague games, the World Series or, if they pitch in the National League, every five games. But to an American League reliever, it is virtually useless. This is true for Rivera more so than for anyone else in baseball history.
In 1,088 regular-season appearances (entering Wednesday), over a span of 19 major-league seasons, the legendary Yankees closer has stepped up to the plate only four times. He is 0 for 3 with a walk.
No one has ever appeared in as many games while spending so little time in the batter’s box. Barring a hit during the Yankees’ lone remaining interleague road trip, Rivera will finish his career with the major-league record for most games played without a hit.
In terms of Rivera’s legacy, that is utterly meaningless. Set to retire at the end of this season, Rivera is considered the greatest relief pitcher of all time. Baseball’s all-time saves leader doesn’t seek the thrill of one base hit before his playing days are done. “I could care less about that,” he said. “I’m a pitcher, not a hitter.”
But among all the accolades and astonishing statistics that will define Rivera’s career, historians can add this little quirk: No other all-time great has ever been so completely and consistently removed from the task of hitting.
The vast majority of pitchers in the Hall of Fame each have more than 1,000 plate appearances. And even the great relievers of past generations finished with at least several hits and dozens of plate appearances, however feeble they may have been.
Rich Gossage, one of the pre-eminent relievers of the 1970s and 1980s, finished 9 for 85 as a hitter. Rollie Fingers, another dominant reliever of that era, went 31 for 180. Even Trevor Hoffman, whose 601 career saves trail only Rivera’s 637 (entering Wednesday), had four hits in 34 at-bats.
But Rivera, 43, has spent the entirety of his career in a league where pitchers aren’t required to hit, in an era in which closers are seldom asked to throw more than one inning.
His life has given him a rich trove of stories to tell. But ask him about his experiences with a bat and he looks at you the way someone in Tahiti would if you asked them about their snowblower.
“You’re talking to the wrong guy,” Rivera said. “I don’t do that.”
Even in the minor leagues, Rivera never once came to bat. His last known hit came in an amateur league in Panama sometime in the late 1980s, before he signed with the Yankees. Rivera was a shortstop then and hit regularly. “I always liked it. I always liked it,” he said. “I was a good hitter.”
But scouts saw a wiry teenager, agile enough but too weak to inflict much damage with his bat. They weren’t overly impressed.
“I would have to say he was an average hitter in the amateur leagues,” said Herb Raybourn, the scout who signed Rivera in 1990. “I didn’t think he had the power to hit home runs in the big leagues. He had good mechanics as a hitter. He just didn’t have the strength.”
Rivera’s daily activities aren’t confined to those directly related to his work on the mound. He has long made a habit of shagging fly balls in the outfield during batting practice, even after he was injured while doing so last season. It is a cherished part of his pregame routine. But Rivera has no interest in any workout that entails him holding a bat.
When asked if he has ever seen Rivera take batting practice, Tony Pena, a Yankees coach since 2006 and a frequent batting practice pitcher, first wondered if he had misheard the question.
“Mariano, you’re talking about?” Pena said. “Rivera?”
Then Pena burst out laughing.
“No, no. Never. I haven’t seen him practice.”
Rivera has come to bat three times during the World Series. (Postseason statistics are considered separate from a player’s career totals.) He grounded out in 1996, popped out to second base in 1998 and flew out to right field in 2000. It wasn’t until 2006, at age 36, that Rivera first came to bat during the regular season. And it wasn’t until 2009 that he first reached base.
In a win over the Mets at Citi Field, Rivera recorded the last out of the eighth inning and then came to bat in the top of the ninth so he could finish the game on the mound. Somehow, then-Mets closer Francisco Rodriguez managed to walk him with the bases loaded, which is why Rivera has one career RBI.
Rivera’s only other chance at a hit would have to come while the Yankees are in Los Angeles and San Diego from July 30 to Aug. 4 or, if the Yankees make another postseason run, during the World Series.
“If the opportunity comes, yeah, it would be fun,” Rivera said. “But I won’t be looking for it.”
Write to Brian Costa at brian.costa@wsj.com
A version of this article appeared July 11, 2013, on page D6 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: For Rivera: 19 Seasons, 0 Hits.
LikeLike
Nick, yes, that Ulster Scot spirit lives (though it’s squishy on which Spirit).
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted July 12, 2013 at 10:16 pm | Permalink
Ask the Callers if the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is a great Christian denomination and they will most likely say it is not. They are likely to cite it’s small size (30,000 some members), it’s relative youth (75 years give or take), and the fact that is merely one of many Protestant sects.
And they would be right about all that.
Greshamism may turn out to be significant in the history of Calvinism–perhaps as a corrective such as the Counter-reformation that helped the Roman church survive, or perhaps as a footnote, the last gasp of a Presbyterian orthodoxy that dissolved itself along with the rest of the American Protestant mainline. As Chou en-Lai apocryphally said of the French Revolution, it’s too soon to tell. In the meantime, any proclamations of its historical significance will remain subjective, and speculative, until such a time it affects the course of Calvinism rather than standing outside it in noble but relatively ineffectual protest.
LikeLike
Tom,
You don’t get it.
Your marriage must not be very meaningful unless it has produced 20 offspring, eh?
Great things often come in small packages, my friend.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted July 12, 2013 at 10:48 pm | Permalink
Tom,
You don’t get it.
Your marriage must not be very meaningful unless it has produced 20 offspring, eh?
Great things often come in small packages, my friend.
So do small things. Frankly, I hope Greshamism is indeed a corrective rather than a last gasp, my friend. But it’s too soon to tell.
LikeLike
sean,
Forgive the lengthy response, I don’t have the time to knock around here like I used to, so I’ll address an issue you raise, and then some stuff I think is germane to Darryl’s original post…
I even tried the French revolution, enlightenment reasoning(you know, atheist premise), well poisoning, and was shouted down with ‘it’s biblical; just weights, and just measures’. I actually struck him(he’s a friend, he’s wrong, a lot, but he’s alright). Then I tried to explain to them the arbitrariness of precious metal valuation and why would I want to put all that power in the hands of some miners in another country, and I got; ‘well we used to trade in tobacco leaves………’ I wasn’t sure where to go from there, other than to tell them I was glad they weren’t in charge.
I myself have strong libertarian leanings, and many sympathies with the Austrian School. But the fact of the matter is, because it is grounded in individual subjectivism, there are many blind spots in its economic theory that just plain whiffs on Natural Law. I can even concede that the gold standard honks have a good point, but as bad as our currency system is, the gold standard, or the more updated commodity basket approach to currency, just like any other, can be mismanaged and adulterated depending on who is in power and what they are angling at. That isn’t to say the current Federal Reserve system isn’t deeply flawed and in need of reform. But the economy is as complex as humanity, and there is no “silver bullet” approach to economics, currency, banking, et. al. The best we can aim for is reasonable rule of law, and we are a long way from it, which is why I applaud those who at least are “spitballing” better ideas in hopes for reform. But I get a little creeped if any one “school” gets all the power – it’s only going to lead to further instability.
And, this brings me to the broader point of Darryl’s post. I get even more leery of Christians in the contemporary scene who sometimes rather astutely identify systemic corruption and flaws in our political economy, or the culture at large. The Pharisees had an equally astute diagnosis of all of the flaws in the Roman system of their day, and they (among others) were chiefly responsible for crucifying the Lord because of his defective views on who a Messiah was and how he would administer God’s plan for judgement and blessing in history. I realize our national rhetoric at the time of the American revolution might have vindicated the idea that God was Providentially on “our side”. But Providence is much, much more complex than we could ever hope to understand, much less God’s purposes for judgement and blessing in history. This is something that since our founding, Americans have rarely grasped. The same Providence that gave rise to this great Republic, also allowed slavery and the decimation of the Native population on our own Continent.
Things only get more obscured if we take a look at the Old World since the time of Christ. We had the savagery of Rome, only to give way to even more brutality after it’s fall. Providence allowed the rise of Islam, and the near extinction of a Christian witness in many areas of the Middle East and North Africa where orthodoxy was incubated and flourished for 600+ years that persists to this day – so much so that to this day those who would still call themselves Christian in these lands often do so at great peril. Providence allowed the inquisition, a couple of centuries of upheaval and religious war in Europe. And if we look to the recent history of the 20th century, we saw the rise of totalitarian states (communist or fascist) that resulted in the bloodiest century in human history, with such regimes rising and falling on every continent in every decade of the Century. Christian and non-Christian were slaughtered just the same. The 21st century seems to be picking up right where the 20th left off, and God only knows what is brewing as an interconnected world that has perfected nuclear and biological warfare in a time of global uncertainty unprecedented since pre-WW2. Yet, we as Americans think that just because things have Providentially gone well for us for the last couple of centuries (depending on which group you ask), that God is “on our side” and that there is such a thing as holy patriotism? Only the insular ignorance that refuses to look at history in the most dangerous and pollyannish fashion could conclude such a thing. There is something to be said for political action for the sake of conscience, and passing on a livable world to the next generation, but whether or not God is on any “side” at all is beyond knowing.
Didn’t St. John weep when the scrolls containing God’s purposes in history were left unopened?
And yet we think that we know whose side God is on, or presume upon his justice when he allows the various evils that have plagued our country – really humanity since the dawn of time – and assume that God has enlisted us in his cause to redress these ills and set the world right? Puhleeze, when it comes to this worlds affairs, we are called to do our best in the time we have, knowing that the work of the Kingdom is God’s work, and this is chiefly done through the church, imperfect as it is. God is just as capable to bring history to a close without help as he was to start it all to begin with thank you very much.
There is no “holy” patriotism, just like there is no holy jihad, there is just patriotism, which is at worst horribly misguided, and at best can only accomplish temporary good, and that only if God in his wisdom allows it. Even the best patriots run the risk of being dead patriots, which is why the better part of wisdom is to follow God’s Word to us through Paul to seek to live quiet, dignified lives regardless of who is in power. When this is not possible, we do the best we can, knowing God is always on the side he has always been on – His, and that doesn’t always work out to physical comfort or protection for his people. To say different is to ignore both history and Scripture.
…. end rant, I am going to bed now, after I take my meds of course.
LikeLike
DGH, I couldn’t believe it when an IRA political ex-prisoner told me that Irish Republicanism was, in part, birthed by Presbyterians who wished for freedom from the Anglican straight–jacket. According to my source (and I was in no mood to argue if you know what I mean?), they sought religious freedom alongside RCs. He claimed it was a kind of ecumenical jihad until the British Government managed to paint it as a struggle against Roman Catholicism.
LikeLike
Has anyone seen Idris Elba’s BBC detective show, “Luther”?
Wallace (Michael B. Jordan) has a new movie coming out – “Fruitvale Station” – that is getting good reviews.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceVVVils8z4
LikeLike
Erik, I keep missing Luther. Have heard great things about it. Will watch a bit tonight perhaps on catchup TV.
LikeLike
The August “Vanity Fair” has a nice article – “The Lions in Summer” – about a group of writers – E.L. Doctorow, Robert Caro, Jason Epstein, Truman Capote, James Jones, George Plimpton, Kurt Vonnegut, James Salter, Peter Matthiessen – Who lived in the Sagaponack preserve in the Hampton’s in the 60s & 70s. The artilce especially focuses on Salter & Matthiessen, who are still alive. The rest of the issue didn’t catch my attention.
LikeLike
Nick Mackison
Posted July 13, 2013 at 6:57 am | Permalink
DGH, I couldn’t believe it when an IRA political ex-prisoner told me that Irish Republicanism was, in part, birthed by Presbyterians who wished for freedom from the Anglican straight–jacket. According to my source (and I was in no mood to argue if you know what I mean?), they sought religious freedom alongside RCs. He claimed it was a kind of ecumenical jihad until the British Government managed to paint it as a struggle against Roman Catholicism.
Heh heh. True, but “Orangemen” are also largely Scots/Presbyterian. Ian Paisley.
Reformed faith is also founded on anti-Catholicism, so there’s no real danger of a Two Kingdoms theology that actually works with Catholics. The war for the next world must be fought in this one.
http://archive.wfn.org/1999/09/msg00138.html
LikeLike
Doubting Thomas, may I suggest you get…a hobby. 1) Nobody in the Old Life orbit would claim Paisley, who is a nut and a friend of the Bob Joneses. 2) Reformed faith was founded by Catholics who opposed the doctrines and practices of the Roman Church — not the same thing as “anti-Catholicism”. 3) Your link has to do with ecumenism — cooperative religious effort. That is not going to happen for obvious doctrinal reasons — or would you prefer hypocrisy? 2k would say nothing against working in common cause with any group on civic/social issues.
LikeLike
Sean, and don’t forget what Doug (theonomy) is to Reformed Christianity. Or what Carrot Top, Kathy Griffin, Louis Anderson, and Sinbad are to comedy.
LikeLike
Pope Thomas has ruled.
LikeLike
Nick, well, the IRA fellow had a point. The position of Presbyterians in Ireland was unique within the British world — dissenters, second-tier status, but Protestants. For the quirkiness of it all, I recommend O’Brien’s States of Ireland.
LikeLike
Nick and Erik, I like Elba and all, but Luther looks like simply a glorified cop/murder show, trying to work in some paranormal elements. Doesn’t hold a candle to The Killing. (Thanks for that recommendation, Erik.)
LikeLike
Forget flash Luther and the rest, DGH. The Swedish “Wallander” should suit your psyche perfectly. You must have some Scandinavian or Slavic blood.
LikeLike
Darryl, thanks for the recommendation. Will add it to my summer reading list (after I read Recovering Mother Kirk of course).
I’ve heard good things about The Killing. I must give it a look. No Dexter watchers here?
LikeLike
I enjoyed Dexter until Netflix and Showtime parted ways, which I think happened before even the third season showed there. It’s not the kind of show I could enjoy with my wife, so that was that, although I do use hot sauce on my eggs now. We recently started the Sherlock BBC series.
LikeLike
Chortles Weakly
Posted July 13, 2013 at 8:50 am | Permalink
Doubting Thomas, may I suggest you get…a hobby. 1) Nobody in the Old Life orbit would claim Paisley, who is a nut and a friend of the Bob Joneses. 2) Reformed faith was founded by Catholics who opposed the doctrines and practices of the Roman Church — not the same thing as “anti-Catholicism”. 3) Your link has to do with ecumenism — cooperative religious effort. That is not going to happen for obvious doctrinal reasons — or would you prefer hypocrisy? 2k would say nothing against working in common cause with any group on civic/social issues.
Zrim
Posted July 13, 2013 at 8:53 am | Permalink
Sean, and don’t forget what Doug (theonomy) is to Reformed Christianity. Or what Carrot Top, Kathy Griffin, Louis Anderson, and Sinbad are to comedy.
D. G. Hart
Posted July 13, 2013 at 9:28 am | Permalink
Pope Thomas has ruled.
No, Pope Sproul.
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/the-manhattan-declaration/
And the Orangemen are 100s of years old, and aren’t just Ian Paisley. As the late great Dave Allen once said, Irishmen aren’t too sure who God is, but once they decide, they’re willing to fight for him.
LikeLike
Mike K. John Lithgow showed up for season 4 of Dexter.
That couldn’t have been the time you decided the show was no longer worth watching with that villain aboard….
LikeLike
Tom, huh?
LikeLike
sean, are you an An-Cap?
LikeLike
D.G. – Doesn’t hold a candle to The Killing. (Thanks for that recommendation, Erik.)
Erik – Glad to hear you’ve checked it out. Don’t bother with season 3. I’m having to shower after each episode and having to watch my son for Ted Bundy-like traits. Sustaining great writing is one of the most difficult things to do in the entire world. This is what makes The Wire, Mad Men, and The Sopranos so unique. The latter two had the sense to quit while they were ahead (I haven’t finished “The Wire” yet).
LikeLike
Chortles – I’ve heard good things about “Wallander” and like that Scandinavian aesthetic. For a similar feel I recommend the George Clooney film, “The American”. It, in turn, reminded me of the very good “Day of the Jackal”.
LikeLike
Nick,
My dad recommends “Dexter” but I’m a bit squeamish (no horror movies for me), so the premise has scared me away.
LikeLike
One of the nice things about “The Killing” is the empathy you feel for the victim (you see her family suffer…and suffer). There’s nothing gratuitous about it.
LikeLike