Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 January 15

= January 15 =

Blair House library
According to our article about the President's Guest House in Washington DC, "The small library in the Blair House wing is stocked with approximately 1,500 books. Guests staying at the house traditionally present a book to deposit in the library." Is there a catalogue of the library and a record of who gave what? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is managed by the Office of the Chief of Protocol, who is under the Department of State. Currently, that is Cam Henderson. A new person should be appointed next week. I doubt the email address will change for the position when the person changes. The email address is protocolhelp@state.gov (expect it to go to a lowly assistant who sill send an auto-reply, but you might get lucky). Most official libraries are managed by the Library of Congress. So, I would expect that the response would be that the LoC manages the collection. Also note that the books are not very interesting by themselves. They are primarily books about countries or cities. For example, if the President invites the head of Somalia to stay, the head will bring a travel book about Somalia and leave it in the library. What makes the books interesting is that it is custom to write a note about good will between the visitor's country and the United States inside the cover. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

India is great power?
If no then how can be potential superpower? --Curious Cat On Her Last Life (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Countries with a large population can, with their expanding economy, exert a greater influence on world politics as their economies grow over time. The pattern was established by China, which on a per person basis has a weaker economy than other global powers, but because they have so many people, that grants their government a large weight in international politics.  China definitely wasn't in that position in the 20th century, but since about 2000 has risen in international power.  India is a bit further behind, but if it follows a similar pattern, can begin to use the size of its economy to throw its weight around, given that India has a similarly large number of people.  India belongs to the second tier of global economies known as the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) that are believed to be on pace to approach and eventually surpass the G7 countries in terms of global influence.  -- Jayron 32 16:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * According to a map in Superpower, India is not classified as such, not because of their economy, but because they are considered "neutral" on the world stage - contrasted with USA, China and others who are considered to be adversaries on some level. <-Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots-> 16:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * See India as a potential superpower. Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What actually makes a country a country, though? India is a large geographic area that's borders were drawn up somewhat arbitrarily by the British Empire, the people of which are made up of dozens of different cultures speaking dozens of different languages, and aside from a few major cities that have excessively huge concentrations of wealth and are global financial centres, the country is largely non-indusrialised.


 * While they're undeniably one of the main power players in their local international sphere, they're not a global power by any stretch, much less a super power..regardless of total population size.. (which has never been an indicator of 'global power' status anyway - many of the historical global powers have been relatively small countries). Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I would call India a "regional power". In United Nations terms they're not in the top tier (Security Council permanent members), but they belong to the second tier of potential permanent members in a future Security Council expansion, and therefore they're above the third tier of "Uniting for Consensus" (i.e. countries which have no hope of permanent Security Council membership for themselves, and who are trying to block the second-tier powers from permanent membership)... AnonMoos (talk)


 * Until you meddle in the affairs of countries that are not your immediate neighbors, you're just a wannabe. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Here are some references:
 * Is India Still a Rising Superpower?
 * Why India will not become a superpower
 * India not really a superpower
 * India in 2025: What Kind of a Superpower?
 * Most of these articles see obstacles in divisive and chaotic internal politics, corruption, social inequality and poor education. The last article also highlights dependence on imported fuel. Alansplodge (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Baptist ministers
In my experience with mainline protestant churches, the plain title "minister" applies only to those who have attended divinity school and been ordained, whereas "youth minister" and "music minister" are informal positions requiring no particular qualification. I am wondering: if a person is called "minister of discipleship" within the Baptist church, is it proper to call him a "Baptist minister"? Cheers, gnu 57 18:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A minister of discipleship is not a minister. A minister could hold the position, but that would be weird. It is usually a person who has a lot of community connections and can help organize outreach. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also note that there are many very different churches and groups under the general category of "Baptist." Usually, the one in charge is called a pastor instead of simply minister. Some do not require education for a pastor. Most do. Some people declare themselves to be a pastor without being ordained or licensed in any way. Most Baptist churches would not consider them to be pastors. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 97.82 has the basics down. Baptists as a denomination don't really operate like other denominations.  In many ways they are the "anti-denomination", and even saying that, will confound even their own basic tenets in ways that look just weird to outsiders (to anyone who has spent any time in a Baptist congregation you get it, but you always feel weird explaining it to outsiders in a way that will help THEM get it).  Anyways, I'm going to get all "personal observation" on you here (apologies for abusing the desk this way), but as an ordained deacon at a Baptist church, who was not raised in a Baptist church myself (actually raised Catholic through Confirmation) I have a bit of a perspective on this.  A couple of basic things:
 * There is no "The Baptist Church" in the way there is The Catholic Church or The Church or England or anything like that. As a denomination, Baptists are fiercely anti-hierarchical, and do not fundamentally believe in any organizational authority higher than the individual congregation.  You can refer to "a Baptist church" and there's always going to be an understanding that the congregation in question has certain central beliefs (see especially the first paragraph of Baptists).  All decisions are made by direct democracy; a Baptist Church is not unlike a New England town meeting in that way.  There's usually a steering committee of some sort (like a Deacon Board or something) but it's basically all voted on by the Church membership.  There are some Baptist organizations, especially the Southern Baptist Convention, that have started acting like a centralized top-down denomination, but that has not been uncontroversial, and there's been a lot of kick-back because of that.  Just understand that you can walk into a Baptist church, and find anything, from the most socially conservative, evangelical, church you can imagine, or you can find a lesbian pastor in the pulpit.  The word "Baptist" on the sign out front doesn't tell you much with regard to that.
 * Baptists, among other things, believe in the concept of "all members are ministers", and that theological training is not required to do any job in the church... That being said, there are very few if any that I can think of where a senior pastor would not have a theology degree; most would require it either in their church constitution and bylaws OR would never hire a senior pastor who wasn't so trained. HOWEVER, for positions below senior pastor, such as children's minister, youth minister, music minister, etc; many may have theological training, but it's not a deal breaker if they don't.  My church has had music ministers who only had formal music training but no theology degree, has had children's ministers with an education background, but no theology degree, etc.  They often do, but they don't have to.  Ministers are employees of the church, and they are there to do a job.  They need to have correct theology (i.e. I can't see a Baptist church hiring an atheist music minsiter!) but there's no requirement beyond "is a practicing christian with a good foundation in Baptist theology".  Many non-pastoral ministers (music, youth, senior adult, etc.) have worked for a number of different churches of different denominations (Methodist, Baptist, Non-denominational, etc.) and there's no real problem with that.
 * Just trying to lay out for the OP that it is quite possible for someone to have the job of minister in a Baptist church and not have a theology degree. These are formal ministers, in the sense that they are ordained by the congregation to be ministers, and this is because of the peculiarities of the way being a Baptist works.  Unlike some other denominations, where a central authority may train and/or certify someone before they become a minister, because Baptist churches don't believe in such central authorities, it is left up to individual congregations to call and ordain their own ministers; and to decide their own criteria for doing so. -- Jayron 32 19:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)