Questions about the knowledge of God too quickly often turn very quickly toward the issue of sources-where does our knowledge of God come from?

John Calvin, whom I have been reading lately, deals with those issues.  But after discussing what sort of knowledge of God we gain through creation, he turns toward the manner in which we ought pursue our knowledge of Him:

And here again we ought to observe that we are called to a knowledge of God:  not that knowledge which, content with empty speculation, merely flits in the brain, but that which will be sound and fruitful if we duly perceive it, and if it takes root in the heart.  For the Lord manifests himself by his powers, the force of which we feel within ourselves and the benefits of which we enjoy.  We must therefore be much more profoundly affected by this knowledge than if we were to imagine a God of whom no perception came through to us.  Consequently, we know the most perfect way of seeking God, and the most suitable order, is not for us to attempt with bold curiosity to penetrate to the investigation of his essence, which we ought more to adore than meticulously to search out, but for us to contemplate him in his works whereby he renders himself near and familiar to us, and in some manner communicates himself.

Calvin’s devotional theology is grounded stems from separating God’s essence from His effects.  In his essence, God is unknowable and only to be adored.  He communicates himself to us through his works only “in some manner,” but not completely.

This preserves a sense of perpetual mystery and wonder, while placing the burden for our knowledge of God upon God and not upon ourselves.  We ought not give in to idle speculation, but wait for the perception of God to “come through to us.”  We are passive, not active, in our perception of His divinity.

Fundamentally, it is God who allows Himself to be known to us, and in our knowing we are free to cease from activity and engage in worship.  Only then will the knowledge of Him take root in our heart and will we be changed.

Modern evolutionary theory has brought the question of human exceptionalism back into our consciousness.  From a scientific standpoint, researchers have discovered startling similarities between humans and animals (though the dissimilarities are often overshadowed).  For some, “rational animal” no longer cuts it as a real distinction that makes humans special.

For John Calvin, the uniqueness of humans stems not from their rationality, but from their propensity to worship:  “Therefore, it is the worship of God alone that renders men higher than the brutes, and through it alone they aspire to immortality.”

This move, which happens relatively early on in the Institutes, is a significant one for Calvin’s overall theology.  The core of human sin is not strictly an intellectual malfunction, though it is that as well.  It is that the human disposition to worship has been directed toward an improper object:  an idol.

Hence Calvin’s understanding of the knowledge of God:  “Now, the knowledge of God, as I understand it, is that by which we not only conceive that there is a God but also grasp what befits us and is proper to his glory, in fine, what is to our advantage to know of him.  Indeed, we shall not say that, properly speaking, God is known where there is no religion or piety.”

While Aristotle thought man was a rational animal, Calvin considers him a worshiping animal.  The law of human creation is that the sensus divinitatis impels us to seek its rightful object.

Capitalism is not a system invented by greedy people to get more money.

It is not the primary cause of the “economic crisis” looming large in the minds and T.V. sets of most Americans today.

It is not the reason Americans are materialistic.  It is not the reason the rainforests are shrinking or the polar ice caps are melting.

Capitalism is an economic system based on certain anthropological principles worked out in the home and marketplace.  Those anthropological principles include: human creativity, human dignity, human sin (or sickness or greed, depending on your theological commitments), man as a political animal, and human value creation.

Capitalism is not a system invented by greedy people to get more money.

It is not the primary cause of the “economic crisis” looming large in the minds and T.V. sets of most Americans today.

It is not the reason Americans are materialistic.  It is not the reason the rainforests are shrinking or the polar ice caps are melting.

Capitalism is an economic system based on certain anthropological principles worked out in the home and marketplace.  Those anthropological principles include: human creativity, human dignity, human sin (or sickness or greed, depending on your theological commitments), man as a political animal, and human value creation.

While capitalism and free markets sometimes reward greed and immorality, proper and limited regulation of greed and malpractice can ameliorate the vast majority of those disparities and injustices that are unable to be corrected by market dynamics themselves.  But, given the current maelstrom of fear surrounding the bankruptcy of major financial institutions at home and abroad, I worry that capitalism and free-market systems will unjustly bear the brunt of the terror and the only possible solutions will be ruled out in a reaction seeking to try something new for newness’ sake.

Politicians talk about government bailouts and newer and more invasive regulations, while pundits and idealogues turn once again towards socialism and the only real and viable economic model, threatening to give America a health-care system as defunct as Canada’s and a society that provides little incentive for individual creativity or risk-taking entrprenneurship.

Despite the fear alternating with deprecation of capitalism coming from the interviews on all the major news media outlets, I remain fascinated by the marked ability of capitalism and free-market economies to effect great and good change in the world.  (more…)

The thing about Palin-mania is that it’s just so much fun. Sure, it might be a bit silly and less than “mature” (said with a condescending sniff and a New England accent, for good measure), but who doesn’t agree that good things in life are sometimes very silly and not very “mature”?

Here’s a bit of Palin-mania coming out of the deep heart of Texas, written and performed by a good friend, Elton Bass.

Queen of the Wild Frontier

From a sociological standpoint, it is a stretch to say that most evangelicals have any relationship to ecclesiastical traditions that extend beyond the past fifty years at all.  Among those who convert to mainline Protestant or Catholic denominations, this is typically the first and primary critique:  evangelicals have no sense of history.

It is a fair assessment, but hardly an argument against evangelicalism per se.  Evangelicals may not have a robust understanding of tradition, but the tradition from which evangelicalism sprang has numerous resources to recultivate evangelicals’s sense of the past.

Consider John Calvin:  while some would not think of him as a father of evangelicalism, his articulation of the Christian life lurks in the background of John Wesley’s theology.  Wesley, I would argue, Arminianizes–to coin a term–Calvin’s understanding of justification and sanctification.

In the “Address to King Francis” that precedes his Institutes, Calvin writes:

Yet we are so versed in [the church fathers'] writings as to remember always that all things are ours, to serve us, not to lord it over us [1 Cor 3:21-22, Luke 22:24-25], and that we belong to the one Christ [1 Cor 3:23], whom we must obey in all things without exception.  He who does not observe this distinction will have nothing certain in religion, inasmuch as these holy men were ignorant of many things, often disagreed among themselves, and sometimes even contradicted themselves.  It is not without cause, they say, that Solomon bids us not to transgress the limits set by our fathers [Prov. 22:28].  But the same rule does not apply to boundaries of fields, and to obedience of faith, which must be so disposed that “it forgets its people and its father’s house” [Ps. 45:10 p.].

Calvin’s approach to tradition is one of respectful appropriation, while occasional separation might be required.  All things are ours, but the obedience of faith occasionally calls us to reject the house of our fathers.  It is one that allows for theological progress–the holy men were ignorant of some things–and places Christ as supreme above all.   We belong to Christ, who is the one Lord over all.  All else, including the tradition of the church, is subservient to Him.

In one of my favorite posts he’s ever written (which is to say it’s remarkably good), Fred Sanders wrote:

Zwemer’s sermon, delivered at the Keswick convention in 1915, is a summons to “enter into the boundless heritage of Christianity.” He doesn’t just mean to read old books or sing old hymns, though that is obviously a good place to start. He also isn’t just asserting that every modern Christian has the right to loot, pillage, and lay claim to whatever they find in anybody’s church. The great tradition of Christian teaching and experience is ours, not because we are postmodern bricoleurs or consumers with a credit line that extends to the past, but because of our real union with Christ and his with the Father. Without this real union, all of us are just squatting on the territory of others, or decorating our houses with antiques to make ourselves feel more authentic. But all things really are ours, and we are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. The “all things” of the great Christian hinterland must become our homeland if we are to be in the company of the saints where our fellowship is with the Father and the Son in the Spirit.

Sanders deploys 1 Corinthians to argue against the fractures between social justice, intellectual engagement, and pentacostalism.  But Calvin’s addition that all things are there to serve us, and not to lord over us is a helpful reminder that though all things are ours, they are ours only insofar as they remain in their proper position in the universe:  below Christ.

“Everyone has to focus on what exactly is their value-add…We are in the middle of a big technological change, and when you live in a society that is at the cutting edge of that change [like America], it is hard to predict. It’s easy to predict for someone living in India. In ten years we are going to be doing a lot of the stuff that is being done in America today. We can predict our future. But we are behind you. You are defining the future. America is always on the edge of the next creative wave…” (Jaithirth Rao, quoted in The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman)

Whenever a discussion of globalization and world power begins, it is usual for no more than five sentences to be uttered before somebody inevitably mentions the successes of India and China. Given the popularity of polarization in American culture, once these rising stars are mentioned people tend to either bemoan the failure of Americans to keep up in the sciences, math, and tech industries or else smugly gloat while moralizing on the virtues of sharing toys and power.

Alarmists and quasi-isolationists abound, usually on the political right and will grow long-winded soliloquizing on the value of buying American products (usually Ford or GM), of building walls along our southern border, and enforcing strict discipline standards in our schools so that all those children getting lost in sex and drugs will, presumably, suddenly find themselves passionately in love with computer programming, geology, and higher math.

Counter-balancing the fearful stand the peacenik elite, waxing eloquent about the ideal world in which nobody, or at least no American, is better than anyone else, and there are harmony, peace, and European handbags for all. The way forward is, so they say, by submitting to the will of foreign powers, allowing our hands to be tied, and joining in the collective search for global prosperity—a search that probably involves denouncing capitalism, embracing anything that can be spelled beginning with “co-op”, and laying down arms. (more…)

Dear readers, friends, and enemies:

My sincere apologies for taking such a vacation from contributing to the output of Mere Orthodoxy…it seems that the military and those stars that cross so many lovers have conspired against my steady support of this brilliant little bit of the blogosphere.

Military deployments, marriage, and continuation training (militarily, officially…although I’m fast discovering that there is a good deal of continuation training that is associated with marriage) have all kept me much too busy.

All that, however, is about to change as things are smoothing out and settling down once again and spending time “tickling the ivories” (yes, I do have a white Mac Book) has become a new priority and possibility.

…I’m looking forward to continued thoughts and discussions as I delve into Middle Eastern politics, globalization, the occasional book review, Christian living, and whatever else might arise along the way.

America, and the world, experienced a watershed event seven years ago.  My life certainly changed as my military committment “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic” suddenly took on new meaning, and has shaped nearly every official military action I have conducted since.

Experiencing something like the events of 9/11 often motivates individuals to stand up and do something noble, something grand, something glorious.  However, as Dan McLaughlin over at RedState reminds us, there is something even more important to do than fight back—we must live.

But once we feel secure to try, we owe it most of all to those who protect us as well as those who died to resume the most trivial of our pursuits. Our freedom is best expressed not when we stand in defiance or strike back with collective will, but when we are able again to view Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens as the yardsticks by which we measure nastiness, to bicker over games.”

Read it all here, and take a few moments to remember.

St. Paul is still relevant today, and not just in the general sense.

Paul is relevant today in what has become something almost like historical déjà vu. When Paul began traveling across Palestine and then Asia Minor and Europe, the Church was quickly characterized by Gentile converts filling pew space next to their Jewish brethren. Soon enough, congregations sprang up and were dominated by non-Jewish Christians. The shift in ethnic identity from Jew to Gentile created no small amount of consternation among both parties and Paul filled his epistles with strong reminders that the Body of Christ is unified, not by racial or ethnic purity, but because it is fundamentally a new creation and is made up of men and women who are, at their core, people transformed by a work of grace.

“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:26—29)

To the heterogenous churches in America these Pauline pronouncements sometimes seem axiomatically obvious. However, at the time they were penned (and today, upon deeper reflection) they were revolutionary. The Jewish religion had, for ages, been defined primarily in terms of a physical identity that corresponded with a spiritual one. A Jew was a circumcised male, or the female progeny of one, who traced his lineage to Abraham. If any non-Jew wanted to be accepted into the community, he had to become Jewish: physically, ethnically, religiously, and culturally. Many Gentiles found this price too high to pay and so remained among the resident aliens who dwelt with the Jews but were never granted equal status.

When Jesus came, and Paul after Him, all of this was changed. (more…)

Google doesn’t seem to make mistakes. 

In response to the current arms-race between Microsoft Internet Explorer, Mac Safari*, Opera, and Mozilla Firefox, they’ve quietly designed and now released (in BETA) a brand new, google-style web browser. It’s called Google Chrome. Mm, shiny.

I’ve downloaded it and tried it. Simple interface, wide flexibility, and, for you techies out there, it’s open source.

The reason Mozilla Firefox has been winning the arms-race this year and for many years is that it is designed (largely) by users, not by ponderous and clumsy corporate commitees. Firefox is sleek, clean, adaptable, expandable, retractable, and utterly secure in an age of internet vandalism. Everyone hates IE, but even most Mac users bow the knee to Mozilla.

Google has entered the race. They have  (quite intelligently) decided that they don’t need to have the monopoly on software, too, so they kept it open-source. On the official Chrome website they modestly mention the other excellent web browsers out there and humbly present Chrome as “another option.” This brilliant open-source browser will allow them to earn a lion’s share of the internet community due to built-in Google brand loyalty, while keeping ahead of Microsoft’s (increasingly pathetic) attempts to catch up by letting users like you and me suggest, design, and execute improvements. 

Download it, try it, and let us know how you like it.

*Updated.

I’ve been wondering what to say about this whole Sarah Palin hubub.  Ross Douthat’s (humorous) take suffices:

Judging by my email, a number of readers seem to be under the impression that what we’ve been witnessing in the media and online over the past couple days is a very serious, nuanced and thoughtful exploration of Sarah Palin’s record in Alaska politics, a comparison of that record to the record of her Democratic opponents, and a sober discussion of whether she has sufficient experience to step in and run the country should John McCain, God forbid, die in office. If that’s what you seriously, seriously think has been going on lately, then you should probably look elsewhere for analysis of the media’s Palin coverage, because you and I are living on very different planets.

If you search by “author” for “Matthew Lee Anderson” on Amazon.com, two entries come up:

One of them is a book on Eighteenth Century Europe by Pamela Anderson Lee (not, of course, to be confused with Pamela Lee Anderson). 

The other has a chapter by me. 

Let the scathing reviews begin.