I thought I would put together a few of the unanswered questions that I am pondering right now.  Perhaps my astute readers have answers.

Where do Conservatives and Republicans go from here?  Regardless of who wins on November 4th, this will still be an open question.

To what extent should we be concerned about Obama’s ties to Acorn–especially given Obama’s repeated denials of his associations to the organization?

What’s in the tape that the LA Times has?  And why isn’t it revealing it to the world?

Is the sort of curiosity politics engenders healthy for the soul?  (I’m going to tentatively answer that “no.”  But then, I’m the guy who apparently thinks nothing is good for the soul!).

Do the offhand things we say actually reveal more about our real thoughts than we intend to reveal?  How low is the bottom, if so?

How comfortable should we feel when the candidate of change has made it so easy to fraudulently donate to his campaign?  If running a campaign is an indication of leadership, then should we expect the Obama White House to have similarly loose security restrictions while remaining similarly close-lipped about what is actually going on?  Is it plausible to believe as many small donors have contributed to Obama’s campaign (in an allegedly recessionary environment) as Obama claims?  As Beldar puts it, “If you watch the infomercial, ask yourself: How many minutes of it were bought with illegal money? A third of it? Half?”

Can McCain pull it out?

The last two months I have remained relatively quiet on all issues pertaining to politics. With the elections a week away, I thought I would offer a few observations on our current political environment and the decision before us.

On the political affiliation of evangelicals: The story that evangelicals are leaving Republicans for Democrats has been written every four years. This time around, a new wrinkle has been added: the tension within evangelicalism is generational, as younger evangelicals are shifting toward Barack Obama. Whether there is any substance to the story remains to be seen.

On the miseducation of younger evangelicals about pro-life issues: If a significant break by younger evangelicals with Republicans occurs in 2008, it would indicate a lack of education by the pro-life community on the importance of the Presidency to their cause and the gains that have been made. Let me be blunt: I am at a loss as to how Christians can claim to be pro-life but vote for Barack Obama.

To that end, here are the two most important articles on the issue:

Robert George on Obama’s Abortion Extremism: George carefully articulates why it is more fair to describe Obama as “pro-abortion” than “pro-choice.” The conclusion:

In the end, the efforts of Obama’s apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn’t even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.

Michael New on the effect of Pro-Life laws: I have referenced Dr. New’s work before, but this article is worth highlighting in full. The conclusion:

During the past 35 years, the pro-life movement has made some real progress–progress that pro-lifers could at times do a better job of advertising. During the 1990s more states enacted parental-involvement laws, waiting periods, and informed-consent laws. More importantly, the number of abortions has fallen in 12 out of the past 14 years and the total number of abortions has declined by 21 percent since 1990. These gains are largely due to pro-life political victories at the federal level in the 1980s and at the state level in the 1990s, both of which have made it easier to pass pro-life legislation. Furthermore, since the next President may have the opportunity to nominate as many as four justices to the Supreme Court, the right-to-life movement would be very well advised to stay the course in 2008.

The lesser of two evils argument: Why vote for John McCain? One reason is Barack Obama. Is someone being the lesser of two evils sufficient grounds to cast a vote for that person? Would the nature of the evils being discussed affect the deliberation? To both questions, I would answer “yes.”  If an Obama presidency would wipe away years of victories by the pro-life cause (it would), this is sufficient reason to vote for John McCain. I’ll defend being a single-issue voter on this one (though there’s little reason to—Obama’s economic policies are nearly as problematic as his social policies).

The divided house argument: For at least the first two years of Barack Obama’s presidency, Congress will be run by Democrats. It may even be the case that Democrats have a filibuster proof majority. Why does this matter? At the end of the day, Barack Obama’s social and economic policies matter little (though they are problematic enough on their own). What matters is what he would sign and what he would veto—which may or may not be the same as his stated policy positions. With a Democratic congress, Barack Obama could have the opportunity to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, to end 401(k) plans, and to institute the largest increase in government spending since the first New Deal, the effects of which would take generations to undo.

Who is John McCain? The irony of this political season is that John McCain’s argument that the American public knows who he is—which is true—conflicts with the rest of his campaign. His avoidance of policy (well-documented by Ross) makes him something of an unknown quantity, which is precisely why Republicans are less-than-enthusiastic about his campaign.

On Obama’s qualifications to be President: What are they again?

In case you needed more: The comprehensive argument against Barack Obama.

The reviews continue to roll in for The New Media Frontier. Trevin Wax (who is really, really smart) had this to say in his Amazon review:  “The New Media Frontier is a must-have book for all those interested in the current revolution in media intake and output. Get this book. And then get to work glorifying Christ on your blog.”

And no, his review did not influence my opinion of Trevin’s intelligence.  (Okay, so maybe it helped him, but only a little).

Speaking of scathing reviews, Brian Kiley had this to say about my contribution:  “I think Anderson is right on the money will all three of those [criticisms].”  I’m just going to enjoy that for a bit.  My wife will never say that to me, and rumor has it that my brother will be posting a review soon.

In other news, Charlie Lehardy has hit 500 posts.  Congratulations to one of the blogosphere’s best writers.

James Poulos, one of my favorite bloggers, has moved to new digs over at Culture11.  And he’s added other writers, too.  Pomocons aren’t right about everything, but they always have an interesting perspective.

Interesting thoughts on Shakespeare and Modernity via The Tempest (what else?) at Theopolitical.  Writes Davey Henreckson:

In perspective, Shakespeare’s The Tempest is a subtle realist critique of the prevailing utopian hopes of the Renaissance and New World exploration. Progressives like Bacon might have seen the New World savages as the great hope of civilization; to the progressives, Shakespeare bequeathed the figure of Caliban—cursing, raping, idolatrizing, and always false. Where the mindset of men like Bacon was utopian and provincial, Shakespeare’s was psychologically complex. Where Bacon’s island is colored by Renaissance fantasies, the island which Prospero rules offers torments and humiliations along with natural wonders. In The Tempest, both the savage and the civilized prove unable or unwilling to conquer nature. In the end each is a “thrice-double ass.” And as Montaigne would phrase it, perhaps the main difference between the European and the savage is that the latter wears no pants. But this is a tenuous claim to moral superiority.

(In case the link doesn’t work, here’s an alternative.)

Finally, I’m thinking about making a return to blogging.  Requests for topics welcome.

One of the more perplexing questions of Christian theology is how, if at all, man is made righteous by the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.  Perhaps more than any other issue, this question reveals the fault lines between the Protestant Reformers and everyone else.

For Calvin, the question lurks behind the issue of how man retains the image of God.  While critiquing Osiander’s view of the issue, he writes:

“Therefore we must take it to be a fact that souls, although the image of God be engraved upon them, are just as much created as angels are.  But creation is not inpouring, but the beginning of essence out of nothing.  Indeed, if the spirit has been given by God, and in departing from the flesh returns to him, we must not forthwith say that it was plucked from his substance.  And Osiander, while carried away with his own delusions, has in this matter entangled himself in an impious error;  he does not recognize the image of God in man apart from essential righteousness, as if God were unable to make us conform to himself by the inestimable power of his Spirit, apart from Christ’s pouring his own substance into us…And when Paul discusses the restoration of the image, it is clear that we should infer from his words that man is made to conform to God, not by an inflowing of substance, but by the grace and power of the Spirit.

Calvin leaves articulating how the Spirit and humans interact to its proper place in the Institutes–Book III, where he deals again with Osiander–which is mildly disappointing given the unclarity surrounding how grace is given.  If not a substance, then what?

For Aquinas,the answer is clear:

“Now the gift of grace exceeds every capacity of nature, since it is none other than a participation of the divine nature, which exceeds every other nature.  It is therefore impossible for any creature to be a cause of grace.  Hence it is just as inevitable that God alone should deify, by communicating a sharing of the divine nature through a participation of likeness, as it is just as impossible that anything save fire alone should ignite.”

I’m going over my head here, but it strikes me that Aquinas’ formulation of grace’s effect on the soul ties the Divine and Human together so closely that the human is nearly negated entirely.  Perhaps Aquinas saw this coming:  his response to the first objection is an explicit defense of the necessity of Christ’s humanity for salvation.

Regardless, Calvin has no such problem.  In the act of salvation, the human remains human and the divine, divine.  Calvin’s reference to creation is, I think, telling:  the new creation is a (re)forming of an essence by an outside agent (who dwells within), rather than an infusion of a substance.  What God has left divided let no man join together.

One issue that has received less and less attention in the run-up to November 4th, and especially since the Economic Crisis of 2008, is environmental stewardship and global warming. If the environment is mentioned at all, it usually is in the context of the American financial situation and the wisdom (or folly) of off-shore drilling and opening up ANWR to oil rigs. Interesting.

A topic that was once so hot as to justify a feature-length “propagantary” now is cold as ice, unless combined with a tandem discussion on the economy. It seems that Americans’ hearts are much closer to their pocketbooks than to their Prius’ these days. As unflattering and hypocritical as that may seem, it really isn’t too surprising given what certain folks have been telling us about human nature and it’s relationship to social market systems.

While some readers might begin to wonder if I’m nothing more than a one-trick pony given my repeated posts on economics, it’s worth pausing from all the hullaballoo surrounding the final presidential debate and take a look at environmental issues from an economic perspective now that a bit of the righteous indignation of the nation’s green-thumbs has been tempered by the wild fluctuations on Wall Street.

February 8, 2006 made headlines as a group of significant evangelical leaders signed and published the “Evangelical Climate Initiative: A Call to Action” (ECI), in which evangelicals were told that, “Climate change is the latest evidence of our failure to exercise proper stewardship, and constitutes a critical opportunity for us to do better” and called to, “recognize both our opportunity and our responsibility to offer a biblically based moral witness that can help shape public policy in the most powerful nation on earth, and therefore contribute to the well-being of the entire world.” (more…)

Reviews of the New Media Frontier are trickling in at a slow pace.  The countless hordes of readers (currently #232,477 on Amazon.com!) are doubtlessly grappling with the profundity contained therein.  Especially in that oh-so-provocative section critiquing new media.

While I was hoping for a solid scathing review or two of my chapter, I have thus far been disappointed.  One blogger even had the temerity to list one thought I offered among those that he resonated with. Disappointing, really. (And yes, for those of you who are keeping score at home, I am using Google’s Blogsearch to find out what people are saying about the book).

More seriously, my aim in the chapter is to offer three critiques of new media that move beyond the “narcissistic” charge.  In my attempt, I marshal some surprising forces to my side–Dorothy Sayers and G.K. Chesterton among them.  What have they to say about new media?  Plenty.

And now to my real point:  I have a copy or two of the book lying around, which I would be thrilled to send along to the first blogger who promises to offer his most scathing rejoinder to my chapter.  I have played the critic often enough–it’s about time I stand on the receiving end.  Email me at matthew dot l dot anderson at gmail dot com.

“Money is only one of many intangibles upon which our world rests. Our culture gods are far more flimsy than one would expect. In the Scriptures, within the Revelation of St. John, the angel cries, “Babylon the Great is fallen, is fallen.” Thus it is with the world – things that seem to be great are not so great and things that seem to be of little value are of great value.

It has been a commonplace within Orthodox spiritual thought to believe that the continued existence and well-being of the world depends first on the goodness of God, but secondly on the prayers of but a few righteous souls (known only to God). It is the math of Sodom and Gomorrah (whom God would have spared for the sake of ten righteous souls).

I do not believe it to be the case that those few righteous souls are aware of the value of their prayer. Such a burden is too much for the pride of man. But it also says that no one should undervalue the prayers they offer for the world.”

Father Stephan

The Communist Manifesto, that little piece of literature so dog-eared and marked by nearly every college grad, is full of statements that have become particularly interesting in light of the last few weeks of activity on Capitol Hill and along Wall Street. In the Manifesto, Marx outlines ten measures that must be enacted in the successful Communist Revolution. It was a bit chilling to revisit pages 25 and 26 of my old Oxford World’s Classics edition and a read through the entire list was illuminating (and recommended if you can find your dusty copy). Of particular interest, given the state of the American economy, is his fifth measure:

Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.”

Current events, otherwise known as the Economic Crisis (rivaled only by the Great Depression, I’m told), point towards the realization of something like this Marxist measure as the U.S. government attempts to bailout the American market with a plan that centralizes private capital under federal control and grants greater power to government institutions to influence and manage what was private property and money.

There are two distinctly sad things about this economic bailout turned federal takeover. The first is that it moves America sharply towards a socialist government, more sharply because it has been endorsed by political liberals and conservatives alike—especially because it has been touted as the way out by pundits and politicians who supposedly support free-market economics. It’s no wonder the libertarians are in an uproar.

Publisher of libertarian Le Québécois Libre, Martin Masse, puts it like this:

[There are] dire consequences [to] having a central banking system based on fiat money, money that is not grounded on any commodity like gold and can easily be manipulated. In addition to its obvious disadvantages (price inflation, debasement of the currency, etc.), easy credit and artificially low interest rates send wrong signals to investors and exacerbate business cycles.

Not only is the central bank constantly creating money out of thin air, but the fractional reserve system allows financial institutions to increase credit many times over. When money creation is sustained, a financial bubble begins to feed on itself, higher prices allowing the owners of inflated titles to spend and borrow more, leading to more credit creation and to even higher prices.

The confusion of Chicago school economics on monetary issues is so profound as to lead its adherents today to support the largest government grab of private capital in world history. By adding their voices to those on the left, these confused free-marketeers are not helping to “save capitalism”, but contributing to its destruction.

Read his entire commentary at the National Post.

The conclusion of government intervention in the free market will, at the very least, delay the inevitable down-turn of the market and most likely make the great specter of depression loom larger than it otherwise would have. Worse, the consolidation of financial power with the State, as Marx gleefully noted, is yet one step further along the path to a socialist society in which the chimerical dream of a utopian “association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” will ultimately bring about a great deal of suffering and destruction rather than the promised Eden.

The words of Freidrich Hayek ring as true today as they did in 1932:

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about …”