Credo Ut Intelligam

Driving through Lancaster PA this summer, I noticed that many Amish homes were outfitted with solar panels.

A common misconception is that the Amish are anti-technology. In truth, their attitude toward technology is more subtle and intelligent. We "Englishers" tend to embrace a technology whenever it makes things more convenient for each of us as individuals, without bothering to consider the ways in which it may alter our communal lives. Even if a few of us do consider those things, we have no effective mechanism for limiting the decisions of individuals who aren't so foresightful. Modern people sometimes talk about balancing the interests of individuals with those of the community. But in practice, every time there is a conflict between the two, things go in favor of the individual, because there is no way for the community to constrain the individual's choice without adverting to the impersonal, coercive arm of the law.

This provides an angle on an important aspect of how our current political spectrum is structured: socialists, seeing the unhealthiness of our communal lives, want to expand government regulations. "Conservatives", see that the coercive instrument of justice, which in its proper sphere is supposed to be, in a manner, impersonal, ("the law is no respecter of persons") is not the right tool to use for nurturing community. It is unhealthy for people's lives to be run by a beaurocratic machine, and unfair for a majority to impose that way of life on the rest of us. But it is also unhealthy for us to live as detached individuals, uncared for by one another, lacking any responsibility for one another.

The Amish still have a way of holding individuals to their responsibilities for one another and for their community without using coercive force. Their Ordung is not opposed to technology as such. They only reject technologies that are detrimental to the life of the family and the community. They don't drive cars because that alienates people from their localities and causes dislocation of communities. But they are allowed to be driven in cars and to use public transportation to visit far away relatives. They don't have phones in their homes because that disrupts family life, but they can install a phone in the barn. They don't watch television because, again, it disrupts family life, and those who imbibe the entertainment industry's output imbibe with it the values that are promulgated therein. Allowing individuals to watch TV would be corrosive to the shared values that bind the Amish together in their communities. Their opposition to becoming influenced by or dependent on the outside world (and thereby polluted by its unhealthy values) is the source of their opposition to allowing wires of any kind to come into their homes. But they have no objection to electricity in itself, and in fact they have been using battery power for a long time. So they are a natural market for solar energy.

The number of agreements I have with Steven Wedgeworth is quite striking. I've only just discovered his work. And it's nice to know I'm not alone in my antiquated ideas. It's also a challenge to me, as I'm becoming more and more aware of my need to know more history. Check out his work on Basilica, and his own blog. And look at this post on FV. It serves as a better introduction to my attitude toward the controversy than anything I've written.

In the later part of the 20th century, a political conservative was a classic liberal: individualistic in a quasi-libertarian manner, democratic, and egalitarian; he stood opposed to modern liberalism, which was collectivist, socialistic, democratic, and egalitarian; and to 60s-style radicalism, which was individualistic in a licentious manner, socialistic, democratic, and egalitarian. Now, in the 21st century, we have socialistic politicians calling themselves conservatives because they stand opposed to modern radicalism which is now standard liberalism: the line that defines a moderate keeps moving leftward.

But some of us would oppose modern liberalism with something other than classic liberalism. Perhaps we are but a lonely few, but some of us are wary of the socialistic expansion of government for reasons that have nothing to do with libertarian views of individual property-rights. But to do this involves calling into question those democratic and egalitarian ideals that the the staunchest talk-radio conservative shares with the most urbane leftist intellectual. Whoever questions such a shared, fundamental conviction about what is good and right can expect not to be taken seriously. Our views, we are tacitly assured, are either silly, crazy, or wicked.

Christians, even those of us who don't know Hebrew, have an interest in studying the OT as carefully as we can. For good or ill, the interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis has become a theological hot-spot, and it raises questions for laymen like me, who yearn for the unity in the family of Christ, but who also are committed to the purity of doctrine. Before addressing the text directly, I will say a few words about inspiration in general, then procede to investigate the cultural context in which the text was written.

Here I really do have a beef with Doug Wilson. And this time I'm not being jocular. What he says in this post is very foolish. Let me be clear: It's not his young-earth exegesis that's foolish (just incorrect). It's the atrocious interbreeding of a slippery slope with an ad hominem, along with his intolerance w/r/t adiaphora, that makes him come out sounding like a fundamentalist.

This time, I'll translate.

I hope you all understand how jocular I was being in my last post. Life is too short for arguing, seriously, about whether or not so-and-so's essay, the substance of which I affirm, had an insufficient emphasis on this or that point. If I seemed to be doing that, it was only for the fun of calling Doug Wilson (of all people) baptistic! But behind my jocularity there was a serious point. The truth that, in the Lord's supper, we feed upon the very body and blood of Christ is a truth I care very much about. And I am sad that this truth is not taught in our churches (I only discovered it by reading Calvin). Of course, it isn't Doug Wilson who is leading the way in this forgetfulness of our theological tradition. Quite the contrary. When it comes to sacramental theology, Wilson and the other FVers are leading the way in exposing and correcting such forgetfulness. So, in my last post, I was really (if you can belive it) expressing my appreciation for FV theology. In this post, I want to continue expressing my appreciation for FV theology, this time in the area of ecclesiology and election.