more of that rb interview

Q: So what do you think is a killer app right now? A: Probably Picasa. It's the best photo viewer/organizer I've ever seen. More than that, the interface for it is as good as anything I've ever seen for the PC. As good as Mac. I hope this is the future of PC software. Q: You say you're voting for John Kerry. Doesn't that make you a liberal? You say you're a libertarian. Why aren't you voting for Michael Badnarik? A: That's a good question. I'm not a liberal because I'm an economic conservative. I think markets, not governments, are the source of our prosperity and happiness, to a very large extent. They're also one of the keys to world peace. When nations trade with each other they fight less. Imagine for a moment - a truly global trading bloc, without tariffs or duties. No one wants to fight because everyone is interdependent. Would this not be as close to a utopia as we will ever come (short of the second coming)? World trade, not socialism, is the truly progressive cause of the future. I could vote for Badnarik, even though he's extreme for my taste. I'm not a strict constitutionalist - I like to think of myself as a pragmatic libertarian. This is probably why Badnarik is consistently polling at 1% - he's too extreme for most voters, too. I could vote for him, but I have trouble voting for someone who's not at least in third place. Thanks to our wonderful electoral college system, the poll to pay attention to is not the national, but the state result. Strictly speaking, we don't even have national elections - we have state elections that forward their electors to the national contest, which we don't directly participate in. In this kind of system, even third place doesn't count for much. Fourth place is utterly meaningless. Voting for Nader would be interesting, from the point of view of supporting independents, which I do, except that I agree with Nader less (13%) than I agree with Bush. But in Minnesota someone like Nader crushes someone like Badnarik, and thanks to the electoral system the Minnesota electorate is what counts for me. So I just can't bring myself to vote for someone who's not even a speck in the incumbent's eye. Q: Do you support third parties in general? A: Sure, when my philosophy is similar to theirs. In Minnesota the main third-party is the Independence Party, and I think what's going on there is very interesting. We're lucky to have such a movement to even give us a decent alternative to the two-party system. I really enjoyed having Jesse Ventura as our governor, even though he could be crude and harsh sometimes. He did manage to bring fresh ideas to the state, and did try to govern from the center. You have to respect him for trying. I can say I agree with 90% of the IP's philosophy. When he was interviewed on MPR, Tim Penny said the best thing to do this November is to vote against incumbents - that essentially both parties have failed to produce a budget, and it's both their fault. Q: Sounds like Mercutian politics. A pox on both their houses. A: Hey, I like the sound of that. Q: All right, enough politics. You seem like a person who would be interested in theology, given your religious beliefs. A: Yes. Q: Who are your favorite theologians? A: Aw, nobody you'd know - they're mostly dead white men. Q: Well, go ahead. I'm not a mind-reader. A: Well, then, most of my theological mentors come from the 16th-century Reformation: Luther, Calvin, Sattler, Erasmus... Q: Sattler? A: Michael Sattler. One of the most influential of the anabaptists in the Reformation ("anabaptist" = "re-baptiser"; it is a pejorative, like "Christian", which they learned to take pride in). He and the anabaptist community produced the Schleitheim Confession, one of the most influential evangelical confessions of that time. (So influential, in fact, that both the Lutherans and the Reformed felt compelled to condemn it). It's the earliest extant statement of baptist principles. I disagree with his theology of the eucharist (which was the most contentious issue of the age) and other significant issues, but his views of the state and subsequent Christian pacifism were prophetic. It's basically the point of view that inspires Roger Williams and the early Americans. Amazing. And most Americans have no idea this theology goes back that far. Q: Erasmus? A: Desiderius Erasmus, Catholic theologian and humorist. The Jon Stewart of the sixteenth century. He was responsible for creating the first critical Greek New Testament, without which Luther wouldn't have had anything to criticise the Catholic establishment. He also mercilessly lampooned the Catholic establishment, trying to change their behavior without changing their doctrine. To read his work is funny even today. He embodied the conviction that if someone is to be a conservative, they must be a cheerful conservative. So maybe that makes him more like the George F. Will of the sixteenth century. Q: But you're Reformed, so you must disagree with both of these figures. A: The point is that the creative energy that existed during the Reformation was unprecedented and is inspiring, even today. The confessions that followed in the 17th and 18th century organized and solidified the doctrine, but often at the price of becoming stale and irrelevant to the majority of the people. Plus, even as a non-theological theme, reformation is an inspiring concept. Q: So what about the infamous Calvin? A: John Calvin stands right between the Reformation and the confessionalism that followed - a systematic theologian who offered his heart to God. The beginning of his Institutes is not about predestination (which for him was a no-brainer, given the significance of the sovereignty of God, because he experienced it rescuing him from Scholastic works-righteousness) but about knowledge. It says: "Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves." We cannot follow Socrates' advice and know ourselves, unless we know God, says Calvin. So Calvin's view of his own theological foundation is to be found in his epistemology. This has given birth to a Reformed epistemology through the work of Alvin Plantinga and others. This has revitalized the current debate in theories of knowledge, where postmodernism has produced great skepticism about classical, "foundational" models of knowledge. Reformed epistemology allows us to know without knowing in a mechanistic way, thus freed from the skepticism aimed at that epistemology. This is tremendous! And the roots of this thinking goes all the way back to Calvin, to the sixteenth century. This also shows intellectuals can be evangelicals, and vice versa.

Q: Well. Do you have any theological mentors who are not from the sixteenth century?

A: Of course. C.S. Lewis, even though technically he's not a theologian(i.e., someone who makes his living from theologizing); and Karl Barth, the greatest theologian of the 20th century. Barth interpreted Reformed thought for a modern audience, and even though evangelicals have issues with certain doctrines he held, there is no denying he was a true man of faith. Very currently, I'm curious about open source theology, and would like to know more about it.

Q: All right, well that's all the time we have for today. Just one more question. What is the first and greatest commandment?

A: Love the Lord your Blog with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind; and love your neighbor as yourself.