On 8 March "Gramps" (Jasper) Correnti died. He was the dear patriarch of my sister's in-laws, in whose town I'm now residing. He will be missed.
That same day, one of my favorite theologians, Herman Ridderbos (not to be confused with his father Jan, or brother Nicolaas --significant reformed theologians in their own right) also died. Born on 13 Feb 1909, he lived 98 years. To tell you the truth, I hadn't even known he was still living, otherwise I would have been tempted to visit him while in the Netherlands. He formerly taught New Testament at Kampen Seminary (not to be confused with the "other" Kampen Seminary). I was pleased to discover he was active in the (Kuyperian) Anti-Revolutionary Party, now known as the Christian Union Party. Thankfully, Ridderbos' masterful works in English are still available.
Back in November Milton Friedman died. You can watch his entire original "Free To Choose" economics series. If you think "socialized/universal" health care, "public" education, or tax-funded welfare for the poor is a good idea, I'll have to insist you watch it. Not joking. Friedman was God's answer to FDR & LBJ.
On that same day in November, D.G. Hart delivered a lecture ("wmv" link may need to be opened in WMP --I have yet to figure how to open it in a firefox tab) on the apparent Evangelical slouching towards the left. 10minute clip of lecture at youtube (HT: Chellis). He mentioned at least two possible inducements. First, Evangelicals are not, according to Confessionalist measure of any tradition, theologically conservative (consider their contemporary 'worship' innovations). Thus, the "progressive" yeast works through the whole lump, as it were. Second, Evangelicals have abandoned their former (pre-WWII) aversion to "mixing" politics and religion. Thus, they confuse cult & culture; church & politics, and seek to immanentize the eschaton.
update : Hart's Leftward Christian Soldiers
Hart may be correct about Evangelicals. But, he has a bad habit of thinking the legitimate alternative concerning religion and culture is a "pre-WWII" sacred/secular dichotomy. Worse yet, Hart reads this bogus split into a neoscholastic notion of two-kingdom social theory, resulting in an embrace of the myth of religious neutrality. A better option, of course, is genuine neocalvinism. Rightly understood, its societal vision is neither tax-based, nor laissez-fair; neither immanentist, nor neutralist. This neocalvinist societal option, requires a high view of the exclusive "spiritual" mission of the institutional church, and an equally high view of societal structural plurality in its normatively differentiated responsibilities.