By thebumblinggenius
There are perhaps a thousand ways for us as Christians to fulfill our destiny in Christ by being a salt and a light in this deteriorating and dark world. One of those ways, and by far one of the easiest ways, is to vote. Today is a day set aside for just such an exercise.
People from almost every walk of life and worldview, with every kind of hope and dream will participate today in influencing the leadership and direction of our nation. Consequently our government will be, for us, a reflection of who we collectively are. As the changes that will be revealed about our society by this election emerge over time, I am confident of this one thing: Very few Americans are going to be enamored with what they see. This will be the case regardless of who wins any of today’s races.
I am confident for good reason. Man is fallen. A walk through history is but a walk through a gallery of portraits, one after the other, that portray Man’s failed attempts at repairing himself by replacing the mirror that is his government, as if replacing the mirror would somehow replace the reality it reflects.
For the believer, today ought to be a sober day as we contemplate this reality. For us, what will be reflected is the extent to which we have been a salt and light. We know that tomorrow, just as yesterday, the flow of blood from the millions of slaughtered human beings that now cries out to God for justice will continue unabated. We know that the sin of homosexuality will still be institutionalized in many states with even more states to follow. And we know that the family, godly marriage, and child-rearing will continue to be attacked, discarded, and disregarded.
Yet, for the true believer there is hope that lies beyond the folly of replacing mirrors. As the fallout from the election precipitates among society and the noise over who does or does not get what from who increases and as man rationalizes about what sin he can arbitrarily deem to no longer be sin and so forth, God’s kingdom will be advancing. To the extent that Man continues to reject the reality of his condition, his efforts at improving it will be futile in all but increasing suffering. Yet his efforts in the end will still bring about the advancement of the kingdom of God. This is our hope. God’s kingdom will come, on earth as it is in heaven. To fight it is to advance it. To join in its advancement is to advance it. Either way it is coming. And every tiny fraction of a voice that is each of our votes, whether they be for or against God, will serve only to accomplish His good pleasure.
Showing posts with label By Dan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label By Dan. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Monday, November 05, 2012
A Story Within A Story, Within A Story, Within...
By thebumblinggenius
The climax of a heart-wrenching story occurs when a distraught and broken-hearted Joseph reveals his true identity to his brothers. Everything is made right. Then an explanation for Joseph's suffering and his brothers' evil is given in Genesis 50:20: "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result."
But Joseph's story of being betrayed, enslaved, imprisoned, then raised to a position of authority is a story within a much larger story. There was going to be a famine in Canaan you see. And knowing that this famine was coming God used these event to establish his man in Egypt to save Jacob from starvation.
But if you see the world as I do, this story raises questions. Why would God put Joseph through such suffering? Could He not have simply made it rain in Canaan, and thereby prevented the famine? This is just the way my mind works. And this divergence in thinking styles become more obvious in my relationships with others. Someone says to me something like, "Isn't God good? He knew that I was going to lock my keys in the car so he caused my husband to get off work early so that he would be available to rescue me."
"Well, I suppose." I respond, "But wouldn't it have been simpler if He had simply reminded you to take your keys?"
You see, I have a story. And you have a story also. But there is a larger story within which our stories are taking place. And chances are that those stories are occurring within even larger stories that span a time far beyond our own years on this earth or understanding. So what is that story? In an attempt to grapple with that question, let’s go back to Joseph's story.
Because of Joseph's suffering his family was saved from starvation. They all moved into Egypt and set up shop there ... and lived happily ever after. Well ... maybe not. We get a clue that there is more going on as Joseph's life draws to a close. On his deathbed, he tells his family to take his bones with them when they leave. Joseph knew that his story was but a piece in a much larger story that was still being written.
This larger story begins to unfold as we read these ominous words in chapter 1 of Exodus. Verse 8: "Now a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph." So did God fail again? Couldn't God have caused the people to remember? Well as it turns out God was about to expand the horizons of this story. The modern Pharaoh was about to oppress the Isaralites. In our modern vernacular one might say that the Pharaoh was Herbrewphobic. The children of Israel then cried out to God and He began to orchestrate a rescue.
So Moses comes onto the scene and leads the people out of the land that had earlier been a refuge. Through miraculous events the "Children of Israel" delivered. God came to the rescue again. But is this just another story that tacks onto the previous one? Or is it still a story within a story, and if so, what is that story?
The key I think can be found as God repeatedly reminds His people from their great exodus on to remember "the God that brought you up out of Egypt." So why would God remind them over and over that he was their deliverer; that he He was the God that brought them up out of Egypt? The answer is simple really, so simple that it perhaps is easy to miss. It is because God demands glory. We are weak. We are pawns in a larger story. We deserve no glory, no recognition, no credit or merit. This is His story and He will be ultimately glorified. The moment that we think that any of our story is about us, we are sure to miss the object of our story: His glory.
So, what does this have to do with me? Well it seems obvious that we are apparently made to need purpose in life, among other things. We can endure incredible suffering if we understand that it is for a purpose. How many times, for example, do we hear someone, after enduring something unpleasant, console themselves with "Everything happens for a reason"? If I consider myself the center of that reason then I've missed it; but if that reason is His glory, then I've come to a better understanding of the reality within which I live out my story.
The climax of a heart-wrenching story occurs when a distraught and broken-hearted Joseph reveals his true identity to his brothers. Everything is made right. Then an explanation for Joseph's suffering and his brothers' evil is given in Genesis 50:20: "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result."
But Joseph's story of being betrayed, enslaved, imprisoned, then raised to a position of authority is a story within a much larger story. There was going to be a famine in Canaan you see. And knowing that this famine was coming God used these event to establish his man in Egypt to save Jacob from starvation.
But if you see the world as I do, this story raises questions. Why would God put Joseph through such suffering? Could He not have simply made it rain in Canaan, and thereby prevented the famine? This is just the way my mind works. And this divergence in thinking styles become more obvious in my relationships with others. Someone says to me something like, "Isn't God good? He knew that I was going to lock my keys in the car so he caused my husband to get off work early so that he would be available to rescue me."
"Well, I suppose." I respond, "But wouldn't it have been simpler if He had simply reminded you to take your keys?"
You see, I have a story. And you have a story also. But there is a larger story within which our stories are taking place. And chances are that those stories are occurring within even larger stories that span a time far beyond our own years on this earth or understanding. So what is that story? In an attempt to grapple with that question, let’s go back to Joseph's story.
Because of Joseph's suffering his family was saved from starvation. They all moved into Egypt and set up shop there ... and lived happily ever after. Well ... maybe not. We get a clue that there is more going on as Joseph's life draws to a close. On his deathbed, he tells his family to take his bones with them when they leave. Joseph knew that his story was but a piece in a much larger story that was still being written.
This larger story begins to unfold as we read these ominous words in chapter 1 of Exodus. Verse 8: "Now a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph." So did God fail again? Couldn't God have caused the people to remember? Well as it turns out God was about to expand the horizons of this story. The modern Pharaoh was about to oppress the Isaralites. In our modern vernacular one might say that the Pharaoh was Herbrewphobic. The children of Israel then cried out to God and He began to orchestrate a rescue.
So Moses comes onto the scene and leads the people out of the land that had earlier been a refuge. Through miraculous events the "Children of Israel" delivered. God came to the rescue again. But is this just another story that tacks onto the previous one? Or is it still a story within a story, and if so, what is that story?
The key I think can be found as God repeatedly reminds His people from their great exodus on to remember "the God that brought you up out of Egypt." So why would God remind them over and over that he was their deliverer; that he He was the God that brought them up out of Egypt? The answer is simple really, so simple that it perhaps is easy to miss. It is because God demands glory. We are weak. We are pawns in a larger story. We deserve no glory, no recognition, no credit or merit. This is His story and He will be ultimately glorified. The moment that we think that any of our story is about us, we are sure to miss the object of our story: His glory.
So, what does this have to do with me? Well it seems obvious that we are apparently made to need purpose in life, among other things. We can endure incredible suffering if we understand that it is for a purpose. How many times, for example, do we hear someone, after enduring something unpleasant, console themselves with "Everything happens for a reason"? If I consider myself the center of that reason then I've missed it; but if that reason is His glory, then I've come to a better understanding of the reality within which I live out my story.
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
Why Do They Hate Us?
By Dan
After 9/11 this seemed to be the question. "Why do Muslims hate us?" In attempting to answer this question it might help to try on a little empathy. Consider the influence that the world you live in has had on you; your childhood, what you see as acceptable and unacceptable, right and wrong, that sort of thing. Regardless of your worldview, or its logical consistency and source, you do have some inner standard by which you attempt to live. And within that standard are right and wrong which include behaviors and actions that you inwardly or outwardly become indignant about.
The Muslim is no different. He was raised from childhood in a setting that appealed to a standard sourced from his Koran along with other writings depending on the particular strain of his upbringing. He either inwardly or outwardly becomes indignant when he sees lifestyles and beliefs that differ from all he has ever known, such as the images he sees coming out of the West.
For the true Muslim, western society embodies everything he knows to be profanity and debauchery. Feminism, homosexuality, pornography, abortion, the rejection of family, no fear of, but instead mocking of, his God, unruly children and so on are all part and parcel to the eastern Muslim's view of the West. Even the West's cowardice in the face of their terror is reason for contempt.
And then there's Christianity. Christianity, as well as all other religions, are hated because they are seen as false. But perhaps Christianity is worse because it is not differentiated from the West and its debauchery in the Muslim mind. If there was one favor president Obama did for Christians, I think, it was when he proclaimed that America was no longer a Christian nation1. Of course the Muslim is not buying it. With images like the one below emanating out of the West, why should he?
I can empathize with the Muslim to a degree. Indeed we both believe in the existence of objective reality. Unlike the Muslim, however, I live in the midst of this strange new world; a world completely alien to the one I experienced as a child. In fact, it was the onslaught of this new world, a world that no longer had any external bearings as to right and wrong, that drove me to seek objective reality. I found it in the person of Jesus.
Left to my flesh, indeed my old self, once my living conditions were reduced to having nothing to lose, I might do what Muslims do in some cause equally dear to my heart. But scripture paints a larger picture. It points in a different direction altogether, one opposite my own natural and fleshy inclinations. I am told to love my enemies, and to pray for them, not walk into a market strapped with explosives and kill them. Still, that Christian tolerance2 is rejected, both by the Muslim who sees it as weakness, and the secularist who assumes all religions are the same. The reality remains that since authentic Christianity is the one and only true religion, the evil world will never contort itself to be as tolerant of it as it has Islam3. Evil, at its core, does not tolerate, but rejects, good. (Matt 5:11-12, John 3:19-21)
Yet the most fascinating thing of all with this question is the blindness of those who ask it. They will assume and blame everything, it would appear, except the profane world they have created, and in which they are now so immersed it is no longer visible. This mindset can only conclude that it is the disparity in the allocation of resources that make them hate us. The fact that a people would love their children so much that they would choose poverty and violence over an affluent world that rejoices in the "liberty" that has its young piercing, mutilating and tattooing itself while freely supporting and engaging in sodomy and fornication confounds those who are asking this question, because they are secularists. The answer they provide for themselves is understandably a materialistic one imagined by a purely materialistic and secular mindset and then projected onto the Muslim.
But for those who have the eyes to see it the answer is a simple one: they hate us because we are vile.
__________________________
Note 1 I know I may get some push back for this. But please consider this: the laws of the land still allow for the slaughter of millions of unborn human beings every year. Some states have redefined marriage in the law books for homosexuals while heterosexuals are increasingly rejecting it. The number of these states is almost certain to grow. Our schools have become cauldrons of secular humanism, environment worship, and sensuality, and our society is bearing the fruit of that seed. These are not the fruits of a Christian nation. We do Jesus and Christianity no favors or service by insisting that America is such a nation.
Note 2 Tolerance defined as tolerance, not acceptance.
Note 3 In a particular discussion in the past I simply asked someone, "Do you think the nation would be bending itself over backward right now to paint Christianity in a positive light if the hijackers had been Christians"? You could see the light come on in her mind. She knew better. We all do.
The Muslim is no different. He was raised from childhood in a setting that appealed to a standard sourced from his Koran along with other writings depending on the particular strain of his upbringing. He either inwardly or outwardly becomes indignant when he sees lifestyles and beliefs that differ from all he has ever known, such as the images he sees coming out of the West.
And then there's Christianity. Christianity, as well as all other religions, are hated because they are seen as false. But perhaps Christianity is worse because it is not differentiated from the West and its debauchery in the Muslim mind. If there was one favor president Obama did for Christians, I think, it was when he proclaimed that America was no longer a Christian nation1. Of course the Muslim is not buying it. With images like the one below emanating out of the West, why should he?
Left to my flesh, indeed my old self, once my living conditions were reduced to having nothing to lose, I might do what Muslims do in some cause equally dear to my heart. But scripture paints a larger picture. It points in a different direction altogether, one opposite my own natural and fleshy inclinations. I am told to love my enemies, and to pray for them, not walk into a market strapped with explosives and kill them. Still, that Christian tolerance2 is rejected, both by the Muslim who sees it as weakness, and the secularist who assumes all religions are the same. The reality remains that since authentic Christianity is the one and only true religion, the evil world will never contort itself to be as tolerant of it as it has Islam3. Evil, at its core, does not tolerate, but rejects, good. (Matt 5:11-12, John 3:19-21)
Yet the most fascinating thing of all with this question is the blindness of those who ask it. They will assume and blame everything, it would appear, except the profane world they have created, and in which they are now so immersed it is no longer visible. This mindset can only conclude that it is the disparity in the allocation of resources that make them hate us. The fact that a people would love their children so much that they would choose poverty and violence over an affluent world that rejoices in the "liberty" that has its young piercing, mutilating and tattooing itself while freely supporting and engaging in sodomy and fornication confounds those who are asking this question, because they are secularists. The answer they provide for themselves is understandably a materialistic one imagined by a purely materialistic and secular mindset and then projected onto the Muslim. But for those who have the eyes to see it the answer is a simple one: they hate us because we are vile.
__________________________
Note 1 I know I may get some push back for this. But please consider this: the laws of the land still allow for the slaughter of millions of unborn human beings every year. Some states have redefined marriage in the law books for homosexuals while heterosexuals are increasingly rejecting it. The number of these states is almost certain to grow. Our schools have become cauldrons of secular humanism, environment worship, and sensuality, and our society is bearing the fruit of that seed. These are not the fruits of a Christian nation. We do Jesus and Christianity no favors or service by insisting that America is such a nation.
Note 2 Tolerance defined as tolerance, not acceptance.
Note 3 In a particular discussion in the past I simply asked someone, "Do you think the nation would be bending itself over backward right now to paint Christianity in a positive light if the hijackers had been Christians"? You could see the light come on in her mind. She knew better. We all do.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Have You Been Brainwashed?
By Dan
Boy: Yea, I see your point; I just haven't seen anything compelling enough to make me believe that there was once nothing and now, after millions of years of evolving, we have ... me.
Girl: Well how else could we have gotten here?
Boy: We were created by God, of course.
Girl: Yea, I thought you'd say that. You're probably hopeless because you've obviously been brainwashed.
Boy: I don't see how I've been brainwashed. Would a person know it if he's brainwashed?
Girl: No, I wouldn't think so.
Boy: Well then how do you know you're not brainwashed?
Girl: Oh, I know I'm not brainwashed. I see things the same way everyone else does.
Boy: What difference does that make? Here, I'll tell you what; I know how we can solve this.
Girl: How?
Boy: You tell me what the non-brainwashed position on everything is, then we can see how that compares with our own viewpoints. Think you can do that?
Girl: Oh, that's easy. The non-brainwashed position is everything I think is true ... today.
Boy: Yea, I see your point; I just haven't seen anything compelling enough to make me believe that there was once nothing and now, after millions of years of evolving, we have ... me.
Girl: Well how else could we have gotten here?
Boy: We were created by God, of course.
Girl: Yea, I thought you'd say that. You're probably hopeless because you've obviously been brainwashed.
Boy: I don't see how I've been brainwashed. Would a person know it if he's brainwashed?
Girl: No, I wouldn't think so.
Boy: Well then how do you know you're not brainwashed?
Girl: Oh, I know I'm not brainwashed. I see things the same way everyone else does.
Boy: What difference does that make? Here, I'll tell you what; I know how we can solve this.
Girl: How?
Boy: You tell me what the non-brainwashed position on everything is, then we can see how that compares with our own viewpoints. Think you can do that?
Girl: Oh, that's easy. The non-brainwashed position is everything I think is true ... today.
Monday, July 09, 2012
Converts vs Disciples
By Dan
Something caught my eye in Scripture today. It was in the book of John, third chapter, verse 22:
I then searched the word "disciple". There were two references in the old OT and 266 in the NT. Of course disciple was used to describe the 12 and so we would expect a difference. But I think there's more to this than meets the eye at a glance.
For one, nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to make converts. The word is used generally as a verb or a noun derived from the verb. It always refers to a thing that happened in a point in time, but never as an identity.
Disciple, on the other hand, is an identity. I am a disciple, not a convert. I was converted some years ago. After my conversion someone much older than myself "spent time with" me. He was compassionate, kind, humble, gentle and patient (Col 3:12). I was his disciple.
At some point in the history of the Church the idea of becoming a disciple, or making disciples, I fear, was lost to a game of numbers. Success became dependent on the number of converts and warm pews which has, and had, no relevance to discipleship. How arrogant it is, in my opinion, to conclude that the sermons in our Churches are so good that sitting under them once a week will have life changing effects.
The truth is that discipling is hard work. It requires time. It requires men of God who are chewing on solid food themselves. It is expensive. No wonder we quit doing it, and in so doing quit requiring it, and in so doing began to die.
But making disciples is worth the effort. In his letter to the Philippians, Paul, after painting for us the picture of his struggles, "to live or to die", goes on to make his case for living. In the column entitled "live on" he put "fruitful labor" (1:22).
Also, in his letter to the Thessalonians, after reminding them that they (Paul and his company) had given them, "not only the gospel of God but also [their] own lives" (2:8), and after he had left them for a while, and upon inquiring again as to how they were holding up in the faith under suffering and persecution, and then after receiving a favorable word, he proclaimed his joy ... in them.
Something caught my eye in Scripture today. It was in the book of John, third chapter, verse 22:
"After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing"Of interest to me were the words "He was spending time with them". This resonated with a thing that I've been pondering of late concerning "convert" vs. "disciple". So I did a little word search on these two words in the NASV. "Convert" showed one reference in the OT and eight in the NT, four of which were in "headings".
I then searched the word "disciple". There were two references in the old OT and 266 in the NT. Of course disciple was used to describe the 12 and so we would expect a difference. But I think there's more to this than meets the eye at a glance.
For one, nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to make converts. The word is used generally as a verb or a noun derived from the verb. It always refers to a thing that happened in a point in time, but never as an identity.
Disciple, on the other hand, is an identity. I am a disciple, not a convert. I was converted some years ago. After my conversion someone much older than myself "spent time with" me. He was compassionate, kind, humble, gentle and patient (Col 3:12). I was his disciple.
At some point in the history of the Church the idea of becoming a disciple, or making disciples, I fear, was lost to a game of numbers. Success became dependent on the number of converts and warm pews which has, and had, no relevance to discipleship. How arrogant it is, in my opinion, to conclude that the sermons in our Churches are so good that sitting under them once a week will have life changing effects.
The truth is that discipling is hard work. It requires time. It requires men of God who are chewing on solid food themselves. It is expensive. No wonder we quit doing it, and in so doing quit requiring it, and in so doing began to die.
But making disciples is worth the effort. In his letter to the Philippians, Paul, after painting for us the picture of his struggles, "to live or to die", goes on to make his case for living. In the column entitled "live on" he put "fruitful labor" (1:22).
Also, in his letter to the Thessalonians, after reminding them that they (Paul and his company) had given them, "not only the gospel of God but also [their] own lives" (2:8), and after he had left them for a while, and upon inquiring again as to how they were holding up in the faith under suffering and persecution, and then after receiving a favorable word, he proclaimed his joy ... in them.
"For what thanks can we render to God for you in return for all the joy with which we rejoice before our God on your account..."(3:9)No Church leader is sad when he sees those who belong to his Church growing in the faith. But we receive joy beyond thanksgiving when we receive a good return on our expensive and substantial spiritual investments into the disciples placed under our care when they flourish in the faith. How drab it is, the comparison of converts to disciples. Obedience demands discipleship.
Saturday, July 07, 2012
Making The Movies Jealous
By Dan
If you haven't seen the video entitled "Making The Movies Jealous" it's worth the few minutes I think. It's right here if you're interested. If you don't want to take the time, it's basically a marriage proposal made through a homemade movie trailer. The young man conspired with his fiance's friends and the theater to have the trailer shown while she was there.
I wonder though if this is not a kind of a metaphor of the blurring of the lines between entertainment and real life. It's already impossible to know the extent to which our thinking is impacted by what we watch. What is the impact of these images that jerk us quickly from one scene or situation to another, one emotional state to another, and from one thought process to another; all to retain our increasingly prone-to-wander attention. This young couple will be learning soon enough that producing a clever marriage proposal is much easier than producing a wonderful marriage.
At last look this video had been viewed over 22 million times. I couldn't help but wonder how many older folks with a couple of decades under their belt felt about this. I wondered if they were perhaps a little nervous for this young couple, after such a public production of a proposal, on how they will fare as they encounter the thousandth episode of "We're Out Of Money Honey". The young man said that they would "make the movies jealous". They will soon learn in a very real way that their lives are nothing like the movies and that movies are nothing like life. For the young man to achieve his goal, at least as far as longevity is concerned, his marriage will need to last longer than 120 minutes.
Don't get me wrong. This article is not as much about this couple as it is about the blurring of the lines between entertainment and life. I was honestly impressed, not only for his cleverness, but by the fact that he asked the dad and the words he used when he asked. I sincerely hope that they do make the movies jealous with a marriage that becomes a beacon for marriage in a culture that doesn't seem to care very much about the institution any more.
If you haven't seen the video entitled "Making The Movies Jealous" it's worth the few minutes I think. It's right here if you're interested. If you don't want to take the time, it's basically a marriage proposal made through a homemade movie trailer. The young man conspired with his fiance's friends and the theater to have the trailer shown while she was there.
I wonder though if this is not a kind of a metaphor of the blurring of the lines between entertainment and real life. It's already impossible to know the extent to which our thinking is impacted by what we watch. What is the impact of these images that jerk us quickly from one scene or situation to another, one emotional state to another, and from one thought process to another; all to retain our increasingly prone-to-wander attention. This young couple will be learning soon enough that producing a clever marriage proposal is much easier than producing a wonderful marriage.
At last look this video had been viewed over 22 million times. I couldn't help but wonder how many older folks with a couple of decades under their belt felt about this. I wondered if they were perhaps a little nervous for this young couple, after such a public production of a proposal, on how they will fare as they encounter the thousandth episode of "We're Out Of Money Honey". The young man said that they would "make the movies jealous". They will soon learn in a very real way that their lives are nothing like the movies and that movies are nothing like life. For the young man to achieve his goal, at least as far as longevity is concerned, his marriage will need to last longer than 120 minutes.
Don't get me wrong. This article is not as much about this couple as it is about the blurring of the lines between entertainment and life. I was honestly impressed, not only for his cleverness, but by the fact that he asked the dad and the words he used when he asked. I sincerely hope that they do make the movies jealous with a marriage that becomes a beacon for marriage in a culture that doesn't seem to care very much about the institution any more.
Wednesday, July 04, 2012
Is Freedom Just Another Word?
By Dan
When we hear this word, "liberty", we really ought to contemplate what is being communicated. Webster’s first definition is "The quality or state of being free." The second is similar: "The power to do as one pleases." But life does not present us with an option for genuine freedom but an option for varying levels of restraint imposed on us from varying realities. By restraint I mean that, although I am technically free to do many things, wisdom, circumstances, and prudence demand I not. Here are a few of those realities.
Physics – The laws of physics, such as Newton's First Law which holds that an object in motion will remain in motion until acted on by another force subjects us to an ever-present restraint. This means that although we are free to skydive without a parachute, we are not free to forego the consequences. We’re also free to jump into the air, but we’re not, on the other hand, free to stay in the air.
Economics – There are restraints imposed by the laws of economics as well. We are not free to drive any car we want, live in any house we want, get any health care we want, and so on. This demolishes the old adage that "freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose".
Biology – Now, while having nothing to lose may free me from certain material consequences that result from imprudence or folly, it doesn’t free me from the restraints imposed on me by my flesh. Having nothing includes having no food or shelter without which I am not free to survive. I am coerced by a predicament; either work for food and shelter or force someone else to work and provide them for me. Well... actually there is a third choice. I could just die. I am free to do that. Or am I?
There are, of course, other restraining phenomenon. There is the will of the majority as expressed through laws and cultural mores which give us the free choice between compliance or fines, imprisonment or ridicule. There are also family expectations which give us the choice between forgoing our own desires in favor of those who love us, or doing, as Webster put it, as we please.
The bottom line is that we are free agents in a society of free agents. And while it’s true that we are all free to cast off restraint and live with reckless abandon, we are not free to avoid the consequences. We are not free to avoid them for ourselves and we are not free to avoid their impact on others. Scripture clearly demonstrates this with a question: "Can a man walk on hot coals and not get burned?" The fool tells himself yes. And, like the fool who manages to convince himself for two seconds that he can fly, we now find ourselves in the midst of a culture that has convinced itself that the restraints maintained and refined by generations past can now be cast off without consequence. In the end however the fool’s feet are pulled helplessly back to earth, and they are indeed burned.
Wisdom, on the other hand, understands that true liberty is the freedom to govern the self, the freedom to do what we ought. For this reason it holds ideas like duty, honor, and self-denial in high regard. When these ideas become passé and the butt of jesters’ jokes, the fool has come of age and liberty then abides in peril.
When we hear this word, "liberty", we really ought to contemplate what is being communicated. Webster’s first definition is "The quality or state of being free." The second is similar: "The power to do as one pleases." But life does not present us with an option for genuine freedom but an option for varying levels of restraint imposed on us from varying realities. By restraint I mean that, although I am technically free to do many things, wisdom, circumstances, and prudence demand I not. Here are a few of those realities.
Physics – The laws of physics, such as Newton's First Law which holds that an object in motion will remain in motion until acted on by another force subjects us to an ever-present restraint. This means that although we are free to skydive without a parachute, we are not free to forego the consequences. We’re also free to jump into the air, but we’re not, on the other hand, free to stay in the air.
Economics – There are restraints imposed by the laws of economics as well. We are not free to drive any car we want, live in any house we want, get any health care we want, and so on. This demolishes the old adage that "freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose".
Biology – Now, while having nothing to lose may free me from certain material consequences that result from imprudence or folly, it doesn’t free me from the restraints imposed on me by my flesh. Having nothing includes having no food or shelter without which I am not free to survive. I am coerced by a predicament; either work for food and shelter or force someone else to work and provide them for me. Well... actually there is a third choice. I could just die. I am free to do that. Or am I?
There are, of course, other restraining phenomenon. There is the will of the majority as expressed through laws and cultural mores which give us the free choice between compliance or fines, imprisonment or ridicule. There are also family expectations which give us the choice between forgoing our own desires in favor of those who love us, or doing, as Webster put it, as we please.
The bottom line is that we are free agents in a society of free agents. And while it’s true that we are all free to cast off restraint and live with reckless abandon, we are not free to avoid the consequences. We are not free to avoid them for ourselves and we are not free to avoid their impact on others. Scripture clearly demonstrates this with a question: "Can a man walk on hot coals and not get burned?" The fool tells himself yes. And, like the fool who manages to convince himself for two seconds that he can fly, we now find ourselves in the midst of a culture that has convinced itself that the restraints maintained and refined by generations past can now be cast off without consequence. In the end however the fool’s feet are pulled helplessly back to earth, and they are indeed burned.
Wisdom, on the other hand, understands that true liberty is the freedom to govern the self, the freedom to do what we ought. For this reason it holds ideas like duty, honor, and self-denial in high regard. When these ideas become passé and the butt of jesters’ jokes, the fool has come of age and liberty then abides in peril.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Oh, Which Judge To Choose?
By Dan
I was sitting with a handful of co-workers one day listening to one of them go on about people judging her. She eventually got to the part where she claimed that God would be her judge and it was not other people's job to judge her. So I chimed in.
"I don't know," I interjected. "I think I'd rather be judged by my fellow sinful human beings than a Holy and Righteous God". She gave no response. The others nodded their heads in agreement, but as if the thought had never before occurred to them, but yet, it made sense.
This attitude of "God will be my judge" -- as if God will judge differently than those mean, self-righteous people do -- seems fairly prevalent in my experience. When I hear people say this I'm usually reminded of Jesus telling us: "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Mt 10:28). Or, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Ps 111:10, Prv 9:10). Or yet again: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Prv 1:7).
I am personally inclined to think that much of what is deemed "judgment" in our day is actually instruction; as in "it is a sin to live with your boy friend", and the like --instruction. But the real problem with this dangerous attitude is the view of God that it reveals. This god is a created god, nothing more than a figment of the imagination created in the image of mom who can always be counted on to take the side of her little angel no matter what the charge. This is the doting mother god, the new feminine god, the god that is more interested in self-esteem and "your best life now" than salvation, sanctification and Biblical doctrine.
What a contrast to the God of the Bible, the One who says, "This is the judgment: that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed" (Jn 3:19).
I was sitting with a handful of co-workers one day listening to one of them go on about people judging her. She eventually got to the part where she claimed that God would be her judge and it was not other people's job to judge her. So I chimed in.
"I don't know," I interjected. "I think I'd rather be judged by my fellow sinful human beings than a Holy and Righteous God". She gave no response. The others nodded their heads in agreement, but as if the thought had never before occurred to them, but yet, it made sense.
This attitude of "God will be my judge" -- as if God will judge differently than those mean, self-righteous people do -- seems fairly prevalent in my experience. When I hear people say this I'm usually reminded of Jesus telling us: "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Mt 10:28). Or, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Ps 111:10, Prv 9:10). Or yet again: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Prv 1:7).
I am personally inclined to think that much of what is deemed "judgment" in our day is actually instruction; as in "it is a sin to live with your boy friend", and the like --instruction. But the real problem with this dangerous attitude is the view of God that it reveals. This god is a created god, nothing more than a figment of the imagination created in the image of mom who can always be counted on to take the side of her little angel no matter what the charge. This is the doting mother god, the new feminine god, the god that is more interested in self-esteem and "your best life now" than salvation, sanctification and Biblical doctrine.
What a contrast to the God of the Bible, the One who says, "This is the judgment: that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed" (Jn 3:19).
Friday, June 22, 2012
Capitalism And Christianity - Part Two
By Dan
What does Christianity have to do with capitalism? The system of capitalism finds its relationship with the Church in that it stems from a shared core principle concerning man's condition. Capitalism is based on the premise that Man is not basically good but quite the opposite. The so-called father of capitalism, Adam Smith, illustrates this in his treatise The Wealth Of Nations:
The ideas that formed American capitalism however were not instituted in a vacuum, but in the bosom of a predominately Christian culture. In such a culture in which the individual held himself eternally liable before a Holy and Righteous God, he was more inclined to exercise self-governance and restraint according to an objective standard. These standards then guided his decisions, not only as they pertained to his own life and his interaction with resources, but also as they pertained to every sphere of his influence, including the selection of his leaders. This predominate mindset of the populace, which was subjugated to a higher order, made for fertile soil for capitalism's seed to be planted and flourish. However, as it turns out, equal opportunity and economic freedom naturally produce unequal ends. In a a society with a sense of moral bearings this is generally attributed to providence and so does not present a problem, but it is not suffered well in a society that is not only disparaging of honor, but that also is burdened by a perverse sense of entitlement, envy and covetousness ... and which has no suspicion of those seeking power through promises of a Utopian society.
Central to the health of capitalism is the Church's teaching on the truths regarding man's sinful condition. Never mind, for the moment, that this teaching is key to understanding the Gospel, and as such, key to the health of the Church and its Kingdom mandate, for I am attempting here to answer an economic question. The fact remains that the modern Western "Church" has become either unable or loath to make man’s depravity a focal part of her doctrine. This transformation of focus in central doctrines taught by the Church has had a destructive effect on capitalism for a couple of reasons.
First, capitalism is dependent on fidelity. As I pointed out earlier, capitalism produces a few fabulously-well-to-do individuals. But just as important is that it also produces comfortable masses with relatively modest excesses in resources. Fidelity allows for the masses to pool their resources to create an almost unfathomable concentration of wealth. This wealth then plays an important role in the economy. For one, it doesn't lie dormant, hidden in post holes and mattresses, but rather it becomes productive through investment. Also, its productivity produces a return which not only fuels the economy but also helps to sustain people when they become too old to work. These principles can be seen in current 401-k retirement plans, though this principle was in place long before tax deferment laws were enacted.
It is these massive concentrations of wealth that has been responsible for many advancements through research that would have otherwise been unachievable due to insurmountable expenses. Such advancements include the development of drugs and medical procedures, the willing slave of affordable energy and advances in technologies, to name a few. But the same wealth also awakens the greed and envy resident in the heart of man. If there is no objective truth by which to judge all things, then we are left with a syllogism that looks kind of like this:
In such a fidelity-starved environment the idea of pooling one's wealth becomes a fool's errand as increasing numbers feel justified in their own actions. Contracts are broken, loans are forsaken, capital is siphoned off by currency printing, onerous regulations, corruption, ponzi schemes, fraud, theft, bribes and so on. Worse, many who justify their own participation in these destructive actions have their own meager resources invested in the system their actions are playing a part to destroy. This is like a snake biting off its own tail for spite. Those with modest means will eventually have no option but to withdraw them, convert them to an historically stable currency such as scarce metals, then remove them from the economy by burying them, so to speak. This is one reason a rise in the price of gold can be a negative indicator of the health of an economy. As resources are withdrawn there is a corresponding reduction in new resources which results in a domino effect toward a reduced standard of living for the masses.
Second, capitalism is dependent on a productive society. Since man's banishment from Eden he has worked tirelessly to reenter. One way man goes about this is to make his way in life off the sweat of his neighbor's brow. The capitalistic system is a system that is dependent on the pooled resources gained by the sweat of one's own brow. The necessary relationship between work and provision has been thwarted in the past by the outright enslavement of man by his fellow man. Contrary to popular belief, this act hasn't ended, the methods have changed. Now rather than enslaving a few men and making an ugly spectacle, masses are partially enslaved for the benefit of a few through what has become euphemistically known as wealth redistribution.
Liberty and it's cousin capitalism are not hardy social or economic systems. They can exist only in environments in which the ideas on which they stand tenaciously cling to objective reality. Once man's true condition is rejected by the society at large, it no longer accepts reality but rather an alternate reality based more on how man thinks things ought to be than how they actually are. This then releases man to embrace the folly that some men can be trusted to siphon wealth from others and redistribute it more fairly, and all will be just fine with the idea as Utopia looms on the horizon. Suppressed and maligned become the healthy suspicions that once met those who promised such a Utopian society.1, 2, 3 Instead schemes are invented that are designed to exchange votes and campaign donations for largess. We saw a battle along these lines recently in Wisconsin as out of control state liabilities consisting of promised largess to government union members threatened the state’s fiscal health. However, as larger numbers of people become unproductive by living off the confiscated wealth of their neighbors, ever more amounts of siphoned resources are required. These resources are then withdrawn from productivity to non-productivity. This is like the snake eating the tail that it bit off assuming it will provide nourishment. It is counter to capitalism, it is counter to a Biblical view of the world, and in a more sane society it would be counter to common sense.
So, in conclusion, what has the Church to do with capitalism? In a word: “nothing”. In summing up the answer however we would do well to rearrange the question and ask, rather, "What has capitalism to do with the Church?” And like every other question that man asks along these lines, the answer is "everything". Many who worship at the altar of capitalism have not asked this question and their beloved system is crumbling as a result ... and they provide a thousand reasons why ... and it continues to crumble. Ditto for family, marriages, joy, happiness, and every other thing that man endeavors to do without God in his few short hours in this life.
________
1 In Democracy in America Alexis de Tocqueville had this to say in the 1830's concerning concerning America's constitution:
3F. A Hayek in "The Road To Serfdom" (written during WWII) had an interesting comment in the introduction of his book on page 57 (in my copy) that I think applies here as well:
What does Christianity have to do with capitalism? The system of capitalism finds its relationship with the Church in that it stems from a shared core principle concerning man's condition. Capitalism is based on the premise that Man is not basically good but quite the opposite. The so-called father of capitalism, Adam Smith, illustrates this in his treatise The Wealth Of Nations:
A puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours by a thousand attractions to engage the attention of its master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him. Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren, and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every occasion. In civilised society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. ... [M]an has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages".By adopting Smith’s prescription, the founding fathers aligned our economic system with reality through the assumption that man would be much more productive, innovative and industrious if doing so would be beneficial to himself. Thus was born what would become one of the freest and wealthiest societies ever enjoyed by Man.
The ideas that formed American capitalism however were not instituted in a vacuum, but in the bosom of a predominately Christian culture. In such a culture in which the individual held himself eternally liable before a Holy and Righteous God, he was more inclined to exercise self-governance and restraint according to an objective standard. These standards then guided his decisions, not only as they pertained to his own life and his interaction with resources, but also as they pertained to every sphere of his influence, including the selection of his leaders. This predominate mindset of the populace, which was subjugated to a higher order, made for fertile soil for capitalism's seed to be planted and flourish. However, as it turns out, equal opportunity and economic freedom naturally produce unequal ends. In a a society with a sense of moral bearings this is generally attributed to providence and so does not present a problem, but it is not suffered well in a society that is not only disparaging of honor, but that also is burdened by a perverse sense of entitlement, envy and covetousness ... and which has no suspicion of those seeking power through promises of a Utopian society.
Central to the health of capitalism is the Church's teaching on the truths regarding man's sinful condition. Never mind, for the moment, that this teaching is key to understanding the Gospel, and as such, key to the health of the Church and its Kingdom mandate, for I am attempting here to answer an economic question. The fact remains that the modern Western "Church" has become either unable or loath to make man’s depravity a focal part of her doctrine. This transformation of focus in central doctrines taught by the Church has had a destructive effect on capitalism for a couple of reasons.
First, capitalism is dependent on fidelity. As I pointed out earlier, capitalism produces a few fabulously-well-to-do individuals. But just as important is that it also produces comfortable masses with relatively modest excesses in resources. Fidelity allows for the masses to pool their resources to create an almost unfathomable concentration of wealth. This wealth then plays an important role in the economy. For one, it doesn't lie dormant, hidden in post holes and mattresses, but rather it becomes productive through investment. Also, its productivity produces a return which not only fuels the economy but also helps to sustain people when they become too old to work. These principles can be seen in current 401-k retirement plans, though this principle was in place long before tax deferment laws were enacted.
It is these massive concentrations of wealth that has been responsible for many advancements through research that would have otherwise been unachievable due to insurmountable expenses. Such advancements include the development of drugs and medical procedures, the willing slave of affordable energy and advances in technologies, to name a few. But the same wealth also awakens the greed and envy resident in the heart of man. If there is no objective truth by which to judge all things, then we are left with a syllogism that looks kind of like this:
1. Men are good
2. I am man.
3. What I do is good.With this view man can rationalize the greed in his own heart while, incidentally, retaining his right to judge greed in others. The system breaks down as the wealthy are judged as greedy simply because they were successful at accomplishing what those who judge them could not. In addition to this the wealthy begin to judge each other also. You have millionaire politicians judging millionaire businessmen, and millionaire businessmen judging millionaire politicians. In addition, you have millionaire Hollywood stars, who seem to somehow be above judgment, judging them all. All of this judgmentalism revolving around the greed of others while justifying the greed in one's own heart is not confronted from within with any sense of providence, honor, or a accurate understanding of the true condition of the heart of man; not to mention a sound understanding of the economic system in which it is all taking place.
In such a fidelity-starved environment the idea of pooling one's wealth becomes a fool's errand as increasing numbers feel justified in their own actions. Contracts are broken, loans are forsaken, capital is siphoned off by currency printing, onerous regulations, corruption, ponzi schemes, fraud, theft, bribes and so on. Worse, many who justify their own participation in these destructive actions have their own meager resources invested in the system their actions are playing a part to destroy. This is like a snake biting off its own tail for spite. Those with modest means will eventually have no option but to withdraw them, convert them to an historically stable currency such as scarce metals, then remove them from the economy by burying them, so to speak. This is one reason a rise in the price of gold can be a negative indicator of the health of an economy. As resources are withdrawn there is a corresponding reduction in new resources which results in a domino effect toward a reduced standard of living for the masses.
Second, capitalism is dependent on a productive society. Since man's banishment from Eden he has worked tirelessly to reenter. One way man goes about this is to make his way in life off the sweat of his neighbor's brow. The capitalistic system is a system that is dependent on the pooled resources gained by the sweat of one's own brow. The necessary relationship between work and provision has been thwarted in the past by the outright enslavement of man by his fellow man. Contrary to popular belief, this act hasn't ended, the methods have changed. Now rather than enslaving a few men and making an ugly spectacle, masses are partially enslaved for the benefit of a few through what has become euphemistically known as wealth redistribution.
Liberty and it's cousin capitalism are not hardy social or economic systems. They can exist only in environments in which the ideas on which they stand tenaciously cling to objective reality. Once man's true condition is rejected by the society at large, it no longer accepts reality but rather an alternate reality based more on how man thinks things ought to be than how they actually are. This then releases man to embrace the folly that some men can be trusted to siphon wealth from others and redistribute it more fairly, and all will be just fine with the idea as Utopia looms on the horizon. Suppressed and maligned become the healthy suspicions that once met those who promised such a Utopian society.1, 2, 3 Instead schemes are invented that are designed to exchange votes and campaign donations for largess. We saw a battle along these lines recently in Wisconsin as out of control state liabilities consisting of promised largess to government union members threatened the state’s fiscal health. However, as larger numbers of people become unproductive by living off the confiscated wealth of their neighbors, ever more amounts of siphoned resources are required. These resources are then withdrawn from productivity to non-productivity. This is like the snake eating the tail that it bit off assuming it will provide nourishment. It is counter to capitalism, it is counter to a Biblical view of the world, and in a more sane society it would be counter to common sense.
So, in conclusion, what has the Church to do with capitalism? In a word: “nothing”. In summing up the answer however we would do well to rearrange the question and ask, rather, "What has capitalism to do with the Church?” And like every other question that man asks along these lines, the answer is "everything". Many who worship at the altar of capitalism have not asked this question and their beloved system is crumbling as a result ... and they provide a thousand reasons why ... and it continues to crumble. Ditto for family, marriages, joy, happiness, and every other thing that man endeavors to do without God in his few short hours in this life.
________
1 In Democracy in America Alexis de Tocqueville had this to say in the 1830's concerning concerning America's constitution:
The Constitution of the United States is like those exquisite productions of human industry which ensure wealth and renown to their inventors, but which are profitless in any other hands. This truth is exemplified by the condition of Mexico at the present time, The Mexicans were desirous of establishing a federal system, and they took the Federal Constitution of their neighbors, the Anglo-American, as their model, and copied it with considerable accuracy! But although they had borrowed the letter of the law, they were unable to create or to introduce the spirit and the sense which give it life. They were involved in ceaseless embarrassments between the mechanism of their double government; the sovereignty of the States and that of the Union perpetually exceeded their respective privileges, and entered into collision; and to the present day Mexico is alternately the victim of anarchy and the slave of military despotism. (page 189)2John Adams: "Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government."
3F. A Hayek in "The Road To Serfdom" (written during WWII) had an interesting comment in the introduction of his book on page 57 (in my copy) that I think applies here as well:
... [H]istory never quite repeats itself, and just because no development is inevitable, we can in measure learn from the past to avoid repetition of the same process. One need not be a prophet to be aware of impending dangers. 'And accidental combination of experience and interest will often reveal events to one man under aspects which few yet see. The following pages are the product of an experience as near as possible to twice living though the same period... While this is an experience one is not likely to gain in one country, it may in certain circumstances be acquired by living in turn for long periods in different countries. ...Thus, by moving from one country to another, one may sometimes twice watch similar phases of intellectual development. The senses have then become peculiarly acute. When one hears for a second time opinions expressed or measures advocated which one has first met twenty or twenty-five years ago they assume a new meaning as symptoms of a definite trend. It is necessary now to state the unpalatable truth that it is Germany whose fate we are in some danger of repeating... It is not to the Germany of Hitler; the Germany of the present war, that England and the United states bear yet any resemblance, But students of the currents of ideas can hardly fail to see that there is more than a superficial similarity between the trend of thought in Germany during and after the last war and the present current of ideas in the democracies.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Capitalism And Christianity - Part One
By Dan
What does Christianity have to do with capitalism? The short answer is, "not much, really; at least not directly". You see, economics is, simply put, the allocation of scarce material resources. The Christian would do well to remember that Christianity not only thrives today in all sorts of harsh economic systems, but it has done so all through the changing systems throughout history. In fact, the argument could be made that it has thrived more hardily in oppressive systems, especially if we accept the fact that the church, in its purest form, is interested much more in men's eternal destinies than in any carnal-minded concepts such as the fair distributions of material resources.
The Christian therefore must beware of those who fix their eyes on worldly "material" as, not only their source of joy and purpose but also a suitable solution for all that ails society. The very idea of the economic system of communism was born out of just such a perspective. The father of communism, Karl Marx, rejected God and became an atheist. Then he set out to make things “fair” for those whom he saw as the down trodden masses. But he could only see them in a strictly material sense. Man's attempts to bring about the Utopian system he envisioned succeeded in bathing the 20th century in blood. Yet Utopia never arrived; only deeper levels of hell and fear for those under its oppressive fist ... oh, and lots of disparity in wealth distribution too. In fact, history, as well as Jesus, tells us that wealth disparity is part and parcel to Man's existence. Man's attempts to "fix" that problem only end up changing who gets more than "their fair share".
From the Christian perspective -- that is, from the perspective that takes into account eternity -- it is the hopelessness during this life that causes the Church to thrive. In the free market system, you see, no matter what the material circumstances of one's birth, there is hope of improving those circumstances. This hope, which focuses primarily on material gains in this life, can present strong competition for our interests and affections and so be a formidable distraction from a future eternal hope after death. The irony should not be missed that the system dreamed up by Karl Marx, who proclaimed that religion was the opiate of the masses, caused those who discovered Jesus in the midst of his hell to thrive, albeit not materially.
Affluent free-market systems on the other hand provide a soft bed for the believer -- so soft, in fact, that there is no consequence for being a believer. Compromise becomes normal as worldly wealth finds itself in competition with our life in Christ. Our beliefs begin to die the death of a thousand compromises as our thinking increasingly conforms to this world. In the process we become increasingly less distinguishable from the world until one day we wake to find that our “Christian” bedfellows are not Christians at all but are wolves dressed in sheep’s’ clothing who have co-opted the Christian banner for anti-Christ causes based on social justice, which is just another way of saying "material justice".
Worse yet, affluence begins to inculcate the "religion" of Christianity with a confusion between material wealth and the abundant life in Christ. When terms like "thrive" are used in reference to the life in Christ lived out by those in poor oppressive systems, it doesn't make any sense to the affluent hearer because of this confusion. It is not mere coincidence then that the very term "abundant life" in John chapter 10 is found in the context of pointing out the existence of hireling shepherds -- shepherds who are there for the material outcome they gain and not for the eternal good of the sheep.
Keep these things in mind as we further examine, "capitalism and Christianity."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)