One of the wonderful things about Jesus is how powerful he is. He upholds the universe by the word of his power (Heb 1:3). When the dog bites. When the bee stings. When I'm feeling sad. I simply remember that it is a theological impossibility that these things happened because my Lord wasn't strong enough to stop them.
He holds the whole world in his hand and all the details there in. Not just for those who admit it. For everyone.
He holds every heart beat. Every breath. Every firing neuron. In his hands. Who wouldn't Fear Him? Who wouldn't Worship Him?
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
The Forerunner
I really like this website: http://forerunner.com/
This guy Jay Rogers, and whoever else is involved in the site, are using media resources for the expansion of the Kingdom.
Check out this video clip:
This guy Jay Rogers, and whoever else is involved in the site, are using media resources for the expansion of the Kingdom.
Check out this video clip:
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The Gift Exchange AKA further adventures in Seekonomics
In the below orange Paragraph Charles talks about wealth being personalized Through Locality and Free gift exchange. He later corrected "free gift exchange" in favor of just "gift exchange".
So we are back full circle at the Gift exchange. I just hope my new CD doesn't get redistributed and I end up being the one holding the half eaten bag of generic corn flakes at the end of the night. This is a joke it isn't meant to have a double meaning which applies to an eceonomic system. But maybe it does. Its unintentional.
I think what he is talking about (unless it is totally over my head) with the gift exchange is obligations that should/would/could come with wealth. This is like the OT practice of allowing your field to be gleaned by widows, orphans, and foreigners. And even letting it lie totally fallow every seven years for this purpose. Part of the covenant in exchange for posessing means of production was to be gracious to the poor. I can see how this would work in agriculture. Even now it could be done literally just the way it was in the Bible. But it is hard to envision how it would work in any other industry. Like if I owned a Jelly Bean factory would I have to sell all the Jelliflops really cheap. Oh wait they do do that.
This also reminds me of what some OP Missionaries are doing in a third world context they have a farm and pay day laborers in food to harvest the crop (or whatever else needs to be done). THey pay them 2 days worth of grain for their families for every one day worked. Maybe non agricultural businesses could contribute a percentage of their earnings to such a farm.
THe bigger question though is who enforces such a gift exchange. I think this is the underlying question in this whole discussion actually. Why would sinful people voluntarily live this way? WOuldn't the state have to enforce it? And then where are we?
In the OT God enforced it through prophets and judgments severe judgments. BTW Deuternomy 27-30 is one of my favirote portions of Scripture it would be advantagious for us all to recite it once a month or something.
But would it be presumptious of us to set up our own system and then claim that God enforced it? Maybe if we were as faithful as possible to the revealed covenant it wouldn't be setting up a new system at all, but returning to faithfulness to the already revealed (and still in force) covenant.
Then again we aught to remember that the Covenant was broken continually resulting in ever increased judgment. But then again then again this should be more of an argument for faithfulness than against it. THe covenant exists whether we attempt to follow it or not.
See Charles' paragraph:
However, I am not comfortable with mutualism's general disdain for inherited property and landed wealth. I think distributivism is closer to the biblical example. Not all concentrated wealth is bad. But it becomes bad when it lacks charity and seeks its own independent existance above people and their organic ties. I think alienation is the natural consequence of economic entities like corporations which are nothing but abstract and impersonal bureaucracies. Bureaucracy and oligarchy always emerge where the scale of organization is big. Thus, we need to get away from the 'abstract and large' and move toward the 'small and personal'. Wealth needs to be personalized, accomplished in a rediscovery of locality and free gift exchange, and one of the first steps in this direction would be an empowering of community---e.g., confining family, church, and state to their proper biblical spheres...
Oh and here is another great Charles Paragraph:
Exchange can't be 'free'. So let's leave it at 'gift exchange'. I got this from James A. Smith's book "radical orthodoxy". Gift exchange is a term RO uses to describe tithing and liturgy in both worship and christian life/economics. It is an exchange which contains an expected value, or a 'return' for charity given... more like 'obligations', 'oaths', and 'duties'.... I guess a 'covenantal exchange' may have another dimension where not only oaths are sworn, but charity, grace, and the welfare and good reputation of the other is also contextualized into the trading of goods/services. Thus, our economy should reflect the 'offerings' of our worship? The love for Christ should be the model for our love for neighbor? Thus our daily interactions with neighbors--our economic exchange---should resemble Christ's covenant? There is a charitable, reputatible, binding, and personal dimension?
So we are back full circle at the Gift exchange. I just hope my new CD doesn't get redistributed and I end up being the one holding the half eaten bag of generic corn flakes at the end of the night. This is a joke it isn't meant to have a double meaning which applies to an eceonomic system. But maybe it does. Its unintentional.
I think what he is talking about (unless it is totally over my head) with the gift exchange is obligations that should/would/could come with wealth. This is like the OT practice of allowing your field to be gleaned by widows, orphans, and foreigners. And even letting it lie totally fallow every seven years for this purpose. Part of the covenant in exchange for posessing means of production was to be gracious to the poor. I can see how this would work in agriculture. Even now it could be done literally just the way it was in the Bible. But it is hard to envision how it would work in any other industry. Like if I owned a Jelly Bean factory would I have to sell all the Jelliflops really cheap. Oh wait they do do that.
This also reminds me of what some OP Missionaries are doing in a third world context they have a farm and pay day laborers in food to harvest the crop (or whatever else needs to be done). THey pay them 2 days worth of grain for their families for every one day worked. Maybe non agricultural businesses could contribute a percentage of their earnings to such a farm.
THe bigger question though is who enforces such a gift exchange. I think this is the underlying question in this whole discussion actually. Why would sinful people voluntarily live this way? WOuldn't the state have to enforce it? And then where are we?
In the OT God enforced it through prophets and judgments severe judgments. BTW Deuternomy 27-30 is one of my favirote portions of Scripture it would be advantagious for us all to recite it once a month or something.
But would it be presumptious of us to set up our own system and then claim that God enforced it? Maybe if we were as faithful as possible to the revealed covenant it wouldn't be setting up a new system at all, but returning to faithfulness to the already revealed (and still in force) covenant.
Then again we aught to remember that the Covenant was broken continually resulting in ever increased judgment. But then again then again this should be more of an argument for faithfulness than against it. THe covenant exists whether we attempt to follow it or not.
See Charles' paragraph:
However, I am not comfortable with mutualism's general disdain for inherited property and landed wealth. I think distributivism is closer to the biblical example. Not all concentrated wealth is bad. But it becomes bad when it lacks charity and seeks its own independent existance above people and their organic ties. I think alienation is the natural consequence of economic entities like corporations which are nothing but abstract and impersonal bureaucracies. Bureaucracy and oligarchy always emerge where the scale of organization is big. Thus, we need to get away from the 'abstract and large' and move toward the 'small and personal'. Wealth needs to be personalized, accomplished in a rediscovery of locality and free gift exchange, and one of the first steps in this direction would be an empowering of community---e.g., confining family, church, and state to their proper biblical spheres...
Oh and here is another great Charles Paragraph:
Exchange can't be 'free'. So let's leave it at 'gift exchange'. I got this from James A. Smith's book "radical orthodoxy". Gift exchange is a term RO uses to describe tithing and liturgy in both worship and christian life/economics. It is an exchange which contains an expected value, or a 'return' for charity given... more like 'obligations', 'oaths', and 'duties'.... I guess a 'covenantal exchange' may have another dimension where not only oaths are sworn, but charity, grace, and the welfare and good reputation of the other is also contextualized into the trading of goods/services. Thus, our economy should reflect the 'offerings' of our worship? The love for Christ should be the model for our love for neighbor? Thus our daily interactions with neighbors--our economic exchange---should resemble Christ's covenant? There is a charitable, reputatible, binding, and personal dimension?
Monday, May 19, 2008
Seekonomics
I've been having this discourse with my friend Charles B about a Christian view of economics. As usual when I talk to Charles he comes up with a lot of interesting material. That is why I asked him my original question. It started off as specifically about John Calvin's impact on capitalism and particularly his view of loaning at interest. We never quite got the answer to the original question nailed down, but it opened up other intriguing avenues. See below.
Original message from Simo to Charles:
Charles,
Often in my reading I've come accross statements that say in effect: Calvinism set the stage for modern Capitalism. I'm sure you have seen this too.
My questions are why and how.
In my reading I've come accross three possible connections:
1. The reformation made people generally more responsible i.e. Business men were good stewards, employees were hard working and honest.
Sounds good to me.
2. Calvinist believed that observable temporal blessing, seen in financial gain, was evidence of Eternal election.
This is weird. It's like a back door prosperity gospel, but I bleieve it could have happened.
3. Calvin's teaching on Interest or Usury differed from what had been formerly taught in the Church. Followers of his teachings didn't think it was unethical, as former generrations had, to lend at interest.
This is what I'm most interested in. I was wondering if you had ever studied on it. I would like to know what the Bible teaches about lending. What Calvin taught about lending. The difference. And how his view effected the History of Western Society.
Maybe Calvin took a wrong turn.
Charles response to Simo:
Hi Simon, This is an excellent topic! However, I don't really have an answer, but it's something I've wondered myself. What I find amazing is how uncritical we are about the Reformers. The reformers were as political as they were religious. They had specific ideas on how they wanted to democratize the Church and Empire. Recall, Charles V was a stalwart defender of Rome and Papacy. Free cities like Geneva also had merchant classes who wanted to freedom from the yoke of princes, and so made natural alliance with the protestant cause. So, there were many interests at stake, and I think the politics of that time influenced many theological confessions and treatises. I do not think either Luther or Calvin were objective in this respect. They wanted to establish free churches which were not driven by Roman bishops but by lay and low clergy. I many ways the Reformers did open the doors to capitalism, free markets, republics, and nation-states--sic., the modern era. Likewise today's commentators often appeal to this line of Reformed thought (the protest of Empire and Papacy) in order to justify market societies, science, democracy, and even secularism. To me this is gross isogesis. However, expecting men to seperate their cultural presuppositions (which we are not generally conscious about) from biblical exegesis is unrealistic. Thus, when dealing with various subject matter, it is always smart to differentiate between what is "essential" from "indifferent". A lot of the political and economic ideas of the Reformation where predispostions shaped by their struggle with ceasarpopism. Here are some of my opinions regarding your points:
1. The reformation made people generally more responsible i.e. Business men were good stewards, employees were hard working and honest.
Sounds good to me.
>> Protestant work ethic. Work and time was revolutionized by the Reformers. Prior to the Reformation time was organized around festive masses, i.e., the liturgical calendar. Often liturgical seasons suspended work and normal time for periods of several weeks. For instance, Christmas was celebrated not just for 3 days (like today...if you get a 3 day weekend from work) but from Christmas to Epiphany, or the 12 days of Christmas. Fesitvals were very long compared to modern vacation time. And, in Europe there is still this practice--short workdays, extended holidays, festal weeks, etc. By abolishing festal days, the Reformers inadverdently surrrendered huge segments of the calendar year to the secular, and this allowed the material to rule over the spiritual. In the medieval this was the reverse.
2. Calvinist believed that observable temporal blessing, seen in financial gain, was evidence of Eternal election.
This is weird. It's like a back door prosperity gospel, but I bleieve it could have happened.
>> Gosh. Assyria was rich. So was Babylon. I don't think there's a necessary tie. God took wealth away from Job. Jesus said blessed are the poor. Lazarus and the rich man, etc.. I agree with your here.
3. Calvin's teaching on Interest or Usury differed from what had been formerly taught in the Church. Followers of his teachings didn't think it was unethical, as former generrations had, to lend at interest.
>>> Don't know much about this. As with #2 I wonder if Calvin wasn't influenced by his audience. Protestants tended to get backing from merchants and free cities. Don't know. I further suspect there is more to biblical economics the libertarianism. Libertarianism runs against the emphasis that Reformers placed on covenant and covenantal relations. WE tend to turn Protestantism into an excuse for egoistic individuals. A covenant is not a simple contract between two individuals. It has a corporate and timeless dimension. But even in the OT there a laws limiting the freedom of property. However, this is through the extended family, not state. This is where Leftwing christians go wrong... Property was owned in a covenantal manner, and I think this is how we might want to begin when looking at biblical economics. Start with inheritance rights of families... Got to go back to work!!! didn't have as much time as I wish to talk about this rich subject. I think there is much room to re-evaluate Gary north and the christo-libertarian crowd. Awesome questions. I've been asking myself the same, but haven't had time to go really deep. Thanks Simon! sincerely,charles
Charles then proceeded to send me several interesting links.
I think the most interesting on is the following on Distributism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
Here are the other links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_orthodoxy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Localism_(politics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Traditionalism
http://www.mutualist.org/
http://r3volutionphase2.com/
My current thoughts:
I think it is undeniable that the Old Testament Theocracy was economically Distributist. The ownership of the "means of production" the land was distributed by families. And there were several laws about protecting these family land rights. Even if through poverty a family lost their land later someone from that family would be able to retrieve it. Some of the hardest warnings in the OT are against those who would violate land rights and boundaries. Even King Ahab couldn't practice Eminent Domain and get away with it.
However I'm not sure if a similar system could be restored today. The concept is kind of frightening . My inner Ron Paul can't handle it because of the prospect of privately owned means of production being taken away and redistributed.
Perhaps it would have to start voluntarily and small scale.
I would love to here anyone else's thoughts on these topics.
Original message from Simo to Charles:
Charles,
Often in my reading I've come accross statements that say in effect: Calvinism set the stage for modern Capitalism. I'm sure you have seen this too.
My questions are why and how.
In my reading I've come accross three possible connections:
1. The reformation made people generally more responsible i.e. Business men were good stewards, employees were hard working and honest.
Sounds good to me.
2. Calvinist believed that observable temporal blessing, seen in financial gain, was evidence of Eternal election.
This is weird. It's like a back door prosperity gospel, but I bleieve it could have happened.
3. Calvin's teaching on Interest or Usury differed from what had been formerly taught in the Church. Followers of his teachings didn't think it was unethical, as former generrations had, to lend at interest.
This is what I'm most interested in. I was wondering if you had ever studied on it. I would like to know what the Bible teaches about lending. What Calvin taught about lending. The difference. And how his view effected the History of Western Society.
Maybe Calvin took a wrong turn.
Charles response to Simo:
Hi Simon, This is an excellent topic! However, I don't really have an answer, but it's something I've wondered myself. What I find amazing is how uncritical we are about the Reformers. The reformers were as political as they were religious. They had specific ideas on how they wanted to democratize the Church and Empire. Recall, Charles V was a stalwart defender of Rome and Papacy. Free cities like Geneva also had merchant classes who wanted to freedom from the yoke of princes, and so made natural alliance with the protestant cause. So, there were many interests at stake, and I think the politics of that time influenced many theological confessions and treatises. I do not think either Luther or Calvin were objective in this respect. They wanted to establish free churches which were not driven by Roman bishops but by lay and low clergy. I many ways the Reformers did open the doors to capitalism, free markets, republics, and nation-states--sic., the modern era. Likewise today's commentators often appeal to this line of Reformed thought (the protest of Empire and Papacy) in order to justify market societies, science, democracy, and even secularism. To me this is gross isogesis. However, expecting men to seperate their cultural presuppositions (which we are not generally conscious about) from biblical exegesis is unrealistic. Thus, when dealing with various subject matter, it is always smart to differentiate between what is "essential" from "indifferent". A lot of the political and economic ideas of the Reformation where predispostions shaped by their struggle with ceasarpopism. Here are some of my opinions regarding your points:
1. The reformation made people generally more responsible i.e. Business men were good stewards, employees were hard working and honest.
Sounds good to me.
>> Protestant work ethic. Work and time was revolutionized by the Reformers. Prior to the Reformation time was organized around festive masses, i.e., the liturgical calendar. Often liturgical seasons suspended work and normal time for periods of several weeks. For instance, Christmas was celebrated not just for 3 days (like today...if you get a 3 day weekend from work) but from Christmas to Epiphany, or the 12 days of Christmas. Fesitvals were very long compared to modern vacation time. And, in Europe there is still this practice--short workdays, extended holidays, festal weeks, etc. By abolishing festal days, the Reformers inadverdently surrrendered huge segments of the calendar year to the secular, and this allowed the material to rule over the spiritual. In the medieval this was the reverse.
2. Calvinist believed that observable temporal blessing, seen in financial gain, was evidence of Eternal election.
This is weird. It's like a back door prosperity gospel, but I bleieve it could have happened.
>> Gosh. Assyria was rich. So was Babylon. I don't think there's a necessary tie. God took wealth away from Job. Jesus said blessed are the poor. Lazarus and the rich man, etc.. I agree with your here.
3. Calvin's teaching on Interest or Usury differed from what had been formerly taught in the Church. Followers of his teachings didn't think it was unethical, as former generrations had, to lend at interest.
>>> Don't know much about this. As with #2 I wonder if Calvin wasn't influenced by his audience. Protestants tended to get backing from merchants and free cities. Don't know. I further suspect there is more to biblical economics the libertarianism. Libertarianism runs against the emphasis that Reformers placed on covenant and covenantal relations. WE tend to turn Protestantism into an excuse for egoistic individuals. A covenant is not a simple contract between two individuals. It has a corporate and timeless dimension. But even in the OT there a laws limiting the freedom of property. However, this is through the extended family, not state. This is where Leftwing christians go wrong... Property was owned in a covenantal manner, and I think this is how we might want to begin when looking at biblical economics. Start with inheritance rights of families... Got to go back to work!!! didn't have as much time as I wish to talk about this rich subject. I think there is much room to re-evaluate Gary north and the christo-libertarian crowd. Awesome questions. I've been asking myself the same, but haven't had time to go really deep. Thanks Simon! sincerely,charles
Charles then proceeded to send me several interesting links.
I think the most interesting on is the following on Distributism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
Here are the other links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_orthodoxy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Localism_(politics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Traditionalism
http://www.mutualist.org/
http://r3volutionphase2.com/
My current thoughts:
I think it is undeniable that the Old Testament Theocracy was economically Distributist. The ownership of the "means of production" the land was distributed by families. And there were several laws about protecting these family land rights. Even if through poverty a family lost their land later someone from that family would be able to retrieve it. Some of the hardest warnings in the OT are against those who would violate land rights and boundaries. Even King Ahab couldn't practice Eminent Domain and get away with it.
However I'm not sure if a similar system could be restored today. The concept is kind of frightening . My inner Ron Paul can't handle it because of the prospect of privately owned means of production being taken away and redistributed.
Perhaps it would have to start voluntarily and small scale.
I would love to here anyone else's thoughts on these topics.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Be careful Chewie
Here some good advice:
Han: "Keep your distance Chewie but don't look like you're trying to keep your distance."
Chewbacca: "Ngyargh yargh."
Han: "I don't know...fly casual."
Check this out:
Darth Vader
Han: "Keep your distance Chewie but don't look like you're trying to keep your distance."
Chewbacca: "Ngyargh yargh."
Han: "I don't know...fly casual."
Check this out:
Darth Vader
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Do I have another Chia Head on my hands?
About 4 or 5 years ago at a Christmas Party there was a White Elephant gift exchange. I think this was before I started my own annual infamous Christmas Bash with its even more infamous White Elephant Gift exchange, (Which has been known to get violent) anyway. So at that Gift exchange I got a Chia head. I was pretty excited about the head. It seemed very simple (which is a must for any project I hope to complete). Also it seemed like the perfect thing for me to do/ decoration for me to have. I thought having it would just scream, " I'm a fundamentalist single Father but with a youthful wacky zainy side".
Unfortunately maybe me and the head were never meant to be. Because all these years later it's still sitting unopened in my closet. I never even took the plastic off.
I'm starting to think maybe this blog will go the way of the Chia head. I started out with such enthusiasm. This Blog was going to display all my greatest thoughts, goals, and aspirations. It was intended to demonstrate and define the new Simo. But alas I have falling short. I haven't posted anything in over three weeks. Even before that I was running out of material and unable to meet my goal of Posting at least twice a week.
Today though at least I have something to post about. I mean something besides the Chia Head Quagmire. Something not about the blog itself. Here she goes:
As a Christian there are something things I do that could be described as seeking the Lord or pressing into God or you could refer to these activities (if your a stuffy reformed person) as "means of grace". Some examples of these activities are praying, listening to sermons, reading the Bible, taking the Lord's Supper, reading devotional literature, and singing hymns.
One of the great things about this is sometimes I'll read, hear, or sing something that really hits the spiritual nail on the head. That relates to my own particular circumstance. But another thing I've come to realize and appreciate recently is that sometimes even if my battleship isn't sunk the experience brings clarity to what my battleship really is. Seeking God and exposing myself to some truth flushes out what my real problems are even if they aren't specifically named.
Like on one recent occasion I was reading Ezekiel or rather trying to read Ezekiel. I couldn't concentrate; my mind kept wandering. Then I figured out I was angry with someone. And that this was a big enough issue that it had to be dealt with. And then it was.
Now this may sound pretty obvious. But it is remarkable how self decieved us sinful humans can be. Its remarkably how long we can go around upset digging deeper and deeper holes without realizing, or being willing to realize and deal with what our real problems are. It is even more remarkable the way that the word of God and seeking first the kingdom break through this deception...
Psalm 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
That's all for now folks. Hopefully I'll have more to say in less than three weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)