Most of my friends are Ron Paul fans, and I have to admit I find the guy fascinating. I watched his fundraising drive last year closely, and I have somewhat followed his campaign. I’ve known about him since college through my friend Nathan and through Scary Gary’s work in his campaign. I think he might be just what this country needs–a start at a big change. That said, I think I want that more for shock value. I like a lot of what he says, but I also find much with which to disagree.
Let’s just say I’ve been rethinking economics over the past five years (incidentally, about the time I joined the blue party). Rachel and I were discussing Ron Paul this evening, which led into a conversation on socialism vs. capitalism (along with some communism and fascism). I was mostly talking about the problems I see (biblically) with a “free market.” Lo and behold, I came home to see Doug Jones had blogged some of these things in a critique of Sowell’s economics. I haven’t had the chance to read Jones’ other critiques of Sowell, but this hits it on the head. The free market will work great in the resurrection, I’m sure, but sin will always mess it up here.
For me, one of the biggest problems I have with the libertarian way of thinking is its focus is on me. My rights. We have certain rights, and the government is taking them away. Okay, sure. I understand the sentiment. The recent bans on spanking and homeschooling in California drive me up the wall. As the Five Man Electrical band sang, “Hey! what gives you the right!” But, I question if the “American Dream” is a really a “right” we should have. Don’t get me wrong. I strongly desire those things: the perfect car, home, and job, but do I really have an “inalienable right” to pursue wealth at that level?
As I said to Rachel, the platform of the Republicans is “You can be rich!” I really like this idea. The problem is that the way to get there will often trample the poor.
The Democrats say to the poor, “You don’t have to be poor!” So who does their plan screw over?–well, the rich, and…me…and a lot of you. People that aren’t poor–we say we are, and we all have our financial problems, but we aren’t homeless, and in America, you always have the ability to pull yourself out of poverty. This isn’t Bangkok or Bogota.
I don’t want democratic style socialism. My middle class living might go down to lower middle class. That would be annoying. I would feel even more poor (such a relative term).
But is it such a bad thing to sacrifice my potential wealth for the sake of the poor? If Jones’ is right in his exposition of James, and I think he is,* that’s exactly what we’re called to do.
* I know, I too am shocked I’m finding so much common ground with Doug Jones lately.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:10 am
It’s true. When I first looked into libertarian-ism (if that is a word), that is one of the first impressions I got. Ask Nathan. I was pretty socialist when he first met me…haha. However, I guess what appeals to me about being libertarian is where the emphasis of who should be taking care of poor is. Socialism places that responsibility on the government. Libertarianism places it on the individual and the private sector (i.e., churches, etc.) The church as a whole right now isn’t doing that great of a job right now. That’s what I love about the Catholic church. They build schools and hospitals while the a lot of mainstream Protestant churches build bigger parking lots and gyms for their churches. Because many Christians have become so reliant on government (with mainpulating through politics, depending on the government for food stamps, etc.) and not realizing the church is called to do many of the jobs the government is doing, many of Christians (at least in my generation) find “Christian” communism so appealing. (And that in itself is a whole new can of worms.)
June 5th, 2008 at 10:29 am
But there is another part to this. Perhaps I misread, but it’s not an either or thing here in helping the poor. The government can take our money and do a bad job, but at least doing someone to help the poor. The church could help the poor and would do a better job, but might not actually choose to help like they should.
The other side of it in a purely economic way is that rich people generally are the ones that offer jobs. Building a business and buying property are generally contributions of the rich. I have an Aunt that owns hotels and is very wealthy. She’s also very generous to her family, but doesn’t just give her money to who ever that would waste it. She’s put a lot of us through college and helped Youssef and buy our house (loaned us the down payment that we’ve paid back with the interest built up in the home)
Of course not all rich people will be generous, but even if she wasn’t, she’s created jobs by building hotels and so forth.
If rich people are taxed more and more, forcing them to just give away their money in a sense, then they won’t have as much money to invest in their businesses or buy things (which would help stores and workers in them) or travel with the gas prices being up so much.
I don’t pretend to know a lot about economics, but it has many facets to it that all need to be looked at and considered. Ron Paul actually got into politics because he studied economics thoroughly. A free market would not just benefit the rich and ignore the poor. The poor would be helped by the prices being more competitive to each other (driving them down) and jobs would be created.. new things would have more of a chance to come out (as in alternative fuels and transportation that are beaten down right now with our government trying to control the price of oil and so forth.)
Anyway, all that to just point out that in real life it’s nearly impossible to get ahead and grow wealthy without contributing to society in some way.
(Exp will be shared at some point even if you try really hard to keep it all for yourself.)
June 5th, 2008 at 10:52 am
You know, I think God might be a libertarian.
When you say “free market” would work well after the resurrection, you’re considering that sin would “mess up” the table for the rest of us.
Sidestepping the discussion about poverty and wealth, I think the point of Ron Paul’s marketplace economy is having less government involved in it.
Mankind, in the fight to govern himself, should limit the effects he has on his fellow man.
We forget that government is Man.
Inseparably, Man is Government.
So, the question for us is “Do we feel comfortable giving Sinful Man economic authority (read: regulations) over other Sinful Men?”
On the flipside, leaving a ‘free for all’ open in the marketplace seems to be what God did for us in leaving evil in the world: He provided us with an opportunity for righteousness.
It would be an incredible evil if we, the Church, tried to prevent people from facing the opportunity of temptation. If we do that, we foster cloistered virtue, which can withstand no temptation at all.
Rather, if we allow the rich people the chance to exercise righteousness (rather than limiting it through the recent rules in 501C3s), we may see God work in their lives.
Of course, the democratic hope is to limit the pain one causes. A laudable goal with a serious side-effect: limiting the pleasure one can receive.
God knows that money is ash anyway. He provides it to us at His will, often to show us what we will do with it. For those who prove faithful in the small things, He can grant greater, to the benefit of a community at large that needs to see grace at work more than it needs to see the money.
Unemployment checks don’t show my tenant the grace of God displayed through men.
There’s no “person” behind it.
Instead, charity from his church shows him charity. Justice from us shows him justice.
The republican ‘freedom dream’ isn’t about how much wealth you can attain. Only the greedy see that possibility, ignoring sin in the world as a stumbling block to any major success.
The republican ‘freedom dream’ is about keeping Sinful Mankind from having more control than necessary over Sinful Mankind.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Finally, I post something that lets me know that someone is reading about more than diapers on this site.
Courtney,
If protestants were like Catholics, we would have a lot fewer problems. Ironically, most Catholics are Democrats. They see the need for generosity in both the government and private sectors.
Lynne’,
I do think that industry creates jobs, but the biggest employer in the United States is the government. When times are tough, it’s the government that creates jobs on a mass scale.
I have to disagree though with the assertion that a free market drives the price down. This is typical free market stuff, but I think the first link deals with this a bit. In a greedy world, government drives the price down. As you see in many industries, corporations get together to decide prices. It’s not “Can I beat my competitor’s price?” anymore. It’s “How can we make the most money?” If everyone goes up in price, I can go up and still beat his price.
Consider pharmaceutical companies…a round of antiretrovirals for tuberculosis costs less than a dollar. In America, the companies drive the price up to $155. There are two ways to get the price down. You can go to to company or you can go to the government. In a country like Cuba or Haiti, you can get those drugs for a price much closer to the manufacturing price than the American retail price. That’s not to say that you can’t turn to the company and work their greed against them, but it’s a much more difficult thing to do. That said, that doesn’t mean that government interference is the best way…it’s just the fastest way.
Youssef,
You said, “Mankind, in the fight to govern himself, should limit the effects he has on his fellow man.”
I might nuance that to say, we should limit the negative effects we should have on fellow humans.
You say, “Man is Government.”
I ask, why do we feel the need to separate the government as a “secular” institution apart from our sacred Church? Are not many Christians (all?) part of the government? Why can’t we use our opportunity for righteousness in using our tax dollars to help the poor?
You say, “It would be an incredible evil if we, the Church, tried to prevent people from facing the opportunity of temptation. If we do that, we foster cloistered virtue, which can withstand no temptation at all.”
Do we not advocate a certain “cloistered virtue” in raising our children? While we may not take away all temptation, we do alleviate them from many concerns.
That said, it’s not cloistered virtue because it’s not virtue. I would argue that it’s a necessary evil. Now Paul supporters might say that we shouldn’t have to choose between one evil and another. While that sounds virtuous, I don’t think it’s the biblical example. Scripture often calls people righteous in the midst of their choices for necessary evils (think of the kings, specifically).
Here’s the problem. We look at our lives and say, “The Church doesn’t give what it should because we’re taxed too high. If we had more money, we would give more money.” I think it’s time for us to say, “BS!” We don’t give enough because we’re not poor enough. The woman didn’t give her two coins out of her abundance. She gave it out of her poverty. I think the more money we make, the less money we’re likely to give. Truly it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.
June 5th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I’d just look at the track records of societies that are more ‘open’ vs. highly taxed. Open societies produce more prosperity for all their citizens, while taxed nations hold all back. Look at the phenomenal success of places like Dubai and Singapore. They are producing innovation and wealth via openness, rather than taxation.
Not to mention that God asks for 10% of our income, hard to see why a state needs more.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Yeah, I’d have to debate the attitutde toward the poor in those societies with great track records, as far as free markets go. I would like to know who practives a truly free market.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
“Why do we feel the need to separate the government as a “secular” institution apart from our sacred Church? Are not many Christians (all?) part of the government? Why can’t we use our opportunity for righteousness in using our tax dollars to help the poor?”
I hope you asked this with a lofty tone. If so, then it can be easily dismissed as if you were being carried away in your language, rather than your words.
The essence of your question smacks too hard of Boromir’s argument to use the One Ring against Sauron.
“Man cannot serve two masters. Either he will love one [mammon] and hate the other [God] or vice versa.”
The fast answer to why God does not give to the church all the money to do good is the *same* answer to why God does not bestow more money than necessary to his flock. We can all ask God for more specifics, but the vague answer is that we are untrustworthy.
Our righteousness, if only perfected after the resurrection [a la the argument about why a free market fails in a fallen world], does not give us the omniscience we need to bless people.
As you say, one learns to give out of poverty. That lady’s righteousness was born out of something no one on this earth would ever credit another person for bestowing on her: poverty.
If *I*, in the name of the church, saw fit to seize your assets in order to allow you to learn humility, would I not be seen as a tyrant?
Perhaps I would be.
“Is that not what God does?” someone would ask.
(My greek spelling is bad, so I’m roughing it out) May Gi-noit-ah! “May it never be so” (or properly translated) “Hell no.”
God alone bears the right to bestow poverty or wealth on a person.
But in a free market, what are people doing?
They are open to seek innovation and wealth. All of our telecommunications jobs are falling on places like Dubai because a man can do whatever he needs to: run a business on duct-taped wiring in over-crowded areas.
We may look at it as a sweat-hole.
He sees money being made.
That same difference in perspective is just what happens when a city dweller looks at a bumpkin farmer toiling. The city dweller doesn’t see the end product or the side products (having all winter and most of the spring off.)
Now I have side-tracked into a discussion of wealth, which is not what the original argument questioned.
“Here’s the problem. We look at our lives and say, ‘The Church doesn’t give what it should because we’re taxed too high. If we had more money, we would give more money.’ I think it’s time for us to say, ‘BS!’”
You’re calling BS for the same reason de-regulationists and free marketers are calling BS on the government.
Do you think they’re giving to us out of the kindness of their hearts?
On the off chance that they are, heaven help us (He has), for the road to hell may actually be paved with good intentions.
As for the cloistered virtue tangent…
Homeschooling our children in some distance from rated R films, sex talk in literature, and stories about demonic possession falls under “cloistered virtue,” which you and Milton rightly call no virtue at all.
Is discretion necessary in educating and raising children?
I raised Lily to be a climber. I don’t know where Lynne stands on this, but I’ve allowed her to run what seem like huge risks of bodily harm in exploring her world. Sure, I’ll be there when the pain hits, but now she slips and falls less often. Many comment on Lily’s balance. Every one of those comments are a credit to my willingness to let my daughter wander in harm’s way.
“Truly it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.”
And may we learn well from the line.
To take Swift’s perspective, I think we should build a policy out of it.
Be it resolved that the salvation of every man rests in the dirth of his pocketbook.
To protect its bodies from over-wealth, I believe the churches should institute “mandatory offerings.” Churches can be given legal authority to “glean” a tithe large enough to prevent an over-accumulation.
We would all prefer our churchmembers be able to be given a fair chance at heaven. Therefore, a mandatory offering to prevent any one household from accumulating more than a set amount, to be determined by the deacons of a given body.
However, once the funds are collected, the church surely is limited in what it can give to the poor. If we give too much, we rob the receivers of their excellent impoverished state. After all, would the church do good to its members and then turn around and wound its community?
The church will decide, in the wisdom of God, where those funds should go.
No, it’s not funny at all.
Free market may not free the poor from their troubles.
We would have to make a beauty of an argument to say government, churches, or anyone short of God alone will.
* on a side note…
I actually heard one (1) sermon in my life that cautioned families to avoid poverty because of the temptation to thievery.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Interesting discussion. Many Catholics are democrats in their view of government’s role to help the poor, just like many American Catholics ignore the vatican’s stance on abortion. I don’t think this speaks to the issue. Most of them are unaware that theirs is a rich history of hierarchies, which were 1/10 the size of current governments in the West, and which functioned as businesses. Monarchies were incredibly stream-lined compared to republics, and helped the Church in dire circumstances, but as a rule, they let the Church do its job. The current pope has rightly said a capitalism which exists only for the individual to look after themself is evil, but no one here wants something like that. In Western history, it didn’t happen like that either despite our sinful inclinations. The painful fact is that we’ve undermined the traditional institutions who’ve truly raised many out of poverty for many centuries during the last 100 years, and delivered the responsibilities to a government that specialises in making more poor people than ever.
That’s the interesting thing about abject poverty though: it’s most often a direct result of oppresive regimes. Myanmar’s people needed to be rescued because they were in dire poverty, but all manner of aid was blocked because of the type of government that has choked them and brought about their plight to begin with.
Consider this too: the current recession which has caused a net loss of 1.7 trillion dollars so far this year(not to mention over a million foreclosures…is due to the very policies meant to help the poor. Unaturally low interest rates that the market cannot justify are going through a correction. Those low interest rates were possible through a taxation of inflation…but that tax has hurt the poor and middle class. No one who drives a Masarati has lost their home, but bread, milk, gas, eggs, and basic household energy has now increased in price 40 to 75% the last year alone. Whom, I ask you, does that hurt? Hedge Fund managers don’t feel the grocery store pains. It is government policy that is making the gap between extremely rich and poor wider every day, and their programs have unintended consequences every single time.
The problem is largely that the Church lives in their little bubbles, and have their mass-produced happy-meal Vacation Bible schools, that’s all fine and dandy, but how many black folks have deep South churches reached out to financially? How many Hispanics? Why would they? Their paychecks are pilfered every two weeks that go to woefully awful programs that don’t even achieve their stated goals, but at the same time assuage those Christians’ consciences(falsely).
Bottom line is: the Church is the arm and voice of social justice. It keeps the government from assuming the Church’s role, if it’s doing its job. Christ gets the glory, not politicians. Even the communes in the book of Acts were self-imposed for a period of transition when the Church was in its infancy. I’m not contesting that many Christians mean government aid for good, but it leads men to look away from our Mother(God’s salvation on earth), and has lead many toward idolatry of the state, and sadly it ironically creates more of the poor we’re trying to help. Many want the world and markets(God’s natural order) to work differently, but it doesn’t, and no amount of wishful thinking from modern socialist progressives will change how God’s creation works.
A few countries which are most free-market(no market is perfectly free):
1)China & India(whose poverty levels have both gone from 50% and above to the mid 20%’s in 15 years because of it)
2)Liechtenstein(thanks to extremely low taxation and constitutional monarchy, the average family makes over $40,000 a year there)
3)Switzerland(the Swiss enjoy the 3rd or 4th highest living standard in the world, poverty is virtually a non-issue and their government doesn’t assume the roles ours does)
4)Iceland(one of the most deregulated places in Europe)
5)Ireland(who, thanks to saying no to socialism, now has a higher standard of living than people living in London. that is the first time that’s happened since the 5th century)
Tiny countries with tiny governments equal prosperity.
June 6th, 2008 at 1:24 am
btw, that was me(Nathan)
June 6th, 2008 at 3:16 am
I’m going to work backwards here.
Nathan,
I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but one of my problems with Ron-Paulblicans is that they don’t go far enough. I am not necessarily arguing against free markets per se, but more that a transfer to a Ron-Paulblican free market would not necessarily be better for America.
You said, “Monarchies were incredibly stream-lined compared to republics, and helped the Church in dire circumstances, but as a rule, they let the Church do its job.”
Here’s where the problem is with a free market in America. Most good monarchies were Christian monarchies. They didn’t let the “Church do its job” as much as the government and the Church were distinguishable but not fully separate. The libertarian position still pushes for a separation of church and state that makes free markets crumble over time. And let’s be realistic, many of those good monarchies left most of the people as poor serfs. Feudalism and hierarchies always have a bottom.
You said, “The painful fact is that we’ve undermined the traditional institutions who’ve truly raised many out of poverty for many centuries during the last 100 years, and delivered the responsibilities to a government that specialises in making more poor people than ever.”
Again, how are we defining “poor?” The greatest number of truly poor are in corrupt governments–free market or socialist.
You said, “That’s the interesting thing about abject poverty though: it’s most often a direct result of oppresive regimes. Myanmar’s people needed to be rescued because they were in dire poverty, but all manner of aid was blocked because of the type of government that has choked them and brought about their plight to begin with.”
Sometimes that’s true. But let’s take a look at Haiti. It was a country that was doing well under socialism until America came in (politically horrible despots ruling, but financially, the people were better off than post-capitalism). America said, “We’re going to build a dam that will help your country be rich!” So we built a dam that drowned all their farm land and killed all their livestock, and Americans became rich. Next thing you know, Haitians are in extreme poverty and fighting infectious disease. Capitalism charges so much for antiretrovirals that TB becomes multi-drug resistant within years, and in many cases incurable. After years of occupation, we finally overthrew their government and made it a free market.
You said, “Unaturally low interest rates that the market cannot justify are going through a correction. Those low interest rates were possible through a taxation of inflation…but that tax has hurt the poor and middle class. No one who drives a Masarati has lost their home, but bread, milk, gas, eggs, and basic household energy has now increased in price 40 to 75% the last year alone.”
Well, the keywords are “the market cannot justify.” It’s the dream of capitalism that made people foolishly take on ridiculous adjustable mortgages.
But gas and food are perfect examples where socialism has been more beneficial to the poor. Food is controlled more by the government than gas. The market has already began to re-correct the price of food, and those big gains are now starting to go back in the other direction with food prices dropping. Gas price increases are a result of OPEC driving up prices for their own greedy profit. But let’s remember, this is a recorrection; it’s hard to judge an economic system on something so short term.
You said, “Their paychecks are pilfered every two weeks that go to woefully awful programs that don’t even achieve their stated goals, but at the same time assuage those Christians’ consciences(falsely).”
Agreed. As many problems as the system has though, the problem is really with the hearts of men. Capitalism and socialism both have pitfalls.
You said, “I’m not contesting that many Christians mean government aid for good, but it leads men to look away from our Mother(God’s salvation on earth), and has lead many toward idolatry of the state, and sadly it ironically creates more of the poor we’re trying to help.”
While I agree that our government does not help the poor, the problem is more inefficiency than system. The government is a poorly run business. I disagree with your dichotomy between the government and the Church.
My argument is not that socialism will offer a great alternative to the free market, but that government is not our opponent. Government is us. We are government. Government is sacred. It is not an institution opposed to the Church. The old dichotomy between institutions of nature vs. institutions of grace is flat out wrong. The government is an institution of grace, no matter how we corrupt it. When governments do well unto others, Christ still gets the glory because he puts rulers in their place. And this is really the heart of my post.
God can work in any system (I think Scripture can attest to that).
Those facts and figures tell one side of the story though, Nathan. So the average salary is $40,000 in Liechtenstein. Okay…A 538 sq. ft house also averages $300,000 to buy. What is wealth in Liechtenstein would be called poverty here. Can you imagine many Americans settling for that size of house (much less that size mortgage on that size of house)?
Iceland is, in many ways, quite socialist…Government healthcare, government funded schools (through college), government pensions for the elderly…Iceland was poor 200 years ago until is started moving away from a completely free market. I hardly think Ireland has rejected socialism. They also have socialized health care.
Liechtenstein doesn’t, so out of curiosity, I looked up their numbers…healthcare increased 52% last year while GDP only increased 8%. How long is that sustainable? Nearly have of all Licks (I just made that up) there want to move to socialized healthcare.
The Swiss are always the exception to the rule. They do everything right-banks, watches, chocolate. We put wax in our chocolate. Our watches break ten minutes after purchase. Our banks charge overdraft fees when you have $4,000 in your checking account. We’re not the Swiss. We will never be the Swiss.
The Swiss and the Icelanders don’t practice conspicuous living. Americans do. I think that we have to be changed before a free market would ever work in America (and I think Ron Paul might grant that). Our ideas about wealth and the American dream must become much, much smaller. And we probably shouldn’t be having 11 kids in our 538 sq. ft. homes.
Oh, Youssef…I’m going to bed. I don’t think I can sort out Sauron/LOTR analogies at 1 AM.
BTW, Rachel is concerned I am just being an agitator by posting things like this. I’m trying to convince her that you guys will love me anyway. If I can’t drive my best friends nuts, what good are they, right?
Seriously, though, I am not saying that socialism is the best alternative. But I don’t think a truly free market should become our idol either. I think that our economic “theologies” have to transcend these sorts of questions. There is a fundamental problem with both systems in America: neither really is built for bringing glory to God.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:39 am
Okay, I am going to be asinine and ponder the musings of Youssef at a time where my brain is probably transcending into a willie wonka like collage of freakiness.
Starting with the final part…just a note of humor…Rachel read this to me aloud while I was sitting in bed, and I didn’t catch the name “Swift.” I was listening to your parody of “A Modest Proposal” thinking, “But that’s completely against what he said yesterday! LOL
You asked, “Do you think they’re giving to us out of the kindness of their hearts?”
Of course not. But is it better to not give at all than to give begrudgingly or inefficiently or even selfishly?
You said, “No, it’s not funny at all.
Free market may not free the poor from their troubles. We would have to make a beauty of an argument to say government, churches, or anyone short of God alone will.”
The Church is the body of Christ, and so we have a duty to be Christ to the world. God uses means to accomplish His will. Will we do it perfectly? Of course not. Can we free the poor from their troubles? Jesus said we will always have the poor, but James tells us we should always be striving to alleviate the poor. It’s a beautiful paradox.
Here’s the kicker for me though…when we are functioning as members of the government are we any less members of Christ’s body? Are the government and the Church opposed? They shouldn’t have to be.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:54 am
Don’t you think that it is a failure of the church that leads to these calls for governments to be doing everything for the poor? IOW, shouldn’t the church be providing clothes, food, employment services, educational funds, and so forth rather than the state? But due to a lack of tithing and wrong priorities, the church doesn’t do it? Also, rich Christians should be helping the less well off in their own congregations.
On your earlier point, I don’t know what the ‘attitude towards the poor’ is in Singapore or Dubai, but I bet the poor there are a lot better off then they would be if they still lived in isolated backwaters with nice assistance programs.
And let me be totally cliche here, and ask what a government can do for the poor in America that would be so great? Just give them blocks of money? Give them food? Clothes? Cars? What?
Johnson’s Great Society was probably our biggest attempt as a nation to “end poverty” and it was an abject failure that we are still dealing with today.
June 6th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Nathan again. 90% of the the increase in oil since 1970 has been due to inflation, only 10% has been because of a demand component, despite OPEC’s actions. Without our federal reserve helping the poor, oil would be $13 a barrel. Same with food. TMS(true money supply) is a good indicator of where we are in inflation. M3 is also good for, do not listen to government indices, who honestly believes we are at 2.5% inflation right now? Capitalism didn’t provide the illusion for the excessive mortgages, 1% interest rates did. Those rates were imposed unnaturally. Normally, interest rates would be much higher, and people simply couldn’t have taken on these mortgages. Banks, without the Fed, wouldn’t have given these outrageous loans. The ‘business cycles’ are caused by central and fractional reserve banking, with fiat money, not free markets.
The dollar hegemony is ending because our goverment has committed legal fraud in finance. This recorrection of food isn’t something I’ve experienced at the grocery store or read about, commodities are still going up. They fluctuate on their way up, but they’re still going up.
Those countries I mentioned, I said they weren’t perfectly free market, I know of the 4% tax in Liech for Social Security, etc. My point is, we’re going to have to reorient ourselves here as to what lifestyle we’ll have. Our government-funded programs for the poor, Social Security, medicare, etc. are doing the opposite of what they’re supposed to. Your point of unsustainability is exactly right, and precisely what I’m referring to. We can’t do this any longer. We’re bankrupt because of these policies. $70 trillion of unfunded liabilities would mean we’d have to have double digit growth for 75 straight years to pay for it. It can’t be done.
Many Austrian economists have written of the larger tradition of free market thinking as part of the Catholic tradition. Tom Wood’s book “The Church and the Market” come to mind.
http://www.amazon.com/Church-Market-Catholic-Defense-Economics/dp/0739110357/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212752844&sr=8-1
As far as Church and government, yes, government and Church should have the same goals and stated aim, “to advance God’s Kingdom.” But, Churches should never arrest people, and governments shouldn’t serve Communion. Their functions are different. It is the difference in function that is healthy to maintain. And yes, I still love you.
June 6th, 2008 at 7:18 am
I love my husband. He’s hot AND smart.
Tell Rachel we’re not offended but enthralled with such a fascinating topic/debate.
And yes, I still love ya’ll too.
-Courtney (posting as Courtney..hehe)
June 6th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Nathan,
You wrote, “Those countries I mentioned, I said they weren’t perfectly free market, I know of the 4% tax in Liech for Social Security, etc. My point is, we’re going to have to reorient ourselves here as to what lifestyle we’ll have. Our government-funded programs for the poor, Social Security, medicare, etc. are doing the opposite of what they’re supposed to.”
Well, yeah, I know we’re not doing a good job in America, and putting a Democrat into office sure isn’t going to help things, BUT idealism isn’t either. A totally free market doesn’t work (and that’s what a lot of Ron-Paulblicans are advocating). Granted, Paul himself is more sensible.
But socialistic programs are not bad in countries where stupid Americans are not running them. The countries that you mention as good free markets mostly have socialized programs for tons of stuff. And they do very well–better than America, which tries to maintain a “free market” in many of these areas.
You said, “Our government-funded programs for the poor, Social Security, medicare, etc. are doing the opposite of what they’re supposed to.”
My point is that government-funded programs are not evil in themselves. It’s just America can’t seem to get them right. Ireland, Iceland–these “free market” countries are great examples of GOOD socialism.
I’m not advocating more interference…less would probably be better…what I am advocating is that we don’t return to NO interference, and we need BETTER interference.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Youssef says, “The fast answer to why God does not give to the church all the money to do good is the *same* answer to why God does not bestow more money than necessary to his flock.”
Well…actually I would disagree and say that God both gives the church all the money necessary to do good, and that He gives us more money than necessary. It’s just that we have this silly American idea that we “can’t afford” to help because then we won’t have any money for going out to eat this month. Or for our phone bills. Or renting a movie. Or whatever. I know for some people it’s the really expensive stuff that they can’t part with, but does that give us an excuse to hold on to our little cheap things? Necessary is relative.
Nathan says, “and delivered the responsibilities to a government that specialises in making more poor people than ever.”
Again, a relative term. This is pure speculation as I don’t have statistics, but I think our standard of living has gone through the roof in America in the last 50 years. For example, how many people had more than one car 50 years ago? Now we think every family should definitely have at least two cars. Not only that, but more than one computer. More than one CD player. And one bedroom per person. The list goes on…
Rick says, “They didn’t let the “Church do its job” as much as the government and the Church were distinguishable but not fully separate. The libertarian position still pushes for a separation of church and state that makes free markets crumble over time.”
Hmm. There’s a lot of history behind this and philosophies that we have just taken for granted as “things are much better now than they were in the 1600’s”. I wonder how much of it can be tied to the protestant reformation…
Nathan says, “Nathan again. 90% of the the increase in oil since 1970 has been due to inflation, only 10% has been because of a demand component,”
I thought it was a lot more complicated than just that. For one thing, we’ve used up half the world’s known oil reserves, right? And don’t we get a lot of oil from the area where we’re at war? And it doesn’t make sense to me that so much of it is due to inflation when gas prices have quadrupled in about 6-7 years. The price of milk and eggs and bread hasn’t quadrupled. And as ridiculous as house prices are here, they haven’t quadrupled. But then I don’t know much about economics. Maybe someone can explain this to me.
Okay, sorry Rick for posting a four page comment when I said it wouldn’t be that long. And by the way, I’m pretty sure you’re already in lower middle class at your yearly income. I think we are.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Well, last year we would have been upper middle class in Monroe and probably right around middle class in Spokane. This year, we won’t make anywhere close to that amount of money. Of course, I would say our income now puts us in the poor category, but I guess it’s like that every summer that we come up here.
Thank God for generosity 
June 6th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Rebekah says: ” I’m pretty sure you’re already lower middle class at your yearly income. I think we are.”
Because of the adoption stuff we are doing we had to enter our income in to some thing for Washington state and we came up below poverty!! What does below poverty even mean and how incredible to think that we are even close to poverty… good grief!
June 6th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Joel,
You said, “Don’t you think that it is a failure of the church that leads to these calls for governments to be doing everything for the poor?”
Yes, does that mean that we shouldn’t allow those willing to do something just because we refuse to?
You said, “IOW, shouldn’t the church be providing clothes, food, employment services, educational funds, and so forth rather than the state?”
Yes, but they’re not.
You said, “But due to a lack of tithing and wrong priorities, the church doesn’t do it?”
That’s typical, but it seems to blame our lack of generosity on the government. I don’t care how much we are taxed. The poor widow gave in an empire that taxed more than ours.
You said, “And let me be totally cliche here, and ask what a government can do for the poor in America that would be so great? Just give them blocks of money? Give them food? Clothes? Cars? What?”
We would need a total overhaul of how we see things. None of those things would work without significant reform. Of course, our current capitalism will not work without significant reform either.
You said, “Johnson’s Great Society was probably our biggest attempt as a nation to “end poverty” and it was an abject failure that we are still dealing with today.”
Well, I think we have to realistically know we can’t end poverty. That said, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t help alleviate the burden of the poor.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
As Youssef:
What a disorderly mess of discourse.
Rick, I’m almost up to level 80. Have you been blogging here all day?
If we were all in one room, what’s the issue we would divide into two groups over? Seriously.
I about jumped out of my socks when I heard Rick use the phrase “economic theologies.” Despite my surprise, that would actually be the issue:
Would God (and His representatives) choose a “free market”-style government?
I’ll divide the room, then. Wives go with husbands, and no one who hasn’t posted is represented.
In the Aye’s side of the room, we have Nathan and Courtney Blevin…
“Many want the world and markets(God’s natural order) to work differently, but it doesn’t, and no amount of wishful thinking from modern socialist progressives will change how God’s creation works.”
Youssef and Lynne’ Sleiman…
“On the flipside, leaving a ‘free for all’ open in the marketplace seems to be what God did for us in leaving evil in the world: He provided us with an opportunity for righteousness.”
(eesh, the most uncomfortable statement of mine I could find)
Joel Martin …
“They [Dubai and Singapore] are producing innovation and wealth via openness, rather than taxation.
“Not to mention that God asks for 10% of our income, hard to see why a state needs more.”
In the middle is Rebekah…
…just because the closest she got to speaking to the topic of free markets and the church was this comment in response to Rick’s “The libertarian position still pushes for a separation of church and state that makes free markets crumble over time.”
“There’s a lot of history behind this and philosophies that we have just taken for granted as ‘Things are much better now than they were in the 1600s.’”
And the sole representative of the Nay side is
Rick and Rachel Capezza…
From the main post, “I was mostly talking about the problems I see biblically with a ‘free market.’”
As I watch the discussion start to wind down (or fray), I admit I’m a little disappointed. I am one of those old Platonic types who first coined the phrase “the truth is out there.” We should not end this discussion by saying, “Everyone is right; no one is wrong.” “Agreeing to disagree” seems intellectually dishonest to me. There is an answer to our basic question, the cause of difference.
So, I turn to God for the answer.
Almost instantly I’m shot back with a line of C.S. Lewis’s (I’m not quoting him because he’s trendy): (paraphrased) We carry such heavy questions around on this earth, but when we get to heaven, we may find out that the reason God has not revealed an answer to our questions is that they have no answer. It’s like a child asking her parent, “What does yellow taste like?”
It occurs to me that God may be wearing a bemused expression during this entire discussion. Is money even a part of His plans for a new Jerusalem? Would Zion be a theocracy if the religious leader *is* the deity?
Come on, these are silly questions. They have no answer.
So, I rest firmly on the “I don’t know/God doesn’t care” answer. That is the most intellectually honest we can be about “economic theologies.”
“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.”
June 7th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Normally, Rick, I wouldn’t respond again to one of your posts (or even at all) mainly because I never get the impression that you want to here other points of view. So, yes I am interested in reading more things than just “diapers” as you so eloquently insulted the readers of your blog (or was that meant to tease Rachel?) Perhaps you actually like debating and not just stating your opinion?
I’m glad you said the thing about being friends.. I never felt like you considered us your friends. So, since you said that.. and now I’m assuming that you do want to hear what other people say (in spite of the feeling I first got by how you responded to what I’ve said).. that was probably just me misunderstanding your tone?
Anyway, I always have many thoughts to share. First off from “The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary”
–”Sacred 1: Consecrated to or considered especially dear to god or supernatural being.. dedicated or appropriated exclusively to a particular person or purpose. 2: Set apart for or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration or respect; consecrated, hallowed (in names of animals and plants indicating ancient or traditional veneration), 3: Regarded with or deserving veneration or respect as of something holy, esp. as an epithet of royalty. 4: Protected (as) by religious sanction or reverence from violation, interference, incursion, etc., sacrosanct, inviolable…
Now, all that to come back to what you said, “Government is sacred.” I don’t agree, but perhaps you didn’t mean sacred so much as just set apart. It seems that many things that you’ve said have taken some revision through this conversation. It’s quite difficult to follow with everyone quoting everyone else. But I think we were getting to some of the main things you were trying to point out. I was confused however at something you said, “free markets don’t work.” Did you mean that it would be extremely hard to get a free market to work properly? Then what of the evidence of free markets working in other countries. Perhaps you hold that they are working because of the parts of them that are socialist? Or maybe you think it could work but would take a lot of effort? Our government isn’t doing a good job right now (from what I could tell you agreed with that) but that you thought turning it into more of a free market society wouldn’t work and you think that the government should still do pretty much what it’s doing it just needs to do it better? I’m just trying to clarify what you were trying to say.
I would like to point out here that it might be helpful to talk about the Federal government as opposed to our state government. I think some of the things (I think) you were talking about would be helpful and better managed by the state. However, they aren’t (and I believe) cannot be managed any more efficiently by our federal government than the mess they are making with it all right now. The main problem is that they are in charge of too much, they are too far removed from the problem of the local person.
At first when Moses was leading the children of God he had people coming to him in a long line to help them resolve problems. Some of the problems were pretty tiny and Moses was getting a bit overwhelmed by all the responsibility and time it took to manage the people. Then his father-in-law suggested that he make smaller groups and leaders in charge of each group then another leader in charge of a few groups then another leader in charge of several groups all the way up to Moses himself. That way, if a big problem couldn’t be resolved by the leaders under him then they’d bring it to him. Moses was happy.. and so were the people that used to have to wait all day in a long line.. in a hot desert..
Anyway, that is how our government should be run. The person at the top should be far removed from the tiny things of the local people. That’s not his job. Nor should it be the job of the Federal government to make sweeping laws over all of the states when they are so removed from what our local problems are. Socialism (from what I understand) would tend towards the higher government dealing with things that should be left to a more local parts of government or to the people themselves. A free market would allow the people to decide what (for instance) sort of health care they’d like and it would keep prices lower because we’d want to go to the people and places that give us the best deal with the best service. Canada has socialized health care and you go onto a waiting list when you need a doctor. Even if the person ahead of you isn’t going to die, but you are.. you have to wait your turn. This is what happens when the highest part of government that can’t see the local concerns (like a local church or even a more local government could).
Perhaps everyone was having a hard time agreeing about things because we did not make the distinction of local governments? Yes, the people are the government, and yes God sets rulers over us. Do you remember though that God did not want to set a King over His people? Yet, when they kept whining for one He did put a king over them.
.. I guess what I’m trying to get at is that *having a hard time concentrating with our loud tenant and his friends on the porch* God is controlling who rules over us and the things that go on in government. However, I don’t believe that that makes our government sacred. We as Christians are His light. He wants us to be a light where we can. I’m sure we would all agree that we Christians need to do as much as we can to change our societies for the better. I also must point out here, Rick, that Christ is not glorified by good that is done by our government. Good done by an unrighteous person or good done with a corrupt and sinful heart (that has not been born again and accepted Him as Lord) is not going to glorify Him. In the gospels Jesus talks about what it will be like when he comes back and how people will say to him, “Lord, Lord” and He will say that He never knew them. They say that they did everything in His name. Calling out demons, healing, etc. but He says to them that He does not know them.
It’s not what we do on the outside that can glorify God, but rather what is in our heart when we do those good things that He’s prepared for us to do.
That said, the government cannot do as good of a job taking care of the poor and needy in this world as the born again body of Christ can.
THAT said, I believe that the government (federal especially) needs to have the least amount of involvement possible in the local concerns of the people. The church and our community should take care of those small things (the big government is there to protect the country from invasion and not limit the local governments from doing their job)
And there is really no point to suggest that the government HAS to get involved because the church or community hasn’t. In the Bible are Wives told to be the head of the home if the husband doesn’t assume that responsibility? No, wives are told to be submissive and let their discrete conduct win over their husbands.
THAT SAID (this is the last “that said” I promise), if someone isn’t doing the job that God wants them to do, it is not in His will for someone else (who has their own stuff to take care of) to usurp the duty of the slacker.
okay.. It’s late.. I’m tired.. everyone have fun picking my post apart.
June 7th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Oh.. and that was Lynne.. as Lynne (why do husbands log on as the wives? Didn’t I just talk about that! ha, ha..)
June 7th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Uhh.. it’s Lynne’ again. I just wanted to clarify the verse that I mentioned. At the time I couldn’t find the reference and I think I sort of put a few passages together in my head. Not that they don’t go together though, but just so no one is confused about what I said. The verses I was thinking about (the “Lord, Lord” and how He did not know them..)
See: Luke 13:22-30
Matthew 22:1-14
I was trying to find the passage I was thinking about on Bible.com and just couldn’t get anywhere till after the post when I looked in a “real” Bible. hee, hee.. Anyway, there are a lot similar to what I was thinking of, but I think those are the two that I was mainly remembering.
June 7th, 2008 at 2:05 am
Sorry.. Lynne’ again.. but I do think it’s really important to back up what we say. So.. I actually found the verse I was thinking of Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will way to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
I know this was more of a side thing to the main thread, but I wanted to make sure I was referencing accurately.
June 7th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Lynne’,
You said, “Normally, Rick, I wouldn’t respond again to one of your posts (or even at all) mainly because I never get the impression that you want to here other points of view.”
I’m very much interested in other points of view. I posted these thoughts here mostly because I knew I would get a response from my friends, and I believe iron sharpens iron. I feel that open inquiry and getting my arguments beaten are the only way to learn. That’s why I mostly read outside of my own circles. I have to know that the answers I have are really the ones I think are best.
You said, “So, yes I am interested in reading more things than just “diapers” as you so eloquently insulted the readers of your blog (or was that meant to tease Rachel?)”
I wasn’t meaning to offend. I just joke with Rachel sometimes that my posts never get any comments. Rachel could post about blue cheese dressing and have 68 comments.
You said, “Perhaps you actually like debating and not just stating your opinion?”
You said, “I’m glad you said the thing about being friends.. I never felt like you considered us your friends. So, since you said that.. and now I’m assuming that you do want to hear what other people say (in spite of the feeling I first got by how you responded to what I’ve said).. that was probably just me misunderstanding your tone?”
Well, I would say that you were misunderstanding my tone because it’s in writing, and you can’t always hear tone in writing, but unfortunately, you know me in person, so you couldn’t believe that! Sometimes tone and gracious speaking aren’t my most gifted areas.
As for you guys being friends, I’m sorry you would ever get that impression. I consider you guys among my best friends. It’s because you are my friends that I want you guys to take me to task when I am wrong even more. Agreement on issues isn’t really an issue for me when it comes to friendships. It’s not even an issue for me when it comes to marriage; Rachel and I disagree a lot when it comes to stuff like this.
Okay, as for sacred and secular. This is a fundamental point of disagreement. I would say all of creation (God-made or manmade) is sacred. I don’t believe you can separate sacred from secular. I believe this is a distinction that we get from the Medieval Scholastics.
In contrast, I think the Tabernacle and Temple teach us something different. The three divisions–outer court, inner court, and the Holy of Holies–are a microcosm for them world. The outer court is the natural world, and in an ideal world–and in my Christian hope for the future, the whole world is being redeemed. God so loved “the world”…I think this redemption of the world is seen throughout all of Scripture, for example, in Isaiah 65.
With that foundation laid, I would say that government is an object for redemption. It is holy ground. It is sacred. It is set apart for God’s glory as the whole earth is set apart for God’s glory. Now there are different levels of holiness, as we see in the temple, but all creation is holy.
You said, ” I was confused however at something you said, “free markets don’t work.” Did you mean that it would be extremely hard to get a free market to work properly?:
Yes, so hard that you can’t ever get a fully free market to work for a sustained period of time.
You said, “Then what of the evidence of free markets working in other countries. Perhaps you hold that they are working because of the parts of them that are socialist?”
I don’t think that it’s only the socialist parts that make them work. I think an effective government has a certain balance. One reason I do like Paul is that I think he would try to tip things more towards balance. That said, if we had the ideal Ron Paul government, I think it would tip too far the other way. It might work for awhile, but greed would get the best of total capitalism. I think even Paul would acknowledge that you could not have a totally free market. However, historical trends indicate that radicals, following his logic, would continue to push until the market was “too free,” allowing greed to overtake the system.
My contention is that a return to state governments might be a slight step in the right direction, but it wouldn’t be all that effective. What needs to change is the hearts of people. You would just have smaller corrupt government. Washington State would be more evil in a lot of ways if it was running itself.
You said, “Anyway, that is how our government should be run. The person at the top should be far removed from the tiny things of the local people. That’s not his job.”
I think that we definitely are too top heavy, but I think heirarchy is healthy and natural. We have heirarchy in families. We have heirarchy in churches–whether we have paid pastors or not–you always have heirarchies, even if it is just a heirarchy of respect. I don’t think heirarchy is the problem. The problem is despots.
You said, “Nor should it be the job of the Federal government to make sweeping laws over all of the states when they are so removed from what our local problems are. Socialism (from what I understand) would tend towards the higher government dealing with things that should be left to a more local parts of government or to the people themselves.”
I think that’s an assertion more than an argument. Some of the most effective governments in the world were aristocracies where the decision was left to good and wise rulers, not a democracy.
You said, “A free market would allow the people to decide what (for instance) sort of health care they’d like and it would keep prices lower because we’d want to go to the people and places that give us the best deal with the best service.”
Again, I think this is an assertion of free market philosophy. Prices are not always set that way, even in a free market.
You said, “Canada has socialized health care and you go onto a waiting list when you need a doctor. Even if the person ahead of you isn’t going to die, but you are.. you have to wait your turn. This is what happens when the highest part of government that can’t see the local concerns (like a local church or even a more local government could).”
There are definitely problems with Canadian healthcare. I’m not denying that. But we have the same problem. We often have great surgeons–but are you honestly going to get to see them if you don’t have incredible health insurance?
You said, “Our government isn’t doing a good job right now (from what I could tell you agreed with that) but that you thought turning it into more of a free market society wouldn’t work and you think that the government should still do pretty much what it’s doing it just needs to do it better?”
The problem with our government is that you have evil fascists on one side and evil socialists/communists on the other. We have balance, but it’s a balance of two evils. I think there are good socialists and good capitalists. I think that we need a balance of good free market thought and good socialist thought. The best “free markets” have this balance. I think that both the extreme right, right, moderates, left, and extreme left get it wrong because it’s a humanistic effort. A system is not our answer. Jesus Christ is our answer.
You said, “I also must point out here, Rick, that Christ is not glorified by good that is done by our government. Good done by an unrighteous person or good done with a corrupt and sinful heart (that has not been born again and accepted Him as Lord) is not going to glorify Him. In the gospels Jesus talks about what it will be like when he comes back and how people will say to him, “Lord, Lord” and He will say that He never knew them. They say that they did everything in His name. Calling out demons, healing, etc. but He says to them that He does not know them.”
While it’s true that good works aren’t going to earn people favor with God, I don’t think good works done with bad intentions fail to glorify God. God uses the wicked to bring about His glory every day.
You said, “It’s not what we do on the outside that can glorify God, but rather what is in our heart when we do those good things that He’s prepared for us to do.”
Well, again, I think there is more to it than this. I think the Parable of the Two Sons might have a different answer (Matt. 21: 28-32). Sometimes those only doing outward actions are doing the will of the Father, and outward actions often change the heart.
I also think that we have to be careful when we divide body and soul. We are one person, undivided. Our heart and actions are inexplicably tied.
You said, “That said, the government cannot do as good of a job taking care of the poor and needy in this world as the born again body of Christ can.”
I agree. But God doesn’t often send the best people. He sends the willing. Caleb. Joshua. Isaiah.
You said, “In the Bible are Wives told to be the head of the home if the husband doesn’t assume that responsibility? No, wives are told to be submissive and let their discrete conduct win over their husbands.”
Sure, but the family and government are not the same. God often puts the lowly in places of power. Why did God make females judges in a time when that would have been such an anomaly? Abdication on the part of males? To show a new way?
June 7th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Youssef,
You said, “Rick, I’m almost up to level 80. Have you been blogging here all day?”
You are a LIAR. I still got ten levels on you (but I had to check because I got nervous). I was gone all day. I’m about 45,000 from level 79.
You said, “If we were all in one room, what’s the issue we would divide into two groups over? Seriously.”
There are three issues, for me.
1) Sacred vs. secular 2) A healthy balance of systems 3) The problem is hearts, not systems.
You said, “Would God (and His representatives) choose a “free market”-style government? I’ll divide the room, then. Wives go with husbands, and no one who hasn’t posted is represented.”
Don’t do that to my poor wife. Rachel and I don’t always agree on things like this. You know, she’s a Republican, and I’m a Democrat.
You said, “We should not end this discussion by saying, ‘Everyone is right; no one is wrong.’”
Believe me, Youssef, I won’t ever admit admit the other side is right (unless you convince me to move to the other side!)
You said, “We carry such heavy questions around on this earth, but when we get to heaven, we may find out that the reason God has not revealed an answer to our questions is that they have no answer.”
Well, yes and no. Is a free market or socialism better? I would answer that, “It depends.” Every situation is different. I think, in America, the situation is very complex. I don’t think the Bible argues for either side.
I think the Bible says, “I’ve put wise people before you…let their wisdom (gleaned from meditation of My Word) help you rule.”
Hmmm…I am thinking about writing my next post on why I think strict constructionist judges are bad….maybe I should wait a bit lol.
June 7th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I like your post, Rick (#25). I found myself agreeing with everything you said, actually.
June 7th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
I just thought of something in the shower just now…I realize I posted this just a few days after you guys were over, and we were talking about the WA state convention. I hope you didn’t take this as an attack on your love for Ron Paul. Nathan Blevins was my best man in my wedding, and he’s the biggest Ron Paul fan I know. I am truly trying to see how my own arguments are rebutted.
I could have written another post on all the great things I love about Ron Paul, but I am trying to sharpen my own thoughts. As Rachel pointed out to me, even since the beginning of this post, my thinking is evolving, and I’m having to nuance and sharpen my own position.
June 7th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Lynne’,
You mentioned, “Good done by an unrighteous person or good done with a corrupt and sinful heart (that has not been born again and accepted Him as Lord) is not going to glorify Him.”
Rachel pointed out 1 Philippians 1:15-18:
“Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.”
I remember some evangelical Bible class I took somewhere along with way where the teacher was arguing for the sacred vs. secular paradigm. The teacher drew four quadrants on the board. The four quadrants were:
1. right thinking + wrong actions
2. right actions + wrong thinking
3. wrong thinking + wrong actions
4. right thinking + right actions
The argument was God was only pleased with Quadrant 4. It seems to me that…
1. God is most pleased with Quadrant 4 (right thinking + right actions).
2. That quadrant 2 (wrong thinking + right actions) is bad, but God still gets the glory for the actions oh his ignorant faithful. This is where most liberal denominations are.
3. Quadrant 3 (wrong thinking + wrong actions) is ignorant sin. This is where non-Christians are.
4. Quadrant 1 (right thinking + wrong actions) is high-handed sin and hypocrisy and deserves the greatest condemnation. This, unfortunately, is rampant in conservative churches.
Just a thought.
June 7th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Lynné, I’m very surprised you would consider Rick as not wanting to be your friend. Bravo for your honesty, but if I were Rick (and had my own personality and not his, obviously!) I’d feel hurt.
Lynné says,
“Now, all that to come back to what you said, “Government is sacred.” I don’t agree, but perhaps you didn’t mean sacred so much as just set apart.”
Everything in God’s creation is sacred, because it was created by God. Though we have strayed, Christ became the victor over sin, misery and death, and redeems not only our souls, but all of His creation. Plants, animals, soil, water, government, everything. Praise to Christ!
“I was confused however at something you said, “free markets don’t work.””
The way I see it, this is because of sin. For the same reason communism doesn’t work (because of greed), free markets can’t either. It’s when we think that “if only we had a truly free market, then everything would be so much better” that we couldn’t be more wrong. Jesus is our redemption, in Him we need to put our trust, not in any system.
Rick says,
“I agree. But God doesn’t often send the best people. He sends the willing. Caleb. Joshua. Isaiah.”
Great point. Thank God for His grace working through imperfect people.
Oh, and Youssef divided the debate by “yea” and “nay”…I think it would be more accurate to say “yea” and “questioning”. And just to clarify, I’m on the “questioning” side as well as Forrest.
June 7th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I haven’t finished the reading the rest of the posts after what Rick said about mine because I know I’ll forget what I thought about what you thought about what I thought. IF you get my drift.
sort of working a little backwards God put a female judge over Israel because none of the men stepped up to the plate and she did her job under a tree didn’t she? Rather than in the place that a man would be judging… also, Deborah knew what a disgrace it was for the men under her (That’s around the part where the woman won the war by putting a tent peg into the head of top guy on the enemies side.. so.. the man that talked to Deborah wasn’t honored just like she’d said.)
This would be where we get into the argument of things that God allows to happen, as apposed to what He would ideally want to happen. (Remember I talked about the people wanting a King and God knew that Judges were better, but did put a king over them… Just like giving them the quail when they were begging for meat instead of manna..)
I do agree that our main disagreement hinges on the sacred and the secular. I don’t see where the Bible teaches that everything God or man has made is sacred. God said (before the fall) that it was all “good” .. We also know that “There is no one who does good, no not one…” We know “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) If we all have fallen short of his glory than how can we glorify him when no one can do good? I do agree with you that God CAN use anyone… He was glorified when He hardened pharaohs heart (note, not by a good thing that pharaoh did).
Oh.. and I completely disagree about what you said about the divisions of the temple relating to the world, but I need to study more on that to actually debate well and it can be left for another time as it is not something in the Bible that is more like a parable and not a statement. (And of course both of us could be misunderstanding what we can take from the layout of the temple.. and I think there IS a lot of interesting stuff there.. I illustrated some pictures that went into a book about worship being compared to the temple and I have it if you want to see it.)
Now back to government. You said, “government is an object for redemption. It is holy ground. It is sacred. It is set apart for God’s glory as the whole earth is set apart for God’s glory. Now there are different levels of holiness, as we see in the temple, but all creation is holy.”
If it is an object for redemption as you said how can it be holy? Holiness (being set apart for God’s glory) cannot be over everything. Logically EVERYTHING cannot be set apart. What would it be set apart from if it is all set apart. If everything IS set apart then holiness means nothing because there is nothing left to be set apart from. In reality our world is sinful and fallen and THAT is why it needs to be redeemed. Our government is (I’d say mostly) run by sinful, greedy, lying, pompous, money grubbing, wicked people. As all of us are unless we are saved by the grace of God. Because (as I said earlier) we have all sinned. We live in a fallen world where “no one does good” (I can provide references later if you’d like.. but right now it would de-rail my train of thought.)
SO! Why is it so difficult to get a free market to work? Because there are always people who will want to have more power and will try to control things and mess it up. Why should that make us not strive for the best thing? Why should we then lower our standards to allow lesser evils to happen? Were you saying that socialism would work better if better people were running things? Again, here comes the problem with the evil and sinfulness of man. And even those better people have a hard time doing what they know to be right! In Romans Paul complained about the fallen sinful part of him that he had to struggle with and that would do what he really didn’t want to do. He explains that the sin in him is doing that which his will didn’t want him to do. “Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God through Jesus Christ my Lord.” Right now, on this earth, in this sinful world even when we are born again and are being perfected to be like him we STILL sin we STILL make mistakes. So, that said, how can someone do a better job in government by being a better person than the next guy? Not even Paul who was in prison for his faith and service to God could keep himself from doing that which he didn’t want to do.
THAT is why I want the government to strive to have as little power over the people as possible. Of course it’s hard for the government to not get bigger. It is the nature (sin nature) of man to want to grow in power. Power corrupts as they say. And as far as hierarchy goes. Yes, we do need people above us. We do need order, but those in authority over us will be judged more harshly (and their condemnation will be greater as it says in the epistles about elders and so forth over the church.) It is the nature of men in authority positions to grow in their power, but God teaches us that the first will be last. And that the highest one up should be the servant of all. Husbands are told to emulate Christ to their wives in how He gave Himself up for the church.
Our government SHOULD be there to serve us. Not take care of us. Not to tell us how to live (or who and how we worship.) The pilgrims came to the new world to be free to worship God the way they believed thy should. Our founders knew that if they set up the government in a way that gave too much power to too few men than it would be more likely for those few people to take away the freedoms of the individuals. We’ve seen this happen in our lives.. in just the past few years with the patriot act for instance.
You said, “There are definitely problems with Canadian healthcare. I’m not denying that. But we have the same problem. We often have great surgeons–but are you honestly going to get to see them if you don’t have incredible health insurance?”
We have problems here though not because we are a free market. We have problems because there is TOO much involvement in health care and medicine and regulations and such by our government. The solution that you suggest is to give our government more control and lean more socialistic to allow the “good people” (that somehow we are suppose to keep in office) to help us more than we could on our own (if we were given the chance) and all this to “redeem” the sacred government.
Redemption is not possible without a recognition of why it needs to be redeemed.
If the government is set apart and holy (as you said) already then it has no need of redemption. If we can agree that the hearts of man are sinful from the beginning because of the fall of man and we are completely evil in the site of God then redemption can happen. We can be saved and God can then set us apart from the evil around us and make us holy. To convert that to the government, if we know that our government has grown too powerful and corrupt we then can take steps to reform it. If we DON’T admit that the problems are HUGE and that it needs more than just a little tweaking or just some better men in those already too powerful positions then there is hope for our government to be “redeemed.”
… I think there is a better word to use, as redemption is the saving grace of God from sin.. and I don’t know that we are talking about Christianizing our government.
The secular and the sacred or separate. If we don’t acknowledge that, then the meanings of the words have no more meaning. If black is white and white is black than black and white cannot be what there names mean that they are. So, some of the wordage that I used like redemption I don’t really can fit well with our government as it can with human hearts, but we were comparing good/bad sin/redemption and so forth in man with government which I believe to be more separated than that. It is an interesting analogy though and I wanted to stick somewhat to the terms we were already using.
And now that I know you like to hear other points of view I won’t mind disagreeing with you out loud more often!
I usually don’t say things because I don’t want to get into fights and I’m not really out to convince other people to agree with me. (Not that that would be a bad thing.) 
ha, ha… 
June 7th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Ok.. you got me started now..
I finished reading the rest of the posts after #25
You said, “I think the Bible says, ‘I’ve put wise people before you…let their wisdom (gleaned from meditation of My Word) help you rule.’”
I’d like to know the reference to that (only because I can’t remember that passage) and would like to say that the Bible says “The wisdom of man is folly in the eyes of God.”
yeah.. like I said, you opened the gates of controversy.. but will you really like that I’ll contradict everything you say? hee, hee.. *grins*
It can be fun to debate though.
June 7th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
“If the government is set apart and holy (as you said) already then it has no need of redemption.”
Though I am redeemed, I don’t consider myself to be in “no need of redemption” anymore…besides that I think there’s a better argument for saying the government is set apart: because God instituted it. And even in the days of the Roman empire, Paul says in Romans that government rulers are there for our good, to punish the evildoers and for the praise of those who do rightly. And that they are set there by God. How much more evidence is needed to say that this is a holy institution, if God has set it up?
June 7th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I’m going to have to stop debating about this pretty soon (not that we couldn’t keep going and going I’m sure), but it’s just taking too much time from my family (interesting though it is.) And as I said before, I’m not out to change anyone minds.
Two last things. I think the confusion that comes in when we are talking about sacred and secular is just that.. misunderstand or mis-clarifications. That said, I don’t know that I really want to argue it much more, but I think the quadrant thing makes sense but I don’t know that I’d use it to distinguish between sacred and secular. (Hence the mis-clarifications about the use of the terms, possibly?)
I don’t usually argue with people who aren’t my friends though because that security isn’t there. Now that I know that security is there and Rick likes to debate (even is “asking” for it) then I enjoy giving him what for.. ha, ha..
Of course Rick, I don’t want to hurt your feelings as Rebekah thinks I did.. and of course.. I can go back into silence if you prefer (*hears a bunch of people asking her to go back into silence* ha, ha..) Silence is why no one sees my side of it.. but why would they want to anyway? *shrug*
Anyway, about the postings, my brain is getting a nice healthy work out.
Oh.. and more to work out other’s brains.
Rebekah said, “Everything in God’s creation is sacred, because it was created by God. Though we have strayed, Christ became the victor over sin, misery and death, and redeems not only our souls, but all of His creation. Plants, animals, soil, water, government, everything. Praise to Christ!”
Ultimate redemption of all of that will come when He’s made the new heaven and the new earth. Does that sacredness then apply to the hear and now? Again.. I’m having a hard time calling it ALL sacred as I’ve said before that if you use the term sacred for EVERYTHING than the words meaning has no meaning as it did. Set apart cannot be set apart if there is nothing to be set apart from. So, perhaps if someone wants to keep talking about this they could use a better word than that? Or explain what they mean when they use that word? Maybe everything could be “sacred” if I knew what you meant if to be set apart from?
Ok.. I need to go do something else.
*grins* I’ve been making Youssef uncomfortable with all this debating and stirring of the waters.
He likes to debate too, but when it starts to get down to needing to say “I don’t agree with you” he gets squeamish and prefers to stick to the academic “what ifs” and so forth. I on the other hand feel so much better when we can actually say “I disagree with you” and be able to agree to disagree if it comes down to that (as it usually does since no one can be convinced to fully agree with another person.) I know he said that he didn’t like that so much (early.. I think he said something like that) .. but I don’t think it’s such a bad thing. I know there are a lot we disagree with and usually Youssef and I (and the Hathaway’s too I’m sure) disagree with stuff that you all believe and we just don’t say anything normally. And.. I don’t think that’s necessarily a good thing to not say stuff. On the other hand though it IS better to stay silent if anyone is too offended or is made to stumble or something. Hopefully conversations like this are edifying and help us to think harder. And of course, is the “Truth in love.” Truth without love is harsh and cannot be received, and love without truth is a crippling enabler.
As none of us can be completely right and thereby not be able to tell all the truth (as we don’t know it) than perhaps by us telling the truth in love to each other we will be growing closer to knowing the truth and better practiced at showing the love with the truth.
June 7th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Lynne’,
You said, “Oh.. and I completely disagree about what you said about the divisions of the temple relating to the world, but I need to study more on that to actually debate well and it can be left for another time as it is not something in the Bible that is more like a parable and not a statement.”
I think this shows a fundamental difference between our methods of interpretation. I believe ancient people were intensely, if not primarily, symbolic interpreters of the world. This puts a world of difference between our positions–it’s also why we would disagree on theological issues like baptism. I see the spirit hovering over the waters in Genesis 1:2, and I think, “God is foreshadowing his redemption through washing us with the Spirit!”
I think the Old Testament is laden with symbolism, and it’s hard to understand apocalyptic language without this method of interpretation. I think that’s why America has such a hard time with End Times craziness.
On the question of sacredness and holiness, I think I would describe it this way.
You have been fully redeemed by the blood of Jesus. Although you have been fully redeemed, you still sin because you are still being redeemed, and you have not experienced the fullness of your redemption (And this is not a contradiction; it’s a paradox).
Romans 8 applies this same concept to all of creation Just as we have been redeeemed, are being redeemed, and will be redeemed, so creation is in the same spot:
“For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved.”
What was once perfect in the Garden of Eden will become perfect again. Moreover, Isaiah 65 notes that this perfection will start reaching a certain fullness before death ends.
You wrote, “We also know that ‘There is no one who does good, no not one…’ We know ‘All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’ (Romans 3:23) If we all have fallen short of his glory than how can we glorify him when no one can do good? I do agree with you that God CAN use anyone… He was glorified when He hardened pharaohs heart (note, not by a good thing that pharaoh did).”
I used to take a more Calvinist approach to those passages, but I think that the context of that passage is the difference between Jew and Gentile (see vs. 1). The immediate preceding words are “for there is no difference…”
You wrote, “So, that said, how can someone do a better job in government by being a better person than the next guy?”
In Christ Jesus, we are new creations. Even though we still sin, we should actually be striving to do right.
Government does need to be redeemed from interference. It has been and needs to be redeemed from sin and death.
You said, “THAT is why I want the government to strive to have as little power over the people as possible.”
This assumes that you will be sinning less than your leaders, and depending on the person, that may or may not be true. If we are going to reduce the government as much as possible, every man is a law unto himself.
You said, “Of course it’s hard for the government to not get bigger. It is the nature (sin nature) of man to want to grow in power.”
Growth is not the problem. The story of the Bible is growth from a Garden (of Eden) to a City (of Jerusalem). The problem comes when we want to skip maturity (Babel) in that growth.
You said, “If we DON’T admit that the problems are HUGE and that it needs more than just a little tweaking or just some better men in those already too powerful positions then there is hope for our government to be “redeemed.””
Yes, the problems are huge. But sin and death are our huge problems, not socialism or government interference. Socialism and government interference pale in comparison to the “problems” that killed our Lord and Savior.
You said, “And now that I know you like to hear other points of view I won’t mind disagreeing with you out loud more often!
I usually don’t say things because I don’t want to get into fights…”
Don’t worry…I’m never going to take an attack against my beliefs as an attack against me because my beliefs are always reforming.
June 7th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Why do you have to post when I haven’t got off line yet? Now I think more and want to write more.
Rebekah, I can agree with a lot of what you just said.. calling the government “holy” though doesn’t seem right. Where does the church go in that? The church is “holy” .. so is the government equal to the church? As christians we do need to be redeemed (and continually) even after we are born again. The government does need reformation and continued reformation, but can it be redeemed like we can after our point of salvation?
The pharisees were set apart in their community we could say and were considered sacred in a way, but Jesus said that “you have to be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven” .. redemption is a term that is talking about us going from sinfulness to glory through the grace of God. As in, washed and transformed from our evilness to being like Christ. That’s why I wouldn’t use that term for our secular government. There must be a distinction. But.. perhaps we are getting too deeply into what we truly disagree about, and I don’t know that I want to get into that (mainly because we’ll all just be throwing our beliefs out the the other person and it not do anything to the other person but make us know that we still disagree.)
*making Youssef uncomfortable* I don’t believe that everyone will be saved and go to heaven. So, to probably end the conversation you all can just know that Youssef and I tend towards being Calvinists. *Hearing shouts of “what the $*@#$@ why do they believe that way?”* ha, haa… just kidding. And.. I’ll go now.
June 7th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
You said, “I wouldn’t want to hurt Ricks feelings.”
Impossible.
You wrote, “Now that I know that security is there and Rick likes to debate (even is “asking” for it) then I enjoy giving him what for.. ha, ha..”
I dunno…I don’t really think of it as debate….
You said, “I can go back into silence if you prefer (*hears a bunch of people asking her to go back into silence* ha, ha..) Silence is why no one sees my side of it.. but why would they want to anyway? *shrug*”
Well, I don’t want to see you go into silence. In the past, when we had the little study nights, I always made it a point to ask your opinion because I knew 1) You never got (maybe, never wanted) a chance to express your opinion 2) I knew your views were about as far away from mine as possible, thus giving me an opportunity to sharpen my thought.
In my conversations with you, I always have to think about why I hold my beliefs because when someone holds such hugely different presuppositions, you have to ask yourself if you’re standing on the right presuppositions.
You said, “Ultimate redemption of all of that will come when He’s made the new heaven and the new earth. Does that sacredness then apply to the hear and now?”
The New Heavens and New Earth is, in some measure, already here, though not in its fullness. Matthew calls it “The Regeneration.