"From that day on I clearly understood that the kingdom of God can never mix with politics. The ultimate, stated aim of Marxist teaching is the complete eradication of all religion. The pure bride of Christ can never be controlled by an atheistic government or led by men who hate God! The true church is not an organization controlled by the rules of men but a holy collection of living stones with Jesus Christ as the cornerstone......"
-Brother Yun from The Heavenly Man
Due to Yun's persecution in China, it's no wonder he has an Anabaptist scheme of how the church should relate to government. His statement, though, should still ring deep in the evangelical soul of America.
1/30/09
1/26/09
Obama and Pelosi and Evil Rhetoric
President Obama has overturned the Mexico City Policy that bans money to international groups that practice abortion as a method of family planning. Note: this isn't a support that abortion should remain legal, but that the US government should fund abortions. This is wrong. Obama says:
"We are reminded that this decision not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman's right to choose," the statement said."
How convoluted! Obama isn't just guaranteeing the right, he's supporting it with money I send to the government. This is wrong. President Bush saw it a different way 9 years ago.
"It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad," George W. Bush wrote in a memo to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2001."
If Roe can't get overturned, that still doesn't mean I should pay for murder. Obama's pal on Capitol Hill, Nancy Pelosi, agrees with Obama's position. Some of the stimulus money will be used for family planning services that practice abortion. So, not only will the federal govt. be going further into debt, but apparently they will kill unborn infants in an effort to "reduce the costs in state government" (Please watch this Pelosi clip from This Week).
What you see Pelosi articulate there is the fundamental philosophy of utilitarianism developed from the 19th century- do what's best for the most amount of people. By the way, this philosophy is evil. ALL humans are made in the image of God (this includes the unborn, the poor, the rich, the born). Doing what's best for the most amount of people would have kept slavery in the US, would have sustained the holocaust, and would only care about the majority and never the downtrodden.
Utilitarianism is the central idea that Ebenezer Scrooge articulates to the philanthropists about the starving children in A Christmas Carol: "Well if they're going to die they'd better go ahead and do it and so decrease the surplus population." It's no surprise Scrooge "converts" to a redemptive worldview where everyone matters. But Pelosi, and seemingly Obama, articulate a different worldview, a worldview from the core of their base. Humans are reduced to "costs" where less of them means an ease on state budgets. Less humans will "stimulate" the economy. Folks, please understand that this is evil rhetoric.
"We are reminded that this decision not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman's right to choose," the statement said."
How convoluted! Obama isn't just guaranteeing the right, he's supporting it with money I send to the government. This is wrong. President Bush saw it a different way 9 years ago.
"It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad," George W. Bush wrote in a memo to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2001."
If Roe can't get overturned, that still doesn't mean I should pay for murder. Obama's pal on Capitol Hill, Nancy Pelosi, agrees with Obama's position. Some of the stimulus money will be used for family planning services that practice abortion. So, not only will the federal govt. be going further into debt, but apparently they will kill unborn infants in an effort to "reduce the costs in state government" (Please watch this Pelosi clip from This Week).
What you see Pelosi articulate there is the fundamental philosophy of utilitarianism developed from the 19th century- do what's best for the most amount of people. By the way, this philosophy is evil. ALL humans are made in the image of God (this includes the unborn, the poor, the rich, the born). Doing what's best for the most amount of people would have kept slavery in the US, would have sustained the holocaust, and would only care about the majority and never the downtrodden.
Utilitarianism is the central idea that Ebenezer Scrooge articulates to the philanthropists about the starving children in A Christmas Carol: "Well if they're going to die they'd better go ahead and do it and so decrease the surplus population." It's no surprise Scrooge "converts" to a redemptive worldview where everyone matters. But Pelosi, and seemingly Obama, articulate a different worldview, a worldview from the core of their base. Humans are reduced to "costs" where less of them means an ease on state budgets. Less humans will "stimulate" the economy. Folks, please understand that this is evil rhetoric.
1/22/09
Dwhoops
Obama has taken the oath of office again last night after the joint flub on Tuesday with he and the Chief Justice.
And out of the abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice John Roberts administer[ed] the oath a second time.
This one was just funny to me, especially as I saw Biden make a crack at Roberts in the White House Press room yesterday. Obama didn't think Biden was funny, and so hit him on the elbow and showed a straight face all the way (watch it here). It seems the Biden gaffe machine is already under way. If it's in temperament alone, it seems our President knows how to be cautious, measured, and show a reasonable demeanor to the American public. I don't know how important those things are in the grand scale of things, but they only help his image and they do evidence some sort personal virtue.
And out of the abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice John Roberts administer[ed] the oath a second time.
This one was just funny to me, especially as I saw Biden make a crack at Roberts in the White House Press room yesterday. Obama didn't think Biden was funny, and so hit him on the elbow and showed a straight face all the way (watch it here). It seems the Biden gaffe machine is already under way. If it's in temperament alone, it seems our President knows how to be cautious, measured, and show a reasonable demeanor to the American public. I don't know how important those things are in the grand scale of things, but they only help his image and they do evidence some sort personal virtue.
1/21/09
An Agenda To Set
This isn't exactly the kind of news a "centrist" or a "pragmatist" should get on his first day in office. CNSnews goes on:
President Barack H. Obama is poised to be the most pro-homosexual chief executive in history.
Given that Prop. 8 failed in California, this agenda isn't from the center, it's from the far left. Now, in fairness to Obama, he unveiled a large-scale agenda on his new whitehouse.gov website, not just stuff on civil rights (scroll down to the section on the LGBT community). But in fairness to all thinking people, you don't put something like this on your website unless your really liberal.
From my vantage point, I haven't decided what I think about all the issues laid out in the Civil Rights section. Some are worth considering while others seem like shoddy politics. While I generally have conservative sensibilities, I think the issue here isn't that I disagree with his agenda, but that it isn't a pragmatic agenda. It's "ideological," to use a word Obama doesn't like. While it does matter what we think about these specific issues, I'm really concerned that we just call a spade a spade. Barack Obama is really liberal, and it looks like he's going to pursue a radical ideological agenda. Let no one be fooled.
President Barack H. Obama is poised to be the most pro-homosexual chief executive in history.
Given that Prop. 8 failed in California, this agenda isn't from the center, it's from the far left. Now, in fairness to Obama, he unveiled a large-scale agenda on his new whitehouse.gov website, not just stuff on civil rights (scroll down to the section on the LGBT community). But in fairness to all thinking people, you don't put something like this on your website unless your really liberal.
From my vantage point, I haven't decided what I think about all the issues laid out in the Civil Rights section. Some are worth considering while others seem like shoddy politics. While I generally have conservative sensibilities, I think the issue here isn't that I disagree with his agenda, but that it isn't a pragmatic agenda. It's "ideological," to use a word Obama doesn't like. While it does matter what we think about these specific issues, I'm really concerned that we just call a spade a spade. Barack Obama is really liberal, and it looks like he's going to pursue a radical ideological agenda. Let no one be fooled.
The Most Fundamental Justice Issue of Our Times
The right to actually live is still the most fundamental human right. The older I get (which isn't that old), I honestly have no idea how someone cannot hold this position. I don't ever want to become a demagogue, but I simply understand the pro-choice position less and less these days. Human beings should have the right to live, and the fact that this isn't so contradicts so much of our law system. While I'm normally not a John Piper fan, he has good thoughts today. From the President he asks for straightforward honesty to hard questions:
1. Are you willing to explain why a baby's right not to be killed is less important than a woman's right not to be pregnant?
2. Or are you willing to explain why most cities have laws forbidding cruelty to animals, but you oppose laws forbidding cruelty to human fetuses? Are they not at least living animals?
3. Or are you willing to explain why government is unwilling to take away the so-called right to abortion on demand even though it harms the unborn child; yet government is increasingly willing to take away the right to smoke, precisely because it harms innocent non-smokers, killing 3,000 non-smokers a year from cancer and as many as 40,000 non-smokers a year from other diseases?
4. And if you say that everything hangs on whether the fetus is a human child, are you willing to go before national television in the oval office and defend your support for the "Freedom of Choice Act" by holding in your hand a 21 week old fetus and explaining why this little one does not have the fundamental, moral, and constitutional right to life? Are you willing to say to parents in this church who lost a child at that age and held him in their hands, this being in your hands is not and was not a child with any rights of its own under God or under law?
I dare any Christian that claims that they are pro-choice to articulate a coherent argument on why abortion should be legal (with obvious exceptions for the life of the mother and in cases of rape and incest). Normally, the pro-choice argument proceeds from the fringe of a conviction, not the core of it. Stuff like: "we don't want black market and unsafe abortions" or "it's a hard decision for women in poverty and the government shouldn't make it for them" or "the government simply shouldn't intrude into people's lives." But these arguments never deal with core issues: "Is a fetus really a person?" and "Is the procedure really murder? (it is, it cannot be anything else)."
But the more I talk to people with the pro-choice argument, I'm left feeling that everyone agrees to restrictions on abortion. It just leaves me asking why we're not actually pursuing these ends legislatively. You say you don't support limits, then I'll ask "Do you support an abortion to determine the sex of the baby?" "Do you support an abortion in the case of twins or triplets?" "Do you support an abortion for those babies with a degenerative illness?" If you answered "no" to any of these questions, then you are for limits on abortion. If you answered "yes" to all of them, then you do not have a conscience. Unfounded murder should be illegal.
1. Are you willing to explain why a baby's right not to be killed is less important than a woman's right not to be pregnant?
2. Or are you willing to explain why most cities have laws forbidding cruelty to animals, but you oppose laws forbidding cruelty to human fetuses? Are they not at least living animals?
3. Or are you willing to explain why government is unwilling to take away the so-called right to abortion on demand even though it harms the unborn child; yet government is increasingly willing to take away the right to smoke, precisely because it harms innocent non-smokers, killing 3,000 non-smokers a year from cancer and as many as 40,000 non-smokers a year from other diseases?
4. And if you say that everything hangs on whether the fetus is a human child, are you willing to go before national television in the oval office and defend your support for the "Freedom of Choice Act" by holding in your hand a 21 week old fetus and explaining why this little one does not have the fundamental, moral, and constitutional right to life? Are you willing to say to parents in this church who lost a child at that age and held him in their hands, this being in your hands is not and was not a child with any rights of its own under God or under law?
I dare any Christian that claims that they are pro-choice to articulate a coherent argument on why abortion should be legal (with obvious exceptions for the life of the mother and in cases of rape and incest). Normally, the pro-choice argument proceeds from the fringe of a conviction, not the core of it. Stuff like: "we don't want black market and unsafe abortions" or "it's a hard decision for women in poverty and the government shouldn't make it for them" or "the government simply shouldn't intrude into people's lives." But these arguments never deal with core issues: "Is a fetus really a person?" and "Is the procedure really murder? (it is, it cannot be anything else)."
But the more I talk to people with the pro-choice argument, I'm left feeling that everyone agrees to restrictions on abortion. It just leaves me asking why we're not actually pursuing these ends legislatively. You say you don't support limits, then I'll ask "Do you support an abortion to determine the sex of the baby?" "Do you support an abortion in the case of twins or triplets?" "Do you support an abortion for those babies with a degenerative illness?" If you answered "no" to any of these questions, then you are for limits on abortion. If you answered "yes" to all of them, then you do not have a conscience. Unfounded murder should be illegal.
1/20/09
What Obama Communicates about God
On this inauguration day, spirits are high. Polarizing rhetoric takes a break. Our country's first African-American is inaugurated as President. Truly historic stuff, and I will be watching with great attention. And surely President Obama will have great expectations thrust upon him- some might say godlike expectations. Interestingly, I've come across two pieces this week that insinuate as much. Or rather, they both note that Barack Obama says something about God.
This article in Time notes how African-Americans (James Earl Jones, Martin Luther King Jr., etc.) have taken their place in the American consciousness as THE authoritative voice, almost the voice of God. And in a way, Obama takes on the "voice of God" as a great orator.
Plenty of white or white-sounding actors could say "THIS [pause] is CNN" as well as Jones. Most people who have heard that phrase a hundred times don't know whose voice it is and — unless the question is raised specifically — they aren't even consciously aware that the person is black. They relate to the voice on a subconscious level, and they associate it with power and authority...When God turned into an African American, it became less unthinkable that the President might be African American as well.
On the complete opposite side of this view of God, John Piper claims Obama to make Christ a minister of damnation. That's because Obama openly used Gene Robinson (first openly practicing homosexual priest in the Episcopal church) to give the invocation to the opening inaugural ceremonies on Sunday. By openly promoting Robinson, Piper asserts, Obama is acknowledging and promoting sin in supposed "leaders" of the Christian faith.
On a proud day like today, it might be prudent to ask who our God really is, and how he's different from all leaders that have gone before and all that will come in the future. Are some leaders better than others? Yes. But do any come close to the virtue of the character of God? No (none of us do). Let us never forget that politicians make political decisions, despite how they may inspire us or motivate us to greater good.
This article in Time notes how African-Americans (James Earl Jones, Martin Luther King Jr., etc.) have taken their place in the American consciousness as THE authoritative voice, almost the voice of God. And in a way, Obama takes on the "voice of God" as a great orator.
Plenty of white or white-sounding actors could say "THIS [pause] is CNN" as well as Jones. Most people who have heard that phrase a hundred times don't know whose voice it is and — unless the question is raised specifically — they aren't even consciously aware that the person is black. They relate to the voice on a subconscious level, and they associate it with power and authority...When God turned into an African American, it became less unthinkable that the President might be African American as well.
On the complete opposite side of this view of God, John Piper claims Obama to make Christ a minister of damnation. That's because Obama openly used Gene Robinson (first openly practicing homosexual priest in the Episcopal church) to give the invocation to the opening inaugural ceremonies on Sunday. By openly promoting Robinson, Piper asserts, Obama is acknowledging and promoting sin in supposed "leaders" of the Christian faith.
On a proud day like today, it might be prudent to ask who our God really is, and how he's different from all leaders that have gone before and all that will come in the future. Are some leaders better than others? Yes. But do any come close to the virtue of the character of God? No (none of us do). Let us never forget that politicians make political decisions, despite how they may inspire us or motivate us to greater good.
1/16/09
Deepak Chopra and our National Health
Derek Lowe, a chemist in the pharmaceutical field, writes this article against an op-ed piece by Deepak Chopra (among others) about how to handle our nation's health in the new Administration. Really, the article boils down to a fight for Western medicine against "holistic" medicine, but that's not wholly what I find fascinating.
Well, we don’t even know who the new FDA commissioner is going to be under the Obama administration, but people are already making their bid for a change in direction......My hopes for this piece were not high – Deepak Chopra, for one, I consider to be an absolute firehose of nonsense. Both he and Andrew Weil should be whacked with sticks every time they say the word "quantum".....
Our culture is always having fights about what worldview we should believe in. Note: I didn't say world religion, and our culture is confused on this point. Not all believe in a "religion," per se (and I don't want to hear any Christian blather about how Chrisitianity is a relationship and not a religion. It's both.), but everyone in the entire world has a worldview. We all have either explicit or implicit answers to the following questions: What do we believe about God (he's one God, he's many gods, he's in everything, there's no god at all, etc.)? What do we believe about humanity (inherently good, inherently bad, a little of both)? What do you think about the need for some kind of human liberation (no need at all, removal of sin, a higher consciousness, following a set of regulations, etc.)? So everyone has a worldview, and so here's what I liked about that article: it seems to be a fight of naturalism versus new age. Because Christianity was historically the dominant worldview in the West and presently a powerful voting bloc in this country, generally Christianity must take its lumps against both new age in the media (ie Oprah) and takes its lumps against naturalism at the University (ie Darwinian macro-evolution). I suppose I just appreciate it when the two are fighting one another. As for my take on medicine?
Science and empirical testing came out of the prominence of the Christian worldview. We believe the world is testable and repeatable, because it was made by a dependable God who cares about beauty. And we also believe humans are made in the image of God, and therefore capable of knowing more about the universe that we live in through science. But I also believe in miracles and God's intervention into the natural order. So, medicine must go hand in hand with an open view of the universe. Chemicals can heal and make us better, but so can God. They are not opposed, but rather they can work together. And I believe they do so more than we care to admit.
Well, we don’t even know who the new FDA commissioner is going to be under the Obama administration, but people are already making their bid for a change in direction......My hopes for this piece were not high – Deepak Chopra, for one, I consider to be an absolute firehose of nonsense. Both he and Andrew Weil should be whacked with sticks every time they say the word "quantum".....
Our culture is always having fights about what worldview we should believe in. Note: I didn't say world religion, and our culture is confused on this point. Not all believe in a "religion," per se (and I don't want to hear any Christian blather about how Chrisitianity is a relationship and not a religion. It's both.), but everyone in the entire world has a worldview. We all have either explicit or implicit answers to the following questions: What do we believe about God (he's one God, he's many gods, he's in everything, there's no god at all, etc.)? What do we believe about humanity (inherently good, inherently bad, a little of both)? What do you think about the need for some kind of human liberation (no need at all, removal of sin, a higher consciousness, following a set of regulations, etc.)? So everyone has a worldview, and so here's what I liked about that article: it seems to be a fight of naturalism versus new age. Because Christianity was historically the dominant worldview in the West and presently a powerful voting bloc in this country, generally Christianity must take its lumps against both new age in the media (ie Oprah) and takes its lumps against naturalism at the University (ie Darwinian macro-evolution). I suppose I just appreciate it when the two are fighting one another. As for my take on medicine?
Science and empirical testing came out of the prominence of the Christian worldview. We believe the world is testable and repeatable, because it was made by a dependable God who cares about beauty. And we also believe humans are made in the image of God, and therefore capable of knowing more about the universe that we live in through science. But I also believe in miracles and God's intervention into the natural order. So, medicine must go hand in hand with an open view of the universe. Chemicals can heal and make us better, but so can God. They are not opposed, but rather they can work together. And I believe they do so more than we care to admit.
1/14/09
More thoughts on What We Can Learn From the Recession
Nancy Gibbs has this great article about how we can still learn from the recession. This is a good follow-up to an earlier post.
The notion that misery loves company may be less about malice than about solace: that problems shared grow smaller, that courage is contagious. Is it just a coincidence that Mississippi, which typically ranks as the most generous state in charitable giving, is also the poorest? To suffer alone is a tragedy; to struggle together is an opportunity, when we find out what we really care about.
The notion that misery loves company may be less about malice than about solace: that problems shared grow smaller, that courage is contagious. Is it just a coincidence that Mississippi, which typically ranks as the most generous state in charitable giving, is also the poorest? To suffer alone is a tragedy; to struggle together is an opportunity, when we find out what we really care about.
1/13/09
Joseph and Conversational Pieces
I've been doing this reading with our church- the Bible in 90 days- and I continually have fruitful conversational starters with the text. I suppose this is different from an "application" of the Bible, where the Bible can authoritatively speak into our lives and culture. I really just think the text raises interesting discussions and fruitful thought on how to think about contemporary issues, because they are surprisingly close to the text's situations. So, I had two thoughts on the Joseph narrative in Genesis, particularly out of Genesis 41:41-57.
1) The idea of saving- Joseph ascends to political power in Egypt based on his ability to read Pharaoh's dreams. By doing this, he knows seven years of plenty will be followed by seven years of famine. So Joseph has all the leftover and plenty in the land stored away to prepare for the times of famine. This seems to be the wise, shrewd, and prudent thing to do. And even while Egypt would experience horrible famine, they had plenty to eat.
I don't think I need to outline the importance of saving, especially given the economic climate of American (and really the global) economy. We need to save our incomes. And while as a Christian I believe we need to radically give away our money as well, we still need to save much more than we do. I hear some say that we ought to be able to rely on social security for our needs in retirement. I hear others say that true Christian community means not needing to save, and that we need to give our money away instead. If we really lived in community, we wouldn't need insurance or retirement plans, because the community could care for our needs even in old age. Well, that's foolish. I believe in strong community, but I don't believe it's opposed to wisdom, as Joseph deftly manages. We will have times of "famine," especially on a national level, and so it's not a sin to have a 401k or a RothIRA. It's actually wise to do so, because the Bible (much less people 100 years ago) never envisioned people living 20-30 years beyond their ability-to-work age. On the other hand, the Bible also doesn't envision quitting life and going to Florida and sitting on your carcass all day either.
2) Immigration- Look at Gen. 41:57. All the countries in the world came to Egypt for food. And the text never gives the impression that Egypt ran out of food. Joseph's wisdom also gave happenstance to the fact that his own family would come to Egypt (because of Joseph's wisdom!) to buy food and so they would be reunited. But all the countries came.
In our age of convoluted laws, contradictory laws, and topsy-turvy world markets, we shouldn't be surprised by the amount of immigration to our country from the south. People are coming for work, food, and the prospects of a better life. Besides the fact that the Bible has a lot to say about loving and respecting aliens and foreigners in one's own land (and besides the fact that I generally agree with free trade and open market principles), the whole clan of Jacob were immigrants. We must acknowledge this fact. And if you were put in the same situation, wouldn't you immigrate to feed your family?
1) The idea of saving- Joseph ascends to political power in Egypt based on his ability to read Pharaoh's dreams. By doing this, he knows seven years of plenty will be followed by seven years of famine. So Joseph has all the leftover and plenty in the land stored away to prepare for the times of famine. This seems to be the wise, shrewd, and prudent thing to do. And even while Egypt would experience horrible famine, they had plenty to eat.
I don't think I need to outline the importance of saving, especially given the economic climate of American (and really the global) economy. We need to save our incomes. And while as a Christian I believe we need to radically give away our money as well, we still need to save much more than we do. I hear some say that we ought to be able to rely on social security for our needs in retirement. I hear others say that true Christian community means not needing to save, and that we need to give our money away instead. If we really lived in community, we wouldn't need insurance or retirement plans, because the community could care for our needs even in old age. Well, that's foolish. I believe in strong community, but I don't believe it's opposed to wisdom, as Joseph deftly manages. We will have times of "famine," especially on a national level, and so it's not a sin to have a 401k or a RothIRA. It's actually wise to do so, because the Bible (much less people 100 years ago) never envisioned people living 20-30 years beyond their ability-to-work age. On the other hand, the Bible also doesn't envision quitting life and going to Florida and sitting on your carcass all day either.
2) Immigration- Look at Gen. 41:57. All the countries in the world came to Egypt for food. And the text never gives the impression that Egypt ran out of food. Joseph's wisdom also gave happenstance to the fact that his own family would come to Egypt (because of Joseph's wisdom!) to buy food and so they would be reunited. But all the countries came.
In our age of convoluted laws, contradictory laws, and topsy-turvy world markets, we shouldn't be surprised by the amount of immigration to our country from the south. People are coming for work, food, and the prospects of a better life. Besides the fact that the Bible has a lot to say about loving and respecting aliens and foreigners in one's own land (and besides the fact that I generally agree with free trade and open market principles), the whole clan of Jacob were immigrants. We must acknowledge this fact. And if you were put in the same situation, wouldn't you immigrate to feed your family?
1/7/09
Giving and "I told you so"
I was speaking with a fellow Christian a while ago, and he was lambasting the giving of evangelicals. I believe it was during the election season, and this particular person said that liberals were more caring people because they cared about the poor and various political issues that favored poverty. I remember saying that this wasn't true, and that numbers time and again prove the conservatives give more money to the poor. This person didn't believe me. I don't remember who it was, but I told you so. This kind of criticism is typical of the postmodern evangelical rancor (Donald Miller, Brian McLaren, etc.), which is wrong. They are just plain wrong, but that isn't to say that evangelicals shouldn't give more. We should. But check this article out: liberal writer, Kristoff, admits that liberals give woeful amounts to the poor while conservatives regularly out-class them.
It's true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.
Courtesy of In Media Res, you have got to read this article. No matter how Kristoff sliced the pie, conservatives always gave more to the poor.
It's true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.
Courtesy of In Media Res, you have got to read this article. No matter how Kristoff sliced the pie, conservatives always gave more to the poor.
1/5/09
What have we learned?
David Ignatius of the Washington Post incisively asks, "What have we learned from the economic downturn?"
What lessons, I wonder, will the great downturn of 2008 teach our children? Obviously, the answer depends on how bad things get. This is a global cataclysm that's more vivid in the headlines than in most people's pocketbooks. Unemployment remains below 7 percent, and gas prices and mortgage rates are down. The crisis is still more like a dark thundercloud than a pelting hurricane.....
What would be the lessons of such a "near-miss" world? The first precept would be that bad behavior brings a rescue. If Wall Street investment banks can get away with it, why not auto companies? And if auto companies, why not the guy who bought a house he couldn't afford, or who maxed out his credit cards without a hope of repaying the debt? What the heck? We're all living in bailout nation. As a prominent foreign investor observes: "In America, loans have gone from 'something to be repaid' to 'something to be refinanced.' "
Ignatius has some good thoughts here. I know of some Christians that wouldn't mind a long-term depression because people would think more about deeper things than poverty (which might be generally true and totally go against Maslow). I know of some Christians that hope America retains its economic greatness so that it can be a blessing to the poverty of the world. Either have noble ends, I suppose. But we don't get the luxury of being omniscient, and we humans are left to taking whatever we're dealt with. So, what will be the lessons? How do we respond to history? Some suggestions:
1) Stop suburban sprawl. This mess started with a housing crisis. Americans felt they were entitled to a house, and went and put one up where there wasn't one before. I know the counterargument, though: "It's cheaper to live in the suburbs than it is in the city." Well, we Americans live under the mind-numbing hubris that there will always be enough water (which I didn't fully appreciate until I lived in the American West- also see Las Vegas declining water supply) and that there will always be enough gas (somebody's gotta drive to work from those suburbs). Maybe living smarter and less greedy will cost us, but someone's has got to preach about sacrifice. Perhaps C.S. Lewis was prophetic when his vision of hell in The Great Divorce had the most evil people moving far away from each other (everybody lived in a suburb, or far away from everyone else, because self-interest was the ruling principle in hell).
2) Stop greed. Ignatius said it best above. We all feel entitled to security, safety, health, and wealth. Americans feel entitled. We are owed a good job, and then we're owed all the trappings of what rich people have: nice cars, houses bigger than we need, expensive vacations, high definition tvs, high-speed internet, ad nauseum. I wish we'd stop feeling greedy and be pleased with what is necessary- appropriate housing, food enough for the family, and workable transportation.
3) A sense of community. With the stopping of suburban sprawl and greed, maybe this one will come out on its own. Do we know our neighbors? The people that live right next to us? Sure, Jesus asked about "who is your neighbor," in the Good Samartian parable (with his emphasis that even enemies are neighbors), but I always hear suburban evangelical churches reaching the interpretation beyond who is your next-door neighbor. Well, it also includes them. It especially includes them. I hope this economic recession helps teach us that we can do so many things together. We can change violence in the neighborhood. We can spend time with one another over a good board game for entertainment without spending money. We can enrich our lives by having a floor potluck and thereby culling resources to feed many people (a good potluck is the capitalistic epitome of specialization). I hope we learn this in this recession. And if we don't learn it because of the recession, I hope we learn it anyway.
What lessons, I wonder, will the great downturn of 2008 teach our children? Obviously, the answer depends on how bad things get. This is a global cataclysm that's more vivid in the headlines than in most people's pocketbooks. Unemployment remains below 7 percent, and gas prices and mortgage rates are down. The crisis is still more like a dark thundercloud than a pelting hurricane.....
What would be the lessons of such a "near-miss" world? The first precept would be that bad behavior brings a rescue. If Wall Street investment banks can get away with it, why not auto companies? And if auto companies, why not the guy who bought a house he couldn't afford, or who maxed out his credit cards without a hope of repaying the debt? What the heck? We're all living in bailout nation. As a prominent foreign investor observes: "In America, loans have gone from 'something to be repaid' to 'something to be refinanced.' "
Ignatius has some good thoughts here. I know of some Christians that wouldn't mind a long-term depression because people would think more about deeper things than poverty (which might be generally true and totally go against Maslow). I know of some Christians that hope America retains its economic greatness so that it can be a blessing to the poverty of the world. Either have noble ends, I suppose. But we don't get the luxury of being omniscient, and we humans are left to taking whatever we're dealt with. So, what will be the lessons? How do we respond to history? Some suggestions:
1) Stop suburban sprawl. This mess started with a housing crisis. Americans felt they were entitled to a house, and went and put one up where there wasn't one before. I know the counterargument, though: "It's cheaper to live in the suburbs than it is in the city." Well, we Americans live under the mind-numbing hubris that there will always be enough water (which I didn't fully appreciate until I lived in the American West- also see Las Vegas declining water supply) and that there will always be enough gas (somebody's gotta drive to work from those suburbs). Maybe living smarter and less greedy will cost us, but someone's has got to preach about sacrifice. Perhaps C.S. Lewis was prophetic when his vision of hell in The Great Divorce had the most evil people moving far away from each other (everybody lived in a suburb, or far away from everyone else, because self-interest was the ruling principle in hell).
2) Stop greed. Ignatius said it best above. We all feel entitled to security, safety, health, and wealth. Americans feel entitled. We are owed a good job, and then we're owed all the trappings of what rich people have: nice cars, houses bigger than we need, expensive vacations, high definition tvs, high-speed internet, ad nauseum. I wish we'd stop feeling greedy and be pleased with what is necessary- appropriate housing, food enough for the family, and workable transportation.
3) A sense of community. With the stopping of suburban sprawl and greed, maybe this one will come out on its own. Do we know our neighbors? The people that live right next to us? Sure, Jesus asked about "who is your neighbor," in the Good Samartian parable (with his emphasis that even enemies are neighbors), but I always hear suburban evangelical churches reaching the interpretation beyond who is your next-door neighbor. Well, it also includes them. It especially includes them. I hope this economic recession helps teach us that we can do so many things together. We can change violence in the neighborhood. We can spend time with one another over a good board game for entertainment without spending money. We can enrich our lives by having a floor potluck and thereby culling resources to feed many people (a good potluck is the capitalistic epitome of specialization). I hope we learn this in this recession. And if we don't learn it because of the recession, I hope we learn it anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
